I feel badly when I refund a game (especially on GoG), and I would very much like to justify it a little more than what's in the drop list for the reason.

Yes, it's quite true that "the game is not what I expected" when I request a refund, but if I sent back every game that wasn't what I was expecting I wouldn't have many.

For example I might like to say something like "the screenshots were misleading, showing only cut scenes, and the game itself is so rudimentary as to be unplayable for me". I'm not going to mention names, as that's not the purpose, but if I'd have seen screenshots of a so called "remastered" game with repeating patterns for textures and Doom 1 style game play, I'd have never bought it in the first place, for $40 (!!!).

I would think that such feedback would be valuable. "Why are people refunding games and what can we do to help avoid it".

It is an automated process. While your sentiment is good, and on principle I agree, no one is ever going to be reading those comments. It is just too much work, they would probably need to hore someone just to go through and analyse the comments, and in the end is work that do not bring any income to GOG.

Just tell these to the devpubs themselves through their official website forms.

GOG can't do much with this input except maybe have it be a factor in their curation criteria. And that's if they receive enough of the same feedback, which is also difficult and costly to process if they allowed custom responses like this.

It will just be one more thing for GOG support to need to deal with on top of answering support requests. Also if they're going to have a field for you to fill out and have someone read these things, it would only be so that they could evaluate the reason for the refund request.

The drop-down lets them streamline things. Besides automating the process, it can automatically generate a report that this many people requested a refund because the game wasn't what they expected it to be. That's still on the developer because they obviously misrepresented their game as something it isn't.

I use devpubs as a catch-all term for both developers and/or publishers and it's shorter.

Devpub contracts come in all forms, so there are lots of grey areas where some devs self-publish and some publishers manage development parts like funding, accessing devkits, localization, IP ownership, porting, QA/QC, store access, etc.

So why not tell both to increase the chances that someone relevant to the issue will get the feedback somehow. I think most people get the message when I say "devpubs".

I also like to make up my own words. Yeasterday I made the word 'slingbop'. I am not sure what it is yet, but I like the way it sounds.

Slingbop.

I seldom return games on GOG, though there are a few games on here (looking at you, Assassin's Creed) which frankly shouldn't even be sold in their current state.

@OP - Pretty much what the first two who replied have said.

GOG don't appear to have enough time to do all the things they should do, let alone anything like what you suggest, and they would have very little power or control to effect things anyway.

Game reviews are of course the other avenue of reaching out to the game provider, if you don't want to contact them direct, and if they even bother to read them. I am cynical though, about the fact they are ignorant of their flaws, which would would require a high level of naivety, and so it seems unlikely to me, so complaining or advising would likely just be a waste of time anyway.

Many games it seems to me, come to market too soon, before being completed or are completed in a less than desirable way, all due to the factor of finance.

Slingbop is an amokmockup.