Is Steam's success making it negligent ?

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

I do love Steam. It could rightfully put itself forward as the saviour of PC gaming. Without it how many developers would have given up on the PC as a platform and how many gamers limited to another poor collection of Spot the Hidden Object and connect three games would have been forced to acquire a console ? Instead we live in a golden age of a fastly growing market, games at their most affordable in home computing history, and developers able to monestise their back catalogue effectively

However whilst it may not be too big to fail (damn secure though) I honestly believe that its success means that some very bad practices are not being remedied simply because the commercial incentive isn't high enough - lack of competition has made Valve/ Steam nonchalant.

At the root of the problem is what seems to be a "hippy" ethos within the company - an unwillingness to take control and responsibility for anything, an unwillingness to explain anything, and a willingness to take as much money as possible for doing as little as possible if the opportunity presents.

1) E.A.G.'s. Gabe's ethos of every product being allowed to find its audience has meant that E.A.G's are infested by get quick rich merchants who promise much, deliver little or nothing, and when discovered and finally stopped simply relaunch the reskinned product under a different name. Steam's sole concession to any form of responsibility is simply to stick a huge notice next to each E.A.G. effectively saying "Don't rely on anything the developers say and don't complain to us if they don't fulfil their promises". I doubt this would hold up in European consumer law but it indicates a retailer totally indifferent to the quality of its products.

2) Inadequate quality control. As does the amount of totally amateurish games clogging up the store and Steam's servers. Whilst I also encourage imagination and people being creative I wouldn't like a world where any vehicle could be driven on a road no matter how unstable or dangerous. I'm not saying the base line needs to be set dramatically higher than it is now but it does need to be set higher. Steam's reputation suffers because it takes no responsibility as a retailer to ensure its products are of merchantable quality.

3) No censorship of pornographic images of children. This can be a little tricky because this material is currently widely produced in Japan without legal restriction and Manga comics innately juvenilise their characters by giving them very wide eyes. It may seem that doing the leg work to effectively censor this material isn't worth the effort and letting these images go to the parts of the community that want them makes good business sense. However I'll tell you a wholly plausible scenario. Amongst the thirteen million unique users that this site can attract in a single day one paedophile successfully manages to contact a child and subsequently abuses them. The police on arresting him seize his computer and he admits that some of the "Loli" stories and images were downloaded from Steam. If it hits the tabloids in the U.K. in one of their periodic frenzies there will be pressure on having the directors of Steam prosecuted and the site closed down in the U.K. and neither of those scenarios is beyond imagination.

4) Neglect of its own assets. Noticed "Overwatch" have you ? You and I both know that should have been Team Fortress 3. Now in a state of panic Valve has suddenly changed Team Fortess 2 so that you need to queue two minutes (or thereabouts) for a game, you can't readily select your map, and after each round - back to the queue. There's no autobalance so if half of a team stops playing for any reason the remainder just get annihilated. All this for a clumsily drawn badge of many colours. Big Woo. You didn't even properly use the spectrum so the colour of the badge would only change every fifty levels. "Overwatch" sets now a very high bar for any Team Fortress 3 whilst it should have been the other way round.

5) Overcharging for peripheries. Charging £8.20 for a taunt in TF 2 and £1.99 for what effectively is close to being a random colour change for an item is blatant exploitation. It relies on player loyalty as well as darker motives to sustain it. It's deeply depressing that one of the greatest developers of PC games of all time fritters its talents in only colourising items and letting its characters do silly dances. I love the silly dances - but for £8.20 you could pick up one or two (not new) full AAA games in the Steam sale. At 82p (or maybe £4.00 for a pack of stuff) I'd consider it.

6) A growing perception that Steam has stopped caring about gamers being able to play their games. At one time there was a perception that there were techies (whether from Steam or the devs) busy with patches to solve bugs and deal with problems caused by Windows upgrades. Now people with problems just seem to be given the run around via automated bot responses.

7) Poor communication with its customers. In comparison Willy Wonka was a model of openness. But Willy Wonka was still making chocolate. What was endearing when things were going well becomes irritating when things aren't. I'd like to see a monthly web cast on Steam (perhaps jointly with PC gamer magazine) reviewing games and works in progress with some actual corporate presence from Steam. Here even those mods who are Steam employees (or higher) don't wear their colours openly. Does everything Valve does have to be "The Magical Mystery Tour" ?

8) Virtual Reality headsets. Did nobody ever think that combining this with a mechanical machine similar to an exercise bike or an Alpine Cross trainer would have meant people would have been far more greatly immersed in the environment without the risk of running into their own furniture ? Plus the accuracy levels would be far higher.

9) By allowing third party sites to download games for free from Steam servers you are effectively subsidising your competitors, cheating yourselves, and making your own customers subsidise another retailer's costs. Third parties should be charged 10% - 20% of Steam retail cost for the product to download it from Steam's servers.

10) Valve's protection of its online games from cheaters and hackers has been inadequate. One notorious hack site even sends its people into TF 2 games to spam adverts for the site. Yet years on the site is still up and running. Decent corporate security would have had the site shut down and the owner bankrupted or imprisoned or both years ago. And in doing so would have passed a strongly deterrent message to others.

I suspect the problem is metaphorically a scientist trying to create new shades of salamanders accidentally creates Godzilla. Steam is now far huger and far more significant in market terms than its creators ever envisaged. Gabe's comments suggests he does not love his pet monster as much as his customers do and worryingly seems ready to divest partial ownership and control. Unless you want to mire the company in the sort of litigious bloodbath that would make "King Lear" look like an episode of "The Cosby Show" I really wouldn't.

It's simple: -

1) For gamers Steam provides a reliable platform to buy games at affordable prices, download them, and have technical and community support
2) For publishers Steam providesa footfall of upwards of thirteen million users a day and a reliable and secure method to sell and distribute their software.

And Valve gets 30% for facilitating this happy marriage and keeping the engines oiled, tuned, and running. A river of gold.

If none of the current directors want that responsibility the solution is simple - hire a managing director and support staff who do. They effectively run the day to day nuts and bolts side of Steam leaving the remaining creative directors to pursue their visions. It will work far happier than trying to manage a break up between the retail arm and the download arm of the business.

S.x.

[76561198343110125]

I vote Trump for Steam President. Deport the Shovelware, and build a wall so it stops trying to come back!

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Автор сообщения: Start_Running

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

Steam CAN'T contract out of merchantable quality in a consumer contract.

They don't have to. merchantable quality doesn't really apply to entertainment products beyond the medium which they distributed. A game only needs four things to be a functional game. It needs To accept input, Display output, have a win/lose state and a mechanism by which the imput affects the determination of the state. So long as these four things are present and the distribution media is not damaged, then it is of merchantible quality.

All Merchantible Quality only means it can be used for the purpose it was designed for, within the context of the product. It is perfectly legal to sell a broken TV, or a bucket with a hole in the bottom, if you inform the buyer of these key details before hand.

And how often does anyone read the licence agreement ?

S.x.

Ignorance, particularly willful ignorance is and never has been an excuse. Valve/Steam takes every reasonable measure to make the buyer aware of just what they are buying.

To some degree the problem is moot because few people are going to go to court over inadequacies of shovelware. The main issue is over whether pressure from consumers and developers to remove the scam ware from the store eventually persuades Steam to act. Even if before Digital Homicide they could claim ignorance about the problems caused by scam ware they must be aware now.

The one real weakness is in relation to EAGs. I haven't done scientific levels of research over this but it seems from complaints in forums that a substantial percentage fail to live up to their promises within a reasonable length of time. And I don't think the Steam disclaimer will protect them IF what the publishers say is a clear indication of what will happen rather than vague aspirations. Here action could be taken if Steam was repeatedly selling products that failed to live up to their promises and then refusing to refund money when they didn't.

S.x.

[Spambot71 (main character)]

Is Gallifrey's Ego Making Him Unable to Function Due to Confirmation Bias?

Yes, yes it is. No thread needed.

[cinedine]

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

The one real weakness is in relation to EAGs. I haven't done scientific levels of research over this but it seems from complaints in forums that a substantial percentage fail to live up to their promises within a reasonable length of time.

Here's food for thought: have you ever seen a thread on the general forums saying that a game was great and exactly what the buyer expected it to be? Does this mean games like this do not exist?
Also a substantial percentage of EAGs you have never even heard of.

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

And how often does anyone read the licence agreement ?

And how often have you read the code of law of your country? Does this mean it doesn't apply to you? Or that only those parts that you read or got to know through hear-say count?
With EACH purchase you have to tick the box confirming you have read, understand and agree with the terms of the license.

Seriously, some of your posts just hurt.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Автор сообщения: Spambot71 (main character)

Is Gallifrey's Ego Making Him Unable to Function Due to Confirmation Bias?

Yes, yes it is. No thread needed.

This is Spambot ladies and gentlemen. Examine well his profile. He has spent a grand total of three hours actually playing games on Steam but has posted 840 times mainly mocking other users.

We have Steam's current pro Troll champion currently in the forum.

If you want to even have the pretence of being someone worthy of attention why don't you buy some games and play them. Then your opinions MIGHT have some validity.

S.x.

[Spambot71 (main character)]

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

Автор сообщения: Spambot71 (main character)

Is Gallifrey's Ego Making Him Unable to Function Due to Confirmation Bias?

Yes, yes it is. No thread needed.

This is Spambot ladies and gentlemen. Examine well his profile. He has spent a grand total of three hours actually playing games on Steam but has posted 840 times mainly mocking other users.

We have Steam's current pro Troll champion currently in the forum.

If you want to even have the pretence of being someone worthy of attention why don't you buy some games and play them. Then your opinions MIGHT have some validity.

S.x.

This is Gallifrey ladies and gentleman. He's self proclaimed smarter than you and spends his time telling the rest of us how worthless we are, using specious arguments like the ones quoted above.

I don't need to call him names or make him look bad, he does that on his own.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Автор сообщения: cinedine

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

The one real weakness is in relation to EAGs. I haven't done scientific levels of research over this but it seems from complaints in forums that a substantial percentage fail to live up to their promises within a reasonable length of time.

Here's food for thought: have you ever seen a thread on the general forums saying that a game was great and exactly what the buyer expected it to be? Does this mean games like this do not exist?
Also a substantial percentage of EAGs you have never even heard of.

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

And how often does anyone read the licence agreement ?

And how often have you read the code of law of your country? Does this mean it doesn't apply to you? Or that only those parts that you read or got to know through hear-say count?
With EACH purchase you have to tick the box confirming you have read, understand and agree with the terms of the license.

Seriously, some of your posts just hurt.

I'm not disputing that some great games have come out of EAG. And if people have something positive to say about games they usually just post in reviews or in the game forum. But I do think that Steam is negligent in policing EAGs to ensure that their devs are doing what they said they would do.

Well in my country the relevant legislation would be the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and, yeah, I have read it.

I'm always suspicious about why my campaigns to get rid of scam ware and conmen from Steam meets such opposition. Of course someone may be making money off those deceptions.

S.x.

[Spambot71 (main character)]

LOL Except you've repeatedly thrown the "positive review rate" under the bus as inconclusive and you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

and then out comes the "people disagreeing with me are conspiring" business.

[cinedine]

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

This is Spambot ladies and gentlemen. Examine well his profile. He has spent a grand total of three hours actually playing games on Steam but has posted 840 times mainly mocking other users.

We have Steam's current pro Troll champion currently in the forum.

If you want to even have the pretence of being someone worthy of attention why don't you buy some games and play them. Then your opinions MIGHT have some validity.

S.x.

Oh look, profile bashing. The sign of a true intellectual human being.

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

Well in my country the relevant legislation would be the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and, yeah, I have read it.

Not even close to my question. So you've read (and still fail to understand obviously) one bill. Does that mean the rest doesn't apply to you? Hint: no.

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

I'm always suspicious about why my campaigns to get rid of scam ware and conmen from Steam meets such opposition. Of course someone may be making money off those deceptions.

S.x.

... and here we go again.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Автор сообщения: Spambot71 (main character)

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

This is Spambot ladies and gentlemen. Examine well his profile. He has spent a grand total of three hours actually playing games on Steam but has posted 840 times mainly mocking other users.

We have Steam's current pro Troll champion currently in the forum.

If you want to even have the pretence of being someone worthy of attention why don't you buy some games and play them. Then your opinions MIGHT have some validity.

S.x.

This is Gallifrey ladies and gentleman. He's self proclaimed smarter than you and spends his time telling the rest of us how worthless we are, using specious arguments like the ones quoted above.

I don't need to call him names or make him look bad, he does that on his own.

My thread so I'm allowed to go off tangent a bit.

1) I haven't self proclaimed I'm smarter than anyone else here. A lot of this argument depends on whether you accept that certain products are so bad they are unfit for sale. If you can't/ won't accept that then what I am advocating is censorship and restriction of freedom. If you do accept that I'm simply suggesting improved quality control and not impugning anyone else.

2) You are just about unique in having had any personal criticism passed your way by me but this is because 2.1) You troll my posts more than anyone else 2.2) You are habitually insulting and abusive and 2.3) You're here posting all the time when you are clearly NOT a gamer and haven't come clean about anything else you are.

You see I have over 3,000 hours logged on games ON STEAM ALONE. I am a GAMER. So when I talk about games I come from a position of experience and vested interest.

This post wasn't about proclaiming my intelligence or insulting people. The post was about seeking to make Steam better for the vast majority of its user base - both devs and gamers.

S.x.

[Spambot71 (main character)]

And that folks, is his logic. I don't play with steam in online mode, and in fact am admittedly new to PC gaming (if he'd actually been competent with his profile stalking he'd see the posts about how I still mostly play console games. But no I am not a gamer because it suites his confirmation bias.

[Start_Running]

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

To some degree the problem is moot because few people are going to go to court over inadequacies of shovelware.

Actually, there have been some cases of this, but the reason no one does this is because precedent has already been et. As said. When it comes to entertainment products, not being liked is not a legal offence. There are some people who hate the beatkles and some people who like YoKo's singing. Even more confusing since whether we enjoy something depends on our mood and the circumstances of our experience. You can hate a movie or song one day but a few months later, it'll just 'click' with you.

The main issue is over whether pressure from consumers and developers to remove the scam ware from the store eventually persuades Steam to act. Even if before Digital Homicide they could claim ignorance about the problems caused by scam ware they must be aware now.

There's very little pressure from developers because they know the consumer base they're dealing witha nd the industry itself is slowly gearing towards exploiting niche markets and trends. They're moving towards a state where a game doesn't have to sell a milkion copies just to cover it's advertising budget, they rather like the idea of being able to make bank with just a few thousand.

As for consumers. While everyone says there are crapo games on steam, no two people's list of crap games will ever match. So that more or less makes it moot. The game you cobnsider a wate of time may be just what someone else is looking for.

I haven't done scientific levels of research over this

We could tell.

it seems from complaints in forums that a substantial percentage fail to live up to their promises within a reasonable length of time.

Confirmation bias, there are never forum posts praising games. There are 20K happy NMS players out there. Maybe more. Also the word reasonable is a thorny one. One some people consider reasonable time is based on how much they know about the development process. People who know software development and game development do not consider 3 years to be an unreasonable time. People who's ideas of game development come from yearly releases of Madden, have a harder time grasping things.

And I don't think the Steam disclaimer will protect them IF what the publishers say is a clear indication of what will happen rather than vague aspirations. Here action could be taken if Steam was repeatedly selling products that failed to live up to their promises and then refusing to refund money when they didn't.

And so we return to the TOS. What are you being sold? An unfinished game at it's current statre of development that may or may not undergo change(significant or otherwise). That is what you are buying, that is what you explicitly state you want to buy. In otherwords. Since that's the what the TOS is, the promises and aspirations are more or less moot to the equations.

ASo far as I have heard, there is not a single EAG that failed to meet this agreement that still exists on the steam store.

So it comes down to the buyer taking the time to understand what they are buying.

[Gallifrey - CSSC Gaming Founder]

Автор сообщения: Start_Running

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

To some degree the problem is moot because few people are going to go to court over inadequacies of shovelware.

Actually, there have been some cases of this, but the reason no one does this is because precedent has already been et. As said. When it comes to entertainment products, not being liked is not a legal offence. There are some people who hate the beatkles and some people who like YoKo's singing. Even more confusing since whether we enjoy something depends on our mood and the circumstances of our experience. You can hate a movie or song one day but a few months later, it'll just 'click' with you.

The main issue is over whether pressure from consumers and developers to remove the scam ware from the store eventually persuades Steam to act. Even if before Digital Homicide they could claim ignorance about the problems caused by scam ware they must be aware now.

There's very little pressure from developers because they know the consumer base they're dealing witha nd the industry itself is slowly gearing towards exploiting niche markets and trends. They're moving towards a state where a game doesn't have to sell a milkion copies just to cover it's advertising budget, they rather like the idea of being able to make bank with just a few thousand.

As for consumers. While everyone says there are crapo games on steam, no two people's list of crap games will ever match. So that more or less makes it moot. The game you cobnsider a wate of time may be just what someone else is looking for.

I haven't done scientific levels of research over this

We could tell.

it seems from complaints in forums that a substantial percentage fail to live up to their promises within a reasonable length of time.

Confirmation bias, there are never forum posts praising games. There are 20K happy NMS players out there. Maybe more. Also the word reasonable is a thorny one. One some people consider reasonable time is based on how much they know about the development process. People who know software development and game development do not consider 3 years to be an unreasonable time. People who's ideas of game development come from yearly releases of Madden, have a harder time grasping things.

And I don't think the Steam disclaimer will protect them IF what the publishers say is a clear indication of what will happen rather than vague aspirations. Here action could be taken if Steam was repeatedly selling products that failed to live up to their promises and then refusing to refund money when they didn't.

And so we return to the TOS. What are you being sold? An unfinished game at it's current statre of development that may or may not undergo change(significant or otherwise). That is what you are buying, that is what you explicitly state you want to buy. In otherwords. Since that's the what the TOS is, the promises and aspirations are more or less moot to the equations.

ASo far as I have heard, there is not a single EAG that failed to meet this agreement that still exists on the steam store.

So it comes down to the buyer taking the time to understand what they are buying.

Citing No Man's Sky with a 91% negative rating is pretty bold even for you.

That said even though NMS seems to have been a major disappointment AND didn't live up to description (which is the major issue) the impression I get is there is still a playable game there. As there is with Evolve 2.

But these aren't the level of games in the target zone. It's the games assembled in barely an hour from Unity stock files. The really basic 2D shooters and platformers that get relaunched with haf a dozen different skins under half a dozen different names. The dregs.

Because even with music you can get to a level where it just isn't music any more (although here you have a riposte with John Cale).

You see I disagree with you on a fundamental assertion. I think for the worst games you could get 95% + agreeing that they are awful.

The problem is that poo sticks and smells. The big AAA boys really won't want their games sold next to the cess pit. Devalues their product. I say what I said before - for this site developers overall like success because it keeps punters coming through the front door. But no-one with a decent product to sell wants their customers having to wade through pond scum to find it. Seriously we could lose, what, the worst one hundred, five hundred, maybe even a thousand games on Steam and there would be nothing of value gone. Indeed there would be a fair amount of borderline stuff left.

The problem with the TOS is that IF the developers have promised more the disclaimer won't protect Steam if they fail to deliver. Plus to be honest it's a crummy way to treat your customers. Let a bunch of know nothings release something half donkeyed with promises to improve it which they never keep and then sell it in your store and then try to hide behind a disclaimer to stop the poo dropping on you. Steam is damaging its own reputation for the sake of something that is worthless.

Pure "caeat emptor" went out some centuries ago. I think the customer deserves some consideration and some protection. Because in your ideology they're mug rubes and that's all they are whilst developers - they can do no wrong.

And yeah, three years from start to finish DOES sound a reasonable time to get a game out because (1) very few studios have the capital to wait more than three years for a return to start on their investment and (2) if you're taking five years the chances are that computer games and computers will have changed so much that you'll have missed your target.

S.x.

[76561198343110125]

5 years?!? Unreal and Unity need to stop releasing a new engine every 2 years, these new age Steam EA developers can't keep up anyway. By the time their games get released, they're already 2 engine versions behind.

[Start_Running]

Автор сообщения: gallifrey

You see I disagree with you on a fundamental assertion. I think for the worst games you could get 95% + agreeing that they are awful.

When you're dealing witha million peiple even 0.5% smeans you have 5000 happy customers.

The problem is that poo sticks and smells. The big AAA boys really won't want their games sold next to the cess pit. Devalues their product. I say what I said before - for this site developers overall like success because it keeps punters coming through the front door. But no-one with a decent product to sell wants their customers having to wade through pond scum to find it. Seriously we could lose, what, the worst one hundred, five hundred, maybe even a thousand games on Steam and there would be nothing of value gone. Indeed there would be a fair amount of borderline stuff left.

Nothing of value, unless you were a part of the audience those games targeted. See how that works. if all the MW games vanished from steam, I wouldn't know or care... others.. might. Even bad games have their audiences.

The problem with the TOS is that IF the developers have promised more the disclaimer won't protect Steam if they fail to deliver.

Again.. it does. You don seem to know how Terms of Sales work. It is a contract, a legally binding agreement. It both details what is being exchanged and the conditions of the exchange.

Plus to be honest it's a crummy way to treat your customers. Let a bunch of know nothings release something half donkeyed with promises to improve it which they never keep and then sell it in your store and then try to hide behind a disclaimer to stop the poo dropping on you. Steam is damaging its own reputation for the sake of something that is worthless.

Valve's bank account says otherwise, because believe it or not I do believe the majoritry of EAcc buyers, actually take the time to read and understand the disclaimers and TOS and thusly, know exactly what they're getting into. It just seems to be a few loud empty kettles that whine and moan.

Pure "caeat emptor" went out some centuries ago. I think the customer deserves some consideration and some protection. Because in your ideology they're mug rubes and that's all they are whilst developers - they can do no wrong.

No. In my ideology. if you buy something, in spite of being warned and actively dissuaded by the seller, you must really want it and thusly you should understand what you're buying if you want it that much.

Caveat Emptor is one thing. But reading the product description is just common-sense.

And yeah, three years from start to finish DOES sound a reasonable time to get a game out because (1) very few studios have the capital to wait more than three years for a return to start on their investment

You'd be surprised. Studios of all kinds tend to have multiple projects at any one time. If one is on go slow they focus on another.

(2) if you're taking five years the chances are that computer games and computers will have changed so much that you'll have missed your target.

Not a problem if you actually made decent games. There are 15 year old games that are still selling quite well. :-)

YOu may notice Gali, that reality operates a bit differently from your ideal fantasy. Then again you have declared yourself to be the kind of person who will walk out of a restaurant if so much as one item on the menu does not appeal to your palatte..