Surely this could be avoided by simply limiting refunds to the payment method used to make the purchase. You pay via credit card, the charge gets dropped from your credit card.

The more obvious reason to refund to the wallet is that it guarantees GOG keeps the money. Whatever the wallet funds get spent on later, or if they never get spent, GOG doesn't lose anything this way.

This is possibly the most sensible thing I have ever seen you post here. Agree 100%. Hot take: you'd still be out food and gas money if the game ran well on your system.

Saying that in their eyes makes you an elitist. Everyone should be able to buy what he can't afford.

Just tell food and gas that Cyberpunk is working perfectly and the problem should sort itself out.

Oh dear! I wouldn't want to be him, when he reads all this...

He Cyberpunk'd himself. Why gamble with money that should be reserved for things you need?

It's not even a gamble. When you gamble, there is a chance on a return on your money. He spent money he needed elsewhere, and in the VERY BEST case scenario, he is completely out that money with a game that works exactly as well, or better, than he had hoped.

gog.com/u/areplays leads to a 404 error, so it looks like he just renamed his account in frustration.
You may be nitpicking over semantics. I can see how someone would call a refund to the original payment method "refund to bank" if it was a bank-issued card and that's where it ends up.

And why bring up his Steam profile? So we can see the ASCII artwork in the comments?
I don't see anything that suggests you can refund to anything but GOG wallet or the original payment method (if technically feasible).

It's definitely his Gmail name, because that's a Gmail screenshot that he posted. It's also his name on Steam. I have no way of knowing if he signed up with the same name here (no matches for that keyword on the site, apart from this thread). I can only see an account by that name doesn't exist here.
Yes, I also wouldn't want to be a dissatisfied new customer and having to deal with these replies. Telling someone if they can't afford to lose 30€ they shouldn't buy games at all is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard on this forum. OP isn't starving to death. He's not stranded, unable to fuel his car. He spent a considerable amount of money on a big release, and it supposedly doesn't perform well on his system. That money would now be put to better use, instead of having credit at a store where he may not want to buy anything again. This shouldn't be controversial.

So if the game didn't lag, you wouldn't get a refund and wouldn't have to eat?

I think he planned to buy the game, download it, and get a refund so he didn't have to worry about food. That's assuming he wasn't using that as a sob story.

If he's not starving and not out of fuel, then why did he directly bring up those points in his OP?

There's nothing at all wrong with other posters advising him not to spend money on games in that situation, as he himself is the one who claimed he is facing starvation and no gas his car due to having spent necessary money that he couldn't afford on buying the GOG game. If that isn't actually so, then he ought not to be making false claims about it in the OP; therefore, if he did indeed make false claims, then he - and not other posters - is the one who would be in the wrong for having done so.

Other posters bear zero fault at all in giving him that great life advice.

Moreover, refunding a game because it doesn't perform well is not actually a legit reason to refund the game in situations where the user's system does not meet the minimum system requirements for the game, which the OP is implying that his system doesn't via phrases like him calling his PC a potato, etc. That's even further reason why other posters bear no fault in their responses to his OP.

That's not what people have been saying. As Ancient-Red-Dragon points out, the general comments here are that if someone is in a situation where (as OP claims) he's so impoverished that purchasing a $30 game has caused him to go without food (quote from support ticket: "I need the money to eat") then he shouldn't have spent the money on the game. Whether the game works on his system or otherwise is incidental to this; even if it did work, he still wouldn't have that $30.

Now, he may be lying about the fuel and the food situation, but if he is, I've got even less sympathy for him.

He also refused to engage with support or do any kind of trouble-shooting to improve performance of the game (merely giving the unhelpful problem statement of "it lags", which could mean anything) and just demanded a cash refund, which obviously would cause GoG to incur transaction costs.

I think giving store credit is more than fair (and appropriate under the voluntary refund policy).

To me is clear that the point is the amount the user pay for the game is actually a big amount, I don't know Malasya ecconomy but I would guess is in line with most Countries on the area, wich is not exactly "Western". The language barrier may also be a factor.

I had a good laugh reading the replies but in any situation I thought the OP means he needed the money to eat.

With that said, I'm against GOG return policies, if I made a impulse buy, I need to deal with it but that's just me.

Edit: What kind of a lame excuse is "it stutters on my pc", wtf is wrong with these people?