Religious gamer receives refund for forced Baptism in Bioshock Infinite

i'd say that even if he came in expecting to shoot just the people that are shooting his character (that's how i played. you don't have to shoot innocent bystanders), it's an inherent part of the genre to make the act of shooting fun. maybe there are a handful of comparable games out there that intentionally make the shooting not fun, but the number would be so small that you could hardly expect that sort of treatment of violence when picking up a shooter. it's a significant draw for the game. yeah, people play the bioshock games for the story too, but the presence of shooting has always been prominent (i haven't played bioshock 2, but you'll forgive my leap of faith in assuming that there is a lot of shooting and it's not meant to be unenjoyable).

even if he was playing games with the treatment of violence, he could have also done so with the baptism. the player character (it's a character with a voice and backstory. he is not meant to be just a shell for the player. these components are made clear even before the baptism) doesn't see the priest and shout "hallelujah!" or anything. he grumbles to himself and begrudgingly lets the priest do his work for sake of getting into the city.

it just really seems like a situation where someone came into the experience looking to be "offended."

Okay. News to me though. I personally assumed that it'd be more like Bioshock and Bioshock 2, where you're just killing people who are trying to gun you down. It's not exactly all that implausible for someone who buys the game to not know that.

[QUOTE="Legolas_Katarn"]

What does "intense violence" even mean? Is the player running around slaughtering innocent people, or is he defending himself from bad guys?usernamenoway

You can go around killing innocent people. ....The damn kids are still invincible though.

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

Why even have a Mature rating on games at all? Should the fake Baptism be removed to appease all religious gamers? No religious gamer had a problem with having to sell your soul in order to successfully complete the Theives Guild in Skyrim. God Of War, Dark Souls praise the sun, and so on. If dude is that sensitive with religious beliefs, he shouldn't be playing any violent video games or watching any violent movies period. It's nothing more than self entitlement.

MrGeezer

On the contrary. Wanting a refund for a bad meal is one thing. What this guy did is equilvalent to a vegetarian complaining about a cheeseburger deluxe at a fast food restaurant. You have no problem purchasing a fps game with a guy holding a shotgun on the cover and committing digital murder, but a fake Baptisim suddenly makes you feel like a sinner? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

On the contrary. Wanting a refund for a bad meal is one thing. What this guy did is equilvalent to a vegetarian complaining about a cheeseburger deluxe at a fast food restaurant. You have no problem purchasing a fps game with a guy holding a shotgun on the cover and committing digital murder, but a fake Baptisim suddenly makes you feel like a sinner? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

HipHopBeats

[QUOTE="IndianaPwns39"]

I think it's a prime example of religious people picking and choosing, which goes on a lot these days. If you don't like the baptism, that's fine, but you're totally cool with mass amounts of murder? 

More power to Valve for respecting that guy's beliefs, though.

MrGeezer

If the baptism bothered him, the rest of the game would have as well most likely. Dewitt is far from a hero, and there are many, many moments were religion is questioned and considering you basically... well, I won't spoil anything.

However, the Bioshock series involves some pretty intense violence. Big Daddies left you alone, and only fought to protect the little girls, for example. I always felt some sort of remorse killing a Big Daddy. While entirely possible he never played the original Bioshock, I feel that the violence in many games is against religion, be it self defense or not. Speculative, sure, but still a head scratcher nonetheless. 

A religious, Christian gamer demanded and received a full refund from Valve for forced Baptism in Bioshock Infinite. He has no problem digitally murdering pixelized NPC's but a fake Baptism was apparently more than he could bear. When does the self entitlement stop and companies start standing their ground?

HipHopBeats

This is why religion is full of hypocrites (not saying the religion it's self is, saying the people who choose to nit and pick to suit their needs when it's comes down to whats right and wrong), reminds me of my old roommate who was the same way, I would catch him playing Halo 3 and I would ask him "why are you playing a game with killing and shooting, isn't that against being a Christian?" he would reply "They are Aliens so it's ok"

FML, people these days are so out of reach it's not even funny, in fact it's sad.

I am very confused.  He is a christian and believes in baptism, but he doesn't want to be baptised in the game?  Am I misunderstanding this?  Sounds like the game is supporting his beliefs rather than making him go against them.  

I am a christian, but the only time I have any issue with game (or other media) stories and such is if they blatantly trash God, christianity or so on.  I am open to interpretations and so on and realize it is only a game.  I have yet to play a game that I thought so atrocious I would stop playing.  

As a Christian, I found the violence to be much more offensive than all the religious symbolism. Still, fantastic game. If that's how he felt though, good on Valve to give his money back, no matter how ridiculous other people may see it. I find it baffling that so many Christian gamers have more problems with sex and language and something that challenges their beliefs than chopping off some dude's neck in Call of Duty. Sheesh.

DenaliStrat1020

Yeah its so messed up how sex and such is an issue with people but violence is ok.  Parents often have this thought process with their kids when it comes to all media.

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"][QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

A religious, Christian gamer demanded and received a full refund from Valve for forced Baptism in Bioshock Infinite. He has no problem digitally murdering pixelized NPC's but a fake Baptism was apparently more than he could bear. When does the self entitlement stop and companies start standing their ground?

Ish_basic

The problem is, it's not about religious views or respecting someone's belief. It's about hypocrisy and the notion that being offended entitles you to some sort of recompense. It doesn't. And Valve isn't being honorable or compassionate here - they're being smart. The sad state is that if Valve handled this in any other way than they did, they'd have an army of idiots knocking on their door tomorrow.

How can people even begin to defend this guy?  If he is offended, the ONLY right he has after he has bought something is to stop playing/experiencing it and walk away.  I've walked out of theatres in disgust before, but it never once crossed my mind that I was entitled to a refund.  When I buy something, I take a step into the unknown, and this IS known, or should be.  But no, just like many people believe is his right, he walks around thinking he is exempt because he can lean on his theistic beliefs and know that so many will feel oh so sympathetic to his plight.  This pisses the hell out of me.  Religion should not be used as an excuse to exempt anybody from the rules the rest of us have to abide by.

Valve should be ashamed and as much as I believe them to be an overall decent company, giving a refund to this douche is flat out wrong and sets a poor example, period.  It's just another pathetic display of how P.C. our society has become, not wanting to *gasp* offend anyone in this day and age.  When someone holds any belief, that belief is open to scrutiny, approval, disapproval, contempt, and all that comes along with it.  Even religion.  Most importantly, religion.  But it does not, and should not, give anyone special privileges above others.

i'd say that even if he came in expecting to shoot just the people that are shooting his character (that's how i played. you don't have to shoot innocent bystanders), it's an inherent part of the genre to make the act of shooting fun. maybe there are a handful of comparable games out there that intentionally make the shooting not fun, but the number would be so small that you could hardly expect that sort of treatment of violence when picking up a shooter. it's a significant draw for the game. yeah, people play the bioshock games for the story too, but the presence of shooting has always been prominent (i haven't played bioshock 2, but you'll forgive my leap of faith in assuming that there is a lot of shooting and it's not meant to be unenjoyable).

even if he was playing games with the treatment of violence, he could have also done so with the baptism. the player character (it's a character with a voice and backstory. he is not meant to be just a shell for the player. these components are made clear even before the baptism) doesn't see the priest and shout "hallelujah!" or anything. he grumbles to himself and begrudgingly lets the priest do his work for sake of getting into the city.

it just really seems like a situation where someone came into the experience looking to be "offended."

i certainly wouldn't have been so dismissive if he had a good argument. i've heard some pretty good ones from other people about why they found the game off putting. i guess it also would have been more palpable for me if he said "i just don't like it." that certainly would have been arbitrary but he would have been more upfront about it.

however, this doesn't seem arbitrary because he gives a reason. he says the baptism scene clashes with his christian faith. now i could probably buy that if there weren't a lot of other things a person who is sensitive about their christianity that should have been apparent before he bought the game. maybe he did go into the purchase completely blind, not knowing anything about the genre or series and not even looking at the rating. it just seems very unlikely.

i have nothing against being offended by something and i'm not trying to come off as the manners police, but i like to think that i have a pretty good reason when i'm offended by something.

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]Agreed. That concept of not wanting to offend anyone is waters down any form of entertainment.MrGeezer

Well for one thing, Bioshock Infinite's original ending was changed because of a religious member on the dev team found it offensive and threatened to quit. He was offended by the original ending, but not offended enough to refuse his pay for the work he put in thus far. Maybe that ending was changed for the better but it still would have been cool if the original ending was still left in as an alternative good or bad ending. Instead, we have one ending regardless of how you played the game.

Franchises like Mass Effect, Tomb Raider, God Of War who had prior successful entries, needlessly adding tacked on multiplayer modes. Devs like Arkane Studios dumbing down the party invitation level in Dishonored because game testers (most likely casual gamers) were too impatient to actually figure out where to go.

My point is a line has to be drawn between compromise and self entitlement. Should every dev creating a game based on a solid single player campaign sacrifice quality in hopes of sattracting multiplayer gamers? Why couldn't that dev who felt offended and threatened to quit simply spoke to Ken Levine first instead of whining like a big baby writing a letter of resignation? Catering to people like this only encourages self entitlement rather than helping people understand not every single thing on this planet is going to cater towards any one individual's specific likes and dislikes.

if a buddhist bought a shooter and then returned it because of a baptism scene, i'd laugh my ass off.LoG-Sacrament

Such a scene wouldn't offend the religious sensibilities of a Buddhist.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

Why even have a Mature rating on games at all? Should the fake Baptism be removed to appease all religious gamers? No religious gamer had a problem with having to sell your soul in order to successfully complete the Theives Guild in Skyrim. God Of War, Dark Souls praise the sun, and so on. If dude is that sensitive with religious beliefs, he shouldn't be playing any violent video games or watching any violent movies period. It's nothing more than self entitlement.

HipHopBeats

On the contrary. Wanting a refund for a bad meal is one thing. What this guy did is equilvalent to a vegetarian complaining about a cheeseburger deluxe at a fast food restaurant. You have no problem purchasing a fps game with a guy holding a shotgun on the cover and committing digital murder, but a fake Baptisim suddenly makes you feel like a sinner? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[QUOTE="Ish_basic"]

[QUOTE="Jacanuk"] What are you on about? are you really this shallow and limited that you cannot understand another persons view and be glad that his views are taken serious, despite how insane they may be from a company like Valve. I think it shows Valve as AAA company.MirkoS77

The problem is, it's not about religious views or respecting someone's belief. It's about hypocrisy and the notion that being offended entitles you to some sort of recompense. It doesn't. And Valve isn't being honorable or compassionate here - they're being smart. The sad state is that if Valve handled this in any other way than they did, they'd have an army of idiots knocking on their door tomorrow.

How can people even begin to defend this guy?  If he is offended, the ONLY right he has after he has bought something is to stop playing/experiencing it and walk away.  I've walked out of theatres in disgust before, but it never once crossed my mind that I was entitled to a refund.  When I buy something, I take a step into the unknown, and this IS known, or should be.  But no, just like many people believe is his right, he walks around thinking he is exempt because he can lean on his theistic beliefs and know that so many will feel oh so sympathetic to his plight.  This pisses the hell out of me.  Religion should not be used as an excuse to exempt anybody from the rules the rest of us have to abide by.

Valve should be ashamed and as much as I believe them to be an overall decent company, giving a refund to this douche is flat out wrong and sets a poor example, period.  It's just another pathetic display of how P.C. our society has become, not wanting to *gasp* offend anyone in this day and age.  When someone holds any belief, that belief is open to scrutiny, approval, disapproval, contempt, and all that comes along with it.  Even religion.  Most importantly, religion.  But it does not, and should not, give anyone special privileges above others.

Agreed. That concept of not wanting to offend anyone is waters down any form of entertainment. As a heterosexual gamer, I felt the same notion about Cortez in Mass Effect 3. Cool character but overly done in the romance department. Cortez playing recordings of his dead husband almost every time you set foot in the shuttle bay and heterosexual being the renegade option left a sour taste in my mouth.

At least Bioware was a little more subtle with Treynor's sexuality with little hints like 'Edi has a sexy voice'. I respected that more since her sexuality wasn't the main focus and you got to know Treynor as a character first and didn't really know her sexuality unless you pursued romance with her.

Bioware went out of their way with Cortez to appease (what I assume to be) mostly male homosexual fans about having gay love interests. Cortez's character ended up being a cliche fan service character instead of a well written character, gay or not. Did it make me want a refund? No but I felt it was a cheesy attempt to satisfy self entitles gamers.

The internet has so many companies afraid to just create. Instead, they end up catering and needlessly compromising issues that can simply be ignored. If Valve refused to issue a refund, no doubt the nutcases and those sympathetic to his plight would have created an internet petition against Valve and 2K. Should the rage of self entitlement always result in submissive behavior from an established company fearful of backlash? Companies like EA and Capcom have ignored more serious issues for years and people still continue to purchase and play their products.

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Who said it should be removed? They simply gave one guy a refund. Didn't even cost them anything to do it. This is about as much of an outrage as a restaurant refunding someone's meal because he just didn't like it.Bigboi500

On the contrary. Wanting a refund for a bad meal is one thing. What this guy did is equilvalent to a vegetarian complaining about a cheeseburger deluxe at a fast food restaurant. You have no problem purchasing a fps game with a guy holding a shotgun on the cover and committing digital murder, but a fake Baptisim suddenly makes you feel like a sinner? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Lol, and I'm next in line to be president of the United States.

Valve should be ashamed and as much as I believe them to be an overall decent company, giving a refund to this douche is flat out wrong and sets a poor example, period.  It's just another pathetic display of how P.C. our society has become, not wanting to *gasp* offend anyone in this day and age.  When someone holds any belief, that belief is open to scrutiny, approval, disapproval, contempt, and all that comes along with it.  Even religion.  Most importantly, religion.  But it does not, and should not, give anyone special privileges above others.MirkoS77

Agreed. That concept of not wanting to offend anyone is waters down any form of entertainment.HipHopBeats

What precedent is being set here, exactly? That people don't support that which they have moral and ethical objections to? Sorry, but that ship has sailed a LONG time ago.MrGeezer

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that Valve giving one f***ing dude a refund sets a precedent which leads to art being corrupted by political correctness? I mean, SERIOUSLY? GTF out of here.MrGeezer

I noticed you conveniently ignored this part of my post:

"Can I go into a movie theatre, watch a movie, be offended or bothered (as I have been quite a few times), then go cry to the box office that my fragile sensibilities have been shaken and have conflicted with my beliefs and I want my money back?  Or a book?  Or a song?"

I'm almost positive as to what your response is going to be.  By your logic, hey, I should be given a refund right?  I mean, it's just ONE company giving ONE person a refund.  I think I'll print out your posts and see how well this works out, and I'll let you know.

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

On the contrary. Wanting a refund for a bad meal is one thing. What this guy did is equilvalent to a vegetarian complaining about a cheeseburger deluxe at a fast food restaurant. You have no problem purchasing a fps game with a guy holding a shotgun on the cover and committing digital murder, but a fake Baptisim suddenly makes you feel like a sinner? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

HipHopBeats

Lol, and I'm next in line to be president of the United States.

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]Agreed. That concept of not wanting to offend anyone is waters down any form of entertainment.MrGeezer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEaTFKG4IHs

You know you would be sitting there back then saying the same thing you're saying now, but guess what?  Look where we ARE at now compared to then.

[QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]I think he probably thought he'd just be going around defending himself with a gun, not maliciously murdering innocent people... and I'm guessing that's what happens (not played the game myself yet), but it's safe to assume that in most games with presumed violence, you'd fight for your life but not flat out murder in cold blood. That's a totally acceptable expectation.

Bigboi500

Lol, and I'm next in line to be president of the United States.

No. They are mostly innocent people who happened to be on another continent simply defending themselves with guns against angry civillianswho felt they they didn't belong there.

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="HipHopBeats"]Agreed. That concept of not wanting to offend anyone is waters down any form of entertainment.MirkoS77

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEaTFKG4IHs

You know you would be sitting there back then saying the same thing you're saying now, but guess what?  Look where we ARE at now compared to then.

Well for one thing, Bioshock Infinite's original ending was changed because of a religious member on the dev team found it offensive and threatened to quit. He was offended by the original ending, but not offended enough to refuse his pay for the work he put in thus far. Maybe that ending was changed for the better but it still would have been cool if the original ending was still left in as an alternative good or bad ending. Instead, we have one ending regardless of how you played the game.

Franchises like Mass Effect, Tomb Raider, God Of War who had prior successful entries, needlessly adding tacked on multiplayer modes. Devs like Arkane Studios dumbing down the party invitation level in Dishonored because game testers (most likely casual gamers) were too impatient to actually figure out where to go.

My point is a line has to be drawn between compromise and self entitlement. Should every dev creating a game based on a solid single player campaign sacrifice quality in hopes of sattracting multiplayer gamers? Why couldn't that dev who felt offended and threatened to quit simply spoke to Ken Levine first instead of whining like a big baby writing a letter of resignation? Catering to people like this only encourages self entitlement rather than helping people understand not every single thing on this planet is going to cater towards any one individual's specific likes and dislikes.

HipHopBeats

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] What precedent is being set here, exactly? That people don't support that which they have moral and ethical objections to? Sorry, but that ship has sailed a LONG time ago.MirkoS77

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that Valve giving one f***ing dude a refund sets a precedent which leads to art being corrupted by political correctness? I mean, SERIOUSLY? GTF out of here.MrGeezer

I noticed you conveniently ignored this part of my post:

"Can I go into a movie theatre, watch a movie, be offended or bothered (as I have been quite a few times), then go cry to the box office that my fragile sensibilities have been shaken and have conflicted with my beliefs and I want my money back?  Or a book?  Or a song?"

I'm almost positive as to what your response is going to be.  By your logic, hey, I should be given a refund right?  I mean, it's just ONE company giving ONE person a refund.  I think I'll print out your posts and see how well this works out, and I'll let you know.

You do realize, of course, that it's not uncommon for a movie theater to issue a refund to a patron who leaves a movie early because of content they find objectionable.  I suspect there are a significant amount of refunds for games for various mundane reasons that go unpublicized.  This is a customer service issue at its core, and the precedent for that was set a very long time ago.  Ranting about the guy's refund seems to me to be as unreasonable as some believe the subject of this discussion to be.  The only thing worse than an unreasonable person is a group of unreasonable people.

You do realize, of course, that it's not uncommon for a movie theater to issue a refund to a patron who leaves a movie early because of content they find objectionable.  I suspect there are a significant amount of refunds for games for various mundane reasons that go unpublicized.  This is a customer service issue at its core, and the precedent for that was set a very long time ago.  Ranting about the guy's refund seems to me to be as unreasonable as some believe the subject of this discussion to be.  The only thing worse than an unreasonable person is a group of unreasonable people.

capaho

While I think what the guy did can certainly be seen as shady, or at least incompetent on his part, it's refreshing to see any generosity given in a business that clearly is the most anti-consumer of all the retail markets. Video games are the most expensive of all media, and there is no return policy. And not all games have extensive demos that provide a deep understanding of a game's contents, and drm isn't exactly consumer-friendly either.

This is part of the reason why there are so many shooters like gears of war etc. they are afraid to branch out and dive into anything new incase of being sued or someone being offended, its people like this who expect all games to be shooters on rails with predictable stories etc. and are technically destroying video games for all of us.

You should be given a refund if the people running the business think so. You seem to be overlooking that this guy didn't force Valve to give him a refund. Valve didn't have to give him back one cent. They simply chose to give him a refund, something which doesn't have any effect whatsoever on you or me. Should you be able to get your money back if you watch a movie and "your fragile sensibilities have been shaken"? Sure, if the people running the business say so. It's THEIR business, not yours and not mine. MrGeezer

[QUOTE="kickingcarpet"]

This is part of the reason why there are so many shooters like gears of war etc. they are afraid to branch out and dive into anything new incase of being sued or someone being offended, its people like this who expect all games to be shooters on rails with predictable stories etc. and are technically destroying video games for all of us.

MrGeezer

I don't agree with Mirko that this is setting a precedent though. It had the potential to but it looks like this is getting swept under the rug. It's not gathering much attention on the internet from any corners of gaming journalism. It could have however if Valve refused to give the refund (and then eventually caved in and refunded it). They played this one well.

People have mentioned the disgruntled movie-goer getting a refund.  Common-sense should tell you that the customer should not get a refund in that case.  It's pretty basic consumer responsibility.  That is like eating a chocolate bar and wanting a refund because you didn't like the taste.  It's ludicrous when you think about it.  The reason these people get refunds is because relative to the number of total consumers it is easier just to refund one person every now and then.  It's good business practice but a questionnable ethical (not sure if that is the right word here) practice if everyone were to do it.  

This is part of the reason why there are so many shooters like gears of war etc. they are afraid to branch out and dive into anything new incase of being sued or someone being offended, its people like this who expect all games to be shooters on rails with predictable stories etc. and are technically destroying video games for all of us.

kickingcarpet

Look at it this way. Do Valve really agree with the practice? On principle it is understood that you do not get refunds for digital purchase (there is a huge TOU that you have to scroll through pre-purchase that probably says something to that effect). Likely they just paid the guy off to get rid of him and avoid attracting a lot of unnecessary negative attention. He did force their hand even if he didn't force them. Valve just happened to have a good hand. [QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="kickingcarpet"]

This is part of the reason why there are so many shooters like gears of war etc. they are afraid to branch out and dive into anything new incase of being sued or someone being offended, its people like this who expect all games to be shooters on rails with predictable stories etc. and are technically destroying video games for all of us.

Articuno76

I don't agree with Mirko that this is setting a precedent though. It had the potential to but it looks like this is getting swept under the rug. It's not gathering much attention on the internet from any corners of gaming journalism. It could have however if Valve refused to give the refund (and then eventually caved in and refunded it). They played this one well.

People have mentioned the disgruntled movie-goer getting a refund.  Common-sense should tell you that the customer should not get a refund in that case.  It's pretty basic consumer responsibility.  That is like eating a chocolate bar and wanting a refund because you didn't like the taste.  It's ludicrous when you think about it.  The reason these people get refunds is because relative to the number of total consumers it is easier just to refund one person every now and then.  It's good business practice but a questionnable ethical (not sure if that is the right word here) practice if everyone were to do it.  

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"] What precedent is being set here, exactly? That people don't support that which they have moral and ethical objections to? Sorry, but that ship has sailed a LONG time ago.MirkoS77

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell me that Valve giving one f***ing dude a refund sets a precedent which leads to art being corrupted by political correctness? I mean, SERIOUSLY? GTF out of here.MrGeezer

I noticed you conveniently ignored this part of my post:

"Can I go into a movie theatre, watch a movie, be offended or bothered (as I have been quite a few times), then go cry to the box office that my fragile sensibilities have been shaken and have conflicted with my beliefs and I want my money back?  Or a book?  Or a song?"

I'm almost positive as to what your response is going to be.  By your logic, hey, I should be given a refund right?  I mean, it's just ONE company giving ONE person a refund.  I think I'll print out your posts and see how well this works out, and I'll let you know.

This is part of the reason why there are so many shooters like gears of war etc. they are afraid to branch out and dive into anything new incase of being sued or someone being offended, its people like this who expect all games to be shooters on rails with predictable stories etc. and are technically destroying video games for all of us.

kickingcarpet

[QUOTE="capaho"]

You do realize, of course, that it's not uncommon for a movie theater to issue a refund to a patron who leaves a movie early because of content they find objectionable.  I suspect there are a significant amount of refunds for games for various mundane reasons that go unpublicized.  This is a customer service issue at its core, and the precedent for that was set a very long time ago.  Ranting about the guy's refund seems to me to be as unreasonable as some believe the subject of this discussion to be.  The only thing worse than an unreasonable person is a group of unreasonable people.

MirkoS77

By what right does the consumer hold over any company or product? Sure they pay, but it costs money to make what is being bought. The company has just as much right to keep the money as the customer has to get a refund. "The customer is always right" is a crock of sh!t used by entitled people to b!tch and moan when they don't get things exactly their way. Companies only abide by it to retain good customer faith, and that's all good and well, but that doesn't make it true or fair and IMO is used to the point of abuse and entitlement.

You just don't get it.  While the mantra of business in the US may be Caveat Emptor, the truth of the matter is that turning an unhappy customer into a happy customer is very good for business, and giving a refund to a genuinely unhappy customer is a good way to accomplish that.  You obviously don't own a business or have the responsibility of managing one.  To assume that the person's complaint was not legitimate without any evidence to support that assumption is mere arrogance.  It was Steam's call to make and they made it.  I likely would have made the same decision had it been my place to do so.

[QUOTE="Articuno76"] but then this particular customer is worthy of contempt, if not Valve's then certainly this forums'. MrGeezer

Now if he had complained to Valve for hosting that content and they offered him a refund without him asking that is quite different but I get the impression that he asked for a refund on the basis of being offended (which no one is entitled to). He's worthy of contempt for abusing consumer responsibility (not taking on the responsibility for not doing his research into both the game content and refund policy) and acting like a child.

Also on point 2 (although this veers away from the point my point but I'll tackle this since I'm here).  It very much is the case that getting offended over some things is less valid than others.  Why?  Well the participation in groups which are the target of potentially offensive material is not always by one's own volition.  I don't see how or why anyone would feel validated in feeling their offence is other people's problem when it is of their own choice.  You could make the argument that other people should see things your way (or that their way of seeing things is wrong) but to feel above being offended is ludicrous.  Religious observance (at least in the US) is an entirely volitional act, completely different from, say, belonging to a certain race.  For that reason content that offends people on the basis of their race is on a completely different level than one that offends people on their religious beliefs or political stance.

[QUOTE="Articuno76"]

Look at it this way. Do Valve really agree with the practice? On principle it is understood that you do not get refunds for digital purchase (there is a huge TOU that you have to scroll through pre-purchase that probably says something to that effect). Likely they just paid the guy off to get rid of him and avoid attracting a lot of unnecessary negative attention. He did force their hand even if he didn't force them. Valve just happened to have a good hand. [QUOTE="MrGeezer"] The reason why safe and predictable games tend to dominate is because they sell. It has nothing to do with being sued, and everything to do with the fact that people will be less likely to buy games that they find offensive. Somehow that is "destroying games for all of us"? How do you figure? If the people MAKING games deem risky games to be a poor investment, then by what reasoning can one state that those kinds of games should get made?MrGeezer

I don't agree with Mirko that this is setting a precedent though. It had the potential to but it looks like this is getting swept under the rug. It's not gathering much attention on the internet from any corners of gaming journalism. It could have however if Valve refused to give the refund (and then eventually caved in and refunded it). They played this one well.

People have mentioned the disgruntled movie-goer getting a refund.  Common-sense should tell you that the customer should not get a refund in that case.  It's pretty basic consumer responsibility.  That is like eating a chocolate bar and wanting a refund because you didn't like the taste.  It's ludicrous when you think about it.  The reason these people get refunds is because relative to the number of total consumers it is easier just to refund one person every now and then.  It's good business practice but a questionnable ethical (not sure if that is the right word here) practice if everyone were to do it.  

but then this particular customer is worthy of contempt, if not Valve's then certainly this forums'. Articuno76

Because he feels that feeling offended is a valid reason for a refund (feeling that he is above being offended). That's an abuse of consumer responsibility (willingly making purchases). It's a very childish way of looking at things that carries little weight in (most) of the real world. It's one thing to open a dialogue with the developers of the game for creating content that he finds offensive. But he went instead and asked Valve for a refund (as I understand it) as if asserting some right to non-offence that didn't exist.

Now if he had complained to Valve for hosting that content and they offered him a refund without him asking that is quite different but I get the impression that he asked for a refund on the basis of being offended (which no one is entitled to). He's worthy of contempt for abusing consumer responsibility (not taking on the responsibility for not doing his research into both the game content and refund policy) and acting like a child.

Also on point 2 (although this veers away from the point my point but I'll tackle this since I'm here).  It very much is the case that getting offended over some things is less valid than others.  Why?  Well the participation in groups which are the target of potentially offensive material is not always by one's own volition.  I don't see how or why anyone would feel validated in feeling their offence is other people's problem when it is of their own choice.  You could make the argument that other people should see things your way (or that their way of seeing things is wrong) but to feel above being offended is ludicrous.  Religious observance (at least in the US) is an entirely volitional act, completely different from, say, belonging to a certain race.  For that reason content that offends people on the basis of their race is on a completely different level than one that offends people on their religious beliefs or political stance.

Articuno76

Don't give him a refund. He wasn't baptized. Stupid.

I'm sorry, do you work there? Did you see what happened there, who said what to who, or are you just making assumptions based on headlines? Do you know what that developer did or didn't say to Ken Levine, or are you just making assumptions? Secondly, every developer should do whatever the hell they want to, whatever the hell they think is in their best interests. Maybe that involves sticking to their guns, maybe it involves making concessions when people complain, but that isn't our f***ing business. If the game got changed to the point where it affected you, then by all means complain. But you can't say that quality was sacrificed until you have seen a comparison. Have you actually SEEN the changes which resulted from that one developer's objections? Can you make a comparison and say whether or not it made the game better or worse? Regardless, THAT resulted in the game being changed, so complain all day about it. This DOESN'T change a goddamn thing.

Ken Levine told the story more than once about what happened in many interviews. It isn't our business as consumers what changes devs are making to games we purchase? Check out the endless complaints on 2K forums about the lack of manual saves which was always an option in Bioshock 1 and 2. Misleading trailers showing off things we don't see in the game. Those trailers and what I played are perfect comparisons showing those things cut could have made Infinite a better game. So including the original ending as an ALTERNATE ending would have done more good than bad.

Lol @ 'complain all day about it. This DOESN'T change a thing.' You see how quickly Mass Effect 3 sales plummeted because Bioware thought lies about different endings were none of our business.

Giving one dude a refund changes NOTHING. At least his complaint was about stuff that was in the game. What the hell is everyone else complaining about? Solely about giving one dude his goddamn $60 back. Think about that for a minute. Whether right or wrong, stupid or reasonable, this guy was complaining because he felt that the CONTENT of the game clashed with his religious faith. People here are criticizing him for taking offense, and in the very next sentence getting offended at Valve for giving him a refund. Who is REALLY being the bigger crybaby here?

So giving a self entitled douchbag receiving a refund because a meaningless Baptisim scene hurt his feelings means nothing as opposed to gamers who spend $60+ tax on public betas like Skyrim at launch? Downloading patches to fix problems created by previous patches? Having to wait a year and a half for Skyrim to be playable on PS3? Exclusive DLC? Those are real reasons to complain and demand refunds. What about gamers who purchase Capcom games like Dragon's Dogma and can't even buy the expansion as $10 - $20 add on? Having to spend $40 on the same game with new features? I could go on all day about real reasons for demanding refunds.

The reason everyone is complaining because this guy is reminisent of that one crybaby on the elementary school football team complaining about one player making all the touchdowns. Instead of the coach explaining, not everyone is born with the same talent and encouraging that crybaby to find out where their talents lie, the coach decides to punish the whole team by making a 'no more than 2 touchdowns per teammate' rule. All to make that one self entitled crybaby feel better.

Thirdly, the very fact that a goddamn developer with a good job was thinking about quitting on moral grounds due to objectionable content ought to be a sign. I don't know how much money the dude was making, but it probably wasn't chump change (particularly if his opinion was worth enough to actually get the game changed). THAT apparently happened, and yet we're supposed to be shocked and dumbstruck that a gamer with only $60 invested in the game had enough of a problem to risk wasting his $60? The fact that one of the people working on the game was on the verge of quitting his job over the content sort of dispels in my mind the notion that it's unreasonable that a mere gamer would object to content.

There have been plenty of times I felt indifferent about certain context in a video game. Skyrim for example. I didn't particularly care for being forced to sell your soul to a digital deity in order to successfully complete the Thieves Guild. Did it stop me from enjoying the game when it finally became playable? No. Did I feel like my soul would suffer in real life? No. I never felt the need to write a 'heartfelt' letter demanding a refund because the in game content differs from my personal beliefs. I simply played on and accepted it for what it was. I didn't let my personal beliefs stop from enjoying the overall content.

Certain things do indeed merit a voice  and expressed dislike. Other times you simply learn from your mistakes or accept things for what they are. Not everything should be catered towards making one crybaby feel better because it's a sensitive or touchy issue.MrGeezer

[QUOTE="MrGeezer"]

I'm sorry, do you work there? Did you see what happened there, who said what to who, or are you just making assumptions based on headlines? Do you know what that developer did or didn't say to Ken Levine, or are you just making assumptions? Secondly, every developer should do whatever the hell they want to, whatever the hell they think is in their best interests. Maybe that involves sticking to their guns, maybe it involves making concessions when people complain, but that isn't our f***ing business. If the game got changed to the point where it affected you, then by all means complain. But you can't say that quality was sacrificed until you have seen a comparison. Have you actually SEEN the changes which resulted from that one developer's objections? Can you make a comparison and say whether or not it made the game better or worse? Regardless, THAT resulted in the game being changed, so complain all day about it. This DOESN'T change a goddamn thing.

Ken Levine told the story more than once about what happened in many interviews. It isn't our business as consumers what changes devs are making to games we purchase? Check out the endless complaints on 2K forums about the lack of manual saves which was always an option in Bioshock 1 and 2. Misleading trailers showing off things we don't see in the game. Those trailers and what I played are perfect comparisons showing those things cut could have made Infinite a better game. So including the original ending as an ALTERNATE ending would have done more good than bad.

Lol @ 'complain all day about it. This DOESN'T change a thing.' You see how quickly Mass Effect 3 sales plummeted because Bioware thought lies about different endings were none of our business.

Giving one dude a refund changes NOTHING. At least his complaint was about stuff that was in the game. What the hell is everyone else complaining about? Solely about giving one dude his goddamn $60 back. Think about that for a minute. Whether right or wrong, stupid or reasonable, this guy was complaining because he felt that the CONTENT of the game clashed with his religious faith. People here are criticizing him for taking offense, and in the very next sentence getting offended at Valve for giving him a refund. Who is REALLY being the bigger crybaby here?

So giving a self entitled douchbag receiving a refund because a meaningless Baptisim scene hurt his feelings means nothing as opposed to gamers who spend $60+ tax on public betas like Skyrim at launch? Downloading patches to fix problems created by previous patches? Having to wait a year and a half for Skyrim to be playable on PS3? Exclusive DLC? Those are real reasons to complain and demand refunds. What about gamers who purchase Capcom games like Dragon's Dogma and can't even buy the expansion as $10 - $20 add on? Having to spend $40 on the same game with new features? I could go on all day about real reasons for demanding refunds.

The reason everyone is complaining because this guy is reminisent of that one crybaby on the elementary school football team complaining about one player making all the touchdowns. Instead of the coach explaining, not everyone is born with the same talent and encouraging that crybaby to find out where their talents lie, the coach decides to punish the whole team by making a 'no more than 2 touchdowns per teammate' rule. All to make that one self entitled crybaby feel better.

Thirdly, the very fact that a goddamn developer with a good job was thinking about quitting on moral grounds due to objectionable content ought to be a sign. I don't know how much money the dude was making, but it probably wasn't chump change (particularly if his opinion was worth enough to actually get the game changed). THAT apparently happened, and yet we're supposed to be shocked and dumbstruck that a gamer with only $60 invested in the game had enough of a problem to risk wasting his $60? The fact that one of the people working on the game was on the verge of quitting his job over the content sort of dispels in my mind the notion that it's unreasonable that a mere gamer would object to content.

There have been plenty of times I felt indifferent about certain context in a video game. Skyrim for example. I didn't particularly care for being forced to sell your soul to a digital deity in order to successfully complete the Thieves Guild. Did it stop me from enjoying the game when it finally became playable? No. Did I feel like my soul would suffer in real life? No. I never felt the need to write a 'heartfelt' letter demanding a refund because the in game content differs from my personal beliefs. I simply played on and accepted it for what it was. I didn't let my personal beliefs stop from enjoying the overall content.

Certain things do indeed merit a voice  and expressed dislike. Other times you simply learn from your mistakes or accept things for what they are. Not everything should be catered towards making one crybaby feel better because it's a sensitive or touchy issue.HipHopBeats

[QUOTE="Articuno76"] Because he feels that feeling offended is a valid reason for a refund (feeling that he is above being offended). That's an abuse of consumer responsibility (willingly making purchases). It's a very childish way of looking at things that carries little weight in (most) of the real world. It's one thing to open a dialogue with the developers of the game for creating content that he finds offensive. But he went instead and asked Valve for a refund (as I understand it) as if asserting some right to non-offence that didn't exist.

Now if he had complained to Valve for hosting that content and they offered him a refund without him asking that is quite different but I get the impression that he asked for a refund on the basis of being offended (which no one is entitled to). He's worthy of contempt for abusing consumer responsibility (not taking on the responsibility for not doing his research into both the game content and refund policy) and acting like a child.

Also on point 2 (although this veers away from the point my point but I'll tackle this since I'm here).  It very much is the case that getting offended over some things is less valid than others.  Why?  Well the participation in groups which are the target of potentially offensive material is not always by one's own volition.  I don't see how or why anyone would feel validated in feeling their offence is other people's problem when it is of their own choice.  You could make the argument that other people should see things your way (or that their way of seeing things is wrong) but to feel above being offended is ludicrous.  Religious observance (at least in the US) is an entirely volitional act, completely different from, say, belonging to a certain race.  For that reason content that offends people on the basis of their race is on a completely different level than one that offends people on their religious beliefs or political stance.

MrGeezer

You do realize, of course, that it's not uncommon for a movie theater to issue a refund to a patron who leaves a movie early because of content they find objectionable.  I suspect there are a significant amount of refunds for games for various mundane reasons that go unpublicized.  This is a customer service issue at its core, and the precedent for that was set a very long time ago.  Ranting about the guy's refund seems to me to be as unreasonable as some believe the subject of this discussion to be.  The only thing worse than an unreasonable person is a group of unreasonable people.

capaho

[QUOTE="MirkoS77"][QUOTE="capaho"]

You do realize, of course, that it's not uncommon for a movie theater to issue a refund to a patron who leaves a movie early because of content they find objectionable.  I suspect there are a significant amount of refunds for games for various mundane reasons that go unpublicized.  This is a customer service issue at its core, and the precedent for that was set a very long time ago.  Ranting about the guy's refund seems to me to be as unreasonable as some believe the subject of this discussion to be.  The only thing worse than an unreasonable person is a group of unreasonable people.

capaho

 By what right does the consumer hold over any company or product? Sure they pay, but it costs money to make what is being bought. The company has just as much right to keep the money as the customer has to get a refund. "The customer is always right" is a crock of sh!t used by entitled people to b!tch and moan when they don't get things exactly their way. Companies only abide by it to retain good customer faith, and that's all good and well, but that doesn't make it true or fair and IMO is used to the point of abuse and entitlement.

You just don't get it.  While the mantra of business in the US may be Caveat Emptor, the truth of the matter is that turning an unhappy customer into a happy customer is very good for business, and giving a refund to a genuinely unhappy customer is a good way to accomplish that.  You obviously don't own a business or have the responsibility of managing one.  To assume that the person's complaint was not legitimate without any evidence to support that assumption is mere arrogance.  It was Steam's call to make and they made it.  I likely would have made the same decision had it been my place to do so.

 "Companies only abide by it to retain good customer faith".....

....which keeps the customer happy and in the long term is good for business.  I entirely understand this, and thought the implication would save me from having to state what I meant literally.  I guess not.  And what evidence am I missing here?  He objected to a baptism in game, wished for a refund, and recieved one.  What's to miss exactly?  My opinion in here is no more arrogant than anyone else who is stating their opinion based upon what is known, yours included.  Unless you'd like to enlighten me on something that you're aware of that I'm not.  I don't need any evidence to know that a guy got a refund because he found material in his game that did not agree with his personal beliefs.

[QUOTE="capaho"]

You do realize, of course, that it's not uncommon for a movie theater to issue a refund to a patron who leaves a movie early because of content they find objectionable.  I suspect there are a significant amount of refunds for games for various mundane reasons that go unpublicized.  This is a customer service issue at its core, and the precedent for that was set a very long time ago.  Ranting about the guy's refund seems to me to be as unreasonable as some believe the subject of this discussion to be.  The only thing worse than an unreasonable person is a group of unreasonable people.

JustPlainLucas