Support NeoGAF

[Durante]

So here's the problem, Jim. Valve is basically doing what consumers and developers asked for.

Back before Greenlight, Valve used to have a couple people just looking at games and going "you get in, you don't," and that was it. People hated it. "Why isn't this game on Steam, that other game is on Steam, why is Valve so stupid?" Eventually Valve said, "okay then, you know what? YOU pick what games are on Steam."

So Greenlight came out, and people hated it because not enough games got through Greenlight. Then Valve started letting a few more games get through, and people still hated it because not enough games got through Greenlight. Just look through the history of GAF Greenlight threads. It's a consistent outcry of "this is stupid, stop putting barriers in front of people that want to get their games on Steam." It's not just here. Developers wrote open letters to Valve about how it should be easier to get games on the service.

And it kept going, because every time a consumer or developer saw literally one game they wanted on Steam that was still sitting on Greenlight, they would complain that Steam was too strict and Greenlight was broken, etc. Valve isn't making these decisions in a vacuum. Google search "Steam Greenlight site:neogaf.com" and you'll see.

Now all of a sudden it's "Why is there no quality control?" Well the answer is that the people who wanted to buy games and the people who wanted to sell games whined and bitched and complained about how much of a barrier the submission process was, until the submission process was barely a barrier. So here we are.

This isn't Valve's fault.

It's ours.

Well, I'm one of the people who complained about the strict admission limits, and now that they are relaxed I'm happy.
So from my perspective it isn't our fault, it's our achievement.

The next step should be opening up the Steam APIs completely.

 

[Delusibeta]

Early Access is one of the worst concepts to ever happen. Don't agree? that's fine.

I'm going to point out that your argument sucks because you failed to give any reasoning. I'd also argue that Early Access help fund some very good games, such as Minecraft and Natural Selection 2.

 

[Mudcrab]

Early Access is one of the worst concepts to ever happen. Don't agree? that's fine.

Early Access is one of the best concepts to ever happen. Don't agree? that's fine.

I'm going to point out that your argument sucks because you failed to give any reasoning. I'd also argue that Early Access help fund some very good games, such as Minecraft and Natural Selection 2.

Go ahead and add Rust and Starbound to that list.

 

[Durante]

Crowdfunding is basically early access without the access, and it's the best thing to happen in gaming in years.

 

[Opiate]

That's what XBLA/PSN Games are for though. I don't disagree that it mean's there's overall less choice, but I'd hardly call it just for Cinematic AAA experiences. That's an absolutely ridiculous sentiment. Sony and Microsoft have put a lot of effort into making their systems more welcoming for Indie developers coming into the next gen.

I believe there is a place for store fronts containing endless freedom, and store fronts with a bit more regulation. I don't think it's fair to dismiss either, because each have their positives and downsides.

I agree, it has gotten better. I agree, that post was exaggerated to the point of absurdity. Hopefully the trend towards lower barriers to entry continues, but it won't be easy as there is a natural tendency to raise barriers to entry on consoles.

 

[LTWood12]

We're talking about Steam though. The PC gaming community is entirely different than the mobile and console crowds.

We're talking about Steam possibly turning into the app store.

 

[KHarvey16]

Shitty opinions don't devalue a more open marketplace of ideas just as shitty games don't devalue a more open marketplace for games. It's been pointed out but people need to be allowed to fail, and as long as customers and the media are free to openly share their opinions on the failures as well as the successes I cannot look at any of this as a bad thing.

Frankly the thought of one quality game not getting a chance to flourish just to protect us from 100 or 1000 or 10000 shit games makes me sad. If anyone feels games are or could be art I can't see how they could disagree with that reasoning.

 

[Interfectum]

We're talking about Steam possibly turning into the app store.

Two different audiences. It's not going to turn into the App Store because the consumer base on Steam is far more educated on gaming and vocal.

Jim's comparison to Dungeon Keeper on iOS to Valve letting more games in is omg-the-sky-is-falling garbage.

 

[Mudcrab]

Every video he posts lately seems to be some paternalistic bullshit about Steam needed to protect consumers from themselves. It's tiring nonsense.

Jim strikes me as a dude who is a primarily console centric gamer that believes Steam/PC gaming could benefit in operating in a more console-like environment while simultaneously failing to realize that low barriers to entry and the openness of PC gaming are precisely how Steam got to the position it is in the first place, not to mention how some games on steam due to having less hurdles went on to be wildly popular where otherwise they would not even be allowed to release on stricter, closed systems.

Of course there's going to be duds, especially in the new frontiers of PC gaming - kick-starter/crowd funding and early-access - but it's all worth it for the successes.

 

[Ravensmash]

Shitty opinions don't devalue a more open marketplace of ideas just as shitty games don't devalue a more open marketplace for games. It's been pointed out but people need to be allowed to fail, and as long as customers and the media are free to openly share their opinions on the failures as well as the successes I cannot look at any of this as a bad thing.

Frankly the thought of one quality game not getting a chance to flourish just to protect us from 100 or 1000 or 10000 shit games makes me sad. If anyone feels games are or could be art I can't see how they could disagree with that reasoning.

Define shitty though.

Are we just talking about a game sucking? Because that's fair enough, good games exist and so will bad ones.

But broken ones? That's where I think a bit of stepping in from the storefronts is necessary.

Art? Maybe so. But you're still dealing with consumers and should protect them from products that do not work as expected.

 

[KodeAndGame]

Frankly the thought of one quality game not getting a chance to flourish just to protect us from 100 or 1000 or 10000 shit games makes me sad. If anyone feels games are or could be art I can't see how they could disagree with that reasoning.

This is how I feel. We can talk about all the shit games that are on Steam that are not on other storefronts but we also have to talk about all the great games that are on Steam but not on other storefronts. Steam can certainly be improved and is worthy of criticism but in its current state, I'm happier with it than I have been with any other singular place (physical or digital) to buy games.

 

[Ravensmash]

Two different audiences. It's not going to turn into the App Store because the consumer base on Steam is far more educated on gaming and vocal.

Jim's comparison to Dungeon Keeper on iOS to Valve letting more games in is omg-the-sky-is-falling garbage.

Again, why should the consumer base have to be educated ?

Having a situation where broken titles are being sold openly and consumers are forced to research before giving away their money is not a realistic scenario.

 

[Horsemama1956]

I don't have any issues with their QC as I don't buy random crap and I also don't buy early access stuff.

 

[Data West]

I hate how much of the Steam store is plagued with bad adventure games, quickly put together indie titles, and early access. It's really put me away from using what was a pretty useful storefront and just waiting to hear from people what's good/finished.

Two different audiences. It's not going to turn into the App Store because the consumer base on Steam is far more educated on gaming and vocal.
.

part 1) lol assumptions.
part 2)they've been vocal about half life 3 for years. they were vocal about l4d2. guess what? valve's a business like every other. they'll sell what sells.

 

[Delusibeta]

Again, why should the consumer base have to be educated ?

Having a situation where broken titles are being sold openly and consumers are forced to research before giving away their money is not a realistic scenario.

In this case, "research" means scrolling down to the bottom, and reading the Steam Recommendations. If they're all "this shit is broken, do not buy" then it's probably a good chance that the video game in question might not be very good.

[Edit] Examples: Guise of the Wolf, Rekoil. They aren't exactly hidden, folks.

 

[KHarvey16]

Define shitty though.

Are we just talking about a game sucking? Because that's fair enough, good games exist and so will bad ones.

But broken ones? That's where I think a bit of stepping in from the storefronts is necessary.

Art? Maybe so. But you're still dealing with consumers and should protect them from products that do not work as expected.

I think it's acceptable in the case of straight fraud but I can't imagine the rate of this happening is anything but exceedingly low, and as such I can't see any justification for screening every game to protect against this. Maybe on a case-by-case basis with corresponding language in the agreement between the publisher and steam along the lines of "if you're shit is blatantly, knowingly fraudulent we will remove it and refund customers at your expense."

 

[Vigilant Gambit]

Well, I'm one of the people who complained about the strict admission limits, and now that they are relaxed I'm happy.
So from my perspective it isn't our fault, it's our achievement.

The next step should be opening up the Steam APIs completely.

Agreed! Can't wait for the inevitable public Steam API. Full access/integration with the entirety of Steamworks in exchange for a revenue share. Hell, maybe even scaling the amount of revenue shared with the features used. Not every game needs Achievements or Steam Trading Cards.

 

[Interfectum]

part 2)they've been vocal about half life 3 for years. they were vocal about l4d2. guess what? valve's a business like every other. they'll sell what sells.

What are you talking about?

Vocal as in if the game is broken/sucks you will clearly see gamer opinions on the store page for said game.

 

[SonyToo!™]

While the vid is hyperbolic I very much agree on most points he brought across.

As someone who likes niche quirky games I think Steam needs to make some changes to make it more user friendly to shift though and find games I like.

I used to keep tabs on new releases but nowadays I can't be bothered and once that game falls off the new releases tab it's gone forever unless I already know about the game and type the name in the search bar or wait for steam sales.

The recommendation tab used to greatly help in the regard to finding hidden gems but instead of suggesting games in the same genre as the one I'm looking at it's just what popular game Valve is trying push on every. Atm it's Rust, DayZ and Southpark no matter what game I'm looking at.

I feel that most ppl in this thread just buy Steam sales and let others do the work of shifting through the crap.

 

[LTWood12]

Two different audiences. It's not going to turn into the App Store because the consumer base on Steam is far more educated on gaming and vocal.

Jim's comparison to Dungeon Keeper on iOS to Valve letting more games in is omg-the-sky-is-falling garbage.

I really hope you're right. Maybe you are. I just hate to see good games fail, and I worry that a saturated market only makes failure more likely.

 

[DeaviL]

The best idea that has been passed over in this thread (imo) is the two market places,
one curated by Valve and the other a lovely free for all.

 

[Grief.exe]

I like the way Valve allows Early Access and Indie games onto their service.

It doesn't insult my intelligence, lets me decide the best way to allocate my money through research. Rather than blocking certain games that might not be up to their standards.

I haven't been burned yet.

In this case, "research" means scrolling down to the bottom, and reading the Steam Recommendations. If they're all "this shit is broken, do not buy" then it's probably a good chance that the video game in question might not be very good.

[Edit] Examples: Guise of the Wolf, Rekoil. They aren't exactly hidden, folks.

Reading is difficult for some people it would seem

Source: the Steam forums.

 

[EvaUnit02]

Some gamers are strange. On the one hand they'll kick and scream about defective games like Battlefield 4 and SimCity. In the other hand they'll demand that you place no process in place to prevent these games from reaching their hands.

The only winning move and all that.

 

[Interfectum]

I really hope you're right. Maybe you are. I just hate to see good games fail, and I worry that a saturated market only makes failure more likely.

Steam games don't only have to rely on a single store front to survive like the App Store. Amazon sells Steam games. Walmart sells Steam games. Even the community features within Steam allow for far more exposure and information than what's on iOS. Couple that with casual consumers (iOS) vs hardcore gamers (Steam) and I don't think it's the same situation at all.

The only thing they have in common is they both feature a lot of games of varying quality.

 

[Mudcrab]

I really hope you're right. Maybe you are. I just hate to see good games fail, and I worry that a saturated market only makes failure more likely.

Yes, lower barriers to entry mean more games which inevitably means more failures as a result of increased volume, but the other side of the coin is that there is also a greater potential for surprising success.

 

[PetriP-TNT]

With the dawn of the interweb, it has been never been so easy to find a niche game or two for your liking. You cannot just expect "yeah if we take away the bad games all the good games will be left and I like good games".

The best idea that has been passed over in this thread (imo) is the two market places,
one curated by Valve and the other a lovely free for all.

That's an awful idea. That pretty much means that if you can't get to the Valve side your game is a literal leper.

 

[KHarvey16]

I really hope you're right. Maybe you are. I just hate to see good games fail, and I worry that a saturated market only makes failure more likely.

Some number of good games will always fail, but I can't see how a system like steam makes that more likely than it otherwise would be. If any method exists for ensuring everything good achieves success human kind has yet to discover it .

 

[Interfectum]

Some gamers are strange. On the one hand they'll kick and scream about defective games like Battlefield 4 and SimCity. In the other hand they'll demand that you place no process in place to prevent these games from reaching their hands.

The only winning move and all that.

Not really the same thing...

The "broken" games on Steam are all badly reviewed on the same page where you BUY it.

Battlefield 4 and SimCity got glowing reviews from "respected" games journalists, mass market media pushes and are sequels to once-respected game franchises.

 

[LTWood12]

Yes, lower barriers to entry mean more games which inevitably means more failures as a result of increased volume, but the other side of the coin is that there is also a greater potential for surprising success.

Some number of good games will always fail, but I can't see how a system like steam makes that more likely than it otherwise would be. If any method exists for ensuring everything good achieves success human kind has yet to discover it .

Both very good points. I hadn't thought about it that way.

 

[OriginalThinking]

I mostly agree with Jim. But not this time - Steam shouldn't be a walled garden. When I walk into a games store I buy something based on reviews. I know that 90% of the stuff on the shelves isn't brilliant. That's why we have user reviews. And YouTube videos. And Vidya game forums. And publication reviews.

In the age of the internet it takes 5 minutes to find out whether a game is shit or not before buying it.

EDIT: Agree that unfinished/broken games shouldn't be on the shelves though, exception being early access.

 

[The Technomancer]

Errr, not quite. Steam has always let bad games on Steam backed by publishers. Moreover, "how did a game like Takedown make it onto the store?"--well, it's on XBLA as of next week and it's on PSN, isn't it? Aliens: Colonial Marines is on Steam. Rogue Warrior is on Steam. Tons of crap is on Steam. Nothing has changed at the publisher level, nothing has changed from Early Access. What has changed is the degree to which Indie titles can get on the store.

And the issue with that isn't that people are buying bad games and getting burnt. That would be "Steam needs quality control, and is squandering their reputation". Mostly people are not buying the garbage games, and mostly they're not buying the sort of semi-amateur games. Look at the concurrent players for any of those games--no one is playing them, no one is buying them. No one bought Revelations 2012. It came out and people immediately said "lol what a pile of shit".

The actual issue here is that when you have so many games that people can't tell good from bad, they avoid buying both and stick to safe titles. The worry is that someone who releases a great indie game gets no visibility, because he released the same day as 8 other titles. Someone who releases a great indie title faces an uphill battle to get noticed in a way that they didn't before.

This I'll agree with

 

[Ravensmash]

In this case, "research" means scrolling down to the bottom, and reading the Steam Recommendations. If they're all "this shit is broken, do not buy" then it's probably a good chance that the video game in question might not be very good.

[Edit] Examples: Guise of the Wolf, Rekoil. They aren't exactly hidden, folks.

If it's that obvious then why can't the storefront take action?

They're the ones selling the product! I'm genuinely surprised that so many believe the responsibility lies with the consumer and not the seller....

 

[Grief.exe]

Early Access is one of the worst concepts to ever happen. Don't agree? that's fine.

Early Access is essentially a Kickstarter with a tangible product.

Why would this not be an acceptable practice? Allow us to help fund development in compelling games we are interested in.

 

[DeaviL]

With the dawn of the interweb, it has been never been so easy to find a niche game or two for your liking. You cannot just expect "yeah if we take away the bad games all the good games will be left and I like good games".



That's an awful idea. That pretty much means that if you can't get to the Valve side your game is a literal leper.

As proven earlier in this thread, the games that wouldn't get to the Valve side would sell terribly anyways. It's really just about having the choice.
Besides, it wouldn't happen anyways as Valve didn't want to curate stuff in the first place.

 

[No Love]

The only thing I'd want steam to change is that they fight against games that are lying to the consumer by stating that they have content they do not. Yes, people will find out, but only after others lose money on buying such games.

Developers should not have the right to freely alter their steam page and if it is eventually found out that they do lie about the content to the consumer, their games should be taken off the store until those aforementioned elements are complete and available for the consumer.
Also, I'd like to say that they should make it more difficult for devs to post fake reviews and upvote them, but I don't know how they would accomplish that. Make the metacritic score a lot more visible as well, I guess.

And force the devs to give refunds to the customers if they are caught. That'd be a big, big penalty.

 

[mephixto]

Again, why should the consumer base have to be educated ?

Having a situation where broken titles are being sold openly and consumers are forced to research before giving away their money is not a realistic scenario.

Why research? There is a recently community rating system where people who played the game put their thoughts about it. Is there sitting in every store page of every game.

 

[StoOgE]

By that logic we should lambast any store that has the gall to sell a crappy game.

and you should.

The difference is a physical store is buying it's games and has a stake in making sure they are good games, or at least passable games or they lose money as well.

Steam doesn't have this issue. It's effectively free for a game to be listed for Valve.

 

[Ravensmash]

Why research? There is a recently community rating system where people who played the game put their thoughts about it. Is there sitting in every store page of every game.

Why should I have to though?

Why should a clearly broken title be offered for sale still? Why can't Valve get them to shape up?

What's wrong with protecting the consumer at the first hurdle?

 

[chrominance]

If it's that obvious then why can't the storefront take action?

They're the ones selling the product! I'm genuinely surprised that so many believe the responsibility lies with the consumer and not the seller....

But it's often not. Battlefield 4 is actually a great example. I have had surprisingly few problems with the game--a crash here and there, basically--but other people have had tons of problems. Should Steam (in theory) prevent the sale of Battlefield 4 because some people have had problems? How many people have to have problems with the game before the game gets banned from the storefront (temporarily or otherwise)?

Also worth noting: neither Sony nor Microsoft have pulled Battlefield 4 from their storefronts, and those are extremely closed ecosystems compared to Steam. In fact, nothing about the measures we're discussing here would be very likely to prevent another Battlefield or SimCity debacle, since they come from one of the largest publishers in the industry. What you desire out of a storefront simply doesn't exist, outside of GOG's this-shit-is-wrecked return policy (which I would be a fan of bringing over to Steam, PSN and XBLA). Even with retail games, the policy has generally been that if you open it, you own it, especially with PC retail.

 

[SonyToo!™]

Reading is difficult for some people it would seem

Source: the Steam forums.

Recommended doesn't work the way it used to. Rather than work like it does on Amazon, Steam just shows the same 3 games which have nothing to do with my own preferences or the type of game I'm currently browsing.

Atm it's Rust, Day Z and South Park. Even if I go to Rust's store page it's still recommended to me.

If I want to find hidden gems on Steam and don't know the name to type in the search bar I'm SOL

 

[Aurean_Mentat]

Honestly, more transparency would be good. Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the level of control individual developers have over their game's page/forum on Steam. That needs to be really reigned in, as you can't rely on people's opinions/user reviews of a game to help sort of the chaff from the crap if the developer can arrange things and control/displace/get rid of comments about their game that they don't want on the page.

And honestly, there needs to be some form of quality control. Getting your game on Steam used to mean something. Seeing a game on the Steam store meant that it was playable, and while it might not be to my taste, that it was (mostly) free of the hilariously bad things a lot of the other games that weren't on Steam had.

Now, I don't even bother looking at the Steam store front page. The one thing that so many indies and other people wanted visibility on. If a game made it to the front of the Steam Store, or got placement on it, a few years ago, I would at least go give it a look, look up a review, maybe watch a trailer. Now, no matter how good your game is, when Steam is full of the crap like The War Z, Garry's Incident, Guise of the Wolf and the like, I will not do any of those things, simply because with so much crap, I'm not willing to spend cash on a game that could very well be crap. I will instead go with the few games/developers I know do a good job.

Being on the Steam store, the thing that everyone wanted so badly a few years ago, now does nothing more to sell me on your game or make me buy it anymore than buying it directly from your website would. So, mission accomplished... Congratulations?

 

[Durante]

Why should I have to though?

Why should a clearly broken title be offered for sale still? Why can't Valve get them to shape up?

What's wrong with protecting the consumer at the first hurdle?

Because some customers don't want to be protected in that manner. So, it's either you having to do some research on what you buy or us potentially not being able to buy what we want to buy. Either way, someone is going to be unhappy.

Most likely, opening the infrastructure up to alternative storefronts is the best solution for everyone.

 

[RedSwirl]

Well, I'm one of the people who complained about the strict admission limits, and now that they are relaxed I'm happy.
So from my perspective it isn't our fault, it's our achievement.

The next step should be opening up the Steam APIs completely.

I'm down with this, but what would it mean in terms of where those games are sold? Would Valve just let other retailers handle the selling of games that use Steamworks?

I'm starting to believe that one store, by itself, is too narrow a channel to sell EVERY piece of software that comes out on a platform (and Steam has become a platform at this point). iOS faces the same problem.

Why should I have to though?

Why should a clearly broken title be offered for sale still? Why can't Valve get them to shape up?

What's wrong with protecting the consumer at the first hurdle?

Because a million people bought DayZ despite Bohemia expressly telling them not to buy it because it's buggy as hell.

 

[Ravensmash]

But it's often not. Battlefield 4 is actually a great example. I have had surprisingly few problems with the game--a crash here and there, basically--but other people have had tons of problems. Should Steam (in theory) prevent the sale of Battlefield 4 because some people have had problems? How many people have to have problems with the game before the game gets banned from the storefront (temporarily or otherwise)?

Also worth noting: neither Sony nor Microsoft have pulled Battlefield 4 from their storefronts, and those are extremely closed ecosystems compared to Steam. In fact, nothing about the measures we're discussing here would be very likely to prevent another Battlefield or SimCity debacle, since they come from one of the largest publishers in the industry. What you desire out of a storefront simply doesn't exist, outside of GOG's this-shit-is-wrecked return policy (which I would be a fan of bringing over to Steam, PSN and XBLA). Even with retail games, the policy has generally been that if you open it, you own it, especially with PC retail.

What about providing a decent refund policy then?

On all digital platforms. It's crazy that consumers have to jump through so many hoops to get money back for a non working product. The fact that it's digital holds no relevance either.

 

[Grief.exe]

Seems to me like this is more of a transparency issue.

I am baffled that although Early Access titles (EAt) have been already on sale for months even performing quite well in some cases and had certainly everybody in the press talking about them, nobody is reviewing them.

Why?

Why exactly, are they being completely ignored and taken out of the equation? Why can't I find Metacritic scores, to these games that are being advertised on the Steam storefront, next to seemingly identically priced reviewed software, for weeks now? I can find user scores, but they usually are all over the place scoring wise.

I can't for the life of me understand why they aren't being reviewed. Is this some sort of "fair play" because it's not "finished"? Because they are constantly changing and a review score today might not reflect it's state tomorrow? Well tough titties to both reviewers and developers. Review'em and keep on reviewing them.
Because the dollars, euros, and pound sterling they are taking are certainly "finished" and unrefundable.

For all I know EAt are running away with easy money considering the competitive advantage they have now, to similarly priced and "finished" products with bad reviews, thanks to the lack of transparency that is in the worst cases even enforced by shitty developers silencing disgruntled customers, as you say.

Even the threat of reviewing these Early Access products alone would put enough pressure on the "stinkers" to put more effort in.
And reviewers should keep tabs on the games they reviewed in general. If the game gets worse, adjust the score: case and point Battle-fucking review event went perfect-Field 4.

Yes, with the flood of games on a multitude of devices and plattform, reviewing every game out there, is an impossible job for one person alone. And keeping tabs on them after reviewing them sounds too much, but although the market space in gaming keeps on evolving and getting more and more dynamic, gaming press seems reluctant at least in terms of reviews to change other than switching from papermagazines in the 80s/90s to going fully digital. It seriously needs to catch-up to the market in this point.

And if you say it's financially impossible to gather enough staff: Charge for EAt reviews. The way I see it it caters to the, (I hate this expression, sorry) hardest of the core gamers, willing to spend money on highly experimental/early stuff. A few dollars for more transparency won't bother them.

They aren't being reviewed because there is no product to review.

You can't review the current product because it only shows the potential, and you can't review the promises of the developer, because they are only promises.

Many Early Access titles are given extensive previews in the mainstream media. They will tell you what the game is like, how frequently the game is updated, and what to expect going forward.

Dig a little deeper into the forums or youtube and you can get impressions from people telling you whether to stay away for a while, or jump in now.

 

[Nymphae]

Steam doesn't need quality control, at all. If you think a game sucks the simple answer is not to buy it.

Pretty much this. Although an option to filter out early access stuff would be appreciated. But really, just make sure you know what you're buying before you buy it. Information is easy to get at nowadays.

 

[Stumpokapow]

And honestly, there needs to be some form of quality control. Getting your game on Steam used to mean something. Seeing a game on the Steam store meant that it was playable, and while it might not be to my taste, that it was (mostly) free of the hilariously bad things a lot of the other games that weren't on Steam had.

That was really never the case. The first third party game on Steam was Rag Doll Kung Fu. One of the next ones was an episodic game series that never finished.

Now, I don't even bother looking at the Steam store front page. The one thing that so many indies and other people wanted visibility on. If a game made it to the front of the Steam Store, or got placement on it, a few years ago, I would at least go give it a look, look up a review, maybe watch a trailer. Now, no matter how good your game is, when Steam is full of the crap like The War Z, Garry's Incident, Guise of the Wolf and the like, I will not do any of those things, simply because with so much crap, I'm not willing to spend cash on a game that could very well be crap. I will instead go with the few games/developers I know do a good job.

On the other hand, several years ago you didn't have Let's Play or streaming culture so you NEEDED to have Steam curated for you. You've heard of these games because you know they're crap. How have you heard of them? Was it the Steam front page? Or more likely, don't you have other ways that are even better of finding out when stuff is good or bad? What drives your purchasing today?

Pretty much this. Although an option to filter out early access stuff would be appreciated.

It's already filtered out. Early Access games aren't listed on New Releases anymore. You need to either browse Early Access to see them in a spotlighted content segment (IE when a sale highlights, say, Kerbal). They aren't totally disappeared, but they are filtered out from the navigational element people are complaining about, the main release feed.

 

[Delusibeta]

Why should I have to though?

Why should a clearly broken title be offered for sale still? Why can't Valve get them to shape up?

What's wrong with protecting the consumer at the first hurdle?

Because we go back to having to reach an arbitrary bar, which was what developers complained about pre-Greenlight and in early Greenlight.

 

[KodeAndGame]

On the other hand, several years ago you didn't have Let's Play or streaming culture so you NEEDED to have Steam curated for you. You've heard of these games because you know they're crap. How have you heard of them? Was it the Steam front page? Or more likely, don't you have other ways that are even better of finding out when stuff is good or bad? What drives your purchasing today?

I didn't hear of most of the titles Jim Sterling mentioned until he mentioned them. And that's despite being a frequenter of the IndieGAF threads.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I don't think they do. They provide a great link to all their products with plenty of opinions next to all of them. If you get a stinker its on you. Meanwhile content is abundent and indies are getting a fair crack.