Bring back Greenlight or some quality control

[Maddog]

If you go to the store and search games by date released you're going to see a huge ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of absolute trash that would have never gotten past greenlight. Atleast require the games to be tested for ♥♥♥♥♥ sake most of them are buggy unplayable and unoptimised pieces of ♥♥♥♥.

[Start_Running]

Actually a lot of ♥♥♥♥ did get past greenlight because groups of users set up whole greenlight voting blocks. I think the largest had a couple thousand members and they would basically sell their services to devs and vote up their projects. Greenlight failed. So it falls to the free market. Just take heart. EVery one of those games is $100 the publisher is probably never going to getr back.

[Roxor128]

Първоначално публикувано от Start_Running:

AGreenlight failed. So it falls to the free market.

Judging by all the calls for quality control, it looks like the free market has failed as well.

[Start_Running]

Първоначално публикувано от Roxor128:

Първоначално публикувано от Start_Running:

AGreenlight failed. So it falls to the free market.

Judging by all the calls for quality control, it looks like the free market has failed as well.

' Quality COntrol' is a euphamism for 'get rid of these games i don't like'. Unless you're aimlessly dredging the catalogue, most people will never see half the games people complain about.

Or let's put it another way. If a supermarket sells a brand of beer you don't like alongside the beer you do like, do you say the supermarket needs quality control or do you just grab the six-pack of beer you like and pay no thought to to trhe other brand?

It's more or less the same scenario. Buy the games you like. Ignore the games you don't. if you can't find games you like, then it means you've bought them all and need to wait for some publisher to put out more.

Not saying there aren't some ruddy bad games out there but let's be honest. LKook through the library of any system and you will fiund at least 60% is garbage. Even the venerated NES library was rife with ♥♥♥♥♥♥ games, which all bore the nintendo seal of approval.,

Only thing is people weren't aware of them because they only bought the stuff that the magazines focused on. Way i see it. Live and let live. ANd for the love of god stop buy crappy game bundles for card farming.

[Maddog]

Първоначално публикувано от Start_Running:

Първоначално публикувано от Roxor128:

Judging by all the calls for quality control, it looks like the free market has failed as well.

' Quality COntrol' is a euphamism for 'get rid of these games i don't like'. Unless you're aimlessly dredging the catalogue, most people will never see half the games people complain about.

Or let's put it another way. If a supermarket sells a brand of beer you don't like alongside the beer you do like, do you say the supermarket needs quality control or do you just grab the six-pack of beer you like and pay no thought to to trhe other brand?

It's more or less the same scenario. Buy the games you like. Ignore the games you don't. if you can't find games you like, then it means you've bought them all and need to wait for some publisher to put out more.

Not saying there aren't some ruddy bad games out there but let's be honest. LKook through the library of any system and you will fiund at least 60% is garbage. Even the venerated NES library was rife with ♥♥♥♥♥♥ games, which all bore the nintendo seal of approval.,

Only thing is people weren't aware of them because they only bought the stuff that the magazines focused on. Way i see it. Live and let live. ANd for the love of god stop buy crappy game bundles for card farming.

I mean broken, glitchy, poorly optimised games, games with too many sequels that are essentialy the same thing(digital homocide) and asset flip cash grabs. Games that are "bad" but have actually tried and aren't broken I would accept.

[J4MESOX4D]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0GPmRCTOO8

[Start_Running]

Първоначално публикувано от U_r_stupid:

I mean broken, glitchy, poorly optimised games, games with too many sequels that are essentialy the same thing(digital homocide) and asset flip cash grabs. Games that are "bad" but have actually tried and aren't broken I would accept.

- Broken, does not translate universally. Please define broken.
- Glitchy. All games are glitchy. It's whether you notice them or not.
- Poorly Optimized. When You understand the concept of 'Big O' notation then you can comment on optimization. That it runs poorly on your system is one thing but and here's the kicker, it miught run perfectly well on another system.
- Too many sequels? You mean like CoD?
- game sthat actually tried and are broken you would \accept. YOu haven't displayed any capability in telling the difference.

Първоначално публикувано от J4MESOX4D:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0GPmRCTOO8

Yup. Kinda coincidental that after the fatman puts out a video we see a bunch of these threads. It's like how very few people even knew digital homicide existed before he started going on and on about them. I swear he does more to promoite these games than anyone else.

[Maddog]

Първоначално публикувано от Start_Running:

Първоначално публикувано от U_r_stupid:

I mean broken, glitchy, poorly optimised games, games with too many sequels that are essentialy the same thing(digital homocide) and asset flip cash grabs. Games that are "bad" but have actually tried and aren't broken I would accept.

- Broken, does not translate universally. Please define broken.
- Glitchy. All games are glitchy. It's whether you notice them or not.
- Poorly Optimized. When You understand the concept of 'Big O' notation then you can comment on optimization. That it runs poorly on your system is one thing but and here's the kicker, it miught run perfectly well on another system.
- Too many sequels? You mean like CoD?
- game sthat actually tried and are broken you would \accept. YOu haven't displayed any capability in telling the difference.

Първоначално публикувано от J4MESOX4D:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0GPmRCTOO8

Yup. Kinda coincidental that after the fatman puts out a video we see a bunch of these threads. It's like how very few people even knew digital homicide existed before he started going on and on about them. I swear he does more to promoite these games than anyone else.

By broken I mean doesn't start
Excessive glitchy think of Skyrim but more glitchy somehow
By poorly optimised I mean that you shouldn't be able to be in one area and run the game flawlessly just to have a huge lag spike and framerate drop in another area. Basically a 1070 and some good cpu should be able to run it.
I said bad as in it can be subjectively bad in gameplay and story but it isn't a asset flip or cash grab

[J4MESOX4D]

Първоначално публикувано от Start_Running:

Първоначално публикувано от U_r_stupid:

I mean broken, glitchy, poorly optimised games, games with too many sequels that are essentialy the same thing(digital homocide) and asset flip cash grabs. Games that are "bad" but have actually tried and aren't broken I would accept.

- Broken, does not translate universally. Please define broken.
- Glitchy. All games are glitchy. It's whether you notice them or not.
- Poorly Optimized. When You understand the concept of 'Big O' notation then you can comment on optimization. That it runs poorly on your system is one thing but and here's the kicker, it miught run perfectly well on another system.
- Too many sequels? You mean like CoD?
- game sthat actually tried and are broken you would \accept. YOu haven't displayed any capability in telling the difference.

Първоначално публикувано от J4MESOX4D:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0GPmRCTOO8

Yup. Kinda coincidental that after the fatman puts out a video we see a bunch of these threads. It's like how very few people even knew digital homicide existed before he started going on and on about them. I swear he does more to promoite these games than anyone else.

Not really. This is a rare Steam Direct video from Jim and it highlights how dreadfully flawed Direct is. He exposed Greenlight for what it was over the years which was why it changed but unfortunately Valve's alternative is even worse as there is absolutely no barrier to entry.

[Start_Running]

Първоначално публикувано от J4MESOX4D:

Not really. This is a rare Steam Direct video from Jim and it highlights how dreadfully flawed Direct is. He exposed Greenlight for what it was over the years which was why it changed but unfortunately Valve's alternative is even worse as there is absolutely no barrier to entry.

Greenlight was only a barrier for legitimate creators. Valve knew the fix for greenlight was simply to remove the user input. Once that was done they needed an entry fee. $100 and no cards 'til you make $1000 is steam sales. So rest assured, if the game is bad it will not be profitable for the maker.. Or rather, Once those sorts of games stop being profitable then they will stop esxisting. p[roblem is those games get used as padding by bundle sites which they get paid for so... yeah. Boils down to the consumer.

[Maddog]

Първоначално публикувано от Start_Running:

Първоначално публикувано от J4MESOX4D:

Not really. This is a rare Steam Direct video from Jim and it highlights how dreadfully flawed Direct is. He exposed Greenlight for what it was over the years which was why it changed but unfortunately Valve's alternative is even worse as there is absolutely no barrier to entry.

Greenlight was only a barrier for legitimate creators. Valve knew the fix for greenlight was simply to remove the user input. Once that was done they needed an entry fee. $100 and no cards 'til you make $1000 is steam sales. So rest assured, if the game is bad it will not be profitable for the maker.. Or rather, Once those sorts of games stop being profitable then they will stop esxisting. p[roblem is those games get used as padding by bundle sites which they get paid for so... yeah. Boils down to the consumer. [/quote]

Well yeah but $100 is essentialy nothing. Most people could easily ring up their parents and ask for $100 to borrow.

[Start_Running]

Първоначално публикувано от U_r_stupid:

Първоначално публикувано от Start_Running:

Greenlight was only a barrier for legitimate creators. Valve knew the fix for greenlight was simply to remove the user input. Once that was done they needed an entry fee. $100 and no cards 'til you make $1000 is steam sales. So rest assured, if the game is bad it will not be profitable for the maker.. Or rather, Once those sorts of games stop being profitable then they will stop esxisting. p[roblem is those games get used as padding by bundle sites which they get paid for so... yeah. Boils down to the consumer. [/quote]

Well yeah but $100 is essentialy nothing. Most people could easily ring up their parents and ask for $100 to borrow.

It's technically $1100. If they don't make $1000 for the first game then the second game they put up will cost them another hundred and so on. Again. It's a strategy to make the idea of shotgunning shiddy games unprofitable while still keeping the clearance low enough for people who are making actual games , particularly if it's a free to play game, to get their products onb the market in a predictable time frame. Something that greenlight did not allow for.

As long as consumers stop buying these games or bundles with these games these developers will stop making them.

[J4MESOX4D]

The only reason Valve removed user input was due to the abuse of votes. Instead Direct offers a no barrier to entry where complete garbage can be published without any form of barrier either from Valve or the community. Many games born from Direct itself are being removed as quickly as they were approved by Valve which basically consists of a fee surprise surprise.

$100 is just too miniscule for a videogame publication. A serious developer should be paying north of $5,000 minimum. Even most book publishers expect $50,000-250,000 for an edition roll out. Digital media should be within a reasonable range with some barrier acting as insurence. Anyone can muster up $100, some free assets and publish a game and as long as it's abusing the serice in some way; it'll be bound to Steam for life whether it makes a return or not.

At least with Greenlight when it was legit users voting, it was a solid process. Also voting didn't prevent games form being published - legit developers could get their products onto the store regardless but some chose Greenlight for community-fronted exposure that was free. Direct as a whole is much worse.

[Start_Running]

Първоначално публикувано от J4MESOX4D:

The only reason Valve removed user input was due to the abuse of votes. Instead Direct offers a no barrier to entry where complete garbage can be published without any form of barrier either from Valve or the community. Many games born from Direct itself are being removed as quickly as they were approved by Valve which basically consists of a fee surprise surprise.

$100 is just too miniscule for a videogame publication. A serious developer should be paying north of $5,000 minimum. Even most book publishers expect $50,000-250,000 for an edition roll out. Digital media should be within a reasonable range with some barrier acting as insurence. Anyone can muster up $100, some free assets and publish a game and as long as it's abusing the serice in some way; it'll be bound to Steam for life whether it makes a return or not.

Aye and $5000 is the in verse end of the spectrum. With a barrier like that. Fez wouldn't have gotten made. Neither would a game like FTL, or Papers Please.

And? so what if the game is on steam? It'll be burried so far that ... ugh. Okay lets go back to my central point. It's the consumers who are making this behaviopur profitable and if consumers are shelling out money for this drek, well then.. clearly someone thinks it's worth money.

At least with Greenlight when it was legit users voting, it was a solid process.

Except Greenlight stopped working like that for a good while. Many legit developers complained that while their titles were languishing.. the devs that gave out a few free keys to voting groups basically raked in hundreds of votes.

Also voting didn't prevent games form being published - legit developers could get their products onto the store regardless but some chose Greenlight for community-fronted exposure that was free. Direct as a whole is much worse.

But it did delay the release luv and when you've sunk money and cash into something the delay can... well.. lets say your salary fora month got arbitarily delayed by a random number of months. How would that affect you?

Look no one said DIrect would be perfect but in the end a few hundred bad ggames that the average user will nev er come across will do nothing. Just like the display case of Budweiser Beer in the supermarket does nothing to me. It exists. I have no interest in it so I buy myself a case of tonic water..

[Maddog]

Yeah removing any quality control will definetly be better than some.

[J4MESOX4D]

Първоначално публикувано от Start_Running:

Първоначално публикувано от J4MESOX4D:

The only reason Valve removed user input was due to the abuse of votes. Instead Direct offers a no barrier to entry where complete garbage can be published without any form of barrier either from Valve or the community. Many games born from Direct itself are being removed as quickly as they were approved by Valve which basically consists of a fee surprise surprise.

$100 is just too miniscule for a videogame publication. A serious developer should be paying north of $5,000 minimum. Even most book publishers expect $50,000-250,000 for an edition roll out. Digital media should be within a reasonable range with some barrier acting as insurence. Anyone can muster up $100, some free assets and publish a game and as long as it's abusing the serice in some way; it'll be bound to Steam for life whether it makes a return or not.

Aye and $5000 is the in verse end of the spectrum. With a barrier like that. Fez wouldn't have gotten made. Neither would a game like FTL, or Papers Please.

And? so what if the game is on steam? It'll be burried so far that ... ugh. Okay lets go back to my central point. It's the consumers who are making this behaviopur profitable and if consumers are shelling out money for this drek, well then.. clearly someone thinks it's worth money.

At least with Greenlight when it was legit users voting, it was a solid process.

Except Greenlight stopped working like that for a good while. Many legit developers complained that while their titles were languishing.. the devs that gave out a few free keys to voting groups basically raked in hundreds of votes.

Also voting didn't prevent games form being published - legit developers could get their products onto the store regardless but some chose Greenlight for community-fronted exposure that was free. Direct as a whole is much worse.

But it did delay the release luv and when you've sunk money and cash into something the delay can... well.. lets say your salary fora month got arbitarily delayed by a random number of months. How would that affect you?

Look no one said DIrect would be perfect but in the end a few hundred bad ggames that the average user will nev er come across will do nothing. Just like the display case of Budweiser Beer in the supermarket does nothing to me. It exists. I have no interest in it so I buy myself a case of tonic water..

If developers have produced a vidogame; finding an extra $5,000 to get it published is nothing. You take that to any bank or investor and they will bankroll a trusted project like that in a heartbeat. Plant that on a crowdfunding site and they'll make that as a donation in 15 seconds. If a 'developer' has simply flipped his product on the cheap and wants to get it published in the hope of making a quick buck; the financial barrier is a major deterrent against such behaviour and can salvage some credible continued quality of the Steam Store.

The Store is still getting riddled with trash whether people buy it or not so Valve really need to rethink the entry-level of products they are willing to accept or employ some degree of quality control IMO.