安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Your idea would result in buyers being hurt because bad games would be overwhelmingly positive, as no one could leave a negative review without losing the money they spent on the game.
The scenario you described is rare, and no one is doing it to the point that it's causing devs to lower prices. If you want to claim otherwise can you cite your sources?
All in all it all sounds impossible to do alone. You would need at least 500 people to do this.
For example, why would they leave negative review just because of the game price? I mean, if the game is too expensive then why would they force themselves to buy it just to write negative reviews about it? Just don't buy it and leave it alone. Prices can not be a justification for negative reviews. But it happen most of the time for all AAA games in recent years.
One case for sure happen with Starfield. If they can't afford $70 then play mobile games for free. They should not ruin the reputation of Starfield, just because they desperately want it but can't afford it. It's a loophole that they obviously will use.
Another example is when a DLC receive tons of negative reviews just because its game play style is not aligned with the game play style of certain players.
Every human being has their own preference of game play style. So a hundred player who happen to buy them first, has great advantage to influence other players who hasn't bought them, by writing negative reviews in advance. While new comers are suppose to hate it too just because of the low score? When in fact its just a matter of game play style preferences. It's irrational right?
What if the other 1 thousand new comers want to buy it because the game play style suits them well, but they didn't buy it just because of the negative reviews from the first 100 toxic players? It happen a lot in DLCs for Europa Universalis 4.
I'm glad I ignored those kind of irrational reviews, because I bought them anyway and enjoyed it.
But I felt sorry for the developers, because they suffer bad reputation from those first 100 toxic players, who prefer a game play style differently from what the developers have created. On the other hand, those first 100 toxic users lose nothing at all, because they got their money back anyway.
If you are one of these toxic users, please stop what you are doing. If you think a game or DLC is bad, just get a refund and be done with it. Don't try influence new buyers with your negative reviews, because they might actually enjoy the game, even though you don't.
They can leave a negative review if they want. You getting upset at such doesn't change the validity of their review.
Negative reviews, and especially from people who refunded it, are the ones I find the most interesting. It's very anti-consumer to want to delete reviews just because the person refunded the game/DLC.
Once again, your ignoring that your "solution" would remove basically every negative review warning people that a game is broken or non functional forcing someone to get a refund or be stuck with an unplayable game....
Second: Users doing that will get their ability to refund revoked after than they'd be able to affect review scores.
Third: This 'loophole' requires actually spending money (which MAY or MAY NOT be returned back to the original payment method after the refund) That's an incredible high friction hurdle to scale this kind of behaviour.
Fourth: There's people out there who don't like the things you do. Their opinion is as valid as yours. There's no conspiracy or secret cabal of people changing reviews. Grown over it.
You forgot the Lizardmen of the deep state and the people of the hollow earth.
Bought BL3, tried to play it for an hour and a half before noticing it's not playable using the arrow keys for movements (as they're hardcoded to emotes and can't be changed). So I went, wrote negative review and refunded.
What if a game releases with significant technical issues that prevent the majority of players from being able to play it at all? Should they be forced to keep a game they can't play just because they want to write a review explaining the issues they had and (justifiably) not recommending the game?
Even if this does happen (and you haven't shown that it does), it would have to happen on a massive scale to affect a game's aggregate, and that seems extremely unlikely.
But as soon as a game gets a few hundred reviews (and most bog-name games get much, MUCH more), then those bad-faith reviews (if they exist at all) become insignificant.
it is a competitive marketing strategy, such as huge corporations using it at high volumes to tank other studios in the attempt to aquire them after bankruptcy.
you can and should note several extremely large and highly renown companies that pick up bankrupted gaming studios.
what you just discribed can easily be translated into marketing fraud.
alot of small studios put time and money into games with no room for failure, major corparations then use this ploy with thousands of accounts to sway public interest and cause pressure of failure to the studio in the attempt to bankrupt and steal / aquire all the assets.
examples of gaming studios this was done to on a high level would be things like
CD redkit
Bethesda
Activision
TellTale Games
these are just a few that where put under pressure and many of them folded
you can dig deeper into bankrupted gaming studios for a full list.
there are some pretty major titles that had alot of appeal that suddently went bankrupt because a new game didn't profit.
While most of want to believe the reviews of others, its recommended that if people are going around at high levels saying a game is extremely bad, you should take a leap of faith and try it, you will be suprised it is most likely a very good game, and just another company trying to aquire it cheap, so they can rebrand it and profit.
Is anyone able to write any review if they don't buy the game? No.
It is because writing reviews are only valid for people who own the game. Not for people who do not own the game.
So how do we exploit a loophole, so that anyone can write any kind of review without even owning the game?
Buy it, play it for 5 minutes or less or don't play at all. Write a review, then ask for full refund.
Toxic users love this loophole. Those who defend it, are basically the toxic users themselves.
Is anyone able to write any review if they don't buy the game? No.
It is because writing reviews are only valid for people who own the game. Not for people who do not own the game.
So how do we exploit a loophole, so that anyone can write any kind of review without even owning the game?
Buy it, play it for 5 minutes or less or don't play at all. Write a review, then ask for full refund.
Toxic users love this loophole. Those who defend it, are basically the toxic users themselves.
Is anyone able to write any review if they don't buy the game? No.
It is because writing reviews are only valid for people who own the game. Not for people who do not own the game.
So how do we exploit a loophole, so that anyone can write any kind of review without even owning the game?
Buy it, play it for 5 minutes or less or don't play at all. Write a review, then ask for full refund.
Toxic users love this loophole. Those who defend it, are basically the toxic users themselves.
If other users experience similar case like you, then they can ask for full refund. Nothing to lose on your side. Nothing to lose for everybody else.
The only one losing here is the developer, if those negative reviews are just about game price or game play style.