Installer Steam
connexion
|
langue
简体中文 (chinois simplifié)
繁體中文 (chinois traditionnel)
日本語 (japonais)
한국어 (coréen)
ไทย (thaï)
Български (bulgare)
Čeština (tchèque)
Dansk (danois)
Deutsch (allemand)
English (anglais)
Español - España (espagnol castillan)
Español - Latinoamérica (espagnol d'Amérique latine)
Ελληνικά (grec)
Italiano (italien)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonésien)
Magyar (hongrois)
Nederlands (néerlandais)
Norsk (norvégien)
Polski (polonais)
Português (portugais du Portugal)
Português - Brasil (portugais du Brésil)
Română (roumain)
Русский (russe)
Suomi (finnois)
Svenska (suédois)
Türkçe (turc)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamien)
Українська (ukrainien)
Signaler un problème de traduction
Procédures à suivre et règles des discussions
Signaler ce message
Achievements, maybe.
I can't see gamers forming a Mafia to get loot boxes back, lol
The only reason these laws are failing is because mega-corporations are paying off corrupt governments. Kinda like how ActiBlizzard is defending the Chinese government, but in reverse.
This is utter delusion on your part. In fact, I can't even believe you could actually believe what you're saying there. You have to be going out of your way to argue just for the sake of arguing at this point. But go ahead and compile a list of games released in the last year (you could go full decade, if you really want) and what % of them have multiplayer.
Generally, card games are considered gambling, why is that surprising? They even have solitaire in casinos... Tetris isn't, because you're guaranteed to lose at that.
A. That's not true
B. That's not relevant
C. Even if !A and/or !B, that doesn't disprove the analogy
You're about on par with that crazy lady arguing in favor of loot boxes. SURPRISE GAMBLING
They can PR it however they want, but that's not what they did. They also didn't do the anything when ACU got a positive off topic review bomb. Because money.
Airline Noob: You should try airline A, it was great!
Airline Pro: Yea, but airline B costs half as much, every seat is first class, they include a 3course meal, and they even finish the flight with a happy ending! Also, airline A murders kittens to fuel its planes.
See the problem?
Based on objective fact? Indeed
Except its only being applied to people who are still playing games 1,000 years past their release date, which is long past when mass feedback is given, and is hyper skewing the reviews towards positive fanboyism, compounded by Steam featuring recent reviews.
The only thing that was nerfed was the weight of the votes for accounts that massively spam them.
Look at the top 5 reviews on PUBG right now.
Their helpful ratings are 152, 44, 117, 72, 391.
Ranking reviews based on those numbers makes no sense. Either the system is completely broken, or the system is based on nonsensically hidden data that it considers a priority, which I would still consider broken.
Even if that wasn't the case, the removal of visible feedback made it impossible to track engagement, or value the legitimacy of review claims.
The issue isn't the reduced number of votes, it's that the number of votes is all out of order. Based on that "sorting", there could theoretically be a hyper helpful review with 10,000 upvotes that isn't being shown. And, with the time gated reviews, which you also just mentioned, that's basically guaranteed to happen, on top of the bad sorting. Broken.
You can sort reviews as you like. You can find your 10.000 upvotes review if you choose to watch all time reviews and not just 30 days.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/578080/reviews/?browsefilter=toprated&snr=1_5_100010_
The very first of the list. And it took it two years to get more than 10.000 upvotes. That's 400 upvotes a month for two years. It really puts the number of the 30 day old into perspective.
If the most helpful review ever got +400 upvotes a month for two years straight on average, a two week old review with +100 upvotes show a pretty good level of engagement for a review.
You might be overestimating the engagement levels with reviews given those numbers and your assumptions about them.
That page just further proves my points (quite literally proved the hidden 10k review hyperbole).
- The numbers are way out of whack, because they're sorted based on imaginary hidden data.
- The most helpful review is hidden from the main page.
- Based on that page, it completely changes the review appeal of the game. The top positive review has 10,000 votes while the top negative only has 400 (yet there are a few under it with 6,000), meaning the general consensus is positive even if the review score isn't. (Which also supports being able to simply thumbs up/down a game, without having to write a review)
- The current system is just broken and objectively worse than the old one. They should have just fixed the bots and memes and left the rest be.
i cant even view all my games...i click n click and nothing fkn happens...can only see recent
its so bad i literally just say oh well n move on lol yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
I'm just gonna take that as an admission of defeat, because that is certainly not what they did.
Bots got their vote weight nerfed and or negated. Removing the number of downvotes was a necesity so bots couldn't know if their votes were 'working' or not.
This is not a competition to see who's right. I'm replying to your posts with more data so other thread readers have the most info to form their own opinion when reading it.
That was a change long before this other lump of changes hit. If I'm not mistaken. And meme reviews are still a problem.
Security through obscurity is bad and ineffective, and in this case irrelevant to boot.
"that's what they did". Yes, thanks for that super insightful insider knowledge.
Also, even though I would argue they didn't fix the problem (there's probably still bots, there's definitely still memes), the more important part was "leave the rest be".
Is it bugged? My library list still functions mostly the same, aside from having a homepage and a fancier per game page.
As stated by the other user, many of these top games are in-fact "gambling simulators". That being that they offer a simulated form of the thrill of gambling. I'm going to go off on a bit of a tangent here, more directed at this subject as a whole than yourself.
A lot of people are misinformed as to what gambling is and does. (possibly including yourself, it seems) If gambling is really such an optional choice, why is it illegal for even 18~20 year olds? You can choose to die for your country or be in a porno, but not gamble. There's a reason for that. Perhaps you should pull yourself up a documentary on gambling addiction and give it a nice watch! I'm not trying to be condescending or anything either, if you don't have a compulsive personality, it's hard to understand! No one is a bad person for not fully grasping the risk of a problem that can't personally hurt them. Nor is anyone a bad / dumb person for falling to gambling addiction.
Gambling is highly addictive. It is in no way, shape, or form "optional." It's like saying people who are force fed pain pills by their doctors have the "option" of getting addicted to them when their prescription ends. Yes, it's possible to resist, it's possible to be naturally resistant and get off them without breaking a sweat. But the people who fall into it are victims, who are being manipulated. Not "fools" making a "bad choice" to be abused and taken advantage of. Genetic and behavioral predisposition makes addictive things much harder for some people to resists than others.
Even as a 27 year old adult, I refuse to play games with lootboxes as I have problems with gambling addiction in real life, and video games simulate the exact same experience in their randomized reward mechanisms. Every single game with them is designed to force you into the gambling system in one way or another. Giving you "freebies" before snatching them away harshly, limiting key aspects of the game behind it, or adding in massive grinds / time sinks to circumvent it.
There is a giant gap between a game that is itself addicting, and a game that abuses addiction to create an impulsive spending habit around a randomized mechanism. It's true, most games are addicting, and this creates a false sense of safety around gambling games. The key difference is, typical addicting games have the "addiction hit" within the core gameplay loop, where as "gambling" games have that addiction hit hidden behind a randomized mechanism that can't be easily / consistently access from within the gameplay loop. You are not rewarded for playing the game, you are rewarding for "gambling". Many of these games actually try their hardest to deny you any consistent satisfying reward within the gameplay elements, so you feel frustrated and resort to gambling for a feeling of reward instead. This creates a payoff-reward link with the gambling mechanism, not the gameplay. This is what makes a game a "gambling simulator".
I love addicting games. Check my playtime on Steam, I have hundreds, and even thousands of hours in some very addicting games. I have a very compulsive personality. But I can't play "gambling" games. I just can't. Even if I don't ever spend money, It's SO frustrating having to resist it pushing you to do something you struggle to resists constantly. It's like trying to quit smoking, and these games are blowing smoke in your face every few minutes, waving around a fresh pack. It's not really so much about "making a choice" as it is sustaining self-imposed impulse control.
Everyone has the right to make their decision on where they spend their time and money, I'm not saying these games are bad, or you have to defend your right to like or play them. But one should not minimize the potential risks of these systems within games. A number of countries have already classified these systems as gambling, and many others are considering it. There's a reason for that, and it's always best to be as informed as possible as a consumer!
People like games you don't. ANd People also dislike games you like. Also people like older games, some of us actually prefer them and that means there's always a market for good older games. That's what GoG initially built themselves on. So no. Ratings aren't being skewed. they are simply changing to reflect how players feel about it. That's reality. Deal with it.