Steam's attitude on rights: Developers>Consumers?

[MonkeyWrench]

Why does it feel like steam protects its developers more diligently than consumers/players? The early access has all the characteristics of crowd-funding. But most crowd-funding platforms protect its investors. And ethically, THEY SHOULD.

Why doesn't steam provide this same protection? And, why is it that the general consensus within the steam community is "too bad, so sad"? Is this the reflection of the attitude of Steam?

If someone starts a charity only to pocket the money, would you say the same to the donators? Of course not! So why is it that buyers are not protected when developers do the same thing with games? They got paid, but we don't even know if they went to work or not. And the end results would argue against it.

Steam pretends as if it holds no responsibility. Yet they are providing the platform for dishonest developers so easily. And there is no recognition to the many buyers who invested and were left with nothing. It isn't a gamble. And it shouldn't be considered as such.

Project Genom is my best example of the countless promises left unfulfilled. That they are, in-fact, promises. That money is spent based on a promise. In court, that is a binding contract. Whether or not the project can be funded is irrelevant to the promise. And because that promise is not fulfilled, the contract is broken. Which means, those developers owe money.

My problem is that, I believe Steam is accountable for the return of that money. That they are responsible because they provide the platform. That their disclosure of no responsibility would not hold in a court of law.

I work in a law office, though I am no lawyer. And I am told that Steam DOES hold some responsibility regardless of what fine-print protection they believe they have. Though I am thinking a class-action lawsuit against steam, I do not want to be so hasty. I want more insight or thoughts on the subject. I know personally I was cheated out of $100-$200. Times that by half the steam users and you have a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

The sad part is that Steam doesn't seem to want to take on the expense to protect it's users. That, to me, is dishonest.

*edited for grammar*

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Veevslav:

I do. Many of these early access games promise a finished product in a reasonable development window with certain features and game play mechanics.
A lot of them fail to deliver.

reasonable tyo whom because a reasonable development window is 2-4 years..

Steam itself has changed the meaning of early access quite a few times.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/earlyaccess

They have not They have just changed the adisory that goes with it, namely thy discourage devs from relying soley on funds from searly access sales to complete their project, and not to be over ambitious.

"Steam Early Access enables you to sell your game on Steam while it is still being developed, and provide context to customers that a product should be considered "unfinished." Early Access is a place for games that are in a playable alpha or beta state, are worth the current value of the playable build, and that you plan to continue to develop for release."

"2. Do not make specific promises about future events. For example, there is no way you can know exactly when the game will be finished, that the game will be finished, or that planned future additions will definitely happen. Do not ask your customers to bet on the future of your game. Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized."

Note these points are actually contradictory.

How so?
The first one says what, when and why you should use Early Access. and the second cautions against being overly ambitious on your promises.

Steam tries to appeal to the consumers with promises of "plan to develop for release."

Then they let the developers off the hook with "Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized."

'plan to...' does not mean 'guaranteed to...' . Plans can fail. Just because a developer has one, doesn't mean it will work out.

The entire program is designed around double talk.

No . Your entire argument is based around the dissonance between 'what some people want to believe', and 'what is actually said'. Belief < reality. HAving been around these sorts of duiscussions since EA started I can say that the common thread among complainers is that they aklways euither ignored or willfully misunderstood what they were paying for in favour of the fanciful dreams concocted by the coctupus in their heads.

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Publicado originalmente por Start_Running:

And how does fixing the price high help with that?

Makes people think harder before buying it in Early Access. Dissuades some of them. Incentivizes the devs to finish the thing so they can get more sales.

That incentive already exists for devs. The majoprity of early access games have more people wishlisting and following, than owning. As for making people think harder. No prioce doesn't make people think harder, it justpyuts the game above the CBA chart of some users. The people who are apt to complain are the same people apt to shell out $80 on pre-orderss. So again it's kliterally just hurting everyone, and benefiting no one.

Publicado originalmente por Brockenstein:

Maybe you need that sort of hand holding, or think you know what's best for everyone else. Thank Gaben we'll not be subjected to your flavor of nonsense and it'll never happen regardless.

Well, enjoy the complaints then.

There will always be complaints no matter what valve does or does not do.

[Dr.Shadowds 🐉]

I just came to watch the show.
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=682836556

[Xite >X< 👁️👁 🇦🇺]

Steam is a Store front, any real liability for a product belongs to the developer, not the seller.

[aiusepsi]

Publicado originalmente por Veevslav:

Note these points are actually contradictory.

They're only contradictory if you think things always go to plan. They don't; the best laid plans of mice and men oft go astray, as they say.

What those points are saying is that developers should make a good-faith effort to complete their game, but the future is inherently uncertain, so making promises is unwise.

[Corona Varus]

Don't get Early Access on Sketchy Companies or Indie Games.

Get Early Acess from trusted and known well companies like Klei Entertainments.

And Steam should care for their costumers than trash developers.

[Rens Agatha ⁧【レンス】]

Because most of the cinsumer are toxic :)

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por Thicc Giovanni:

Don't get Early Access on Sketchy Companies or Indie Games.

Get Early Acess from trusted and known well companies like Klei Entertainments.

And Steam should care for their costumers than trash developers.

Better yet. Research. You know like how when you apply for a job they ask for past references. Same here. Look for the developers past record. Just click on their name and you'll see other games they've done on Steam.

[Washell]

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Publicado originalmente por Radene:

I really wish people would stop using the word "invest" when all they do is "spend money".

What's wrong with "invest"?

An investment implies the goal of getting your money back with interest. If you obey the terms of steam to the letter, there is no way to get your money back, with or without interest. It's an expense on entertainment. No-one says they invested in a dinner, or a movie ticket, or a Netflix subscription.

Secondly, if you don't obey the terms, investing in digital content is rather similar in investing in a house built on quicksand. Just the other day we had a thread from someone who had "invested" hundreds in golden eggs in rocket league, only for an upcoming patch to render them worthless. Talking about it as investing gives things a perceived value that is completely artificial. It's like casinos, unless you're the owner, the only long term option is losing.

On topic: I expect finished games, so I buy finished games. There's a reason EA can be filtered from the store by a single setting in our account details. EA is not for me, and I'm fine with that. Plenty of finished games in my backlog and on the store.

[Darren]

Those quotes look very consist to me from the first "are worth the current value of the playable build,"

From the second "Customers should be buying your game based on its current state, not on promises of a future that may or may not be realized."

I.e. you should be selling what you currently have at a value commensurate with that. Not on what it might be.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Publicado originalmente por Washell:

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Alligator Snapper:

What's wrong with "invest"?

An investment implies the goal of getting your money back with interest. If you obey the terms of steam to the letter, there is no way to get your money back, with or without interest. It's an expense on entertainment. No-one says they invested in a dinner, or a movie ticket, or a Netflix subscription.

Actually, it is a common usage of "invest" to refer to spending money on something to get a delayed return in some non-monetary form. "Invest in your child's education" is a popular one, for example.

But more saliently I'm using "invest" because the thing that one buys at Early Access can change. There's the expectation that it'll change. It's not a "purchase" because a purchase is expected to be something that you can use immediately and is a finished product so it is what it is (fixes such as warranties and bugfixes aside). An "investment" can turn out great, but it can also completely flop making you lose the value you invested in it.

To be clear, I am NOT using the term to involve virtual items.

[Darren]

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Publicado originalmente por Washell:

An investment implies the goal of getting your money back with interest. If you obey the terms of steam to the letter, there is no way to get your money back, with or without interest. It's an expense on entertainment. No-one says they invested in a dinner, or a movie ticket, or a Netflix subscription.

Actually, it is a common usage of "invest" to refer to spending money on something to get a delayed return in some non-monetary form. "Invest in your child's education" is a popular one, for example.

But more saliently I'm using "invest" because the thing that one buys at Early Access can change. There's the expectation that it'll change. It's not a "purchase" because a purchase is expected to be something that you can use immediately and is a finished product so it is what it is (fixes such as warranties and bugfixes aside). An "investment" can turn out great, but it can also completely flop making you lose the value you invested in it.

To be clear, I am NOT using the term to involve virtual items.

Then as has been said before. You are doing it wrong.

You buy Early Access games based on the current state ONLY anything else is a mistake.

It might change it might not just like any game. At best it is slightly more likely to change. There are no guarantees and should be no expectations on your part about changes.

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Publicado originalmente por Darren:

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Actually, it is a common usage of "invest" to refer to spending money on something to get a delayed return in some non-monetary form. "Invest in your child's education" is a popular one, for example.

But more saliently I'm using "invest" because the thing that one buys at Early Access can change. There's the expectation that it'll change. It's not a "purchase" because a purchase is expected to be something that you can use immediately and is a finished product so it is what it is (fixes such as warranties and bugfixes aside). An "investment" can turn out great, but it can also completely flop making you lose the value you invested in it.

To be clear, I am NOT using the term to involve virtual items.

Then as has been said before. You are doing it wrong.

You buy Early Access games based on the current state ONLY anything else is a mistake.

It might change it might not just like any game. At best it is slightly more likely to change. There are no guarantees and should be no expectations on your part about changes.

You can certainly interpret Early Access that way, and maybe that perspective is easier for some people to understand, but it does misrepresent the point of the Early Access program in the first place, as well as its actual risks.

Your perspective: Treat Early Access the same as any regular game. What you buy is what you get.

My perspective: Treat Early Access as a category where (1) the game is likely to change, and you may or may not like how it changes; (2) the game is likely to be in a significantly unfinished state; and (3) someone says they're going to continue working on it and eventually finish it.

Sure, non-Early-Access games can also get updates. But the changes are generally not as substantial. Whereas in the case of an Early Access game, what you get now is something that you might even lose later, if the development goes in a direction that you (or some mod you installed, or whatever) disagrees with.

Furthermore, Early Access games are more likely than regular games to be in a broken-buggy-piece-of-crap stage of development. While one can reasonably expect a regular game to at least be a competent game, one should not have this expectation of Early Access games.

And finally, Early Access is meant to accommodate the development process, bringing customers on board during it. There are no guarantees in this process, only intentions/promises, and the video game industry is notoriously unstable for many small developers. Generally speaking, developers have good intentions (though they may or may not fit the customer's intentions), but real life is often chaotic and can get in the way of timely videogame development. Anyone who's as much as observed the video game industry for a few years should know that delays and other issues are common.

[Darren]

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Publicado originalmente por Darren:

Then as has been said before. You are doing it wrong.

You buy Early Access games based on the current state ONLY anything else is a mistake.

It might change it might not just like any game. At best it is slightly more likely to change. There are no guarantees and should be no expectations on your part about changes.

You can certainly interpret Early Access that way, and maybe that perspective is easier for some people to understand, but it does misrepresent the point of the Early Access program in the first place, as well as its actual risks.

Your perspective: Treat Early Access the same as any regular game. What you buy is what you get.

My perspective: Treat Early Access as a category where (1) the game is likely to change, and you may or may not like how it changes; (2) the game is likely to be in a significantly unfinished state; and (3) someone says they're going to continue working on it and eventually finish it.

Sure, non-Early-Access games can also get updates. But the changes are generally not as substantial. Whereas in the case of an Early Access game, what you get now is something that you might even lose later, if the development goes in a direction that you (or some mod you installed, or whatever) disagrees with.

Furthermore, Early Access games are more likely than regular games to be in a broken-buggy-piece-of-crap stage of development. While one can reasonably expect a regular game to at least be a competent game, one should not have this expectation of Early Access games.

And finally, Early Access is meant to accommodate the development process, bringing customers on board during it. There are no guarantees in this process, only intentions/promises, and the video game industry is notoriously unstable for many small developers. Generally speaking, developers have good intentions (though they may or may not fit the customer's intentions), but real life is often chaotic and can get in the way of timely videogame development. Anyone who's as much as observed the video game industry for a few years should know that delays and other issues are common.

Again it is the same as any other game.

If you expect games not to change after you buy them you are invariably going to be disappointed in some generally released games.

Paradox games change wildly after release, and have numerous expansions (but even the free updates can bring massive changes) take Stellaris as just one example or Surviving Mars.

An Early Access game is probably on average less likely to change than a Paradox game (although more likely than some other games).

Even story based games can have significant changes to their endings post release.

[The Rock God]

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Your perspective: Treat Early Access the same as any regular game. What you buy is what you get.

My perspective: Treat Early Access as a category where (1) the game is likely to change, and you may or may not like how it changes; (2) the game is likely to be in a significantly unfinished state; and (3) someone says they're going to continue working on it and eventually finish it.

Your perspective is confusing to me. You're saying we should treat Early Access games as if they were AAA releases from Bethesda or Electronic Arts (and sometimes Ubisoft or Activision or Square Enix or Sega)?

[Quint the Alligator Snapper]

Publicado originalmente por Darren:

Again it is the same as any other game.

If you expect games not to change after you buy them you are invariably going to be disappointed in some generally released games.

Paradox games change wildly after release, and have numerous expansions (but even the free updates can bring massive changes) take Stellaris as just one example or Surviving Mars.

An Early Access game is probably on average less likely to change than a Paradox game (although more likely than some other games).

Even story based games can have significant changes to their endings post release.

Well I guess you're correct based on the fact that Steam forces updates.

Though, in my experience, most games get a bunch of bug fixes after release, and few get major content revisions that substantially change the game -- the way one might expect of something that's still in beta.

Publicado originalmente por The Rock God:

Publicado originalmente por Quint the Alligator Snapper:

Your perspective: Treat Early Access the same as any regular game. What you buy is what you get.

My perspective: Treat Early Access as a category where (1) the game is likely to change, and you may or may not like how it changes; (2) the game is likely to be in a significantly unfinished state; and (3) someone says they're going to continue working on it and eventually finish it.

Your perspective is confusing to me. You're saying we should treat Early Access games as if they were AAA releases from Bethesda or Electronic Arts (and sometimes Ubisoft or Activision or Square Enix or Sega)?

Is this supposed to be a dig against these companies? Because otherwise I can't make sense of what you said.