安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
There are two (or more) perfectly good consoles you can play on if you prefer that.
On the other hand they blame steam for not being the QA dept of every developer on the planet.
Maybe you're right... Maybe I've been playing on the xbox for too long (long enough to get used to a "safe" and closed system). The thing is, I like Steam so much I really wouldn't like for it to become some horrible mesh of terrible games. But it does have a strong community of users, employees, mods and admins which might make this work the right way... =)
I'm not sure what you mean... I never said I wanted greenlight to end (Gabe said that, not me) nor did I say I wish for valve to answer for the devs. I just want to make sure there's a reasonable amount of regulation regarding new games entering steam. Specifically blocking games that either lie/deceive its players for profit or games that only serve to infect you with viruses.
But like I said to Dreakon, I can see how regulating games for their quality might be arbitrary and possibly close steam even more (transforming it in a new XBLA).
I would far rather that Steam remained a curated store. Greenlight already gave us a good indication of just how quickly Steam becomes shoddy if any old half-finished garbage is allowed on Steam (just take a look at the angry reaction to Greenlight games like Towns or Cortex Command).
As a software developer myself, I always used to dream of getting a game on Steam. Getting on Steam meant that you'd made it to the big time. The Steam-provided forums (now dead and replaced with this terrible 'geef me gamez pl0x/discussions' system), Steam-provided sales analysis and market advice (thankfully, still active), and happy market made getting on Steam special. As Steam becomes less curated, the market will become less willing to take a punt on Steam's indie games, because the average quality of those games will steadily decline. As a result, devs like myself will no longer aspire to Steam, and will instead become as wary of it as many devs are of the Apple store (another open market filled with terrible quality junk).
Open alternatives to Steam exist, which allow any old rubbish a point of sale (I won't name and shame those services here). I'd be sad to see Steam go down that route, both as a customer and a dev. As a customer, I like the fact that I can currently trust Steam's curated market to provide games that won't disappoint too heavily (as long as I avoid Greenlight games).
Maybe the solution is to provide two distinct markets on Steam, perhaps on two totally separate platforms? Leave Steam as the high-end, curated service that it is, and set up a second platform which is more open. So I guess my take on it is that curated is good for both the developer and the customer.
In the end though, if a game has that Greenlight stamp on it, you should go in incredibly skeptical. So much so that only those that... a) want to take a chance and/or b) want to support that particular developer... are the ones buying the games.
It's really not the Greenlight's fault people go in with high expectations, do absolutely no research and throw money at the first game that looks kinda neat.
You could argue it's a system that's doomed to failure just because people are impulsive, stupid and vocal... but frankly I'm of the mindset that those people probably don't deserve their money anyways.
Which is precisely why I advocate creating a separate system to Steam which offer a less curated experience, a sort of 'unsafe' companion system. Rather than confusing the brand image of Steam as a safe, curated store, they should just have a separate store altogether which markets these less curated games.
Taking an attitude that it's the customer's fault that they've bought a dud in an ostensibly curated store misses the point of a curated store. Worse, taking a curated store and then randomly making a small section of it non-curated just ruins the brand image and confuses the customer; there's a reason that Waitrose runs its heavily curated store 'Peter Jones' under a different name.
Simply put, if Steam wants to keep a curated image then Greenlight's got to make some drastic changes, else if it doesn't want a curated image then Greenlight (or some such system) needs to become the norm. I just hope that Steam realizes that its curated store is a major reason that it's been so popular over the past few years.
EDIT: Typo
Frankly, I'm tired of everyone needing to be protected. You call it confusion, I call it stupidity. There's no guarantee you'll like any game you buy, giving you more options at both ends of the spectrum shouldn't be considered a bad thing.
Not to mention have you SEEN some of the junk on Greenlight? I'm not talkinga bout 'stuff that isn't in my genre' I mean stuff that is unobjectively bad. And there isa lot of it unfortunately.
If people used their heads more than their wallets on here...
Pray tell how creating a separate system would prevent the greater choice aspect of making Steam more open? As far as I can see, creating a separate, more open system would satisfy both the clients who want a curated market and the ones who do not. Simply making Steam open will only satisfy one type of client.
Please show me the error in my logic.
I don't want Steam to open its doors. I think you're arguing against a strawman argument that no-one's actually put forward. I don't think anyone in this thread has argued for an open Steam that's still as protected as the current, curated Steam.
Right now this "separate system" already exists. Greenlit games are marked as such. People are apparently just too... confused... to make note of that before hurling fistful's of cash at games.
Perhaps so, but my argument is that Steam has spent many years specifically creating a market place that allows 'stupid' purchases. By only accepting half-decent, finished games, Steam has ensured that people can make impulse purchases safely. This benefits both the customer and the developer -- especially for indie games -- because it ensures that the customer is likelier to purchase less famous games, and is likelier to enjoy them when they do.
I simply fail to see any benefit to destroying this system. It won't help the developers making decent games that'd have got onto Steam anyway (in fact, it would drive developers like myself away from the service entirely), and it won't help the customers since they'd be far likelier to find terrible games than good games in a non-curated store.
Ignoring a mutual liking for seeing stupidity punished, what's the actual benefit of opening Steam to all sorts of crud?
None of this monthly nonsense.
What I don't want to see is valve removing themselves as the gate guardian of the steam platform. I do not want to see the floodgates open, and I most definitely don't want to see the steam platform turning in to the crap that is the playstore or appstore.
If Valve does open the floodgates, I fully expect a working user review system in place. One which the user can rank and add an amazon like review to each and every game they purchase.
Amen. That'd be Steam's death knell for me personally.