Business ethics ?

[Frogbottom]

Lately there has been an avalanche of releases of old games or mobile games with slim to none adaptaion to modern computers. In the case of mobile games you mostly get an android/iphone port 1:1 to PC or Mac at 2-4 times the price. Hardly a good deal and generating a lot of disappointed users. That the game is originally developed as a mobile app is rarely stated clearly.

In the case of old games you get a game from the 90:s or early 20:s that doesen´t even run on an modern computer. That the game is 10 years old or more is not clearly stated in the store.

I agree that some gems from the past i actually works and are worth the money but the majority of the releases of late does not. A further problem is that most of the companies that developed these games are longe gone so there is no support and no possibilities for any patches.

On top of this there are a lot of early access titles/ greenlight games that are sold where it seems like the quality and/or progress is not at all managed or at least checked for a minimum of quality.

As a long time customer i get worried by this develpment and i think this hurts your credibility and damages Steam as a gaming plattform.

Dear Steam or Valve, what is your take on this ?

[marianne~]

I think this is an interesting thread cause there are many gamers who do not know what Early Access involves and this helps to inform them. So boring, it is not, IMO. I have many gaming friends who do buy EA and also favor Kickstarters. They say they like to encourage particular devs, publishers and games.

[dirrtymartini]

Publicado originalmente por WhiteKnight77:

Valve is not going to do any quality control or quality assurance on games that they did not develop, that is up to the developer of said game to do.

Too many people don't get that fact. QA testers cost money and resources. Who ends up paying for those resources? We all would.

[Crypto Carlos]

Publicado originalmente por RedLightning:

So if Steam doesnt shove the Early Access down everyones throats then we will only see 3 to 4 games a year? Wow that says a lot about early access..

If people want early access.. they will not use the filter.. If they DONT want it they will.

I think that Early access can be abused.. Release a half finished game.. rake in the cash.. and run away rich. The people that were shafted can only shrug their shoulders.. and all Steam has to do is say "well you bought an 'early access' game.. sorry."

There is absolutely NO incentive to finish the game. If people recieved ther paychecks before the job was completed.. then people will feel less apt to actually complete the job. That happens every single day with contractors.,

If someone is investing their own money and time into a game there is an ultimatum to finish the game.. they dont finish.. they fail. With early access that "failure" is taken out of the equation.

Only my humble opinion.

Failure is absolutely not taken out of the equation as if they gain a bad reputation by not finishing their games they very likely won't be able to afford to make any more titles. And if people knowingly read the prominent "EARLY ACCESS" details at the top of the game page generally detailing the state of the game at the current time and still agree to buy into it, and do no additional research on the forums/Youtube etc. they have nobody but themselves to blame if they get burned. It's not Valve's (or any storefront's for that matter) responsibility to save people from themselves - if they'd do a minimum amount of research before impulse buying a game on a few pretty screenshots they wouldn't be disappointed, but common sense is rare these days.

[Two Clicks]

Dont mind Early Access though I wont touch most titles as they are not playable games. Not prepared to stump up the cash when I could use it to play a finished or near finished game.

Re-releases for the most part are a waste of my time. I expect these are for people who never got to try them out rather than for nostaglia buyers. Maybe I am interested in a handful of titles but I certainly wont be buying many of these. Only few I have is Jagged Alliance WF and System Shock 2.

Mobile ports Im not sure about. There are some games Id like to try but not on mobile. My biggest issue is the price of these games and whether they offer anything in terms of substantial gameplay. This Ive yet to determine. Im hoping that Dead Effect will be my first mobile port purchase though Ive tried JA:O. Im not really convinced either way. I just know that some games will provide a bad experience for PC gamers.

As for business ethics... overall Im not bothered about games in these three categories. I accept that Steam has to increase its potential market by offering these games but Id just like the option to filter these out. 99% of them I will not be interested in unless they are in a sale and tbh even then I would probably opt for a more rounded game.

- Re: games original release date not being shown on the store page... they are. Look under the text written for the description. You will find the year there. Which is when I usually forget about comtemplating buying it.

[Jawaka]

The problem with early access is that there doesn't seem to be any regulation of it. We're expected to trust that the developer's word is good enough to pay them in advance for a game that isn't finished yet. Its nice to think that all developers are trustworthy but unfortunately that's not always the case.

Another pet peeve of Early Access are games with no set goals for completion. Kerbal for example has been in Early Access for over a year now and even though new content is being added regularly, much of it is content that can be best described as DLC more so than content to finalize the base game. I'd much rather see developers spend their time finalizing the game they initially advertised before they work on DLC

[Satoru]

Publicado originalmente por Jawaka:

The problem with early access is that there doesn't seem to be any regulation of it.

But what rules would you want. Early access already at a bare minimum requires a playable 'something' at least (which is more than Kickstarter requires). There really aren't many more rules required other than you have to release the game. Rules beyond that wouldn't make much sense given that Steam isn't a publisher so they have no say in terms of anything concerning the game.

We're expected to trust that the developer's word is good enough to pay them in advance for a game that isn't finished yet. Its nice to think that all developers are trustworthy but unfortunately that's not always the case.

While bizarre edge cases may exist, most devs are honest people trying to make a game. Most could be doing a lot better making more money doing literally anything else with their talents. So far the fears of 'devs running off with the money' simply are not rooted in reality.

[Frogbottom]

In order to clarify my original post a bit i have absolutely no problem with the concept of early access and i think that it is clearly stated in the store that you buy an unfinished game. What i think is problematic is that there is such a huge difference between early access games when it comes to progress, quality, what information is available from the develpers and so on. Of course there is allways a gamble when buying anything unfinished that you as a buyer have to take reponsibility for, but the term early access somewhat implies that you should get access to a finished game at some point.

When it comes to old games or ported apps / flash games and so on i never said that they should not be on Steam. What i do think is that there should be enough information in the store so that a buyer can make an informed decision. If it is clearly stated that a game was released 1995, the developer is not in business anymore and the game is not tested on newer computers and operating systems, fine. The i can decide if i want to take a chance or not, knowing that there will be no support if i have problems.

If you sell things to people i think you are responsible for giving correct information about the products, even if you are not responsible for making the product itself. That was my point.

[Satoru]

Older games being sold on steam generally do not have many issues running on modern hardware.

Steam also has recently started showing the 'original' release dates for older games on re-released titles.

Also your OP really does contradict your supposedly 'neutral' position. The first paragraph alone makes mention that 'That the game is originally developed as a mobile app is rarely stated clearly.'. This is not some kind of 'information' that is relevant in any way shape or form.

You claim an 'ethical' dillema in place of your own personal biases.

[Jawaka]

People generally don't have a bias against early access games, they have concerns with them and there's nothing wrong with being a cautious consumer.

[Satoru]

Publicado originalmente por Jawaka:

People generally don't have a bias against early access games, they have concerns with them and there's nothing wrong with being a cautious consumer.

There's a difference between being cautious, and claiming 'business ethics' as a problem.

[WhiteKnight77]

Publicado originalmente por psm:

In order to clarify my original post a bit i have absolutely no problem with the concept of early access and i think that it is clearly stated in the store that you buy an unfinished game. What i think is problematic is that there is such a huge difference between early access games when it comes to progress, quality, what information is available from the develpers and so on. Of course there is allways a gamble when buying anything unfinished that you as a buyer have to take reponsibility for, but the term early access somewhat implies that you should get access to a finished game at some point.

When it comes to old games or ported apps / flash games and so on i never said that they should not be on Steam. What i do think is that there should be enough information in the store so that a buyer can make an informed decision. If it is clearly stated that a game was released 1995, the developer is not in business anymore and the game is not tested on newer computers and operating systems, fine. The i can decide if i want to take a chance or not, knowing that there will be no support if i have problems.

If you sell things to people i think you are responsible for giving correct information about the products, even if you are not responsible for making the product itself. That was my point.

Even buying "complete" or finished games comes with a risk. Quality can be subjective even. There could be an EAG alpha that is really buggy just as well as one can not be buggy. This even goes for finished games as well.

[MerdA!]

Pro tip: search for reviews on the web before buying a product.

[dirrtymartini]

Publicado originalmente por MerdA!:

Pro tip: search for reviews on the web before buying a product.

Hello, Captain Obvious. :P

[The Rock God]

Publicado originalmente por Ubernerd Lucas:

The issue at stake isn't the quality of the game. The problem is many of these older games won't run well (if at all) on many modern set-ups. For example, I purchased Disciples 2 a while back; the only way I can get it to run on Windows 7 64-bit is by launching in compatibility mode with a particular graphics configuration AND the sound disabled; otherwise it freezes up after launching. Yet the store page offers no hints that it might have any problems at all; it seem like Valve is operating in bad faith when they're willing to sell games with this

Oddly enough, when I look at the store page I can see that there may be issues running it on Win7. The store page only lists XP as a supported OS. While the vast majority of games made for XP will run under newer versions, anyone who knows Windows knows there's no guarantee of compatibility. I'd be willing to bet if you were running XP the game would run just fine.

[Rammur]

Steam is a platform for everything not just elitest snobs who want all the new crap.