Regarding Pay to Win games.

[Groom]

1. Option to hide all P2W games.

2. Steam has to make sure all P2W games are tagged as Pay to Win games, or they will be removed from Steam.

[FOXDUDE69]

引用自 Tito Shivan：

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

And there's plenty of evidence that games like Diablo Immortal are P2W as well. Your refusal to acknowledge that evidence and admit that games like Diablo Immortal are objectively P2W is no different than a flat earther's rejection that the earth is round given the evidence at our disposal.

I've never mentioned Diablo Inmortal.

No. You never mentioned it yourself, but you replied to the posts where I mentioned it as an example of something that's blatantly P2W and you claimed that it was like that "to you" as if the status of Diablo Immortal as a P2W game was still debatable at this point.

Here's a memory aid for you, hombre.

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

So? There's a group of people in every thread here who can't agree to stuff that's blatantly obvious to the rest of the internet. Case and point: Diablo Immortal is not pay to win when everyone else knows it is the very definition of a pay to win game.

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

引用自 Tito Shivan：

You'll be surprised, but what's 'blatantly obvious' for you isn't for others.
Which keeps bringing us back to square one.

Not blatantly obvious to me, to everyone. Things like Diablo Immortal are considered P2W by everyone, and we shouldn't pretend that's debatable just because a couple guys on the Steam forums want to pretend that it's not P2W because they don't like being proven wrong. It's dishonest debate, Tito.

So, no. We are not at back square one.

To which you replied:

引用自 Tito Shivan：

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

Not blatantly obvious to me, to everyone.

Again, to you. There's a world full of people who play games out there. You'll find there as many differing opinions as people out there.

Anyway...

引用自 Tito Shivan：

People have little doubts in regards the extremes, but they make for a really bad reference for all the shades of grey in between.

Keep in mind OP's suggestion is to apply the tag to every P2W game.

And that tag could be applied by Steam only to games that are as blantanly P2W as Diablo Immortal. Games whose status as P2W games are not debated by anyone except a handful of people willing to lie to themselves and others.

[Pierce Dalton]

Well, devs would never agree with such tag because it would drive people away from their game. That's a naive request to be honest, because the one who provides you a product will never tell you about its flaws.

"Hey bud, this car is great, you'll love it! It just needs a new gearbox, brakes and suspension."

Said no salesman ever. Ofc some games are free, but the analogy still applies.

[Pierce Dalton]

引用自 fluxtorrent：

引用自 Thermal Lance：

First of all, if you did ask me that, I didn’t see it yet.

Second, that’s an absolutely ridiculous demand. If you need me to point out examples when there is a bible worth of examples at google reach, I simply cannot take you seriously.

If you’re trying to stall and pivot the argument to try and tire me out. Don’t even bother because I’ll eventually tap out anyway given that I have a life.

Your chances are still higher than non paying customers. Are you seriously debating that?

I'm saying that if you are going to make a claim, that YES you actually have to support that claim. Thats always been the case for anyone making a claim. so with no evidence that spending money actually lets you win there is no grounds to call a game pay to win.

Winning is never guaranteed, no matter how much you spend. Still, it increases your chances by a good extent.

If you need victory guaranteed to call a game P2W, then no game ever is P2W.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

Well, devs would never agree with such tag because it would drive people away from their game

A long time ago, in a post far, far away:

引用自 Tito Shivan：

The inclusion of a negative tag is simply not gonna fly.
Devs won't like have their games tagged negatively and they're as much customers of Steam as we are.

Focus on the "they're as much customers of Steam as we are" part.

Steam isn't going to let negative tags around just like Amazon doesn't have a 'Chinese knockoff' category in their store. Because no one wants to be on a service (which takes a cut from your sales) while being called names.

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

No. You never mentioned it yourself, but you replied to the posts where I mentioned it as an example of something that's blatantly P2W and you claimed that it was like that "to you" as if the status of Diablo Immortal as a P2W game was still debatable at this point.

Read what I write and not what you think I'm writing.

引用自 Appz：

Even if a game was blatantly pay to win and Steam implemented what you're asking. All that happens is the publisher/developer removes their game from Steam and moves to Epic.

And here comes the "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME IN STEAM" mob.

[FOXDUDE69]

引用自 Tito Shivan：

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

No. You never mentioned it yourself, but you replied to the posts where I mentioned it as an example of something that's blatantly P2W and you claimed that it was like that "to you" as if the status of Diablo Immortal as a P2W game was still debatable at this point.

Read what I write and not what you think I'm writing.

That would be good advice if I was misrepresenting what you wrote.

I wrote that games like Diablo Immortal are blatantly P2W. You repeatedly wrote "to you" knowing full well what game I was using as an example, When you write "to you", you are making a claim that Diablo Immortal being P2W is still up for debate or that it's subjective somehow, I'm not misrepresenting your comments in any way.

My advice to you, now that you can no longer delete other people's posts and close threads, is to learn to debate honestly. You'll find that you can have much more gratifying conversations that way.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 Appz：

引用自 Tito Shivan：

And here comes the "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME IN STEAM" mob.

I don't think you understood or read what I posted.

It's a consequence of the action you described. Every time a game has been moved off Steam people ask to have it back.

Happened with BF3 when EA took it to Origin. Happened to EA releases until they finally came back selling again their games in Steam. People complained of devs taking their releases to Epic as exclusives. Likewise for Ubisoft taking theirs to Uplay.

Thing is a lot of people wants their games to be IN steam, and are going to complain when the game they want isn't up for sale here. Whatever the reason, whatever the game.

[Pierce Dalton]

引用自 Tito Shivan：

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

Well, devs would never agree with such tag because it would drive people away from their game

A long time ago, in a post far, far away:

引用自 Tito Shivan：

The inclusion of a negative tag is simply not gonna fly.
Devs won't like have their games tagged negatively and they're as much customers of Steam as we are.

Focus on the "they're as much customers of Steam as we are" part.

Steam isn't going to let negative tags around just like Amazon doesn't have a 'Chinese knockoff' category in their store. Because no one wants to be on a service (which takes a cut from your sales) while being called names.

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

No. You never mentioned it yourself, but you replied to the posts where I mentioned it as an example of something that's blatantly P2W and you claimed that it was like that "to you" as if the status of Diablo Immortal as a P2W game was still debatable at this point.

Read what I write and not what you think I'm writing.

引用自 Appz：

Even if a game was blatantly pay to win and Steam implemented what you're asking. All that happens is the publisher/developer removes their game from Steam and moves to Epic.

And here comes the "WHY ISN'T THIS GAME IN STEAM" mob.

I did read your post, mate. Basically, I was agreeing with you. Yeah, it's safe to say negative tags of any kind will never be adopted. One could also suggest:
"Can we have a tag for short games, the ones you can beat under 2 hours even without speedrunning?"

While this is somewhat desirable, it won't happen because it would drive a lot of people away from the game. The same applies to a P2W tag (whatever that means). We know many people wouldn't try the game even for free with such tag.

To be honest, one thing I did notice, in many years of gaming, is some people will play a game for one hour or less, do poorly (which is totally fine because they're new) and go away screaming the game is P2W. I'm not saying that's your case, OP, but I've seen people like this. My impression is people should be more careful with that label, some even say all free games are P2W, which is not true.

[Thermal Lance]

Anyway, I can still play Diablo 2 modded. I’m not missing out on a whole lot by ignoring Immortal.

[FOXDUDE69]

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

I did read your post, mate. Basically, I was agreeing with you. Yeah, it's safe to say negative tags of any kind will never be adopted. One could also suggest:

But warnings are a thing on Steam, such as the warning for 3rd party DRM.
So instead of a tag, it could be a warning required by Valve itself.
Although, unless Epic did the same, those games would likely just jump ship to EGS if their revenue on Steam was being impacted by the warning.

This is why I believe the problem of P2W games can only be truly tackled through government regulation. If regulation comes, it surely will start with EU or in a few EU countries, the same way lootbox regulation started.

Lootboxes are of course still here, because only 2 countries within the EU banned them, but if the entirety of EU and North America banned them, the situation would be very different.

That's what it will take to truly tackle the P2W problem. America and EU having the same or similar regulations regarding game monetization that'll keep P2W mechanics under check or banned entirely.

[Start_Running]

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

引用自 Pierce Dalton：

I did read your post, mate. Basically, I was agreeing with you. Yeah, it's safe to say negative tags of any kind will never be adopted. One could also suggest:

But warnings are a thing on Steam, such as the warning for 3rd party DRM.
So instead of a tag, it could be a warning required by Valve itself.
Although, unless Epic did the same, those games would likely just jump ship to EGS if their revenue on Steam was being impacted by the warning.

Did you somehow miss the fact there's a Descriptor Tag called 'In-App Purchases'

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

This is why I believe the problem of P2W games can only be truly tackled through government regulation. If regulation comes, it surely will start with EU or in a few EU countries, the same way lootbox regulation started.

Except that would probably be bad because governments could use the self same to regulate your diet. Your viewing habits, etc. After all it's their job to prevent you from making decisions that might be deemed harmful.

Seriously though. The way to fix P2W is simply for gamers to stop well..playing P2W games. Of course that depends on all players A) Not liking P2W, and B) Agreeing what P2W means.
As this thread has proved. B.) IOs a sticking point and A.) Well if people didn't like it there wouldn't be any whales would there?

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

Lootboxes are of course still here, because only 2 countries within the EU banned them, but if the entirety of EU and North America banned them, the situation would be very different.

They weren't technically banned. More like the governments wanted a cut via licensing fees.

[vinny]

I understand where you're coming from since P2W walls being put on games is a prevalent issue, but I don't believe that Steam would end up doing this. Especially considering how many games are currently on the client.

[FOXDUDE69]

引用自 Start_Running：

Except that would probably be bad because governments could use the self same to regulate your diet. Your viewing habits, etc. After all it's their job to prevent you from making decisions that might be deemed harmful.

I'm guessing you haven't learned in school yet that governments already regulate food and broadcasting.

引用自 Start_Running：

They weren't technically banned. More like the governments wanted a cut via licensing fees.

Lies. They were banned in Belgium and in the Netherlands because they determined lootboxes were in violation of gambling regulations.

[Pierce Dalton]

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

引用自 Start_Running：

Except that would probably be bad because governments could use the self same to regulate your diet. Your viewing habits, etc. After all it's their job to prevent you from making decisions that might be deemed harmful.

I'm guessing you haven't learned in school yet that governments already regulate food and broadcasting.

引用自 Start_Running：

They weren't technically banned. More like the governments wanted a cut via licensing fees.

Lies. They were banned in Belgium and in the Netherlands because they determined lootboxes were in violation of gambling regulations.

Yeah, governments already control many aspects of our lives. This is nothing new.

They don't control videogames because they don't care. Sometimes they do, though, since many games have been banned in certain countries. If they can stop a game from being sold, they also can stop lootboxes and any other P2W practices.

This seems to be the only way, but for that to happen, gamers would have to press their governments to make such practices illegal.

Maybe that would have happened already, if the gamming community was more... united.

[Pierce Dalton]

引用自 Start_Running：

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

But warnings are a thing on Steam, such as the warning for 3rd party DRM.
So instead of a tag, it could be a warning required by Valve itself.
Although, unless Epic did the same, those games would likely just jump ship to EGS if their revenue on Steam was being impacted by the warning.

Did you somehow miss the fact there's a Descriptor Tag called 'In-App Purchases'

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

This is why I believe the problem of P2W games can only be truly tackled through government regulation. If regulation comes, it surely will start with EU or in a few EU countries, the same way lootbox regulation started.

Except that would probably be bad because governments could use the self same to regulate your diet. Your viewing habits, etc. After all it's their job to prevent you from making decisions that might be deemed harmful.

Seriously though. The way to fix P2W is simply for gamers to stop well..playing P2W games. Of course that depends on all players A) Not liking P2W, and B) Agreeing what P2W means.
As this thread has proved. B.) IOs a sticking point and A.) Well if people didn't like it there wouldn't be any whales would there?

引用自 FOXDUDE69：

Lootboxes are of course still here, because only 2 countries within the EU banned them, but if the entirety of EU and North America banned them, the situation would be very different.

They weren't technically banned. More like the governments wanted a cut via licensing fees.

The "In-App Purchases" doesn't mean P2W, certain games will sell cosmetic items only.

Some of them aren't even MP games. There are skins and stuff for single player games. IIRC you could unlock various items by paying in RE3 remake, for example.

[AROCK!!!]

https://www.google.de/amp/s/arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/05/loot-box-laws-block-diablo-immortal-launch-in-some-european-countries/%3famp=1

-------Blizzard's upcoming open beta launch of Diablo Immortal later this week will be skipping the Netherlands and Belgium, thanks to regulations in those countries that consider games with randomized loot boxes to be illegal gambling.-------


-----In April 2018, government agencies in both the Netherlands and Belgium ruled in quick succession that randomized loot boxes were illegal "games of chance" that provided players with items that have "variable market values."------