A comprehensive guide to help Steam remain competitive in the modern gaming landscape.

[FOXDUDE69]

Hello, everyone!

Like many of you, I love Steam and I want to see it remain successful in the future.
There are many wonderful guides on Steam but they are typically meant to help players, so I think it's about time someone makes a guide to help Valve.

Let's Start!



𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐎𝐖 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐎𝐅 𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐓-𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃 𝐀𝐂𝐂𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐓𝐒

You can't technically make an account for a child under 13 on Steam.

Meanwhile all of Steam's biggest competitors allow you to create a parent-supervised child account for your offspring.

This includes the Epic Games Store, where my offspring are already building a significantly large library of free games and enjoying matches of FORTNITE with their dad, while at the same time not being allowed to play RAFT on Steam with their dad because they haven't reached the arbitrary age of 13 despite the fact that they've been gaming since they were toddlers.

Since they aren't allowed to have an account, the only games they can play with me on Steam are shared screen or split screen games, both types of games that, let's be frank here, are more comfortably enjoyed though Playstation/Xbox on our 75" TV (Steam link introduces lag and visual artifacts so that's not a real solution).

What all of this is guaranteeing is that the vast majority of their childhood gaming memories will be dominated by consoles and the Epic Games Store.

The Epic Games Store already has the future advantage here, due to the fact that they've captured the attention of the next generation of gamers with the insane popularity of FORTNITE, a generation of gamers without an ounce of loyalty towards Valve like the Counter Strike generation had, and this backwards policy of only allowing children over 13 to create accounts is further increasing the advantage they'll have in the future.

When a child can have an Epic account stacked with hundreds of good free games and making countless, priceless childhood memories on their platform long before they are even allowed to make a Steam account (6 more years until my oldest is allowed to have an account), Valve is just letting Epic race by them while they are stuck in reverse.

Lastly, developers that lock their games to Steam are leaving money on the table because of this nonsense, too. The aforementioned RAFT has no ESRB or PEGI rating, but Subnautica is very similar in the type of content it features and it has a ESRB of 10+ and PEGi 7.

So if RAFT was on Epic or Playstation these developers would have made additional sales from parents of children 7 and up. Instead, and because RAFT is locked to Steam, these children are not technically allowed to own a game that's appropriate for their age. It's an absurd situation.



𝐑𝐄𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊 𝐒𝐓𝐄𝐀𝐌 𝐏𝐎𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐎𝐅𝐅𝐄𝐑 𝐀 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐏𝐄𝐓𝐈𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐋𝐎𝐘𝐀𝐋𝐓𝐘 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐌

Another thing that Valve is sorely lagging behind is with their laughably inferior loyalty program.

Yes, it's fun to customize your profile with some silly stuff but it doesn't hold a candle to using points to redeem actual games like you can on Playstation, Nintendo and even the Epic Games Store now.

The Steam points system should be reworked to give users the ability to redeem their steam points for full games or partially pay for the purchase.

This would also naturally make Steam points far more valuable, meaning Steam Awards would become more meaningful, which is a good thing in my opinion, and the "Jester problem" would basically take care of itself.

The items currently on the Points Shop would then also have to be greatly reduced in cost as their value relative to the value of a partial or full purchase of a new game is remarkably inferior.

But what we would be left with would be a loyalty program that actually encourages users to spend directly on Steam instead of third party key selling sites like Humble Bundle.

Additionally, every purchase on the Steam store should heavily contribute towards your Steam level. It just makes perfect sense.



𝐅𝐈𝐗 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐁𝐘𝐒𝐌𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐑 𝐒𝐔𝐏𝐏𝐎𝐑𝐓 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄

Steam customer support is infamous for how terrible it is.

From personal experience and from what I've read online through the years, the average customer support experience on Steam seems to go a lil' something like this:

You write in your problem and wait multiple days for a generic answer from someone who didn't even bother reading your ticket.

Sounds familiar?

Compare this to other videogame services which allow you to livechat or even call... Services where you communicate to people who are actually trying to solve your issue instead of stonewalling you in hopes you give up and close the ticket.

This behavior reduces trust in the platform.

Valve's customer service is one of the worst I've experienced in my life and it's the main reason I've started significantly reducing the amount of money I spend of Steam and no longer recommend the service to friends and co-workers like I used to.

Trust is very important, and in the age of digital gaming, where you don't physically own the product you are purchasing, trust is paramount. So if you can't trust the entity selling it to you... Money will go elsewhere.



𝐃𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐋𝐎𝐏 𝐆𝐎𝐎𝐃 𝐆𝐀𝐌𝐄𝐒 𝐀𝐆𝐀𝐈𝐍

Let's face it, the Valve we fondly remember does not exist anymore, that's why you don't have a Half-Life 3 or a Left 4 Dead 3 or a Portal 3.

Yeah, yeah, Valve can't count to 3, very funny, I know.

But the underlying issue causing this "inability to count to 3" is not funny at all, it's ugly and downright disgusting.

Instead of continuing to work on their beloved franchises and innovate and develop new ones, Valve elected the way of easy greasy money.

They elected to focus on esports and played a significant and pivotal role in the normalization of lootboxes and gambling. Vast amounts of money for relatively little work.

And I do mean little work because even by esports/live service standards, CSGO and DOTA2 are quite pathetic. Fresh content is extremely rare... But lootboxes for young teens to gamble with... That's always rolling out.

Valve should turn back and try to live up to the reputation of being "the good guy", a reputation they've long stopped deserving but could deserve once again through hard work and a decision to start once again contributing to videogame history in a much more positive way.

Valve should apologize to their fans for abandoning their beloved franchises for lootbox money and promise to do better in the future. They should cut off API access to all the gambling websites that they like to pretend they can do nothing about. Make a clean break from the sleazy stuff, and then they should take the vast amounts of money they have and make good single player and co-op experiences.

Take a page out of Sony's Playbook and buy up smaller but promising studios with talented and passionate developers and with time and money, turn them into your own Insomniac, your own Santa Monica, your own Naughty Dog.



𝐈𝐌𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐕𝐄 𝐐𝐔𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐓𝐘 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐎𝐋

Quality control on Steam or the lack-there-of is an ever-present issue that we've just "learned" to accept. The Steam Store is filled with trash that couldn't even be described as shovelware and we've gotten used to seeing it so much that we "trained" ourselves to ignore it.

At least that's what we think, until we start browsing other stores and immediately notice that, while there some junk titles here and there, it's a much more pleasant experience to browse through content.

In my experience, the significantly reduced amount of trash on a store greatly helps in discoverability of smaller, low profile but legit indie titles which would otherwise be swimming at the bottom of a pool of trash. It's remarkably refreshing browsing through other stores compared to browsing on Steam.

Yes, we know those games sell because of Steam Cards, but is this worth your reputation, user experience and discoverability for smaller legit devs? The only sane answer is no.

If you care about your reputation and user experience, you have to curate your store.
You got away with ignoring this issue throughout the years, but as competition stiffens and other platforms offer a more curated experience, continuing to ignore this issue is foolish.


Thank you for reading!

[Boblin the Goblin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από The Presence:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

Just in case it wasn't clear that these people are only here to troll and breed negativity.

Also, very likely childless.

Whether someone is a parent or not is irrelevant. It doesn't diminish their opinion on these topics, nor does it make them trolls for merely disagreeing with what you believe a company should do in regards to childrens' online safety.

For example: I still maintain that if you want to protect your (young) children, you wouldn't let them on the Internet in the first place.

In a perfect world, we could separate the online space into to under 18 and adults without the need for horrible invasion of privacy or the worry of adults preying on children.

Since we don't live in that world, the best alternative is to just not allow children into spaces primarily occupied by adults.

[KalGimpa]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SlowMango:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από The Presence:

Whether someone is a parent or not is irrelevant. It doesn't diminish their opinion on these topics, nor does it make them trolls for merely disagreeing with what you believe a company should do in regards to childrens' online safety.

For example: I still maintain that if you want to protect your (young) children, you wouldn't let them on the Internet in the first place.

In a perfect world, we could separate the online space into to under 18 and adults without the need for horrible invasion of privacy or the worry of adults preying on children.

Since we don't live in that world, the best alternative is to just not allow children into spaces primarily occupied by adults.

i don't know

some of the most childish people i know are not children

[cinedine]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SlowMango:

The less children accounts the better.

Just in case it wasn't clear that these people are only here to troll and breed negativity.

Also, very likely childless.

Also a completely idiotic statement that just shows that they have not even looked at how other services handle children's accounts.

Most of them exist quite literally in a bubble and with no means to contact or be contacted from random users. So it's not like children accounts would in any way affect them negatively.
But it's curious to see how pedophoby has risen in the last couple of years. Children? Yes, of course, how can you even ask. But not anywhere near me.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

Also, quite a "coincidence" that he was the only one who had support saying the exact opposite of what all other support agents said. :)

Which curiously enough isn't the first time this had happened. *whistle*

[Brian9824]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από brian9824:

most users on steam will in fact never even see a community ban

Yes. Because most users on steam thankfully never use the Steam Hub, and therefore will never cross paths with a remarkably stupid man-child whose idea of a good time is abusing the report and then making pathetic little screenshots celebrating and taking credit for the bans.

That's not nice, screenshots like these break no rules, and users have every right to post them and share them with the community. Making fun of people for spreading the word that support and moderation listen to their reports is harmful to the community - https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2947218617

[Boblin the Goblin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από cinedine:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

Just in case it wasn't clear that these people are only here to troll and breed negativity.

Also, very likely childless.

Also a completely idiotic statement that just shows that they have not even looked at how other services handle children's accounts.

I have. Doesn't change that I think the less children online the better.

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από cinedine:

Most of them exist quite literally in a bubble and with no means to contact or be contacted from random users. So it's not like children accounts would in any way affect them negatively.
But it's curious to see how pedophoby has risen in the last couple of years. Children? Yes, of course, how can you even ask. But not anywhere near me.

Even Epic doesn't completely isolate them off for the general user base. How would Steam?

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από cinedine:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

Also, quite a "coincidence" that he was the only one who had support saying the exact opposite of what all other support agents said. :)

Which curiously enough isn't the first time this had happened. *whistle*

Ooooh, another conspiracy.

[Tito Shivan]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

Yeah because most people left the Hub after their first thread.

I said people who do use the forums. Not users with at least a post on the discussions.

I'll reformulate the post

Only accounting Steam users who REGULARLY use the forums the percentage of users who had ever been moderated was really low in our time. and even lower people who had been moderated/banned multiple times or had a community ban.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Sasori Kigaru:

Okay SO! The ticket I mentioned I created in regards to game creation or in this case Steam Distribution is the more accurate term, I now got the replies for it.

So as it turns out, while children under 13 cannot use or create an account you CAN release games intended for that age group on steam.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2995029816

So yeah, curiosity satisfied.

Steam is in a bit of murky water with that one. COPPA law does state that even if you have something on your service/website that is directed at children under the age of 13, as long as one of the primary targets of your service isn't children under the age of 13 so there is no requirement for having child accounts as long as the service doesn't knowingly collect child information or as long as they are not in the area where they should have known they were collecting child information.. The law isn't worded greatly about what can be considered as targeted, so it really comes down to how the FTC feels about it. This is one of the things that Epic got into trouble with Fortnite, for that 18 monthish period that the FTC felt Epic should have known that Fortnite naturally targeted children under 13 despite having an ESRB rating of 13. Right now Valve is at the whim of what the FTC feels if they ever decide to look at Steam.

So Valve is probably fine. But at the same time, why live on "probably" instead of providing a much needed addition for their service and get out of that "probably" area?

[Boblin the Goblin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Sasori Kigaru:

Okay SO! The ticket I mentioned I created in regards to game creation or in this case Steam Distribution is the more accurate term, I now got the replies for it.

So as it turns out, while children under 13 cannot use or create an account you CAN release games intended for that age group on steam.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2995029816

So yeah, curiosity satisfied.

Steam is in a bit of murky water with that one. COPPA law does state that even if you have something on your service/website that is directed at children under the age of 13, as long as one of the primary targets of your service isn't children under the age of 13 so there is no requirement for having child accounts as long as the service doesn't knowingly collect child information or as long as they are not in the area where they should have known they were collecting child information.. The law isn't worded greatly about what can be considered as targeted, so it really comes down to how the FTC feels about it. This is one of the things that Epic got into trouble with Fortnite, for that 18 monthish period that the FTC felt Epic should have known that Fortnite naturally targeted children under 13 despite having an ESRB rating of 13. Right now Valve is at the whim of what the FTC feels if they ever decide to look at Steam.

So Valve is probably fine. But at the same time, why live on "probably" instead of providing a much needed addition for their service and get out of that "probably" area?

Child accounts aren't a "much needed addition".

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SlowMango:

Even Epic doesn't completely isolate them off for the general user base. How would Steam?

With Epic's child accounts the defaults are:

- Cannot see Chat
- Cannot talk in Chat
- Cannot hear voice chat
- Cannot talk in voice chat
- cannot send friend requests
- cannot receive friend requests
- Mature language if filtered (if chat is on)
- cannot buy games with more than an ESRB E Rating, all other ratings including non rated are blocked.

So by default you wouldn't even be bothered with children trying to talk to you or trying to friend you.

And there are several options for parents to pick from if they do want those things turned on. For an example, I have to put in a pin every single time my kids wants to accept or send friend requests. For Voice/Text chat its setup only with those on friends list.

So yes they are isolated by default.

[KalGimpa]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SlowMango:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

Steam is in a bit of murky water with that one. COPPA law does state that even if you have something on your service/website that is directed at children under the age of 13, as long as one of the primary targets of your service isn't children under the age of 13 so there is no requirement for having child accounts as long as the service doesn't knowingly collect child information or as long as they are not in the area where they should have known they were collecting child information.. The law isn't worded greatly about what can be considered as targeted, so it really comes down to how the FTC feels about it. This is one of the things that Epic got into trouble with Fortnite, for that 18 monthish period that the FTC felt Epic should have known that Fortnite naturally targeted children under 13 despite having an ESRB rating of 13. Right now Valve is at the whim of what the FTC feels if they ever decide to look at Steam.

So Valve is probably fine. But at the same time, why live on "probably" instead of providing a much needed addition for their service and get out of that "probably" area?

Child accounts aren't a "much needed addition".

i know i would not want to were in valve's place

[The Presence]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από SlowMango:

Even Epic doesn't completely isolate them off for the general user base. How would Steam?

With Epic's child accounts the defaults are:

- Cannot see Chat
- Cannot talk in Chat
- Cannot hear voice chat
- Cannot talk in voice chat
- cannot send friend requests
- cannot receive friend requests
- Mature language if filtered (if chat is on)
- cannot buy games with more than an ESRB E Rating, all other ratings including non rated are blocked.

So by default you wouldn't even be bothered with children trying to talk to you or trying to friend you.

And there are several options for parents to pick from if they do want those things turned on. For an example, I have to put in a pin every single time my kids wants to accept or send friend requests. For Voice/Text chat its setup only with those on friends list.

So yes they are isolated by default.

They cannot see chat but mature language is filtered when chat is on?

Edit And before someone brings it up, yes, I saw the part about parents having control over those things at the bottom--but I can ask: Why would you let your child send or receive a friend request from someone who can potentially use mature language?

Parents are free to make (poor) decisions for their children but it's their own responsibility. You don't get to shift blame to whatever platform you're on.

[Squirrel With Acorn]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από The Presence:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

With Epic's child accounts the defaults are:

- Cannot see Chat
- Cannot talk in Chat
- Cannot hear voice chat
- Cannot talk in voice chat
- cannot send friend requests
- cannot receive friend requests
- Mature language if filtered (if chat is on)
- cannot buy games with more than an ESRB E Rating, all other ratings including non rated are blocked.

So by default you wouldn't even be bothered with children trying to talk to you or trying to friend you.

And there are several options for parents to pick from if they do want those things turned on. For an example, I have to put in a pin every single time my kids wants to accept or send friend requests. For Voice/Text chat its setup only with those on friends list.

So yes they are isolated by default.

They cannot see chat but mature language is filtered when chat is on?

Read the first line again

[FOXDUDE69]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από The Presence:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από BlueCanine:

With Epic's child accounts the defaults are:

- Cannot see Chat
- Cannot talk in Chat
- Cannot hear voice chat
- Cannot talk in voice chat
- cannot send friend requests
- cannot receive friend requests
- Mature language if filtered (if chat is on)
- cannot buy games with more than an ESRB E Rating, all other ratings including non rated are blocked.

So by default you wouldn't even be bothered with children trying to talk to you or trying to friend you.

And there are several options for parents to pick from if they do want those things turned on. For an example, I have to put in a pin every single time my kids wants to accept or send friend requests. For Voice/Text chat its setup only with those on friends list.

So yes they are isolated by default.

They cannot see chat but mature language is filtered when chat is on?

The reading comprehension on display here is appalling.

[❤ Sly Succubus ❤]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από The Presence:

They cannot see chat but mature language is filtered when chat is on?

The reading comprehension on display here is appalling.

Not really, the denial here is rather hard tho.

Why list chat is even disabled yet disabled chat has a mature filter, only to backtrack entirely saying that its indeed enabled for friends list? Clearly then, its not disabled in any form of the word

[Boblin the Goblin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shizune:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από FOXDUDE69:

The reading comprehension on display here is appalling.

Not really, the denial here is rather hard tho.

Why list chat is even disabled yet disabled chat has a mature filter, only to backtrack entirely saying that its indeed enabled for friends list? Clearly then, its not disabled in any form of the word

It's restricted, but not disabled.