how long have the "unrelated reviews" been removed from normal viewing?

[Church.exe]

I just noticed that apparently now steam filters out some "unrelated reviews" and I'm wondering how recent it is. I mean steam has always had it's issues but now I'm just worried that it's been around for a while and I never noticed the tiny asterisk. It does make me kind of worried though as, realistically, lets be honest this is for companies. When companies inevitably do something shady, their products get worse reviews. Given that, the fact that steam added it makes me think that its about to get a whole lot less consumer friendly and a whole lot more profitable. Maybe I'm wrong of course but something tells me it's just a bid to get a lot more large companies selling games on steam under the promise that no matter what they do steam can just mark the reviews from that period as "unrelated" hiding them from everyone who doesn't notice that tiny asterisk.

[Paratech2008]

my point is gamers have a right to make decisions about games based on DRM. There's a group on Steam that reports every game that uses Denuvo.

Stating a game has a specific DRM that's not on the store let's gamers make decisions about purchasing games or not.

For some people, they'll buy the game, others won't. But it should be ok to include the fact a game has DRM in it that might affect people's decision whether to buy it or not.

Saying Sega's evil or a game has Denuvo and it'll destroy your PC is wrong. I'm not stating that. I'm not even in the boycott Denuvo crowd. But based upon whether it's in a game or not may change gamers opinions about buying it and there are other DRM than Denuvo I used it as an example.

I have the Persona 4 fighting game. It has Denuvo. It lists it has it in the store. I have played the game. When Denuvo was removed from Doom I purchased it. These are rights gaers have to make regardless of how other gamers feel. Nobody should have a right to condemn gamers for choices they make whether or not to buy games.

[Paratech2008]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Crashed:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Crystal Sharrd:

You'd still have to keep the review about the game. The Always Online one seems like something you can complain about since that does affect the game itself and your ability to play it, but not sure about the third-party launcher requirement. Ultimately though it's Valve that gets to decide what's allowed on their platform.

The always online one may refer to a game that on launch day would not run if Steam was set to offline mode, even if the game had been launched online first. That was fixed within about a day.

I was referring to other DRM. You're the one trying to say all I'm posting about is Denuvo.

[Brian9824]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Church.exe:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Big Bridge.mp4:

No. that' is not what those types of people do at all. They spam a bunch of whiny reddit nonsense on negative reviews.

alright, it's not what they do. Doesn't matter though. Whether thats what they say or not, a review shouldn't have to explain it's own existence. If a person reviews a game as being "God this game is ♥♥♥♥, it's just a chore to play" it isn't explaining its position, its just stating it. If it can be proven that a position HAS relevancy, then it is valid as a review irrelevant of if it explains that relevancy on it's own. People shouldn't have to explain the concept of a review whenever they write a review.

They aren't required thoguh. The system only kicks in during VERY RARE cases where a game is massively bombarded by a massive amount of reviews in a very narrow period and then manually reviewed.

Furthermore the reviews are not removed, and the user has the option of seeing them if they want.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Paratech2008:

my point is gamers have a right to make decisions about games based on DRM. There's a group on Steam that reports every game that uses Denuvo.

Stating a game has a specific DRM that's not on the store let's gamers make decisions about purchasing games or not.

Yeah and you can do that, those reviews aren't off topic at all. What would be off topic would be posting a review about Game Y saying that its bad because they added Denuvo to game X.

Since it had nothing to do with Game Y then it would be off topic.


Again though people are ignoring that review bombing is RARE. Someone or a handful of people leaving an off topic review doesn't trigger it. a MASS influx of reviews does, and if it occurs its noted and you are free to ignore it and read the reviews if you want.

It's only triggered a handful of times really and doesn't effect 99.99% of games.

[Crashed]

The cases I have seen with DRM related reviews often show a spike in reviews and an abnormal amount of upvotes for the negative reviews intended to push them to the top of the reviews.

[Thermal Lance]

If someone post. "Game has denuvo therefore it's ♥♥♥♥." That would be off-topic.

But, if the user believes Denuvo is detrimental to the experience itself. May it be because of bad implementation or performance issues some people say they have, including himself, because of it. That would be on topic.

[Crashed]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Thermal Lance:

If someone post. "Game has denuvo therefore it's ♥♥♥♥." That would be off-topic.

But, if the user believes Denuvo is detrimental to the experience itself. May it be because of bad implementation or performance issues some people say they have, including himself, because of it. That would be on topic.

How about when the upvotes on such reviews are disproportionately high, and now loaded with Awards?

[Thermal Lance]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Crashed:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Thermal Lance:

If someone post. "Game has denuvo therefore it's ♥♥♥♥." That would be off-topic.

But, if the user believes Denuvo is detrimental to the experience itself. May it be because of bad implementation or performance issues some people say they have, including himself, because of it. That would be on topic.

How about when the upvotes on such reviews are disproportionately high, and now loaded with Awards?

It doesn't matter at all in relation to the point I'm making.

Upvotes and awards holds no bearings on a review being off-topic or not.

[Church.exe]

Not quoting anyone since I don't care about getting into this again, but if anyone comes across this discussion "the system isn't automated" Neat, so the fact that cyberpunk has been listed as having a wave of "unrelated" reviews following patch 1.5 despite me reading through pages and seeing under 5 that could even vaguely be considered unrelated, all the others directly commenting on how 1.5 affected the game and it has been improved, is just coincidence? Meanwhile the absolute SURGE of reviews for CPU Cores following some political statement that spiked to hundreds of reviews for a few days (when traditionally it gets a handful) that isn't marked as being unrelated at all, that's also just someone happening to mistakenly read through pages and pages of people commenting on the politics and still deciding that those are all directly related to the software, despite almost all of them DIRECTLY stating that they were leaving a negative review for political reasons?

Doing this sort of thing can be straight up illegal in many areas, it's review manipulation that is barely disclosed by a faint grey *. Not even white, it's opacity is turned down, it's grey, so guess what stands out more next to it, if you guessed the full opacity bright cyan blue text saying "Mostly positive" or the deep red text saying "Mostly Negative" you'd be right! Go to Cyberpunk, and read the reviews marked as "unrelated around march" to june, almost bloody all of them are referring to the patch or generally reffering to the game itself. Yet, despite all of those reviews being 100% on topic and relevant, they were marked as irrelevant and unrelated. Bad enough right? Buuuuut at least if it does it's job, a little collateral might be acceptable. Now look at CPU Cores, which got an absolute review bomb, for political reasons, and is NOT marked as being unrelated. So reviews which are legitimate get filtered out, and reviews which aren't don't. Even if I am generous and say it is a system made with good intentions, a fact I now doubt, it's implemented so poorly that it still manipulates review scores, which under many jurisdictions, might be straight up illegal. In short, if your read this far, change your settings, you evidently can't trust steam to decide what a "relevant" review is as, even by their own deeply flawed classifications, they still mark relevant reviews irrelevant, and irrelevant reviews relevant.

(and I do want to stress that since some people have kept arguing it, this is by the definition for relevancy I was provided IN THIS DISCUSSION. Read the reviews for Cyberpunk and CPU Cores, the relevancy in those is bloody crystal, textbook relevant, and textbook irrelevant, clear as the grass is green.)

As I said before, I have no interest in getting back into a debate, I have proof of this sitting in front of my face right now and you can find it yourself with ease, I'm no longer subscribed to this discussion, and frankly I don't care. I'm just putting this here to dispel the BS defenses that have been made for the system. You can go to Cyberpunk's page, and you can go to CPU Cores page, and I'd like to point out, I didn't scour for these, I have just kept finding ones and decided to actually say something about it. So unless I hit the absolute evidence jackpot, I don't think these are edge cases. Now, again, I'm willing to be charitable and say that the people who operate or programmed the system are just so incompetent as to fail this miserably, but irrelevant of why (and ignoring the fact that assuming that with just HOW clear cut these reviews are borders on intellectual dishonesty) it's still a system that patently fails even in the most obvious of cases, ergo, not something you should trust and you should change your settings to fix it.

[Thermal Lance]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Church.exe:

Not quoting anyone since I don't care about getting into this again, but if anyone comes across this discussion "the system isn't automated" Neat, so the fact that cyberpunk has been listed as having a wave of "unrelated" reviews following patch 1.5 despite me reading through pages and seeing under 5 that could even vaguely be considered unrelated, all the others directly commenting on how 1.5 affected the game and it has been improved, is just coincidence? Meanwhile the absolute SURGE of reviews for CPU Cores following some political statement that spiked to hundreds of reviews for a few days (when traditionally it gets a handful) that isn't marked as being unrelated at all, that's also just someone happening to mistakenly read through pages and pages of people commenting on the politics and still deciding that those are all directly related to the software, despite almost all of them DIRECTLY stating that they were leaving a negative review for political reasons?

Doing this sort of thing can be straight up illegal in many areas, it's review manipulation that is barely disclosed by a faint grey *. Not even white, it's opacity is turned down, it's grey, so guess what stands out more next to it, if you guessed the full opacity bright cyan blue text saying "Mostly positive" or the deep red text saying "Mostly Negative" you'd be right! Go to Cyberpunk, and read the reviews marked as "unrelated around march" to june, almost bloody all of them are referring to the patch or generally reffering to the game itself. Yet, despite all of those reviews being 100% on topic and relevant, they were marked as irrelevant and unrelated. Bad enough right? Buuuuut at least if it does it's job, a little collateral might be acceptable. Now look at CPU Cores, which got an absolute review bomb, for political reasons, and is NOT marked as being unrelated. So reviews which are legitimate get filtered out, and reviews which aren't don't. Even if I am generous and say it is a system made with good intentions, a fact I now doubt, it's implemented so poorly that it still manipulates review scores, which under many jurisdictions, might be straight up illegal. In short, if your read this far, change your settings, you evidently can't trust steam to decide what a "relevant" review is as, even by their own deeply flawed classifications, they still mark relevant reviews irrelevant, and irrelevant reviews relevant.

(and I do want to stress that since some people have kept arguing it, this is by the definition for relevancy I was provided IN THIS DISCUSSION. Read the reviews for Cyberpunk and CPU Cores, the relevancy in those is bloody crystal, textbook relevant, and textbook irrelevant, clear as the grass is green.)

As I said before, I have no interest in getting back into a debate, I have proof of this sitting in front of my face right now and you can find it yourself with ease, I'm no longer subscribed to this discussion, and frankly I don't care. I'm just putting this here to dispel the BS defenses that have been made for the system. You can go to Cyberpunk's page, and you can go to CPU Cores page, and I'd like to point out, I didn't scour for these, I have just kept finding ones and decided to actually say something about it. So unless I hit the absolute evidence jackpot, I don't think these are edge cases. Now, again, I'm willing to be charitable and say that the people who operate or programmed the system are just so incompetent as to fail this miserably, but irrelevant of why (and ignoring the fact that assuming that with just HOW clear cut these reviews are borders on intellectual dishonesty) it's still a system that patently fails even in the most obvious of cases, ergo, not something you should trust and you should change your settings to fix it.

Given how long it took you to come back to it. Might as well have let it die if you’re going to bolt anyway. Just saying.