Old games released on Steam

[Ein0r]

I really despise this new way Valve handles all those old games at the moment. The sheer flood of them gets annoying, including the misleading publishing date information. When i hover over the game it says: published 2014.
I have to click on the game to find out its release date. And this is something that should be clearly and easily visible on store's front page.

All those old games in the New Games tab or the Sales tab (not sure how they are called in english) result in me not browsing Steam for new games or indie games anymore because it is too much of a hassle to find them between all those old games. If you really want to let them flood your platform, fine, but please get a new structure for them. A new tab "Rereleased old games" would probably do the trick. (Or whatever fancy name you are going to find, since a big amount of them is not even good)
Until you find a solution, i will buy the majority of games over gog.com, origin, greenmangaming and some other sale websites.

What is your oppinion? Will you leave the steam platform for buying games? Dont you care?
How do you deal with this?

edit: getting corrected about the original release date.

[Kargor]

Yeah well, you have to see the positive side of this: TotalBiscuit now has a new "series" labelled "Steam sells" (and there's an occasional "Lets not play..." as well), where he shows off some of the hillariously bugged and crappy releases that show up on Steam these days.

This kind of entertainment would not be possible if Steam would still curate their shop.

[Malignant]

Feels like business people have realized that GoG sells old games with profit and everyone wants to get on the bandwagon but not caring about customers like GoG does.
To a business person an old game from developer catalog is a Zero development cost game .. so even if it sells only few copies it's all profit when you do Zero cost customer service on it also.

[Satoru]

Publicado originalmente por Ein0r:

I really despise this new way Valve handles all those old games at the moment. The sheer flood of them gets annoying, including the misleading publishing date information. When i hover over the game it says: published 2014.
I have to click ont the game, and even then there are games that dont state its real publishing date in the description. And this is something that should be clearly and easily visible.

Classic games that are released on Steam generally now have the 'original' release date on them

http://store.steampowered.com/app/292160/?snr=1_4_4__tab-NewReleasesFilteredDLC
Release Date: Oct 3, 2003

http://store.steampowered.com/app/273570/
Release Date: Feb 13, 1995

Until you find a solution, i will buy the majority of games over gog.com, origin, greenmangaming and some other sale websites.

So...... you don't want to buy older games but you're going to purchase games from the major platform that basically specializes in older games???

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por Axe:

There seems an infinate number of people who seem to believe they have rights to initiate change because they have a voice. This is not how life works in general.

Who has the right to initiate change then? Those without a voice? I doubt that.

[Satoru]

Publicado originalmente por TheStoryteller01:

Who has the right to initiate change then? Those without a voice? I doubt that.

Valve does as they are the owners of the service.

You're free to give suggestions

Just as others are free to critique those suggestions

And just as valve is free to implement or ignore said suggestions

You don't have any 'rights' to the service except those that are given to you.

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por Axe:

Publicado originalmente por TheStoryteller01:

Who has the right to initiate change then? Those without a voice? I doubt that.

Taking my statement and turning it around doesn't work. Or perhaps Mr pedantic I should have said having a voice doesn't give you the right to initiate change. Ok now huh...?

So the right to initiate change must be something very exclusive then? Well, since you seem to think you're the one who decides - tell me: WHO has the right to initiate a change?

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por Satoru:

Publicado originalmente por TheStoryteller01:

Who has the right to initiate change then? Those without a voice? I doubt that.

You don't have any 'rights' to the service except those that are given to you.

Well, people like Oliver Cromwell (long dead) or Edward Snowdon (surprisingly still alive) did not try to iniate a change within the rights given to them.

Actually change RARELY comes from within the boundaries of the system.

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por Axe:

Publicado originalmente por TheStoryteller01:

So the right to initiate change must be something very exclusive then? Well, since you seem to think you're the one who decides - tell me: WHO has the right to initiate a change?

Read Satoru's post above mine ;-)

Where did I say I was the one to decide? Please stop making stuff up for some pointless reason will you?

Publicado originalmente por Axe:

There seems an infinite number of people who seem to believe they have rights to initiate change because they have a voice. This is not how life works in general.

Your witness.

Publicado originalmente por Axe:

Oh I see you have removed your post whilst I was typing.

Nope, still there.

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por Axe:

Publicado originalmente por TheStoryteller01:

Well, people like Oliver Cromwell (long dead) or Edward Snowdon (surprisingly still alive) did not try to iniate a change within the rights given to them.

Actually change RARELY comes from within the boundaries of the system.

Neither did Nelson Mandela. Challenging the rights afforded to you is not the issue here. We are if you are reading this correctly talking about having automatic rights because you use a service.

If you want to go off on a tangent that's your choice.

Automatic rights? All people are doing here (and in other treads) is voicing their concerns and critizism. What has that to do with "automatic rights".

[TheStoryteller01]

Publicado originalmente por Axe:

I have no idea what thr hell you are now saying... or in this case, not saying.

O_o


Ok, then tell me - in regard of what you said earlier

Publicado originalmente por Axe:

There seems an infinate number of people who seem to believe they have rights to initiate change because they have a voice. This is not how life works in general.

How does the world work. Who does one change things he thinks need to be changed?

[Zeetarb]

... Anyway, I agree with what the OP is saying. I don't think it's unreasonable to want the release date to be the date the game was released rather than when it was released on Steam. I also think with older games GOG's approach, assuming they still do the compatability groundwork, is significantly better.

[asphantix]

I agree on the OP
I think steam would be better with a new tab on the front page, for example call it "re-releases" :)

[Fo de bi]

jojae

[Ein0r]

With all that derailing going on, lets give it a nudge into the correct direction, shall we? ;)

To answer Satorus comment where he quoted me:
Yes, the games do give the original release date now. but not where i want that to be:
http://abload.de/image.php?img=oldgamessteamyhas6.jpg

The top part shows the "released on steam date"( april 23 2014) in the main window of the store.
Not sure if they differ in english, but Veröffentlicht and Veröffentlichung both translate to published/released. (from german to english)

But the game specific release date should already be shown on the main store page, and not only on the game's specific site.

It is the same as going to a brick and mortar Gamestop store. You would be pretty baffled, or annoyed to see games like, Dungeon Keeper 1, BorderZone or Turok 1, right next to games like Titanfall, Dark Souls 2 and Trials Fusion, on the same "New Releases" shelf.
And now imagine the same Gamestop, with a "New Releases" shelf that looks like:
Old,Old,Old,Titanfall,Old, Old,Trials Fusion, Old,Old,Old,Spelunky,Old,Dark Souls2,Old, Old Old. This is just annoying.

And to your second argument: Yes, i do buy old games at gog, because it is mostly made for old games. I know what i am getting into. And i would probably buy old games, or smartphone games, on steam too, provided that they get their own segment.

[Satoru]

Publicado originalmente por Ein0r:

And to your second argument: Yes, i do buy old games at gog, because it is mostly made for old games. I know what i am getting into. And i would probably buy old games, or smartphone games, on steam too, provided that they get their own segment.

this entire argument is nonsensical

1) Gog already does what you're 'complaining' about on Steam as it mixes 'new' games with classic ones despite having disparate release dates but tags them all as 'new'. Again an utterly inconsistent application of critera.

2) The "I wont buy 'old or 'smartphone' games unless they'r eon their own section' is again utterly nonsensical. Having those games in their 'own section' doesnt' magically make those games more desirable or better. You either want them or you don't. And your arbitrary segregatio nof 'old' and 'smartphone' games is indicative of the fact that you don't actually want those games on steam. Not that they need a separate section.