I need to spill my guts out!

[SE_JonF]

@kamrann;568512

If you don’t want to continue discussing that’s up to you, however I haven’t made my mind up about anything.

The analogy comment wasn’t directed at you specifically. The point was just that people are comparing it to things as unrelated as music and games. Assets such as models are somewhat closer to music in the sense that if you get a refund but keep the asset, you haven’t lost much (though the risks of then using it in a released game mean that refunds of even these kind of assets cannot be so easily abused as in the case of digital assets such as music). Things like blueprint or code systems on the other hand are utterly different - you give up a lot by foregoing updates and support, in many cases to the point where the asset becomes more or less worthless. There is a whole spectrum of digital assets, just saying that refund policy X should obviously be used because it’s standard for digital assets is oversimplifying.

I don’t believe it’s a wild assumption to think that people frequenting pirate sites are unlikely to be considering paying legitimately for assets. Take with my arbitrary percentage if you want, I was just trying to get a point across.

As to my initial point, I guess I didn’t express it well enough. It sucks if you see you’ve made sales, only later to see they got refunded, right? You feel like you lost money. But in reality you only really lost out if somebody got something for free. If they just legitimately returned it because it turned out not to be what they wanted, then you didn’t lose anything - they just reverted to being another person that doesn’t own your asset. So as I said right at the start, it comes down to the question of whether a lot of people were actually doing this. I’m completely open to the possibility that they were, I just haven’t actually seen any evidence as yet. I think you can see that saying “I had 30+ refunds when it was easy to get a refund” is not itself evidence that people were abusing the system.

To put it another way - if in some hypothetical world, you could be 100% certain that nobody was continuing to use the asset after refunding it, would you still maintain that “I don’t like it” is not sufficient reason to grant a refund, despite the fact that the process of sale/refund costs you nothing? If the answer is yes, then I guess we just disagree fundamentally on a moral level.

The fact that you keep perpetuating this bizarre notion that refunds don’t hurt sellers is why I can’t take your argument seriously.