Posted June 10, 2015
GreenDamsel: You mean Demos basically.
I'd assume that we all want good old Demos back for games. Just the first 1- 2 levels of a game to test if someone likes it. If someone plays a Demo then tries to play the game and it fails technically and crashes you can still refund it as you can already do it on GoG. Aside that you actually don't need a refund system if you have Demos.
On the other hand building extra demos is probably much more work than just letting the game run for a certain amount of time. That way the developer does only need to create the game and the customer can continue playing the real game after the demo time. It seems that DRM can be helpful in efficiently creating a demo. I'd assume that we all want good old Demos back for games. Just the first 1- 2 levels of a game to test if someone likes it. If someone plays a Demo then tries to play the game and it fails technically and crashes you can still refund it as you can already do it on GoG. Aside that you actually don't need a refund system if you have Demos.
ET3D: You're actively avoiding the actual point and are just playing with words, so I assume that you agree with what I said. Since your argument that giving publishers control is user friendly hinges on the assumption that users are in the wrong, I feel that it doesn't have legs to stand on.
I may have been confusing. If so I apologize. The only point I always wanted to make is that this new Steam policy is good in general (thanks to DRM) but actually bad in case of short games and that it should be changed for these games (for the best of the devs and the consumers) - in particular the time should be shortened and the best would be to actually leave the decision with the developers. That's all. I don't want to say anything more about anything else.
Post edited June 10, 2015 by Trilarion