keep in mind, its partially overblown because according to the acheivements, only 7% users have actually beat the game of the people who kept it. the people who refunded shouldnt be that different than the average.
most of the people refunding are more likely people who rage quit more than people who beat the game in 2 hours
not saying its not an. ass move to refund but the people who refunded arent statisically the people who beat it.
hence exageration, as the majority probably never finished, and its more scrutinized on the people who did. When you bring up the refund rate, then a specific comment doing the refund, that’s pushing a narrative to the passive reader that they are one in the same when only a fraction of said 55k actually have completed the game in under 2 hours.
If valve for example stepped in and punished those few that actually beat the game and refunded, the dev would probably get a miniscule amount back. (and don’t get me wrong, I think they shouldn’t be refunded) Then you go towards the question that comes up in the debate that are you really going to deny people who didn’t even finish the game, a refund? If you are, that would just be another checkbox in the steadily growing debate between consumer vs developer debate
while i can’t entirely assume it, you cannot assume that the people refunded are drastically better than the people who didn’t, especially when the dev puts out the 55k refund numbers. if hes going to claim 55k refunds, he needs to show that 55k (or a majority of those) actually beat the game and refunded in under 2 hours, else hes bundling a bunch of people who simply ragequit and likely legitimately refunded the game. The debate ultimately comes up because he happen to tie the 55k number on the same post as showing the comment that someone beat the game and refunded. Thats the equivalent of going somewhere, finding one thing to support your cause, and saying everything there supported it without actually checking.
But all games have a rate of refunds, including refunds due to rage quitting. Our null hypothesis should be that the refund rate should be the same as any other game (controlling for difficulty).
I don’t know what a normal rate of refunds is, that is probably data that is out there. But if the refund rate for this game is significantly higher than normal, then we can say that SOMETHING about this game is different.
If we control for every factor besides hltb, and it’s still higher, only then could we say with high confidence that the difference is due to people finishing and refunding. But we technically can’t ever say that with 100% certainty unless we go to every person’s house and watch them do it.
the game is intentionally designed around being frustrating, due to controls, and especially since it was designed to be done in coop, as it came from a period of time like carry the glass or chained together was. It’s not like conventional hard game like thrown into elden ring with no souls experience hard, but intentionally difficult games like those in the Foddian category like baby steps, pogostuck and such. they’re intentionally hard, and theyre intentionally designed to fuck with the player, far more than a typical game would.
Its a very similar vein as modern hard vs “nintendo hard” in the past because games werent hard to be hard, they were hard because of intentional design decisions to prevent users from renting a game and beating it, and to prolong game value
keep in mind, its partially overblown because according to the acheivements, only 7% users have actually beat the game of the people who kept it. the people who refunded shouldnt be that different than the average.
most of the people refunding are more likely people who rage quit more than people who beat the game in 2 hours
not saying its not an. ass move to refund but the people who refunded arent statisically the people who beat it.
Apart from the people saying that’s exactly what they did, which is what this is about.
hence exageration, as the majority probably never finished, and its more scrutinized on the people who did. When you bring up the refund rate, then a specific comment doing the refund, that’s pushing a narrative to the passive reader that they are one in the same when only a fraction of said 55k actually have completed the game in under 2 hours.
If valve for example stepped in and punished those few that actually beat the game and refunded, the dev would probably get a miniscule amount back. (and don’t get me wrong, I think they shouldn’t be refunded) Then you go towards the question that comes up in the debate that are you really going to deny people who didn’t even finish the game, a refund? If you are, that would just be another checkbox in the steadily growing debate between consumer vs developer debate
You would need data to show this hypothesis to be true, you can’t assume it, the variables are not independent, that’s the whole point being made.
while i can’t entirely assume it, you cannot assume that the people refunded are drastically better than the people who didn’t, especially when the dev puts out the 55k refund numbers. if hes going to claim 55k refunds, he needs to show that 55k (or a majority of those) actually beat the game and refunded in under 2 hours, else hes bundling a bunch of people who simply ragequit and likely legitimately refunded the game. The debate ultimately comes up because he happen to tie the 55k number on the same post as showing the comment that someone beat the game and refunded. Thats the equivalent of going somewhere, finding one thing to support your cause, and saying everything there supported it without actually checking.
But all games have a rate of refunds, including refunds due to rage quitting. Our null hypothesis should be that the refund rate should be the same as any other game (controlling for difficulty).
I don’t know what a normal rate of refunds is, that is probably data that is out there. But if the refund rate for this game is significantly higher than normal, then we can say that SOMETHING about this game is different.
If we control for every factor besides hltb, and it’s still higher, only then could we say with high confidence that the difference is due to people finishing and refunding. But we technically can’t ever say that with 100% certainty unless we go to every person’s house and watch them do it.
the game is intentionally designed around being frustrating, due to controls, and especially since it was designed to be done in coop, as it came from a period of time like carry the glass or chained together was. It’s not like conventional hard game like thrown into elden ring with no souls experience hard, but intentionally difficult games like those in the Foddian category like baby steps, pogostuck and such. they’re intentionally hard, and theyre intentionally designed to fuck with the player, far more than a typical game would.
Its a very similar vein as modern hard vs “nintendo hard” in the past because games werent hard to be hard, they were hard because of intentional design decisions to prevent users from renting a game and beating it, and to prolong game value
You’re just making me wanna play this game lol