PT was not a for-sale game. It was a freely downloadable demo (PT actually stands for Playable Teaser) for the now cancelled Silent Hills project (just sayin', Jamin!).

I think there may be a little too much concern over the 2 hour stipulation, and how that pertains to shorter games. Gone Home, Lifeless Planet, Journey (not on Steam, but for the sake of argument...)... These are games that can be clocked in at under 2 hours, and yet they charge a $20 entry fee. The question is: Is that a fair cost? The New York Times called Gone Home "...the greatest video game love story ever told.” I've played a lot of games, so whether literal or metaphorical, that's a huge statement, and one that might cause some people to think about purchasing a game they might otherwise pass by. Some have made that purchase, finished the game (because it is so short), and felt cheated, not only by the game play, but by the story (arguably the prime focus of the game). I'd say that warrants a refund. On the other hand, people that rave about their experience in Gone Home are not likely to return the game, and this appears to be the majority experience. Taking an alarmist stance that this could jeopardize the sales of shorter indie games or discourage developers from making smaller projects, might be a bit premature. I would hope that, if anything, it will encourage developers to determine a better price point for such experiences, and maybe work that much harder to make their games worth buying, much less worth playing. I think that, as gamers, we all know how easy it is for developers to make a crap game look really good.

It all ties together with what we perceive as a game, and what value we are looking for in our games. I personally think that games journalists are too lenient on art games in the consumer space. Half of these games are tantamount to emotive tech demoes, and pricing is all over the place. Should a project like that constitute a $20 price tag? It all depends on the demand of the consumer, I guess. I would never trade in my copy of Journey, but if I had paid retail money for Lifeless Planet, I probably would have taken advantage of the refund. Portal was in that 2-3hr play time, and it's only $10. The tech in Portal is much more innovative and complex than what we get in Gone Home, yet the latter is twice the price. As a parallel, on the iTunes store, movies range in length from 1hr to 4hrs, with prices from $10 to $20. How much do short films cost? $3! That's reasonable, and there is an expectation that goes along with that, because we are given appropriate information to make that distinction.

Maybe, the whole "games as art" conversation has blinded us to the fact that we are ultimately dealing with an economy that regards products of entertainment, and not some objectivity in fine art. You can say that Proteus is the epitome of what it means to feel in a virtual environment, but at the end of the day, it's a product that costs $10 to the consumer. After the game has been played and experienced, the emotional value to the consumer may change, but initially It's either worth that $10 investment, or it isn't, and (I guess this is my way of saying) I appreciate the scope with which Valve is taking to apply refunds if it isn't. Reviews can often be biased, but the consumer speaks with their wallet. Beyond that, I think that if people feel like they are getting a fair deal, even if they aren't completely satisfied with the purchase, they'll keep the game. Valve makes it clear that they are aware of the opportunity for abuse. Let's see how they handle that.

Maybe we are blinded, but I wasn't considering art when I wrote what I did.

I wasn't directing anything at you, specifically, but speaking toward the universal "we" in game culture. In fact, I agree with what you are saying. I guess I was responding more to Jamin's comments on the matter (as if he's reading!). Your point in your last comment, Jon, I think nails it more directly, regarding developer concerns. However, I find it interesting that instead of doing a normal show on this topic, Jamin decides to do an opinion piece. He appears to be part of the problem here. He misleads by stating the terms of the refunds are "unconditional," an untruth, since there are clear conditions printed on the refunds page, especially regarding DLC and in-game purchases (e.g. "...so long as the DLC has not been consumed, modified or transferred."). On top of that, there doesn't really seem to be a significant concern from the broad landscape of developers, rather only from a very select few (3, as far as I can tell. Qwiboo, PuppyGames, and Nina Freeman). Jamin mentions Nina Freeman directly, relaying her concerns (her words here: https://goo.gl/SAfQKD, which include Brianna Wu's inflammatory statement that Steam refunds are "brutally unfair for indie developers."). Nina Freeman, to this point, has only ever released free-to-play games. Why is her opinion on refunds even relevant?

Sorry. Maybe that shouldn't have bothered me as much as it did :).

Enter the Hype Train =)

That is hilarious!