So many awful games.

[Vara]

Took a look through the Steam store. Wow. That was terrible.

It would appear that recently we've struck quite a bump, a bump in gaming quality versus quantity. Hentai, Early Access, and the awful Indie Game Market manifesting nothing but broken, below par, and pricy games with little content. For a while it's been clear that Valve doesn't want top of the line quality ganes filling their stores, but is instead focusing more towards quantity over quality.

I, for one, would happily remove hundreds of games from the Steam market if I had even the slightest chance. Staring with the hundreds of Hentai/Anime games that completely plauge the market. Afterwards, I'd completely remove Early Access entirely; Early Access developers have no reason to finish a game if it's already sold thousands of copies. In short, Early Access just doesn't work. It's like pizza: The devs make the pizza half baked and 'promise' to bake the other half, but never do. They just give you a half finished pizza for the full price.

It's so revolting to see promises broke right before your eyes and that game you were promised turn into something so disgusting you can't even stomach it. Make it so you can refund an EA game ANYTIME, that'd fix it quick and make this greedy devs work. I'd also make sure those Indie game creators are placed under a heavy thumb so they can't release their foul 'games' anymore.

What are your thoughts? Tell me!

[Sa†o]

Darren님이 먼저 게시:

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Why does the system allow you to use blatantly copyrighted names such as:
Blizzard
WoW
Bungie
Need for speed

The system should flag those games immediatly, is that also too much to ask for?

Because you might have the rights to use those names? It's unlikely (true) but it's not impossible. In theory anyone with enough money can license those names. I would imagine the amount of money required would be staggering for most of those.

You know how many companies have made licensed Warhammer 40K games? Including Indie devs?

Yes that is indeed correct, you could have purchased those rights but they should really have a system in place where such names have to get checked by steam.

But let's say i takes some time, just like the WoW server (link is somewhere above), why still allow that same dev to re-submit the same game over and over under different names untill it eventually passes through?
Why not permanently blacklist them?

[Gus the Crocodile]

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Why not permanently blacklist them?

Why? What actual good does that do anyone? I mean aren't you still saying this in the context of the name being the problem? In which case, isn't changing the name precisely what needs to be done?

The goal of Greenlight is to get games onto Steam. It isn't a platform for vigilante justice. Valve should - and does, as far as I can tell - respond to proper, valid takedown requests made through the appropriate channels. They shouldn't be pulling things off Steam and banning developers because some people are mad. Some people are always mad.

[Sa†o]

Gus the Crocodile님이 먼저 게시:

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Why not permanently blacklist them?

Why? What actual good does that do anyone? I mean aren't you still saying this in the context of the name being the problem? In which case, isn't changing the name precisely what needs to be done?

The goal of Greenlight is to get games onto Steam. It isn't a platform for vigilante justice. Valve should - and does, as far as I can tell - respond to proper, valid takedown requests made through the appropriate channels. They shouldn't be pulling things off Steam and banning developers because some people are mad. Some people are always mad.

Vigilante justice? Mad? What the heck are you on about? You make worse arguments then the people who activly try to convince me that fully unfunctional games are something that I just personally don't like. What the fk really?

To put your argument into analogy of a retail store:
It's ok to sell stolen goods and fake rebranded products as long as no one finds out and complains or reports to authority! Why should we ever cut ties with our supplier of goods? It's our goal to get as many of these products on shelf!

"The goal of Greenlight is to get games onto Steam. It isn't a platform for vigilante justice"

I will let that sentence speak for itself.

[Gus the Crocodile]

"I will let that speak for itself" says the person complaining about the quality of people's arguments. Absurd. Look, if you just want to mock and snipe and put words in people's mouths, that's your business, let me know and I'll happily leave you all to it.

But perhaps the rest of your post was in good faith and that retail analogy was a simple misunderstanding rather than a wilful misrepresentation (no idea why we need a retail analogy when we're already talking about a shop, but hey). In that case, please note that at no point did I say anything along the lines of "it's okay to sell stolen goods as long as noone finds out". Indeed, it's not at all okay, which is precisely why we have laws against it, laws which Valve are subject to like anyone else.

Valve absolutely has obligations to their customers (do read up on your rights as a consumer where you live, everyone, if you haven't), and they should honour those obligations and be held to account when they breach them. But that doesn't mean they need to catch every problem before it happens; there is no magic system you can put in place that can stop bad-faith actors who are trying to get around it. You always, always need to be able to respond, not just prevent, which is why refunds, repairs, replacements etc are so important, and so common around the world in consumer law.

[Sa†o]

Gus the Crocodile님이 먼저 게시:

"I will let that speak for itself" says the person complaining about the quality of people's arguments. Absurd. Look, if you just want to mock and snipe and put words in people's mouths, that's your business, let me know and I'll happily leave you all to it.

But perhaps the rest of your post was in good faith and that retail analogy was a simple misunderstanding rather than a wilful misrepresentation (no idea why we need a retail analogy when we're already talking about a shop, but hey). In that case, please note that at no point did I say anything along the lines of "it's okay to sell stolen goods as long as noone finds out". Indeed, it's not at all okay, which is precisely why we have laws against it, laws which Valve are subject to like anyone else.

Valve absolutely has obligations to their customers (do read up on your rights as a consumer where you live, everyone, if you haven't), and they should honour those obligations and be held to account when they breach them. But that doesn't mean they need to catch every problem before it happens; there is no magic system you can put in place that can stop bad-faith actors who are trying to get around it. You always, always need to be able to respond, not just prevent, which is why refunds, repairs, replacements etc are so important, and so common around the world in consumer law.

"The goal of Greenlight is to get games onto Steam. It isn't a platform for vigilante justice"

If the sole goal of greenlight was to get games onto steam then they would make a submission system without the voting of greenlight.
The purpose of greenlight is to get peer review content safely onto steam. unfortunatly this system is so abusable you could remove it and it wouldn't make a damn difference.

With that in mind, there are really only two ways to interpret your sentence.
Either your truly believe that the purpose of greenlight is to just mass import games from every corner of the internet into a cascade of garbage.
Or, you are fine with the glaring flaws of that said system.

You on the other hand made comments that makes me wonder if you are responding to the right thread.
No one advocated for vigilance justice.
No one here is mad, not me nor the people I've been having a conversation with.
We gave specific points the system can be improved upon and argued of said flaws.

You talk about putting words in your mouth yet you fire off things no one adressed, said, reffered to or even felt like or acted upon.
So who was your entire paragraph dedicated for in this thread?
"Vigilante justice" and "mad people" was used to make a mockery of peoples arguments, as if that was the whole reason behind why we feel that steam is doing a poor job of keeping their store clean.
Feel free to semanticly backpedal on that one though.

What is wrong with the retail analogy?
If you know your supplier (dev) is supplying constantly with broken and/or stolen/fake/rebranded products wouldn't the logical step be to cut that supplier of (blacklist)?
Please do explain how that was somehow not accuratly depicting this scenario.
And the reason I took retailer as an analogy was is to give an example of other venues of the same kind of business and how they handle their issues.

And valve only seems to follow laws after losing several lawsuits from a dozen countries.
You think refunding policy came along peacefully because they abide by law and care for the consumer and their rights?
Or do you think that the plethora of lawsuits they lost had something to do with it?

If they were truly following laws, early access wouldn't see daylight the way it is being sold right now along with a plethora of other things in certain countries.

[Black Blade]

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Why does the system allow you to use blatantly copyrighted names such as:
Blizzard
WoW
Bungie
Need for speed

The system should flag those games immediatly, is that also too much to ask for?

What will that help with?
And here is a game that needs to be black listed right now:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/508260/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1

Ya clearly using the name Blizzard...
Its all abut context
Also a game that will say "if you have a need for speed these is the game for you? they done anything bad?

And but if we go to the core, what is your point? Greenlight is not an automated system, its not a "get enough votes and your in" Valve sits in the end, looking at what the community voted on, and lets it in, or not
That means submit 100000 of servers or even copy right games, it has no meaning, let it have one or a billion votes, its not going in, so what dose it matter? let it be on greenlight, its not going to do anything there beyond take some space till Valve takes it down for not been relvent for Greenlight

BlackSpawn님이 먼저 게시:

Scammers, fraudsters, swindlers, etc...

Splitting hairs with the fraudsters and deplorable business practices we are describing.

ALL OF THOSE practices need to be addressed, regardless.

And Steam has and can institute MULTIPLE ways to address them both PRIOR to the title being introduced into the store and AFTER if any one of them slip through the cracks. They should be dealt with conclusively and with LONG TERM, detrimental implications for the abusers.

They just have to care enough to do something about it and stop the scamming from continuing unabated.

And Valve dose do it, i seen a post of Devs asking abut why there games got flagged as having an issue on greenlight, Valve reply to them the reason was that the style of the game looks as if they have taken assets from other game or the like, and the Devs reply on that from where they got them or made them

Valve is actively doing it

And please note guys that something on greenlight has no meaning till it pass, it dose not matter how many times someone will submit it, they will not pass if Valve can see it has copy right stuff inside of it

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

"The goal of Greenlight is to get games onto Steam. It isn't a platform for vigilante justice"

If the sole goal of greenlight was to get games onto steam then they would make a submission system without the voting of greenlight.
The purpose of greenlight is to get peer review content safely onto steam. unfortunatly this system is so abusable you could remove it and it wouldn't make a damn difference.

With that in mind, there are really only two ways to interpret your sentence.
Either your truly believe that the purpose of greenlight is to just mass import games from every corner of the internet into a cascade of garbage.
Or, you are fine with the glaring flaws of that said system.

You on the other hand made comment's that makes me wonder if you are responding to the right thread.
No one advocated for vigilance justice.
No one here is mad, not me nor the people I've been having a conversation with.
We gave specific points the system can be improved upon and argued of said flaws.

You talk about putting words in your mouth yet you fire off things no one adressed, said, reffered to or even felt like or acted upon.
So who was your entire paragraph dedicated for in this thread?
"Vigilante justice" and "mad people" was used to make a mockery of peoples arguments, as if that was the whole reason behind why we feel that steam is doing a poor job of keeping their store clean.
Feel free to semanticly backpedal on that one though.

What is wrong with the retail analogy?
If you know your supplier (dev) is supplying constantly with broken and/or stolen/fake/rebranded products wouldn't the logical step be to cut that supplier of (blacklist)?
Please do explain how that was somehow not accuratly depicting this scenario.
And the reason I took retailer as an analogy was is to give an example of other venues of the same kind of business and how they handle their issues.

And valve only seems to follow laws after losing several lawsuits from a dozen countries.
You think refunding policy came along peacefully because they abide by law and care for the consumer and their rights?
Or do you think that the plethora of lawsuits they lost had something to do with it?

If they were truly following laws, early access wouldn't see daylight the way it is being sold right now along with a plethora of other things in certain countries.

First Refund exist before, they just automated it with the newer system

And also as seen with the latest review abuse Valve cut off any business with the Devs, most likely they done the same before, but they just did not post abut it as they are doing now, so we where likely just not aware of it

And i need to ask, abut the blizzard thing, so what? it will have never pass, it may have as well been a post on some forums or on the wishlist of GOG, it has no meaning before it passes that and gets into the store it self

[Sa†o]

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Why does the system allow you to use blatantly copyrighted names such as:
Blizzard
WoW
Bungie
Need for speed

The system should flag those games immediatly, is that also too much to ask for?

What will that help with?
And here is a game that needs to be black listed right now:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/508260/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1

Ya clearly using the name Blizzard...
Its all abut context
Also a game that will say "if you have a need for speed these is the game for you? they done anything bad?

And but if we go to the core, what is your point? Greenlight is not an automated system, its not a "get enough votes and your in" Valve sits in the end, looking at what the community voted on, and lets it in, or not
That means submit 100000 of servers or even copy right games, it has no meaning, let it have one or a billion votes, its not going in, so what dose it matter? let it be on greenlight, its not going to do anything there beyond take some space till Valve takes it down for not been relvent for Greenlight

BlackSpawn님이 먼저 게시:

Scammers, fraudsters, swindlers, etc...

Splitting hairs with the fraudsters and deplorable business practices we are describing.

ALL OF THOSE practices need to be addressed, regardless.

And Steam has and can institute MULTIPLE ways to address them both PRIOR to the title being introduced into the store and AFTER if any one of them slip through the cracks. They should be dealt with conclusively and with LONG TERM, detrimental implications for the abusers.

They just have to care enough to do something about it and stop the scamming from continuing unabated.

And Valve dose do it, i seen a post of Devs asking abut why there games got flagged as having an issue on greenlight, Valve reply to them the reason was that the style of the game looks as if they have taken assets from other game or the like, and the Devs reply on that from where they got them or made them

Valve is actively doing it

And please note guys that something on greenlight has no meaning till it pass, it dose not matter how many times someone will submit it, they will not pass if Valve can see it has copy right stuff inside of it

Oh dear god do I really have to explain this.

It's not about having a piece of the name in your damn gamename. It's about trying to sell a faked product.
We can take the WoW server example.
He tried selling it, under blizzard company name, as the real WoW.
There was not almost like it, there was no kinda like it, it was ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ blatant fraud and copyright infringement. Do you see the damn difference here?

Why do I have to keep explaining this???????

[Sa†o]

"First Refund exist before, they just automated it with the newer system

And also as seen with the latest review abuse Valve cut off any business with the Devs, most likely they done the same before, but they just did not post abut it as they are doing now, so we where likely just not aware of it

And i need to ask, abut the blizzard thing, so what? it will have never pass, it may have as well been a post on some forums or on the wishlist of GOG, it has no meaning before it passes that and gets into the store it self"

But it DOES pass. People put up blatantly stolen games from other devs under a different name, or take games that aren't on steam (blizzard, uplay, origin, gpotato etc) and try to sell it of as the original.

There are ways to voteabuse this system and pass this sh!t right through, and then the consumer has to sit there and sif through all that bullsh!t and report games to steam and quite literally do valves job for them and for free to top it off.

Why are you even defending this? It hurts devs, valve and us consumers jesus fking christ man. The only ones making profit are the ones scamming people, no one else.

[Black Blade]

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Oh dear god do I really have to explain this.

It's not about having a piece of the name in your damn gamename. It's about trying to sell a faked product.
We can take the WoW server example.
He tried selling it, under blizzard company name, as the real WoW.
There was not almost like it, there was no kinda like it, it was ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ blatant fraud and copyright infringement. Do you see the damn difference here?

Why do I have to keep explaining this???????

Greenlight != Store

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

"First Refund exist before, they just automated it with the newer system

And also as seen with the latest review abuse Valve cut off any business with the Devs, most likely they done the same before, but they just did not post abut it as they are doing now, so we where likely just not aware of it

And i need to ask, abut the blizzard thing, so what? it will have never pass, it may have as well been a post on some forums or on the wishlist of GOG, it has no meaning before it passes that and gets into the store it self"

But it DOES pass. People put up blatantly stolen games from other devs under a different name, or take games that aren't on steam (blizzard, uplay, origin, gpotato etc) and try to sell it of as the original.

There are ways to voteabuse this system and pass this sh!t right through, and then the consumer has to sit there and sif through all that bullsh!t and report games to steam and quite literally do valves job for them and for free to top it off.

Why are you even defending this? It hurts devs, valve and us consumers jesus fking christ man. The only ones making profit are the ones scamming people, no one else.

When you say sell, do you mean Greenlight, or the store? if its on greenlight its not selling, its not using the system correctly, but games like that, if they are clear abuse then they will be taken down before they pass Greenlight

It dose not matter if someone submit something to Greenlight as long as it dose not pass, as it has no meaning
Its the same as if Valve has a mail box to accept games to Steam, and you say that letters with games that copyrighted are not suppose to even get to the mail box, but dose it matter if they do? if Valve can see that its fake, its clearly going from the mail box to the trash can, its not going to do a thing, its pointless and harmless

Or do you have an example for a known game that got on the store that was stolen? (or even Greenlighted)
Or do you have a not known so much game that pass Greenlight and got on the store, but was not removed yet?

[Sa†o]

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Oh dear god do I really have to explain this.

It's not about having a piece of the name in your damn gamename. It's about trying to sell a faked product.
We can take the WoW server example.
He tried selling it, under blizzard company name, as the real WoW.
There was not almost like it, there was no kinda like it, it was ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ blatant fraud and copyright infringement. Do you see the damn difference here?

Why do I have to keep explaining this???????

Greenlight != Store

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

"First Refund exist before, they just automated it with the newer system

And also as seen with the latest review abuse Valve cut off any business with the Devs, most likely they done the same before, but they just did not post abut it as they are doing now, so we where likely just not aware of it

And i need to ask, abut the blizzard thing, so what? it will have never pass, it may have as well been a post on some forums or on the wishlist of GOG, it has no meaning before it passes that and gets into the store it self"

But it DOES pass. People put up blatantly stolen games from other devs under a different name, or take games that aren't on steam (blizzard, uplay, origin, gpotato etc) and try to sell it of as the original.

There are ways to voteabuse this system and pass this sh!t right through, and then the consumer has to sit there and sif through all that bullsh!t and report games to steam and quite literally do valves job for them and for free to top it off.

Why are you even defending this? It hurts devs, valve and us consumers jesus fking christ man. The only ones making profit are the ones scamming people, no one else.

When you say sell, do you mean Greenlight, or the store? if its on greenlight its not selling, its not using the system correctly, but games like that, if they are clear abuse then they will be taken down before they pass Greenlight

It dose not matter if someone submit something to Greenlight as long as it dose not pass, as it has no meaning
Its the same as if Valve has a mail box to accept games to Steam, and you say that letters with games that copyrighted are not suppose to even get to the mail box, but dose it matter if they do? if Valve can see that its fake, its clearly going from the mail box to the trash can, its not going to do a thing, its pointless and harmless

Or do you have an example for a known game that got on the store that was stolen? (or even Greenlighted)
Or do you have a not known so much game that pass Greenlight and got on the store, but was not removed yet?

Do you know how to get greenlight games into store?

If 100 games are greenlit, your game will move up 100 spots in the rankings. Think of it like a deli line; every month, 100 games are removed from the queue, and everyone else still in line is one step closer to ordering cold cuts—er, getting their game Greenlit.

"No" votes are not counted towards your overall ranking, only "Yes" votes. Thus, generating attention to your page is of paramount importance. Thankfully this is something you have some measure of control over.

Steam doesn't testplay or check every game for assets, hell they don't even check the name.
So with enough time passing, your game gets on the shelf eventually even if it only has a few yes and 3k no votes.

Games that were busted for this on the store?

Orion - Lawsuit from Activision (funny how valve followes rules on when lawsuits are present)
Air control - dmca from owner of original assets, dmca from music compositor

There are more but I can't remember every single damn game that managed to scam people.

[Black Blade]

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Do you know how to get greenlight games into store?

If 100 games are greenlit, your game will move up 100 spots in the rankings. Think of it like a deli line; every month, 100 games are removed from the queue, and everyone else still in line is one step closer to ordering cold cuts—er, getting their game Greenlit.

"No" votes are not counted towards your overall ranking, only "Yes" votes. Thus, generating attention to your page is of paramount importance. Thankfully this is something you have some measure of control over.

Steam doesn't testplay or check every game for assets, hell they don't even check the name.
So with enough time passing, your game gets on the shelf eventually even if it only has a few yes and 3k no votes.

Games that were busted for this on the store?

Orion - Lawsuit from Activision (funny how valve followes rules on when lawsuits are present)
Air control - dmca from owner of original assets, dmca from music compositor

There are more but I can't remember every single damn game that managed to scam people.

I think you sadly fall into the miss understanding on how Greenlight works

So lets do some history here
In the past to get a game on the Store a Dev had to email Valve, and request them to add there game to the store, and that worked all right for the time
But then the persure start building up, Valve found there sitting on a lot of frustrated Devs with ready games that just taken them too long to get around to review and pick if they are allowed or not
Then Valve made Greenlight
Greenlight lets the community help Valve to find what games they want, in voting for them, then Valve reviews the games as they have done before, and pick if the game pass or not into the store
In outher words you can be number 1 on the charts, but you will not get in if Valve dose not let you get in

Abut Orion it seem like a lot of mess, but as much as i can see its not over just yet? and we are talking abut one gun here from what i understand? one guy out of the entire game was said to be an asset from CoD, yet i do not think it was proved one way or the other

Air control - again was taken down, as the Owners did what they are suppose to do, and reported it, as they where suppose to do
I do not know abut you, but i don't know who the owners of these music are, and i do not think Valve can really get a list of all copy right music so they can know what is and what is not copy righted, why the DMCA system is there
Just like YouTube has the same system, and any other place that will do stuff like these

If you where Valve, how will you have known these is copy right metiral? and when they found out they have taken action no? so both cases they are fine

[Gus the Crocodile]

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

The purpose of greenlight is to get peer review content safely onto steam.

No, it isn't. When Valve started putting other people's games on Steam, there was that period early on where everything was handpicked out of necessity. But Valve didn't want to be in that position: they didn't want to be the arbiters of taste, of who gets to sell their games on Steam. Gabe talked about this around the time Greenlight came in, about imagining a future Steam as much more open, almost an "API" that developers could use to sell their games with Valve just the network admins, essentially. Now we don't know if he still feels the same way today, but nevertheless, Greenlight was born out of that desire to get out of the way. Valve still needed to approve games themselves, and there was still a limited (though growing) capacity, but Greenlight let Steam move away from being just "here's a few things people at Valve like" toward something more diverse, something for everyone.

I dont mean to lecture, you may know all this. The point is, Greenlight isn't there to say "you can come in, you can't". Rather, it's there to say "you're all getting in in time, but the community wants you guys the most, so you come in first, you guys over there can follow later".

Besides, "peer review" would surely be review by other developers, not by random customers. Peer review in academia is certainly not just giving out papers to untrained passers-by to assess, it's giving those papers to other academics, usually ones working in the same field so they know what they're looking at.

I hope that clarifies for you what I understand Greenlight's intended purpose to be. I see you're demonstrating Greenlight with a "deli line" example, which is indeed on point. A deli line is not there to turn people away, to "review" them. It's there to let them in at some point, but they may have to wait.

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

No one advocated for vigilance justice.
No one here is mad, not me nor the people I've been having a conversation with.
We gave specific points the system can be improved upon and argued of said flaws.

Well, we disagree. I don't think describing games as "crap made by amateurish basement dwellers looking for a cashgrab" or "10 cent disposable games" is the speech of someone who's calm and interested in careful examination of ideas. I don't think dismissing interrogation of vague, highly subjective "definitions" - interrogation that surely everyone knows will become vital were any of these ideas to be put into practice - as "relativistic buffoonery" is calm, reasonable, earnest discussion.

Of course, those are Blackspawn quotes, not you. Because Blackspawn is the one who is reliably unhinged on this topic. I make no similar condemnation of you, Duero, all you've done is said some things I disagree with.

Oh, and vigilante justice? Everyone here knows you can report people breaking the law, we get taught this as kids. If you want to report malpractice by devs to Steam there are report buttons everywhere, and if you want to report Steam or developers to higher authorities, being smart people who know your rights, I trust you know who to call in your countries. But on this topic, that never seems to be enough. Instead, people screech on forums about things like "asset flips" (entirely legal business!) that they've decided are unacceptable for, uh, reasons. That refusal to actually examine one's own ideas I spoke of earlier ("relativistic buffonery!") is the red flag here. The vigilante isn't interested in self-reflection or validation from others. The vigilante thinks the path to justice is "not complicated!", you just have to bludgeon away all the things they say to bludgeon away and then everything will be better.

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

What is wrong with the retail analogy?

I answered this in my previous post. It specifically stated that my position was that it's okay to sell stolen goods if noone finds out, which simply wasn't, and isn't, my position at all.

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

And valve only seems to follow laws after losing several lawsuits from a dozen countries.

Heh, yep. I mean, I take no position on precisely why Valve implemented their refund policy, because we simply don't have inside information on that, but yeah, that's corporations for you, you have to keep an eye on them.

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

If they were truly following laws, early access wouldn't see daylight the way it is being sold right now along with a plethora of other things in certain countries.

Well, Early Access wouldn't be a problem where I live, but if you believe Valve is breaking the law in your country, as I've said, I encourage you to contact the relevant authorities. Living in one of those countries that won a case against Valve, I know well the value of robust consumer protection legislation and I think it's important people stand up for their rights.

[Sa†o]

Black Blade님이 먼저 게시:

Duero님이 먼저 게시:

Do you know how to get greenlight games into store?

If 100 games are greenlit, your game will move up 100 spots in the rankings. Think of it like a deli line; every month, 100 games are removed from the queue, and everyone else still in line is one step closer to ordering cold cuts—er, getting their game Greenlit.

"No" votes are not counted towards your overall ranking, only "Yes" votes. Thus, generating attention to your page is of paramount importance. Thankfully this is something you have some measure of control over.

Steam doesn't testplay or check every game for assets, hell they don't even check the name.
So with enough time passing, your game gets on the shelf eventually even if it only has a few yes and 3k no votes.

Games that were busted for this on the store?

Orion - Lawsuit from Activision (funny how valve followes rules on when lawsuits are present)
Air control - dmca from owner of original assets, dmca from music compositor

There are more but I can't remember every single damn game that managed to scam people.

I think you sadly fall into the miss understanding on how Greenlight works

So lets do some history here
In the past to get a game on the Store a Dev had to email Valve, and request them to add there game to the store, and that worked all right for the time
But then the persure start building up, Valve found there sitting on a lot of frustrated Devs with ready games that just taken them too long to get around to review and pick if they are allowed or not
Then Valve made Greenlight
Greenlight lets the community help Valve to find what games they want, in voting for them, then Valve reviews the games as they have done before, and pick if the game pass or not into the store
In outher words you can be number 1 on the charts, but you will not get in if Valve dose not let you get in

Abut Orion it seem like a lot of mess, but as much as i can see its not over just yet? and we are talking abut one gun here from what i understand? one guy out of the entire game was said to be an asset from CoD, yet i do not think it was proved one way or the other

Air control - again was taken down, as the Owners did what they are suppose to do, and reported it, as they where suppose to do
I do not know abut you, but i don't know who the owners of these music are, and i do not think Valve can really get a list of all copy right music so they can know what is and what is not copy righted, why the DMCA system is there
Just like YouTube has the same system, and any other place that will do stuff like these

If you where Valve, how will you have known these is copy right metiral? and when they found out they have taken action no? so both cases they are fine

Orion started with 1 gun, untill later they started finding more as they were digging.
Content was not only stolen from activision it appears.
It's still not over yet but I wanted to give you an example that was pretty recent and not too old to not count.
Air control, well it was removed eventually but the money was already made wasn't it?

Youtube is not a good example of dmca. Ask any youtuber how they feel about youtubes copyright service and they will tell you it's downright trash. And I really don't want steam to turn into the sh!tshow that youtube has become.
You can literally make money from dmcas on other peoples videos.

If I was valve?
You would have to register as a dev with all info first, once your dev account has been verified and all information has been looked up (which would obviously come with an administration fee) you would be eligable for greenlight.

This in turn would make it easier for me (if I was valve) to uphold my policies and hold devs directly accountable for what they put up and what they promise.
Ontop of that I would implement a strike system. You have free reigns to upload what you want, but 3 strikes and you are out permanently.

Obviously there would be more tweaking of that and I don't have a full 24 pages of plans and programs but the gist of it would be that way.

[Mushy]

BlackSpawn님이 먼저 게시:

The fact that it may be "tough" to decide what is appropriate and what is not appropriate for the Steam store doesnt mean that it cant be done or that it should not be done. 100% of crap made by amateurish basement dwellers looking for a cashgrab does not belong on the pre eminent PC digital platform while being sold indistinctly along actual finished, playable, original games.

thats where refunds come in, you are dissatisfied immediately with your purchase, the game was nothing like you expected, you get a refund. this argument is invalid

[BlackSpawn]

Refunds are no excuse to allow unplayable, incomplete, broken, amateurish games ridden with stolen assets that violate steam rules and guidelines by manipulating voting systems to get through greenlight and get positive reviews to be available for purchase.

If the argument is invalid, its because we are talking about different things.