Steam does not QC games before approving it for sales?

[vincor]

I've twice purchased games that are not fully done which is in alpha stages with infinity time. I hoped steam would look at the quality of the content that game developers could offer before putting it up on the sales shelf. It's understandable that closed betas and alpha stages are the very early stages of the game. But they should not be sold to players. Have you ever seen sales person asking you to pay for their samples in order to test it? Most of these games do not have a strict time frame set by steam itself. I truly understand that a game needs time to be fixed. But 3-5 years of alpha stages game is definitely intolerable. And there are tonnes of such games flooding steam. Basically, any half ass game developers could just set up a piggy bank vault in steam and ask players to coin in their product. All they need is doing some amazing videos of the game but the actual product is far from looking like the one they sold to players. Gaming standards nowadays are going down the drain. There's no law to prosecute online game products that seats on the sales menu without a definite time to complete. And it could go years and years and God knows when will the developers find that they suddenly has that resources to finish the product or abandoning the game entirely. One of the game such as project genome is a huge example.

[WolfEisberg]

There is no quality control at all. Just set up a developer account, pay the $100 per game to Valve, and you are good to go.

Don't ever expect Valve to do any quality control.

You want quality control? Then head over to GoG.com, they do quality control.

[Start_Running]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Eisberg:

There is no quality control at all. Just set up a developer account, pay the $100 per game to Valve, and you are good to go.

Don't ever expect Valve to do any quality control.

You want quality control? Then head over to GoG.com, they do quality control.

Well you have to have a game and they actually do run some tests on it. You know that Eis. And GoG's quality control is basically ujust trying to get whatever sells well on steam.

OP What games are these you speak of?

[HLCinSC]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Eisberg:

There is no quality control at all. Just set up a developer account, pay the $100 per game to Valve, and you are good to go.

Don't ever expect Valve to do any quality control.

You want quality control? Then head over to GoG.com, they do quality control.

Funny enough, GOG actually initially denied today's Steam Daily Deal, Opus Magnum, which has a 97% overwhelmingly positive review.

https://www.pcgamer.com/why-exquisite-puzzler-opus-magnum-was-barred-from-gog/

[Start_Running]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von HLCinSC:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Eisberg:

There is no quality control at all. Just set up a developer account, pay the $100 per game to Valve, and you are good to go.

Don't ever expect Valve to do any quality control.

You want quality control? Then head over to GoG.com, they do quality control.

Funny enough, GOG actually initially denied today's Steam Daily Deal, Opus Magnum, which has a 97% overwhelmingly positive review.

https://www.pcgamer.com/why-exquisite-puzzler-opus-magnum-was-barred-from-gog/

translation; They saw the Overwhelmingly positive score and decided they wanted it. Initially it didn't look like it would be a popular game it seems.

This kinda shows the glaring flaw in any cuyration system.

[Satoru]

https://store.steampowered.com/app/322780/Worlds_Adrift/

Maybe you got confused when purchasing the game but

1) Its in early access
2) that means its in alpha
3) that means its unfinished

You can't complain that games are 'unfinished' when you purchase a product, that is explicitly stated as unfinished.

[Satoru]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Start_Running:

translation; They saw the Overwhelmingly positive score and decided they wanted it. Initially it didn't look like it would be a popular game it seems.

This kinda shows the glaring flaw in any cuyration system.

What's more baffling is that GOG carried that developers entire back catalog already.

I mean this wasnt' some fly by night operation. They already had ShenzenIO and Spacehem. Both highly acclaimed games already. Thus it was utterly baffling to wonder why Opus Magnum would be rejected for so long. Like ok maybe you wait a week? But by then it was overwhelmingly positive and had tons of positive coverage/reviews/etc. something like this should be a no brainer for a curation team. You weren't gambling on some unknown.

[WolfEisberg]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Start_Running:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Eisberg:

There is no quality control at all. Just set up a developer account, pay the $100 per game to Valve, and you are good to go.

Don't ever expect Valve to do any quality control.

You want quality control? Then head over to GoG.com, they do quality control.

Well you have to have a game and they actually do run some tests on it. You know that Eis. And GoG's quality control is basically ujust trying to get whatever sells well on steam.

OP What games are these you speak of?

No they don't. Valve does jack on QC, they don't even test to make sure they run, if they did then what happened with Pathfinder: Kingmaker on release day would not have ever happened. Kingmaker was unplayable for some time because they forgot to include the executable of the game, if Valve did any testing then obvisiouly the executable would have been there.

And no, GoG's quality control is not about what is popular on Steam, it is actually about real quality control, something that Steam horribly lacks and makes for a horrible experience to finding actual good games. Steam is absolute junk when it comes to trying to find actual good games, because you have to weed through so much absolute garbage before you can find it.

I would rather have a gem or 2 every once in a while get denied by GoG, then to have to wade through so much garbage to find the good stuff.

[WolfEisberg]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von HLCinSC:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Eisberg:

There is no quality control at all. Just set up a developer account, pay the $100 per game to Valve, and you are good to go.

Don't ever expect Valve to do any quality control.

You want quality control? Then head over to GoG.com, they do quality control.

Funny enough, GOG actually initially denied today's Steam Daily Deal, Opus Magnum, which has a 97% overwhelmingly positive review.

https://www.pcgamer.com/why-exquisite-puzzler-opus-magnum-was-barred-from-gog/

Yes, they'll deny a gem everyonce in a while, but that is far better than having to wade through so much garbage like one has to do with Steam. But like they said there, they are willing to listen to their customer as well, which can potentially change their mind.

[vincor]

It's bad to not have something you sell on the shelf not meeting some tight enforcement rule. Basically any scam game company could just abuse this to create gimmick games that do not have any specific launch date and with a piggy bank waiting for victims to bank in volunteerily. And we are talking about paying cash on items that has no validation whether it's going to be official thing or its just experimental products. We looking at a whole new level type of game call P2T (pay to try). Games like this has no inspection. You pay on your own consequences. 16hrs of gameplay you could be overwhelmed by the game but after going into mid game, all sort of nonsense surface. You can't get any refund anymore. I sincerely hope that the federal government will look into such cases. Yes it's just a game. But wasting money and time is another story. Players sacrifices time and money for game developers game flaws. And if I remembered, QC and game development ♥♥♥ bug test are usually hired by game companies to iron issues. Not the other way round.

[Crazy Tiger]

They are clearly labeled as unfinished. The Steam store pages state that you should only purchase them when you are happy with it's current state.

You ignoring those warnings is your own fault.

[vincor]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crazy Tiger:

They are clearly labeled as unfinished. The Steam store pages state that you should only purchase them when you are happy with it's current state.

You ignoring those warnings is your own fault.

It's like saying "Pple has good reason to rob a bank because they could not afford a living" . A notice is one thing but quality comes in a more important service above the rest. P2T is a wrong gaming standards that shound't be allowed. Allowing game companies to generate revenue from players to test their product and feed them with information to resolve it without the need to hire QC and bug testers.

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Miss Ann Thrope:

Steam is just the distributor; you should be more critical of the people who actually pay money for these garbage games, without bothering to do any research or check reviews. Developers wouldn't produce such crap if there wasn't a market for it. I'm not saying Steam is completely blameless here (it does encourage people to collect vast quantities of low-cost games in return for badges, etc.), but the responsibility lies mostly with the developers and their customers.

Reviews are pretty much hype up these days. I've seen junk steam games getting overwhelming reviews just because it's free. The content is absurb and has nothing attractive. And to let you know, i've personally check youtube to see the gameplay reviews by players. I don't trust reviews written in words to describe what they experienced. Please do not attempt to shuffle the responsibilities between players and developers. Players are mostly unaware of the full game mechanics when they first see the game. Only the developers knows it well. When they shelf up those games, they're expected to iron out every possible problems before collecting cash from these products. If not, that's just scam.

[Crazy Tiger]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von vincor:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crazy Tiger:

They are clearly labeled as unfinished. The Steam store pages state that you should only purchase them when you are happy with it's current state.

You ignoring those warnings is your own fault.

It's like saying "Pple has good reason to rob a bank because they could not afford a living" . A notice is one thing but quality comes in a more important service above the rest. P2T is a wrong gaming standards that shound't be allowed. Allowing game companies to generate revenue from players to test their product and feed them with information to resolve it without the need to hire QC and bug testers.

The thing is that these games are labelled and marketed as an unfinished product. One who purchases it gets exactly what is sold. There is nothing wrong, misleading or whatever about it.

It's not just a notice, it's a big blue box on the store page.

It's also not Pay to try. It's Early Access. You get access to an early build. Whether that is worth the money is all on the customer to decide. Because, again, the customer gets exactly that what he purchases, an Early build and thus an unfinished game.

It's also not a way for bug testing, as it's completely inefficient. You're talking about gaming standards, but apparently you don't know what bug testing truly is.

[Start_Running]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Eisberg:

No they don't. Valve does jack on QC, they don't even test to make sure they run, if they did then what happened with Pathfinder: Kingmaker on release day would not have ever happened. Kingmaker was unplayable for some time because they forgot to include the executable of the game, if Valve did any testing then obvisiouly the executable would have been there.

That's not a QC issue, thats a dev goofing up when setting up the installer. The game itself as Steam's testing had it would not have given that error. Better you say that they do not share your ideas on QC than to say they have none, because there's enough evidence and documentation to say they do,

And no, GoG's quality control is not about what is popular on Steam, it is actually about real quality control, something that Steam horribly lacks and makes for a horrible experience to finding actual good games

And yet millions of people have no trouble finding games. The people who have trouble finding games are the people who have very loose or low standards when searching. Whatever's new and what's cheapest are hardly in deptrh search criteria.

Steam is absolute junk when it comes to trying to find actual good games, because you have to weed through so much absolute garbage before you can find it.[/.quote]
Then you're doing it wrong. I mean, i can go to the store page on any given day and a find at least one game to add to mywishlist without really even searching.

I would rather have a gem or 2 every once in a while get denied by GoG, then to have to wade through so much garbage to find the good stuff.

Well you're free to pick a few curator groups that share your ideas and just buy from them aren't you.

As said. GoG's ideas of curation is simply to chase what's popular on steam. I mean they shut the entire VN genre for a while until it was getting a lot of media hype because steam removed some and then GoG wen and grabbed them....ge suddenl;y VN's were worthy of Gog.

And seriously is the OP honestly complaining that an Early Access game is unfinished.. like really?

[Satoru]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Eisberg:

No they don't. Valve does jack on QC, they don't even test to make sure they run

This isnt true

Steam does play the game on steam to ensure that the game runs and that its indicative of the store page. Its actually a requirement before the game is released.

Kingmaker was unplayable for some time because they forgot to include the executable of the game, if Valve did any testing then obvisiouly the executable would have been there.

This was a depot error and was corrected. This happens and isn't indicative that steam doesn't test the game. The release process simply didn't unlock the public depot properly. Its a rare occurrence.

And no, GoG's quality control is not about what is popular on Steam, it is actually about real quality control

That really doesn't explain how Opus Magnum took 2 months after its release on Steam to end up on GOG. A game that released to universal acclaim, had basically zero technical issues, and who'd developer they had their entire back catalog already on GOG

This kind of game to any 'curator' would be an easy decision. The fact the dev had no idea why it was being denied for so long, nor got any real explanation as to why is again baffling. This would be like having GTA4 available but then somehow deny GTA5

This is the opposite of 'curation'

[vincor]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Crazy Tiger:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von vincor:

It's like saying "Pple has good reason to rob a bank because they could not afford a living" . A notice is one thing but quality comes in a more important service above the rest. P2T is a wrong gaming standards that shound't be allowed. Allowing game companies to generate revenue from players to test their product and feed them with information to resolve it without the need to hire QC and bug testers.

The thing is that these games are labelled and marketed as an unfinished product. One who purchases it gets exactly what is sold. There is nothing wrong, misleading or whatever about it.

It's not just a notice, it's a big blue box on the store page.

It's also not Pay to try. It's Early Access. You get access to an early build. Whether that is worth the money is all on the customer to decide. Because, again, the customer gets exactly that what he purchases, an Early build and thus an unfinished game.

It's also not a way for bug testing, as it's completely inefficient. You're talking about gaming standards, but apparently you don't know what bug testing truly is.

You know.. Juggling those words around simply do not put on weight to support that the game isn't pay to try. You have an unfinished product on an alpha stage, it's early access and you need to pay to gain access to the content that's not final. So how do you define it? I once know a game known as hellgate London. Game has tonnes of bug server are laggy, they market the product without thinking twice. Forums flooded with both angry and devoted fan boys. It's a battlefield in there. Angry players who experience weird bugs and lags recreates threads to moderators. Game staffs did not respond and let fan boy to retaliate against the negative comments to secure the reputation. Dignity secured but sales came crushing down . The game had a tough time pulling through and I last heard that it finally made it last sail before pulling down the servers. There's no definite description to define what bug testing is. But what players are experiencing those flawed game mechanism of the game pretty much serve the purposes of bug testing. Unless that's not bug testing but bug experiencing you believed. Alpha game stages should have a limit of 1 year restrictions to put the game into official launch. Since the game company has already charged and bill you cash for it. Over 2 years period to still have a game on alpha / early access stages with accepting payment is undeniably a scam. Because the longer the game delay, the higher chances that the game developer will pull plug and announce closure. And all funds taken will not be refunded. If a game developers kept showing fancy games trailers but the actual game itself is not getting any changes, it spells something weird going on. Valve really needs to work out on this restrictions. There're games that had a 5 years lifespan or more to still being an unfinished product accepting cash in steam. Valve could continues to do the samething like hellgate London did. Have fanboys to tank those complaints and allow them to scold and drive away negative comments. Valve will soon have to pay the same price like the game I mentioned did.