What are user reviews there for in the first place?
are they
a) to register your satisfaction/dissatisfaction to the publisher
or
b) to help your fellow users?
Yes.
What are user reviews there for in the first place?
are they
a) to register your satisfaction/dissatisfaction to the publisher
or
b) to help your fellow users?
Pretty much. And on top of that, if it's really causing a problem and people want to cut through it all to read true reviews, that's exactly what MetaCritic/OpenCritic are there for. Consumers get to have their voices heard, and people who want actual reviews still have access to them. Don't see the harm.I have no idea why people have an issue with voicing their concerns through Steam reviews.
The way I see it is I go Steam, find a game I'm interested in and notice there's a ton of negative reviews. It immediately makes me check out why people are hating it. So I read the reviews and see what's up, and at that point I can decide for myself whether the negativity bothers me personally and I either buy it or I don't.
What this is doing to GTA V is letting others know there's a serious issue with the game. They can decide for themselves whether mods not being allowed is something that affects them. For some it will, so they don't buy it. If people don't give a shit about mods they'll still buy it.
Where's the issue?
It's kinda amusing that for a game that's sold 80+ million copies it's enough for a about a 40k to give their game negative ratings on steam and have it end up with "mixed" reviews.
The aggregate rating only counts games directly bought from Steam.
Different things. The aggregate only counts reviews for games directly bought from the Steam store. Valve changed that recently-ish.Yeah, where it's only sold seven million copies.
Pretty much. And on top of that, if it's really causing a problem and people want to cut through it all to read true reviews, that's exactly what MetaCritic/OpenCritic are there for. Consumers get to have their voices heard, and people who want actual reviews still have access to them. Don't see the harm.
Yeah, where it's only sold seven million copies.
Yeah, where it's only sold seven million copies.
Not all of those 7 million people bought the game from Steam, game being in Steam isn't the same as bought from Steam. And to my knowledge SteamDB counts every game activated in Steam, even if it was bought elsewhere. If you bought Steam key from GMG or store, your review won't affect the score.
The steam version of GTA V is exclusively sold through Steam Store, not anywhere else.
I can only presume such individuals were never THAT interested in the game to begin with if simply seeing "Mostly Negative" or whatever is enough by itself to deter them from purchasing the game, without even the slightest glance downward at the user reviews themselves to see if the things people are concerned about are things that they themselves find problematic or not. If just the aggregate score itself pushes someone away in of itself, and they don't have the slightest bit of curiosity why it has that score, then they were never that interested to begin with.And the people who just see the reviews are 'Overwhelmingly shit' and just move on? I know I've done that. Clearly I shouldn't trust that aggregate at all, right? And there's the problem.
And the people who just see the reviews are 'Overwhelmingly shit' and just move on? I know I've done that. Clearly I shouldn't trust that aggregate at all, right? And there's the problem.
I can only presume such individuals were never THAT interested in the game to begin with if simply seeing "Mostly Negative" or whatever is enough by itself to deter them from purchasing the game, without even the slightest glance downward at the user reviews themselves to see if the things people are concerned about are things that they themselves find problematic or not. If just the aggregate score itself pushes someone away in of itself, and they don't have the slightest bit of curiosity why it has that score, then they were never that interested to begin with.
That's your fault. If you feel like buying a game, when you check the review score and see it's negative, won't you even bother reading some of it to understand the reason behind that?? If you can't read a few reviews before deciding not to buy it you probably were barely interested in the 1st place. So at least the negative score helped you to save some money.
I always read a few positive and negative impressions when I'm not 100% sure about buying a game on Steam, and they usually tell me about the game optimization and other issues they may have been finding.
That's not what I mean. User reviews certainly can be just as much true reviews as those from sites like IGN, Kotaku, or Polygon. However, from what I gather, you don't consider user reviews that only complain about stuff like the mod programs being shut down to be true reviews, but rather a perversion of the system. In such a case, even if you can't find "true' reviews on Steam itself due to them getting buried, you can still find them on MetaCritic/OpenCritic, so that isn't a problem.So user reviews are not true reviews, and are of no use to other users. User reviews are just a tool to communicate with publishers then, correct?
I have discovered a lot of cool games simply browsing through Steam, new releases, top sellers, applying/combining filters, etc. If you only fire up Steam to look up a specific game you already have interest in, that's fine, but given the nature of Steam's market, and the tools they have built, the user experience should not be tailored only to such people.
I agree that reading reviews is of course much more informative than just looking at the aggregate. But the aggregate is there for a reason, and if it cannot be trusted one bit, then it shouldn't be there at all.
I might sound a bit dense from this post but I have to ask, What are the PC owners trying to accomplish for leaving negative reviews? Rockstar/T2 already have their money so I doubt the suits would care about that. Was installing mods part of the advertisement for the PC version? I just don't seem to understand on what they're wanting achieve. If they want to leave an impact couldn't they just not purchase any games from T2/Rockstar in the future.
How else can fans express their disapproval for their actions? Being passive gets you nowhere, being vocal about things sends a message.
I have discovered a lot of cool games simply browsing through Steam, new releases, top sellers, applying/combining filters, etc. If you only fire up Steam to look up a specific game you already have interest in, that's fine, but given the nature of Steam's market, and the tools they have built, the user experience should not be tailored only to such people.
I agree that reading reviews is of course much more informative than just looking at the aggregate. But the aggregate is there for a reason, and if it cannot be trusted one bit, then it shouldn't be there at all.
TOS and EULAS are not legally binding.
I might sound a bit dense from this post but I have to ask, What are the PC owners trying to accomplish for leaving negative reviews? Rockstar/T2 already have their money so I doubt the suits would care about that. Was installing mods part of the advertisement for the PC version? I just don't seem to understand on what they're wanting achieve. If they want to leave an impact couldn't they just not purchase any games from T2/Rockstar in the future.
Again, Sorry for being dense. Feel free to explain to me.
Who says those are mutually exclusive?Stop playing their game comes to mind.
It can be trusted though. People are giving negative reviews for a reason! Maybe not a reason you agree, but a reason nonetheless.
Mod was a thing. Now it's not. And they're informing potential buyers about it and expressing their whole disappointement about the consequences of it.
Man, so many salty fanboys in here bitching about Steam reviews being used rather well; game publisher/developer does shitty thing to community, game publisher/developer gets rightly called out for it and has visual warning signs placed for the benefit of potential future customers. I bet if a game was to literally self-destruct and destroy your hardware everytime you got a game over, there would be legions of dribbling fanboys saying "B-but how dare people give this a bad review for that! At least the gameplay is good! It's the company's right to piss off their paying customers!"
That reason is to alert you, Mixed or lower tells you that a significant amount of people are not satisfied, so you scroll down and read exactly why they're not satisfied. The reason isn't to tell you whether or not you should blindly spend your money.
I might sound a bit dense from this post but I have to ask, What are the PC owners trying to accomplish for leaving negative reviews? Rockstar/T2 already have their money so I doubt the suits would care about that. Was installing mods part of the advertisement for the PC version? I just don't seem to understand on what they're wanting achieve. If they want to leave an impact couldn't they just not purchase any games from T2/Rockstar in the future.
Again, Sorry for being dense. Feel free to explain to me.
I don't trust at all that these users think the game is actually bad. The console GTAV never had mods, did it ever get a surge of negative reviews, of course not. I can understand amending reviews to note that mods were taken away, but this changing to thumbs down en masse is dishonest.
I don't trust at all that these users think the game is actually bad. The console GTAV never had mods, did it ever get a surge of negative reviews, of course not. I can understand amending reviews to note that mods were taken away, but this changing to thumbs down en masse is dishonest.
If my posts bother you so much, follow your own advice and stop participating.Why are you being so hostile, can't you play nice? You don't seem like a person who should be listened to. And why are you quoting things that nobody has said? Don't make stuff up to validate your own argument, it's again something that doesn't make you look good. If you can't handle people being critical, you shouldn't participate in forum discussions.
If my posts bother you so much, follow your own advice and stop participating.
Also with regards to my "made up quotes", it's called being hypothetical. Y'know, based off of the weird fanboy responses in this very thread.
So what if I'm looking for an open world action game and have got a list of 10 candidates. Can I use the aggregate to at least narrow down my list some? Apparently no, I have to read reviews for the ones lower on the spectrum as it might be just people throwing a tantrum in their reviews! Great. Now what if I had 30 candidates? etc etc. I think I've got some Saint's Row in my future. I missed out on the superior game.
You can do whatever you want, but reviews were always meant to be read in order to understand the reviewer's position. On Steam you can't even give it a score (unless you put it as part of your text), it's just whether or not you recommend the game and then why.
I'm not sure what's so bad about that. Oh no, you have to spend a few seconds for each game to see what the main issues are.
Taste is subjective anyway, so you should be reading it to know if the reasons that made people dislike it also apply to you. Did you never enjoy a game with a low metacritic score in your life?
You can do whatever you want, but reviews were always meant to be read in order to understand the reviewer's position. On Steam you can't even give it a score (unless you put it as part of your text), it's just whether or not you recommend the game and then why.
I'm not sure what's so bad about that. Oh no, you have to spend a few seconds for each game to see what the main issues are.
Taste is subjective anyway, so you should be reading it to know if the reasons that made people dislike it also apply to you. Did you never enjoy a game with a low metacritic score in your life?
You can do whatever you want, but reviews were always meant to be read in order to understand the reviewer's position. On Steam you can't even give it a score (unless you put it as part of your text), it's just whether or not you recommend the game and then why.
I'm not sure what's so bad about that. Oh no, you have to spend a few seconds for each game to see what the main issues are.
Taste is subjective anyway, so you should be reading it to know if the reasons that made people dislike it also apply to you. Did you never enjoy a game with a low metacritic score in your life?
Take-Two is a big boy guys
They'll live
So aggregates are of no value whatsoever? They shouldn't even be there?
Aggregate has it's value. But how much value it has, depends on you. If that's what it takes for you to buy a game... then GTA V is not a game for you! Not anymore at least. lmao
Over 4,000 games were released on Steam last year. Aggregate is a tool I'd like to have in my arsenal, in a perfect world. That's what I'm trying to get at is whether user reviews should serve us, the users, or should be a referendum on the publisher.
Aggregate will never be perfect though. It's a tool to help people but should never be a deciding factor for anything. And again, the game is not getting unfair negative reviews, it's getting those low "scores" for a legitimate reason.
So help me out, in what way should I use the aggregate as a tool?
Jokes on you, Take Two. I was gonna double dip on the PC for mods and now I'm not. Bye ✋️
Because people aren't reviewing the game anymore. I need to spend way more time than just few seconds to even find a review that not only complains about the mod bans but also tells what they think about the game. Review isn't really helpful if I only hear about the problem(s), where does it succeed is also important information. Someone who isn't looking for a game to mod but just to play isn't getting any help from these reviews.
What is there to read in review like this "You ban our mods, we ban your income.".