Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
How would searching for data already provided on the store page change that?
And you still haven't answered how that would *increase* liability or damages. Should Steam avoid 10 sales to prevent one refund? Having worked on a business team before, you should really bow out of this one :b
Well we're not talking one user and one game. It's millions of users and millions of games. So if there can be an argument Steam's system isn't accurate and misleads people into buying games they can't play, and some of them will end up ineligible for a refund. It creates the possibility of a class action, and possibly regulatory fines.
The problem is ultimately system requirements themselves don't have a standard and the publisher provided information doesn't always yield itself to the sort of feature being asked for. It's really garbage data that human beings interpret. It's not the sort of data you can use that well in data processing because it's all over the place. You end up having to make a lot of guesses and assumptions to smooth out the rough spots and that yields to crappy results.
And most stores simply know better than to release a tool users think they want, but will reject when it becomes clear it's not accurate or useful, or second guess/double check, and they're better off interpreting the requirements themselves, or asking around.
If system requirements were overhauled and standardized with data processing in mind, then maybe. But as is, it's GIGO, Garbage In, Garbage Out.
it's not a bad idea, there's just a lot of reasons it's harder to implement than some people want to admit and those reasons stem back to how system requirements were presented on boxes 25 years ago. It's silly, but nothing has changed either, so we're stuck.
If VALVE (Steam) makes and provides their own guesses or otherwise VALVE says people can run it, then that's a Valve problem, not a Game Dev/Publisher problem. If they only provide the Min/Rec specs on lookup of any one game, using information provided by the dev, without saying you can/can't run it - those are entirely different things.
Ignorance of the law, again, does not excuse the consequences of law.
False advertising is a heck of a thing, and when the EU gets involved - and they LOVE getting involved - you can easily see billions of dollars as a fine, let alone a high-millions cost.
If the EU can get google and facebook, they can easily get Valve to be fined. The best part is, Valve seems aware of the predatory nature of some users & entities such as the EU.
Why would making that data searchable make it less accurate? Wouldn't we already be seeing millions and millions of users demanding refunds for the already posted system requirements?
Why would making that data searchable make an unplayable game ineligible for a refund?
Why wouldn't Steam refund those games? If the game is refunded, what damages would need to be remedied? What class would be seeking these remedies?
And yet, this information is provided on every single store page, before every single sale. How is it that this information is accurate enough to be a store requirement, that it is accurate enough to allow Steam to sell games with an acceptable refund rate, but then not accurate enough to search for?
How is this not already true enough for the already provided system requirements? Does the current system of system requirements, sales, and potential refunds not already address this?
They would in deed owe the publishers. Tampering with the labelling of someone else's product is a very serious thing. Ascribing characteristics to it that the producer does not authorize is grounds for legal damages.
Posting the requirements is a legal requirement. It's not about boosting sales. It is literally THE LAW. And Steam merely displays the information the Publisher post.
You've been told this already. You simply do not wish to understand or are in capable oif doing so because you only look at the scenario from one of the three POVs. Widen your scope of thought and you'll understand why as said. Literally NO software retailer does this. Not even Microsoft . About the only company that could sdo something like that is APple and only because they literally contro the software, the OS, & the hardware, and even they are rather hesitant to make such statements.
Developers, publishers post the system requirements and they are not specific, they are mimimum, recommended.
Secondly, recommendations for games is irrelevant to the subject as it is not a guarantee it will run on your system only that it is worth playing.
And finally liability is very relevant.
Liability - the fact that someone is legally responsible for something
Hence why developers, publishers DO NOT commit to games running on your PC because they CANNOT test every possible PC config out there. They list min, rec specs to remove liabilty.
Valve cannot commit to another developers game running on your PC, again liabilty and would open themselves up to be sued by both the developer and the user.
Sites like "canyourunit" also do not commit to games running on your PC, they only give you a general idea.
The mantra is KNOW your PC and what it is capable of based on the current games you have.
Step 2: ????
Step 3: Bankruptcy!
By saying something can or cannot run, Valve would be open to liability.
By giving the user a Min/Rec specs provided by the Dev/Publisher, nothing would change.
Read the OP before you post.
How would making that data searchable be tampering? Steam and the publisher of the game already agree on the presented data. They have already agreed, accurate or occasionally not, that said technical information works for their business, ie it reasonably describes the product and it provokes a reasonably low rate of refunds.
Making the data searchable wouldn't change the data. It would just put more eyes on more games. Why would a publisher be opposed to that?
So what happens when a publisher lists a 1030gt as their minimum but the user has a 980gtx?
Simple because once it labelled as a 'you can run this' or any such notion is implied then liability becomes an issue.
1- There's no standarization of the contents of the system requirements.
Devs can simply write whatever they want into the system requirement fields. So for any given field (Memory, CPU, GPU) you're going to find lots of different data kinds
- GTX2070 or better
- GTX2xxx series
- 4Gb of Vram or more
- Any card released after 2010
Steam would have to rework the system requirements from the ground up and have a critical mass of devs to feed the system again with standarised data for such a feature to even start to be usable.
Then we'd be getting into all the other related issues as the lack of standarization of the performance expected from 'minumin' and 'recommended' settings and the variability in performance of systems with identical hardware settings.
A tool that "allows us to see which games would run in our computers" is a search for your own system specs in the database of already existing data of system requirements. There is no essential difference beyond your burning desire to have an argument. It's semantics, not principle.
And again, what would Steam be liable for beyond a refund? (Which they are already liable for when making sales, a specific search beforehand or not)
The OP is asking Steam to have a tool to tell them what WILL run on their PC therefore if you are told it WILL run that creates liability when it does not.
DOes the game list a 1030gt and you have a 970Ti, tough tits you can't run it. Dev loses a sale, You miss out on a game and steam gets sued by the devs for costing them a sale.
Mis-labelling, Mis-attribution, label tampering. Take your pick.
And yet, all of those inconsistencies already add up to a system in which both publishers and Steam agree said data is useful and should be posted. How is it useful on the store page but not useful in a search to find that store page?
Most of those inconsistencies can be reduced to some abstractions. And Valve, by virtue of the feature being requested and theoretical sales promoted by it, has motivation to solve the other issues, by hand, policy or technology. Tech/Game/Sales companies solve all sorts of problems that are hard or require more than 15 seconds of forum conjecture.
The fact that technical performance interacts with subjective measures doesn't need to be solved for this feature to be useful. If and where it fails, refunds are always possible.