Ravensmash
Member
But you could argue that the product functioning as intended is not an arbitrary bar, it's a consumer right.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Jimquisition - Steam Needs Quality Control
- Thread starter Intheflorsh
- Start date
But you could argue that the product functioning as intended is not an arbitrary bar, it's a consumer right.
Nymphae
Banned
Really that's funny, I thought I was playing standalone DayZ yesterday.
It's a product that I paid for. There might be updates coming down the road, and I knew going in that it was "early access", but to say that there is no product is silly. There is very much a reviewable experience here, whether or not someone think's it's fair to review the game before it comes out of early access status is a different issue. I would have no problems writing/reading a review of the game that is on the store for purchase.
Delusibeta
Banned
Not in the US, AFAIK.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Sorry I feel like we're now arguing about two different things.
The first side should be: am I likely to be duped into buying a bad game? The answer appears to be no, as very few bad games are doing well on Steam and to the extent that individual bad games get press, it's press saying they're bad games. Revelations 2012 was never popular, no one is playing it. From day one, what little discussion it got focused on how bad it is. To the extent that anyone has heard of these terrible games, it's because they've found another outlet than the Steam new releases page and that outlet told them the game was terrible.
The second side should be: am I able to discover good games? The answer is that while the old way of just checking Steam's new releases for good games doesn't work as well as it used to, there are new outlets. And those new outlets work at least as well as Steam's new releases page used to.
So it seems to me like it's easier than ever to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Ravensmash
Member
That's fair enough, it certainly is here in the UK so that may be why im surprised at the lack of support
I'm pretty sure Valve were told that they have to provide an easier way for consumers to get money back though, so I'm anticipating them doing something in that regard
Just_myles
Member
No. But, Valve should work with creators to ensure that games of lesser quality are price accordingly. That should pretty much solve that issue imo.
Open Source
Banned
Games should be divided into 2 sections: Valve-approved, and User-approved. For example, a separate tab for "Greenlight Games" with its own charts and promos and such.
If a User-approved game is successful enough in terms of sales, then Valve can move it to the normal game section at their discretion.
Games from the user-approved section should not appear in sales/promos/release lists/etc. in the main section, only in their own section.
Early access games should appear only in the user-approved section until they reach a finished state.
Valve should have several people who are responsible for approving games, rather than just 1 guy doing it part time (as before) or outsourcing it to a group of people (the community) that doesn't have the knowledge/experience to evaluate game concepts and the developers behind them. These people would meet regularly, present games to the group, and vote on which ones pass. Games that did not pass could still get into the user-approved section through the Greenlight process.
There also needs to be a delisting process for games that don't meet benchmarks, that stay in early access too long, that renege on too many promises made in the greenlight phase, etc.
I see Valve's flirtations with various approval processes as reactionary and unprofessional. They need to quit trying to please everyone and do something that will work in the long run for both players and developers.
If a User-approved game is successful enough in terms of sales, then Valve can move it to the normal game section at their discretion.
Games from the user-approved section should not appear in sales/promos/release lists/etc. in the main section, only in their own section.
Early access games should appear only in the user-approved section until they reach a finished state.
Valve should have several people who are responsible for approving games, rather than just 1 guy doing it part time (as before) or outsourcing it to a group of people (the community) that doesn't have the knowledge/experience to evaluate game concepts and the developers behind them. These people would meet regularly, present games to the group, and vote on which ones pass. Games that did not pass could still get into the user-approved section through the Greenlight process.
There also needs to be a delisting process for games that don't meet benchmarks, that stay in early access too long, that renege on too many promises made in the greenlight phase, etc.
I see Valve's flirtations with various approval processes as reactionary and unprofessional. They need to quit trying to please everyone and do something that will work in the long run for both players and developers.
Open Source
Banned
Then you get a bunch of crap games at bottom-of-the-barrel prices taking up all the oxygen, like on mobile. No thanks.
Aurean_Mentat
Member
Mostly recommendations from friends, youtube videos, NeoGAF, review sites... I don't trust any one source in particular, but in aggregate, they're generally a pretty good indicator of whether or not a game is worth my time.
I guess my big thing is that people were complaining about the barrier to entry on Steam was too high. Which is a fair point, I suppose. But with the barrier too low, I honestly don't see how simply being on Steam somehow increases sales or has a net positive effect on your game anymore, when literally anything (in just about any state) can get on there.
By that you mean on YT, forums and the media? Imo if I can't find hidden gems just by browsing a storepage then it's seroiusly broken.
I don't need outside sources to use Amazon effectively or anyother non gaming store for that matter. There's nothing wrong with using forums etc to help me look for games but it shouldn't be the only means to do so.
A critical review of an incomplete product is absurd.
Games have been available for preview to journalists in an early alpha state for years, only now do we have access to them. How can we give a review to a product that is completely unfinished? How can you assign an objective score to something that is going to be in a completely different state in a few months, let a lone a year? Comparable to watching half a movie, reading an early draft of a book, or leaving a two-star rating on Amazon because the ladder you want to order 'looks funny.'
That's without tackling the big problem, how do journalists keep the review from becoming irrelevant on a weekly basis. They don't have the time to test each update and assign the game a new score, not to mention how much of a joke that would make the review system.
'They added new weapons and fixed 30 bugs in the latest update, score goes from a 6.2 to a 6.4.'
'This week's update broke spawning, so score goes back down from a 6.4 to a 6.3.'
The major sites give their previews and impressions, beyond that there are youtube videos and forums that will keep people up to date and make an informed decision for themselves.
I think this is the first time I've ever seen you say something positive about Valve or Steam.
How is it a hidden gem if shows up on the first store page you click? The only way I've ever found something I'd consider a "hidden gem" is through outside sources, forums/word-of-mouth, etc.
Vane_MagicCity
Banned
I would like a filter to not show shit that isn't out yet.
grandwizard
Member
I don't want a walled garden on the PC that discourages risk taking and innovation for the sake of safety and security. That is what the consoles are for. Steam has struck a good balance with what it has now, and with a huge variety of games you can't and shouldn't expect them all to be good. They are able to have a large selection that rewards innovative ideas like the new survival type games but still tight enough to avoid being a newgrounds or app store. The community hubs and user reviews posted right on the store page of a game also goes a long way toward informing the consumer. With the amount of information availible there should be no reason to get completely blindsided by a bad game, at least no more than what usually occurs in regular marketplaces.
Have a Nice Day
Member
What Steam really, really needs to do is to provide their customers a window for refunds. If it happens that one of the released games turns out to be a broken mess, peeps should be entitled to have their money back.
It's up for the video games critics to judge the game, not the game store.
It's up for the video games critics to judge the game, not the game store.
I'm not sure what you mean by showing on the first store page I click? But I mean any game that I don't know of that has fallen off the new releases tab. In the past I could browse for simlar games just like one would do on amazon.
IE I could just go to the store page of the type of game I'm looking for and select one of the 3 games in the recommended window. I could then surf for games that I didn't know about and not have to rely on browsing the web unlike atm.
Air Zombie Meat
Member
Not my problem if other people are going to throw their money away on shit. Only annoying thing is the amount of shit you have to sift through sometimes but thats a price I'm willing to pay if it means stuff I'm interested in has an easier time getting on the service.
Kind of what I was thinking. Some of the stuff Jim plays I wouldn't go near for free.
Kind of what I was thinking. Some of the stuff Jim plays I wouldn't go near for free.
Netrunner2k2
Member
Valve shouldn't be in the business of saying whether other company's games are worthy of being on Steam. Let them all in, I say! Let the market decide what it is good or not and what works or not.
The guy, whoever he is, is way off.
The guy, whoever he is, is way off.
That's probably a valid point considering the only other person that I hear point this out often is TotalBiscuit, who just has to sit through most of the new Steam releases to make content. In fact, he's probably the one who made me aware that Guise of the Wolf even existed in the first place.
The only problem I'd argue is that some of that stuff should just not appear on the "New Releases" tab at all if Steam ever decides to make the storefront completely open. They could only give exposure to certain titles they think have some sort of quality assurance.
unholyrevenger72
Banned
Have to disagree with jim. Failure is how we get get good games down the line.
Weltall Zero
Member
My exact thoughts. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Sigh.
The problem we are having is one intrinsic to media itself... Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. The problem curation generally has is that it eliminates an equal percentage of the 90% of crap and the 10% of quality material, leaving some great games out in the dust. In addition, people have different opinions on what is crap or not. Also, the more curated consoles have not avoid having 90% of their catalog still be crap. The many games that the AVGN has reviewed were released by publishers through the licensing scheme that originated with the NES. We had stuff like Sonic '06 released last generation and Battlefield 4 this generation. You can't prevent 90% of a systems catalog being crap. Instead, there needs to be unbiased source which tells a person if something is crap or not like reviews.
SaltyMeatballs
Banned
I agree:
Remember War Z? God daaaaaamn Valve fucked that up.
Remember War Z? God daaaaaamn Valve fucked that up.
Well There are two easy solutions fort that problem right now :
1) Don't buy any early access games .
2) Never pre-order a game because it serves no purpose .
rudieboy77
Member
Wait so Steam is starting to turn in to the indie section of Xbox Arcade? lol.
eot
Banned
Personally I don't believe it's worth risking good games not getting onto the platform just for the sake of culling the bad ones. Even if 90% of greenlit games are average at best Greenlight has still allowed for more good smaller games on the service. I'm not sure people are aware how fucked the process for getting onto Steam was before Greenlight was introduced (even it was shit to begin with).
I don't think Steam/Valve wants to turn into GameStop or a rental service. Which is exactly what would happen.
Not everyone is neogaf.
And as he mentioned in video, people have manipulated places so they could appear as though their game was good.
flaxknuckles
Member
It does if it's from a trustable developer/publisher and it costs less than it will on day one.
This is a problem I don't think people think about when they state this. What refund window would be large enough to allow someone to figure out if their game is borked without letting them beat it/get all of the enjoyment they need out of it and then demand a refund? People really just need to stop impulse-buying stuff
Jim is right again. flooding the market with shit increases the amount of nonsense that a customer has to wade through to find anything worthwhile.
People have different tolerances for bullshit. Every barrier between people and what they want will trigger somebody's bullshit limit. A big part of why I returned to PC gaming after a significant lapse was that Steam was reliable and consistent. Now it's getting flooded to the point where the time needed to sift out the bullshit pushes me closer to the edge of fucking off again altogether.
People have different tolerances for bullshit. Every barrier between people and what they want will trigger somebody's bullshit limit. A big part of why I returned to PC gaming after a significant lapse was that Steam was reliable and consistent. Now it's getting flooded to the point where the time needed to sift out the bullshit pushes me closer to the edge of fucking off again altogether.
Why does everyone need to be NeoGAF to do even the slightest bit of research on a product that they don't have prior familiarity with? Why should Valve coddle and baby people?
Valve shouldn't let developers lie about features or if a game is in alpha or not, but that's where it should end. Purchasing games should be on consumers to make the right decisions with their money. If they don't, oh well.
Ovek
7Member7
To be fair it's pretty easy to sift through the shit on Steam, it's really no different than standing in a store looking at the back of a game box.
What I don't like is "early access" games sat in the main store and chart, they really should be in there own section until completed.
What I don't like is "early access" games sat in the main store and chart, they really should be in there own section until completed.
I don't agree .
I am wary of any developers new game regardless of their track record Because their is no guaranty that the game will come out in a playable ,bug free state .
I am hyped as hell for the Witcher 3 as everyone else but i will not pre-order the game because i want to be sure the game does not have any game breaking bugs or issues at launch .
Following that rule i have already dodged bullets like Battlefield 4 , X:rebirth etc...
And if cost really is an issue you might as well wait for when it goes on sale to buy it cheaper .
A bit of patience in this case would go a long way .
flaxknuckles
Member
Nah, I'm not gonna live forever. I'll take my chances.
Open Source
Banned
Sound good in theory, in practice that's Google Play. You end up with a bunch of rip-offs, money-grabbers, shovelware, etc. that buries worthwhile games because there are simply too many choices to give each one proper consideration. And so buyers rely heavily on easily quantified things like price, brand, and position on top 10 list, none of which is necessarily going to result in the best games and game values rising to the top.
Furthermore, early access is a very risky thing, with any game coming into the store at any phase of development setting the stage for some major disappointments and backlashes.
I find it really odd how NeoGAF tends to be in favor of nanny-statism and command economies when it comes to everything but video games, and then take a totally opposite stance with something that they have lots of experience with in their daily lives.
And I also find it odd that I do exactly the reverse, but I think that tyranny of choice and the prevalent tendency of buyers to make uninformed choices in video game purchases results in a (sub)market failure. Although it could also be argued that the root issues are oversupply and overbudgeting, and that these will correct themselves over time as they become unsustainable.
Nymphae
Banned
So MMO reviews, or reviews of games that had substantial updates after release, are absurd?
Right, we have access to them now, and pay for that access. A review of that purchase is not out of the question in my mind, perhaps with the stated caveat that there will be further updates, but there's something there with a list of features that you can pay money for right now.
I guess we're just looking at reviews differently here. I don't really care about an objective score. I care about whether it's worth paying money for right now or not. Early access stuff is a really interesting grey area for reviews. I just feel like if there's a game up for sale on Steam, someone can assess that value and give their opinion on it. Not sure how that isn't a review, the nature of games is simply changing.
Oh nice I didn't realize that, I had seen some of them during the sales and figured they were still just lumping them in with everything else.
I could see Valve take an approach that will appease both types of people -- allowing developed to put their game into Steam's database so people can sell download codes elsewhere and put it into their Steam library, but by doing so doesn't guarantee it's actually be on the Steam Store itself.
I just opened Steam. The VERY FIRST TITLE I saw under "featured PC games" (Arcane Worlds) is an Early Access title.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Quantity ensures that people are trapped in the system. The more games that someone has the more difficult they are to dislodge from the system. They are customers for life unless they want to abandon their collection.
Nymphae
Banned
lol yeah I just opened it as well and the first featured game was Divinity, and the second was Rust
Every customer that stops browsing the storefront and buying new titles (yet keeps downloading titles they already own) is a drain on the system.
Baleoce
Member
I was just thinking this myself.
Except when developers are screening negative criticism on Steam, it makes it that much harder, doesn't it?