Login
|
language
Български (Bulgarian)
čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Suomi (Finnish)
Français (French)
Deutsch (German)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Italiano (Italian)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese)
Português-Brasil (Portuguese-Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
Español (Spanish)
Svenska (Swedish)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
ไทย (Thai)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Help us translate Steam



Well...it actually seems that the GMG description is literally the same because it's...selling the game through steam? It could be that GMG is selling steam keys for Towns and as such is using the same description for this very reason.
Anyway, it appears that Towns developers can only "suggest" new description for Steam, they can't change the store page on their own... and this is why the store page remains deceptive and fraudulent, and it's mostly Steam's fault at this point.
The whole situation is absolutely nuts. I'd love to hear Steam's version of the story, although I suppose we won't be hearing anything from them - I don't see them taking any responsibility in this mess.
If that was the verdict with providing a playable standpoint of a game to say it was complete, yet have many unknown work design faults, then should of been placed on open beta... status, however as understand the greenlit montra... Its to get indie model projects in circulation for retail sales for digital media. If it was not made with that phrase, i have no idea how active the demand would be if were to say the truth of what u were getting. Would have to expect a large enough community to support it even though the exact amount of testing has not even been showcased for it. Fundamental monetary value is one aspect that can see happening with a truth stretching attempt. The other route from a undistinguished developer, might not of even been able to cover the current stable cost for the key.
So then again is it really up to the community to get games upvoted? or was from the nov 7 debut a malicious attempt by Valve to bypass the stringent time to test?
Game dynamics aside, If steam wants to make false advertisement with there store, then its up to the consumer to verify it to the best of there talent to research other sources of info on it.
I'm sure it's true that Steam has to approve a change to the store page but the idea that this has kept Xavi from publishing a "more honest" Steam page doesn't mesh well with the evidence available. In short, I just don't buy it.
The key is that Steam is in control of the page, not the Towns team. Therefore Steam is responsible for the deceptive contents.
Also, this is no longer just second hand information - assuming the log is genuine (and I have no reason to doubt it) we now have Xavi's own words that the store page is out of his control and he cannot change the description. It's Steam's turn to refute this if it's not true.
It also doesn't prove that Xavi actually wanted to change the statement at all to reflect the reality that the game is not a complete game.
You place far too much faith in Xavi. Especially when there's no evidence that he wanted to change the statement.
There's no evidence that he's not telling the truth so we must assume he is indeed telling the truth. Unless Steam denies anything like this ever happened, it's probably the truth.
I could see any number of changes both small and large that he may have wanted to make. It doesn't really interest me to speculate on a matter we have so little information on though.
We have no evidence of that, simply that Steam won't allow a nondescript change. As I said, this information is nothing new and proves nothing at all.
Of course it's true that Steam has control over the store page. It's their servers and their service so naturally they would have to approve any and all changes to a something in it. Again, this doesn't prove that Xavi had any actual intention of doing anything "more honest" with changes to the page. All it does is point out blindingly obvious information that actually means nothing at all.
I just don't like how this is being brought up yet again as if it somehow means something when there is actually no further information about it then there was before. It's rather pointless.