Nathan Grayson found a way to complain about Steam's new refund policy.

http://steamed.kotaku.com/steam-refunds-could-cause-some-big-problems-1708523970

tl:dr 2 hours is too long for someone to try out a game. Someone could buy a game, finish it or get close and then return it. Free video game.

This guy doesn't seem to care one bit about the consumer.

jefequeso had a much more reasonable discussion on the topic on the GOG forums. Nathan Grayson can defend his unmechanical interactive cutscenes all he wants. It takes a goliath to move Steam, and one hipster is one pair of gonads too short.

It's not that big a deal if there is also an undisclosed limit to the number of times someone can get a refund. And Steam implied there was more to it. The DRM-free argument later in the article is a rather valid concern...

I feel it is a concern, but only to a small degree. If someone wants a game for free, why go through all that hassle when they can simply pirate it? I don't condone either method, but in terms of simplicity, the Steam method seems like more of a bother than it is worth.

There are actually a lot of similar flaws with the service as well but everything seems to be going okay so far. For instance, I set up library sharing with a friend of mine. In theory, I shouldn't be able to play a game from my friend's library if he is also playing a game on his account at the same time. However, plenty of DRM free titles mean this restriction is pointless. The DRM free copy is downloaded to my PC, and I can bypass the sharing restrictions by loading the game's executable file directly.

This isn't really something I take advantage of, but it is something I stumbled across when we first set up library sharing and I was trying out a lot of games I had been curious about.

Oh yes you fuckin' did.
Twice.
And it's not 'scientifically accurate' either.
(Asides from which, there were "scientifically" "accurate" arguments for racism and other such bullshit.
You're being fallacious if you're honestly making a vague appeal to 'science'; an appeal to authority by any other name..)
In fact, it's outdated and deprecated now (even in the medical & scientific communities).
It's considered to be.. *drum rolls* a slur; insulting, disrespectful, and unnecessarily offensive.
(Check the DMS V; it's not included.)
Bonus:
“What’s wrong with "retard"? I can only tell you what it means to me and people like me when we hear it. It means that the rest of you are excluding us from your group. We are something that is not like you and something that none of you would ever want to be. We are something outside the "in" group. We are someone that is not your kind. I want you to know that it hurts to be left out here, alone.” – Joseph Franklin Stephens, Special Olympics Virginia athlete and Global Messenger.

... you do realise that some instances of two men and two women can actually have children together, right?
Like, that is a thing that has happened already.
It's.. entirely possible.
(Hint: Trans people exist.)
If we take a step outside of the genetic material of both members of the couple themselves, we have sperm banks (for any partner with a functional womb). Aaaaand there are surrogates too.
If we take a step outside of the genetic material of the couple entirely, we have adoption! So many kids that need loving parents.
Point: Your argument is.. well, nonsense.
(Asides from which, humanity as a species is kind of.. abundant? There are an awful lot of humans.
We don't actually need to focus purely on reproducing, and certainly not at as high a rate as we have been.
We would actually benefit as a species if the rate of reproduction was slowed in many areas.)

And who gives a fuck about "natural" ? It exists in nature, it is natural. Simple!
Either you follow that interpretation above or you recognise that 'natural' does not equate to 'good' anyway (another fallacy!), and that you are using a bloody technological marvel to even post that sort of bullshit.

You're also conflating 'normal' with 'most common', for which a better term is 'typical' (as in 'neurotypical').

The problem with heteronormativity is in fact not heterosexual people existing (which is.. honestly founded on the premise of 'opposite' sexes, which is kinda silly if you actually understand the variation.. but that's besides the point), but the fact that society as a whole basically ignores/erases anyone that does not fit that particular paradigm.
Heteronormativity is not a cis man and a cis woman in a relationship; it is people treating those that are not that particular pattern differently (especially in a negative sense) to those that are.
See: Sex education (for example) barely mentioning same-sex relationships, or neglecting to point out that bisexuality exists etc.
Or.. in fact, I'll just link an article:
[url=http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm]http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~hyrax/personal/files/student_res/straightprivilege.htm[/url]
(It's supposed to demonstrate to otherwise-ignorant people that they might be neglecting how much of a negative impact a heteronormative approach has upon those that are relative minorities.)

Seriously. You got called on shitty ableism and you doubled down on it (emphasising how wrong you are in the process) instead of acknowledging that actually you were being an asshole and should probably not do that.
Poor show.

Sometimes they do act that way.
(I mean, why else would trans people (especially trans women) suffer violent crime at such high rates?)
But it's super duper easy to be precise in terms of language, instead of saying things like "men and trans men" (and thus treating everyone that does not fall within the prejudiced concept of 'normal' as deviant, both behaviourally and linguistically).
Funnily enough, language can shape behaviour. Deliberately cutting back on use of slurs and discriminatory language (or even insults in general) tends to force mindfulness as an alternative; if your only option for communicating is actually communicating instead of dismissing and abusing, then you're gonna engage more productively with others, right?
(Generally speaking anyway.)
*shruuugs* Why would anyone ever want to do that though, riiight? Gosh, imagine actual productive constructive conversations where people try to attain understanding. How boringly peaceful and pleasant for all those involved.

"Example: African-American and Hispanic people are the norm in Compton, California. That statement has no bearing on the white people who live there, nor is there any kind of inherent judgment or "othering" (which isn't even a real verb, but I'll play along) there."
(Psst. Spoiler: You understood exactly what the word meant, and thus it is a real word. :P )
Anyways. It is more like saying "There are white people and normal people".
Imagine a world in which no-one specified 'race' unless it was a white person.
Idk if I'm doing a good job of explaining why exactly it's wrong (I don't think I am), but basically it's disrespectful and that's why.
(Do research on it if you care? I'm sure you'll be able to track down some good sources that might help further any understanding.)
It's wrong because of who wrote it and where it was published of course.
This isn't a discussion to such people; it's politics!

Oh, I don't really follow video game politics. To me there is no question of women being hypersexualized eye candy in video games, although I think that trend is reversing. The most striking example of this was command and conquer red alert 3. In RA 2, Tanya was an attractive, fit woman. Little make up, little cleavage. Compare that to red alert 3... Jenna Jameson. They Literally made one of the main characters a porn star. I figured the game was terrible if they needed to have a cast of pin ups to sell it.

I don't understand the problem with pointing these things out. If you have a daughter or a neice, you kind of worry about what messages she is getting from the media she is playing...

The problem is not pointing it out, the problem is censoring it and forcing devs to feel bad for not yielding to others.
Honestly all I read is politically correct nonsense and denial of facts. If you want to be obnoxious about your views go do it somewhere else, because I am not going to tolerate your annoyance.
You seem like you are realy pissed with straight "cisgendered" males. And I am not going to tolerate your intolerance. Non't even tell me that bullshit about straight privilage. Why don't you go and tell about straight or white privillege to one of the millions of straight white male hobos (most of them war veterans) out there? Honestly I am not going to insult you (even though you take everything as an insult) but you should take your opinion and do wit it whatever you want except flinging it at me.

Oh, and if you want to fill this thread with your toxic, obnoxious, and unbearable political correctness, leave, we are not interested in it. Go back to tumblr or whichever hugbox you came from.

No one is censoring anything. Calling for a boycott is not censoring. The publisher is free to release it, and people are free to buy it. Its still there. The publisher (and studio) have the choice of addressing the concerns of the boycott, or releasing as is and accepting that some people will not buy it for political reasons. Some boycotts will be stupid, generate a lot of press, but in the end result in no financial pressure. I am sure a lot of other people didn't buy red alert 3 because of their choice of casting. Some parents will refuse to buy their children games based on the cover art or rating. That isn't censorship.

Censorship is where the publisher/artist has no choice. I don't follow this stuff, but I doubt anyone has proposed a law that made using a porn star in your game illegal. For example, at /r/pcmasterrace, there was a petition to ban linking to kotaku because of that steam refunds article. That was an actual attempt at censorship.

As far as making someone feel bad - People can say whatever they want. In the end you are responsible for the way you feel. No one can make you feel anything unless you let them....

This is also an aside, and just a fact. Gender Dysphoria is very much part of the DSMV. It's the medical basis (and ICD code) used to bill insurance for the cost of transitioning.

There's no problem pointing them out. What 'has' been happening isn't that, though. They don't look at any of the games in full. Just cherry picking for what they want to use to prove their point...even if it doesn't make sense or is part of something that has been moved on from ages ago.

And in some cases like with Duke Nukem games...that's the effin' point. It was one of those that went all out as a joke, but a good one with actual gameplay that was enjoyed.

Some people also just...don't seem to want to have fun with ideas and let them be for what they are. Enjoyment. Something to laugh at with a "Haah! I get that one....that was a good one".

I suppose I may need a bit of proof of my gender...since I 'am' saying these things are alright. We seem to be called sock puppets and all that crap.

Alright, here ya go. I was a guest panelist on Oliver Campbell's GNR some time ago.

Anyone calling you a sock puppet for having ideas different than theirs is an idiot. People are allowed to think independently from their genetic makeup.

I don't know much about gamergate. I just know that there was some terrible mental health related game, some kind of review, and then tumblr and 4chan went to war with each other.

There were petitions to ban GTA5 in Australia, and it was efectivelly banned in some stores, and some pople have proposed laws and codes that force and prohibit some forms of content, for exampl forcing diversity quotas. What you say has already happened. And that is why we fight. That and because we are tired of the Jack Thompsons and Anita Sarkeesians trying to ruin our fun. You might know little about GamerGate, and if that is the case, I won't push you to know more. But if you are interested in knowing more, I would suggest you check the Know Your Meme article and the Enciclopedia Dramatica one. The Wikipedia article is not reliable since it only portrays one side of the argument. I would also recomend you to watch the videos Christina Hoff Sommers made related to the topic as well as many other sources.

I can't imagine life in a country where expressing yourself is not an unalienable right. I forget things are different in commonwealth countries. Diversity quota. Did that get laughed out of parliament or whatever it is you have?

Actually, I usually just forget that English speakers other than Americans use the internet.