Showing 1-20 of 19,238 entries
7 hours ago
In topic 2 Hours Isnt Enough Time
Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:
GoG is taking a risk here in the same way that Epic did
They're also 'taking a risk' with a cosiderably minor ammount of games. No way you can benefit of GOG refund policy with games that aren't even sold there due to GOG's stance on DRM.

For Example: Assuming OP's issue was with Bannerlord (guessing through his post history) he'd be still out of options as it's not sold in GoG anyway.
7 hours ago
In topic Refunds & Overall Service Quality
Originally posted by BluSleeper:
Games should have at least 24-48 hr testing period after buying
Consider a lot of games can be played head-to-toe in that timeframe. The refund policy is a balance between allowing users a time for checking if the game runs or has an issue and minimising abusing that time to play games for free (Buy->play->refund).
Originally posted by rage:
Well we saw what happened to ESEA when it had full control.
You mean the bitcoin miner incident?

Originally posted by black_lamp 42:
Let me Guess,another one saying hardware bans are the solution?
Which are relatively easy to bypass. Punkbuster did have HWID bans and it was widespread knowledge cheaters bypassed it with ease.

Hardware/IP/MAC bans are at most a temporary solution to get rid of a cheater. Hence why they were widespread solutions for dealing with cheaters at a server admin level. For permanent solutions they don't work that well.
9 hours ago
In topic Salty about Half Life: Alyx
Originally posted by crunchyfrog:
@Duck Twacy, I don't necessarily disagree with most of your points. I too don't feel that VR has any future in gaming, unless it can prove to be just as simple as relaxing with a joypad (which it may never get to be).
Any time I read a discussion on VR I get the feeling many people has the impression it is a technology bound to blow PC/Console gaming out of the water and replace it. And when it doesn't, well... it's a failure.

If VR is going to take off it'll do so as a different way of gaming. Not different in the Console vs PC kind of different but in the Videogame vs Tabletop game experience. Even when it's a piece of hardware you plug into a PC or console.

Originally posted by Duck Twacy:
The truth is you didn't need VR to play DOOM, Quake 2, Dark Forces 2 Jedi Knight, Warcraft 2 and all the other hot games at the time (mid to late 90s). But it's like if someone really wanted to, they could have, but the games would have been very basic.
Part of what -IMO- has made VR lose part of its appeal is the industry has just tried to 'port' what they already have in PC to VR. And that's not going to work because they're two very different mediums and they convey very different experiences.

Won't blame them because so far it has worked. Basically because the ported media wasn't so different from each others. All -consoles, PCs, phones, tablets- display the experience through a screen, with changes in the I/O methods...

They're still trying to sell you television by playing recorded theater plays.
Originally posted by KaMiKaZi:
I think there are many steps valve could take, opt in intrusive anti cheat would be fantastic.
Opt-in ACS would serve no purpose. It'd only work for a small subset of players, since the grand majority wouldn't opt in for a lot of reasons (ranging from 'It lags my system' to 'privacy invasion' or 'malware') Some of the more intrusive anticheat have had a bad vibe for years because people equates them with malware (Due to a por conception of what malware is and a lot of fearmongering and FUD posts)

Originally posted by ✪ reggiNN:
That was also the best tool to ban legit players.
Note it was temporary at best and at worst it had granularity, you were banned from a single server.

Ironically that same complaint is what is bound to happen the most pushy you make an anticheat. One of the reasons VAC bans are delayed is to minimise false positives. The more pushy you make the software the more false positives you'll get.

I still remember many years ago when Punkbuster kicked me of games 'because of cheating' just because I had the Steam overlay on.

Originally posted by haZh:
Smart man. Minimize human involvement in making critical decisions.
Overwatch says hi.
Originally posted by Dxpress:
It baffles me how people always seem to not understand the playtime requirement and have to make some dramatic speech clarifying what it means like it's some grand revelation.
There's few drawbacks of counting the game running as 'playtime'. For example games that update through the game executable and not through Steam can add a lot of updating time as 'playtime'
But that's where the 'refunds outside the limits are considered in a case by case scenario' rule comes into action.

Originally posted by Dxpress:
In order for Valve to know exactly what you were doing while you had a game running, they would have to be recording your screen, and if Valve were recording people's screens, they'd be cutting into some major data privacy concerns.
Recording screen would require manual reviewing. At the end of the day you'd need the developers within Steam adding functionality to their games to tell Steam 'Hey, the player is actually playing the game NOW' and to notice when they stop.

But then we'd get into the same argument because that would depend on what the developer decides 'playing' their games is. (Which isn't going to align with the player's perspective in a lot of cases anyway)
The issue is there's no consistent way to define 'playtime' across the thousands of games in Steam. Specially in a way that won't require EVERY developer to implement ways for Steam to discern if you're 'playing' the game or not.

Whatever system you pretend to apply is going to face the same issue you complain about. It won't fit everyone's conception of 'playtime'

PS: One thread was enough. There's no need to spam every subforum with the same post.
Originally posted by Noodliest:
An invasive anti-cheat outside of FACEIT and ESEA is probably never going to happen I think.
Remeber last time VAC went a bit over and looked at the DNS cache for the signature of a specific IP from a paid cheat's DRM service people made the biggest of stinks on how Steam wanted to know what porn did you watch and privacy violations... And in the end they had to backtrack and Gabe himself had to make an statement.

I'm sure a lot of the noise came from cheaters themselves (fighting an anticheat through social engineering isn't anything new) but the point is the same. People want the hardest measures against cheaters, but without having to pay the price they cost.
Gamers love to have their cake and eat it too.
Originally posted by crunchyfrog:
It's not that they're a cheater, it's the fact they would have been DELIBERATELY BAITED.
"I installed the cheat because I wanted a Dragon Lore, not because I was a cheater. And now I'm banned!!!"

It's not like people do dumb things to get free stuff every other day.
Gamers had in their hands the best tool to curb cheating, but we gave it away because we're lazy.

I'm talking of managing our own dedicated servers. Back in the day most servers had active admins who could ban a cheater right on the spot. block their IPs from joining a game and many other tools at their disposal for a swift and instant policing of cheating players. Not detracting from those cheaters later down the road getting a VAC ban.

However nobody "got time fo' that" anymore. and we've let developers do the server managing (because we valued more stuff like global leaderboards and competitive rankings)... So everything comes up to a price.

Originally posted by Gwarsbane:
Why do they wait a few weeks to hit the kill switch? To get as many cheaters as they can in the net so that once they turn it on, the roaches don't go screaming to people "don't turn on the hack, its been detected".
Also, the moment you hit the kill switch cheat makers update their cheats and ALL the proces starts back from the ground up.

If you do all the work of guessing how to detect the cheat and pull the trigger too fast all your work has been just a minor annoyance as only a few cheater have been caught. You've wasted time and effort for the sake of a few bans.
OTOH the more you wait to pull the trigger the more people complain about their game 'being full of cheaters' and 'VAC doing nothing'

It's the difference between catching the dealer with a few doses, or waiting to catch a delivery of a couple tons of drug.
Apr 6 @ 6:45am
In topic Salty about Half Life: Alyx
Originally posted by Duck Twacy:
VR was supposed to be here way back in the late 80s (89, maybe 88), and then was promised in the 90s. SEGA had a prototype, but it never shipped, and on games were made for it that I recall. And then it got pushed to the 90s. And then to the 2000s.
Tech wasn't up to the task back then. Nowadays the processing power is already widely avaiable. And unlike in the 80s and 90s there's a wide array of avaiable headsets on the market and not just a 'Virtual Boy' headset.

Comparing the actual VR enviroment and tech with the advances done in the 80-90s is like comparing apples to oranges.

And if you want to joke a bit there's a quite significant indicator of the success or mainstream adoption of a technology, and it's looking at how far it's been adopted by the adult content industry.

Originally posted by crunchyfrog:
SO these "loyalties" are often for things that aren't even the same thing you originally liked.
Loyalty often stands on the feet of nostalgia.
Apr 6 @ 6:12am
In topic Early Access roadmap for people to see!
Originally posted by Zekiran:
But that last part quoted is why I would like to see a record and data about how marketing versus product completion stands up. (hint: it doesn't)
I just assume due to experience they won't. Less time wasted looking at something I know the answer for.

Hence why I only buy Early Access Titles if either I like how the game is now and I'm willing to bite the bullet on future changes either not happening or making the game go to worse.
Apr 6 @ 6:09am
In topic Salty about Half Life: Alyx
Originally posted by Zekiran:
I know no one owes me.

But that does not and has never meant I cannot also be quite angry about it.
On the internet there's a fine line between saltiness and entitlement. It's too easy to cross and misinderstand.

I don't own a headset either and am also salty of not being able to play it yet.

Originally posted by Xaelath:
In order VR service to become mainstream it needs
- Majority to own it
- Is not expensive
- People showing interest on it
- The game doesn't cause alot of issues
- Requirements aren't insane so console can take the experience as well instead bricking with 30 FPS which likely cause motion sickness.
- Tech engine available on majority of Developer
- Easy to learn and to modify (developer)

That's long way to go honestly.
That's every new technology integration roadmap, at the end of the day.
VR is already getting there in some aspects despite its youth. There's already some more economic headsets on the market. Requirements start not to be so-insane. Alyx has shown there's interest on it. Tech engines are already there to develop.

IMO the biggest hurdle right now for VR is finding it's own narrative. You can't really 'port' a game to VR or back as you can port a console game to PC. Which in itself shows VR is just going to be a different thing, with different kind of games. It'll become its own way of entertainment.
Apr 6 @ 12:20am
In topic Early Access roadmap for people to see!
Originally posted by Zekiran:
The moment someone sees ANYTHING re: a game's potential content, game play, etc - THEY TAKE IT AS PERMANENTLY GIVEN.
Cue to a non Early Access case: No Man's Sky.
People heard the developer say how they were going to add multiplayer and how players would meet and when the game released... Well... there was no real 'multiplayer' there.

And people got angry.

Or how the Spore that was released had little to do with the Spore that was paraded around and announced during development.

And people also got angry.

It's at its root a problem with expectations. And a roadmap is going to help little with how people manage their expectations. The moment a roadmap milestone is cancelled or delayed we'll be having this very same discussion again.

Originally posted by Zekiran:
For what it's worth, Early Access games exist and SOME of them have been quite successful. Others, not so much.
Which could be said about every game out there. With the difference we've probably never heard of most of the non early access games that never saw the light of day.
Apr 5 @ 3:31pm
In topic Salty about Half Life: Alyx
Originally posted by CaptainKipup:
Originally posted by Aachen:
“Customer loyalty is a thing” —except when there’s an absence of threes?

Admittedly, I struggle with not having closure. If you tell me "I went down the street and saw..." I will lose my frigging mind if you don't finish that sentence.
Some stories are better left unfinished. Sometimes no closure is better than a bad one.

Maybe Valve should give Uwe Boll a try for the HL3 script?

Originally posted by CaptainKipup:
So they finally release a new game! And it's VR ... which I doubt I'm going to invest money in. I feel kind of left out.
Now you know how PC gamers feel when a console exclusive happens. That's how the world rolls. It's a shame there's so many good games I can't play because I won't invest money on a console. But I realised long ago I don't need to play every game and the industry doesn't specifically have to cater to my tastes (They barely cater to my tastes in many genres nowadays, so I'm used to it)

Originally posted by CaptainKipup:
But it's more that we've all been asking for 3's. I would buy the hell out of a left 4 dead 3. Hell they can even use the same engine. Portal 3 with another goofy co op story to play through a friend? I'll buy a copy for myself AND a friend.
I've been 19 years for another Dune RTS game to happen. But it'll be worse if it happens and it's a bad one, because the'd be a wasted oportunity.
A good HL/L4D/Portal game can still happen. But if it turns to be a bad game, then it's game over. Valve knows they cannot allow those franchises to become an Artifact 2.0 release.

Originally posted by CaptainKipup:
And Valve just doesn't deliver... and when they finally do, it's to sell their VR thing with a great game rather than to give something to the fan base. So yeah, my love waxes cold and my privileged, spoiled feelings are hurt.
Irony of the situation is Valve has a really hard time delivering anything up to the hype levels people have put their games.

Alyx plays with the advantage of playing in a totally different league. It's a new way of playing on a new gaming enviroment. The chains of PC gaming are too tight and solid as to try to do what Alyx is doing in VR.

Originally posted by Halo:
We get it - Valve is a retail platform developer, so just sell the IP rights to someone who will use HL and L4D.
Maybe they could sell the franchise to Peter Molyneux, or Tencent?

Beware what you wish for, may your wishes be fullfilled.
Life has an habit for fullfilling wishes through a monkey's paw

Originally posted by Zekiran:
I have watched numerous plays and found it entirely meh, disagreeable weirdness, and completely disconnected from the rest of the franchise. To me it looked very MUCH like a vanity project.
You can't really translate the feeling of inmersion throug a youtube video. And the feeling of Inmersion is the biggest role in VR gaming.
Apr 5 @ 12:49pm
In topic Why is nothing deleted on Steam?
People have a hard time managing the concept 'permanent'
Just like that tattoo you thought it was cool at 16 has become an issue ten years down the road... Same can be applied to actions on the Steam account. The game/wallpaper/comment you totally wanted gone will make you have second thoughts years later...

And it's not a theoretic reason. It has happened over and over in games and services that allow for deletion.

It makes for an interesting exercise of though on how everything you put in the internet is going to be there forever.

And in regards game recommendations, the engine takes into account first and foremost your recently played games. Engines are going to have a hard time realising you've changed your mind and stopped liking the RTS games you played lately.
Apr 5 @ 8:44am
In topic Early Access????
Originally posted by ThePineappleExpress:
what a load of idiots, im talking about games on steam advertising they have early access only to find out that it aint true. they even come under the tags early access, but its nothing more than an attention grab 90% of the time!!! if half of your were a little more perceptive you'd of known what i was talking about from the get go
As said above, a single example of one of those games you are talking about would be nice.

And please do not call people idiots.
Originally posted by ric:
Can you please quote a source that Steam was created only to make sure games are up to date? I find it very difficult to believe that this was the reason Steam was created and I have a feeling you are being hyperbolic simply because you disagree with me. How does an option 4) don't update this game hurt you?????
Before implementing Steam, Valve had problems updating its online games, such as Counter-Strike; providing patches would result in most of the online user base disconnecting for several days. Valve decided to create a platform that would update games automatically and implement stronger anti-piracy and anti-cheat measures. Through user polls at the time of its announcement in 2002, Valve also recognized that at least 75% of their users had access to high-speed Internet connections, which would continue to grow with planned broadband expansion in the following years, and recognized that they could deliver game content faster to players than through retail channels. Valve approached several companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo!, and RealNetworks to build a client with these features, but were declined.
At the time, Steam's primary function was streamlining the patch process common in online computer games
Originally posted by ric:
Please FIX!
It's not a bug, it's a feature.
Apr 3 @ 2:13am
In topic Your store sucks steam.
Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:
Aye, people forget this very often. Stuff gets introduced because users complain, then users complain because of what their compatriots wanted
TL-DR: You can't make everyone happy.

Originally posted by ReamedBySteem:
I think the real issue now is it (the tag system) has become something almost uncontrollable, I mean, where to start trying to fix it? Remove them all, ask the publishers to apply a genre specific 'tag' to each game in their catalogue and then let users add descriptions (relevant or no) that don't impact on the search?
Thing is people WANT those description to impact the search. People want to SEARCH for these definitions/tags because it's the way to get from the generic to the specific.

You'd be getting to the same place with the feature you suggest. Wrongly applied and non-applying definitions both lead to too broad similitudes between different games.
Showing 1-20 of 19,238 entries