Jimquisition: Air Control - A Steam Abuse Story

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

Just chipping in to say that Steam needs better categorization on top of some quality control. Even if you devoutly believe that all this dredge is good for Steam, it's pointless if the users can't sort through it. Seriously, it's so difficult to just browse for titles you might be interested in.

Hazy992:

Pedro The Hutt:

Hazy992:
This shit is getting beyond parody now. This is going to kill Steam in the long run, virtual monopoly or not. Valve's credibility is going to be in tatters.

If selling human on dinosaur erotic "literature" didn't kill off Amazon's place in the market, then Air Control won't kill off Steam's.

You know what I mean -_- I'm not talking about Air Control in particular, I'm talking about the complete lack of quality assurance on Steam as of late. This will absolutely kill Valve's credibility in the long run.

Between games like this, Guise of The Wolf, Day One: Garry's Incident, The War Z, 7 Days to Die, Earth: Year 2066 and god knows whatever else, unless Valve get their act together and actually vet some of this shit then people are going to lose faith in the service.

And let's not forget all the games from 10-15 years ago that are just shat on to the storefront with absolutely no requisite that they actually work properly. Valve are willingly selling broken products at this point, and thinking that this isn't going to hurt them in the long term is just being naive.

I know anecdotal evidence doesn't really count for much, but speaking only for myself I can say that I now have very little interest in going to the Steam storefront anymore. I don't feel like wading through piles and piles of utter shit to find something that might be interesting.

Yeah, I can't help but feel this current policy will kill Steam in the long run. Steam Sales and Daily Deals used to be something I would look forward too. Nowadays I don't even bother looking at the store. Certainly haven't bought anything off it for a long time

Lykosia:
And you've no idea of what false advertising is. Surgeon Simulator never says it's an actual simulator. First paragraph on my Steam page says that "Surgeon Simulator 2013 is a darkly humorous over-the-top operation sim game," so it never claims to be really serious sim.

Air Control on the other hand claims that it's the best flight simulator of all time.

Name of the product doesn't matter. What you tell about your product, is what matters in advertising. In real world the guys behind Air Control would've a law suit in their hands before they can say "ha-ha."

So you're telling me that, if you go to the front page of Steam, see the logo and title for Surgeon Simulator (assuming you've never heard of it), that before you click the link and go to the store page, you have not already formed an idea of what you think the game is, that greatly contradicts what the game actually is?

Yes, the store page will set you straight if you read the description at the bottom, but are you really saying that looking at the label, by itself, doesn't belie the actual product it represents?

And at that point, isn't what you're saying is that Air Control should be taken off Steam because they didn't say "No guys, we're totally bullshitting you this is a piece of shit game don't buy it"?

If I'm a policy-maker at Valve, how do I write the policy you're so vehemently advocating for? "Don't make exaggerations about your game, unless you admit they're exaggerations somewhere on your page"?

Spearmaster:

Thanatos2k:

Yeah but game developers aren't allowed to lie on the back of their boxes. Same should be true here.

Yeah but they lie, tell half truths and give one sided subjective descriptions on the game boxes all the time. When Diablo 3 or Sim City were having problems at launch people weren't blaming Game Stop or Best Buy for selling it or not having a sign posted in the aisle saying it wasn't going to work were they?

Are you seriously suggesting these situations are remotely the same?

The issue is also what happens when someone goes beyond the back of the box - to the reviews or forum of that game in Steam to get more information, and that information can be altered by the developer without you knowing it, misrepresenting the truth. THAT needs to be fixed as well.

Then what does a developer do if the forums are getting trolled by someone passing along false information of the opposite kind or having their game trashed by someone with a competing game or a scathing review from someone that is trying to run it on substandard hardware?

Post in the thread debunking said claims and lock the thread. I'm not saying developers should have no power, but they should have no power to REMOVE criticism.

You cant FIX the problem you state without creating another.

Just because you create a smaller problem while fixing a larger problem doesn't mean you shouldn't fix anything.

Abnaxis:

Lykosia:
And you've no idea of what false advertising is. Surgeon Simulator never says it's an actual simulator. First paragraph on my Steam page says that "Surgeon Simulator 2013 is a darkly humorous over-the-top operation sim game," so it never claims to be really serious sim.

Air Control on the other hand claims that it's the best flight simulator of all time.

Name of the product doesn't matter. What you tell about your product, is what matters in advertising. In real world the guys behind Air Control would've a law suit in their hands before they can say "ha-ha."

So you're telling me that, if you go to the front page of Steam, see the logo and title for Surgeon Simulator (assuming you've never heard of it), that before you click the link and go to the store page, you have not already formed an idea of what you think the game is, that greatly contradicts what the game actually is?

Yes, the store page will set you straight if you read the description at the bottom, but are you really saying that looking at the label, by itself, doesn't belie the actual product it represents?

And at that point, isn't what you're saying is that Air Control should be taken off Steam because they didn't say "No guys, we're totally bullshitting you this is a piece of shit game don't buy it"?

If I'm a policy-maker at Valve, how do I write the policy you're so vehemently advocating for? "Don't make exaggerations about your game, unless you admit they're exaggerations somewhere on your page"?

Again, what kind of fool draws conclusions on what a game is based SOLELY ON THE NAME? Yes, for approximately 3.7 seconds some people may have drawn bad conclusions about what Surgeon Simulator is while the store page loads. That is not Surgeon Simulator's fault.

It's not The Legend of Zelda's fault dumb people think the game is about the legend of a guy named Zelda (seriously, a disturbing number of people STILL think Link's name is "Zelda" based purely on the title. A similar amount of dumb people think Samus's name is "Metroid"!)

Spearmaster:

Thanatos2k:

Yeah but game developers aren't allowed to lie on the back of their boxes. Same should be true here.

Yeah but they lie, tell half truths and give one sided subjective descriptions on the game boxes all the time. When Diablo 3 or Sim City were having problems at launch people weren't blaming Game Stop or Best Buy for selling it or not having a sign posted in the aisle saying it wasn't going to work were they?

Well call me crazy but I did write a complaint when they still sold Diablo 3 during the issue period without saying anything. In fact my brother and I also found it asinine and filed a complaint when they still sold Monster Hunter on PS2 after the servers were down without making warning that the box is now lying about online play. It very much should be something that all companies should do, especially in real stores where access to information is limited to where you are at the time.

Thanatos2k:

Spearmaster:

Thanatos2k:

Yeah but game developers aren't allowed to lie on the back of their boxes. Same should be true here.

Yeah but they lie, tell half truths and give one sided subjective descriptions on the game boxes all the time. When Diablo 3 or Sim City were having problems at launch people weren't blaming Game Stop or Best Buy for selling it or not having a sign posted in the aisle saying it wasn't going to work were they?

Are you seriously suggesting these situations are remotely the same?

Not really, the games I stated were a finished launch product and were supposed to work fine out of the box and offered no warning otherwise, where an early release alpha game does offer a disclaimer so I guess my examples are actually worse cases of anti consumer activity.

The issue is also what happens when someone goes beyond the back of the box - to the reviews or forum of that game in Steam to get more information, and that information can be altered by the developer without you knowing it, misrepresenting the truth. THAT needs to be fixed as well.

Then what does a developer do if the forums are getting trolled by someone passing along false information of the opposite kind or having their game trashed by someone with a competing game or a scathing review from someone that is trying to run it on substandard hardware?

Post in the thread debunking said claims and lock the thread. I'm not saying developers should have no power, but they should have no power to REMOVE criticism.

So they can just lie calling the critic a moron saying there is nothing wrong with the game and lock the thread, not much different than removing it IMO.

You cant FIX the problem you state without creating another.

Just because you create a smaller problem while fixing a larger problem doesn't mean you shouldn't fix anything.

Have you ever witness a meta critic trolling campaign, that would destroy an indi game on Steam before it even had a chance, Steam was to be a place where indi development was fostered, not a venue for it to be abused and scrutinized before its even finished, a way for developers to possibly make some cash to finish their project, I think you would be creating the bigger problem here. Hell why not just require every game on steam to be solicited under a producer for quality control and kill indi gaming completely?

Thanatos2k:
Again, what kind of fool draws conclusions on what a game is based SOLELY ON THE NAME? Yes, for approximately 3.7 seconds some people may have drawn bad conclusions about what Surgeon Simulator is while the store page loads. That is not Surgeon Simulator's fault.

What kind of idiot sees "Try the best flight simulation in the history of computer games today!" next to a video of a flappy bird clone and thinks "this truly is going to be the best flight simulation in the history of computer games." Hell, it does not even claim that it is the best it just tells you that you should play the best flight sim, which anyone with working eyes and 2 brain cells will know is not this game.

Spearmaster:
So they can just lie calling the critic a moron saying there is nothing wrong with the game and lock the thread, not much different than removing it IMO.

Do you REALLY not see the difference between locking a thread and deleting it?

You cant FIX the problem you state without creating another.

Just because you create a smaller problem while fixing a larger problem doesn't mean you shouldn't fix anything.

Have you ever witness a meta critic trolling campaign, that would destroy an indi game on Steam before it even had a chance, Steam was to be a place where indi development was fostered, not a venue for it to be abused and scrutinized before its even finished, a way for developers to possibly make some cash to finish their project, I think you would be creating the bigger problem here. Hell why not just require every game on steam to be solicited under a producer for quality control and kill indi gaming completely?

If you have read anything that I've been posting, you'll see I suggested that Steam need only curate games that do NOT have a publisher. This does not "kill indie gaming completely." Stop being overly dramatic.

The problem with metacritic user ratings is that they can't enforce that only people who have played the game can review it. Steam has that system.

Darknacht:

Thanatos2k:
Again, what kind of fool draws conclusions on what a game is based SOLELY ON THE NAME? Yes, for approximately 3.7 seconds some people may have drawn bad conclusions about what Surgeon Simulator is while the store page loads. That is not Surgeon Simulator's fault.

What kind of idiot sees "Try the best flight simulation in the history of computer games today!" next to a video of a flappy bird clone and thinks "this truly is going to be the best flight simulation in the history of computer games." Hell, it does not even claim that it is the best it just tells you that you should play the best flight sim, which anyone with working eyes and 2 brain cells will know is not this game.

Which is why the marketing materials don't tell you useful things about the game, and are intentionally deceptive.

Abnaxis:

Lykosia:
And you've no idea of what false advertising is. Surgeon Simulator never says it's an actual simulator. First paragraph on my Steam page says that "Surgeon Simulator 2013 is a darkly humorous over-the-top operation sim game," so it never claims to be really serious sim.

Air Control on the other hand claims that it's the best flight simulator of all time.

Name of the product doesn't matter. What you tell about your product, is what matters in advertising. In real world the guys behind Air Control would've a law suit in their hands before they can say "ha-ha."

So you're telling me that, if you go to the front page of Steam, see the logo and title for Surgeon Simulator (assuming you've never heard of it), that before you click the link and go to the store page, you have not already formed an idea of what you think the game is, that greatly contradicts what the game actually is?

Yes, the store page will set you straight if you read the description at the bottom, but are you really saying that looking at the label, by itself, doesn't belie the actual product it represents?

And at that point, isn't what you're saying is that Air Control should be taken off Steam because they didn't say "No guys, we're totally bullshitting you this is a piece of shit game don't buy it"?

If I'm a policy-maker at Valve, how do I write the policy you're so vehemently advocating for? "Don't make exaggerations about your game, unless you admit they're exaggerations somewhere on your page"?

The name itself doesn't mean much, what means is how you advertise your product. Name's job is to only grab customers attention. When you make claims without proof, you're in trouble. If you make statements in the marketing stuff that aren't true, you're misleading consumers and that is misleading or false advertising.

I can tell you real story that happened in my EU country last year. Company A and company B, both teleoperators, were aggressively marketing their 4G mobile networks. Company A started their advertising campaign and claimed that their 4G is the fastest. B didn't like that at all and asked A to prove that claim in court. A couldn't prove it so they had to pull back the campaign just because of one word. This is an example of false advertising.

If you make statements like "realistic" or "the best" when it's clearly not, you're misleading your customers. Customers have rights you know. One of the rights is to know what you're buying. It's really bad marketing if your customers have to get the true information elsewhere.

Thanatos2k:

Darknacht:

Thanatos2k:
Again, what kind of fool draws conclusions on what a game is based SOLELY ON THE NAME? Yes, for approximately 3.7 seconds some people may have drawn bad conclusions about what Surgeon Simulator is while the store page loads. That is not Surgeon Simulator's fault.

What kind of idiot sees "Try the best flight simulation in the history of computer games today!" next to a video of a flappy bird clone and thinks "this truly is going to be the best flight simulation in the history of computer games." Hell, it does not even claim that it is the best it just tells you that you should play the best flight sim, which anyone with working eyes and 2 brain cells will know is not this game.

Which is why the marketing materials don't tell you useful things about the game, and are intentionally deceptive.

I had a fairly good idea of what I was getting, its not Steam's job to protect the dimwitted from themselves. Also Basically all marketing is deceptive is some way, this really isn't any worse that most big budget games and in some ways its better, most professionally put together game descriptions are far worse.

Demonchaser27:

Spearmaster:

Thanatos2k:

Yeah but game developers aren't allowed to lie on the back of their boxes. Same should be true here.

Yeah but they lie, tell half truths and give one sided subjective descriptions on the game boxes all the time. When Diablo 3 or Sim City were having problems at launch people weren't blaming Game Stop or Best Buy for selling it or not having a sign posted in the aisle saying it wasn't going to work were they?

Well call me crazy but I did write a complaint when they still sold Diablo 3 during the issue period without saying anything. In fact my brother and I also found it asinine and filed a complaint when they still sold Monster Hunter on PS2 after the servers were down without making warning that the box is now lying about online play. It very much should be something that all companies should do, especially in real stores where access to information is limited to where you are at the time.

Yeah and those are AAA developers that "have" quality control selling a finished boxed product. People seem to be just as upset that steam doesn't have quality control for early access alpha games from an indi developer. I just see it as comparing apples to oranges. How many people were actually fooled into buying "Air Control" anyway? With Diablo3 and Monster Hunter people paid a lot more to someone they should have been able to trust.

Thanatos2k:

If you have read anything that I've been posting, you'll see I suggested that Steam need only curate games that do NOT have a publisher. This does not "kill indie gaming completely." Stop being overly dramatic.

How many indi games are released under a publisher? I'll tell you. None. Hence "independent'. It would be creating more hoops for every indi game to have to jump through to get put on steam. Hoops where it is up to the personal tastes and possible cronyism and corruption of a Steam bureaucrat to judge a game that is barley in alpha. How does this not harm indi games on Steam?

I say leave it free and take the good with the bad not to mention this is to stop an almost infinitesimally small amount of these horror story games than an even more infinitesimally small number of people were actually fooled by.

The problem with metacritic user ratings is that they can't enforce that only people who have played the game can review it. Steam has that system.

Review yes but it doesn't keep them from bombing the forums with trash and false claims of a broken or bad game.

Lykosia:
The name itself doesn't mean much, what means is how you advertise your product. Name's job is to only grab customers attention. When you make claims without proof, you're in trouble. If you make statements in the marketing stuff that aren't true, you're misleading consumers and that is misleading or false advertising.

I can tell you real story that happened in my EU country last year. Company A and company B, both teleoperators, were aggressively marketing their 4G mobile networks. Company A started their advertising campaign and claimed that their 4G is the fastest. B didn't like that at all and asked A to prove that claim in court. A couldn't prove it so they had to pull back the campaign just because of one word. This is an example of false advertising.

If you make statements like "realistic" or "the best" when it's clearly not, you're misleading your customers. Customers have rights you know. One of the rights is to know what you're buying. It's really bad marketing if your customers have to get the true information elsewhere.

I think I see where we're differing here. You say that the name is only there "to grab customers attention." Here's the thing--that's all any marketing material is there to do too. Catch people's attention, and hope they buy your product.

Maybe you draw them in by saying "See how our sanitary towelettes absorb more water than competitor's brands!", maybe you draw people in by saying "Your mom will hate it!". Either way, all you're trying to do is catch a customers attention and shape your product in their eyes.

Obviously, you can't flat-out lie when you're trying to catch people's attention. But what you can do--and what I'm saying both Surgeon Simulator and Air Control do--is stretch people's expectation for what they're going to get.

"Fastest" got in trouble in court, because you can scientifically prove, within a reasonable doubt, which network is faster, and under what conditions. You can't do that with "best" or "realistic" or "simulator," because these are all relative terms. I think everyone present would agree with me the Kerbal Space Program is much more realistic than Air Control. But the spaceship pilots are little cartoon green men, and KSP can't brag "plane compartment is visible."

To you and me, the flight compartment matters as much as balls and Air Control is full of BS for claiming "best" flight sim based on it, but legally, there's nothing at all wrong with Air Control's front page, from a Truth in Advertizing perspective.

Darknacht:

Thanatos2k:

Darknacht:
What kind of idiot sees "Try the best flight simulation in the history of computer games today!" next to a video of a flappy bird clone and thinks "this truly is going to be the best flight simulation in the history of computer games." Hell, it does not even claim that it is the best it just tells you that you should play the best flight sim, which anyone with working eyes and 2 brain cells will know is not this game.

Which is why the marketing materials don't tell you useful things about the game, and are intentionally deceptive.

I had a fairly good idea of what I was getting, its not Steam's job to protect the dimwitted from themselves. Also Basically all marketing is deceptive is some way, this really isn't any worse that most big budget games and in some ways its better, most professionally put together game descriptions are far worse.

....You BOUGHT Air Control? Your irrational defense of it is starting to make sense now.......

Spearmaster:
How many indi games are released under a publisher? I'll tell you. None.

Since this statement is wrong, everything after it is based on this flawed postulate.

Review yes but it doesn't keep them from bombing the forums with trash and false claims of a broken or bad game.

Why would people buy a game and then bomb the forums falsely that it's a bad and broken game? I won't say it's never happened, but the incentives are not there. Again, give the devs tools to moderate their forum, but do not give them the ability to hide criticism and distort information.

Thanatos2k:

Spearmaster:
How many indi games are released under a publisher? I'll tell you. None.

Since this statement is wrong, everything after it is based on this flawed postulate.

There is a difference between an independent developer and an independent game but since everything after did "not" require that statement to be true to also be true anyway ill just accuse you of a fallacy fallacy and conclude that you haven't addressed the points in my statement only the "presumed" fallacy you thought you found. Its not like I was saying indi developers never publish their games.

Review yes but it doesn't keep them from bombing the forums with trash and false claims of a broken or bad game.

Why would people buy a game and then bomb the forums falsely that it's a bad and broken game?

They wouldn't. I was addressing your point about how metacritic doesn't have a system to prevent people who don't own the game from posting reviews and steam does. Steam forum abuse from people who don't own the game is still possible.

OT: Steam is like a flea market, they only charge a percentage to an indi developer for a table, what they sell and how they sell it is up to them. Should they remove "air control"? Yeah probably. Should they put in place broad sweeping regulations for indi games...I don't see a need for it and neither does Steam apparently.

Thanatos2k:

....You BOUGHT Air Control? Your irrational defense of it is starting to make sense now.......

You dare to like something I do not?!?!?!? You must be CRAZY!!!!!!!

Valve needs to get Steam a refund system. And remove moderation rights from companies.

Beyond that, to Jim and those saying what he says in this thread: Up yours! It's pretty damn clear your idea of quality control is painfully stupid: Indie games should be moderated, Triple-A can toss shit down your throat but that's fine because we're totally not biased/bought/fans! Quality control does NOT work if you set double standards.

Just look at the issue of Watch Dogs here. A lot of PC gamers seem to have issues with it, some even dramatic issues. (As in "Dear Cthulhu my video card just melted!!!!") but that's...Okay because nyumnyumreasonsnyumnyumTriple-A.
However Air control should be tarred and feathered! (Which I am not speaking against, it seems like a scam and thus should be removed or sold for like .10 Euros)

Spearmaster:
So they can just lie calling the critic a moron saying there is nothing wrong with the game and lock the thread, not much different than removing it IMO.

There's a massive difference, actually. There's a difference between locking a thread, where potential customers can come and have a look at it, and pretending that it never happened.

Even if the developer literally said nothing and just locked the thread, that still lets people see the criticism, valid or trolling, and decide whether they're going to use that information to judge whether the game is still worth investing in. For example, "Hmm, I wonder why the developer just ended the discussion instead of debunking the accusations or saying that they'll work on it?"

Infernal Lawyer:

Spearmaster:
So they can just lie calling the critic a moron saying there is nothing wrong with the game and lock the thread, not much different than removing it IMO.

There's a massive difference, actually. There's a difference between locking a thread, where potential customers can come and have a look at it, and pretending that it never happened.

Even if the developer literally said nothing and just locked the thread, that still lets people see the criticism, valid or trolling, and decide whether they're going to use that information to judge whether the game is still worth investing in. For example, "Hmm, I wonder why the developer just ended the discussion instead of debunking the accusations or saying that they'll work on it?"

So an indi developer, that is supposed to be working on their early access alpha, should have to spend their day instead moderating and explaining their alpha games current problems to people who buy alpha game expecting the experience of a finished game even though there is a huge banner stating its an early access release? They have to watch people post reviews tearing apart their game when its possibly 2-3 years from even being in beta?

If people were posting suggestions about ways to fix the game I would have a problem with them being deleted but most "criticism" that I see is "this game is a broken piece of shit" of course it is, its an early alpha. Its like someone trying to get Michelangelo banned from sculpting because "David" just looks like a block of marble.

The whole point of putting an early access game on steam is for an independent developer to try and get help from the gaming community to make their game better and this is how the gaming community responds? Its shameful, IMO. Honestly if someone is dumb enough to ignore the big "early access" banner on the store page they deserve to just get their criticism deleted. Steam doesn't exist to coddle the stupid, that's the government's job, Steam just sells games.

Spearmaster:

Infernal Lawyer:

Spearmaster:
So they can just lie calling the critic a moron saying there is nothing wrong with the game and lock the thread, not much different than removing it IMO.

There's a massive difference, actually. There's a difference between locking a thread, where potential customers can come and have a look at it, and pretending that it never happened.

Even if the developer literally said nothing and just locked the thread, that still lets people see the criticism, valid or trolling, and decide whether they're going to use that information to judge whether the game is still worth investing in. For example, "Hmm, I wonder why the developer just ended the discussion instead of debunking the accusations or saying that they'll work on it?"

So an indi developer, that is supposed to be working on their early access alpha, should have to spend their day instead moderating and explaining their alpha games current problems to people who buy alpha game expecting the experience of a finished game even though there is a huge banner stating its an early access release? They have to watch people post reviews tearing apart their game when its possibly 2-3 years from even being in beta?

If people were posting suggestions about ways to fix the game I would have a problem with them being deleted but most "criticism" that I see is "this game is a broken piece of shit" of course it is, its an early alpha. Its like someone trying to get Michelangelo banned from sculpting because "David" just looks like a block of marble.

The whole point of putting an early access game on steam is for an independent developer to try and get help from the gaming community to make their game better and this is how the gaming community responds? Its shameful, IMO. Honestly if someone is dumb enough to ignore the big "early access" banner on the store page they deserve to just get their criticism deleted. Steam doesn't exist to coddle the stupid, that's the government's job, Steam just sells games.

1. If the developer was already spending their time deleting posts they didn't like I dare say they have time to close them.

2. I thought that "deleting was the same as locking threads IMO"? Care to make up your mind? In any case, if they really thought a certain thread was completely unproductive they could red-flag it for Valve's moderators who could delete it. And

3. What? The ENTIRE POINT of Early Access is that they WANT you to tell them where bugs are, they WANT feedback and they WANT suggestions on how to make the game better! I agree that it's stupid to bitch and whine about an uncompleted product being uncompleted, but if someone posts "There's this bit in the game where these two objects clip, might want to look at that for the next patch", and gets banned for his troubles, there is something very much wrong going on.

Infernal Lawyer:

1. If the developer was already spending their time deleting posts they didn't like I dare say they have time to close them.

Or just delete them. If they are either abuse, not factual or just a misrepresentation of the game experience and you just lock without taking the time to debunk every post you are leaving damaging posts for potential customers to get the wrong idea from. You might as well not lock it and let your games forum turn into 4chan.

2. I thought that "deleting was the same as locking threads IMO"? Care to make up your mind?

Then I will. Deleting abusive threads is way better than locking them.

In any case, if they really thought a certain thread was completely unproductive they could red-flag it for Valve's moderators who could delete it.

Why go through all the trouble when the content creators moderate their own store page? Its not Valves game.

And

3. What? The ENTIRE POINT of Early Access is that they WANT you to tell them where bugs are, they WANT feedback and they WANT suggestions on how to make the game better!

Exactly and the community responds by wanting every independent game policed by a AAA publisher and plasters their forum with abuses when an early release game has problems.

I agree that it's stupid to bitch and whine about an uncompleted product being uncompleted, but if someone posts "There's this bit in the game where these two objects clip, might want to look at that for the next patch", and gets banned for his troubles, there is something very much wrong going on.

Is there any evidence that this is the case? Any evidence that the deleted posts were in no way abusive?

Spearmaster:

Infernal Lawyer:

1. If the developer was already spending their time deleting posts they didn't like I dare say they have time to close them.

Or just delete them. If they are either abuse, not factual or just a misrepresentation of the game experience and you just lock without taking the time to debunk every post you are leaving damaging posts for potential customers to get the wrong idea from. You might as well not lock it and let your games forum turn into 4chan.

So letting people read closed troll threads (which will probably be fill of other people debunking them, if not the devs) may end up being misleading, but letting the developers delete criticism isn't? In what world does that make any sense?
Anyway, the point I was making, which you seemed to have missed, was that you can't claim the developers don't have time to moderate one way or the other when they clearly do, or can get people to do it for them.

2. I thought that "deleting was the same as locking threads IMO"? Care to make up your mind?

Then I will. Deleting abusive threads is way better than locking them.

In any case, if they really thought a certain thread was completely unproductive they could red-flag it for Valve's moderators who could delete it.

Why go through all the trouble when the content creators moderate their own store page? Its not Valves game.

It's Valve's storefront, the developers have too much power to delete anything or ban anyone they don't like regardless of whether it/they are breaking the rules or not (for example when I made a comment telling people they'd be better off reporting EArth 2066 instead of complaining, I got a ban for "spem". No, that's not a typo, at least not on my part) and trust me when I say they've gone into the game-specific forums more than once to post their opinion and moderate. For example, when Earth 2066 was taken down they actually banned the developer (Muxwell) from his own forum.

And

3. What? The ENTIRE POINT of Early Access is that they WANT you to tell them where bugs are, they WANT feedback and they WANT suggestions on how to make the game better!

Exactly and the community responds by wanting every independent game policed by a AAA publisher and plasters their forum with abuses when an early release game has problems.

What can I say? When most of your income comes from impulse purchases you're going to have to deal with people acting surprised that the product is incomplete as adverised. However, as we've seen giving the developers the power to wipe legitimate criticism away along with the abuse from idiots isn't working.

I agree that it's stupid to bitch and whine about an uncompleted product being uncompleted, but if someone posts "There's this bit in the game where these two objects clip, might want to look at that for the next patch", and gets banned for his troubles, there is something very much wrong going on.

Is there any evidence that this is the case? Any evidence that the deleted posts were in no way abusive?

Plenty of people have made screenshots for the fuckduggery done in the Earth 2066 forums and other such game forums.
But even ignoring that, that's just the issue, isn't it? When you delete the threads, noone knows if you trying to stem legitimate criticism or if you're just showing some idiot the door. However, when you allow people to decide for themselves whether someone was being a liar/idiot/troll, or just giving legit criticism, that's only good for the industry.
I mean, if we're going to put all of the responsibility on the consumer and say "buyer beware, do your research first and stop complaining", at the VERY least we need to put all of the information out there, whether or not the developer approves.

I've come to a conclusion.

Valve's real problem, is that people expect something from them that they are not trying to provide. Everyone on here is complaining that Valve needs to do more to reign in the developers, because it's Steam's space and the publisher's are just guests there. However, I don't think Valve regards the game pages as Steam proper--it belongs to the developer, and Steam just provides the hosting service.

Everyone keeps admonishing Steam because it's not structured like Amazon or Newegg, but that's not the business model they're going for. The business model they want is "YouTube, but for games." Let whatever crackpot creator who wants to reserve space reserve it, host the stupid cat videos alongside professionally produced content, and let user and subscribers decide what gets popular. The only real difference is that YouTube takes a cut from the ad revenue, while Steam takes a cut of the sales revenue (since games don't sell ads).

It's like the difference between YouTube and (say) Amazon Streaming Video. You can certainly make arguments about the merits of each, but everyone is coming into the discussion assuming it's Steam's end-goal to be a STORE (like Amazon), when what they're really trying to do is be a HOSTING SERVICE (like YouTube).

In this light, their policies regarding developer's comment threads and lack of QC makes sense--I mean, the Air Control dev owns his page, just like the big boys own their own pages on the web. Let him edit it as he sees fit--it's his chunk of the web, after all--and the community will put him through the ringer if he missteps. By the same token, QC doesn't really make much sense under the YouTube model--after all, who's to say Air Control wasn't the next Double Rainbow of video games?

Valve needs to figure out a way to change people's perceptions of Steam. It's hard because for one thing Steam didn't begin this way--in the beginning, it was a curated store running a classical model of distribution. Second, Steam is the only place distributing content this way, which makes comparisons to other services less apt, which colors perceptions. If they could reshape perceptions it would help greatly--people might not like the model Valve's adopted, but at least they won't be pissed off because Steam isn't even trying to meet their expectations.

Infernal Lawyer:
Snip

OK, just show me where it is the developers responsibility to host and promote all the negative criticism on its own store page. The criticism is out there for anyone to find. Just look at this Jimquisition episode, its proof that the dev cant block negative criticism. Any savvy consumer does not have a problem finding reviews or criticism about a product, if they don't care enough to look then they don't care enough about what they are buying.

Why are you not complaining that all the negative reviews and criticism are not printed on a game box in a store? Seems kind of ridiculous that someone would buy a game from an unknown developer based off that information without doing some research first right? The steam store page is the game box. To provide an example Valve only owns the building in which the stores reside. Its like me complaining that the mall allowed footlocker to over charge me for crummy shoes, so the mall should regulate footlockers prices and shoe quality and allow people to put signs on shoes saying whatever we want about them. Makes no sense when I should have just read some third party reviews first.

Ill just ignore all the Earth 2066 stuff because Steam did remove the game which just proves that they are doing what people say they are not doing, providing quality control.

Steam's system works fine for 99.9% of its games, why completely change the platform for a few statistical anomalies?

Spearmaster:

Infernal Lawyer:
Snip

OK, just show me where it is the developers responsibility to host and promote all the negative criticism on its own store page. The criticism is out there for anyone to find. Just look at this Jimquisition episode, its proof that the dev cant block negative criticism. Any savvy consumer does not have a problem finding reviews or criticism about a product, if they don't care enough to look then they don't care enough about what they are buying.

Define "savvy". A lot of consumers will probably think they're being "savvy" by checking the Steam Reviews and Forums for the game, without the knowledge that such information can be easily changed or deleted. As Jim said, it's ridiculous to expect that the average consumer will know by default that the information immediately available (supposedly given by OTHER consumers, I might add, not the cherry-picked "reviews" you find on the back of a box or stapled to the actual description in the store page), isn't trustworthy in the slightest.

Also, legal =/= right. Valve may have given developers the power to do whatever they want on their forum, but that doesn't make it right if they're abusing said power.

Why are you not complaining that all the negative reviews and criticism are not printed on a game box in a store? Seems kind of ridiculous that someone would buy a game from an unknown developer based off that information without doing some research first right? The steam store page is the game box. To provide an example Valve only owns the building in which the stores reside. Its like me complaining that the mall allowed footlocker to over charge me for crummy shoes, so the mall should regulate footlockers prices and shoe quality and allow people to put signs on shoes saying whatever we want about them. Makes no sense when I should have just read some third party reviews first.

A completely false comparison argument. You can't compare a forum, or even the reviews on the Steam Store, to the back of a game box. Steam reviews are automatically generated depending on which ones the system finds the most relevant, and you have to choose to go through the forums, which is completely different from casually browsing the back of a box. This would be like more like, to use your description, if Footlocker had a board on display asking people to write up their opinions of their shoes and pin them onto the board for all to see, and then ripped up any review that criticized their products, and then someone came and said "isn't asking people to publicly display their opinions of your product and then getting rid of the ones you don't like a bit go against the entire point, not to mention being a bit of a scummy, dishonest strategy"?

Ill just ignore all the Earth 2066 stuff because Steam did remove the game which just proves that they are doing what people say they are not doing, providing quality control.

Steam's system works fine for 99.9% of its games, why completely change the platform for a few statistical anomalies?

Why? Earth 2066 is a perfect example of how a developer endlessly abused the tools he was given. He didn't get caught because the system "works fine", he got caught because he was making his abuses so blatantly obvious that he got his game the wrong kind of media attention.

Also, there are quite a few other games where the devs are also abusing their power. Air Control, Day One: Garry's Incident to name a few. None of which have been removed from the store. Shall I get some more?

Infernal Lawyer:

Spearmaster:

Infernal Lawyer:
Snip

OK, just show me where it is the developers responsibility to host and promote all the negative criticism on its own store page. The criticism is out there for anyone to find. Just look at this Jimquisition episode, its proof that the dev cant block negative criticism. Any savvy consumer does not have a problem finding reviews or criticism about a product, if they don't care enough to look then they don't care enough about what they are buying.

Define "savvy". A lot of consumers will probably think they're being "savvy" by checking the Steam Reviews and Forums for the game, without the knowledge that such information can be easily changed or deleted. As Jim said, it's ridiculous to expect that the average consumer will know by default that the information immediately available (supposedly given by OTHER consumers, I might add, not the cherry-picked "reviews" you find on the back of a box or stapled to the actual description in the store page), isn't trustworthy in the slightest.

Then they are not Savvy.

Also, legal =/= right. Valve may have given developers the power to do whatever they want on their forum, but that doesn't make it right if they're abusing said power.

Then why go after Steam when its the developer abusing said power?

Why are you not complaining that all the negative reviews and criticism are not printed on a game box in a store? Seems kind of ridiculous that someone would buy a game from an unknown developer based off that information without doing some research first right? The steam store page is the game box. To provide an example Valve only owns the building in which the stores reside. Its like me complaining that the mall allowed footlocker to over charge me for crummy shoes, so the mall should regulate footlockers prices and shoe quality and allow people to put signs on shoes saying whatever we want about them. Makes no sense when I should have just read some third party reviews first.

A completely false comparison argument. You can't compare a forum, or even the reviews on the Steam Store, to the back of a game box.

Why not? They are both a developer controlled spaced used to convey information about the game.

Steam reviews are automatically generated depending on which ones the system finds the most relevant, and you have to choose to go through the forums, which is completely different from casually browsing the back of a box. This would be like more like, to use your description, if Footlocker had a board on display asking people to write up their opinions of their shoes and pin them onto the board for all to see, and then ripped up any review that criticized their products, and then someone came and said "isn't asking people to publicly display their opinions of your product and then getting rid of the ones you don't like a bit go against the entire point, not to mention being a bit of a scummy, dishonest strategy"?

So if someone pinned a note saying "footlocker sucks balls, never buy their products they will give you erectile dysfunction" they should have to keep that note on the board? Its a double edged sword and it could harm hundreds of games, subjecting them to the dregs of the internet, just to avoid a few instances of dishonesty from a developer. Consumers have more avenues to give their criticism on the internet, the developer only has the one steam page in which to sell their game. What you seem to be proposing is giving control of their game page to anyone on the internet whatever their motives may be.

Ill just ignore all the Earth 2066 stuff because Steam did remove the game which just proves that they are doing what people say they are not doing, providing quality control.

Steam's system works fine for 99.9% of its games, why completely change the platform for a few statistical anomalies?

Why? Earth 2066 is a perfect example of how a developer endlessly abused the tools he was given. He didn't get caught because the system "works fine", he got caught because he was making his abuses so blatantly obvious that he got his game the wrong kind of media attention.

Also, there are quite a few other games where the devs are also abusing their power. Air Control, Day One: Garry's Incident to name a few. None of which have been removed from the store. Shall I get some more?

As of January Steam has 3,000+ games. With those 3 you are at ".1%"...one tenth of a percent...get it to 5% and maybe I'll listen a little more.

BigTuk:

Imp Emissary:
xD I figured you'd at least mention this game as soon as I saw your Squirty Play of it.

Good Lord it was horrible.
How did it even get on the front page on Steam in the first place?
Neat to find out being a shit game isn't the only crappy thing it does.

I can't say I ever recall seeing this on the steam front page... like ever. I actually had to do a name search just to find this on steam.

BigTuk:
The devs have not lied about anything that I can see on their page.

You did see the part where Jim showed screen grabs of the Dev giving false information that was later removed from the page, right?

I see screen caps but when checking.. you know.,. the products page I see none of that now. I can show a picture of someone in poopy diapers from 20 years ago.. that has nothing to do with what they're wearing right now does it?

Also, the copyrighted material used, the claim that the reviewers just didn't have a strong enough PC, and using people on his friends list (if they are real people) to give them good reviews.

I'll withhold copyright infringement allegations until said copyright holders actually file suit to such effect. I suggest you do the same. Seriously. How do you know they did not optain express permission to use the assets they did. I've heard no legal filings, I've seen no cease and desist orders.. So really if the people who legally own the copyright aren't throwing lawyers at them ... well then it may be safe to say the guy has found some nifty fair-use loophole.

Ok right here

"I see screen caps but when checking.. you know.,. the products page I see none of that now. I can show a picture of someone in poopy diapers from 20 years ago.. that has nothing to do with what they're wearing right now does it?"
I'm sorry I just HAVE to call out on how that is quite literally the WORST comparison I have ever heard. No seriously, I've heard stupid stupid comparisons but this one takes the cake.
A much more apt comparison is: I took a picture of this phrase you said and then later you claim that you never said it (after having deleted your post)... Seriously just...
I hope that was a joke I really do.

Qizx:

Ok right here

"I see screen caps but when checking.. you know.,. the products page I see none of that now. I can show a picture of someone in poopy diapers from 20 years ago.. that has nothing to do with what they're wearing right now does it?"
I'm sorry I just HAVE to call out on how that is quite literally the WORST comparison I have ever heard. No seriously, I've heard stupid stupid comparisons but this one takes the cake.
A much more apt comparison is: I took a picture of this phrase you said and then later you claim that you never said it (after having deleted your post)... Seriously just...
I hope that was a joke I really do.

You need better reading comprehension son.

The point I was trying to make is. When it comes to relevance as it pertains to accurate representation. Past data is of zero relevance.

Was the information that was there previously mis-representative. perhaps but that information has been corrected. Think of it like a newspaper printing a retraction. It is both an acknowledgement of previous inaccuracies and a correction. So the poopy diaper thing is quite apt. If you saw a picture of someone wearing poopy diapers at some unknown point in the past , do you assume that they are wearing poopy diapers now? Of course not. The past inbformation may have been true at the time but it has little bearing on the current state.

FYI the game is still for sale on Steam, and still costs $5.99.

Awesome, this game wasn't discounted for the Summer Sale. Either the developers don't want to "cheapen their IP" or something and are even more delusional about the game than anyone can imagine, or they know nobody will but it even half off.

Jim its now the 9th of July... I just had a look on Steam and Air Control is still up for sale :|

The reviews with the Developer replies make for interesting reading tho.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here