What logical difference is there between studying the reviews and screenshots over playing the game for 30 minutes and working out yourself if you like it?
Actually I don't think that's necessarily true. We tend to be more judgmental of things we get for free than things we had some investment in. By having a "demo-style" return policy you're possibly being more critical of the game than you would be if you had no opportunity to get your money back. Not to mention the scheme's effect on shorter works. You could play all of a one hour game and then decide after the fact it wasn't worth the money. At least one developer has quit game development because of this, which means that there is a pressure to ensure that every game on Steam lasts at least two hours, and that'll probably take the form of having the best stuff locked away until after the two hour mark.
> What logical difference is there between studying the reviews and screenshots over playing the game for 30 minutes and working out yourself if you like it?
I'll admit, I can't meaningfully articulate the difference it makes when you pay for a game and then take your money back vs not paying for it.
But consider this: how would a 30 minute demo of a game be different than the first 30 minutes of the full game? Like screenshots and reviews it would be designed to give you an overview of the complete game experience it is trying to sell you, whereas the first 30 minutes are what is necessary to get the game going.
This is what the market of gamers are demanding and I do not see that changing or that it is an issue. These days it is common for people to spend huge amounts of time on a single game. It is completely normal for someone to say "I have spent 1000 hours on Minecraft/CSGO/Skyrim over the last 10 years" so companies have to adapt to building games that last a decade and can generate recurring sales through things like graphical updates and extra content.