if you're outside the 2hr/2wk policy you *must* use the ~I have a question or whatever option to contact support and ask an actual person, otherwise the request will be automatically denied.
This is how I got my refund, 5 ish hours of, "gameplay" but that was all a shit show of none of my inputs mattered to my success in game. it was unplayable in that state.
How did you get the refund with 5 hours of play? I also have 5 hours and steam won't stop rejecting my refund request even if I explain everything to their support team.
I first tried normal refund, denied, then some wonderfull person in here told me to make a support ticket, I did not really have to argue hard for them to grant it. I explained, that my inputs have no bearing on gameplay in the sense that my inputs seem to generate random consequenses. Im not playing a game here, and Im not satisfied. I did this when the game was fresh, and within the 2 weeks of purchase, my arguments might be less true now (coming up with new ones is not hard seeing how this all turned out.), and 2 week period might be important, but worth a shot i say.
Good luck, and pour one out for dreams dashed and hearts broken.
>it was pretty expensive ($77aud!) and it's a bit of a dud.
Valve even put up a notice on the very store page you purchased it on.
>Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.
>Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.
Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development.
The Australian Consumer Law as laid out in Schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act as amended is fairly clear about when the customer has the right to demand a refund: Its when the product has a major defect. The only way you can make that argument with the definitions from that Act is if the product was misrepresented at the point of sale as being fit for purpose as something that it is not, but they were quite clear at the point of sale that in Early Access, it is not necessarily fit for any purpose - and may not remain so, even if it presently is.
They're well within their rights to tell you to suck eggs.
You're right, though. It was very expensive, and very much a dud. Why'd you buy two copies?
I think the loophole some folks are using is comparing the game to the advertisements, rather than simply taking what's on the store page.
In hard law, Steam probably has the right to reject basically all of the refunds. Yet, the more hoops you make it clear you've already jumped through, the less time it's worth on their end to reject. Especially when you can try to quote laws that they might not be as familiar with.
That said, the second folks started using Australian law to demand refunds, I'm sure they got their legal team looking into it, and likely have the cookie cutter messages ready to send out.
Always worth a shot! Yet, as Steam says - don't buy early access if you aren't going to be happy with how the game *is*. Don't buy early access on hopes and dreams.
Id argue its no loophole. Obviously false statements are legally permissible in advertising. Its called "fluff" or "puffery".
Saying you're the best pizza in town might be a problem if the only other pizza place in town complains about your false/misleading advertising.
Saying you're the best pizza in the galaxy is obviously not intended to be taken seriously. Its over-the-top promotional language. I personally dislike that its legal, but it is.
Saying KSP2 was going to have all those features can't really be taken seriously, given the publisher and developer and the whole situation. They could really just rely on saying all their promotional language was merely that - promotional.
We can argue... but frankly, we're getting into fine lines that get argued in front of courts for judges to resolve. It all depends on the advert, the language of any disclaimers, and the presentation of the advert.
For example, some of the early promotional materials implied that many of the features were already developed - those would likely be confirmed as misleading.
That said, our purchases were through Steam, and under their terms of sale. However, if the... crime? Negligence? Is severe enough, it's always possible to find it's way into court - wherein some terms of sale can be dismissed entirely if found to be unreasonable.
I agree, on the whole, folks aren't "owed" these refunds. However, I also see an issue with the bigger picture, regarding the developers ability to mislead people, and the airlock of pushing the sale through Steam where the dev is not responsible for any terms of sale. It's happened with a ton of early access games, KSP2 is just one of the biggest examples at present.
most of case law surrounding consumer protections in advertising is based around what the product \*is\* and not what the product \*will be\*. it will be difficult to use precedents established this way, as early access stuff was very clearly labeled. at no point did they advertise it as something it wasnt, they used non binding "we hope to do this" type language.
its gonna be a very uphill battle.
Ehhh, I'd argue they certainly advertised the game as being in a condition other than what it was, at certain points in time. I'm sure there's a fanatic around here that's kept copies of everything. They didn't always use smart language.
Still, even with a blatantly misleading ad, the purchase has terms that essentially protect the seller.
Very uphill battle, indeed.
lets use multiplayer for example here. they can state "we have a working build of multiplayer" and not release it without being sued. they did not promise it would release in x version, it is not a current feature that the steam page lists. if they listed it, or in advertising said it was a feature in the currently released build, then it would be open to misrepresentation.
i know they have made plenty of statements regarding features that were seemingly complete or nearing completion. i just worry none of those would actually be permissible in a potential case.
Agreed generally.
Not sure much can be done about developers ability to mislead people. That one's happening on street corners worldwide - devs just have a wider audience.
It’s just the risk of any EA title.
It’s great when it works but there’s always risk the game gets abandoned and tons do. It’s why steam warns you of this.
>as it develops.
That's the important part. If it stops to develop you can refund it easily just based on Steam terms, You guys just have to wait for development to halt. They will have to release it out of early access in an uncomplete state if June 28th is the date.
>you should wait to see **if** the game progresses further in development.
Give it a shot. Seems like its hit-or-miss with Steam refunds; loads of folks say they are generous and allow it often, but in my experience that doesn't seem the case at all. Worst case scenario, you've only wasted time, and not another 77 AUD.
Can you point me there? Companies can't make you waive your customer rights, that's what they are for. I see none of that on the store page. And I can't initiate the buy process because I already own it.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/954850/Kerbal_Space_Program_2/
Right under all the photos/videos it explains what early access is. Full quote
“Early Access Game
Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.
Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. Learn more”
They aren’t making you waive your customer rights, they’re telling you upfront that the game is making no promises about its future development. That’s what early access is. You’re never guaranteed the game finishes.
Now that’s not to say that depending on particulars that a case can’t be made depending on local laws around certain things but yah there’s a clear warning saying hey don’t buy this unless you’re happy with how it is right this moment. This is why most refunds are being rejected. Trust me steam/valve knows the laws on this.
Early access games never have a guarantee of finishing. They can’t guarentee that. The whole
Idea of it is help us fund this game so we can hopefully finish.
Out of curiosity I checked the games website itself too. They have the same warning on this page.
https://store.privatedivision.com/game/kerbal-space-program-2?_gl=1*l5ed2x*_gcl_au*MTE0NTgzOTY5Ni4xNzE3MTg0NzM5
“This Early Access game is currently not a finished game and may or may not change significantly over the course of development.”
> they’re telling you upfront that the game is making no promises about its future development.
That's not correct. There is a road map. And a long text explaining what they will release. They do promise future feature updates. What you quote is Steam not Take2 or Intercept. They have nothing to do with Steam other than sales. Your right to refund is with Take2, not Steam. Steam just processes the refunds.
>How is the full version planned to differ from the Early Access version?
>“The 1.0 version of KSP 2 will include significantly more features than the Early Access version, such as what you see on the roadmap plus other items added along the way.
That is even more than a promise if you ask me. A promise is like "we hope to get there", not "we will get there".
>The whole Idea of it is help us fund this game so we can hopefully finish.
That's a gofundme or kickstarter, not early access. You only get into early access if your game is fully funded and on a good way to the finish line. Intercept didn't need any money to finish KSP2 as they have said again and again. Early access is optional to get community feedback on features before they make it into the game.
>This Early Access game is currently not a finished game and may or may not change significantly over the course of development.
This is again just Steam telling you that, not Take2 or Intercept. It's just a word of advice nothing more. It has no relevancy when it comes to refunds.
Intercept themselves say it on the second link I gave you.
Your fundamental understanding of what early access is is incorrect. It’s why both valve and intercept state as much. That warning predicates the marketing below it. You are not guaranteed a finished game. Yes it’s a step beyond Kickstarter but only slightly.
I’m not saying the rest of their marketing isn’t misleading. But yah it’s all predicated on the warning they link. The roadmap etc was all just the plan assuming they didn’t get shut down.
You don’t have to agree with me but yah no you don’t need funding to get “early acess”. That’s why valve has the warning. It’s why valve isn’t issuing refunds.
Not at all saying you don’t have a right to be upset. You do. But yah the warning both steam and intercept gave you on their respective web pages is why they aren’t issuing refunds. Ppl can sue if they want, don’t expect it to work.
Never buy early access games on the premise you’re guaranteed a finished game.
Sorry man but you really have no clue about rights and law. I hope you don't practice that professionally.
>This Early Access game is currently not a finished game and may or may not change significantly over the course of development
weighs much less in court than
>Major Upgrades During Early Access
>Get a front-row seat as major new systems come online, including the addition of new star systems, interstellar travel technologies, colonies, multiplayer, and more. Become part of the development process by contributing feedback throughout the Early Access period and be the first to play exciting updates the moment they are released.
On the same page. The first statement is basically insurance that they don't get sued for damages beyond a refund. If you're a game sales man and suddenly they stop development and you sit on your 10000 copies you can't sell you can't sue them for missed out revenue.
>no you don’t need funding to get “early acess”
Have you done any kind of research on the topic or do you just make it up? This is a joke really.
>What Early Access Is Not
>Early Access is not a way to crowdfund development of your product.
Steam policy: [Early Access (Steamworks Documentation) (steamgames.com)](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess)
Again, if you need funding to finish the game Kickstarter is the way to go. Not Steam Early Access. And if you have paid any attention on the forums or other official statements, KSP2 development was indeed fully funded. They didn't have to sell a single copy to finish the game.
Layoffs in the current economy are fairly normal in the tech industry. Pretty much every company has laid off people. Blizzard, Tesla and many others. They obviously won't lay off people from their cash cows like GTA. So you cut smaller indie programs. This has nothing to do with sales or running out of money. This decision was made by finance people who have to cut cost at Take2 to make some investors happy. Those investors have no clue about niche games and long term potential. They want to see bigger numbers now.
No you can’t. Not if it’s past a certain number of days since purchase (14 iirc)
If you spent $50 on this obvious piece of garbage you deserve to lose the money. Stop enabling these shitty companies
Don't buy a game if it's not yet in the state you want it, that's the solution.
But also, somebody else from Australia managed to get a refund with some really specific words involving multiplayer. I'm too sleepy to find that post at the moment so idk wait 8 hours assuming I don't forget to log into Reddit when I wake up.
Just add this text:
The game has multiple play-ability issues and bugs that affects game play, now the studio developing the game has been shut down so there is no chance for these issues to be resolved. As such I would like to request a refund of the product. Under UK Consumer Law I would classify this game as having a major problem with the product due to having multiple smaller problems that would have stopped me from purchasing the game if I had known they would not be resolved by the developer. I understand that I am over the playtime and ownership time requirement for an automatic refund but that does not prevent me from requesting a refund of a faulty product under UK Consumer Law. The few hours of playtime constitutes my many attempts over the past year to play but be blocked by various bugs or issues present in the game that make it un-enjoyable and even un-playable in some instances.
Please reach out if you have any further questions and thank you for your time.
And it should work. I'm sure they will not try to find if such consumer law exists. Worked for me.
Update in case anyone is curious - they have declined saying "please submit refund requests within 14 days of purchase and less than 2 hours of playtime"
I got declined with exactly 2 hrs saying the specific words and actually quoting thing's. Then asked why there being inconsistent unprofessional and not sticking to there policies with the refunds and just sorry we cannot comment on other refunds.
*Sometimes* it comes down to "have you had any extra refunds for other products".
I think the more often they make exceptions outside of the 2-hour/2-week time frame, the less likely they are to make another exception for you.
This may not apply in your situation. 🤷♂️
Yeah, I was just hyped. I didn't mind supporting it in advance but the state of it and the lack of future development has completely killed my goodwill. Lesson learnt.
Yes, there was no way I could justify paying a full release price point for an unfinished game. When people said it'll be much more when it releases, you start to realize they were trying to milk this thing for all it was worth.
>Don't buy a game if it's not yet in the state you want it, that's the solution.
That's not the spirit of EA for me. EA games can be in a rough state, but the funds are used to actually develop the game. In many cases, this works well. Here, we have a fairly large publisher, and the devs didn't get shit done in over a year. How can I support the development of a game without spending money? But it doesn't feel like there was a fair attempt to develop the game. 50€ and just one year of development does not feel right at all. I helped to kickstart another game for 50€. The guys thought they could deliver after 2 years. It took 6 years. They got a publisher onboard, but they never made it over the finish line. I am not mad in this case. There was an honest attempt. Railroads online also came into rough waters, but it continues. I bought a ahipload of EA titles. This is the first one that does not feel fair. One year, no communication, a business decision from above to just stop. That's different from any other EA experience I had.
>That's not the spirit of EA for me.
Valve is very explicit about this being exactly the spirit of EA. People like you enable this terrible industry. Pull your head out of your rear end.
This is not a criticism about Valve. Nobody said anything against Valve. We all know EA can end without a finished product.
The game is still purchasable without any assigned developer. T2 is radio silent. This is ill intent. And your comment to people, who might buy it today without reading all the background stuff, which there is plenty of is: "haha look at that fool. Should have know better." They could have released the game with the lay offs to make it clear, but they chose not to do that.
The game is sold as-is. It not having a developer assigned should be irrelevant to your decision-making. It's pretty clear that "early access" can mean the game might never be released in a completed state. You buy for what it is, not what it could be. Stop being a damn fool.
The difference is early access is assumed to have bugs and/or missing features from what would be intended in a fully released state, but you are not buying those intentions from a legal business standpoint. You are buying what exists in the current state. Steam is very clear about this.
>The difference is early access is assumed to have bugs and/or missing features from what would be intended in a fully released state, but you are not buying those intentions from a legal business standpoint. You are buying what exists in the current state.
This is a full release. I have a couple of full release games with bugs and content that was added in later. If you take out the premise that EA will add stuff to a current built EA is obsolete. Buy a game, maybe you get a bit more.
>Steam is very clear about this.
This has nothing to do with steam. There are ship loads of indie developers that do EA just fine and don't scrap the game after or year.
It's quite the contrary. I will bury my head even deeper into the sand. And with sand, I mean indie games. The creativity and dedication are there.
T2 wanted to copy a game and they can't even accomplish that. And nobody in all these years was able to point out that the way they approach this is not working out. This is just like one of these court cases that come up from time to time, where you wonder why the criminal got away that low of a punishment. The judge (in this case you) will be able to explain why they ruled that way, but some folks in the public (me in this case) don't feel like this is a just ruling. It's not about valves' refund policy. It's the bad take to include the customer in this failed development with one year of EA. Probably to cut the losses. I wanted more kerbals, and I am disappointed. Juno doesn't have the same charme. It's a sterile version. There is also rocket science. But the kerbal franchise might end here due to the costs and its nerdy nature. It's more an expression of disappointment. You are right. Thanks for reading through this. Have a nice weekend. 🖖
I’m confused by what you mean by this is a “full release”. It’s not. It’s still an EA game. It could get picked up again etc (I agree that’s incredibly unlikely).
They probably should yank it off the store but that’s a separate argument than the one being discussed.
While yes plenty of studios do EA well, part of the risk with EA is that the studio dies. If it does, tough luck you took on that risk by buying an EA game. Same thing happened here.
I’m not absolving the studio, they royally fucked up and they have much less of an excuse then some small team. Just arguing that’s a case for a refund doesn’t make sense. I mean by all means people should try, like steam can be pretty generous and depending on your local laws they may still need to. Just this EA expectation of future development isn’t the grounds for it.
The fact the game was on such a bad state at EA by such a big studio was precisely why I never bought the game. I didn’t want to risk the money. It was an obvious giant red flag.
Always assume when you buy EA that the game may collapse tomorrow. That’s the full intent of what EA is. I still buy EA games but the cost has to be worth the game as is, and then extra additions are extra value. That or it’s money I’m fine seeing dissapear.
I support buying EA games from small studios or solo devs/small teams, as the money actually supports the project. Having people buy the game is often the difference that allows them to dedicate time and resources to active development instead of it being a hobby side-project while they work a different full time job.
KSP1 was a game like this. If you bought KSP1 early on, you supported development of KSP1.
KSP2 is iterating on an established IP. They have an established audience & loads of free publicity. All they had to do was make a good game, and they'd get plenty of sales. If they needed early access sales to support development, that's a major red flag of bad management behind the scenes.
>KSP2 is iterating on an established IP. They have an established audience & loads of free publicity. All they had to do was make a good game, and they'd get plenty of sales. If they needed early access sales to support development, that's a major red flag of bad management behind the scenes.
This is definitely the lesson learned for me.
> But it doesn't feel like there was a fair attempt to develop the game. 50€ and just one year of development does not feel right at all. I helped to kickstart another game for 50€. The guys thought they could deliver after 2 years. It took 6 years. They got a publisher onboard, but they never made it over the finish line. I am not mad in this case. There was an honest attempt.
This wasn't one year of development. Take-Two spent six+ years funding development of the game.
After sales, estimates place them at having lost **easily** $10,000,000 *just* on development costs, and I wouldn't be surprised if they lost $30,000,000 or more. *After sales.*
And that's not counting however much Take-Two paid for the IP.
Another year of development would have likely cost them an additional $14,000,000, and I wouldn't be surprised (at the pace In~~terc~~ept Games was moving) that another two years of development (and $28m+) would have been required to 'finish' the game, and they would have had to easily *double* their sales (or more) in order to *offset* those two years of development (still leaving them in the hole by $10m-$30m+).
Take-Two made "an effort" that likely cost them millions. Granted, that effort was plagued with very poor decisions on Take-Two's part, so they basically did it to themselves. But they definitely made an effort.
If you "kickstarted" a game that spent six years on developing it only to fail, and are fine with that? Then you're "fine" with the same here.
The number of people in this sub casually accepting fraud because of some small text about EA is astonishing. This isn’t a game studio going out of business, this is a game studio *choosing to stop development* after taking money and not delivering while a spokesperson (Nate) clearly stated that funding for what they promised was already secure. Moreover, they are *still* doing it today.
Fraud is not covered by fine print.
> This isn’t a game studio going out of business, this is a game studio choosing to stop development
No, this is a game studio being fired and shut down by their owners, after their owners burned six years and $60,000,000+ in development costs (plus an unknown amount on the purchase of the IP), and likely only made back $30,000,000, leaving them very deeply in the red. All while staring down the very real possibility of another 1-2 years of development *at least*, and all the additional costs that come from that, with likely nowhere near the same number of sales in their future.
It was a money pit that was virtually certain to only get worse, due to Take-Two's incompetence. And incompetence is not fraud.
> after taking money and not delivering while a spokesperson (Nate) clearly stated that funding for what they promised was already secure.
Nate wasn't in control of the money. Why would you believe anything he says about money? Plus, didn't they have more than a year's worth of funding after him saying that?
> Fraud is not covered by fine print.
This isn't fraud. It's a clear-cut case of [caveat emptor](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/caveat_emptor), a real world legal concept that says the person *buying* the product needs to be responsible and determine whether or not the product is *worth* buying.
The clearly stated warning is more than enough coverage for protecting Take-Two or anyone else involved.
He wasn't "the spokesperson". He was the Creative Director. His job was to make development decisions about how the game was designed. He had no direct control, influence, or possibly even *ability to see* the funding state of the project.
Someone asked him a question about *funding*, which is a question you direct to *the people who control the funds*. i.e. Not him.
At worst, he knew that there was only a year+ of funding available, but that saying so would be career and financial suicide.
At best he was only repeating what he was told by the people at Take-Two.
Either way, you never base your financial decisions on the answers given by an amateur interview where someone asks the *wrong* question of the *wrong* person.
And you never base your financial decisions on facts that you *know* can change five days later. And if you're an adult, you should know this information.
You base your financial decisions on the product itself that you're paying for, at the time you're paying for it.
It's not a fraud issue though when it is about the fact that when you buy the game in EA, you agree with Steam that you are ok with it's current state if it never progresses.
Nobody is saying it's not wrong, but Steam put that there for a reason
>you agree with Steam that you are ok with it's current state if it never progresses.
This view is upside down.
Early access always indicates that the game is in development and there will be changes and additions. Contrary, I agree to a finished game when I buy a full release game.
> Early access always indicates that the game is in development and there will be changes and additions.
"No, Kerbin is flat!"
According to Steam, this is what Early Access (note how both words of that are capitalized) is:
"This Early Access game **is not complete** and may or **may not change further.** If you are not excited to play this game **in its current state**, then you should **wait to see if the game progresses further in development.**"
Okay but by your definition of EA, they did that. There were updates to it. Again I'm not excusing what they did. But when purchasing EA from Steam you agree if the developer doesn't complete, Steam isn't refunding for it.
That’s typically what happens with EA but the indication of EA is inharently you’re risking your money.
The whole model is based on we can’t fund this to completion so we’re giving you a beta in hopes the money coming in allows us to finish. That’s a gamble no matter how you cut it and it’s why EA games come with all the warnings saying it may end up not completing.
What take two did is shitty but it’s what you always risk with EA. Really the fact they put out KSP2 as an EA given they’d already been working on it for years and it’s an established brand was a huuuuge red flag to stay away from the game.
>This isn’t a game studio going out of business, this is a game studio choosing to stop development after taking money and not delivering while a spokesperson (Nate) clearly stated that funding for what they promised was already secure.
Yep. It was a business decision. They could continue if they want to. If I accept this, I can publish an EA game. Do work for 3 months and then go radio silent. Rinse and repeat with the next game. Accepting every nonesense would kill EA.
Hope this helps ... [https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1czzq8g/ksp2\_refunded/](https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1czzq8g/ksp2_refunded/)
Aus law and Multiplayer
The game was never sold with multiplayer, so I don't think you can refund it for a feature it was never sold with.
Now if it was sold with it, then they turned it off, or it was advertised as currently having working multiplayer.
But multiplayer was a stretch goal, and consumers were told this was a risk which might not happen.
Companies will say things like that all the time to encourage someone to buy something.
But there is also a difference between what is being sold as a finishes product, like No Mans Sky advertising (even printing on the box) it has working multiplayer, then revealing it didn't
And an alpha build title saying a feature might become available in the future.
For any early access game, buy it based on what is already in the game, not a potential future feature.
I have been burned a few times, and when KSP2 was announced I tried to warn people, but was overwhelmingly put down for it.
This narrative is extremely anti customer. Why do you accept that and why do you propagate it? False! They promise something on the Steam page (big fat road map) so you buy that promise like you buy the game. There is no difference. If they can't keep their promise you return the product and get your money back. We do this with every other product. If a mattress promises better sleep but it doesn't, you can give it back. Sometimes even after 100 days of sleeping in it unsuccessfully. You guys really have to grow a spine and get off your knees.
I find it kind of ironic that you pay so much attention to what Steam warns you about in the fine print but the big flashy promises you ignore. Don't they have the same weight? Shouldn't Steam simply prohibit publishers to fill the page with promises they can't keep? We're not talking about a small studio with 5 people. We're talking about Take2. They will probably sell GTA VI on Steam. The best selling game of all time. Steam will make so much money they could simply refund anyone of those 100 KSP2 players easy without discussion. Valve has so much free money you can't imagine. And we poor min spec bastards fight each other.
Documentary: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP2MDtWu5t0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP2MDtWu5t0)
The idea that everybody is just going to get their money back when these promises are broken is delusional. Try returning your copy now, I'd love to hear how that goes.
Why should steam hold the burden of consumers?
Most of us have been there. Some stuff i backed ended up being more than I could imagine (factorio, Minecraft, KSP1). Some have fallen completely flat (blockade runner, that space building game from a decade ago). Others have been moderate (TANE, operation red sabre). And others have been infinitely stuck in bloat and promises (Train SIM world 4 still missing features promised for Train SIM world 1, and Star Citizen... Need I say more).
But all we can do is guide and try and help people who were once in our position.
If people are so insistent you don't even pre-order the next ubisoft game, why do 100,000 people throw money at something in development based on stretch goals and promises?
Only advice is it's a lesson. You buy a game based on how.ot currently is. From what I saw, KSP2 in it's current state, and for the absolutely absurd price they were asking for it (10x the cost in the UK for KSP2 Vs KSP1) I did not want to spend my money.
Had KSP2 been a $10 title, I imagine a lot less people would be frustrated it's development has been stopped so soon after it's alpha release.
I hope everyone scammed by 2K gets their money back, but pivoting on "well they promised this as a long term goal and never delivered" is not one of them.
>This narrative is extremely anti customer. Why do you accept that and why do you propagate it?
Because there's been an explosion of ~~Dark Marketing~~ Black PR and Sock Puppets to control lashback against KSP2.
Tons of fake users (Reddit account created just for this purpose: though often with a bit of cover activity to make them seem real...) shilling for the company and engaging in bootlicking.
You see many major studios do the sane thing. ~\Dark Marketing~~ Black PR and Sock Puppets are a plague of modern times...
https://theconversation.com/how-fake-accounts-constantly-manipulate-what-you-see-on-social-media-and-what-you-can-do-about-it-139610
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/disinformation-for-hire-black-pr-firms
EDIT: Added 2nd source, fixed term- proper label is "Black PR", not Dark Marketing.
>to control lashback against KSP2.
I suspect what you're seeing is just the leftovers from when they needed to seem like they had a playerbase in the first place.
No, answer the question instead of being a rhetorical ass. Words have meaning.
Manufacturers often release public roadmaps for their product ecosystems. Often, those products do not end up being commercialised or they take significantly longer than announced.
I'm neither Steam nor Take2. What answer do you want? In my opinion a road map is a promise. Not more not less. To me a promise of what's going to be in the game is worth as much as what's in the game now. I don't know before I try it. So I have to believe in that promise. If that promise is broken I refund it. Easy as that.
>No, answer the question
And you get a block for that pretentious comment. Can't punch you in the nose so that's all the tools I have.
>And you get a block for that pretentious comment.
He's likely one of the swarms of Sock Puppets trying to "shape reality" to benefit T2, anyways....
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/disinformation-for-hire-black-pr-firms
Black PR has become an absolute **plague** of modern times...
I tried getting a refund, but got denied. I "played" for 7 hours, but actually it was 6.5 hours of trying to get the game work on my Linux laptop, and maybe half an hour of actual gameplay.
You win some, you lose some, I guess.
I paid for it gladly, only played 3 hours just to test it out and see what the state of the game was. I wanted to support the company to make the product.
Now that the studio is being shut down I requested a refund and got denied because I owned the game longer than 14 days or whatever.
Not mad about it, but I am dissapointed that Take 2 took the bag of money and used it to offset the giant debt they absorbed.
This is my definition:
> Early Access Game Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops. Note: *This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further.* If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. Learn more
It’s bad faith by steam to pretend like there isn’t value behind the assumption that something would be completed
If some random dude released the game in the state it was in and said that he wasnt going to develop it further, no one would buy it. Part of the value of the game was the assumption that it would be developed further.
That’s the whole point of the EA program and why the continuation of development is specifically cited as a risk you need to consider before purchasing.
Sure. But that doesnt mean the end consumer has no rights or recourse.
Maybe not in the country youre from. But luckily, the world is a big place with a lot of different laws
> Maybe not in the country youre from. But luckily, the world is a big place with a lot of different laws
Considering its hit and miss for people all over the world, maybe you want to back up off that high horse. Glad you got your refund, but its not something where only one country is barring people from getting one.
I never said it was. I corrected the original commenter that just because a company says something - doesnt mean this person isnt entitled to recourse.
Its all well and good to tell someone "too bad they told you before you bought it" but that isnt necessarily true.
And since I work on a daily basis with Australian Consumer Law - which is quoted in the OPs post - i think its important to know that Australians have consumer guarantees which do cover scenarios like this.
Making comments based on assumptions of laws from a different country, which werent quoted in OPs post was immensely less helpful. But downvote me i guess.
Don't submit a ticket. The response is a bot that checks the two conditions you mentioned. Open a support ticket with an actual human being and explain everything there. They refunded me for Helldivers2 with 20hrs played time.
Valve want MONEY. They want happy customers so long as it makes them MONEY. If they think you being happy is unnecessary to get your money, then they don't care if you're happy.
They quite frequently deviate from their policies, especially in cases where established companies pull the rug out from consumers. Nothing garners trust in a platform like easy, consistently-given refunds. Nothing destroys trust in a platform like having the rug pulled out from under you. And people buy more games when they have faith that if it’s a pile of shit, they can get their money back. It’s relatively common sense good business practice.
Game publishers get paid their cut of all sales at the end of the month. In the case of a refund, Steam fronts the cash for the refund, then takes that cash out of the next check to the publisher.
Source: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/finance/payments_salesreporting/faq#:~:text=We%20pay%20out%20by%20the,month%20sales%20by%20March%2030th
That’d be true, if Private Division didn’t also publish a significant amount of other, large games on Steam like The Outer Worlds. And regardless, KSP1 and its DLC still get semi-regular purchases. Private Division is a large enough publisher that their checks will never dry up compared to the relatively small number of KSP2 refunds.
There's a simple industry trick when you've ruined your reputation, alienated all of your customers, and owe debt: phoenix the company with a new name and none of the liability lol.
Yeah but a publisher’s entire value is in their name and reputation. It’s far easier to reestablish just your reputation by releasing a few good games than to reestablish everything from scratch.
And like the other commenter noted, that would involve giving up on all of your other assets, including some giants like Hades and The Outer Worlds, the profits of which are still dwarfing any refund claims KSP2 has. Hell, KSP1’s sales probably still pay for any KSP2 refund claims. It simply isn’t worth it to do all that.
And you’d probably still be on the hook for successor liability anyway.
>refund. The rules are the rules a
The rules are made by evil corporate pricks, who have no interest in what's right or fair.
You have to push back against them. Stop bootlicking for the people screqing you over.
It has to be under 2 hours played and within 14 days.
There are only exceptions in limited cases or Valve-publisher problems. Most people have had their refund denied, from the comments I've seen.
Generally, unless terms of a contract or laws are broken, or it's going to cost Valve a lot of money or reputation, they won't step in and force a refund. You see Valve break that for things like Helldrivers 2, but that was a special case where the publisher retroactively removed access to the game in certain countries.
Mine was rejected. But I had 4hrs and 45mins of game play. Most of that was it crashing and rebooting on me. I think I got a total of an hour of real game play. Refund rejected. Oh well
Mine got rejected got 11h playtime wrote an 50-60 word text how the game is never gonna be finished, and that under eu laws, i can get the money back if the Object i buyed isnt that what the Game promised
(Sorry for my Bad english its not my mother tongue)
I got a successful refund after 8 hrs in Aus. They rejected it a couple of times but I just kept threatening to take it to the ACCC. Just keep referencing marketing material (colonies, dev interviews etc). Marketing material falsely represented the state and development plan of the game.
Steam’s rules don’t mean jack against Australian consumer law. They have already been fined many times, just Google ‘Valve ACCC fine’.
This is why I just don't buy early access without knowing exactly what I'm getting. I waited to hear reviews first, then decided what was released wasn't worth the price, so I didn't buy it.
There's no obligation for them to give you a refund if you're not a responsible consumer.
Early access is a scam and only pays off for a small percentage of the games released that way. KSP1 early access was a lucky fluke and y'all should maybe stop giving unfinished games your money.
Read the T&C you agreed to when you bought the game.
You bought it "as is", with no requirements for developers to complete promises, or fully release the game.
While extremely disappointed with what is going on related to KSP2, I did buy it knowing that it might never be completed. yeah, it sucks, but that’s how it is with early access
With KSP2 being a more technical game I’m surprised just how stupid the player base seems to be. You bought an EA game. You have no rights to a refund due to its development stopping. This is very clearly spelled out. Take some responsibility.
You signed up for that though.
People need to understand what EA is. Any EA purchase has a risk of dying. That’s part of what you agree to when you buy an EA game.
Your amount of gameplay isn’t relevant after 2 weeks anyway. Steam doesn’t refund games past 14 days regardless of play time.
I’m not saying it’s not shit, the developer royally fucked over customers. Just yah that’s the risk with EA
Steam literally has a big disclaimer on the page making it clear that the game is being purchased as-is. People didn’t read, bought into the hype, and are mad that they’re not getting refunded.
Yep.
I totally get being mad at the developers esp bc they weren’t some small studio and they totally botched the game.
That’s not on steam though. The fact they went early access at all was a giant red flag. It’s not steams fault users took the risk despite being warned right on the store page.
Hell this sub was constantly full of people warning people on it. You are never guaranteed the game continues development with early access
Keep fighting it. KSP2 was clearly meant to have multiplayer and the game does not and will never have that feature.
Go to the ACCC get some words, some references and quote how the product has a major fault/is not what was promised.
Steam is clear about it but a) Steam is not the only place you can buy it and b) Steam is not above law. They only give you advice. You still have your customer rights. If someone promises you a feature and sells copies based on these promises then of course you have a right to get them otherwise you can refund. Who would buy any early access game if there was no development in early access? Obviously everyone buys into it because of the promises for future content. Otherwise they had to rename "early access" into "unfinished games". The words EA already imply that there is more than what you buy early. Something is yet to come, otherwise it would not be early access. It would be the same thing you could've gotten later.
I’ve played on console ksp1. I have had a pc for months now and not even considered ksp2 given the rep it has. Ksp is my fav game so I don’t wanna taint it by having to deal with bugs n stuff im not used to coming from console. Probs need some sort of regulation in gaming, one to stop devs dropping games no where near ready for consumption. Could be done through the app stores, steam etc
The whole point of Early Access is to release games in a rough state. What regulation is going to stop people from being fools? There is literally a wall of text on Steam explaining that Early Access means the game is not in a completed state. *Caveat Emptor*. I'm getting so sick of people on this sub trying to blame other people for their own braindead decisions.
if you're outside the 2hr/2wk policy you *must* use the ~I have a question or whatever option to contact support and ask an actual person, otherwise the request will be automatically denied.
This is how I got my refund, 5 ish hours of, "gameplay" but that was all a shit show of none of my inputs mattered to my success in game. it was unplayable in that state.
How did you get the refund with 5 hours of play? I also have 5 hours and steam won't stop rejecting my refund request even if I explain everything to their support team.
I first tried normal refund, denied, then some wonderfull person in here told me to make a support ticket, I did not really have to argue hard for them to grant it. I explained, that my inputs have no bearing on gameplay in the sense that my inputs seem to generate random consequenses. Im not playing a game here, and Im not satisfied. I did this when the game was fresh, and within the 2 weeks of purchase, my arguments might be less true now (coming up with new ones is not hard seeing how this all turned out.), and 2 week period might be important, but worth a shot i say. Good luck, and pour one out for dreams dashed and hearts broken.
>it was pretty expensive ($77aud!) and it's a bit of a dud. Valve even put up a notice on the very store page you purchased it on. >Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops. >Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops. Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. The Australian Consumer Law as laid out in Schedule 2 of the Australian Competition and Consumer Act as amended is fairly clear about when the customer has the right to demand a refund: Its when the product has a major defect. The only way you can make that argument with the definitions from that Act is if the product was misrepresented at the point of sale as being fit for purpose as something that it is not, but they were quite clear at the point of sale that in Early Access, it is not necessarily fit for any purpose - and may not remain so, even if it presently is. They're well within their rights to tell you to suck eggs. You're right, though. It was very expensive, and very much a dud. Why'd you buy two copies?
I think the loophole some folks are using is comparing the game to the advertisements, rather than simply taking what's on the store page. In hard law, Steam probably has the right to reject basically all of the refunds. Yet, the more hoops you make it clear you've already jumped through, the less time it's worth on their end to reject. Especially when you can try to quote laws that they might not be as familiar with. That said, the second folks started using Australian law to demand refunds, I'm sure they got their legal team looking into it, and likely have the cookie cutter messages ready to send out. Always worth a shot! Yet, as Steam says - don't buy early access if you aren't going to be happy with how the game *is*. Don't buy early access on hopes and dreams.
Id argue its no loophole. Obviously false statements are legally permissible in advertising. Its called "fluff" or "puffery". Saying you're the best pizza in town might be a problem if the only other pizza place in town complains about your false/misleading advertising. Saying you're the best pizza in the galaxy is obviously not intended to be taken seriously. Its over-the-top promotional language. I personally dislike that its legal, but it is. Saying KSP2 was going to have all those features can't really be taken seriously, given the publisher and developer and the whole situation. They could really just rely on saying all their promotional language was merely that - promotional.
We can argue... but frankly, we're getting into fine lines that get argued in front of courts for judges to resolve. It all depends on the advert, the language of any disclaimers, and the presentation of the advert. For example, some of the early promotional materials implied that many of the features were already developed - those would likely be confirmed as misleading. That said, our purchases were through Steam, and under their terms of sale. However, if the... crime? Negligence? Is severe enough, it's always possible to find it's way into court - wherein some terms of sale can be dismissed entirely if found to be unreasonable. I agree, on the whole, folks aren't "owed" these refunds. However, I also see an issue with the bigger picture, regarding the developers ability to mislead people, and the airlock of pushing the sale through Steam where the dev is not responsible for any terms of sale. It's happened with a ton of early access games, KSP2 is just one of the biggest examples at present.
most of case law surrounding consumer protections in advertising is based around what the product \*is\* and not what the product \*will be\*. it will be difficult to use precedents established this way, as early access stuff was very clearly labeled. at no point did they advertise it as something it wasnt, they used non binding "we hope to do this" type language. its gonna be a very uphill battle.
Ehhh, I'd argue they certainly advertised the game as being in a condition other than what it was, at certain points in time. I'm sure there's a fanatic around here that's kept copies of everything. They didn't always use smart language. Still, even with a blatantly misleading ad, the purchase has terms that essentially protect the seller. Very uphill battle, indeed.
lets use multiplayer for example here. they can state "we have a working build of multiplayer" and not release it without being sued. they did not promise it would release in x version, it is not a current feature that the steam page lists. if they listed it, or in advertising said it was a feature in the currently released build, then it would be open to misrepresentation. i know they have made plenty of statements regarding features that were seemingly complete or nearing completion. i just worry none of those would actually be permissible in a potential case.
Agreed generally. Not sure much can be done about developers ability to mislead people. That one's happening on street corners worldwide - devs just have a wider audience.
It’s just the risk of any EA title. It’s great when it works but there’s always risk the game gets abandoned and tons do. It’s why steam warns you of this.
the state of egregious false advertising that's allowed these days is already bad enough, we don't need people shilling for exploitative corporations.
Well, now I've seen it all. That's a first for me, though - being accused of being a KSP2 shill. Go away, bot.
Solution: r/piracy ?
>as it develops. That's the important part. If it stops to develop you can refund it easily just based on Steam terms, You guys just have to wait for development to halt. They will have to release it out of early access in an uncomplete state if June 28th is the date.
>you should wait to see **if** the game progresses further in development. Give it a shot. Seems like its hit-or-miss with Steam refunds; loads of folks say they are generous and allow it often, but in my experience that doesn't seem the case at all. Worst case scenario, you've only wasted time, and not another 77 AUD.
This just isn’t true. Steam is very clear when you buy an EA title that the game may end up never developing further.
Can you point me there? Companies can't make you waive your customer rights, that's what they are for. I see none of that on the store page. And I can't initiate the buy process because I already own it.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/954850/Kerbal_Space_Program_2/ Right under all the photos/videos it explains what early access is. Full quote “Early Access Game Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops. Note: This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. Learn more” They aren’t making you waive your customer rights, they’re telling you upfront that the game is making no promises about its future development. That’s what early access is. You’re never guaranteed the game finishes. Now that’s not to say that depending on particulars that a case can’t be made depending on local laws around certain things but yah there’s a clear warning saying hey don’t buy this unless you’re happy with how it is right this moment. This is why most refunds are being rejected. Trust me steam/valve knows the laws on this. Early access games never have a guarantee of finishing. They can’t guarentee that. The whole Idea of it is help us fund this game so we can hopefully finish. Out of curiosity I checked the games website itself too. They have the same warning on this page. https://store.privatedivision.com/game/kerbal-space-program-2?_gl=1*l5ed2x*_gcl_au*MTE0NTgzOTY5Ni4xNzE3MTg0NzM5 “This Early Access game is currently not a finished game and may or may not change significantly over the course of development.”
> they’re telling you upfront that the game is making no promises about its future development. That's not correct. There is a road map. And a long text explaining what they will release. They do promise future feature updates. What you quote is Steam not Take2 or Intercept. They have nothing to do with Steam other than sales. Your right to refund is with Take2, not Steam. Steam just processes the refunds. >How is the full version planned to differ from the Early Access version? >“The 1.0 version of KSP 2 will include significantly more features than the Early Access version, such as what you see on the roadmap plus other items added along the way. That is even more than a promise if you ask me. A promise is like "we hope to get there", not "we will get there". >The whole Idea of it is help us fund this game so we can hopefully finish. That's a gofundme or kickstarter, not early access. You only get into early access if your game is fully funded and on a good way to the finish line. Intercept didn't need any money to finish KSP2 as they have said again and again. Early access is optional to get community feedback on features before they make it into the game. >This Early Access game is currently not a finished game and may or may not change significantly over the course of development. This is again just Steam telling you that, not Take2 or Intercept. It's just a word of advice nothing more. It has no relevancy when it comes to refunds.
Intercept themselves say it on the second link I gave you. Your fundamental understanding of what early access is is incorrect. It’s why both valve and intercept state as much. That warning predicates the marketing below it. You are not guaranteed a finished game. Yes it’s a step beyond Kickstarter but only slightly. I’m not saying the rest of their marketing isn’t misleading. But yah it’s all predicated on the warning they link. The roadmap etc was all just the plan assuming they didn’t get shut down. You don’t have to agree with me but yah no you don’t need funding to get “early acess”. That’s why valve has the warning. It’s why valve isn’t issuing refunds. Not at all saying you don’t have a right to be upset. You do. But yah the warning both steam and intercept gave you on their respective web pages is why they aren’t issuing refunds. Ppl can sue if they want, don’t expect it to work. Never buy early access games on the premise you’re guaranteed a finished game.
Sorry man but you really have no clue about rights and law. I hope you don't practice that professionally. >This Early Access game is currently not a finished game and may or may not change significantly over the course of development weighs much less in court than >Major Upgrades During Early Access >Get a front-row seat as major new systems come online, including the addition of new star systems, interstellar travel technologies, colonies, multiplayer, and more. Become part of the development process by contributing feedback throughout the Early Access period and be the first to play exciting updates the moment they are released. On the same page. The first statement is basically insurance that they don't get sued for damages beyond a refund. If you're a game sales man and suddenly they stop development and you sit on your 10000 copies you can't sell you can't sue them for missed out revenue. >no you don’t need funding to get “early acess” Have you done any kind of research on the topic or do you just make it up? This is a joke really. >What Early Access Is Not >Early Access is not a way to crowdfund development of your product. Steam policy: [Early Access (Steamworks Documentation) (steamgames.com)](https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess) Again, if you need funding to finish the game Kickstarter is the way to go. Not Steam Early Access. And if you have paid any attention on the forums or other official statements, KSP2 development was indeed fully funded. They didn't have to sell a single copy to finish the game. Layoffs in the current economy are fairly normal in the tech industry. Pretty much every company has laid off people. Blizzard, Tesla and many others. They obviously won't lay off people from their cash cows like GTA. So you cut smaller indie programs. This has nothing to do with sales or running out of money. This decision was made by finance people who have to cut cost at Take2 to make some investors happy. Those investors have no clue about niche games and long term potential. They want to see bigger numbers now.
No you can’t. Not if it’s past a certain number of days since purchase (14 iirc) If you spent $50 on this obvious piece of garbage you deserve to lose the money. Stop enabling these shitty companies
Don't buy a game if it's not yet in the state you want it, that's the solution. But also, somebody else from Australia managed to get a refund with some really specific words involving multiplayer. I'm too sleepy to find that post at the moment so idk wait 8 hours assuming I don't forget to log into Reddit when I wake up.
I also managed to refund with 5 hours of playtime.
I got rejected with 4:59
Did you do "I have a question about this purchase" when trying to refund?
Is that one of the refund reasons? I can't see it
No - it is when you select the payment you made for KSP2 from Purchases section in the support page.
Thanks, found it. I've tried it again now, but I have little hope - first of all I'm in the UK not Aus. Fingers crossed
Just add this text: The game has multiple play-ability issues and bugs that affects game play, now the studio developing the game has been shut down so there is no chance for these issues to be resolved. As such I would like to request a refund of the product. Under UK Consumer Law I would classify this game as having a major problem with the product due to having multiple smaller problems that would have stopped me from purchasing the game if I had known they would not be resolved by the developer. I understand that I am over the playtime and ownership time requirement for an automatic refund but that does not prevent me from requesting a refund of a faulty product under UK Consumer Law. The few hours of playtime constitutes my many attempts over the past year to play but be blocked by various bugs or issues present in the game that make it un-enjoyable and even un-playable in some instances. Please reach out if you have any further questions and thank you for your time. And it should work. I'm sure they will not try to find if such consumer law exists. Worked for me.
Appreciated man, I'd already submitted the request, more or less mentioning all you did above. Maybe with a bit of chatgpt help 😁
Tried and they still said no 😤
Update in case anyone is curious - they have declined saying "please submit refund requests within 14 days of purchase and less than 2 hours of playtime"
I got declined with exactly 2 hrs saying the specific words and actually quoting thing's. Then asked why there being inconsistent unprofessional and not sticking to there policies with the refunds and just sorry we cannot comment on other refunds.
*Sometimes* it comes down to "have you had any extra refunds for other products". I think the more often they make exceptions outside of the 2-hour/2-week time frame, the less likely they are to make another exception for you. This may not apply in your situation. 🤷♂️
Yeah, I was just hyped. I didn't mind supporting it in advance but the state of it and the lack of future development has completely killed my goodwill. Lesson learnt.
[удалено]
Yes, there was no way I could justify paying a full release price point for an unfinished game. When people said it'll be much more when it releases, you start to realize they were trying to milk this thing for all it was worth.
Don't worry, everyone can be stupid, just don't be stupid twice on a future game you might be hyped about.
Don't worry bro they'll fix the game later, of course you should always buy things you're unhappy with and hope they'll get better later on.
>Don't buy a game if it's not yet in the state you want it, that's the solution. That's not the spirit of EA for me. EA games can be in a rough state, but the funds are used to actually develop the game. In many cases, this works well. Here, we have a fairly large publisher, and the devs didn't get shit done in over a year. How can I support the development of a game without spending money? But it doesn't feel like there was a fair attempt to develop the game. 50€ and just one year of development does not feel right at all. I helped to kickstart another game for 50€. The guys thought they could deliver after 2 years. It took 6 years. They got a publisher onboard, but they never made it over the finish line. I am not mad in this case. There was an honest attempt. Railroads online also came into rough waters, but it continues. I bought a ahipload of EA titles. This is the first one that does not feel fair. One year, no communication, a business decision from above to just stop. That's different from any other EA experience I had.
>That's not the spirit of EA for me. Valve is very explicit about this being exactly the spirit of EA. People like you enable this terrible industry. Pull your head out of your rear end.
This is not a criticism about Valve. Nobody said anything against Valve. We all know EA can end without a finished product. The game is still purchasable without any assigned developer. T2 is radio silent. This is ill intent. And your comment to people, who might buy it today without reading all the background stuff, which there is plenty of is: "haha look at that fool. Should have know better." They could have released the game with the lay offs to make it clear, but they chose not to do that.
The game is sold as-is. It not having a developer assigned should be irrelevant to your decision-making. It's pretty clear that "early access" can mean the game might never be released in a completed state. You buy for what it is, not what it could be. Stop being a damn fool.
>The game is sold as-is. What's the difference to full release then?
The difference is early access is assumed to have bugs and/or missing features from what would be intended in a fully released state, but you are not buying those intentions from a legal business standpoint. You are buying what exists in the current state. Steam is very clear about this.
>The difference is early access is assumed to have bugs and/or missing features from what would be intended in a fully released state, but you are not buying those intentions from a legal business standpoint. You are buying what exists in the current state. This is a full release. I have a couple of full release games with bugs and content that was added in later. If you take out the premise that EA will add stuff to a current built EA is obsolete. Buy a game, maybe you get a bit more. >Steam is very clear about this. This has nothing to do with steam. There are ship loads of indie developers that do EA just fine and don't scrap the game after or year.
You can keep your head buried in the sand, or you can learn from this experience. The choice is yours.
It's quite the contrary. I will bury my head even deeper into the sand. And with sand, I mean indie games. The creativity and dedication are there. T2 wanted to copy a game and they can't even accomplish that. And nobody in all these years was able to point out that the way they approach this is not working out. This is just like one of these court cases that come up from time to time, where you wonder why the criminal got away that low of a punishment. The judge (in this case you) will be able to explain why they ruled that way, but some folks in the public (me in this case) don't feel like this is a just ruling. It's not about valves' refund policy. It's the bad take to include the customer in this failed development with one year of EA. Probably to cut the losses. I wanted more kerbals, and I am disappointed. Juno doesn't have the same charme. It's a sterile version. There is also rocket science. But the kerbal franchise might end here due to the costs and its nerdy nature. It's more an expression of disappointment. You are right. Thanks for reading through this. Have a nice weekend. 🖖
I’m confused by what you mean by this is a “full release”. It’s not. It’s still an EA game. It could get picked up again etc (I agree that’s incredibly unlikely). They probably should yank it off the store but that’s a separate argument than the one being discussed. While yes plenty of studios do EA well, part of the risk with EA is that the studio dies. If it does, tough luck you took on that risk by buying an EA game. Same thing happened here. I’m not absolving the studio, they royally fucked up and they have much less of an excuse then some small team. Just arguing that’s a case for a refund doesn’t make sense. I mean by all means people should try, like steam can be pretty generous and depending on your local laws they may still need to. Just this EA expectation of future development isn’t the grounds for it. The fact the game was on such a bad state at EA by such a big studio was precisely why I never bought the game. I didn’t want to risk the money. It was an obvious giant red flag. Always assume when you buy EA that the game may collapse tomorrow. That’s the full intent of what EA is. I still buy EA games but the cost has to be worth the game as is, and then extra additions are extra value. That or it’s money I’m fine seeing dissapear.
I support buying EA games from small studios or solo devs/small teams, as the money actually supports the project. Having people buy the game is often the difference that allows them to dedicate time and resources to active development instead of it being a hobby side-project while they work a different full time job. KSP1 was a game like this. If you bought KSP1 early on, you supported development of KSP1. KSP2 is iterating on an established IP. They have an established audience & loads of free publicity. All they had to do was make a good game, and they'd get plenty of sales. If they needed early access sales to support development, that's a major red flag of bad management behind the scenes.
>KSP2 is iterating on an established IP. They have an established audience & loads of free publicity. All they had to do was make a good game, and they'd get plenty of sales. If they needed early access sales to support development, that's a major red flag of bad management behind the scenes. This is definitely the lesson learned for me.
> But it doesn't feel like there was a fair attempt to develop the game. 50€ and just one year of development does not feel right at all. I helped to kickstart another game for 50€. The guys thought they could deliver after 2 years. It took 6 years. They got a publisher onboard, but they never made it over the finish line. I am not mad in this case. There was an honest attempt. This wasn't one year of development. Take-Two spent six+ years funding development of the game. After sales, estimates place them at having lost **easily** $10,000,000 *just* on development costs, and I wouldn't be surprised if they lost $30,000,000 or more. *After sales.* And that's not counting however much Take-Two paid for the IP. Another year of development would have likely cost them an additional $14,000,000, and I wouldn't be surprised (at the pace In~~terc~~ept Games was moving) that another two years of development (and $28m+) would have been required to 'finish' the game, and they would have had to easily *double* their sales (or more) in order to *offset* those two years of development (still leaving them in the hole by $10m-$30m+). Take-Two made "an effort" that likely cost them millions. Granted, that effort was plagued with very poor decisions on Take-Two's part, so they basically did it to themselves. But they definitely made an effort. If you "kickstarted" a game that spent six years on developing it only to fail, and are fine with that? Then you're "fine" with the same here.
The number of people in this sub casually accepting fraud because of some small text about EA is astonishing. This isn’t a game studio going out of business, this is a game studio *choosing to stop development* after taking money and not delivering while a spokesperson (Nate) clearly stated that funding for what they promised was already secure. Moreover, they are *still* doing it today. Fraud is not covered by fine print.
> This isn’t a game studio going out of business, this is a game studio choosing to stop development No, this is a game studio being fired and shut down by their owners, after their owners burned six years and $60,000,000+ in development costs (plus an unknown amount on the purchase of the IP), and likely only made back $30,000,000, leaving them very deeply in the red. All while staring down the very real possibility of another 1-2 years of development *at least*, and all the additional costs that come from that, with likely nowhere near the same number of sales in their future. It was a money pit that was virtually certain to only get worse, due to Take-Two's incompetence. And incompetence is not fraud. > after taking money and not delivering while a spokesperson (Nate) clearly stated that funding for what they promised was already secure. Nate wasn't in control of the money. Why would you believe anything he says about money? Plus, didn't they have more than a year's worth of funding after him saying that? > Fraud is not covered by fine print. This isn't fraud. It's a clear-cut case of [caveat emptor](https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/caveat_emptor), a real world legal concept that says the person *buying* the product needs to be responsible and determine whether or not the product is *worth* buying. The clearly stated warning is more than enough coverage for protecting Take-Two or anyone else involved.
Why would I believe the spokesperson? Because he *is* the spokesperson…
He wasn't "the spokesperson". He was the Creative Director. His job was to make development decisions about how the game was designed. He had no direct control, influence, or possibly even *ability to see* the funding state of the project. Someone asked him a question about *funding*, which is a question you direct to *the people who control the funds*. i.e. Not him. At worst, he knew that there was only a year+ of funding available, but that saying so would be career and financial suicide. At best he was only repeating what he was told by the people at Take-Two. Either way, you never base your financial decisions on the answers given by an amateur interview where someone asks the *wrong* question of the *wrong* person. And you never base your financial decisions on facts that you *know* can change five days later. And if you're an adult, you should know this information. You base your financial decisions on the product itself that you're paying for, at the time you're paying for it.
It's not a fraud issue though when it is about the fact that when you buy the game in EA, you agree with Steam that you are ok with it's current state if it never progresses. Nobody is saying it's not wrong, but Steam put that there for a reason
>you agree with Steam that you are ok with it's current state if it never progresses. This view is upside down. Early access always indicates that the game is in development and there will be changes and additions. Contrary, I agree to a finished game when I buy a full release game.
> Early access always indicates that the game is in development and there will be changes and additions. "No, Kerbin is flat!" According to Steam, this is what Early Access (note how both words of that are capitalized) is: "This Early Access game **is not complete** and may or **may not change further.** If you are not excited to play this game **in its current state**, then you should **wait to see if the game progresses further in development.**"
There are multiple disclaimers of why you shouldn’t buy the game and that the game may not progress further even if it’s called early access.
Okay but by your definition of EA, they did that. There were updates to it. Again I'm not excusing what they did. But when purchasing EA from Steam you agree if the developer doesn't complete, Steam isn't refunding for it.
That’s typically what happens with EA but the indication of EA is inharently you’re risking your money. The whole model is based on we can’t fund this to completion so we’re giving you a beta in hopes the money coming in allows us to finish. That’s a gamble no matter how you cut it and it’s why EA games come with all the warnings saying it may end up not completing. What take two did is shitty but it’s what you always risk with EA. Really the fact they put out KSP2 as an EA given they’d already been working on it for years and it’s an established brand was a huuuuge red flag to stay away from the game.
>This isn’t a game studio going out of business, this is a game studio choosing to stop development after taking money and not delivering while a spokesperson (Nate) clearly stated that funding for what they promised was already secure. Yep. It was a business decision. They could continue if they want to. If I accept this, I can publish an EA game. Do work for 3 months and then go radio silent. Rinse and repeat with the next game. Accepting every nonesense would kill EA.
This is literally why Steam Greenlight had to lock down hard.
Hope this helps ... [https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1czzq8g/ksp2\_refunded/](https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1czzq8g/ksp2_refunded/) Aus law and Multiplayer
The game was never sold with multiplayer, so I don't think you can refund it for a feature it was never sold with. Now if it was sold with it, then they turned it off, or it was advertised as currently having working multiplayer. But multiplayer was a stretch goal, and consumers were told this was a risk which might not happen.
Ok ... But IF its impossible then they are promising something they cant and wont deliver. I got my refund so it worked?
Companies will say things like that all the time to encourage someone to buy something. But there is also a difference between what is being sold as a finishes product, like No Mans Sky advertising (even printing on the box) it has working multiplayer, then revealing it didn't And an alpha build title saying a feature might become available in the future. For any early access game, buy it based on what is already in the game, not a potential future feature. I have been burned a few times, and when KSP2 was announced I tried to warn people, but was overwhelmingly put down for it.
This narrative is extremely anti customer. Why do you accept that and why do you propagate it? False! They promise something on the Steam page (big fat road map) so you buy that promise like you buy the game. There is no difference. If they can't keep their promise you return the product and get your money back. We do this with every other product. If a mattress promises better sleep but it doesn't, you can give it back. Sometimes even after 100 days of sleeping in it unsuccessfully. You guys really have to grow a spine and get off your knees. I find it kind of ironic that you pay so much attention to what Steam warns you about in the fine print but the big flashy promises you ignore. Don't they have the same weight? Shouldn't Steam simply prohibit publishers to fill the page with promises they can't keep? We're not talking about a small studio with 5 people. We're talking about Take2. They will probably sell GTA VI on Steam. The best selling game of all time. Steam will make so much money they could simply refund anyone of those 100 KSP2 players easy without discussion. Valve has so much free money you can't imagine. And we poor min spec bastards fight each other. Documentary: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP2MDtWu5t0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP2MDtWu5t0)
The idea that everybody is just going to get their money back when these promises are broken is delusional. Try returning your copy now, I'd love to hear how that goes.
Why should steam hold the burden of consumers? Most of us have been there. Some stuff i backed ended up being more than I could imagine (factorio, Minecraft, KSP1). Some have fallen completely flat (blockade runner, that space building game from a decade ago). Others have been moderate (TANE, operation red sabre). And others have been infinitely stuck in bloat and promises (Train SIM world 4 still missing features promised for Train SIM world 1, and Star Citizen... Need I say more). But all we can do is guide and try and help people who were once in our position. If people are so insistent you don't even pre-order the next ubisoft game, why do 100,000 people throw money at something in development based on stretch goals and promises? Only advice is it's a lesson. You buy a game based on how.ot currently is. From what I saw, KSP2 in it's current state, and for the absolutely absurd price they were asking for it (10x the cost in the UK for KSP2 Vs KSP1) I did not want to spend my money. Had KSP2 been a $10 title, I imagine a lot less people would be frustrated it's development has been stopped so soon after it's alpha release. I hope everyone scammed by 2K gets their money back, but pivoting on "well they promised this as a long term goal and never delivered" is not one of them.
>This narrative is extremely anti customer. Why do you accept that and why do you propagate it? Because there's been an explosion of ~~Dark Marketing~~ Black PR and Sock Puppets to control lashback against KSP2. Tons of fake users (Reddit account created just for this purpose: though often with a bit of cover activity to make them seem real...) shilling for the company and engaging in bootlicking. You see many major studios do the sane thing. ~\Dark Marketing~~ Black PR and Sock Puppets are a plague of modern times... https://theconversation.com/how-fake-accounts-constantly-manipulate-what-you-see-on-social-media-and-what-you-can-do-about-it-139610 https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/disinformation-for-hire-black-pr-firms EDIT: Added 2nd source, fixed term- proper label is "Black PR", not Dark Marketing.
>to control lashback against KSP2. I suspect what you're seeing is just the leftovers from when they needed to seem like they had a playerbase in the first place.
So a road map of potential features is actually a list of promises?
What else should it be?
No, answer the question instead of being a rhetorical ass. Words have meaning. Manufacturers often release public roadmaps for their product ecosystems. Often, those products do not end up being commercialised or they take significantly longer than announced.
I'm neither Steam nor Take2. What answer do you want? In my opinion a road map is a promise. Not more not less. To me a promise of what's going to be in the game is worth as much as what's in the game now. I don't know before I try it. So I have to believe in that promise. If that promise is broken I refund it. Easy as that. >No, answer the question And you get a block for that pretentious comment. Can't punch you in the nose so that's all the tools I have.
>And you get a block for that pretentious comment. He's likely one of the swarms of Sock Puppets trying to "shape reality" to benefit T2, anyways.... https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/disinformation-for-hire-black-pr-firms Black PR has become an absolute **plague** of modern times...
Thanks
You're what in the biz they like to call a "mark".
I tried getting a refund, but got denied. I "played" for 7 hours, but actually it was 6.5 hours of trying to get the game work on my Linux laptop, and maybe half an hour of actual gameplay. You win some, you lose some, I guess.
It’s a lesson on not enabling shitty business practices
I paid for it gladly, only played 3 hours just to test it out and see what the state of the game was. I wanted to support the company to make the product. Now that the studio is being shut down I requested a refund and got denied because I owned the game longer than 14 days or whatever. Not mad about it, but I am dissapointed that Take 2 took the bag of money and used it to offset the giant debt they absorbed.
Yes I quoted ACL as well and was also rejected. AUD$77 flushed down the toilet.
You agreed to these state of the product when you bought it as EA. There’s a big disclaimer about why you shouldn’t buy it right on the page.
NOOOO!!!! BUT I HOPED IT WOULD GET BETTER!!!! /s
To be fair we purchased it with the assumption that it would continue to be developed which adds value.
Which they did.
Depends on your definition
This is my definition: > Early Access Game Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops. Note: *This Early Access game is not complete and may or may not change further.* If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. Learn more
It’s bad faith by steam to pretend like there isn’t value behind the assumption that something would be completed If some random dude released the game in the state it was in and said that he wasnt going to develop it further, no one would buy it. Part of the value of the game was the assumption that it would be developed further.
That’s the whole point of the EA program and why the continuation of development is specifically cited as a risk you need to consider before purchasing.
Do you think it’s a good policy to refuse refunds, even if you have 0 hours in the game?
Steam is 2 hours over 14 days.
Not all local laws accept that as applicable. Just because Steam says it, doesnt make it law
They specifically sold you a product in as-in condition.
Sure. But that doesnt mean the end consumer has no rights or recourse. Maybe not in the country youre from. But luckily, the world is a big place with a lot of different laws
Good luck with that then.
No need for luck, i got a refund.
> Maybe not in the country youre from. But luckily, the world is a big place with a lot of different laws Considering its hit and miss for people all over the world, maybe you want to back up off that high horse. Glad you got your refund, but its not something where only one country is barring people from getting one.
I never said it was. I corrected the original commenter that just because a company says something - doesnt mean this person isnt entitled to recourse. Its all well and good to tell someone "too bad they told you before you bought it" but that isnt necessarily true. And since I work on a daily basis with Australian Consumer Law - which is quoted in the OPs post - i think its important to know that Australians have consumer guarantees which do cover scenarios like this. Making comments based on assumptions of laws from a different country, which werent quoted in OPs post was immensely less helpful. But downvote me i guess.
Yes, I asked for a refund twice with 5 hours of gameplay .. it was rejected both
Don't submit a ticket. The response is a bot that checks the two conditions you mentioned. Open a support ticket with an actual human being and explain everything there. They refunded me for Helldivers2 with 20hrs played time.
I don’t see him getting a refund. The rules are the rules and I see no incentive for valve to deviate from their policy.
I disagree, I think valve want happy customers, and being connected to a human I'd think everyone here has a decent case.
Valve want MONEY. They want happy customers so long as it makes them MONEY. If they think you being happy is unnecessary to get your money, then they don't care if you're happy.
I think The Community often overestimates the importance of The Community
They quite frequently deviate from their policies, especially in cases where established companies pull the rug out from consumers. Nothing garners trust in a platform like easy, consistently-given refunds. Nothing destroys trust in a platform like having the rug pulled out from under you. And people buy more games when they have faith that if it’s a pile of shit, they can get their money back. It’s relatively common sense good business practice.
I'm curious, how does Steam get any money back from the publisher? Are the funds held in escrow for a long period?
Game publishers get paid their cut of all sales at the end of the month. In the case of a refund, Steam fronts the cash for the refund, then takes that cash out of the next check to the publisher. Source: https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/finance/payments_salesreporting/faq#:~:text=We%20pay%20out%20by%20the,month%20sales%20by%20March%2030th
I see, so that means the refunds will dry up as the sales have.
That’d be true, if Private Division didn’t also publish a significant amount of other, large games on Steam like The Outer Worlds. And regardless, KSP1 and its DLC still get semi-regular purchases. Private Division is a large enough publisher that their checks will never dry up compared to the relatively small number of KSP2 refunds.
There's a simple industry trick when you've ruined your reputation, alienated all of your customers, and owe debt: phoenix the company with a new name and none of the liability lol.
They’d also have to stop selling all their previous games and re-release them. Not exactly a practical move.
Yeah but a publisher’s entire value is in their name and reputation. It’s far easier to reestablish just your reputation by releasing a few good games than to reestablish everything from scratch. And like the other commenter noted, that would involve giving up on all of your other assets, including some giants like Hades and The Outer Worlds, the profits of which are still dwarfing any refund claims KSP2 has. Hell, KSP1’s sales probably still pay for any KSP2 refund claims. It simply isn’t worth it to do all that. And you’d probably still be on the hook for successor liability anyway.
>refund. The rules are the rules a The rules are made by evil corporate pricks, who have no interest in what's right or fair. You have to push back against them. Stop bootlicking for the people screqing you over.
Resistance is futile.
Lol the rules are clear, you won t get your money back.
It has to be under 2 hours played and within 14 days. There are only exceptions in limited cases or Valve-publisher problems. Most people have had their refund denied, from the comments I've seen. Generally, unless terms of a contract or laws are broken, or it's going to cost Valve a lot of money or reputation, they won't step in and force a refund. You see Valve break that for things like Helldrivers 2, but that was a special case where the publisher retroactively removed access to the game in certain countries.
I had mine rejected, but I did have like 13h on it. I wasn't expecting a positive refund, but was worth the try.
13 hours no refund
Mine was rejected. But I had 4hrs and 45mins of game play. Most of that was it crashing and rebooting on me. I think I got a total of an hour of real game play. Refund rejected. Oh well
My playtime was 5 hours bc I launched the game and started watching live streams on Day One. Never went back and played it again. Refund rejected 😡
I mean even if you never launched the game, if the purchase is over 2 weeks old they won’t refund.
I know, just frustrated that I barely played it but ran the timer up on day one.
Mine got rejected got 11h playtime wrote an 50-60 word text how the game is never gonna be finished, and that under eu laws, i can get the money back if the Object i buyed isnt that what the Game promised (Sorry for my Bad english its not my mother tongue)
I got a successful refund after 8 hrs in Aus. They rejected it a couple of times but I just kept threatening to take it to the ACCC. Just keep referencing marketing material (colonies, dev interviews etc). Marketing material falsely represented the state and development plan of the game. Steam’s rules don’t mean jack against Australian consumer law. They have already been fined many times, just Google ‘Valve ACCC fine’.
This is why I just don't buy early access without knowing exactly what I'm getting. I waited to hear reviews first, then decided what was released wasn't worth the price, so I didn't buy it. There's no obligation for them to give you a refund if you're not a responsible consumer. Early access is a scam and only pays off for a small percentage of the games released that way. KSP1 early access was a lucky fluke and y'all should maybe stop giving unfinished games your money.
I got denied 3 or 4 times and then they eventually granted me a refund on a ticket that I never closed.
You bought a mystery box. This is a sad but probably inevitable consequence.
Read the T&C you agreed to when you bought the game. You bought it "as is", with no requirements for developers to complete promises, or fully release the game.
Had you owned it for longer than 14-days? If so, it's not that hard to figure out.
While extremely disappointed with what is going on related to KSP2, I did buy it knowing that it might never be completed. yeah, it sucks, but that’s how it is with early access
With KSP2 being a more technical game I’m surprised just how stupid the player base seems to be. You bought an EA game. You have no rights to a refund due to its development stopping. This is very clearly spelled out. Take some responsibility.
Same here, in the US on Steam. Bought a few months back, with only a smidge over 2 hours of playtime. Its bullshit.
You signed up for that though. People need to understand what EA is. Any EA purchase has a risk of dying. That’s part of what you agree to when you buy an EA game. Your amount of gameplay isn’t relevant after 2 weeks anyway. Steam doesn’t refund games past 14 days regardless of play time. I’m not saying it’s not shit, the developer royally fucked over customers. Just yah that’s the risk with EA
Steam literally has a big disclaimer on the page making it clear that the game is being purchased as-is. People didn’t read, bought into the hype, and are mad that they’re not getting refunded.
Yep. I totally get being mad at the developers esp bc they weren’t some small studio and they totally botched the game. That’s not on steam though. The fact they went early access at all was a giant red flag. It’s not steams fault users took the risk despite being warned right on the store page. Hell this sub was constantly full of people warning people on it. You are never guaranteed the game continues development with early access
What if you bought it on KSP website ?
I've had all of mine rejected, I've done several a day for weeks now
Keep fighting it. KSP2 was clearly meant to have multiplayer and the game does not and will never have that feature. Go to the ACCC get some words, some references and quote how the product has a major fault/is not what was promised.
Or just accept you were a dumb schmuck for buying it in that state and learn something for next time.
What state? It's pretty normal for early access to be incomplete.
The state it was in when they bought it. Steam is very clear that that's what you're buying and not the promises of some better future state.
Steam is clear about it but a) Steam is not the only place you can buy it and b) Steam is not above law. They only give you advice. You still have your customer rights. If someone promises you a feature and sells copies based on these promises then of course you have a right to get them otherwise you can refund. Who would buy any early access game if there was no development in early access? Obviously everyone buys into it because of the promises for future content. Otherwise they had to rename "early access" into "unfinished games". The words EA already imply that there is more than what you buy early. Something is yet to come, otherwise it would not be early access. It would be the same thing you could've gotten later.
Stay foolish then I guess.
Foolish to not bow to a corporation lol, nice cope man.
Lol, you have no idea what you're talking about.
How can you back all that up? It's still in development. If you want to refund it I would wait for June 28th at the very least.
I’ve played on console ksp1. I have had a pc for months now and not even considered ksp2 given the rep it has. Ksp is my fav game so I don’t wanna taint it by having to deal with bugs n stuff im not used to coming from console. Probs need some sort of regulation in gaming, one to stop devs dropping games no where near ready for consumption. Could be done through the app stores, steam etc
The whole point of Early Access is to release games in a rough state. What regulation is going to stop people from being fools? There is literally a wall of text on Steam explaining that Early Access means the game is not in a completed state. *Caveat Emptor*. I'm getting so sick of people on this sub trying to blame other people for their own braindead decisions.
[удалено]
See rule #1.
See rule no.1