Support NeoGAF

[Achamian]

Then the only thing there that counts is the 4.99 Euros. The retail key can't be "transaction'd" by Valve because how can they know how much you paid for it? For all they know, you were given Portal 2 retail as a gift.

At worst, you'll need to get a Steam wallet/pre-paid code of $20 (whatever that is in Euros) and then redeem that to instantly get past the $5 fee. But convert the Euro's into dollars (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=4.99 euros to us) and you get... 5.39 US Dollars currently as the trade-off, which SHOULD count.



LMAO. How the hell is this giving Valve more money? Anyone that is wanting to participate in the Steam community is more than likely already going to pay more than the $5 "fee" as you call it to buy games or items in CS:GO/et. al. already. Anyone that isn't can still play those free to play (TF2, DOTA) titles ONLINE. WITH NO FEE. The only thing they can't do is participate in the community and trade those items as protection against scammers.

So imagine a guy or girl who had been gifted games but never bought anything via steam. This person is an active user on the forums and has friends IRL who she wants to add on steam. She / he doesn't want to buy anything so has to add $5 to an account in order to use the features already used on a regular basis. This money then sits in valves account gaining interest until such time as it is used leaving valve with the interest.

Subscription fee is the wrong term, admission or membership fee maybe works better.

 

[Vormund]

I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't be a few Steam sales that wouldn't be enticing enough to spend more than $5.

Bear in mind this is my Steam account: https://steamdb.info/calculator/76561197972064589/

 

[Pellegri Testament]

So imagine a guy or girl who had been gifted games but never bought anything via steam. This person is an active user on the forums and has friends IRL who she wants to add on steam. She / he doesn't want to buy anything so has to add $5 to an account in order to use the features already used on a regular basis. This money then sits in valves account gaining interest until such time as it is used leaving valve with the interest.

Subscription fee is the wrong term, admission or membership fee maybe works better.

People can still add you and talk to you though (you just can't add them)? The only chat feature that is limited is your ability to chat on your phone using the Steam interface, which it's kinda funny that people use it as their go to chat method, when there's so much better out there.

 

[Halabane]

5 isn't enough to stop it. my guess valve is just going to make some bank on this. spammers pay more than that in mmo's to spam crap.

 

[Terrified]

As a person who has a Steam account that I've basically never used (opened to maybe start gaming with a particular friendship group, never took off), can anyone here answer the following question/query? It's a genuine query - I've got no irons in either side of this particular fire, so I'm not playing devil's advocate/concern trolling etc.

If these accounts are spam accounts, and are so obvious that almost every Steam user in the thread has referred to them as such, why is it that Valve can't work out that they're spam accounts and ban based on that?

I can't work out why the best solution to this is to request money from those least affected by the problem in order to pick up the slack for those most affected by the problem. I can't work out why, if these accounts are so obviously spottable as spammers and bots by anyone using the service, why Valve can't solve that problem beyond requesting a financial deposit.

Happy to be educated (it's why I'm here), especially as someone who's considering getting back into PC gaming over the next couple of years after a lengthy hiatus.

 

[Striek]

Big meh from me. I didn't know about the spam bot situation but I don't think there is one single person who is negatively affected by this change. No one doesn't use Steam to purchase games yet uses it for the community features. If you say otherwise I think you are a liar.

 

[Woo-Fu]

If these accounts are spam accounts, and are so obvious that almost every Steam user in the thread has referred to them as such, why is it that Valve can't work out that they're spam accounts and ban based on that?

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

5 isn't enough to stop it. my guess valve is just going to make some bank on this. spammers pay more than that in mmo's to spam crap.

Do you have access to concrete information the rest of us, including Valve do not? Feel free to share it.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

This is superb, really superb. Though I haven't been hit by spam bots that often, it has definitely been an annoyance.

 

[TheSeks]

So imagine a guy or girl who had been gifted games but never bought anything via steam. This person is an active user on the forums and has friends IRL who she wants to add on steam. She / he doesn't want to buy anything so has to add $5 to an account in order to use the features already used on a regular basis. This money then sits in valves account gaining interest until such time as it is used leaving valve with the interest.

Ignoring the "with interest" bit because that's stupid as hell and Valve isn't a bank: Here's what they do:

1) Get a $20 code from their friend
2) Buy a bunch of cards/badges/whatever widgets off the Steam community marketplace AND/OR buy a few titles their friend said they should buy when on Steam sale for themselves instead of their friend buying a gift copy for them.
3) ????
4) Done. Restriction is lifted and they can use chat on the phone/etc.

Subscription fee is the wrong term, admission or membership fee maybe works better.

Correct. But more like "ante up to the card table" to participate in the community, again, in Valve's eyes: You're gonna be spending cash. Why would they want people that have no intention of spending money on their community being "apart" of the community when those free-loading accounts are more than likely attempting to scam their paying customers?

 

[Pellegri Testament]

As a person who has a Steam account that I've basically never used (opened to maybe start gaming with a particular friendship group, never took off), can anyone here answer the following question/query? It's a genuine query - I've got no irons in either side of this particular fire, so I'm not playing devil's advocate/concern trolling etc.

If these accounts are spam accounts, and are so obvious that almost every Steam user in the thread has referred to them as such, why is it that Valve can't work out that they're spam accounts and ban based on that?

I can't work out why the best solution to this is to request money from those least affected by the problem in order to pick up the slack for those most affected by the problem. I can't work out why, if these accounts are so obviously spottable as spammers and bots by anyone using the service, why Valve can't solve that problem beyond requesting a financial deposit.

Happy to be educated (it's why I'm here), especially as someone who's considering getting back into PC gaming over the next couple of years after a lengthy hiatus.

Because that would require quite a bit of manpower that they just don't have. There are tens of millions of accounts, with quite a few scammers in the mix. There's likely thousands of accounts that are reported on a daily basis, each of which they have to confirm is actually doing something wrong (as in do more than see that they spammed a few times). Adding a fee means that many of those bots will no longer be able to spam unless they pay the fee (most of which won't), it also takes care of most of those reports so that they have far less that they have to look into on a daily basis.

Could they just hire more people to track down bots? Sure, but that would require paying more salaries, something as a business, they likely do not want to do unless they absolutely have to. This bandaid fix on the other hand, makes it so they don't have to hire more people and it makes the load easier on the people they already have on the job. People seem to forget that Valve is a business, not a charity. If they have ways to save on costs and make a quick buck by doing so, then you can be sure that they will.

 

[Achamian]

As a person who has a Steam account that I've basically never used (opened to maybe start gaming with a particular friendship group, never took off), can anyone here answer the following question/query? It's a genuine query - I've got no irons in either side of this particular fire, so I'm not playing devil's advocate/concern trolling etc.

If these accounts are spam accounts, and are so obvious that almost every Steam user in the thread has referred to them as such, why is it that Valve can't work out that they're spam accounts and ban based on that?

I can't work out why the best solution to this is to request money from those least affected by the problem in order to pick up the slack for those most affected by the problem. I can't work out why, if these accounts are so obviously spottable as spammers and bots by anyone using the service, why Valve can't solve that problem beyond requesting a financial deposit.

Happy to be educated (it's why I'm here), especially as someone who's considering getting back into PC gaming over the next couple of years after a lengthy hiatus.

Good point I hope someone can answer this one. I've had an account for 5 years plus and don't have a spam problem. I've had people try to add me that I didn't know but simply ignore those requests.

 

[Gr8one]

As a person who has a Steam account that I've basically never used (opened to maybe start gaming with a particular friendship group, never took off), can anyone here answer the following question/query? It's a genuine query - I've got no irons in either side of this particular fire, so I'm not playing devil's advocate/concern trolling etc.

If these accounts are spam accounts, and are so obvious that almost every Steam user in the thread has referred to them as such, why is it that Valve can't work out that they're spam accounts and ban based on that?

I can't work out why the best solution to this is to request money from those least affected by the problem in order to pick up the slack for those most affected by the problem. I can't work out why, if these accounts are so obviously spottable as spammers and bots by anyone using the service, why Valve can't solve that problem beyond requesting a financial deposit.

Happy to be educated (it's why I'm here), especially as someone who's considering getting back into PC gaming over the next couple of years after a lengthy hiatus.

Its like an mmo, you can ban one but there will be another 10 for everyone you ban. I'm sure someone can give a more technical description of a botnet, but its tough to stop them.

5 isn't enough to stop it. my guess valve is just going to make some bank on this. spammers pay more than that in mmo's to spam crap.

You make a good point about mmo's, but even if they can stop a few of the phishers and scammers iti'll be a better place. But i honestly doubt valve is going to make a ton of bank, the features they are limiting other than the marketplace really aren't going to drive people to spend $5. I am willing to bet most casual F2P people wont even notice.

edit: Also a lot of mmo's do free trials which is where most of the gold farmer tells come from.

 

[charlequin]

Hope so.

If it isn't, there are typically random games selling for $0.19 or so in the Weeklong Deals every week, so just buy one of those and get over the top.

 

[Spiritwalker]

Cool, I guess. Never seen any spambots myself though.

 

[orava]

I doubt that a system that automatically weeds out spam/bot/abuse accounts could be made 100% foolproof. It would definitely detect some false positives and that combined with todays "outrage culture" would not be pretty.

 

[CecilRousso]

So imagine a guy or girl who had been gifted games but never bought anything via steam. This person is an active user on the forums and has friends IRL who she wants to add on steam. She / he doesn't want to buy anything so has to add $5 to an account in order to use the features already used on a regular basis. This money then sits in valves account gaining interest until such time as it is used leaving valve with the interest.

Subscription fee is the wrong term, admission or membership fee maybe works better.

They will have to spend money now yes. If they absolutely don't want to buy anything at all, so that the money just sits there, then yes it's a fee. But it's a pretty weird situation situation to be so reluctant to buy anything from a service, built around distribution of computer games, that you're using so regularly that limitations in friend invites and forum discussion is a real and practical implication for you.

 

[Mr_Zombie]

Because it means those older phishing accounts get grand-fathered in as "a-okay" instead of being shutout.

Implementing a "report" functionality would probably help. Implementing automatic ignore function (based on certain parameters, i.e. user level, hours played together in a game, friends of friends etc.) would also help.

And to people who keep saying "if you're not paying Valve then they have no business serving you" - you are aware that Valve games are available at retail? And that in some countries (e.g. Poland) they are cheaper at retail than on Steam (non-sale prices)? So there are legit people who did pay Valve for their games and their service and are still treated like second class citizens.

And if you can't imagine how can anyone use Steam for years and still haven't spend those measly $5 on any games - there are countries where PC games market is huge and healthy (i.e. you can go to a normal shop and see a full wall of new PC games) and where retail PC games are cheaper than they are on Steam (last month I bought RE Revelations 2 retail version that was cheaper than the season pass available on Steam, and much cheaper than the RE Revelations 2 Box Set, which is equivalent of the retail version content wise). But because many games nowadays use Steam DRM, you are forced to use the service, whether you like it or not.

$5 is not that much. But if you're living in a country where you can get the same game cheaper somewhere else (another digital store or at retail) then that mean you are still forced to buy a $5 game on Steam just to have access to all functions the service have to offer. And what if the $5 barrier won't be enough to stop spammers?

 

[jaundicejuice]

I never trade and have my inventory set to private, yet I get requests from phishing bots on a semi-daily basis.

Just last week I got a request from a completely random Steam user with an anime avatar (something I find to be common with phishers, not sure why). I accepted it out of curiosity, and literally 1 millisecond after I clicked "Accept", I got an instant message from them with an obvious phishing link along with some spiel about wanting one of my items, even though my inventory is private. I reported the account, but someone who isn't as internet-literate would have easily fallen for it.

Alright, I just went and looked at my account privacy settings, my profile is public, comment permissions is set to friends only, and my inventory is also friends only. I have played TF2 for years but don't have any ridiculous, crazy valuable hats or strange weapons, I've also got a sizable Dota 2 inventory, nothing crazy valuable either but I do have a few arcanas. I have been a member of Steam since September 29th, 2003 and I can probably count on one hand how many random friend invites I have received and I have never once been sent a phishing link. I'm not denying that there's some apparent epidemic of spambots, just trying to figure out what puts people in their radar.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

As a person who has a Steam account that I've basically never used (opened to maybe start gaming with a particular friendship group, never took off), can anyone here answer the following question/query? It's a genuine query - I've got no irons in either side of this particular fire, so I'm not playing devil's advocate/concern trolling etc.

If these accounts are spam accounts, and are so obvious that almost every Steam user in the thread has referred to them as such, why is it that Valve can't work out that they're spam accounts and ban based on that?

I can't work out why the best solution to this is to request money from those least affected by the problem in order to pick up the slack for those most affected by the problem. I can't work out why, if these accounts are so obviously spottable as spammers and bots by anyone using the service, why Valve can't solve that problem beyond requesting a financial deposit.

Happy to be educated (it's why I'm here), especially as someone who's considering getting back into PC gaming over the next couple of years after a lengthy hiatus.

Perhaps they've already done some analysis, and determined that the single thing most of these spammer/hacker accounts have in common is that they have not spent any money. If that's the case then making the services most commonly leveraged by malicious accounts inaccessible to those who have not spent money is both the most effective solution, and the one least likely to have a heavy impact on legit users.

 

[Durante]

That seems like one of the few possible reasonable solutions to the spam problem. It's similar to how they address the cheating issue in CS:GO by never making the game too cheap any more, I guess their experience indicates that this works.

This is about making account bans actually have a monetary impact.

 

[Parsnip]

Holy shit some of the posts in this thread.



I don't even get that many spambots (my inventory is only open to friends), but I'm glad about this change.

 

[Tertullian]

I find the few people upset about this kinda funny. Why on earth would Valve care about you if you never spend any money? "Oh no, the guy who's never spent a single cent on our service and never plans to doesn't like the way we're running things! What ever shall we do to win back his love!?"

 

[Glix]

I should get features/access taken away for my horrific backlog.

Its ulta shameful (my backlog, not the $5 thing)

 

[Silent Chief]

So imagine a guy or girl who had been gifted games but never bought anything via steam. She / he doesn't want to buy anything so has to add $5 to an account in order to use the features already used on a regular basis.

I imagine such a person could gift back $5 worth of games. Are those humble bundles on steam?

 

[MUnited83]

5 isn't enough to stop it. my guess valve is just going to make some bank on this. spammers pay more than that in mmo's to spam crap.

I dont think you are aware of how widespread bots are. There are people running hundreds of thousands of bits. Those people are not about to pay a million dollars to Valve. So yes, this going to be pretty effective actually. Won't stop it completely but it will make the numbers much smaller.

 

[Risk Breaker]

Maybe they should control spam bot account creation better instead?

 

[MUnited83]

Maybe they should control spam bot account creation better instead?

Thats kinda what they just did...

 

[Durante]

Maybe they should control spam bot account creation better instead?

They are controlling spam account creation with one of the very few methods actually proven to work (not just in games, but in all types of spam prevention): increasing per-account cost. And they are doing so without inconveniencing the vast majority of legitimate users.

 

[GreatestHits]

As someone who rarely uses Steam for purchases but uses it quite regularly for other things, I've never heard of this problem either. Quite honestly you're telling me I need to pay $5 to continue to post on the developer forums and I'm saying go fuck yourself. (I'm pretty much forced to pay and it is worth $5 but this is in comparison to what it already was for a long time: free)

They are controlling spam account creation with one of the very few methods actually proven to work (not just in games, but in all types of spam prevention): increasing per-account cost. And they are doing so without inconveniencing the vast majority of legitimate users.

So we can agree this is indeed a negative thing for (not "the vast majority") of steam users

 

[Risk Breaker]

They are controlling spam account creation with one of the very few methods actually proven to work (not just in games, but in all types of spam prevention): increasing per-account cost. And they are doing so without inconveniencing the vast majority of legitimate users.

To be honest, I created my Steam account so long ago that I don't even remember how the registration worked then, not even mentioning nowadays, so you're probably right and they tried to limit it already as best as they could.

You could argue that it does suck a lot for some people though, and while 5 USD is not really much, I know people who only play F2P, or use Steam for demos and for keeping in touch with friends that are primary PC gamers. Then it's pretty much forcing people to pay for using Steam services, which IMO is not really an optimal solution.

 

[Condom]

Implementing a "report" functionality would probably help. Implementing automatic ignore function (based on certain parameters, i.e. user level, hours played together in a game, friends of friends etc.) would also help.

And to people who keep saying "if you're not paying Valve then they have no business serving you" - you are aware that Valve games are available at retail? And that in some countries (e.g. Poland) they are cheaper at retail than on Steam (non-sale prices)? So there are legit people who did pay Valve for their games and their service and are still treated like second class citizens.

And if you can't imagine how can anyone use Steam for years and still haven't spend those measly $5 on any games - there are countries where PC games market is huge and healthy (i.e. you can go to a normal shop and see a full wall of new PC games) and where retail PC games are cheaper than they are on Steam (last month I bought RE Revelations 2 retail version that was cheaper than the season pass available on Steam, and much cheaper than the RE Revelations 2 Box Set, which is equivalent of the retail version content wise). But because many games nowadays use Steam DRM, you are forced to use the service, whether you like it or not.

$5 is not that much. But if you're living in a country where you can get the same game cheaper somewhere else (another digital store or at retail) then that mean you are still forced to buy a $5 game on Steam just to have access to all functions the service have to offer. And what if the $5 barrier won't be enough to stop spammers?

Using Steam with restrictions is still better than without so you're still having a 'better' retail game. You have no excuse, even in Poland people can pay $5 once in a while. It's not Zimbabwe.

 

[GreatestHits]

To me, Using Steam with restrictions is still better than without so you're still having a 'better' retail game.

fixed that for ya

 

[Durante]

As someone who rarely uses Steam for purchases but uses it quite regularly for other things, I've never heard of this problem either. Quite honestly you're telling me I need to pay $5 to continue to post on the developer forums and I'm saying go fuck yourself.

"Rarely" or "never"? Because if you haven't spent USD 5 in total it sounds more like never.

So we can agree this is indeed a negative thing for (not "the vast majority") of steam users

Sure. But it's acceptable because there is no effective spam prevention mechanism for free services which is completely without drawbacks. Having run a web forum and a somewhat popular blog, I know this from first-hand experience.

 

[MUnited83]

To be honest, I created my Steam account so long ago that I don't even remember how the registration worked then, not even mentioning nowadays, so you're probably right and they tried to limit it already as best as they could.

You could argue that it does suck a lot for some people though, and while 5 USD is not really much, I know people who only play F2P, or use Steam for demos and for keeping in touch with friends that are primary PC gamers. Then it's pretty much forcing people to pay for using Steam services, which IMO is not really an optimal solution.

No it isn't. At fucking all. They can still play F2P, they can still use Steam for demos, they can still keep in touch with their friends.

 

[Acquiescence]

That'll include me then. Total amount I've spent on Steam so far is 60p for I Have no Mouth and I Must Scream.

I really should get around to playing that some time.

 

[GreatestHits]

Sure. [edit-GreatestHits]-But to me, it's acceptable because there is no effective spam prevention mechanism for free services which is completely without drawbacks.

Fixed that for ya

I use steam daily, It's mainly a development tool for me and a web store that keeps me up to date. Also my lifelong friends are on there and stuff. I have a 5 digit accoutn and have made I think 1 store purchase. The buybuybuy culture on steam is lost on me.

In all honesty Steam doesn't have a competitor, but I find it hard to believe this is the best way to take care of the problem, and I also find it very dry and boring to actually delve into and prove that so guess I'll concede there.

But it's funny how taking care of their spam problem happens to make them a SHITTON of money

 

[Visualante2]

Rebrand Steam Community to Valve Private Members Club.

 

[Gr8one]

As someone who rarely uses Steam for purchases but uses it quite regularly for other things, I've never heard of this problem either. Quite honestly you're telling me I need to pay $5 to continue to post on the developer forums and I'm saying go fuck yourself. (I'm pretty much forced to pay and it is worth $5 but this is in comparison to what it already was for a long time: free)



So we can agree this is indeed a negative thing for (not "the vast majority") of steam users

Just to clarify you can still post to forums, the only thing limited about forums post is the frequency. Basically to stop spambots.

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3330-IAGK-7663

What features are unavailable to me?
Limited users are prevented from accessing several features on Steam, including but not limited to:

• Sending friend invites
• Opening group chat
• Voting on Greenlight, Steam Reviews and Workshop items
• Participating in the Steam Market
• Posting frequently in the Steam Discussions
• Gaining Steam Profile Levels (Locked to level 0) and Trading Cards
• Submitting content on the Steam Workshop
• Posting in an item's Steam Workshop Discussions
• Accessing the Steam Web API
• Using browser and mobile chat

 

[GreatestHits]

Just to clarify you can still post to forums, the only thing limited about forums post is the frequency. Basically to stop spambots.

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=3330-IAGK-7663

Thank you. To clarify myself, that is eactly the functionality I am disappointed with. I like to post

 

[Deleted member 102362]

As someone who's had their fair share of spambot invites whenever they've used CSGO Lounge or Steam Market, thank god Gabe for this change.

 

[PayOffWizard]

I'm sure legit users and find at least someting worth spending £5 or more on steam. Everyone I've ever show the Stanley parable to has loved it. Games and non gamers alike.
Well done valve.

 

[Silent Chief]

Fixed that for ya

I use steam daily, It's mainly a development tool for me and a web store that keeps me up to date. Also my lifelong friends are on there and stuff. I have a 5 digit accoutn and have made I think 1 store purchase. The buybuybuy culture on steam is lost on me.

In all honesty Steam doesn't have a competitor, but I find it hard to believe this is the best way to take care of the problem, and I also find it very dry and boring to actually delve into and prove that so guess I'll concede there.

But it's funny how taking care of their spam problem happens to make them a SHITTON of money

$5 is not a shitton of money.

I have never use Steam, but it's plain to see that it doesn't exist to support non-paying customers. If you decided to never use Steam again, it would probably be a win for them.

There are analogies between you and those homeless people camping in front of retail stores but they only go so far. Yet, I'm sure if you beg to them personally while disclosing your impoverish state, they'll likely make an exception for you.

 

[Diablos]

So steam now has a subscription fee by another name? At least that's how it seems and not many people here bothered? Microsoft and Sony prepared the way for them I guess.

Are you kidding me?

It's a one-time $5 commitment. It's not a yearly/quarterly/monthly fee, it doesn't give you any extra perks other than going on record as not being a spambot so that you can use Steam as intended.

 

[CosmicQueso]

Hard to figure out if some of these arguments are actual, legitimate, honest concerns or if, like when Valve enacted some of those regional trading restrictions, we have people bringing up issues because they are personally invested in the activity being limited.

 

[Condom]

fixed that for ya

Sorry, meant Steam with restrictions is better than no Steam at all. Of course I love all Steam's features.

 

[CrunchyFrog]

Good, spam bot requests were a problem and were likely to only get worse. It's not an ideal solution, but honestly anyone complaining about $5 has got to be among the the cheapest of the cheapskates in the world, especially if you've sunk a few dozen hours into any of the F2P titles without spending a dime. It's a one time flat fee to use the most ubiquitous and fully featured digital gaming platform in existence (and not even really that, since you're buying a game or whatever that you actually keep). And if you're THAT hell bent against giving out your CC info, not only do they accept paypal but you can also buy prepaid steam cards at just about any major electronics retail outlet. The effort is absolutely trivial but does a ton to diminish the returns on scam artists abusing the system to steal assets.

(I'm pretty much forced to pay and it is worth $5 but this is in comparison to what it already was for a long time: free)

 

[Orca]

I wonder how differently this thread would have gone if it was EA and Origin lol

 

[Nabs]

I wonder how differently this thread would have gone if it was EA and Origin lol

lol right. It would probably be 2 posts long since Origin doesn't have anything worth locking down.

 

[Diablos]

I wonder how differently this thread would have gone if it was EA and Origin lol

I wouldn't care.

 

[MUnited83]

I wonder how differently this thread would have gone if it was EA and Origin lol

Considering that Origin doesn't have any of the features being limited here....