Right, and BP and code assets are in theory far less at risk of exploitation in this way if the person is unable to obtain updates or support. I have a code asset on the marketplace, and would have no problem with Epic having a relaxed refund policy so long as they gave me the tools to verify that someone was a genuine customer before I spent time giving them support.
I really don’t want to come across anti-seller, but I’ve honestly yet to see any actual evidence that refund abuse was a real problem. @SE_JonF, your first point just shows that you got more refunds when it was easier for people to get refunds (no surprise there), it says nothing about what the reasons were. Of course it sucks that Epic didn’t give you the info, though maybe that itself is one good argument against a relaxed policy - it takes too much admin work to process them. Anyway, my point being:
- People reading instructions on how to abuse a refund policy were 99% not going to buy your asset if they didn’t know they could get their money back, so no sales loss there.
- You may assume you’re doing better as a result of Epic having tightened the policy, but in the long term it’s not as straightforward. Some of those people who were unable to get a refund after the new policy will be ****** off (makes no difference whether you or I think their grievances were valid) and won’t buy from the marketplace in future.
Also, all these analogies and statements of ‘digital assets’ add nothing to the discussion. No two scenarios are the same, why not discuss the specific case instead?