Early this year, I wrote a piece on the state of broken game launches and the mentality of fixing a title after release. Not much has changed since that was published, especially in regards to PC games. While the PC platform was finally starting to get consistently strong ports from console-focused developers toward the end of the last console generation, now that the PS4 and Xbox One have launched, many developers are again focusing their efforts on console games and then offloading half-assed ports to PC. We saw it earlier this year with Warner Bros.’ Mortal Kombat X, which frequently crashed on users and, when a patch was released to fix the problem, ended up erasing their saved games.

Just this month, yet another disastrous PC launch occurred with a different Warner Bros. title. Batman: Arkham Knight is abysmal on PC, requiring absolutely top-of-the-line PC components to even maintain 30 fps without major stuttering. The game forces a 30 fps framerate lock on users as well, frustrating people with high-end machines, and is missing several visual effects present in the console versions of the game. Even worse, most computers that can handle the game’s specs slow to a crawl during many of the batmobile segments. The game requires a $1000+ machine to get visuals and performance that is still inferior to the $350 Xbox One.

At its nadir, the port had a 30% “recommended” rating on Steam, which is almost unprecedented for such a high-profile release (even the widely derided Mortal Kombat X is at 63% with users). It seemed like Arkham Knight was just another situation where a publisher put out a game they already knew was broken, knowing that they would at least recoup their cost with pre-order money. Owners would get a courtesy patch every few weeks, but it would amount to little more than placing a band-aid on a severed arm.

But then, a funny thing happened. Warner Bros. actually pulled the game from Steam’s stores, vowing to fix it and make it purchasable again in the near future. So, what happened? Why were they making an actual effort to fix their game and prevent others from sharing the same misfortune as the early adopters? This was much different than, say, the Halo Master Chief Collection, which remained completely broken for six months while Microsoft continually sold and advertised the title. At least Warner Bros. was making it clear that they recognized the severity of the game’s problems. Did the suits at Warner Bros. have souls, after all?

If you want to remain optimistic, you can stop reading and leave with this assumption. There is, however, a much more cynical, and likely realistic, explanation for their efforts. It all stems from two words: Steam refunds.

Shortly before Arkham Knight launched, Steam announced that they would now allow for refunds under certain circumstances. If a game did not work for a user, or they regretted purchasing it after playing for less than two hours, they could get their money back and lose the game. This was similar to what EA was already offering on their Origin store, but for a platform as large as Steam to implement the system was game-changing.

Let’s be honest here: Warner Bros. was fully intent on screwing over its PC audience. Games aren’t created in vacuums, untouched until the consumer can play them. The people who were working on the PC port and the people who decided to release it alongside the PS4 and Xbox One versions were 100% aware that it was broken. However, in a pre-Steam refund scenario, they still got their money. They could go about their business, offering half-hearted apologies and weak patches, knowing that the people who spent their hard-earned cash ahead of times were never going to get it back.

This time, when Arkham Knight was busted, people didn’t just complain, they got their money back. Warner Bros. looked at the staggering number of returns and realized that they had to do something. The end result is a marketplace where publishers are held accountable for their actions, not just in the public opinion, but in their profits. Companies are not going to change out of an altruistic drive to be better, it has to be financially motivated.

It’s pretty clear by now that I am extremely supportive of the Steam refund system, but there has been some controversy as well. For one, since Steam will refund any game that a player has spent less than 2 hours on, it creates something of a problem for people making smaller indie titles. If, say, somebody purchases LIMBO and beats it in under 2 hours, they can request a refund, despite getting everything out of the title that the developer intended. If Journey, for instance, was on PC, gamers could return it in droves despite actually liking the game.

It is unfortunate that some indie developers are being hurt by the refund system, but frankly, this sort of customer protection is crucial. We’ve seen for years that game buyers will be continually suckered in by the same pre-order schemes: exclusive content, discounts, early access, betas, etc. Most of the time, the launch-day version is fine, so we still don’t expect to get burned. If we truly want to change the state of AAA game development, holding the publishers accountable is the only way to do it.

As more and more games go digital, I hope that Steam’s refund policy begins to seep its way into other platforms. With Arkham Knight, Green Man Gaming made an exception to their “no refunds on external store keys” policy and allowed its customers to get their money back. This was a great way to show users that they cared about the quality of their purchases, but also one that made sense given that they are in direct competition with Steam. Consoles, which are not competing with the Steam storefront, have less of a reason to allow for refunds. We can hope that they’ll follow suit, but it may not happen in the near future.

In either case, Steam is cementing its status as one of the best platforms to buy games. Perhaps the broken launch scenario will continue to improve in that climate. A publisher pulling a broken title from the store in order to fix it is already a huge step above the norm. But if we’ve finally entered a scenario in which the most beneficial thing for the player AND publisher is to release a fully-functional title, then this could truly be a great moment for modern gaming.