A viral post highlighting the large number of refunds issued for the indie co-op game Paddle Paddle Paddle has reignited debate over Steam’s refund policy. However, many players argue the real issue isn’t Valve’s system, but the game’s short length.
The Twitter post recounts how solo German developer Mateo turned a paddle boating experience with his brother into a cooperative physics game, eventually selling over 150,000 copies, and reportedly losing around $164,000 in refunds after roughly 55,000 purchases were refunded through Steam:
The post argues that Steam’s standard refund policy—which generally allows refunds for games played under two hours within 14 days—contains a “blind spot,” allowing players to complete short games before requesting their money back.
Despite that claim, much of the online response has pushed back on the idea that Valve should change its refund policy. Many users argued that the system is working exactly as intended, pointing out that consumers shouldn’t lose important refund protections simply because a game can be completed quickly.
Others contended that if a game offers less than two hours of content, it is the developer’s responsibility to price or structure the experience accordingly rather than expecting Valve to change a policy that has existed for years.
Some commenters also noted that completing a game in under two hours does not necessarily mean every refund came from players intentionally exploiting the system. Achievement data and player behavior suggest many refunds may simply have come from people who decided they didn’t enjoy the game.
Others pointed out that, even after accounting for refunds, the game still appears to have been a considerable commercial success, with estimates suggesting it sold roughly 95,000 copies after refunds. Several users remarked that the developer still earned a substantial amount of money and questioned whether the situation represented a failure at all.
Some of the comments in response:
I mean, if you can’t even get 2 hours’ worth of content out of a game, is it even a game? Minesweeper and solitaire have seen more work than that, and they last minutes. Less than 2 hours and no replay value? And built in 2 weeks? He’s lucky there’s folks who HAVEN’T refunded it.
People play the game, like it, but ask for a refund because the game is too short? Screw it the game costs a measly 3 dollars. f♥♥k if you want a stupid long game go play some woke s♥♥t from ubisoft with 150+ hours of repetitive content and a giant empty map.
People who do this are taking advantage of Steam’s great refund policy and harming a developer who did a great job.
Any game that can be casually beaten under 2 hours is shovelware and should not be allowed to pollute Steam’s catalogue to begin with.
It is also the developer’s fault for accepting the TOS of putting his game on Steam, which clearly explains the refund policy.
Stop being retarded. Stop enabling entitled indieslop devs.
What does that say about classics like Ikaruga or Deathsmiles then? The whole point of those games isn’t that you beat them, its that you replay and master them, picking at the nuances until you rank high on the leaderboard.
Hell, this also tosses classic fighting games into the mix as well of games you want banned.
Are multiplayer games that take one match to “beat” also in that ban too?
This is getting stupid man…
Key word ‘replay value’.
He’s pretty bold for somebody who obviously hasn’t played it.
Nah f♥♥k off, there are plenty of games that are good fun for a couple hours. Then you can go and replay it, find other ways to enjoy it. For $3, so you’re not sinking a ton of money into it. And there are a lot of fucking s♥♥t games that aren’t even 2 hours of fun. For $80.