Steam mandates timely season pass content releases, refunds for undelivered content

Shawn Knight

Posts: 15,829   +202
Staff member
Bottom line: Valve has published new Steam season pass guidelines in an effort to better protect gamers from deception. Because the company views season passes in a similar light as pre-purchases, they share many of the same restrictions and considerations.

As outlined in the newly minted document, devs that offer a season pass are essentially promising future content. During the launch process, the dev will be asked to commit to a launch window for each piece of content in the season pass.

Season passes should include expected release dates for each piece of DLC down to the quarter and year, and must include at least one piece of content when the pass launches. Simply put, Valve says that if you aren't ready to clearly communicate launch dates, you should not offer a season pass on Steam.

Valve is well aware of the fact that life happens, and development plans sometime change. Should a road block present itself, Valve will allow devs to reschedule a release date once during a season pass. Devs will be able to select a new date up to three months later than originally scheduled.

In the event a DLC is canceled, customers will be entitled to a refund for the value of the unreleased content. Delaying a DLC beyond three months could result in further consequences, including but not limited to refunding all customers for the value of the DLC, or even allowing customers a full refund on the entire season pass.

Valve further notes that season passes on Steam will be rare, and will only be available from partners in which they have an established relationship with and that have a proven track record on the platform.

Not all of the stipulations will apply to every scenario. For example, devs including a season pass as part of a pre-order will not have to make DLC available at the time it goes on sale (but they will need at least one piece ready when the game launches).

Image credit: Jonny Gios

Permalink to story:

 
Stuff like this is why everyone uses and loves Steam.

I expect the "Steam Monopoly" brigade to be along shortly, but if Steam keeps improving even without meaningful competition, then who cares?
 
Stuff like this is why everyone uses and loves Steam.

I expect the "Steam Monopoly" brigade to be along shortly, but if Steam keeps improving even without meaningful competition, then who cares?
Valves reinvestment of my money into Linux gaming is m a large reason why I will only buy games on steam now. Hell, sometimes, it is actually easier to buy a game on steam than it is to make it work in WINE.

So they have a monopoly, but is it a bad monopoly? Kinda like where google is using its ownership of chrome to eliminate adblockers, that's a bad monopoly. People aren't investing in linux gaming because there, allegedly, isn't any money in it. I look at steam and think, "they're making tons of money from Linux gaming"
 
TBF, monopolies are bad because they disincentivize others from entering the market, which tends to, at best, reduce innovation.

That being said, GoG exists and pretty much everything gets a GoG release (plus also satisfying the "no DRM" and retro crowds). Yes, Steam tends to be the one-stop shop because it has the best features (Steam Workshop is a wonder for those of us who use mods, and Steam Cloud is useful in general), but its not like other viable options exist.
 
TBF, monopolies are bad because they disincentivize others from entering the market, which tends to, at best, reduce innovation.

That being said, GoG exists and pretty much everything gets a GoG release (plus also satisfying the "no DRM" and retro crowds). Yes, Steam tends to be the one-stop shop because it has the best features (Steam Workshop is a wonder for those of us who use mods, and Steam Cloud is useful in general), but its not like other viable options exist.

- GOG, EGS, EA APP, UPLAY, BATTLE.NET

There are a lot of options, and some of those options have more money behind them than Steam/Valve, but they continue to **** their pants and eat boogers instead of putting any real effort into competing.

Is there a word for a market that actually has a ton of well financed players that actively don't compete, leaving the one company that even bothers to be accused of monopoly?
 
Back