If someone makes a crappy product that doesn't perform as advertised, then the person who made it isn't deserving of getting money from other people. The only developers this hurts are the ones that make crappy games.
Although, I don't think 2 hours is nearly enough to judge whether a game is good or not. 5 hours would be more reasonable. Sometimes the hype of having a new game makes it more enjoyable than it actually is, and it takes a few hours for that to wear off.
To note on crappy games, we've got a ton of them flooding Greenlight / Early Access. Soon as they get into Steam and are asking for money, we should have some right to expect a refund. Which wasn't possible before and people could easily throw them at $2-10, get enough people to buy it and move onto something else.
2 hours is a fair starting point, then saying "You have 3 days to play before refunding" or anything. It's a starting point and niche games that are 2 hours or less, why should people buy you for say $10+? Is there something about you, that is worth keeping you in a library? If it's a linear game that likely will be played once, can you make that time worthwhile they might want to return to it?
Why should people put down $10 or more, on a game that has almost no reason to charge that much? I'm not saying developers shouldn't ask for money, on something unique they made. Just you have to put a price to enjoyment ratio, that someone will happily spend on your product. Not just rip them off, as they will likely want their money back instead.
Big budget games are almost always $60 with then likely stripped out content, that was made into DLC for more money. To make their profits back on said game, but I find that price is a bit too high for my standards. Especially now with Steam doing local currency conversions, even if it's just one static price to make those games less appealing. It's instead usually $70+ for a single big budget game, obviously what it would be with conversions. Just that price suddenly tells me "Don't buy me, I'm too expensive" and I wait for sales.
Also to note in the article, they should list out abuse. Then people can game the system, it's a fledgling system put in place right now. We seen how the paid mods went over, and the outrage which lead to it being pulled. That was obviously a major issue from all sides (Valve, mod authors and consumers), but we need to work out things on everything.
Developers need to not stir the pot, driving everyone into a frenzy because their games are being refunded. Thus losing money on their game sales because it's going to, sooner or later cause this system to be scrapped or reworked to be worse than before. Taking a tiny snapshot (3 days as example from Qweebo), and using that to scare everyone, because that is such a minimal amount of time and people are testing the system.
I'd like to see actual games refunded, based on last played times as well. Games you might have gotten years ago, tried once and then didn't bother since it doesn't work. Why should those games sit in your library, collecting dust is another thing. Of course this is the trial run, expect to see some changes later on.
