Questioning someone after they assumed I have no business experience simply because I don't agree with their position is deserved and genuine. Besides, you are the last person that should be lecturing anyone on respect given the disengenuous and specious line of argument (I'm being generous with the term here) you've displayed in this thread.

1.) Purchasing as charity is a straw man of my claim.

2.) There are no free markets you are misusing and probably don't understand the term.

3.) On the idea of favors: your games not existing does me the consumer no harm, there are other games, if there are no games there are other entertainment products, as any economist will tell you a dollar not spent on your good or service will likely be a dollar spent somewhere else. So I am very much doing you a favor by buying your product and keeping you in business. It allows you to exist - period.

1.) I'm not failing to distinguish between large and small businesses - you are. I've simply pointed to the importance of regulating them. Small businesses can just as easily discriminate against their workers, not pay them or break any number of laws, the same as large multinational corporations, and just because a small business doesn't keep the sales tax on its items like Walmart or pay zero in tax like GE doesn't mean it wouldn't try if it grew to equal size. Thus the importance of laws and oversight which business obviously believes in as they pay mountains of money to lobbyists, ensuring the laws are written in their favor. This is why there are no free markets.

2.) Again you're creating a straw man. No one painted you as an evil corporate overlord. You're just pretending your paranoid fears are reality when they're clearly not and that kind of disengenuousness is not something I would want to support in terms of accidently buying one of your games.

1.) You're creating a false equivalency between consumers and business and an absurd one at that. Consumers are not purely driven by the profit motive, by law corporations are. If you've ever spent more for something than you needed to because you were empathetic to how it was produced or just didn't care about cost - you are clearly not thinking of getting the best price, you are not thinking like a business.

Business seems to understand how irrational consumers are that's why their ads almost never focus on cost., they're about all sorts of irrational things like status, lifestyle, heart tugging donations, etc. I suspect it might be harder for someone like you to comprehend this given your paranoid fantasies of a scheming public playing and returning your chintzy 2hr game.

2.) Piracy isn't prevalent in Android because users are too cheap to pay for an app - they're too poor to pay for them. Andoid is a low end market*, with 2/3's of the user base using junk phones. If these users couldn't pirate an app they'd most likely not buy it - this explains why they use junk phones in the first place - what they can't afford, (Apple/Samsung) they don't buy. But I get how your characterization of piracy feeds into your world view of an evil public trying to cheat you at any opportunity.
*http://www.forbes.com/sites/tonybradley/2013/11/15/android-dominates-market-share-but-apple-makes-all-the-money/

1.) Cutting two precedents I mentioned (that substantiate my claims) out of my quote, which you don't address - shows you don't argue in good faith. This is unsurprising given the straw men earlier.

2.) Yes you. You are propogating an irrational fear, the same as every sensationalistic news piece that invoked ideas of abuse when Steam announced its refund policy. There's no reason to believe your nonsensical views because there's nothing supporting them. If you'd like to create and believe in fictions - that's fine - just don't ask us to take it as reality.

Your fear mongering anecdotes aren't impressive as evidence for your baseless paranoia of refunds. You haven't addressed the issue of why someone wouldn't simply torrent your 2hr game instead of letting Steam hold their money and go through the hassle/risk of getting it back. Your understanding of piracy is equally incompetent. Ultimately piracy has more to do with the decisions of business than the boogieman knee-jerk image you keep painting the public with. For someone who thinks of themselves as a business person you certainly don't seem informed by the business press:

http://www.economist.com/node/3993427
http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/12/how-much-do-music-and-movie-piracy-really-hurt-the-u-s-economy/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2014/04/15/game-of-thrones-sets-piracy-world-record-but-does-hbo-care/
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/game-thrones-piracy-soars-season-787594

There's no loophole and no evidence or precident of abuse. Reactionary idiots deserve to be treated as such. There is as much substance to this issue of refunds as the idea of voter fraud.

You can paint yourself as a human interest story or disguise personal anecdotes as the state of an industry. You can create grand, labored, and false analogies about unlocked doors. Ultimately you can present as many specious, and fictitious statements as you'd like. The question of refunds is about rights - those of the consumer vs those of business.

Why should the consumer be asked to take a risk with their money (or their health for that matter) on a product or service without any protection? Why should the public be at risk for the errors, oversights or simply malicious behavior of business? This is such banal, intuitive, obvious questioning but in the business run society we have, it is unsurprising to be inundated with gullible people that simply recite the business as saint and victim paradigm when it comes to policy debate. How much money have consumers lost to buggy, broken, or incompatible software in the last 10 years on Steam that couldn’t be refunded?

Steam isn't instituting a refund policy because of some good will it carries. They haven't had a refund policy for the better part of 10years because they weren't forced to, they have a monopoly. Now that their status to do business in England and the EU is under threat of law they are busily self-regulating before they get a harsher decree by the courts. And that is really what people should understand - businesses are perfectly willing to externalize the cost of a faulty product or service to the public until they're dragged into court and forced not to.

p.s. If you spend as much time on your games as you do spamming nearly every post on this (now) 15+ page thread, then I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.