I never had an issue with GOG refunding me. At least they have a damn refund, unlike some companies. Looking at you Nintendo!

I don't have such a high opinion of their refund policy. I asked for a refund of Commandos 2 - HD Remaster when I discovered that it had been censored, something that is not disclosed on the store page. GOG refused a refund on the ground that I had owned it for more than 30 days. I would argue that if there is a good reason for asking for a refund that reason does not change with time.

Did you not read their refund policy before asking?

If there is a good reason for a refund then time should not matter. The reason is good whether I ask one day after the purchase or one year.

That's not how stores work in general, dunno why you think GOG should make a special exception for you. It was your fault for not reading the clearly-stated policy; take responsibility for your own actions.

I think you are mistaken. There is no time limit on misrepresentation. Certainly it is perfectly legitimate for GOG to say that if you want a refund for no particular reason then you must ask within 30 days. It is not legitimate for GOG to say that if you do not discover our misrepresentation within 30 days then we can keep your money forever. I am happy to take responsibility for my actions, Here it is GOG who is not willing to take responsibility for its actions.

Sorry, no. Name a company, anywhere, that has unlimited returns. 30 days is more than long enough to both game-test and do your due diligence. If you made a stupid purchase, and didn't notice it for a month, can you really blame the seller?

I notice you are from PRC, and no shade, the Chinese do some things right. Customer service, and honoring refund policies are not among them.

It's not a question of company policy, it's a matter of law. Name a country where the law says a seller can deliberately misrepresent their goods and keep your money if you don't discover the misrepresentation within 30 days.

So, zero experience with either corporate or consumer law? Your naivete is charming, in a way.

Actually I have 20 years experience as a commercial law litigator.

Sure you do. With all that law experience, one would think you'd realize that the game description makes no claims whatsoever about censorship or the lack thereof, and therefore any "misrepresentation" claims would go nowhere. Indeed it specifically says "re-imagined," which covers any and all changes compared to the original. Again: take responsibility for your own actions.

I've done several refunds and exchanges with Amazon and never once did I ever experience "anger" and/or "escalation." Rather, they go out of their way to please me and give me all my refunds of every cent. I believe that is generally true of most other Amazon customers too. Did you swear at them or something? "Anger and escalation" from them sounds very unusual.

GOG certainly doesn't have "the best refund policy in the business."

Try getting another 50 refunds from GOG, for example, and I'm betting at some point long before they put all those refunds through, they are going to say that they aren't going to be giving you any more refunds.

In contrast, try getting another 50 refunds, or 200, or 500, from Steam, and as long as you played those games for under 2 hours each, then they will all go through.

And GOG's refund policy is probably contributing quite a lot to their financial troubles, which is another reason why it remains a very bad idea for GOG ever to have implemented their current version of their refund policy.

As for GOG being "the most honest" company: not really, since they have DRM in some singleplayer aspects of their games, whilst they at the same time falsely claim all of their games to be DRM-free.

And they certainly were the antithesis of "honest" when they untruthfully scapegoated their nefarious act of censoring of Devotion onto "many messages from gamers."

Likewise some months ago when they made a thread with a title that said something along the lines of they are re-committing to DRM-free, whilst the actual content of the OP that GOG wrote in that thread was the exact opposite of re-committing to DRM-free.

Not to mention GOG sometimes sells bugged games of which they offer no ability to download the non-bugged version, which they easily could do, i.e. Divinity: Original Sin 1, of which only the bugged version has been available as an offline installer since at least December 2017. Answer: Steam. Company named successfully.

Honestly cannot name one company that has not made a mistake. I can name several companies that have made mistakes that make GOG look like saints. But tons of People still seem to use these companies.

You quite rightly point out that "the game description makes no claims whatsoever about censorship or the lack thereof" which is exactly my point. GOG are selling a censored game and not telling customers. Am I not entitled to assume that unless I am specifically told that a game has been censored then I can assume it has not been? That is deliberate misrepresentation. You are making my point for me.

If you think that "re-imagined" can mean "censored" then we are using different dictionaries.