Underdeveloped games... They are going to need rules Valve!

[PWS354]

I've have seen too much flames and conflicts between people and developers on products that are not guaranteed to have all the promises that are either priced too high and/or not fufilled. I personally don't mind buying the Combat Edition ($40) of the game or having Steam allowing the Galactic Edition to be sold on Steam since I take my time to do some research, but I do mind the absense of rules for making this infant idea of having developed games in Steam to be financially supported by people like us!

It would be extremely unexceptable for any game developer to only put up an early access price as high as $200 as an only, not putting up all or most of the important or anticipated aspects of the game; or worse yet (I hope it doesn't happen), con the whole community and leech everyones' money. When somebody attempts something that is not acceptable in a community, that community wants justice, I want to fufil that justice with an assertive call to action: me shaking on both Valve's shoulders and yelling at them "put up some rules for these developers!"

I do believe Steam should keep the Early Access segment alive to have a little bit of help and feed it little by little, but it must be restrained to prevent a single wild one from engulfling the whole community with rage or having mail bombs being sent to game developers' homes killing families. Lets be real, Early Access needs work, I have a few ideas for these rules:

1. No Early Access game shall be over $50
2. Have all or most mentioned aspects by the developers or spokesperson
3. Must have a website (Steam must link it)
4. Fruad games must have the conman/conmen/conwoman/con... (yeah you get the point) to be
reported to law enforcement.

A few simple rules like that, and Steam must continue on from there and get more sophisticated with the rules if need be.

[Dark Lord Satan Visit Your Bum]

Good point about the price concerns with Early Access titles. Planetary Annihilation (however valid its reasoning for charging $90) set a risky precedent, IMO. What's to stop other developers from abusing the system and charging just as much or more for their unfinished games?

Of course, with the system in its current state, it seems developers are welcome to set whatever price they want to, and the customer can choose to pay that price or ignore it. As any armchair economist will tell you, that's how capitalism works.

The problem here is that devs will use succesful sales as justification to continue overcharging for their products, and it doesn't take much to turn something like a price experiment into a fully-adapted industry standard. Cut-content DLC packages, season passes, and pre-orders are some examples of what can happen when questionable sales tactics become the norm.

I can understand Valve wanting to allow a certain amount of freedom to emerging developers, but as it is right now, the Early Access program seems like it's just begging to be manipulated by unscrupulous developers. Valve need to set some ground rules.

[ChillCore]

Sorry for not replying to you in detail as I did not take the time to read.

When you use a Beta program you know that it is unfinished, buggy, lacks in features, may crash from time to time, wipe the content of your HDD if the reamaining bug is serious enough, melt your hardware, etc etc etc.

You choose to accept those risk and voluntarily give your money to that developer because you would like to see that game in a finished state.

In return you get a development version, functioning as described above.
You can use his version and if you want to you can give feedback, or make suggetions for improvement.
If you are lucky enough you can tell your kids later ... "look ... see that thinghie, that is there because of daddy." while you point at the best feature of the game.

Most of the times things turn out great because afterall you helped shape the game.
Sometimes they do not, tough luck.

If you can not live with that, do not buy beta games ever.
Use demos or wait for final realeses.

All the rest, again I am verry sorry for not reading, is moot.




If you will excuse me ... I was on my way to the store.
KSP is OUT of sale. Yay.

[Marble]

We have seen with War Z that if a game does not provide what it says on the store page then Valve will take action.

As for pricing, they can charge whatever they want. It's their own fault if no-one decides to buy it.

If you don't like what you see on the store page, no-one is forcing you to buy it. It isn't necessary to impose new rules and restrictions.

[Dark Lord Satan Visit Your Bum]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Canti:

We have seen with War Z that if a game does not provide what it says on the store page then Valve will take action.

Proper rules and restrictions would have prevented the War Z fiasco from happening in the first place.

[Satoru]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dirtman73:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Canti:

We have seen with War Z that if a game does not provide what it says on the store page then Valve will take action.

Proper rules and restrictions would have prevented the War Z fiasco from happening in the first place.

How so. Nothing in the above would have prevented the warz fiasco. What 'rules/restrctions' would have done so.

Also the idea that PA 'sets a dangerous prescedent' is utterly stupid. Kickstarter did that. Not Steam. Blame kickstarter if you're going to go on about that.

[Spawn of Totoro]

People should just read the Early Access FAQ. A lack of understanding about what early acces iss seems to be the main issue.

http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/

[Dark Lord Satan Visit Your Bum]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Satoru:

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dirtman73:

Proper rules and restrictions would have prevented the War Z fiasco from happening in the first place.

How so. Nothing in the above would have prevented the warz fiasco. What 'rules/restrctions' would have done so.

Rules/restrictions against fraud, maybe?

I should have been a little more clear by what I meant: the rules and regulations regarding fraud that Valve presumably have in place should have been implemented before The War Z even hit the open market, but they weren't. Valve would have been all too happy to continue ignoring The War Z if the user base hadn't complained en masse.

Also the idea that PA 'sets a dangerous prescedent' is utterly stupid. Kickstarter did that. Not Steam. Blame kickstarter if you're going to go on about that.

Kickstarter is a funding project that refunds backers if the financial goal is not met. Steam is a retail service that sells games. Surely you can understand why charging $90 for a potentially risky venture in a retail environment is controversial?

[tmwfte]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dirtman73:

Kickstarter is a funding project that refunds backers if the financial goal is not met. Steam is a retail service that sells games. Surely you can understand why charging $90 for a potentially risky venture in a retail environment is controversial?

What risk? If the game doesn't release as advertised or at all, surely you don't think that Valve is going hoard the money already paid. They'd be obligated to give refunds.

[Tito Shivan]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dirtman73:

Kickstarter is a funding project that refunds backers if the financial goal is not met. Steam is a retail service that sells games. Surely you can understand why charging $90 for a potentially risky venture in a retail environment is controversial?

Early Access FAQ

Is this the same as pre-purchasing a game?

No. Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game. By purchasing, you gain immediate access to download and play the game in its current form and as it evolves up and through 'release'.

When will these games release?

Its up to the developer to determine when they are ready to 'release'. Some developers have a concrete deadline in mind, while others will get a better sense as the development of the game progresses.

If the release date is known, it will be listed on the store page for the game, in the upper-right corner under the game's branding image.

I don't see the controversy at all.

[Satoru]

There are already "restrictions" against fraud.

Again you don't actually articulate WHAT would have actually prevented it. All this falls into is the "Steam should QA EVERYTHING" bucket. Which is impractical and is mystically something we only impose on Steam and not Walmart BestBuy GameStop GamersGate GreenManGaming etc.

[Insanity Claus]

1) If Early Access is more than $50, then that's up to you. Who cares how much they charge? If they charge $200 (Neverwinter's Hero of The North Founders Pack) and people pay for it, then don't like that they're playing an unfinished game, how is that the devs fault? The persons knowingly paid for this early access. Caveat emptor. Buyer beware. The Early Access terms are pretty straightforward. If it's worth it, the market will respond. If not, then the market won't and the game won't get funding.

2) Most devs have outlined their overall vision. However, the games are in alpha or very early beta stages, and the content and certain features are subject to change. By declaring that they will have such and such feature in a binding document, they could become legally liable for featuresets that might have to be cut or altered. Furthermore, if you don't know what the plans are for the game you're paying Early Access for, then why are paying for Early Access? Why are you paying to get into the alpha stage of a game if you have no idea what kind of game they're hoping to make the finished product into and no desire to help bug test?

3) This seems reasonable, if not a bit superfluous. It's a good idea, IMO, but it also kind of reminds me of Nintendo's eShop. In case you don't know, one of the requirements to sell games on Nintendo's eShop is that you must have a physical and mail-addressable business office in a business building. You can't just declare a home office, either. It has to be an office at an actual commercial address. Having a website is immensely less cost prohibitive than office space, but I don't really know how or if that would be a barrier to fraud.

4) It might seem straight forward, but what police is Valve going to contact? The Seattle police? The SPD can't do anything about someone out of state, so, the FBI? FTC? What about someone based in another country? It becomes an increasingly complex issue when you really think about it, and would require Valve to make judgement calls on what is and what is not legally fraudulent activity and potentially prosecutable. This winds up creating more work for Valve, including having to represent themselves, potentially, in numerous cases, and could potentially open themselves up to being sued for defamation. Whether criminal or civil, defendant or plaintiff, legal cases are expensive and time consuming.

Here's a better idea: if you feel you have been defrauded by a game, then contact a lawyer and bring suit yourself or contact your state Attorney General to council about pressing charges.

As mentioned by others, none of these things would have stopped The War Z from being published on Steam. Once Valve learned that the listed features were not in the game, as advertised, they pulled the game. Once the devs for The War Z had changed the listed features to more accurately reflect the game in its current state and mention what is being worked on and what is actually implemented, then Valve allowed them back. Valve, like the police, take a reactive stance, not proactive. They're not going to pay through every game and make sure that all of the advertised features are in there. However, if people complain to Valve, they will take action if it is necessary and warranted.

If you're paying for Early Access, then you need to understand that you are getting a workable game that is still in the thick of it regarding their development cycle. Workable, however, does not mean free of bugs or that it will be reflective of the finished product. It is, obviously, WIP. It is only workable in the sense that it is not just a jumble of assets and development docs, but in actual stages of creating a workable title. It is, essentially, paying to be a QA tester. If you're looking to just get in on the game a few months before release, you're missing the point and only screwing over yourself.

[Dark Lord Satan Visit Your Bum]

"What risk? If the game doesn't release as advertised or at all, surely you don't think that Valve is going hoard the money already paid. They'd be obligated to give refunds."

Given Valve's spotty history with refunds, it will never be a simple matter of obligation. As we've seen time and time again, Valve are never willingly eager to hand over refunds for broken products until the community outcry is loud enough and the press starts turning negative. That's where the controversy lies, and that's why people are concerned about titles like Planetary Anihhilation.

Początkowo opublikowane przez Satoru:

There are already "restrictions" against fraud.

If Valve already have restrictions and regulations in place to prevent fraud, why didn't they choose to preemptively enact them in the case of The War Z? Why did they wait until the community got screwed over?

Again you don't actually articulate WHAT would have actually prevented it.

Clearly, if Valve had done something as simple as check the game's store page and referenced it against the actual gameplay, they could have prevented the whole debacle from happening.

All this falls into is the "Steam should QA EVERYTHING" bucket. Which is impractical and is mystically something we only impose on Steam and not Walmart BestBuy GameStop GamersGate GreenManGaming etc.

No one in these forums had advocated that "Steam should QA EVERYTHING". That would be impractical, and nobody around here is dumb enough to think Valve should be forced into policing every little action third-party publishers take. As is typical with these discussions, you can't find a logical line of reasoning, so you resort to exaggeration, contextomy, and fallacy. I don't know why I bother attempting rational debates with you.

I get tired of arguing with Steam sycophants and Valve apologists. I've made my point here. I'm going to go do something constructive like tilt windmills.

[tmwfte]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dirtman73:

[Given Valve's spotty history with refunds, it will never be a simple matter of obligation.[/quote]

What you're describing is illegal. If the game does not release, they are legally obligated to refund your purchase. Despite grey situations like broken products, with the Early Access titles, if it's still only in alpha and never sees a full release because the company has abandoned it, gone out of business, whatever, Valve are legally obligated to refund your purchase. If they don't, they won't just have a trial in public opinion, but an actual lawsuit on their hands. Do you really think that they would risk that?

[Dark Lord Satan Visit Your Bum]

Początkowo opublikowane przez tmwfte:

What you're describing is illegal. If the game does not release, they are legally obligated to refund your purchase. Despite grey situations like broken products, with the Early Access titles, if it's still only in alpha and never sees a full release because the company has abandoned it, gone out of business, whatever, Valve are legally obligated to refund your purchase. If they don't, they won't just have a trial in public opinion, but an actual lawsuit on their hands. Do you really think that they would risk that?

Go read Steam's ToS/EULA. They are under no legal obligation to offer refunds, at least in the United States.

[tmwfte]

Początkowo opublikowane przez Dirtman73:

Go read Steam's ToS/EULA. They are under no legal obligation to offer refunds, at least in the United States.

Go read the law. Even in the United States. Not delivering the product advertised is false advertising, keeping revenue for an unreleased product is fraud. The law trumps the SSA.