It's what he deserves, he ask for a refound and there is an achievement that he has completed the game, he enjoy it aparently very much and could finish it from start to end, so if he wouldn't use Galaxy the only difference is that we wouldn't know the scam but he still committed the crime.
What upset me the most, that I really want to play the game but I can't afford in the moment because is a lot of money in my country, and people like this steal other peoples work, enjoy it and then play the victim and ask for a refound, what those kind of people deserve is that GOG remove the game and don't give them a cent, not even wallet founds! They disrespect the developers, the store and other players/users.... The refound policy is the best you can find in any store and people like this will end up ruining it!!!

How does what OP did hurt developers any more than implementing this very lenient voluntary return policy by GOG, without them asking input and advice from said developers before taking that step? The policy is absolutely silent about this.

GOG is just asking not to abuse the system, which, the way refunds are handled here, is unlikely to become really become a problem. Steam, the way they handle it, within 2 hours, for whatever reason, you can apply and most likely be granted your refund. Some developers stated that they saw a massive drop in sales when Steam introduced their refund system. One could very well ask why people started to make use of it for certain games that sales numbers started plummeting.

I can't see how masses of customers would start asking for refunds for one particular game. CP being the exception standing out as regards GOG/CDPR ...

GOG states they aim to prevent abuse by monitoring account activity. If someone is refunding a lot of games near the limit, GOG reserves the right to deny refunds. GOG and the policy again remain silent about where this limit is.

You are absolutely right from a morale standpoint. I wouldn't, if I was GOG, grant that refund request. Sadly OP's case isn't as clear-cut as one would wish it was. Let's assume the initial request for a refund was made a day after the purchase was made. OP would have been entitled to receive this refund, alas GOG took their time because they couldn't handle all the other requests, so OP started playing it, waiting for the request to be processed. Time went by and OP still hasn't received it, kept playing, waiting. Now, months later, they have 50+ hours on record which makes it seem like he is trying to abuse the system. Taking all of the above into consideration, is this the kind of abuse GOG had in mind?

I cannot emphasize enough that I totally agree that it makes OP look bad to still insist on a refund Neither ye nor I know and can speak to their motive for doing it. But again: Would it be really fair of GOG to refuse the initial request and any that might have been filed thereafter now? Just because it has taken them so long to process - or fail to process - those requests?

No ... I don't think it would hurt the majority as it would only apply to the 14 day mandatory law for EU citizens. GOG could also broaden it to cover their voluntary policy also by introducing a 2 hour time-limited trial period. Doesn't make sense though as the determining factor should be time and date of purchase, time and date of initial download, time and date of initial refund request, maybe number of filed and granted refunds within a period of a month or three months if they wanted to be generous, whether this new request is going to be granted.

Someone purchasing and refunding 5 games within a week, say, there is no doubt that this is a clear case of fraud and speaks to intent of that person. I guess the majority here doesn't wants to be that person. I also think that the majority here isn't trying to get one over GOG by abusing the system so much so that everyone's got to suffer consequences from a select vew's selfish actions.

It's a voluntary policy, that goes beyond consumer law. GoG do not have to explain where the boundaries lie - it's probably better that they don't, because once you tell people where the limits are, they will start exploiting the system.


This is where it gets fun. I'd argue, yes, even based on the circumstances you are assuming. Because OP continued to play the game after requesting a refund, which can be taken to be withdrawing the refund request. Of course, we're assuming that OP did request the refund around 12th December, but we don't know that he did.

Next question is - did GoG really ignore the request? Answer - they didn't.

Two months ago, OP started a topic in General Discussion called "Confirm Wallet" (it's in his profile, but I can't find the topic in general discussion anymore - it may have been moderated). I recall a thread like this (not sure if it's the same one) where the user was confused by GoG saying they wanted to return as wallet funds.

Either way, we have evidence of clear GoG engagement with OP after he had played 10 hours of the game. At this point, fine, a wallet refund seems okay - 10 hours in is a little on the high side, but it's a big game, and as other people have said, he might have left it running without playing it.

Now, we don't know what happened after this from the GoG side (they might have refunded to the wallet, they might have refunded to the credit card, or they might have done nothing). OP might have just not followed up with GoG at all from this point.

All we really know is that at some point between purchasing and "2 months ago" (defined by the GoG forum software), OP requested a refund and had a response from GoG. OP then continued playing the game for quite some time after this engagement.

Either way, I think I'm getting a bit off topic in this thread, so I'll stop posting in it from now on - I'm anticipating it may have a visit from the mods after the weekend!

put() tHe BLAME On IBM


IBM.put('tHe BLAME')

Did you notice the register date of the OP? November 2020.

Sounds like right on time to enter GOG expressly for the very hyped Cyberpunk 2077. Then plays to their heart's content, then requests a refund, then comes to the forum to complain. What a great performance, please say farewell to them with a great applause on their way out.






What might be interesting now is what law says about people actively trying to defraud an online store. If the online store chose to follow that path, in order to make a few examples for future scammers.

Exactly. Not knowing that limit is probably for the better. Steam's limit is well known and can be exploited. If we were to talk about a limit, the next discussion to be had is: What should this limit really be? There is quite a number of games you can play through within 1 to 2 hours. When the Past Was Around, 2 hours. This one Indie game, the name of which is Lilly Looking Through, in which you follow a red ribbon, ca. 2 hours playing it at leisure. Gomo 1 1/2 hours tops. You see where this discussion would go. :-)

Based on what you just said, there is no doubt in my mind that GOG can and should refuse to grant a refund.

-

I can't say the same about wallet fund versus initial payment method. GOG should not have the right to unilaterally decide to refund as store credit! They offer both and they can't limit either. If I'm a new customer and I request a refund, for whatever reason, I want my money back as it is unlikely to come back doing business with this shop. I would not be interested to keep my money in their ecosystem. There is also another reason why accepting store credits over initial payment method you may lose the right for another refund afterwards.

It boils down to your accepting that store credit you are offered. GOG on the other hand can't refuse, for whatever reason, to refund to your initial payment method, persisting on credit. It would be like saying, yes we found you are entitled to receive your refund, but because you played ten hours, we will only give you store credit.

GOG, all they can do is incentivize store credit, to that extent. Consider also the way it works paying with CC. You can claw back money by using chargeback. Some payment services you can do the same. If all you care for is your money back.

Add: I only mention this because if this was the reason OP didn't get his money back, assuming he insisted on money back versus being given store credit, it would put the ball back into GOG's court. Assuming this was true, not speculating, we would be back to square one in our discussion whether or not he is or isn't entitled to receive it, ignoring whatever happened between than and now.

Yes, let's leave it at that. GOG knows best what GOG does. :-)

How do you prove a negative, especially on a DRM-Free game. Simply disabling or uninstalling Galaxy (or never installing it to begin with) makes it impossible to reliably track usage time. No, having a usage time requirement at all will not help much; people will find ways around it. The easiest thing to do is for customers to not act like entitled douchebags who want to "have their cake and eat it, too." But trusting people to do the right thing is a path to pain.
If you played the game to completion and put in many many hours, it is only right to rescind the request. To request a refund the day after release is one thing. To still complain after it after you've decided the game was worth spending that kind of time on is disingenuous. But the real problem here is GOG stole his money. Regardless of whether we think he was entitled to a refund, GOG granted him one. And that refund was never received. So the genuine problem here isn't with what a dirtbag the OP is acting like, because we can pretty much all agree he is, but rather that GOG "granted" a refund and processed it through their ticket system without paying it out. Sorry, but the legal and moral right here is simply: If you say you're returning someone's money, RETURN THEIR DAMN MONEY.

Where do you take that knowledge from? All the OP wrote is, that GOG switched the ticket to resolved. Which might as well mean denied as granted. Or more precisely in GOG- terms 'resolved' means 'stop bothering us'.
According to what the OP wrote, he didn't get a 'refund granted' message. Which means that the refund wasn't granted. Which is entirely justified in this case. I don't know what 'Cyberpunk was ticked' in this case means. But the fact that it still is in the OP's account means, that it wasn't refunded yet, no matter what the OP thinks.

Ah, I misread the OP. I thought he said they'd granted him the refund and didn't pay out. I take that back then. My mistake.

(edited)

Anyone who couldn't see this situation coming from a mile off is an idiot. Of course people are going to try and abuse the system. The only way to deal with it rationally is to have a very clear unambiguous idiot-proof policy in place.

Which GOG did not.

I do not appreciate that you change what I wrote. In this case, strike out a word and add yours in bold.
Makes sense.

I did it in an obvious way that made it clear that it was not your change but mine.

Incidentally, making things blatantly obvious should be standard policy for businesses. Gray areas lead to conflict and delays in deciding individual cases. GOG has suffered massive delays recently. Surely this is due to ambiguous refund policies.

If you want to say something do so in a paragraph of your own. Do not misquote someone else in order to make a point.

Ok.

You are wrong and I disagree with you completely.

I would have liked to do it in a roundabout way so as not to attack you.

But you insist so I say plainly: praising GOG for this policy is as stupid as calling Trump the best US president ever on January 6th.

Surely even GOG themselves regret how they presented their refund policy.