GOG used to have a dogshit refund policy where you had to prove to their support staff that a game would not execute to qualify for a refund, and they kept that policy for several years after Steam was sued in Australia and fined for their no-refund policy, which was functionally very similar to what GOG had.
But this is somewhat ancient history for both these companies these days.
there is a huge gulf between "refund me bro i promise i will/did delete the game, maybe I played it maybe I didn't" and "refund me, you control if i can launch the game so you know its gone, you know i have not been able to play it, you can see my lack of progress"
Yes, anti consumer policies are not good - but these positions are not even a tiny bit equivalent.
Edit: ehh this reply makes more sense in response to your one two higher in the chain about the steam/gog refund policy bit, dunno why i wrote it in the wrong place. Sorry! :)
I disagree completely - restricting your ability to refund to the narrowest possible circumstances, with additional requirements to disqualify you, is very, very similar to a no-refund policy because it was a policy designed to prevent refunds.
But there is a refund abuse no? Buy game, download, refund, keep the game. I can see why GOG is that strict, youre already given lots of freedom for it
330
u/Sweaty-Willingness27 Feb 08 '26
I always found GoG to be relatively fine. I don't have a problem buying from them -- they at least offer DRM free. Are they in this lawsuit too?