Stop colluding with developers, and show the real review scores

[nbk12632]

This is becoming a major problem with Steam trying to sell more copies of games by actively hiding the truth from their player base. When a game is receiving a lot of bad reviews Steam/Valve is just hiding them to sell more product, keeping important information hidden. This leads to increased refunds as well as people supporting company practices they would rather not encourage. Developers may not like a "review bomb" but there are times it is needed. If No Man's Sky had not gotten tough love it would never be what it is today, if launching games before their ready doesn't cost developers anything it will get worse and worse, and Steam already has a near monopoly on the market. If somebody has paid their money for a game, and did not get what they were advertised should be entitled to a voice.

TLDR; Steam hides bad reviews to sell more product, even when companies are actively hurting their customers through deceptive business practices.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 HK-47：

A popup window that shows you there is a Steam client update pending is what I consider "being informed". Some asterisk and text in a small font tucked away from the central focus point of the review list is not "being informed"

You call this "Some asterisk and text in a small font tucked away from the central focus point of the review list"???
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2912758023
It literally takes the whole central space right on top of the reviews list.

[Tanoomba]

引用自 HK-47：

You cannot review timed exclusive itself because it is not yet published (and it won't be any time soon). Yet you should be able to voice your displeasure with it.

But if the way you express that displeasure is through negative reviews for OTHER games, then those reviews are detrimental to people who actually want to know about them. If there are enough of these reviews, that pulls down the aggregate, giving a false impression of what the games' player bases actually think about the games. This is why the filter should be off by default.

I promise you: Pretty much everyone who thinks the reviews are better off when they include review bombs is aware they can opt out of the filter.

引用自 HK-47：

The proper solution would be to have both developer reviews and publisher reviews whose score would then count towards the score of every game they made / published -- that way there would be no need for "offtopic" game reviews anymore because you could justifiably slam the developer and / or publisher when they do sh*tty things.

This is a terrible idea that would only make it easier for people to "punish" publishers over perceived transgressions. No, the proper solution is for people not to use the review system as their personal soapbox for angry rants that have nothing to do with the game in question. We are not entitled to a place to complain about things unrelated to particular games.

引用自 HK-47：

If the game developers and publishers reserve the right to change any aspect of already published and sold game, then they should not expect said game's rating to remain the same forever.

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. That's why we're allowed to change our review after the fact, after all.

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 Tanoomba：

引用自 HK-47：

If the game developers and publishers reserve the right to change any aspect of already published and sold game, then they should not expect said game's rating to remain the same forever.

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. That's why we're allowed to change our review after the fact, after all.

Note that "The publisher got into a legal fight with the author of the soundtrack of the previous game" is not a change in any aspect of an already published and sold game.

[Tanoomba]

引用自 Tito Shivan：

Note that "The publisher got into a legal fight with the author of the soundtrack of the previous game" is not a change in any aspect of an already published and sold game.

Indeed!

[Denis The Machine]

引用自 Tanoomba：

引用自 HK-47：

You cannot review timed exclusive itself because it is not yet published (and it won't be any time soon). Yet you should be able to voice your displeasure with it.

But if the way you express that displeasure is through negative reviews for OTHER games, then those reviews are detrimental to people who actually want to know about them. If there are enough of these reviews, that pulls down the aggregate, giving a false impression of what the games' player bases actually think about the games. This is why the filter should be off by default.

I promise you: Pretty much everyone who thinks the reviews are better off when they include review bombs is aware they can opt out of the filter.

引用自 HK-47：

The proper solution would be to have both developer reviews and publisher reviews whose score would then count towards the score of every game they made / published -- that way there would be no need for "offtopic" game reviews anymore because you could justifiably slam the developer and / or publisher when they do sh*tty things.

This is a terrible idea that would only make it easier for people to "punish" publishers over perceived transgressions. No, the proper solution is for people not to use the review system as their personal soapbox for angry rants that have nothing to do with the game in question. We are not entitled to a place to complain about things unrelated to particular games.

引用自 HK-47：

If the game developers and publishers reserve the right to change any aspect of already published and sold game, then they should not expect said game's rating to remain the same forever.

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. That's why we're allowed to change our review after the fact, after all.

I must say here, if the developer mess around with the game (example: PAYDAY 2), and change everything radical that affects the whole game, then throwing bad reviews for bad decision to the game is pretty valid and the only option they can do, to show other people, who may could do a mistake to buy this. (and warning them)

[Brian9824]

引用自 Denis The Machine：

引用自 Tanoomba：

But if the way you express that displeasure is through negative reviews for OTHER games, then those reviews are detrimental to people who actually want to know about them. If there are enough of these reviews, that pulls down the aggregate, giving a false impression of what the games' player bases actually think about the games. This is why the filter should be off by default.

I promise you: Pretty much everyone who thinks the reviews are better off when they include review bombs is aware they can opt out of the filter.


This is a terrible idea that would only make it easier for people to "punish" publishers over perceived transgressions. No, the proper solution is for people not to use the review system as their personal soapbox for angry rants that have nothing to do with the game in question. We are not entitled to a place to complain about things unrelated to particular games.


I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. That's why we're allowed to change our review after the fact, after all.

I must say here, if the developer mess around with the game (example: PAYDAY 2), and change everything radical that affects the whole game, then throwing bad reviews for bad decision to the game is pretty valid and the only option they can do, to show other people, who may could do a mistake to buy this. (and warning them)

That would not be a review bomb and would not be effected. Not sure why people keep getting confused. Reviews about the game or changes are NOT review bombs.

A review bomb is something like when people gave Borderlands 1 a bad review because borderlands 3 was an epic exclusive. Nothing at all to do with Borderlands 1, hence why it triggered a review bomb exclusion.

[Crashed]

引用自 brian9824：

引用自 Denis The Machine：

I must say here, if the developer mess around with the game (example: PAYDAY 2), and change everything radical that affects the whole game, then throwing bad reviews for bad decision to the game is pretty valid and the only option they can do, to show other people, who may could do a mistake to buy this. (and warning them)

That would not be a review bomb and would not be effected. Not sure why people keep getting confused. Reviews about the game or changes are NOT review bombs.

A review bomb is something like when people gave Borderlands 1 a bad review because borderlands 3 was an epic exclusive. Nothing at all to do with Borderlands 1, hence why it triggered a review bomb exclusion.

If the reviews are coordinated, then it's a review bomb. If all reviewers are doing so independently, then it mightg not be.

[Brian9824]

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 brian9824：

That would not be a review bomb and would not be effected. Not sure why people keep getting confused. Reviews about the game or changes are NOT review bombs.

A review bomb is something like when people gave Borderlands 1 a bad review because borderlands 3 was an epic exclusive. Nothing at all to do with Borderlands 1, hence why it triggered a review bomb exclusion.

If the reviews are coordinated, then it's a review bomb. If all reviewers are doing so independently, then it mightg not be.

I suggest you look again https://store.steampowered.com/app/8980/Borderlands_Game_of_the_Year/#app_reviews_hash

Then READ what the exclusion states

Period of off-topic review activity detected

Key words are OFF TOPIC review activity. Its more then just a group of people reviewing a game, its only excluded if the reviews in question are not about the game. Steam doesn't care, nor do they have any way to know if 1000 people all left a coordinated review, they look to see if its OFF TOPIC to the game itself, and if so THEN its an off topic review bomb.

A bunch of people all leaving a review after they coordinated it about a games changes is fine, after all its not off-topic.

[Tanoomba]

引用自 Denis The Machine：

I must say here, if the developer mess around with the game (example: PAYDAY 2), and change everything radical that affects the whole game, then throwing bad reviews for bad decision to the game is pretty valid and the only option they can do, to show other people, who may could do a mistake to buy this. (and warning them)

I agree.

[Start_Running]

引用自 Crashed：

引用自 brian9824：

That would not be a review bomb and would not be effected. Not sure why people keep getting confused. Reviews about the game or changes are NOT review bombs.

A review bomb is something like when people gave Borderlands 1 a bad review because borderlands 3 was an epic exclusive. Nothing at all to do with Borderlands 1, hence why it triggered a review bomb exclusion.

If the reviews are coordinated, then it's a review bomb. If all reviewers are doing so independently, then it mightg not be.

"Coordinated" is a very subjective term

[HK-47]

引用自 Tanoomba：

But if the way you express that displeasure is through negative reviews for OTHER games, then those reviews are detrimental to people who actually want to know about them.

On the contrary, I think that those people deserve to know that the developers of the game they are interested in buying are jerks.

If say Activision-Blizzard started installing a kernel rootkit on people's PCs with one of their newest games as a means of DRM I would certainly want to know that before buying ANY of their games, not just that one. I don't want to give financial support to that.

Your logic boils down to "This developer has kicked puppies while making the game A, but I like their game B so I am going to buy it anyway, and nobody dares mention those dead puppies on game B reviews because that's offtopic".

引用自 Tanoomba：

If there are enough of these reviews, that pulls down the aggregate, giving a false impression of what the games' player bases actually think about the games.

You ever heard about the old saying "one bad apple spoils the whole barrel?" Sadly it's usually true. Developer messing with one game usually is a sign of things to come unless confronted by the only means possible -- bad reviews.

引用自 Tanoomba：

This is a terrible idea that would only make it easier for people to "punish" publishers over perceived transgressions.

Why they should not be punished if they f*cked up? Corporations are people, and regular people are regularily punished. Why do you defend them? They all have very expensive lawyers on retainer that can do that much better than you.

引用自 Tanoomba：

We are not entitled to a place to complain about things unrelated to particular games.

Listen to yourself, you are brainwashed into submission already.

That's exactly why I said the proper solution is to have such a place -- developer and publisher reviews. I want to be able to complain about Deep Silver selling out to Epic Games and ruining Saints Row franchise. The best place for that is not on each and every game they made, but on their developer profile.

I thought you would like the idea of separate developer and publisher reviews, because you could then ignore all the bad things they did by not looking there instead of having to ignore your own conscience (if you ever had any to begin with).

引用自 Tanoomba：

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. That's why we're allowed to change our review after the fact, after all.

And you think they can't filter that change as "offtopic activity" too? Ha, good one.

[davidb11]

I mean, you'd have a point if we're talking about theoretical events here, HK.

We're talking about actual things that happened here though.

Review Bombs are never good, and it doesn't make sense to argue that a completely incorrect derailing of the review score of a game is or can be valid.

Sure, theoretically, it can be used for good, but it hasn't really done that in practice.

[Tanoomba]

引用自 HK-47：

On the contrary, I think that those people deserve to know that the developers of the game they are interested in buying are jerks.

That's not your call to make. You don't get to decide what other people "deserve" to know. if your review is off-topic, then it's removal is not only justified but beneficial for most. And those for whom it's not beneficial can opt out of the filter (they are the ones most likely to know about the filter, after all).

引用自 HK-47：

If say Activision-Blizzard started installing a kernel rootkit on people's PCs with one of their newest games as a means of DRM I would certainly want to know that before buying ANY of their games, not just that one. I don't want to give financial support to that.

People who want to know about the games that don't contain the rootkit by and large don't care about your personal line in the sand that was crossed in another game. And the people who do care can opt out of the filter. Again: they'll know about it.

引用自 HK-47：

Developer messing with one game usually is a sign of things to come unless confronted by the only means possible -- bad reviews.

But if that's true, then those "things to come" will fail on their ow merits. You're trying to say you consider it worth trying to ruin them by association, and I'm telling you that's not what most people want reviews for. And the people who do want that? They can opt out of the filter.

引用自 HK-47：

Why they should not be punished if they f*cked up?

Because they're producing subjectively-experienced entertainment media, and the way that gets punished is by poor products getting poor sales and poor reviews. It's not for you to decide that you are the judge, jury and executioner for every perceived slight. And people who disagree? They can opt out.

引用自 HK-47：

Why do you defend them?

I'm not defending them at all. I'm criticizing you.

引用自 HK-47：

Listen to yourself, you are brainwashed into submission already.

You're the one who bought into the "us vs them" nonsense, which inevitably is just what some entitled gamers tell themselves so they feel justified in behaving toxically.

引用自 HK-47：

That's exactly why I said the proper solution is to have such a place -- developer and publisher reviews.

I disagree with the use of the term "solution", which implies you're describing a problem. I see no problem at all with people not being able to launch targeted hate campaigns over perceived transgressions. And the people who disagree? They can opt out.

引用自 HK-47：

I want to be able to complain about Deep Silver selling out to Epic Games and ruining Saints Row franchise.

I know you do. But you're not entitled to it, and nobody is obligated to give you a platform, especially when doing so ultimately causes more harm than good. But you can go ahead and write a negative review for any of their games for any reason at all, and the people who want to hear your rant will know how to find it.

引用自 HK-47：

And you think they can't filter that change as "offtopic activity" too? Ha, good one.

If you change it to an off-topic review, then it very much should be excluded. Disagree? Opt out of the filter. You can choose what you are exposed to. You can choose to express yourself however you like. But you are not entitled to an audience besides those who make the same choices.

[Brian9824]

引用自 HK-47：

Then your free to post it on social media, or discuss it in the forums. You aren't allowed to negatively rate a product down that has nothing to do with the changes. It's as simple as that, when you review a product the review should be about the product itself. It's not about your personal views regarding the company or OTHER products they manufacture.

I mean that would be like people rating every product made by a german company negatively because the Nazi's were evil....

[Tito Shivan]

引用自 HK-47：

On the contrary, I think that those people deserve to know that the developers of the game they are interested in buying are jerks.

And they actually can, since the reviews are still there.