Suggestion: Transparency regarding game vetting

[mbomb007]

I think Steam should list each game's progress towards release. Not just the "expected go-live date", but also the stage in the review process, and if the go-live is blocked by the developer (e.g. the developer has issues they need to remedy), or if it's waiting on Steam's review process.

If a game is being reviewed/vetted, there should be a reasonable transparent deadline or listed goal date. As an example, the developers of the game Meme Review waited for several weeks to receive any feedback at all, and the game missed its release date by several weeks. It looks like it's got an updated release date for September, but I think transparency would help everyone.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Devs aren't required to put a solid date for release. They can put "when it's ready" and then change it after it's approved.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Publicado originalmente por mbomb007:

Suggestion: Transparency regarding game vetting

I think Steam should list each game's progress towards release. Not just the "expected go-live date", but also the stage in the review process, and if the go-live is blocked by the developer (e.g. the developer has issues they need to remedy), or if it's waiting on Steam's review process.

If a game is being reviewed/vetted, there should be a reasonable transparent deadline or listed goal date. As an example, the developers of the game Meme Review waited for several weeks to receive any feedback at all, and the game missed its release date by several weeks. It looks like it's got an updated release date for September, but I think transparency would help everyone.

Valve is not going to show you progress on their backend "vetting" process of a game. That is completely up to the game developer to allow such "announcements" if they see fit to release such information.

[Animus]

I mean 7 days just hit 1.0 recently after 10+ years in EA. The Devs are going to release when they choose to.

[mbomb007]

This isn't about the devs choosing the move the date. They were forced to move it. The devs never heard back from Steam, so they couldn't release on time.

[mbomb007]

Look at the last few updates posted by the devs here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/2719030/

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por mbomb007:

This isn't about the devs choosing the move the date. They were forced to move it. The devs never heard back from Steam, so they couldn't release on time.

They don't have to initially put a date. I've literally seen some say "when it's done". They can do the same and only put a date after the vetting process.

[mbomb007]

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

Publicado originalmente por mbomb007:

This isn't about the devs choosing the move the date. They were forced to move it. The devs never heard back from Steam, so they couldn't release on time.

They don't have to initially put a date. I've literally seen some say "when it's done". They can do the same and only put a date after the vetting process.

And I'm saying, that they *did* put a date, and it was set for early July. However, Steam took an extra long time doing the review and wouldn't respond to the devs' inquiries. Hence, I think some transparency would be in order.

[Boblin the Goblin]

Publicado originalmente por mbomb007:

Publicado originalmente por Boblin the Goblin:

They don't have to initially put a date. I've literally seen some say "when it's done". They can do the same and only put a date after the vetting process.

And I'm saying, that they *did* put a date, and it was set for early July. However, Steam took an extra long time doing the review and wouldn't respond to the devs' inquiries. Hence, I think some transparency would be in order.

Them putting a date before they can confirm it isn't an issue with Valve.

[Start_Running]

Publicado originalmente por mbomb007:

Look at the last few updates posted by the devs here: https://steamcommunity.com/app/2719030/

nd?
This is between the devs and Steam. You are not a party to that business so you have no need to know. Valve isn't going to go blabbing their client's business to outside parties. That would at the very lest be highly unprofessional, and in some cases illegal.

The dev/pub can freely share things and that's their choice.
And quite frankly given how rare it is for there to be hiccups. It may be a hint that something's not all square on the dev end.

[William Shakesman]

There have been MANY problems with this process. Valve really does owe more transparency, but to the other customers: the developers, not us. People's money is at stake here and Valve really should not be so often in the business of blocking it.

[Crazy Tiger]

All such stuff is between the game devs/pubs and Valve. Neither party owes anyone else "transparency" regarding their business dealings.

[朱羽凌最帅]

maybe not