This indie has been returned 55,000 times due to Steam’s restrictive policies

270,000 copies sold and 55,000 returns are not very logical figures for a single game. Does a bestseller (on the margins of the independent circuit) and an extraordinary number of returns make sense in the same title? The two figures did not add up to Mateo Covic and he exposed a problem that mainly affects independent developers: you cannot make games that are too short. The game. ‘Paddle Paddle Paddle’ is a cooperative physics and platform game that Covic signs under the name Zoroarts, and is his second commercial title after ‘Makis Adventure’, from 2023. Published by Assemble Entertainment, It went on sale on July 25, 2025 for $4.99. Covic, 23, built it alone in just four months; It takes just over three hours to complete if played slowly. But many players don’t play leisurely. The complaint. On July 5, Covic published in X that his game accumulated more than 55,000 refunds: 21% of all sales, despite the fact that the 90% of the reviews were positive. “This should not be possible,” he wrote. But it is: the Steam refund policy allows you to return any game played less than two hours and purchased less than fourteen days ago, without having to give any verifiable reason. System failure. The policy is not intended, as she herself acknowledges, “as a way to get free games,” and using it this way can result in the loss of the right to request future refunds. But the two-hour limit is the same whether the game lasts six or sixty: it does not correspond to the actual length of each title. In the European Union, in fact, the legal right of withdrawal in distance purchases expressly excludes digital content once the download begins with the consent of the buyer, so this consumer protection comes from Steam’s commercial policy. It’s not the first time. In its day we already had How a studio built an entire game around all of this: a survival of terror that turned the return into a challenge, rewarding anyone who finished it before the limit with the possibility of recovering the money. And Valve has already touched the refund policy to prevent an early access title from being played indefinitely and return it just before launch. With Covic the other side of the same problem appears, finished and enjoyed games that are returned anyway. And in this way the temptation is generated to stretch a game just to exceed two hours. Short genres have been defending their length for years as a design decision, not as a defect. If the economic penalty for being short grows, the pressure to stuff development with padding grows with it, and that precisely harms games that make a point of their brevity. Nuances. Days after his tweet, Covic sat down to crunch the numbers, and qualified his initial anger: 20% refunds are common among games of the type to which ‘Paddle Paddle Paddle’ belongs, and 10% is the general average on Steam. With 270,000 copies sold, its 55,000 returns are not that far from that range. He also recognized that the real driver of sales was the bargain price, with a 40% discount, not the refund policy: at less than three dollars, people bought without a second thought. That doesn’t stop Covic from thinking the system is flawed: Steam doesn’t check the reasons for each return, and he, as a developer, would find it helpful to see returns labeled “too difficult.” Of the nearly 826,000 gross dollars that the game generated, 158,000 were lost directly in returns (before subtracting the Steam commission, the distribution with the publisher and German taxes that are around 42%). And yet, none of this made him consider artificially extending his games. For speaking. The post where Covic expressed his complaints went viral: he received very hostile messages, and a good part of that response translated into protest reviews. Many understood his complaint as an attack on returns in general, something that he himself has denied. Now, in the game file, the historical set of reviews remains Very Positive (88% out of 1,414 reviews), but the most recent ones have fallen to Mixed (57% out of 69). In any case, their proposal that Valve include an estimated departure time next to the price, and removing “too short” as a valid reason for refund once that time has passed, are still very reasonable requests so that the indie scene continues to evolve at its own pace, and not at that of the AAAs. In Xataka | This game dared to go on sale the same day as ‘Silksong’. The only thing he managed to do was attract 12 players in his debut

An indie group is petalling in Spotify. All normal except for one thing: they are made with ia

A couple of months ago we talked about tools as powerful as Suno Ai that allowed to create practically indistinguishable songs of a generated by humans. There is nothing strange that, a few weeks later we are already seeing musical groups generated from Musical Models of AI, and that not only manage to deceive the public but also generate millions of listeners and, therefore, substantial amounts of money in benefits. The new case (and surely will not be the last one) is that of the false Folk The Velvet Slown band. Lie folk. The first calls for attention to the legitimacy of The Velvet Sundown took place in Reddit (in this and in this thread), where attention was called to the possible absence of the band despite its more than 550,000 monthly listeners have already been recommended by the platform algorithm. The reactions went from indignation to resignation, and at that time a boycott call was made to Spotify, for not clearly noticing the nature of these contents. How to detect it. Shortly after, the music expert Chris Dalla I explained in Tiktok How it was possible to distinguish The Velvet Sundown from a royal band: certain metal nuances in the voices, typical of when they are generated by AI, very little original titles (‘Dust on the Wind’, very similar to the legendary ‘dust in the Wind’ of Kansas), the clear origin by means of both the images of the group and of the description of the same (with false quotes or abundance of scripts. of chatgpt texts in English). And then, of course, there is the total absence of information about the band or its members on the Internet. There is no digital footprint prior to the appearance of the group in Spotify. The definitive test: Deezer. Deezer is one of the few platforms of streaming of music that has recognized the problems of an excess content generated by AI (18% of all that rises to digital platformsaccording to your own report). That is why they launched a tool that warns their listeners of the possibility that they are listening to artificially generated music. In the case of The Velvet Slown, His verdict is unequivocal: The possibilities that your songs have composed with Suno, you or other similar tool are very high. Why have so many reproductions. However, The Velvet Sundown does not have too many listeners signed to their profile: just 11,000 at the time of writing these lines. Where do all your listening monthly come from? Basically, to appear on playlists who arrive thanks to five very specific users, according to the investigation Musically: Extra music, Collective Solitude, Kultpop!, In-Between and Lost Records. These profiles have included the entire records of The Velvet Slown in very often lists, although their themes (for example, the Vietnam War) have no apparent relationship with the music of the band. But these appearances in lists lead them direct to the weekly discoveries of the algorithm. The juicy royalties. What generates this is an avalanche of Royalties whose legitimacy is, in the best, doubtful, since they are often used Bots to inflate the statistics (There are already, in fact, cases giving tumbos in court for this issue). The use of bots is not demonstrated with this new non-base, but the objections around it go rather by the ethical point of view: with its somewhat artificial success (based on “deceiving” the algorithm forcing its appearance in Playlists very listened to) are removing space to authentic bands. And money: reproductions are paid in Spotify between 0.003 and $ 0.005 for each listening, so that money is not going to real musicians. The precedent: the girls. At the end of 2024a Spanish band generated entirely by AI became the musical controversy of the moment. The girls obtained some impact with their first album, ‘Last bath’, and became interviewed by media such as eldiario.es. Those responsible, from anonymity, stated when they were discovered to be responsible for the lyrics, but not music or interpretation. In this case, they disappeared from Spotify by decision of their Altafonte distributor, although in a few days they returned to platforms, already self -managed. Those responsible fled forward with A manifesto in which they turned the project into an idea of ​​collaborative philosophy, trying to provide a certain experimental entity to the girls. Only seven months later, possibly their authors have managed to strain many other experiments on platforms … and are charging for it. In Xataka | Spotify has found the best use of AI: generates playlist from any text, such as chatgpt

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.