Steam Sale Chaos

Steam's annual summer sale has started. As usual, the summer sale comes with a gimmicky community event: The Steam Grand Prix. In a break from recent (several years') tradition, however, the event does not consist of collecting Steam trading cards to level up a summer sale badge. In some ways, it's a throwback to the Steam sale events that we used to see before the introduction of Steam trading cards. It's just a thousand times more convoluted and broken.

The mechanics of the event are difficult to explain, but I'll try my best.

• You selects one of five teams to participate in a race.
• You have a "Boost Meter" whose capacity increases by 100 for each day of participation and each dollar spent during the sale.
• You complete "quests" in order to earn a number of points which is limited by your Boost Meter capacity.
• Some quests are special actions in select games, worth 10 to 100 points each.
• You can also just play, for at least 30 minutes, any game in which you have ever unlocked achievements, in order to earn an amount of points which scales to the quantity and rarity of the unlocked achievements.
• You spend your points, as well as the corresponding amount of Boost Meter capacity, to gain distance for your team in the ongoing race and to earn a number of Grand Prix tokens equal to the number of points spent.
• You spend your Grand Prix tokens at the "Pit Stop" store, where you can level up your summer sale badge for 100 tokens per level, buy a $5 coupon for 15,000 tokens, or buy other digital junk (like profile backgrounds for 1,000 tokens each and emoticons for 100 tokens each).
• A very small number of random users from high-ranking teams are selected each day to win games from their Steam wishlists.

Needless to say, people are confused by all of this. My explanation is verbose, but the explanation on the official event page is longer and less clear, and there's really no possible explanation which doesn't make it sound completely absurd. You essentially need to go through three kinds of fake currency (Boost Meter capacity, points, and Grand Prix tokens) in order to get your prize from the Pit Stop store.

Perhaps Valve is just trying really hard to obfuscate the very direct relationship between money spent on Steam and Grand Prix tokens earned. Beyond what's given for free just for participating in the sale, it essentially takes a $1 store purchase to get 100 more tokens. The $1 actually translates directly to 100 Boost Meter capacity, but the Boost Meter capacity is exactly the number of points you can earn, and that number is then traded for Grand Prix tokens at a one-to-one exchange rate. Several layers of nonsense exist seemingly just to dress up the fact that each Grand Prix token is a virtual penny. Now, of course, the money in question is spent on games, which you were presumably going to buy anyway, so the tokens are free — but if, for some reason, you just really wanted to accumulate 15,000 extra tokens, you'd have to spend $150 to get them.

The absurdly complicated method of disassociating money and tokens was the first thing about the event that struck me as odd. The second was how points are earned. In all of my recently played games on the first day of the event, the unlocked achievements were worth thousands of points. One game, in which I had unlocked all but a few achievements, was worth tens of thousands of points. But earning tens of thousands of points is meaningless, if your Boost Meter capacity is only 100. Boost Meter capacity, clearly, is the real bottleneck, whereas points — the currency rewarded for playing games, i.e., actually having fun during the event — are so easy to earn but so quickly capped by the Boost Meter capacity that they might as well not exist.

If you try to claim tens of thousands of points from a quest and your Boost Meter capacity is 100, you keep 100 points and the rest are thrown away. I guess this is supposed to be a psychological trick to make you feel like you're wasting something if you don't upgrade your Boost Meter by buying some games from the store. However, I don't think any sane person would actually buy games just to get more points. The end result is just that participating in the event feels unsatisfying. I think the average Steam user (with normal shopping habits and normal achievement completion) would, like me, find that completing a single quest is enough to exceed the Boost Meter capacity. Earning points this way is so much easier than doing the other quests, assuming you've actually played more than a few games, that the other quests are practically meaningless. Completing quests is the only part of the event which actually resembles fun, and the majority of the quests being pointless makes the event less fun, as does the perceived wastefulness of throwing away those imaginary points that exceed one's imaginary capacity.

But so far, honestly, none of this is really a big deal. Steam is a store; of course its interaction with its users revolves around spending money. So the event isn't fun. Who cares? It's a game store; if you want to have fun, then buy fun games from it. However, we can't really blame the Steam community for attempting to participate in something that's plastered all over the top of the main store page. When there's an event happening on Steam, even if it's silly, people are going to try it out, just to see what's going on. But it seems everyone who tried to participate just ended up confused and annoyed. The event itself is confusing, the official explanation of the event is badly written, and one bit of terminology, in particular, has caused a lot of unnecessary confusion.

Those who had more than 100 Boost Meter capacity on the first day of the event, as a result of having spent money on Steam, were surprised to see their Boost Meter capacity drop back to 100 on the second day of the event. Increasing the "capacity" of something sounds permanent; in this case, it's not. When you "boost" your team in exchange for Grand Prix tokens, you spend the points you earned as well as the corresponding amount of Boost Meter capacity. Any unspent Boost Meter capacity presumably rolls over to the next day, but if you fill your Boost Meter with points and then spend those points, you lose all of your Boost Meter capacity and will star the next day with 100 again.

The other major problem with the event is that, even when we understand the rules, it appears to be completely broken. Boost Meter capacity, or so the rules claim, is increased not only by money spent during the event but also by money spent before the event:

Source: https://store.steampowered.com/grandprix

Sounds great, right? You're a loyal customer, and you've spent lots of money on Steam before, so you should get something even if you're not buying things right now. The problem is that many people started with a low Boost Meter capacity despite having a large number of games on Steam. Others report users with very few Steam purchases starting with huge amounts of Boost Meter capacity. The sum of anecdotal evidence posted online, for what that's worth, seems to throw into question any coherent method of computing what a user's starting Boost Meter capacity ought to be.

(It's worth noting that the 2019 Lunar New Year event had similar issues. The tokens given to users at the start of that event were also supposedly scaled to prior purchases on Steam, but based on users' self-reported numbers of tokens received and games owned, it almost seemed as if tokens were given out at random.)

My own personal experience with the Grand Prix event is just confusing. I started with a Boost Meter capacity of 100, despite having over 730 games on Steam. I wasn't surprised, at first; I just figured my Steam store purchases weren't recent enough. Many of my recently added games came from third-party bundle sites, so many those don't count. All of my recent Steam store purchases were made with store credit loaded from Steam gift cards, so maybe those don't count either, for some reason. Maybe adding keys from third-party bundle sites, and gaining store credit by selling Steam trading cards on the Steam market, actually subtracts form a user's starting Boost Meter capacity. How should I know how these things are computed? I just assumed that my 100 was correct.

But then I scrolled to the bottom of the Pit Stop store page (under "Frequently Asked Questions"), and found this:

Source: https://store.steampowered.com/pitstop (while logged in)

Atrocious grammar aside, it says I received 2,000 Boost Meter capacity, but I never did. I'm not sure where they even got the number 2,000 when I consider my recent purchases, no subset of which add up to exactly $20 — but, regardless, it's wrong. I started the even with only 100, so now Steam is lying to me. Others online have also reported starting with 100 despite their Pit Stop store FAQs promising much more.

As a result of everything described above, people are mad about this event. People on the Steam Community forums are mad. People on Reddit are mad. People on 4chan are mad. Nobody is mad about which team is winning the race, or about the individual odds of winning free games; everyone is mad about the completely broken Boost Meter mechanics. The amount of frustration this has caused is actually somewhat amusing, considering that this Grand Prix event is just a stupid gimmick to promote the Steam sale. Keep in mind that Valve could have just done a regular sale — you know, discounts on games, and stuff. They don't owe us Boost Meter capacity and Grand Prix tokens. However,

1. When you present something as a game, people expect it to be fair, and tend to get mad when it's not.
2. When you say you're going to give something to somebody, they tend to get mad when you don't.

By orchestrating a completely optional community event, consisting of users collecting free digital stuff (which is still free even if the amount of it scales with the money you happened to spend on other goods), Valve has made the community feel worse than they would feel if there were no event at all.

Post-Sale Update

After I originally posted about this event, Valve made a number of changes as described in three news posts. These changes included some attempts at clarifying the rules, a new feature allowing participants of one team to "steal" another team's boosts, a "Switch Teams" option, and other unspecified adjustments to address team imbalance. Starting on the fourth day of the event, they also stopped forcing users to throw away over-capacity points gained from achievements. I don't think it really mattered to anyone who had achievements unlocked in a sufficient number of games -- but, as explained above, it was an annoying psychological trick that didn't really make the event more enjoyable, so I can understand why this was changed.

On the third day of the event, they also gave 1,000 extra Boost Meter capacity to anyone who participated in day one and to anyone who participated in day two (i.e., 2,000 to anyone who participated in both of the first two days), presumably to apologize for the sloppy and confusing event kick-off. However, in my opinion, it still remained confusing to the end.

They also considered "fixing" the Grand Prix Badge which was apparently awarding more experience points than intended. I didn't realize it when I wrote the original post above, but this event made it easier than usual for Steam users to level up their Steam profiles. Indeed, even before I had spent any money on games, I was able to level up far more than during a typical sale event, and the levels I gained were nothing compared to those who spent a lot of money during this sale (either incidentally or, perhaps, for the purpose of leveling up). Personally, I don't really care about my Steam profile level, but some people apparently do, and some felt that the ease with which users could level up during this event was causing Steam levels to be devalued. Ultimately, however, Valve backtracked on their decision to fix the amount of experience points awarded by the badge, which shouldn't be a surprise because Valve would seek to please those who spend the most money.

They did remove the ability to upgrade the badge infinitely, capping the badge level at 2,000, but those who had already gotten the badge past level 2,000 were able to keep it.

I suppose the take-away here is that Valve did try to fix the event, and in doing so, made some effort to please everyone. However, I think most users still came away from this event with the opinion that it was a poorly planned and poorly explained mess. First impressions are everything, I guess.

Steam Sales: The Golden Age is Over

This year's summer sale on Steam ended today. I didn't buy much, despite having $70 worth of gift cards to scratch off and some leftover credit from an older gift card which I never used up. I think it's fair to say I'm disappointed. This was my chance to go nuts, and I just couldn't force myself to do it. There just weren't enough games that seemed worth buying. Needless to say, I'll have to tell people not to get me Steam gift cards anymore. If they keep it up, I'll never be able to spend it all. It's going to take me a while to burn through all these Steam bucks, and it's not even a lot of money as far as video games are concerned. Some people spend $60 on a game without blinking.

However, I've grown too accustomed to my own "never pay more than $5 for a video game" rule. To be honest, I probably wouldn't have regretted using $35.99 of my precious gift-card money for the new Doom, which, despite being a supposedly great game, was discounted an impressive 40% (from $59.99) only six weeks after release. However, if it drops that fast, it's probably going to drop even more if I wait until the next sale, and I'm not really in a hurry to play a game in which the multiplayer mode is supposedly the worst part. In any case, even though I didn't take advantage of this particular deal, I wanted to mention Doom as an example of how this Steam sale was pretty okay. It wasn't all bad. However, Doom aside, it just didn't feel special.

Every year, there seems to be a general consensus that the biggest events on Valve's digital store — namely the big sales in winter (around Christmas) and in summer — aren't as "big" as they used to be. Every Steam sale in recent memory has been accompanied by exclamations of disappointment and claims that previous sales were better. I think it's party because these events have generated a bit too much hype over the years. When there's a certain amount of hype, it becomes impossible for reality to keep up. Moreover, with every passing Steam sale, there's another sale to which every future sale can be compared. We also have to be aware of the effects of nostalgia, and ask ourselves whether past Steam sales were actually better or whether we only think so because we have fond memories of enjoying them.

Stories of the good old days, clearly, should always be taken with a grain of salt. For the record, though, I do think there's some truth to them. "Steam sales used to be better" is a subjective statement, and assessing the "truth" of such a statement is difficult to do in any meaningful way, but there are some relevant objective facts which need examining, namely that Steam sales have undergone two major changes in the past few years.

I have no intention of limiting myself to total objectivity in everything that follows, but I think I can be objective enough to make a valid point. Personally, I'm not disappointed in this sale because I fell for the hype. I wasn't really hyped at all; my expectations, actually, were rather low. I'm not disappointed in this sale simply because of nostalgia, either. My disappointment with this particular sale is related to pricing; it can literally be quantified. What might be true is that I'm disappointed in this sale largely because I've already taken advantage of so many previous sales that, of all the games which could have been expected to see deep discounts this summer, I've already acquired most of the ones which interest me. If this is the case, however, it's unfortunate that so many of the remaining games which do interest me were discounted less in this sale than they have been in the past.

I had heard good things about Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, for example, and considered buying it last night. It was only $4.99, so it even fit within my "never spend more than $5 on a game" budget which shields me from any potential buyer's remorse when I don't have more than $70 in virtual money burning a hole in my Steam wallet. However, I always want to know I'm getting the best deal (or something close to it), even when the use of a gift card limits my options to a single store, so I looked up the game's price history on SteamDB. It turns out I would have been spending twice as much as the lowest price. The fact that such an old game was discounted a mere 50% should have been a clue; the 75% discounts are usually the ones which justify any Steam sale hype, and Dark Messiah of Might & Magic had several of them (putting the game at only $2.49) prior to this year.

There were several other games which I would have bought if their price histories hadn't shown better deals in the past (leaving open the possibility of repeats in the future). The best examples I can remember (coincidentally each with a base price of $9.99) were those which, like Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, had been demoted from 75% discounts to 50% discounts at some point over the past couple of years: Lisa was $4.99 in this sale, but had been $2.49 during the most recent winter sale; Far Cry 2 was also $4.99 in this sale and in the most recent winter sale, but had been $2.49 during last year's summer sale and in several prior sales; Papers, Please was $4.99 this time but had been sold for less on numerous occasions, going down to $2.49 at least once.

In only one case, I overlooked the effective "increase" in price: Once upon a time (although SteamDB's price history doesn't seem to go back far enough to show it), Max Payne 3 had been $3.99. For some reason, I chose not to buy it on that occasion, and the price has gone only as low as $4.99 in every sale since then. I really wanted the game and I had doubts about the price ever hitting $3.99 again, so I bought it anyway. It's not a big deal, really, but the other games mentioned here were low enough on my wishlist that I could stand to forgo the purchases on principle.

Looking up the price history of every game on Steam in order to draw a scientific and unbiased conclusion about the quality of any given sale is too much work for a blog post, so I'm going to stop that here. Still, the last two major Steam sales — i.e., the one which just ended and the most recent winter sale — were different from previous sales in a far more obvious way: static discounts.

It used to be that every major Steam sale followed a fairly predictable pattern. While a large number of games would be discounted for the duration, a few games would be featured daily with greater discounts lasting only a day or two. At some point, these daily deals were supplemented with flash sales posted every eight hours, so we had those for a while too. These limited-time deals made it worthwhile to check the Steam store on every day of such an event, or multiple times per day after the addition of flash sales. In fact, doing so was practically necessary if you wanted to make sure you were getting the best deal on anything. It was under these circumstances that I posted this guide, which is totally useless now that daily deals and flash sales are no more. In my opinion, it's unlikely that Steam sales will return to the way they were before.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing for everyone. Although the sense of excitement is mostly gone for those who enjoyed checking the store every day for new deals, those with busy work schedules or unreliable internet access will find that the anxiety and frustration of missing these short-term discounts is gone as well. In many ways, the current model is better. Inexperienced shoppers (for whom I wrote the aforementioned guide) will no longer be tricked into buying a discounted game only to see the discount increase a few days later because they didn't know to wait for a daily deal. It's worth mentioning that Steam's refund policy could have helped to alleviate this problem as well, but I'm sure many appreciate the clarity anyway. Any deal you see on any given day of the sale is the best deal you'll get during that sale. Of course, as pointed out above, it might not be as good as the best deal Steam has ever offered.

And that's fine. It's normal for Steam discounts to fluctuate from year to year due to unseen forces beyond mortal comprehension. Nobody should expect every game to be at its absolute lowest price during every sale. Unfortunately, although I lack the hard data to back it up, I suspect that a game is now less likely to hit its rock-bottom price during a major Steam sale, thanks to the lack of short-term discounts.

A developer or publisher who was willing to sell a game at 75% off for 24 or 48 hours might be unwilling to sell that game at 75% off for a much longer period of time, like the 11 days of this most recent Steam sale. In choosing the discount for a promotion lasting more than a week, the developer or publisher might be willing to go only as far as 50% off. Dark Messiah of Might & Magic might be an example of this. The game hit $2.49 (75% off) for short periods of time on several occasions, but it hasn't gone below $4.99 (50% off) since Steam got rid of daily deals and flash sales.

The death of daily deals and flash sales is the second major change in Steam sales that occurred over the past few years. The first, explained in a previous post, was the death of giveaways and contests. The first three major Steam sales which I can remember were more than just sales: There were prizes to win, including lots of free games for a lucky few. In addition, badges were earned in part by unlocking special achievements in various games and by completing other simple community-related objectives. These things were meant to drive sales and build membership, of course, but people seemed to enjoy them.

After the 2011/2012 winter sale, the giveaways stopped, and so did the special in-game achievements. The next event did introduce flash sales (in which one of the games in each round was decided by a community vote), and still had community objectives as a way of earning badges. Starting with the 2013 summer sale, however, everything began to revolve around trading cards, which were henceforth required to earn each event's badge. During that sale, they were earned by casting votes for the community-chosen games in each day's flash sales. In this year's summer event (which lacked flash sales), you could earn these cards by clicking through your queue of recommended games each day. The one interesting sale in between was the 2015 summer sale, in which trading cards were earned by playing a so-called minigame, but it wasn't what I'd call fun. It was essentially a massively multiplayer Cookie Clicker, which didn't even work properly for much of the event due to Steam servers being predictably unprepared to handle the traffic load.

Anyone who thinks Steam trading cards are lame can still collect the free cards during each event and sell them on the market for Steam credit. It's hard to complain about free money. However, it's also hard to argue that the lack of free prizes makes recent Steam sales any more enjoyable for the community.

Although it might sound crazy, I do wonder if Valve is deliberately trying to kill the Steam sale hype. The giveaways were good for generating excitement, but Steam quickly became so well known for its sales that only the impatient or uninformed would ever buy a Steam game at full price. "Wait for the sale" became (and still is) the immediate response to anyone asking if a game on Steam is worth buying. Back when daily deals and flash sales were still a regular occurrence, the standard advice also included "wait for a daily deal or flash sale" (and perhaps buy the game on the last day of the sale if it never received either of these super discounts). Not only did Steam users learn not to buy games at full price; they also learned not to buy games at a discounted price until it was clear that the price wouldn't go any lower in the immediate future.

This is all perfectly rational, so it's not like Steam's customers did anything wrong. The situation might not have been great for business, though. Some developers have said they love Steam sales because it's when they get much of their revenue, but some might not appreciate the community's perception that the real price of a game is the "daily deal" price and that the game should be ignored at every other moment. The predictability of Steam sales is the problem; customers know they can get a game for 75% off if they wait, so those customers see no point in the game even being available at full price for the rest of the year.

Meanwhile, it wasn't an ideal situation for all consumers, either; I'm thinking mainly of the consumers who hadn't heard the advice about waiting for daily deals and flash sales. When a game is discounted for the duration of a several-day event only to be discounted even further for a shorter period of time within that event, the lesser discount can seem like a trick. If a game is going to be 75% off for a day, it's best to just leave it at that, instead of offering a 50% discount for several days prior. Recent Steam sales have obviously gone in the other direction, though, favoring long-term discounts. This allows for all kinds of bragging about the number of games on sale, even if this means some developers and publishers are less likely to push their prices as low as they would have done for daily deals and flash sales of years gone by.

As I mentioned above, I think it's unlikely that daily deals and flash sales will make a comeback, although it might happen if sales begin to suffer due to lack of interest and Valve decides they need to rebuild some of that hype. Likewise, I'm absolutely certain that giveaways and contests are long gone, never to return. However, even if it's true that the golden age of Steam sales is behind us, I can't really be too upset. It just means I was around for the best part of something which still, honestly, is pretty good.

I'm still disappointed, but I also know that I'm spoiled.

Steam's New Refund Policy

Originally posted June 3, 2015; updated June 7, 2015 and June 8, 2015.
A shorter version of this article was also published on Gather Your Party on June 3, 2015. Read it here.

---

Original Post (June 3, 2015)

Just in time for the impending Steam summer sale — which is said to be starting next week — the Steam store has adopted a new policy regarding refunds and returns. In short, with a few very reasonable restrictions, you can get a refund on any game within two weeks of purchase as long as you've played the game for less than two hours.

Steam has, in the past, taken a lot of heat for its lack of a return policy. While many brick-and-mortar stores (at least in the United States) have incredibly lenient return policies (some not even requiring a receipt and thereby potentially opening the door to abuse), online stores selling digital content generally have a less-than-stellar track record when it comes to consumer rights. Actually, before now, Steam might have been one of the worst. Steam's customer support has a well-known reputation for being awful, and Steam developer Valve Corporation has had, for some time, an F rating with the Better Business Bureau. Pressure to implement a return policy has been especially strong from customers in the European Union (who have claimed, though perhaps erroneously, that they are legally entitled to refunds of Steam games according to EU laws).

The new refund policy is a huge step in the pro-consumer direction, and likely a much needed one after the paid mods debacle (which was so poorly received that the decision was quickly reversed). Personally, I don't think the idea of allowing mod developers to charge money for their work was such a fundamentally awful idea; free mods would surely continue to exist. Even if free mods had vanished completely as a result of Valve's meddling, it would have been more sensible to blame the modding community itself, rather than the company which merely provided what the mod developers were evidently so happy to use. In any case, Steam's reputation was damaged by that embarrassing fiasco. It's probably not wrong to speculate that the new refund policy is, in part, an attempt to repair some of that damage.

You can read the announcement and other details of the new policy on Steam's web site, but the key points (and their implications) are as follows:

• Refunds can be requested "for any reason" (including general dissatisfaction).
• You can get a refund within two weeks of purchase if your total playtime is less than two hours.
• Failing to meet those requirements? Valve says "you can ask for a refund anyway and we'll take a look." So try it, and you might get lucky.
• Pre-purchased products can be returned "any time prior to release" and up to fourteen days after release if your playtime is less than two hours.
• Refunds on in-game purchases are up to the developer.
• Some DLC might be non-refundable for various reasons (e.g., consumable DLC having already been consumed).
• Money is refunded using the original payment method, if possible. Otherwise, the money goes to your Steam Wallet by default.
• This means, in most cases, you can in fact get a "real" refund after paying with "real" money. Fears that customers will always be reimbursed in Steam credit, which must then be spent again on Steam, are largely unfounded and inspired by poor reading skills.
• It also means, if you do make a purchase using your Steam Wallet, you will be reimbursed in Steam credit. The return policy is not a trick to turn Steam Wallet funds back into regular money. If that were allowed, they would simply allow Steam Wallet withdrawals instead. You can, however, request a Steam Wallet refund, and get your money back out of the Steam Wallet if you placed it there yourself in the past fourteen days.
• Refunds are not allowed for anything purchased outside of the Steam store.
• If you're concocting a stupid plan to acquire inexpensive or free Steam keys from third-party sources like Humble Bundle and then return them to the Steam store for a refund of the full retail price in order to get free money, it's not going to work.
• Refund privileges will be revoked from individual users if the system is abused.
• If you're thinking you can get away with buying and returning a game repeatedly in order to play it for free indefinitely, you're wrong. Valve isn't that incredibly stupid, and they will shut you down.
• If you bought a game for full price right before the start of a sale, it's totally okay to return it for a full-price refund and then immediately buy the game at the discounted price.
• Obviously, this means the refunded amount for any purchase is the amount that was originally paid. If you think you can get free money by doing the opposite of the above — that is, buying a game on sale and then requesting a refund when the price goes back up — you're out of your mind. Steam has a record of what you paid.

This looks pretty great, especially in comparison to the old policy of refusing refunds outside of extraordinary circumstances. Some might wish that refunds were not limited to purchases in the past two weeks or games played less than two hours, but at least this is a step in the right direction. There are some additional restrictions, as well, but they're all rather predictable and understandable, so it's hard to imagine this policy causing a lot of grief to consumers as long as Steam upholds its end of the deal.

However, while the response from Steam users has been mostly positive despite the restrictions, some independent developers of very small games (and those sympathetic to their situation) want the policy to be more restrictive. Allowing two whole hours of playtime before a full refund, they claim, is too much. As one indie dev puts it:

you can get a refund for a game if you've got "less than two hours of playtime" on steam. well lol at me trying to sell small vignette games

— nina freeman (@hentaiphd) June 2, 2015

At least one games writer has also voiced her support of this viewpoint by suggesting a petition to change the policy:

i wonder if it's possible for us to organize as a group and make a petition... i wonder how many signatures would convince valve...

— Leigh Alexander (@leighalexander) June 2, 2015

While I can understand the concerns of those who develop very short games which might be completed in less than two hours and then returned, I also want to say "welcome to a real economy for the first time ever" and stress that refunds are a normal part of most business. The video game industry (or, at least, the biggest digital store on the PC end of it) is late to this party. Other industries have to deal with returns, and they do so without complaining. People wear clothes and then return them all the time. Of course, most people do buy clothes to keep them, which brings me to my next point: Not every customer is malicious.

Sure, customers can play through the bulk of an incredibly short indie game within the allowable refund time frame and then get a refund, but they can also engage in straight-up piracy with a negligible chance of getting in any real trouble at all. It doesn't mean they'll actually do either of these things. A satisfied customer probably isn't going to return a game that he or she enjoyed, even if doing so is legal. That's the action of a dissatisfied customer who doesn't want the developer to have any money. If indie developers (who seem to have so much faith in community-driven tools like Kickstarter and Steam Greenlight) can't get people to keep their games without asking for a refund, they might have bigger problems than the exact playtime cut-off point in Steam's return policy.

Three things still do concern me about the return policy:

1. Steam only allows the actual players of a game to review it, and this is great because it prevents bogus reviews. However, the new refund policy makes it easier to abuse the review system. Someone who wants to write a bogus review can now do so without losing money. Just buy the game, play for a few minutes, review it and return it. I'm not sure what Steam can do about this, though. I certainly don't think people should be unable to review and return the same game. Whatever prompts a customer to request a refund might be exactly the kind of information which belongs in a review.
2. Some games don't use Steamworks and can be launched from the .exe file without using Steam. In these cases, one could copy the game files elsewhere and keep the game even after uninstalling the Steam copy and requesting a refund. Again, however, I'm not sure what Steam can do about this. It's an inherent risk of selling DRM-free software. Humble Bundle and GOG both sell DRM-free games, and both have return policies which could be abused.
3. Less importantly, as far as I know, there's nothing to keep someone from buying a Steam game, playing for a couple of hours to get its trading cards, selling those cards on the Steam market, and then returning the game for a refund. I'm not sure if Valve would even see this as a problem, considering that they make money from every Steam market transaction, but developers probably wouldn't like it. I'm guessing this is included in the types of abuse for which a person's refund privileges would supposedly be revoked according to the policy. (Update: It seems trading cards no longer drop within the first two hours of gameplay.)

Developers might worry about the first issue, but the potential for this kind of abuse only makes Steam's review system almost as unreliable as one which makes no effort to weed out non-customers, such as the user reviews on Metacritic. I'm not even convinced that Steam reviews were ever taken more seriously than Metacritic user reviews in the first place. Any developer worried about the second issue should already be using Steamworks or some other DRM, and the third issue is probably (update: now definitely) a non-issue. In any case, none of these things create a convincing argument for flushing consumer rights down the toilet.

Update (June 7, 2015):

Want more Twitter drama? Today is your lucky day. Yesterday, independent developer Qwiboo tweeted a graph showing a dramatic drop in sales of the game Beyond Gravity, occurring around the time that Steam introduced its new refund policy.

This looks pretty bad. Perhaps the refund policy is hurting independent developers more than I expected. Then again, this particular graph doesn't prove much. If you look up the game's Steam store price history on the third-party price-tracking site SteamPrices.com, you'll see that a special offer ended at approximately the same time:

The full price of the game is only $1.99, but this 50% discount knocked it down to only $0.99 (which is pretty significant). This information was omitted from Qwiboo's tweet, which also fails to show sales data from before the special offer began. So, wait a second, is this indie dev seriously misrepresenting the sales data to argue more convincingly that Steam's new refund policy is bad for developers? I mean, sure, we would expect sales figures to drop a bit when a refund system is put into place, but the graph originally tweeted by Qwiboo does nothing to prove that the decline in sales is the tragic result of a new return policy rather than the predictable result of a special offer coming to an end.

Bored and unable to sleep in the middle of the night, and not really bothered by the possibility of making enemies, I went and pointed this out on Twitter:

Indie dev @qwiboo blames #SteamRefunds for sharp drop in sales, forgets to mention special offer ending at same time. pic.twitter.com/eOKY7t2DlK

— Out of Lives (@outoflives) June 7, 2015

What I had stupidly failed to realize was that, hours earlier, Qwiboo had actually posted additional data which is much more informative, as it shows the recent sales decline in comparison to other times when a discount went away:

Their sales always rise and fall as discounts come and go, as expected, but this game's sales do seem to go lower than ever at the very end of the graph (which is when the refund policy was introduced). When I saw this newer graph, I posted a correction to my Twitter feed:

Much better data from @qwiboo, which I had initially overlooked, shows the real effect of #SteamRefunds more clearly. pic.twitter.com/0A6jOvLxKV

— Out of Lives (@outoflives) June 7, 2015

Unfortunately, I doubt Qwiboo ever noticed it; almost immediately after my first tweet, this happened:

Oops! Sadly for Qwiboo, the act of blocking my account didn't really do anything except hide my tweets from Qwiboo and prevent me from seeing their page while signed in. It prevented no one else from seeing my criticism, and in fact only made it slightly harder for me to find out about that second graph which led me to post a correction. I'd feel worse about the whole situation if not for Qwiboo's reaction.

Anyway, I guess the takeaway here is that some independent developers might have been right to fear the new refund policy on Steam. At least some of them, Qwiboo included, really are losing sales.

I still do, however, stand by what I wrote before. The new policy is a strongly pro-consumer move. Steam might need to work hard to prevent abuse of the refund system, and they might even need to add more restrictions regarding what can and cannot be returned in order to make this work for everyone, but I won't be convinced that allowing refunds is a fundamentally bad thing just because developers had gotten used to an economically abnormal situation which was truly bad for paying customers.

While it was unfair of me to imply bad things about Qwiboo before doing enough research to see their updated sales graph, I'm still not sure if anyone should feel bad about their current sales predicament. Here's why: I haven't played Beyond Gravity. I don't know what it's like. How long is the game? How fun is the game? Is it well made? Does it suck? Sure, maybe the game is so short that people really are able to abuse the system by playing every bit of the game within the allotted two hours and then requesting a refund. On the other hand, maybe the game is being returned simply because it's bad, and maybe those previously higher sales figures represent a lot of dissatisfied customers who would have returned the game if they could have done so. I can't rule out that possibility. I just don't know.

Furthermore, I'm sure a lot of people are currently using the refund system as a risk-free way of trying a game, but I still don't know that this is a bad thing. There should be a risk-free way of trying a product before putting down the money. More specifically, I believe every game should have a playable demo, and certain people in the industry disagree but their reasons for disagreeing are thoroughly anti-consumer. They are afraid that players will no longer want to buy their games after playing demos; in other words, they want to prevent customers from having the ability to avoid products with which they would ultimately be dissatisfied.

If people are trying and returning full games as a substitute for playable demos which don't exist, the developers or publishers are to blame for not supplying playable demos. If people aren't keeping the games after trying them, it's only because they're able to make more educated decisions about their purchases, and wishing to deny your customers this opportunity is the same as hoping that your customers get tricked into buying things they don't like. That's pretty terrible.

A person who likes a game is still going to keep it. A person who returns a game for a full refund obviously didn't like the game and is dodging a bullet. A developer who complains about refunds, and who has no evidence that the system is truly being abused, perhaps needs to focus on making a better game instead of complaining.

My advice to developers is this: Make good games that won't be leaving customers with a desire to get their money back, and (although I hate to say it) make sure you implement some kind of DRM if you're uncomfortable with the risk of not doing so.

Update (June 8, 2015):

I'm a little disappointed that people keep on retweeting and quoting my first tweet about Qwiboo (in which I hastily made a judgement based on limited information) while my second tweet about Qwiboo (in which I corrected my erroneous implications) is being ignored. But I guess that's just how Twitter works sometimes.

Anyway, I'd like to mention another independent developer now. They've gotten quite a bit of attention after reporting a dramatic loss in sales following the introduction of Steam's new refund policy:

They had more to say as well:

Entertaining conclusions :) But difficult to tease apart from the Steam Summer Sale dates leaking as well.

— Puppygames (@puppygames) June 4, 2015

For what it's worth the previous 3 months data has been pretty constant, right up until 2 days ago.

— Puppygames (@puppygames) June 4, 2015

I wish we were provided with more insights as to what causes our sales (and seemingly, our sales alone) to flatline overnight

— Puppygames (@puppygames) June 4, 2015

Worse is that every single one of Steam's competitors (including direc sales) have been so comprehensively crushed there's not much fallback

— Puppygames (@puppygames) June 4, 2015

Puppy Games is the developer of stylish faux-retro/arcade-style games Revenge of the Titans, Droid Assault, Titan Attacks!, Ultratron, and the upcoming Basingstoke. I've played the first four of these games, which I bought back when Puppy Games was featured on Humble Bundle, and I actually like this developer's work. I really enjoyed Titan Attacks! and Ultratron, the latter of which I've played for a few dozen hours in total. Because of this, I'd be a little surprised if Puppy Games' recent drop in sales were truly the result of returns by legitimately unhappy customers. Then again, I realize that this developer's games are not everyone's cup of tea.

In any case, despite how I feel about their products, I'm finding it really hard to feel bad for Puppy Games no matter how low their sales go. Long before the new Steam refund policy was announced — in August of last year, to be exact — Puppy Games posted a truly idiotic and somewhat self-contradictory anti-consumer rant on their blog, followed by an only slightly believable and still obnoxious "just kidding, it was all just a ruse for attention" post two weeks later. Regardless of how serious they were when they called their customers worthless, and regardless of what hidden intentions prompted them to write such intentionally inflammatory garbage, the whole ordeal pretty much cancels out any sympathy I might feel for them now.

To make matters worse, in regards to refunds, they tweeted this yesterday:

Again just for the record: the next idiot to say "why don't you make games people don't want to refund then" can shove their opinion up thei

— Puppygames (@puppygames) June 7, 2015

what a shame, ran out of characters

— Puppygames (@puppygames) June 7, 2015

Personally, I like their games, as I mentioned already. However, this doesn't mean I agree with the way they've rudely dismissed the very sensible notion that perhaps developers who don't want to see their games returned should try harder to make games which people want to keep. At least they were being more sensible earlier today:

Further clarification: we absolutely agree with having a refund policy. We had one all along until Valve came along

— Puppygames (@puppygames) June 8, 2015

What we have a problem with is its implementation

— Puppygames (@puppygames) June 8, 2015

So, regarding implementation: Even if the refund policy recently introduced on Steam could use some fine-tuning, any revenue lost due to legitimate refunds is not something for which anyone should apologize. Happy customers typically don't request refunds at all, and unhappy customers deserve to get their money back, so refunds are justified almost always. The system can be abused, but I doubt this is the case for Puppy Games. It almost certainly isn't a case of players returning the games after finishing them, because (with the possible exception of Titan Attacks!) the games have more content than one is likely to see in only two hours. Maybe people are buying games to try them, and maybe Steam will eventually come out and say that this counts as abuse of the refund policy, but I still think it's fair when no playable demo of a game is made available.

I doubt I'll be updating this post again unless Steam's policy changes, so to close it out, I'll post some more tweets. First, here's some evidence that the refund policy isn't so bad for every independent developer:

@puppygames @Steam_Spy That. pic.twitter.com/MOYsTZlF8g

— Garry Newman (@garrynewman) June 7, 2015

our sales are going up since the steam refund system. It might be a really good thing after all! #gamedev #indiegamedev

— Elias Viglione (@eliaspixel) June 7, 2015

Not sure if this is the final graph or if refunds are taken out of this but thats what we got #steamrefunds pic.twitter.com/x0Qlktl8z5

— Elias Viglione (@eliaspixel) June 8, 2015

I dont see #steamrefunds really making any difference in our sales atleast. Guess #HeroSiege is a good game after all.

— Elias Viglione (@eliaspixel) June 8, 2015

Finally, some wise words from the HuniePop Twitter account:

How any indie dev is under the illusion that being anti-gamer is going to work out for them I'll never understand.

— HuniePop (@HuniePop) June 8, 2015

Funny how you have yet to see any pro-gamer dev that has been negatively impacted by the refund policy. HMMMMM.

— HuniePop (@HuniePop) June 8, 2015

The Steam Auction: Mixed Feelings

Steam's economy of trading cards and other community items got a little more convoluted a few days ago with the introduction of gems, a virtual currency which can be created by recycling unwanted items. Gems can then be used to create booster packs of cards or to bid on games in the auction that's currently acting as a weird prelude to the usual winter sale. Predictably, the whole thing was initially a disaster — an exploit caused millions of gems to flood the market and the pre-auction gem-collecting frenzy was shut down temporarily — but everything was fixed in time for the main event. The bidding began yesterday and runs until December 18th, with rounds ending every 45 minutes.

Previously, Steam trading cards were introduced in the summer of 2013. These cards are acquired primarily by logging playtime in certain games (or by spending money on optional content in free games), and they can also come from booster packs which are randomly distributed to eligible users. Once you've collected a full set of cards for a given game, those cards can then be used to craft a badge to be displayed on your profile. The cards are consumed in the process, but crafting a badge also generates some other items (which include game-themed emoticons and profile backgrounds, and sometimes coupons). If you don't want any of this stuff, trading cards (as well as the emoticons and profile backgrounds that are come from crafting badges) can be sold to other users on the Steam Community Market for money (or, perhaps more accurately, for credit to be used in the market or the Steam store). Sellers can specify prices when they list items for sale, and buyers can place buy orders at the prices they choose. Typical transactions are only a few cents per item, but foil cards and other rare items sometimes cost significantly more.

The introduction of gems, like the market itself, is good for people who just don't care about crafting badges, and would rather get rid of their cards and whatever community items they might have acquired. Now, in addition to selling their unwanted items, Steam users can recycle their unwanted items into gems. In theory, having more options is a great thing. The added confusion, though, might be a bit too much. There's already an established Steam market operating with actual currency, so introducing a secondary currency at this point is a bit weird. It's clear that gems are not meant to be a replacement for cash — you can only use gems to bid on games in this auction and to create booster packs of trading cards — but since gems can be bought and sold in sacks of 1,000 on the Steam market, they definitely count as an alternate currency that needs to be considered in certain scenarios.

Let's say I have a bunch of trading cards and I want cash. I could:
1) sell the cards on the market;
2) recycle the cards for gems and then sell the gems on the market;
3) craft the cards into badges to produce community items and then sell the items on the market; or
4) craft the cards into badges to produce community items, recycle the items for gems, and then sell the gems on the market.

Alternatively, let's say I have a bunch of trading cards and I want gems. I could:
1) recycle the cards for gems;
2) sell the cards on the market and then use the money to buy gems;
3) craft the cards into badges to produce community items and then recycle those items for gems; or
4) craft the cards into badges to produce community items, sell the items on the market, and then use the money to buy gems.

The number of gems awarded for recycling each item varies, and this value in gems is not a function of an item's (user-driven and constantly changing) market price. My trading cards for Hammerwatch are apparently worth 24 gems each, while my McPixel cards are worth only 1 gem each, but Hammerwatch cards certainly don't sell for 24 times more cash on the market than McPixel cards do. One of my foil cards, from Europa Universalis III, can be recycled for 320 gems; another of my foil cards, from Droid Assault, is only worth 80 gems, but on the cash market it's currently worth more than twice as much as the Europa Universalis III foil card.

Since different items have different gem values, and since I don't have a list of them all, I'm not sure whether it's better in general to sell items or to recycle them. For trading cards in particular, however — whether you ultimately want money or gems — I would recommend selling or crafting them, instead of simply recycling them. A typical trading card seems to be worth more in cash than in gems, given the price of a sack of gems right now. The combined market price of all the dozens of cards I'd need to recycle for 1,000 gems exceeds the current market price of a single 1,000-gem sack. Selling the cards would be better than recycling them and selling the gems produced. Similarly, selling the cards and using the cash to buy gems would be better than just recycling the cards.

Many people are, however, selling sacks of gems on the market, so clearly there are some non-card items which are worth more after recycling. In any case, whether you care about gems or not, it's generally a good idea to craft badges during events like this, since you tend to get a special trading card in addition to the regular badge and other goodies.

As mentioned above, gems can also be used to create booster packs, but this seems particularly silly to me at the current cost of gems. To create a booster pack of three Alan Wake cards, for example, I would need 750 gems, which means I would need to recycle dozens of other cards to afford it. Meanwhile, on the user-driven community market, a three-card booster pack for any given game costs about as much as three non-foil cards for that same game. If I really wanted an Alan Wake booster pack, I would be much better off just selling a few cards and then using that money to buy a booster pack from the market. Recycling dozens of cards, or even crafting full sets of cards and recycling the items that come out, seems guaranteed to be less far efficient. The only reason I'd ever spend 750 gems on an Alan Wake booster pack is to get rid of 750 gems that I can't use for anything else, since gems can only be sold in sacks of 1,000. Some other booster packs, however, cost 1,000 gems or more. There's absolutely no reason to use gems to create these booster packs as long as the market price of a sack of gems remains higher than the market price of a booster pack.

Of course, given that the currently useless Booster Pack Creator is the only way to spend gems outside of the auction, it's safe to say the market price of gems is bound to plummet after the auction ends, and this will change everything. Even if I were an expert on the ever-changing prices and exchange rates in Steam's crazy economic microcosm, it's likely that none of the advice I could provide would be worth anything by the end of the year. So you have a big pile of cards and items and you don't know what to do with them? I'm not sure that any rule of thumb exists. Just be aware of the current market price for a sack of 1,000 gems, and do some math.

So what about the auction itself? Gems are better sold than used for booster packs, at current prices, but are they better sold than used to bid on games? Not necessarily. Again, you should be aware of the current market price of gems before you place a bid. Also be aware of how much a game actually costs on the Steam store, and how much it's likely to cost during the impending sale. Some of the top bids on popular games are way higher than they should be, because some of the people placing bids on these games are out of their stupid minds. Case in point: when I checked the auction last night, the top bid for Counter-Strike: Global Offensive was more than 20,000 gems, an amount which, at the time, could have fetched considerably more than the game's $15.00 retail price if sold on the market. The Forest — a game still in Early Access (i.e., it's not even finished) — also had a top bid around 20,000 gems and a $15.00 store price.

This insanity doesn't apply to every game in the auction, though. More obscure games had top bids below 1,000 gems last night, and most of those games have store prices well above the amount that was needed to buy a sack of 1,000 gems at the time. These low-profile auctions actually seemed pretty easy to win, since there weren't many people bidding. However, for many high-profile games, you can expect at least one ridiculous person bidding a ridiculous amount of gems worth more than the game's price. In such a case, bidding is no longer worth it for anyone else except for other crazy people who place high bids just for the satisfaction of winning an auction.

I'm not really sure what's going on with these high rollers. I think you get a Steam badge for winning an auction, but if that's all they want, they could bid on more obscure games whose auctions are easier to win. Instead, they choose popular games and bid so high that they'd be better off using cash. Could it be the combination of a decent game and a badge that causes them to bid higher than a game's value? Or are they just not paying attention? Could they be blinded by the fact that real money is being substituted for artificial money for the purposes of bidding? I'm not sure.

Of course, I don't mean to imply that all these high bidders are using gems straight from the market. That is, I doubt anyone is actually bidding on a $15.00 game immediately after spending way more than $15.00 on the required gems. Many bidders probably bought gems when they were much cheaper, and recycled items to get a lot of their gems for free. However, my concern is not the amount of actual money these people are spending. It's the amount of money they could be getting instead. If, for whatever reason, you have a pile of gems which you could sell for $25.00, and you'd need all of them to bid successfully on a $15.00 game, shouldn't you just sell the gems and buy the game instead, making $10.00 in the process? (Sure, that $10.00 is just store credit, but it's better than nothing.) Better yet, couldn't you sell your gems and then wait until the sale that starts in a couple of days? That $15.00 game might be 50% off, and then you'll have a $17.50 surplus instead.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people are making the less rational decision. In a community of millions of people, there are bound to be at least a few hundred idiots. Honestly — forget gems — the fact that people are even willing to go to the market and spend real money on profile backgrounds and emoticons just to keep them is beyond me, but I guess I'm glad they do so. I've bought and sold some things on the Steam market (and, hilariously, made an occasional profit by buying an item and selling it later), but I didn't put any of my own money in. I started with $0.00 and a pile of cards. Now I have fewer cards and a few dollars. I'm happy with that, and I'm not about to spend those dollars on anything but a game. But maybe I just don't "get it" because I'm not an obsessive Steam badge collector.

Like the market itself, the auction is meaningless to me unless I can screw with the system to get free money. In order to win any of the most noteworthy games in this auction, I'd have to buy so many gems that the items in my inventory, whether sold or crafted or recycled, would never cover the cost. The net loss would be greater than if I just sold my cards on the market and bought the game directly from the Steam store. So it sounds like a bad idea. But, again, maybe I just don't get it.

Did I mention that the item with the highest top bid isn't even a game? It's a special profile background. You can't get it any other way, so I guess that makes it priceless, but it's not even permanent. It's only available until January 6th, after which I assume it disappears from the profiles of those who won it. The high bid, when I checked last night, was nearly 400,000 gems. At the time, these gems could have been sold on the market for well over $400.00 instead, and it would have been nearly $500.00 to actually buy them straight from the market. The high bid has been around the same amount every time I've checked since then, even though a new round starts every 45 minutes, so it's not just one person placing such a high bid. Apparently that's just how much people are willing to pay for a pretty profile background which cannot be traded, cannot be resold on the market, and disappears next month. Yeah, clearly I don't get it. I must be missing something here. Maybe the top bidders are all obscenely wealthy people who just don't care.

Anyway, if you're not obscenely rich and you're participating in the auction and you're trying to win a game, I urge you to check the price of the game on which you're bidding as well as the total amount you'd earn by selling all the gems you're planning to bid. If the latter is greater than the former, it's time to stop bidding.

Steam Sales: Not What They Used to Be

This article was also published on Gather Your Party on June 12, 2013. Read it here.

---

Today marks the beginning of yet another seasonal Steam sale. This typically means another themed event to accompany the daily discounts, and this year's summer sale is no exception, but users who aren't already enjoying the recently introduced Steam trading cards might be less than thrilled about the nature of this event. The Summer Getaway Sale predictably implements the new feature with the unveiling of ten Summer Getaway trading cards.

Always in search of ways to convince potential customers that Steam is more than a typical online distributor with some neatly packaged digital rights management, Valve has famously made a habit of supplementing its well-known seasonal sales with themed objectives, contests, and other giveaways. Last year's two big events, however, were arguably lackluster compared to those which had come before, and this isn't a nostalgia-induced observation.

The Great Steam Treasure Hunt of December 2010, for example, was a pretty big deal. By completing special objectives related to in-game actions and community participation, Steam users could enter into a series of drawings to win free games. Every two days, 20 people won the top five games from their wishlists; 3 users then won a hundred games at the end of the event. The Steam Summer Camp Sale in 2011 followed a similar format with a few differences, namely that a single "ticket" was earned for each completed objective. Three of these tickets could then be exchanged for something at the prize booth (e.g., free downloadable content for a Steam game). Each ticket earned also came with automatic entry into another free-game sweepstakes in which 100 people won ten games.

The Great Gift Pile event, which took place the following winter, was perhaps the most notorious Steam event to date. This time, each completed objective came with one of three prizes: a lump of coal, a coupon, or a free game. Seven lumps of coal could then be "crafted" into a non-coal prize, and any remaining lumps of coal at the end of the event were used as entries into yet another Steam game give-away: One lucky person won every game on Steam, 50 won ten games, 100 won five games, and 1,000 won the Valve complete pack. Unfortunately, Humble Indie Bundle 4 was going on at the same time, and the name-your-own-price bundle included Steam keys for some of the games whose achievements were needed to win prizes.

People quickly realized that, by creating dozens of Steam accounts and buying dozens of bundles for $0.01 each, they could vastly increase their odds of getting free stuff without spending a lot of money. All of that free stuff could then be traded back to their main Steam accounts. Because of this easily exploited loophole, Steam ran out of third-party coupons before the event was over, and Humble Bundle was forced to raise the minimum price for Steam keys to $1.00.

Compared to the previous events, the Summer Sale of 2012 was a massive step down. Discounts went on as usual, but the sale was devoid of any contests or cool prizes, possibly due to the previous event's Humble Bundle shenanigans. Only a few community-based objectives were posted for the duration of the sale, and the only reward for participation was an easily obtained Steam badge. The following Holiday Sale was more of the same.

These last two events did come with a couple of new features which return this summer: Flash Sales which roll over every few hours (like Daily Deals on crack) and a Community's Choice poll to determine which of three games will go on sale next. It should be noted, however, that the games featured in Flash Sales and Community's Choice polls often seem to end up being featured as Daily Deals anyway.

So here we are, at the start of another sale, and again there are no sweepstakes or contests in sight. Furthermore, with the absence of any specially themed achievements or objectives, it looks like the last remnant of the old Steam events has been swept aside to make room for something presumably more lucrative.

This event's special badge can only be earned by crafting all ten Summer Getaway trading cards, and these cards can be obtained in a few ways. The easiest is by casting Community's Choice votes (three of which are good for one card), yielding a maximum of one card per day. Unfortunately, this only works if your Steam level, based on previously collected badges, is 5 or higher. If not, or if you can't check into Steam every few hours for the next eleven days, you'll have to turn to alternative methods: spending money on Steam (which is likely Valve's favorite option), crafting badges for games you already own (which involves collecting other sets of cards), trading other items for the required cards (which means you need something worth trading), or simply buying the cards from other users on the Steam market (a monetary transaction from which Valve takes a small percentage).

As Valve continues to push the new trading card feature, frequently adding to the list of participating games, it's possible that the use of trading cards to earn a badge, as opposed to the completion of special achievements, will be the norm in future Steam events.

Steam Trading Cards Out of Beta

Steam's trading cards, mentioned briefly in this way-too-long post about virtual trading cards in general, are out of beta today. I already had the pleasure of "collecting" some of these cards a few weeks ago, thanks to a Steam friend who sent me a beta invite, but my participation thus far (spurred by curiosity alone) has been strictly passive. I got my standard card drops for Half-Life 2 and Portal 2 by running each game for a couple of hours, but I've yet to go out of my way to collect an entire set of cards for any given game.

It hardly seems worth it, since doing so would likely require trading with strangers or giving money to strangers; one is irritating and the other is insane. Meanwhile, it seems the only material reward for obtaining a full set of cards is the possibility of a coupon alongside a bunch of virtual things that are no more useful to me than the virtual cards used to pay for them. On the other hand, all of these virtual things are worth something to someone, so more substantial material rewards — monetary rewards, in fact — might be within reach if you know how to work the system for a profit.

How It Works

For those of you not in-the-know, the newly introduced Steam trading cards are the latest in a series of secondary features added to the already-bloated Steam Community over the past year or two. (Steam Market? Steam Workshop? Greenlight? What are these "Community Hub" things and why do these discussions need to be separate from the existing Steam forums? I think I've had enough.) Unfortunately, these trading cards don't do much, and they're not part of a collectible card game like Magic: The Gathering. They're just collectibles. You can exchange a set of them to get a handful of virtual prizes, but in the end it all boils down to more collectible stuff in your inventory, more cosmetic features on your profile, and perhaps a bigger ego if you're actually proud of this.

Your first few trading cards can be earned by playing any the applicable games, and additional cards can then be received from three-card booster packs which are given out at random. However, booster packs don't seem plentiful — at least, not at this time — so getting a complete set of cards before the heat death of the universe will likely require trade of some kind.

For most games, the initial gameplay-induced card drops are based on playtime only, so you don't have to do anything in-game to get them. In fact, you don't even have to play; you can just get your cards by idling at the main menu of each game. (If I remember correctly, it only takes a couple of hours to get your maximum share of trading cards from any given game, much less than the length of a typical playthrough, so whether you're playing the game or leaving it paused for card-mining, there's no grinding involved here.) The only games with special card-dropping rules are the so-called "free-to-play" Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2, which only drop one card per $9 spent on in-game items.

Leveling Up

So what's the point of all this?

Here's a hint: Money. But I'll get into that shortly. First and foremost, these trading cards give you another reason to care about your Steam Level, an arbitrary indicator of coolness according to Valve, which appears on your Steam profile. A user's level is based on experience points which are in turn earned primarily by accumulating badges. What are badges? Well, actually, those are nothing new.

Most of the badges on my own profile are from participation in Steam's sale-related events from previous years. (Valve has a history of using the Steam community as a platform for meta-games aimed at getting its members more involved and excited about spending money, and sometimes this involves handing out specially themed achievements for the various games on sale during an event. These achievements often translate to badges and thus to experience.) Badges and experience points can also be earned for being a long-time member, participating in beta tests, and — predictably — owning lots and lots of Steam games.

The trading card thing factors into all of this because each complete set of cards associated with a given game — all eight of the Half-Life 2 cards, for example — can be exchanged for a badge. (The same badge can then be "leveled up" multiple times by collecting the same set of cards again and again.) Along with each badge comes the aforementioned handful of virtual goodies, which may or may not include a coupon, as well as a bunch of experience which raises your Steam Level. Having a higher level then increases your chance of randomly getting a booster pack of three cards.

At this early date, however, it's not exactly clear how frequently one might expect to receive a booster pack. As I mentioned above, it seems pretty rare. The trading card FAQ only shows the percentages of increased drop rates associated with each leveling milestone, and indicates that booster packs are "granted randomly to eligible users as more badges are crafted by members of the community." Without more information, I'll just have to wait and see how long it takes me to get a booster pack, if I ever get one. Frankly, however, I'm more interested in how Valve is controlling the number of cards in circulation.

Artificial Scarcity

Logging playtime will only get you half the set of cards for any given game — for example, four of the eight Half-Life 2 cards — and that might include duplicates. In the absence of booster packs, a player who doesn't trade will literally never earn a badge, and a player who only trades card-for-card will literally never be able to craft badges for all of his or her applicable games. In such a system, allowing cards to be permanently consumed in the badge crafting process would very quickly lead to a shortage. Booster packs fix this, but giving them out willy nilly would lead to an ever-increasing surplus. I can only assume that the cards being exchanged for badges are the very same cards being redistributed in booster packs. After all, that would make loads of sense, especially if we're supposed to pretend that these imaginary cards are to be treated as actual collectible objects like Magic cards or vintage stamps. If it is the case, however, the seemingly miniscule odds of receiving a booster pack would suggest that a relatively small number of users are actually crafting badges.

In any case, while a user who doesn't trade still does theoretically have a chance of eventually crafting a badge, the system heavily encourages trading, which is far more convenient. The only question is whether you're trading cards for cards, or paying cash. Even more convenient than finding a stranger who has what you need, and needs what you have, is looking up exactly what you need on the Steam Market and buying it. Sounds crazy? It's already happening. Thousands of cards are showing up on the Steam Market, with the rare foil cards going for a few dollars and regular cards ranging from around 40 cents to just above a dollar. This doesn't necessarily mean that just as many thousands of cards are successfully being sold, but the list of recently sold items on the market's main page does show a few cards every time I reload it.

This brings me to Valve's other motivation for getting into the virtual trading card business. Simply put, the whole thing is designed to suck more money from the wallets of those who are prone to trading card addiction. Some people, like me, are driven to obsessive completionism in video games; for other people, that completionism extends outside of video games to stuff like this. There are people out there who will not feel complete until they've collected every card. It's not inconceivable that some poor soul might actually buy one of these trading-card-enabled games on Steam for the sole purpose of getting more cards to trade. For the slightly less insane (but equally addicted) collector, the Steam Market is there with individual cards for sale, always waiting, tempting you with an easy path to your next badge.

Free Money (But Not Just For You)

For everything sold on the market, Valve takes a small transaction fee, so even though they aren't selling cards directly to users, they're still making money. In addition to these user-to-user card sales, the introduction of this trading card meta-game brings a mess of other items to the market as well, namely the emoticons and profile backgrounds that are earned with the creation of each badge. As long as the market is alive, Valve is making money just by keeping the servers turned on.

Evil, huh? But none of this is particularly bad for the user. Sellers on the market can make some extra change to put toward their next game (if they don't want their cards and don't mind viciously undercutting thousands upon thousands of other sellers), and buyers needn't worry much about the transaction fee unless they plan on turning around selling the very same items they just bought (which appears to be a losing proposition when each buyer pays more than each seller earns). Some have allegedly made a significant profit (in Steam Wallet credit) by purchasing cards and selling whatever rare items come out of badge crafting, but I can only assume this requires some cleverness and some luck. Trading card hustling and associated caveats aside, though, it's pretty nice to have an official means of selling items that you don't want to keep, even if your Steam wallet will only grow by a few cents.

So it's not all bad, but don't think Valve is doing us any favors; if you try to look at this from the developer's point of view, all of our usernames turn into dollar signs as usual. If you think you're going to get rich by selling all your cards, think again. Valve, on the other hand, has created yet another way to generate revenue by doing very little work. They've created their own little economy in which everything is heavily taxed but nobody really cares.

In other Steam-related news, this year's summer sale is due to start pretty soon. No one ever seems to know the exact starting date, but last year's summer sale started in mid-July, and in the previous year it started at the end of June and overlapped with the July 4th holiday. I probably already own most of the Steam games I'd be willing to buy this summer, and my backlog is already long enough thanks to the incessant Humble Bundle events, but I look forward to another Steam event nonetheless. (Maybe I'll get another badge.)

How To: Steam Sales

Note: It seems that daily deals and flash sales are no longer a regular part of major Steam events. Unless things go back to the way they were before, this guide is obsolete. It is being kept online for historical purposes only.

---

Steam has been going a bit crazy with sales lately. They haven't all been mind-blowing but it seems like there's a new one every time I check the store. There was that three-day Halloween Sale, then a week-long Autumn Sale for Thanksgiving and Black Friday... and I guess this is pretty normal, so far, but there was also the recent week-long sale of controller-compatible games to celebrate the Big Picture feature coming out of beta, and that particular event ended only a week ago.

Now, with only a week before Christmas Eve, it's just about time for the highly anticipated 2012 Winter Sale, which will run through the holidays. I'm not exactly sure when it will start, but it should be sometime in the next few days. (Last year, it began on Monday, December 19; the year before that, it began on Monday, December 20; and the year before that, it began on Monday, December 21. Since today is a Monday with no sale, and the event is unlikely to start as late as December 24, we can be pretty sure that the Monday pattern won't hold; instead, I'm betting on a start date of Thursday, December 20, give or take a day.)

The Winter Sale is typically the best sale of the year on Steam, rivaled only by the Summer Sale. In other words, it's kind of a big deal. The holiday season, of course, is the best time to buy video games anywhere — GOG, for example, is having a sale right now — but Steam is so well known for its discounts that other distributors get mad and pretend that sales are a bad thing even though developers completely disagree. And yes, this particular sale is a biggie.

So if you're planning to do some video game shopping on Steam in the coming days, it helps to be prepared. Unfortunately, some people don't really understand how Steam sales work, either because they've never seen one or because they don't pay attention. They buy a game on the first day of the sale when it's 50% off, and then they get mad when the game's price is bumped to 75% off just a couple of days later. This is great for the people who made the game, I guess — so go ahead and pay more than necessary in order to support the industry if you want to — but as long as developers are willing to apply deep discounts to their games during daily deals and flash sales, you might as well take advantage of it.

With that goal in mind, I've created a helpful flow chart, seen below.

The same rules certainly might apply to other online stores whose holiday sales have a similar format of long-lasting (mediocre) discounts punctuated by short-lived (much better) deals. In any case, you really shouldn't buy a game from any online store, especially Steam, if it's not on sale and there's likely to be a sale just around the corner... that is, I mean, unless you like paying four times as much as everyone else. There's no reason to be in such a rush that you buy something too early. Since digitally distributed goods are delivered instantaneously, you'd be a fool not to wait until the last minute.

I just wish I could buy video games for everyone I know. Picking out gifts for younger people is so easy. The older people in my family, on the other hand... well, if they don't start giving me hints really soon, it's gift cards for all of them.

Happy Holidays!

---

Update (December 20, 2012):

My estimate for the start of the Steam sale was dead-on. I feel so special.