Absolute steam W

[PhamTrinli]

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

original steam article ^

bellular video covering the changes v
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpypPqZNxPA

[Chika Ogiue]

Not really the "win" people think it is. There are two things it will more likely result in:
1 - Publishers not offering season passes on Steam (but selling all the respective DLC for higher prices piecemeal instead).

2 - Publishers only giving vague release dates that are as late as possible. So something like Winter 2025. This means publishers have until the end of March 2026 to release whatever they promised (which will be as little as possible), before Valve MIGHT take action on their own accord (and Valve actually allow longer delays if the publisher consults with them).

3 - There will be a wider spread of the yearly season passes instead of a single pass that covers the lifetime of the game.

Also publishers do not have to tell you exactly what's in a season pass, only a vague idea.

A basic description of the content that’s included in each DLC. For example, the first content release might be “The Glitterlands Expansion – New area to explore, two new weapons, and new enemies.” It’s not required for the DLC to have a final name at the launch of the Season Pass. The information about the content in the DLC doesn’t need to be detailed (simply “new weapons” or “two new weapons” is acceptable, they don’t have to list the exact weapons).

In other words, don't expect to be getting massive refunds involving season passes. Valve's words are designed to look good in articles and when spoken by YouTubers, but they should not be taken at face value; there're plently of opportunities for the wording to be interpreted in ways that actually negatively affect Steam customers.

[Ben Lubar]

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

Not really the "win" people think it is. There are two things it will more likely result in:
1 - Publishers not offering season passes on Steam (but selling all the respective DLC for higher prices piecemeal instead).

Stopping a misleading marketing practice sounds like a win for consumers to me.

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

2 - Publishers only giving vague release dates that are as late as possible. So something like Winter 2025. This means publishers have until the end of March 2026 to release whatever they promised (which will be as little as possible), before Valve MIGHT take action on their own accord (and Valve actually allow longer delays if the publisher consults with them).

Game releases are late all the time. The new rules are designed to make sure that if a game developer ignores their promises, action can be taken.

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

3 - There will be a wider spread of the yearly season passes instead of a single pass that covers the lifetime of the game.

So more certainty for consumers? Still sounds like a win to me.

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

Also publishers do not have to tell you exactly what's in a season pass, only a vague idea.

A basic description of the content that’s included in each DLC. For example, the first content release might be “The Glitterlands Expansion – New area to explore, two new weapons, and new enemies.” It’s not required for the DLC to have a final name at the launch of the Season Pass. The information about the content in the DLC doesn’t need to be detailed (simply “new weapons” or “two new weapons” is acceptable, they don’t have to list the exact weapons).

For comparison, the Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree DLC, which is fully released, says:

The ELDEN RING Shadow of the Erdtree expansion features an all-new story set in the Land of Shadow imbued with mystery, perilous dungeons, and new enemies, weapons and equipment.

Games and DLC on Steam have never been required to give an itemized list of every asset and name that players might encounter during their play. The "vague idea" sounds a lot like how DLC is described right now, which is something I haven't seen any complaints about.

Valve isn't going to require game developers to spoil their games' content for players before it's even been released.

[Sasori Kigaru]

I like that they're doing this so, definitely a win in my book.

[Chika Ogiue]

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Stopping a misleading marketing practice sounds like a win for consumers to me.

Potentially removing customer choice while forcing a higher price over all is not a "consumer win".

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Game releases are late all the time. The new rules are designed to make sure that if a game developer ignores their promises, action can be taken.

With enough loopholes that no action will ever be taken in the majority of delays, etc. Valve state that descriptions don't have to be detailed. So "one new location, a new weapon, and a new enemy" is sufficient description which doesn't really tell anyone anything more detailed than current descriptions do.

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

So more certainty for consumers? Still sounds like a win to me.

Higher overall pricing and more nickel and diming is not a "win".

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Games and DLC on Steam have never been required to give an itemized list of every asset and name that players might encounter during their play.

Exactly. Things staying the same is not a sudden new "pro-consumer" move. It's the status quo.

There are little wins here, only more opportunity to screw over Steam customers in the future.

[Ben Lubar]

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Games and DLC on Steam have never been required to give an itemized list of every asset and name that players might encounter during their play.

Exactly. Things staying the same is not a sudden new "pro-consumer" move. It's the status quo.

There are little wins here, only more opportunity to screw over Steam customers in the future.

Forcing marketing to be as truthful and fact-based as some of the highest-regarded examples of game marketing on the platform is not "screwing over customers".

[76561198407601200]

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

Not really the "win" people think it is. There are two things it will more likely result in:
1 - Publishers not offering season passes on Steam (but selling all the respective DLC for higher prices piecemeal instead).

Stopping a misleading marketing practice sounds like a win for consumers to me.

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

2 - Publishers only giving vague release dates that are as late as possible. So something like Winter 2025. This means publishers have until the end of March 2026 to release whatever they promised (which will be as little as possible), before Valve MIGHT take action on their own accord (and Valve actually allow longer delays if the publisher consults with them).

Game releases are late all the time. The new rules are designed to make sure that if a game developer ignores their promises, action can be taken.

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

3 - There will be a wider spread of the yearly season passes instead of a single pass that covers the lifetime of the game.

So more certainty for consumers? Still sounds like a win to me.

Originally posted by Chika Ogiue:

Also publishers do not have to tell you exactly what's in a season pass, only a vague idea.

For comparison, the Elden Ring: Shadow of the Erdtree DLC, which is fully released, says:


Games and DLC on Steam have never been required to give an itemized list of every asset and name that players might encounter during their play. The "vague idea" sounds a lot like how DLC is described right now, which is something I haven't seen any complaints about.

Valve isn't going to require game developers to spoil their games' content for players before it's even been released.

I consider it a win.

[Alasdair]

at this point I've completely lost faith in the market and refuse to give a single company money for a single game. I don't think my trust can be rebuilt. at least not in the format games are released today with the contract laws we have now.

[76561198407601200]

Originally posted by gamersareeasytoffend:

OP's willingness to carry Gabe's water is impressive when you consider they have multiple bans on their account. That's real brand loyalty.

They're likely aware why they received the bans, hence why they aren't correlating dev's promises regarding season passes with their own game bans that have zero to do with the topic. True loyalty is creating multiple accounts when banned. Best of luck, blocked, etc.

[Młody Judasz]

:3

[Start_Running]

Basically. If you sell a season pass. you have to say what will be in it and when it will be released.
Seems rather basic