The steam review system has become a cancer to the PC industry

[Sugetsu]

Hello steam developers, I have a simple question for you. Why is steam allowing users who do not even have 2 hours on record to review a game?

Most games tend to get negative scores due to technical issues, and are completely devoid of any game play mechanics, sound track, graphics, or storyline opinions. If your game does not run properly do some research and adjust settings, if the game still doesn't run well after trying everything then ask support or wait for future patches. In any case, technical issues should not be the whole reason why overall game score suffers. FPS count should not be the factor to determe game sales. Period.


This society of hours has become an instant gratification culture in which people can't think critically and have to have everything handed to them in perfect shape or form while completely ignoring external circumstances.

The steam review system needs to be overhauled or steam as platform is going to affected financially in the long run; game developers will become more hesistant if the review system has a large impact on sales.

I propose the following changes, and I hope this post doesn't fall on def ears:

1. Users cannot review a game before 24 to 48 hours after launch.

2. Steam needs start moderating the review boards. The current system allows plenty of trolling.

3. Technical issues can stil count as review but need to scored separately and on a different tab. Potentianl buyers will then be able to able assest the quality of a game based on game play aspects or technical proficiency.

4. Have different tab for reviews on the business model of a game. For example, in the case of the recent Hitman games, a lot of reviews focus exclusively on the the business practices.

In the mean time please help out by downvoting troll reviews with less than 2 hours on record.

[Start_Running]

WHy? All this does is make it harder for people to get info about the game. Look I understand it hurts when a game you like gets kicked around on the reviews but that's really not an issue.

[Gwarsbane]

Oh this topic again... like once or twice a week this is posted. This is just the typical "people don't agree with what I think about something so it has to be changed" post.

1. Users cannot review a game before 24 to 48 hours after launch.

If it had game breaking issues, the reviews within the first 24 hours should reflect that.

2. Steam needs start moderating the review boards. The current system allows plenty of trolling.

That would be censorship. It can be very hard to tell whats trolling and whats not. If someone has 5 minutes in the game and is bashing it because they can't get it started, is that trolling or is that someone who can't actually get the game started and has tried many times and wants to warn others.

Valve doesn't know anything about the game other then what the devs say, so there is no way for Valve to know. And Devs already have the ability to remove recommendations. Though they should only do it for people that are spamming and swearing and breaking the rules of steam.

3. Technical issues can stil count as review but need to scored separately and on a different tab. Potentianl buyers will then be able to able assest the quality of a game based on game play aspects or technical proficiency.

No they don't need to be scored separately. Its asked if you recommend the game or not. A yes or a no. Adding in why you are not recommending a game should not be hidden away somewhere.

4. Have different tab for reviews on the business model of a game. For example, in the case of the recent Hitman games, a lot of reviews focus exclusively on the the business practices.

No, again you are asked if you recommend the game or not. People are adding in a why.



Also for those different groups that you suggest, do you expect someone to be sitting there going through them saying "thats about business model, thats about the game, thats about the creators, thats about technical issues" and putting them in each their own area? You're gonna end up with 5 or 6 different numbers and just confuse everyone even more.

In the mean time please help out by downvoting troll reviews with less than 2 hours on record.

No sorry, not going to happen. If I can't get a game to run, and everytime I try it only adds seconds onto the amount I don't want to do that for hours on end trying to get to the 2 hour mark just to post my recommendation to avoid the game.

So you know what I and many others will do? Copy notepad exe, move it to the folder of the game, rename the game exe and the notepad exe and then run the game which would then open up notepad and as long as its open, it things the game is running, I let it sit there for 2 hours and then I write my recommendation. So it kind of makes your idea pointless.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Technical issues are a valid complaint for a review. Look at Batman: Arkham Knight and the recent No Man's Sky for example. They are part of the game and so should be part of the overall score. People should be reading the reviews and not just going by a score, so there is not need to seperate them.

Reviews are moderated by the users with reporting of reviews and up/down voting. There is no need for active moderation.

A user should not have to wait to give a review. That gives advantage to poorly made games as they would then have 24-48 hours of sales, despite constant crashes and other issues.

Developer reviews have been suggested before, though I doubt that would remove such reviews from a game's review page.

[Sugetsu]

Are you serious? on the contrary it will make it much easier for users to know why they should or should not buy a game. The current system completely drowns helpful reviews with lots of spam. To make matters worse steam does seem to care about moderating the review sections.

If am a potential buyer and I look under review scores I will able to see one score for Gameplay, another for technical proficiency and another one for value. Discrediting my idea just because you did not bother to think about it is the same reason why steam reviews are filled with spam.

[Narcoleptic Marshmallow]

If I'm a potential buyer and there's nothing but negative reviews from people with 0.1 hours played stating the game doesn't start, I'll want to know that.

Originally posted by Sugetsu:

In the mean time please help out by downvoting troll reviews with less than 2 hours on record.

So your grand solution is to spam downvotes on reviews you don't agree with. Very mature.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Originally posted by Sugetsu:

Are you serious? on the contrary it will make it much easier for users to know why they should or should not buy a game. The current system completely drowns helpful reviews with lots of spam. To make matters worse steam does seem to care about moderating the review sections.

Because it is not needed. It is self correcting by the users.

Originally posted by Sugetsu:

If am a potential buyer and I look under review scores I will able to see one score for Gameplay, another for technical proficiency and another one for value.

And each is diffrent with how they read such reviews. So far I have seen Steam's reviews as a good balance since they are informative with out throwing around useless information.

Originally posted by Sugetsu:

Discrediting my idea just because you did not bother to think about it is the same reason why steam reviews are filled with spam.

Disagreeing and discrediting are two diffrent things. People don't have to agree with your idea and can offfer criticism on it, just as you can about the Steam Review System.

[Zoopy]

OP, what I'd really like to know is why do people such as yourself only ever complain when it's a game getting negative 'bad' reviews? I almost never see this kind of thread when a game is getting positive 'bad' reviews, such as the epidemic of "11/10" meme reviews.

The complaints seem to be disproportionately skewed towards negative 'bad' reviews. It seems 'bad' reviews are only a problem when they're negative. Furthermore, I've never had trouble finding helpful reviews on Steam. Not even once. You might have to scroll a little, but we're talking seconds, not minutes. So I highly doubt it's the issue that it's normally made out to be in threads such as these.

If you want my opinion, I believe that the usefulness of 'bad' reviews is actually the last reason why people complain about 'abuse' of the review system.

[cinedine]

Originally posted by Zoopy:

OP, what I'd really like to know is why do people such as yourself only ever complain when it's a game getting negative 'bad' reviews?

Because the real cancer to the PC gaming industry are zealous fans. And those don't want to have the pointless aggregated score their game gets drowned by reviews of people not knowing what they talk about. Like, how can you even give the greatest game of all time a negative reivew because you can't play it? You can't possibly talk about how great the gameplay is and how in-depth the story is and all that if the game crashes every five minutes, duh. Just wait for a patch.

... Not. Going. To happen. If a game runs like trash, I don't care about gameplay or story. If I have to wait weeks or month for a patch to even be able to play the game, I rather spend my money elsewhere. If the business model is shady as hell or makes the game near unplayable without further purchases, I rather steer clear of it.
All those complains are valid reasons to give the game a non-recommendation and are issues potential buyers should know about.

[Sugetsu]

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:

Oh this topic again... like once or twice a week this is posted. This is just the typical "people don't agree with what I think about something so it has to be changed" post.

Is that so? Perhaps if the issue is raised frecuently is because there are basis for concern. Under the current system steam reviews are just as bad or worse Metametric user reviews. Steam saved PC gaming by giving it an inviting platform for developers to advertise their games, but now it needs proper maintenance and oversight or it will hurt its business in the long run.

If it had game breaking issues, the reviews within the first 24 hours should reflect that.

Do you even know how hard it is to code a game for PC? A PC ecosystem has literally throusands of possible configurations and you need to account for each one of them. Games do get patched and they improve over time. Allowing a reviewer to post negative remarks withing the first hours of game launching does nothing positive for the game but instead limits revenuew which could be used to fix said issues or improve game play. Problems of a technical nature within the first hours of launch need to be addressed under the support tab of the game's forum.

That would be censorship. It can be very hard to tell whats trolling and whats not. If someone has 5 minutes in the game and is bashing it because they can't get it started, is that trolling or is that someone who can't actually get the game started and has tried many times and wants to warn others.

Valve doesn't know anything about the game other then what the devs say, so there is no way for Valve to know. And Devs already have the ability to remove recommendations. Though they should only do it for people that are spamming and swearing and breaking the rules of steam.

Do you even know what modaration means? If am a mod and I see a someone posting unhelpful comments then I will take action. In this casse if the gamer has 5 minutes of game play he has no grounds to be reviewing a game based on its game play merits; For all we know, the guy could be a complete idiot attempting to run the game in 4k at ultra settings.

No they don't need to be scored separately. Its asked if you recommend the game or not. A yes or a no. Adding in why you are not recommending a game should not be hidden away somewhere.

Did it ever occur to you that are there some gamers out there that could care less about FPS count so long as they can play the game thats all they care about. So what if my game is locked at 30 fps? How is the storyline? How is the game game? A tab that score technical proficiency aside will make it easier for buyers to make an informed descision.

No, again you are asked if you recommend the game or not. People are adding in a why.

So lets take metal gear solid revengeance as an example. The game is generally considered very fun to play, however, it is very short in lenght barely clocking 6 hours total game play, yet when the game came out on steam it was asking for $60. This underscores a poor value proposition and therefore a potential buyer should have the means to know this.

Also for those different groups that you suggest, do you expect someone to be sitting there going through them saying "thats about business model, thats about the game, thats about the creators, thats about technical issues" and putting them in each their own area? You're gonna end up with 5 or 6 different numbers and just confuse everyone even more.

If you have time to write a review then you the time to do it correctly.

The user can address all 3 categories or just one if he wants (Gameplay, technical aspect and value) under the same review window. Steam devs only need to add the proper format frame work that promps the user to rate each category.

No sorry, not going to happen. If I can't get a game to run, and everytime I try it only adds seconds onto the amount I don't want to do that for hours on end trying to get to the 2 hour mark just to post my recommendation to avoid the game.

So you know what I and many others will do? Copy notepad exe, move it to the folder of the game, rename the game exe and the notepad exe and then run the game which would then open up notepad and as long as its open, it things the game is running, I let it sit there for 2 hours and then I write my recommendation. So it kind of makes your idea pointless.

Sorry but this last part must be an attempt at trolling on your part. Did you forget about medators? Please take some time to think critically on the merits of an idea before caming up with such non sense.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Originally posted by cinedine:

Because the real cancer to the PC gaming industry are zealous fans.

That is only half of it. The flip side of that coin is also part of the same issue.

[Zoopy]

Originally posted by Sugetsu:

Is that so? Perhaps if the issue is raised frecuently is because there are basis for concern.

No, the real reason these threads pop up so frequently is because people just can't stand it when someone doesn't like something that they do. See again my post about complaints about positive reviews.

[Sugetsu]

I can't believe you guys are DEFENDING the current spam filled, unmoderated review system under the sole argument that negative reviews about technical problems are a way for users to warn potential buyers of possible problems.

Please think a little, potential buyers find out about technical problems by other means besides trollish reviews. They can find out about it through game forums, through the game press, through friends who bought the game, through social networks such as youtube, redit, facebook, twitter, through buying the game then finding out it has technical issues and then refunding it. I can go on and on.

Have you guys even pondered to yourselfves what the phare Game review implies? It means that the a user who has adquired knowledge of said tittle and gives his judment on a game as a WHOLE, this includes game play and value. Technical issues are by definision not reviews because it does not REVIEW THE GAME ON ITS COMPLETE BASIS.

Thank you for hopefully understanding.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Sugetsu:

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:

Oh this topic again... like once or twice a week this is posted. This is just the typical "people don't agree with what I think about something so it has to be changed" post.

Is that so? Perhaps if the issue is raised frecuently is because there are basis for concern. Under the current system steam reviews are just as bad or worse Metametric user reviews. Steam saved PC gaming by giving it an inviting platform for developers to advertise their games, but now it needs proper maintenance and oversight or it will hurt its business in the long run.

The review system is doing just that. Funnily enoughI can find at least 2 genuinely helpful reviews for every gamne I've c ared to check form within the top ten reviews.

If it had game breaking issues, the reviews within the first 24 hours should reflect that.

Do you even know how hard it is to code a game for PC? A PC ecosystem has literally throusands of possible configurations and you need to account for each one of them. Games do get patched and they improve over time. Allowing a reviewer to post negative remarks withing the first hours of game launching does nothing positive for the game but instead limits revenuew which could be used to fix said issues or improve game play. Problems of a technical nature within the first hours of launch need to be addressed under the support tab of the game's forum.

You seem to be making excuses rather than understanding exactly why those reviews need to exist. WIthin 24/48 hours these are the reviews that re the most helpful to buyers. Particuklarly if the reviewer mentions what hardware or software they're running.

Do you even know what modaration means? If am a mod and I see a someone posting unhelpful comments then I will take action. In this casse if the gamer has 5 minutes of game play he has no grounds to be reviewing a game based on its game play merits; For all we know, the guy could be a complete idiot attempting to run the game in 4k at ultra settings.

So basically you would be censoring based on your own submjective preconceptions. Keep in mind that game time is only recorded when the steam client is used tho launch the game.It might surprise you to know how many games don't require that. Secondly, if the game play is bad enough that the person couldn't be assed to play past 5 mins , that says something important though not ver nice, about the game. It's like saying a book gets better after chapter 30. That's well and good buyt if the book can't make me care enough to reach that far... then it's a bad book and deserves it's criticism.


OP. as other have said. You and others like you seem to just be saklty that the game you like is being negatively reviewed.

[Zoopy]

Originally posted by Sugetsu:

I can't believe you guys are DEFENDING the current spam filled, unmoderated review system under the sole argument that negative reviews about technical problems are a way for users to warn potential buyers of possible problems.

Kindly answer my post:

Originally posted by Zoopy:

OP, what I'd really like to know is why do people such as yourself only ever complain when it's a game getting negative 'bad' reviews? I almost never see this kind of thread when a game is getting positive 'bad' reviews, such as the epidemic of "11/10" meme reviews.

The complaints seem to be disproportionately skewed towards negative 'bad' reviews. It seems 'bad' reviews are only a problem when they're negative. Furthermore, I've never had trouble finding helpful reviews on Steam. Not even once. You might have to scroll a little, but we're talking seconds, not minutes. So I highly doubt it's the issue that it's normally made out to be in threads such as these.

If you want my opinion, I believe that the usefulness of 'bad' reviews is actually the last reason why people complain about 'abuse' of the review system.

Until you do we cannot move this conversation forward. You appear to be upset by the fact that the reviews are negative more than their content, so please, do convince me otherwise.

[Spawn of Totoro]

Originally posted by Sugetsu:

I can't believe you guys are DEFENDING the current spam filled, unmoderated review system under the sole argument that negative reviews about technical problems are a way for users to warn potential buyers of possible problems.

Please think a little, potential buyers find out about technical problems by other means besides trollish reviews. They can find out about it through game forums, through the game press, through friends who bought the game, through social networks such as youtube, redit, facebook, twitter, through buying the game then finding out it has technical issues and then refunding it. I can go on and on.

Have you guys even pondered to yourselfves what the phare Game review implies? It means that the a user who has adquired knowledge of said tittle and gives his judment on a game as a WHOLE, this includes game play and value. Technical issues are by definision not reviews because it does not REVIEW THE GAME ON ITS COMPLETE BASIS.

Thank you for hopefully understanding.

Trollish reviews are diffrent from reviews about technical issues, you can not lump them together.

Technical issues are a valid review and informative. Troll reviews are full of little relevent information, false information or made to make people angry.

User reviews have never been about reviewing a game on it's complete basis. If you want that, then there are professional reviews out there as well as Steam Curators.

Of all you listed, all the same infromation can be found in those sources, so why limit technical issues to sources out side of reviews and not other information? That makes no sense. All areas should have access to the same infromation.

All this infromation is usefull to people. Some more so, some less so. It is best to provide the most infromatin and let others figure out what they wish to focus on, rather then pick and choose what kinds of infromation is shown on a review.

If you don't like technical reasons, then ignore them and focus on the reviews containing gameplay information. Those who want to know about technical issues can focus on them as they are available and it is their choice to do so.