Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

Steam Logo - Main

Game maker Garry Newman believes that Valve should add as many games to Steam as it can.

Steam is releasing a lot of games this year. In fact, just looking at the numbers, the digital download service has already added more new software in the first 20 weeks of 2014 than it did in the entirety of 2013. This, for some, is a situation that's both untenable and, ultimately, unsustainable. Some have gone so far to call for fewer Steam releases and a larger focus on controlling quality rather than encouraging quantity. According to Garry Newman, the creator of Rust and Garry's Mod, however, the very concept of cutting down on new Steam releases is "insane."

According to Newman, the problem isn't rooted in Steam releasing too many games but rather, in good developers not doing enough to help their works stand apart from the crowd. "The focus should be on the users, not the developers. Users getting the choice of thousands of games is a good thing," said Newman. "The attitude that Valve should only allow X games a month on Steam is insane. Why would you limit it? Have you released a game and it isn't selling? Make it better. Do some marketing."

Newmann would go on to express that it's not Valve's responsibility to step and control overcrowding. "Steam is a digital distribution platform; they put your game on their store and allow people to buy it. Any extra exposure you get by being featured should be seen as an extra-unexpected bonus. It shouldn't be relied on to sell your game."

Of course, some would likely make the argument that the potential problems with Steam's current release practiced aren't just a matter of good developers having their products lost in the shuffle. Rather, you could argue that Steam itself risks degrading its user base by cultivating a cesspool of bad games that customers have to wade through to find anything good.

Source: MCV

Permalink

Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

I don't think STEAM should limit the number of games they put out, but they should do more quality control, for starters they need to stop releasing "Early Access" games and only put up finished works. While it might involve some subjectivity, a big part of the problem is a lot of the stuff is *obvious* in being rapidly produced shovelware, and honestly I think STEAM should be more assertive in telling people "no". Among other things I personally feel they should also disallow anything produced with say RPG maker (even if they sell the software for it). To me it seems like STEAM's system has meant everyone churning out a quick JRPG product figures they can stick it on STEAM for a couple of bucks, instead of just putting it up for free download like the old days. This leads to tons of this stuff glutting the marketplace... and I think it detracts from more "serious" indie developers like the guys doing "Darkest Dungeons" and "Starcrawlers".

There's nothing wrong with the number of games coming out. Steam just needs to fix their horrid store-front so that terrible shovelware, old mobile game ports and early access/green-light crap isn't clogging up the front page.

It would take probably all of one person on Valves end to simply browse the daily releases and ensure all rubbish and old ports gets left off the new games space. And keep early access in the early access section.

I just don't understand why steam seems so reluctant to embrace any kind of common sense.

Failing that, let us FILTER what we want/don't want to see on our steam store.

Avaholic03:
Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

Why are games different from anything else that is sold in shops? Marketing is part of business regardless of sector you are in for the simple reason, the more people that have heard of you product the more people that buy it. It doesn't matter how good your game is if no one knows it it exists.

Apparently Mr. Newman is unfamiliar with his history because market over saturation is exactly what caused the great crash of the '83.

Yeah, a marketing arms race. just what the PC indie market needs.

Ew.

No, if the Steam storefront is crap and can't handle discoverability, then good games will fail and the markt will suffer, as it did before digital storefronts were a thing and discoverability depended on people hearing about games online. Sure, successful games will do well because they'll be on the top grossing list, but that doesn't make for a healthy market or better games, that makes for Google Play.

They don't need to "limit the number." They need to stop letting worthless shit through. If there are a hundred legitimately good games to release one week, release a hundred games. If there are zero legitimately good games to release one week, release zero games.

What a foolish sentiment. Remember the crash in 87. While it's not likely to happen again don't underestimate the situation. It's very bad to overwhelm the consumer with choice and expect them to do all the work. There very much is such a thing as too much choice just as mush as there is too little. It's important to find that sweet spot.

albino boo:

Avaholic03:
Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

Why are games different from anything else that is sold in shops? Marketing is part of business regardless of sector you are in for the simple reason, the more people that have heard of you product the more people that buy it. It doesn't matter how good your game is if no one knows it it exists.

If Steam is no different "from anything else that is sold in shops", then why isn't there a limit to the number of products they hold? I know it's a little off topic, but Steam, being digital distribution, doesn't have some of the limits which real stores do.

While in a real store you have X amount of shelf space, and Y amount of it is premium shelf space, steam has neither X nor Y as a limiter, so they don't have to make the hard call on what does and what doesn't get threw. While this wasn't a problem in the past when Valve actually had standards, now the floodgates seem to have opened with no quality control and the hip new features are either ones most of us don't trust (Early Access) or have failed so miserably they are being removed altogether (Greenlight).

So brining this back on topic: if you had, say, 10 games being released each week, and 8 of them are from small indie devs, 2 of them will probably appear on the store page (you know which 2) and the other 8 will ether be pushed onto a secondary page only accessible threw a filter, or be dead on arrival altogether with only a category search or a direct by-name search being the means of finding it. Add in about 2 weeks of this same thing happening, and then any game released the first week from the indie devs would be completely reliant on their marketing (which they are unlikely to have had much capital to devote to) to be able to keep the game alive.

albino boo:

Avaholic03:
Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

Why are games different from anything else that is sold in shops? Marketing is part of business regardless of sector you are in for the simple reason, the more people that have heard of you product the more people that buy it. It doesn't matter how good your game is if no one knows it it exists.

See, if marketing was about "letting people know about our product"...as opposed to "attempting to overwhelm people's rational judgement by sticking superlatives onto everything"...or even "getting people to buy shit without even being honest with them about what they're buying"...

Pretty sure he'd be singing a different tune if Rust got bumped off the front page of the store by 9 Freddie Fish games being re-released en masse. Being on the front page of the steam store in the new releases section is a huge boon for a game, and filling the schedule with 10-15 year old shovelware isn't doing anyone any favours.

Honestly, as companies pump all their old games onto Steam I'm pretty sure this is a problem that will eventually solve itself, once every game that anyone has any possibility of buying/re-buying has been released then the new releases should go back to new games, right? Right?

Making sure games are technically working and not just bugged, atrocious money grabs put out by shills though, that's something Valve needs too look at. Seriously, employ a couple of people to play through the first hour or 2 of any game planned for release too see if it works. Soul crushing work most likely, but hey, you get to work at Valve.

I think steam's doing a perfectly good job, just so long as they remove and refund blatant false advertising.

Isalan:
Pretty sure he'd be singing a different tune if Rust got bumped off the front page of the store by 9 Freddie Fish games being re-released en masse. Being on the front page of the steam store in the new releases section is a huge boon for a game, and filling the schedule with 10-15 year old shovelware isn't doing anyone any favours.

Honestly, as companies pump all their old games onto Steam I'm pretty sure this is a problem that will eventually solve itself, once every game that anyone has any possibility of buying/re-buying has been released then the new releases should go back to new games, right? Right?

Making sure games are technically working and not just bugged, atrocious money grabs put out by shills though, that's something Valve needs too look at. Seriously, employ a couple of people to play through the first hour or 2 of any game planned for release too see if it works. Soul crushing work most likely, but hey, you get to work at Valve.

Funny story is, things like putt putt and Pajama Sam are actually nostalgia grabs. Even Age of mythology and Rise of Nations are being put on there.

I thought the kid games were shovel ware, but it turns out they had a real nostalgia following. And it seems they do sell. Reddit is full of nostalgia shots from those games, and they got onto the front page of both /r/ gaming and /r/pcgaming and /r/pcmasterrace. Most of them glowing with nostalgia.

I guess that it means just because we don't understand it or like it doesn't mean someone else doesn't. Steam is quickly becoming nostalgia central, a market GOG used to dominate.

I don't think releasing more trash is going to help the market. I can barely tell what shit is coming out these days. There is just so much and I can't really get myself to care about it. All of these games coming out and not one of them is a good RTS.

Zontar:

albino boo:

Avaholic03:
Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

Why are games different from anything else that is sold in shops? Marketing is part of business regardless of sector you are in for the simple reason, the more people that have heard of you product the more people that buy it. It doesn't matter how good your game is if no one knows it it exists.

If Steam is no different "from anything else that is sold in shops", then why isn't there a limit to the number of products they hold? I know it's a little off topic, but Steam, being digital distribution, doesn't have some of the limits which real stores do.

While in a real store you have X amount of shelf space, and Y amount of it is premium shelf space, steam has neither X nor Y as a limiter, so they don't have to make the hard call on what does and what doesn't get threw. While this wasn't a problem in the past when Valve actually had standards, now the floodgates seem to have opened with no quality control and the hip new features are either ones most of us don't trust (Early Access) or have failed so miserably they are being removed altogether (Greenlight).

So brining this back on topic: if you had, say, 10 games being released each week, and 8 of them are from small indie devs, 2 of them will probably appear on the store page (you know which 2) and the other 8 will ether be pushed onto a secondary page only accessible threw a filter, or be dead on arrival altogether with only a category search or a direct by-name search being the means of finding it. Add in about 2 weeks of this same thing happening, and then any game released the first week from the indie devs would be completely reliant on their marketing (which they are unlikely to have had much capital to devote to) to be able to keep the game alive.

There are 513000 books available on amazons kindle store. At the last count steam had 3600 games, less than 10% of the kindles total. Games are not different from any other product and if you want to sell you have to do your marketing.

Vegosiux:

See, if marketing was about "letting people know about our product"...as opposed to "attempting to overwhelm people's rational judgement by sticking superlatives onto everything"...or even "getting people to buy shit without even being honest with them about what they're buying"...

Guess what other people don't think the same as you and just because you don't think something is great doesn't mean others have to agree with you. Your opinion is just yours and the beauty of capitalism means other people can spend money on what they want.

"Newmann would go on to express that it's not Valve's responsibility to step and control overcrowding. "

Steam is the store and therefore it is responsible for managing its stock.

The recent glut on Steam isn't just an influx of indie games but also re-releases of older games.

CrossLOPER:
I don't think releasing more trash is going to help the market. I can barely tell what shit is coming out these days. There is just so much and I can't really get myself to care about it. All of these games coming out and not one of them is a good RTS.

I feel this every day I open Steam, I don't even bother with the front page any more and I only wait for what was tagged on my wishlist as a form of bookmarking for the few games I want to go on sale, apart from that there's nothing new on there that's made me want to buy it full price in an instant, last game I bought was Bioshock Infinite.

So far Planetary Annihilation seems like the only actual RTS game on there and it's still in early access, there's eventually going to be grey Goo but the RTS genre has gotten really small the past couple of years.

I'd also agree on the too much trash isn't a good idea, the guy is only singing this tune because his barebones game got lapped up by people that thought it was fresh but with lower standards of quality, the guy ignores this and thinks more crap is better, I didn't have to wade through steam 3-4 years ago for games I'd want.

I don't think nobody ever talked about limiting releases to a number of X games per month. There is no magical number to assure quality.

When people talk about limiting steam releases, they talk about limiting it to good games. And not crappy shovelware titles that have changed ownership six times in the lat decade.

There should be something done to make sure the ACTUAL release dates are put on the games. And that they do not eclipse newer releases. That is all.

The problem with Quality Control in video games...

Well, this bad game here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock_Infinite

Is for me, worse then this:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fair-strike

And also MUCH worse then this:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/cuban-missile-crisis-the-aftermath

And I stand by that opinion of mine as superior to all others. Hell, Infinite is an unfinished game even...

Then again THIS here:
http://www.moddb.com/mods/lost-alpha

Deserves front page more then... well then 99% of other Steam stuff.

You cant argue subjective tastes, no matter what Yahtzee or some other posters seem to believe.
At most we can make sure the games have their real release dates and do not swamp front page. And maybe that they work. Though that may depend on OS :P. Then we need a warning that you may need an emulator for an old ass game.

I gotta agree with Garry Newman. Steam is a distribution platform for software not a museum or art gallery. It's not Valves job to check other devs software for bugs or decide if a game is too boring, bad or generic to be sold. As long as it's not a direct scam, it's just another product like no-name dish detergent, more or less "classic" movie DVD box sets or store brand toilet paper in your local supermarket which you can buy or leave on the shelve.

And for the ones having issues with the Early Access program. Just don't buy the games and let me play Prison Architect, Spacebase DF9 (119 hours already), Gnomoria and Next Car Game in their unfinished states. I like the program in concept and that I can buy a game and influence the devs (if my ideas are good enough), through their forums, to make their game even better before it's released. If you remove Early Access from Steam you take away stuff I like. I'd rather have EA and Ubisoft games removed from Steam than Rust and Starbound (and I don't plan on buying either game). But I'm not going to start campaigning against Steam having boring AAA games made for the lowest common denominator and profit, just because I'm not interested those games. Live and let live.

Also, how would you determine if a game is good enough to be on Steam? Metacritic? I've never had anything but laughs all around when I've played ORION: Dino horde with friends and that game has a 36/100 on metacritic and has gone through a bunch of revisions and renamings. I'm certain I have had more fun with that than I would with Transistor or Dark Souls 2.

Can I have Transistor or Dark Souls 2 removed from Steam because I don't think they are interesting enough for me to spend time and money on? "No Hateren47! You can not. Now, fuck off, back to your dinosaurs and gnome-filled space bases!"

Avaholic03:
Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

I think that Steam is just a shop, it isnt there for a marketing boost.

canadamus_prime:
Apparently Mr. Newman is unfamiliar with his history because market over saturation is exactly what caused the great crash of the '83.

Magmarock:
What a foolish sentiment. Remember the crash in 87. While it's not likely to happen again don't underestimate the situation. It's very bad to overwhelm the consumer with choice and expect them to do all the work. There very much is such a thing as too much choice just as mush as there is too little. It's important to find that sweet spot.

Back then there was barely any internet or a way to know if the game was good, now you have the metacritic score right there on the page, a list of basic features (not the description, the part where it says "Singleplayer, Playable with Controller, Leaderboards, etc...) and Steam reviews, add to that a search on Google and you will know exactly what you are buying.

Mashed is a crappy game from 2004 that I used to love playing on the Xbox, just now it got released on Steam, metascore doesnt even have any review for it but now I can have it on Steam, a lot of people probably dont care but they can just not buy that game if they arent interested. Do we really need someone there to tell us if a certain game is good enough to be on Steam? Certain professional reviewers gave Resident Evil 6 a 2/10 and Alpha Protocol a 1/10, imagine if those guys were in control of what games are and arent on Steam.

And if its because a game is broken, well, a lot of people dont mind playing through a broken game untill there is a unnoficial fix, see games like STALKER, Fallout 3, and Rage.

The problem isn't so much the quantity of releases, it's the fact that Steam's filtering options are so basic and primitive as to make navigating the newfound glut of trash nigh-impossible. Limited categories, the inability to filter out certain things, only 100 results per category, etc. etc. Their interface is woefully outdated and inadequate for the growth they've attained. They need a thorough storefront redesign to accomodate a more robust search system with more options for the user to find the things that interest him.

Secondly, they need to start dating releases realistically. If a game from 1995 is released on Steam, the date of release should be 1995, not 2014. This is extremely misleading and annoying. Also, it would screw with the results even if they did make a better search interface.

Finally, some basic quality control should be instituted. A bare minimum, at least. Particularly where Early access is concerned.

Exterminas:
I don't think nobody ever talked about limiting releases to a number of X games per month. There is no magical number to assure quality.

When people talk about limiting steam releases, they talk about limiting it to good games. And not crappy shovelware titles that have changed ownership six times in the lat decade.

Define a good game and shovelware to me?

A Good game is Metro. STALKER.
A Decent game is Fair Strike. The Day After.
A mediocre game is Bioshock Infnite.
A bad game is that Desert Gunner thing

That is why I find this exercise hard. Like 100 people will quote me about Bioshock for example.

Therumancer:
I don't think STEAM should limit the number of games they put out, but they should do more quality control, for starters they need to stop releasing "Early Access" games and only put up finished works. While it might involve some subjectivity, a big part of the problem is a lot of the stuff is *obvious* in being rapidly produced shovelware, and honestly I think STEAM should be more assertive in telling people "no". Among other things I personally feel they should also disallow anything produced with say RPG maker (even if they sell the software for it). To me it seems like STEAM's system has meant everyone churning out a quick JRPG product figures they can stick it on STEAM for a couple of bucks, instead of just putting it up for free download like the old days. This leads to tons of this stuff glutting the marketplace... and I think it detracts from more "serious" indie developers like the guys doing "Darkest Dungeons" and "Starcrawlers".

Quality control is the definition of limiting games. It's either quality or quantity, chaos or restriction, freedom or order.

What I find hilarious is that this is by the dev of Rust, which is a steam early access game that is horrendously unfinished, and was an unplayable mess on release. Early access is absolutely retarded anyway. BETAs should be free or they shouldn't exist. It is absurd to pay to do a job that used to be...well a legitimate job.

well that is a very comfortable high horse we are speaking from, mr newmann? riding the hypetrain from dayz all the success with an unfinished game you didn't even have a long term roadmap for, belittling people who spend their time actually finishing games before selling them for not doing enough marketing.

what steam needs is a better storefont. new releases(or things that were released on console in the last month or so) on the front page and a bunch of tabs for early access, old and rereleased shit. and giant flashing warning signs over each of them telling people what is actually in there

josemlopes:

Avaholic03:
Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

I think that Steam is just a shop, it isnt there for a marketing boost.

canadamus_prime:
Apparently Mr. Newman is unfamiliar with his history because market over saturation is exactly what caused the great crash of the '83.

Magmarock:
What a foolish sentiment. Remember the crash in 87. While it's not likely to happen again don't underestimate the situation. It's very bad to overwhelm the consumer with choice and expect them to do all the work. There very much is such a thing as too much choice just as mush as there is too little. It's important to find that sweet spot.

Back then there was barely any internet or a way to know if the game was good, now you have the metacritic score right there on the page, a list of basic features (not the description, the part where it says "Singleplayer, Playable with Controller, Leaderboards, etc...) and Steam reviews, add to that a search on Google and you will know exactly what you are buying.

Mashed is a crappy game from 2004 that I used to love playing on the Xbox, just now it got released on Steam, metascore doesnt even have any review for it but now I can have it on Steam, a lot of people probably dont care but they can just not buy that game if they arent interested. Do we really need someone there to tell us if a certain game is good enough to be on Steam? Certain professional reviewers gave Resident Evil 6 a 2/10 and Alpha Protocol a 1/10, imagine if those guys were in control of what games are and arent on Steam.

And if its because a game is broken, well, a lot of people dont mind playing through a broken game untill there is a unnoficial fix, see games like STALKER, Fallout 3, and Rage.

Uhhh what? Resident Evil 6 was an awful game and is nearly universally hated for being both bad at horror and bad at action.

Secondly, metascores are worthless. If you ever based a purchase off metascores, your pretty bad at the whole educated consumer thing.

Rainbow_Dashtruction:

josemlopes:

Avaholic03:
Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

I think that Steam is just a shop, it isnt there for a marketing boost.

canadamus_prime:
Apparently Mr. Newman is unfamiliar with his history because market over saturation is exactly what caused the great crash of the '83.

Magmarock:
What a foolish sentiment. Remember the crash in 87. While it's not likely to happen again don't underestimate the situation. It's very bad to overwhelm the consumer with choice and expect them to do all the work. There very much is such a thing as too much choice just as mush as there is too little. It's important to find that sweet spot.

Back then there was barely any internet or a way to know if the game was good, now you have the metacritic score right there on the page, a list of basic features (not the description, the part where it says "Singleplayer, Playable with Controller, Leaderboards, etc...) and Steam reviews, add to that a search on Google and you will know exactly what you are buying.

Mashed is a crappy game from 2004 that I used to love playing on the Xbox, just now it got released on Steam, metascore doesnt even have any review for it but now I can have it on Steam, a lot of people probably dont care but they can just not buy that game if they arent interested. Do we really need someone there to tell us if a certain game is good enough to be on Steam? Certain professional reviewers gave Resident Evil 6 a 2/10 and Alpha Protocol a 1/10, imagine if those guys were in control of what games are and arent on Steam.

And if its because a game is broken, well, a lot of people dont mind playing through a broken game untill there is a unnoficial fix, see games like STALKER, Fallout 3, and Rage.

Uhhh what? Resident Evil 6 was an awful game and is nearly universally hated for being both bad at horror and bad at action.

Secondly, metascores are worthless. If you ever based a purchase off metascores, your pretty bad at the whole educated consumer thing.

Really?
Because there are people that LIKE Residen Evil 6.
It being "hated" by what may REALLLY (though not for certain) the bigger part of its fanbase does not actually mean it must be filtered...

That is just how it is.

@josemlopes
STALKER and FO3 are playable without mods too mate. Especially the patched STEAM versions, have no problems for majority of users.

Rainbow_Dashtruction:

What I find hilarious is that this is by the dev of Rust, which is a steam early access game that is horrendously unfinished, and was an unplayable mess on release. Early access is absolutely retarded anyway. BETAs should be free or they shouldn't exist. It is absurd to pay to do a job that used to be...well a legitimate job.

It's just crowd sourcing video games. In the case of Rust, a video game by the guy who made Garry's Mod. A lot of people seemed to like that. Why is it retarded (in any sense of the word retarded) for them to pay Garry in advance to make another game?
Because he might not finish it? He might get hit by a car and die or just run off with the money and ruin his own name? Some people are willing to take that chance. Whether it's because they like Garry and his games and don't want him to starve while making more. Or the "it's cool and I want it now"-mentality. Or if it's just to see what all the hubbub is about. It doesn't matter. They want Garry to finish the game. His game. Not EA's game or any others. Just Garry's next game. That or they just want to run around naked in the woods and it's too cold outside.

It is, of course, unfortunate if someone buy's an Early Access game thinking it's finished. But Early Access comes with a warning that says:

"Note: This Early Access game may or may not change significantly over the course of development. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you may want to wait until the game progresses further in development"

So I don't think that could happen.

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

He's right in a way to be honest. If you limit the releases are you guaranteed to have better games releasing, or will you just be limiting the releases to a small inner circle elite who can still bring out a shitty game, but have better ways of marketing it, or better personal connections. While smaller projects that could end up being gems get ignored.

There is a ton of shit on Steam, but it isn't exactly hard to spot things that are shit. The examples talked about in the last few weeks on Jim's show and Totalbiscuit's were OBVIOUSLY shit, even if the makers tried to censor the user reviews section.

The latter is something that shouldn't be possible though. A free and open platform to release content OK, but then you need to be forced to undergo the same scrutiny as everyone.

Once we have that, I think the users can take their responsibility. And the people who review them will be all too happy that they still have a whole bunch of crappy games to tear apart.

Hateren47:
I gotta agree with Garry Newman. Steam is a distribution platform for software not a museum or art gallery. It's not Valves job to check other devs software for bugs or decide if a game is too boring, bad or generic to be sold. As long as it's not a direct scam, it's just another product like no-name dish detergent, more or less "classic" movie DVD box sets or store brand toilet paper in your local supermarket which you can buy or leave on the shelve.

[...]

Also, how would you determine if a game is good enough to be on Steam? Metacritic?[...]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on a couple of grounds. First and foremost, even as a distribution platform Valve has clearly shown that they play favorites, both with their storefront and with their regulation of their tagging system. Steam is a shop, and like any shop they choose what they put on the eye-level shelves. Secondly, store brand products are almost always perfectly functional. The difference between off-brand and name brand is luxury, not functionality. Some games on Steam, even ignoring Early Access and Greenlight, are straight-up broken, and Steam's refund policy is absurd. Taken directly from the FAQ:

You fix that and I'll be fine with a completely unregulated store. Until then there is not sufficient consumer protection in place. Additionally, I'd just love the Storefront to be customizable so that I can see what I like without actually changing release practices. Give me those things and Steam can release whatever it likes.

As to "good enough", I just want a base standard of functionality before a game is released. That Air Control is allowed to be on Steam is shameful. Nothing, and I mean nothing, which is so broken should be allowed in any store, much less the primary source of PC games.

Rainbow_Dashtruction:

josemlopes:
snip

Uhhh what? Resident Evil 6 was an awful game and is nearly universally hated for being both bad at horror and bad at action.

Secondly, metascores are worthless. If you ever based a purchase off metascores, your pretty bad at the whole educated consumer thing.

So we shouldnt have Resident Evil 6 on Steam? (a friend of mine even likes the game) I dont like DOTA 2 and there is a lot of people that dont like it either, do we remove it too?

And even if the metacritic score isnt a good way of telling if the game is good or not its a very good way of getting a first impression of what to expect before doing further research into the game. Its like you didnt even read my fucking post and went after the most retarded conclusion possible "Hurr you use metacritic? You are a terrible consumer durr!"

When a game has a metacritic of 20/100 you better be a bit more carefull into why it has that score, if its 80/100 you probably have the idea that at least it isnt shovelware or some extremely flawed niche game, I never even said to base the purchase on metacritic alone, I used it as another factor that gives you an idea of the quality of the product. If its a game that you dont even know about you can even go as far as looking for complaints and praises in forums.

EDIT: This is awfully similar to how parents want the goverment to regulate what games are sold, except in here the gamers that cant do research are the parents and the private company that sells the games is the goverment.

Just fucking do some research, with the internet it isnt hard at all, is 20 minutes of roaming around youtube and forums that much to ask from consumers?

Isalan:
Pretty sure he'd be singing a different tune if Rust got bumped off the front page of the store by 9 Freddie Fish games being re-released en masse.

Here is the thing. It's NOT being "bumped off the front page". All these rumored shovelware are being consistently ignored by buyers, while other unfinished Early Access games that are good enough for the users are going viral.

Rust is one of them. Why would it's developer ever "sing a different tune", if that would mean banning HIS OWN game from Steam? In retrospect we might count Rust as a self-evidently "Good Game", but it's also exactly the kind of game that wouldn't have hada chance at starting up on a more restrictive platform.

Steam has little to lose by letting the shovelware on, (as they don't bump off anything else and they don't scare away anyone since no one plays them), but they have a lot to lose by accidentally filtering out games like Rust.

It's pretty much been said already, but the problem isn't the games being there, it's them being so obvious and clouding out possibly better games. Steam could at least attempt to separate them, or give users the ability to do so.

MeChaNiZ3D:
It's pretty much been said already, but the problem isn't the games being there, it's them being so obvious and clouding out possibly better games. Steam could at least attempt to separate them, or give users the ability to do so.

Yes. How are developers supposed to differentiate their games if steam has no system in place for the best to rise to the top? Many companies realize just getting on steam used to give them more sales than any amount of marketing they could afford. It was seen as a stamp of legitimacy. Likewise most gamers just ignore things outside of steam so trying to 'differentiate' your game whilst it is languishing in some corner surrounded by 5 year old hidden object games and guise of the wolf is made unduly difficult.

It's been brought up before but in the "New releases" section at your local game's store do you see the boxed version of "Euro Van Simulator 2015"? Do you see that anywhere apart from the bargain bin? No. ALL stores curate their content in some way. Steam has become strangely, abnormally hands off with it. For their own good steam should put what it thinks people are going to buy in places they can buy it, like a store put their hottest games "Art side up" for all to see.

Look at the Google play store. It is a complete mess filled with terrible clones, a dumping ground that can be difficult to navigate. Do we really want that for Steam? To have it as a place where people have to wave though the 99.9% of shit to find a playable, original game?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

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