It just occurred to me that they could introduce this kind of refund by only making the DRM-free installers available after the "no reason" refund period has passed.

Not saying that it would be a great idea, there's pros and cons and serious technical hurdles (the Galaxy versions of the games would all require DRM, after all) but it would be one way that GOG could introduce this kind of refund policy without sacrificing DRM-free installers altogether.

And that's why it's worded the way it is rather than "If you are abusing refunds", because they don't know but can see a pattern from the millions of users they have, and figure than if you often refund games within said 2-hour period, it is rather likely that you are trying to abuse the system. It's all statistics.

Can you imagine the shitstorm if GOG was to make Galaxy an actual DRM-manager?

Years ago I bought a couple of games and asked for a refund because I thought they were awful - I still don't get where the praises for those games are coming from. But I think I played for minutes before asking for the refund, so maybe I got it because of the short time passed from downloading the installers and the request. It's not like I finished the games and decided I didn't like it. Besides, I have immensely enjoyed playing ugly games, expecially old ones. It's a way of testing our taste in an opposite way. Experiencing what we don't like is an interesting experience nonetheless. Enjoying old games packed with game design mistakes has made me appreciate how the videoludic art has evolved to these days standards. I would not be honest to myself in negating the formative value of that and ask for a refund.
Also, the refund was not on my credit card but as store credit to but better - or at least more fit to my taste - games.

It depends on how one defines what is easy for them, many might prefer to abuse a legit official fast virus free download service with a money back no questions asked policy than gamble with torrents, especially if they don't know or care that every time they get a refund for a game its publisher/developer may still need to give the store their cut.

I agree, that if you genuinely don't like something you paid for, you should get a refund, but it's just not that simple.

I doubly feel that way, because not only are you dissatisfied, but your time etc has also been wasted.

If life were only so simple that we could get well deserved refunds ... perhaps even repatriation for wasted time, travel etc.

But it can never be ... certainly not in the Capitalist sectors of the world or even many others, where stealing you blind is seen as clever selling and worthy of respect etc.

One of the reasons, for here at least, amongst the many already stated or suggested, is that of personal judgment. Many games sold here, have reviews, and just about all of them have reviews by those who loved and those who hated and a whole swag of others between.

So liking something like a game is purely subjective ... and it can alter even for the same person based on all sorts of various factors. What you dislike today, you might love tomorrow ... or vice-a-versa ... tomorrow being a varying length of time from now.

Sure, next time you go to the cinema ask for a refund after you watched the movie.

This.

I GET how some want companies to think of the customer and be as good to them as possible, but I ALSO think companies shouldn't have to kiss customer's behinds or treat them like KINGS or GODS for the pittance people pay for their products(non luxury goods)....i.e. companies shouldn't be too unreasonable, but customers shouldn't be that way either.....and if people dislike the service or goods from one store/site they can always frequent another(or if none are to be found, they must agree to the terms of that store/site, make their own, or go without).
====================================

With that reasoning, why have laws IRL & why not presume everyone is a saint? ;)

It's nice to see Gog make some exceptions for good eggs and others here and there(even if only to maintain it's good PR). :)

That said: this is the ONLY method of such refunds many here would likely be ok with(including me) & which likely wouldn't be as exploited....i.e. store credit ONLY refunds for "didn't like" games....no cash/credit to card(as some have asked for in the past), lest some use the proposed new system to scam free games AND keep their money.
=============================================

What if it's a consumable item(food/etc) or something else they cannot put back on the shelves once one uses it(in whole or part)? Should the stores eat the cost every single time?

With amateur reviews/twitch streams/Let's Plays/etc that should not be as big a problem. People need to be smart shoppers and not make companies pay the cost for their mistakes so often.

This is why I think refunds should hardly ever be based on disliking something(as long as that thing is as was as advertised)...and that maybe a store credit system(as I mentioned above to another user) should be the furthest such is ever taken.

And this is yet another reason why I love GOG(and TO love GOG)....how nice you all often are. :)

Probably not much bigger than the shitstorm that happens every time GOG does anything. :D

You did read at the end of that sentence, where I said .... but it's just not that simple.

So in short, if you ate it, you cannot return ... unless you only ate a portion and there is something wrong with it ... off or not what you paid for ... happens all the time.

Many other products are often returned to stores, because the buyer feels they are not what they said they were or don't work as stated.

With digital products though, it is a lot more complicated, especially without DRM ..... hence why I said ... but it's just not that simple.

And I personally feel, that if you walk into a cinema, start watching a movie, and leave before half way, you should be re-imbursed or at least get a portion back. You did not get the full product, and clearly you disliked it ... else you would have stayed. The only exception to that, would be if it was a full-house, so your seat could have been used by someone else ... in that scenario, the cinema actually loses money if they reimbursed you.

Reviews etc can only tell you so much, and not everyone is prepared to or should have to be, to go out of their way to check things out as much as possible.

Advertising is a license to tell all sorts of lies, that are all too easily gotten away with when they happen, especially if they make things ambiguous enough.

So you can't just label it as the buyer's mistake, as often there are things the sellers do to mislead etc etc.

The biggest mistake us buyers can often make, is to trust the seller too much, but that often leads to an impasse, so naturally we are driven to take a risk. That doesn't make the seller less liable.

There was already a revolt when they wanted to have Galaxy no longer be optional, a while back. If they ever pull anything like that again, I'm gone. I don't mind too much having to use Galaxy for multiplayer. Not needing it at all would be preferable, though.

Just for correction: they never wanted to make Galaxy mandatory. They only wanted to implement the Galaxy client in the offline installer with an option to opt out of installing it with the game. It was still a terrible idea which GOG scratched after the shitstorm but - as I said - it''s different from making the client mandatory.