Maybe if he didn't like Steam rules, he should not have tried to release his game on Steam. It's a PC game, go publish it on your own without their help. Obviously rules are set out prior to anything and he could easily read his contract he signed.
Sad part is this will probably bring in a lot of attention and possibly sales to his game wherever it gets released.
It's almost like he thinks he just another Steam customer. He probably doesn't considering his YouTube channel shows him owning an extensive Steam game collection. In his mind, I bet his relationship with Valve didn't change even when he began selling things on their store.
Not that death threats would have been acceptable were he just a paying customer...
I haven't been able to get his game to work for well over a month now anyway. Pre-patch it wouldn't load, post patch I get a frozen screen with music. So whatever.
Game's getting 100 times the press now than if it'd just released per usual as another steam idie in a sea of indies. Probably gonna sell a lot better now than it would have honestly.
Ehhh, doubtful. The game wasn't really that good to begin with, in terms of quality for an indie title. Having a dev hissy fit on Twitter doesn't really translate well to sales.
Ooooof. This kinda stuff reminds me of how some of my customers act. Their $15-a-month web-page goes down (usually because they begged us to upgrade PHP and their crap code or crap plugins aren't compatible) and then we get the follow up:
"Fix this now! I am losing 1,000s of dollars a minute here. This is unacceptable".
Devs don't have to go through the regular CS, they have their own Steam reps and the Steam business team, and as explained by Robert at Zeboyd and jshackles they're pretty fast and responsive.
Because a person isn't the same as an entity. If you kill Google...people lose their jobs and other ish...if you kill a person that person is dead. See the difference?
I don't think killing a massive company such as Google is anywhere close to as impossible as killing a human being. I have no idea how you can still run with this analogy, playing devil's advocate for the heck of it is getting a bit silly now.
All I'm saying is that the Internet and people in general are going to have to figure this "online communication" stuff out if we're to continue using it. Sarcasm and exaggeration are things we use every day, but once we're on the Internet the little bubble we normally communicate to suddenly becomes the entire world Internet. And on the Internet, there will always be someone taking issue with what any one person is posting.
Basically, the sarcasm mark needs to become a common part of online lingo.
Anyways, if you're assuming that he's serious about killing a single person - in spite of whatever challenges or impossibilities it may present - then I don't see why you would take a larger-scale attack against an entire company any less seriously. I mean, really... publically announcing one's intent to murder is probably the worst way to go through with said intent.
To be clear: I'm not saying that what he did was OK, or that Valve made the wrong choice - merely that we need a better way to communicate online.
Are you serious right now? The man wrote publicly threatened to kill someone and not only that, spent the whole day criticizing and insulting Steam, saying it's a monopoly, it's horrible blah blah. How is it childish for them to remove his game and credentials then?
We need to nip this casual death threat shit in the bud. It's never okay to make these threats even joking.
I bought Paranautical Activity on a non-Steam platform over a year ago. I wonder if I was the only one that day.
Mostly sarcastic, but I'm surprised he hasn't gotten more sales just from people who think his rant was some sort of anti-corporate sentiment that they want to get behind.
Devs don't have to go through the regular CS, they have their own Steam reps and the Steam business team, and as explained by Robert at Zeboyd and jshackles they're pretty fast and responsive.
Not once did I defend the fact that he made a death threat. I really don't see how so many people think that I did. I actually think that he's a complete idiot. However I don't think removing the game was the right course of action. In large part because it also completely screws his partner over.
On the rare moments where Steam has messed something up on one of our sales or one of our game pages, I've sent an email to one of our Steam reps, and they've gotten it fixed lightning fast.
Not once did I defend the fact that he made a death threat. I really don't see how so many people think that I did. I actually think that he's a complete idiot. However I don't think removing the game was the right course of action. In large part because it also completely screws his partner over.
Maybe because you continue to say that what Valve did was wrong?
Death threats are unacceptable. Terminating a business relationships as a result of one is about the rightest course you could think of. Aside from notifying the police, of course.
Devs don't have to go through the regular CS, they have their own Steam reps and the Steam business team, and as explained by Robert at Zeboyd and jshackles they're pretty fast and responsive.
Valve messed up, and I'm sure there are plenty of ways they can improve their platform for developers, but it's pretty obvious you don't put them on blast in a public arena. Complete and total lack of professionalism, and apparently Gabe does not abide by that.
All I'm saying is that the Internet and people in general are going to have to figure this "online communication" stuff out if we're to continue using it. Sarcasm and exaggeration are things we use every day, but once we're on the Internet the little bubble we normally communicate to suddenly becomes the entire world Internet. And on the Internet, there will always be someone taking issue with what any one person is posting.
Basically, the sarcasm mark needs to become a common part of online lingo.
Anyways, if you're assuming that he's serious about killing a single person - in spite of whatever challenges or impossibilities it may present - then I don't see why you would take a larger-scale attack against an entire company any less seriously. I mean, really... publically announcing one's intent to murder is probably the worst way to go through with said intent.
To be clear: I'm not saying that what he did was OK, or that Valve made the wrong choice - merely that we need a better way to communicate online.
Not once did I defend the fact that he made a death threat. I really don't see how so many people think that I did. I actually think that he's a complete idiot. However I don't think removing the game was the right course of action. In large part because it also completely screws his partner over.
Not once did I defend the fact that he made a death threat. I really don't see how so many people think that I did. I actually think that he's a complete idiot. However I don't think removing the game was the right course of action. In large part because it also completely screws his partner over.
Who cares if it screws over his partner? Valve doesn't certainly. He publicly represents the company whether he likes it or not. You don't publicly attack a business partner like that.
Not once did I defend the fact that he made a death threat. I really don't see how so many people think that I did. I actually think that he's a complete idiot. However I don't think removing the game was the right course of action. In large part because it also completely screws his partner over.
What would you suggest Valve do to show him that they won't stand for that kind of behavior? It's all well and good to feel empathy for someone who's innocent in all of this, but there has to be some punishment.