Support NeoGAF

[Saucycarpdog]

Gonna repeat what I said in the Jimquisition thread about Steam needing curation.

Would, for example, Five nights at Freddy's have been accepted if Steam had curation? The devs previous game was objectively crap, the game relies heavily on jump scares, and the gameplay revolves entirely on pressing buttons.

Any of those could have been used to reject the game if Steam had curation and I'm sure none of the "connoisseurs" on this site would have opposed it.

 

[Htown]

There are far more good games released on Steam each month than any local physical retailer would put on their shelves.

Yep.

I don't believe having fewer good games on the store is an acceptable price to pay in order to have fewer bad games.

 

[jshackles]

You can have garbage exist; it's up to choice if its event discovered. Discovery is the whole problem.

As a note, I think Steam's crusty old interface is what's holding a lot of this back. They haven't done much to rethink their UX to deal with the absolute deluge of games.

This is exactly it - they're taking a store-front that was essentially created to accommodate a small curated selection of games, and have shoehorned more content into it than it was ever designed to handle. This is on top of the fact that their platform has more or less become synonymous with PC gaming in the past few years, so their motivation for fixing these types of discovery issues are usually slanted in favor of the publisher or developer, not the end user.

Their new "New Releases" page is indicative of this. The top of the page lists things like "Content for your games" (favoring developers you've already established a business relationship with) as well as "Popular this month" which is really just a glorified holdover from the old home page carousel that's highly curated and skewed towards publishers that have already proven themselves meaning customers are more likely to purchase that game. Below that we have "Your new release queue" -> a new discovery queue that focuses on new releases but is unclear as to why I'm seeing them. Unlike the other discovery queues (which actually tell you why you're seeing said game), this one just says (You're seeing this because) "This product is in your new releases queue." This section is followed by a short list of top sellers (again, more likely to purchase) and then a "recommended based on what you've played" section before finally getting to the list of everything. All of these things benefit the small number of developers and publishers with popular games on Steam that are already selling well.

A lot of users I've spoken with this morning really like this change, and a lot of people are on the opposite side of the fence. On one hand it helps to obfuscate the crap that's being released on Steam but on the other hand it makes it harder for some people to find what they're really looking for (mostly crap). There are a few things I would recommend to help people find that middle ground, but again because these are business decisions aimed at users (not developers) I doubt they would be implemented by Valve.

• Game discovery on Steam needs to be natural. There has been some pretty good effort put forward in the first few discovery updates, but Steam needs a system that's more like Netflix for finding games. Don't make assumption about the user's habits based solely on what they play. Have an option in the client that allows users to fill out a quick "post game" survey that's tailored to their experience - have it also kick back info to your servers like the amount of playtime that session. This would go a long way towards getting the metrics that would be actually useful in recommending new games to people.
• Give users options. Especially on things like the changes that were made yesterday - I don't think anyone would be squawking so loudly about the new releases page if it were optional, or at the very least keep the button in place that said "View all new releases" that linked back to the search page with everything listed. Giving people the power to choose how they use your storefront is key, especially when combined with the first bullet point above.
• Make user choices meaningful. Right now I can tell Steam that I'm not interested in games tagged "Anime", which is a good start. But then I click off of the home page onto other discovery avenues such as the search page or even this new "New Releases" page and that preference is seemingly invalidated. The same is true of the "more like this" section on game's store pages, or even game store pages themselves could indicate this preference. If I'm on GAF and someone says "Hey check this game out, it's great" and provides a link, maybe upon clicking on that link and detecting that I'm logged in and that my preference is to not see anime games, I should be given a splash screen similar to the age gate page. "This game has been tagged Anime, which you've told us you'd like to ignore. Click here to proceed or click here to update your preferences." would go a long way towards making people feel like their preferences are respected site-wide. And like above, make it an option that's easy to disable for people who don't want to be given yet another click.

Obviously, I could go on and on about this subject because it's one that's near and dear to me. The bottom line is that Valve's store was never designed to handle this kind of stuff, and everything they have now has really just been tacked on to try to tackle the immediate problems. In my personal opinion, a lot of these decisions should be re-evaluated and more emphasis put on the will of the customers rather than the whim of the popular publishers.

 

[LordRaptor]

I really don't think basic certification requirements such as "does your game launch?" and "do the controls work?" constitute needless overreach from Valve.

In what scenario are neither of those covered by the existing refund policy?

 

[Durante]

I've seen the sentiment that Valve is some nefarious corporation that exploits their customers with their market dominance and abusive micro-transactions expressed quite a few times on this forum. And I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of it all.

Of all the leaders, platform-holders, and large publishers of this industry, Valve is one of the few that pushes for an open-platform. They insist on fair competition, which is why they refuse to make exclusive deals, timed or otherwise. They allow free use of their APIs and software, without forcing developer to even publish on Steam. Developers and other storefronts can sell their products, taking advantage of all of Steam's features, but without having to pay Valve any royalties. They did a significant portion of the research and development for VR, and instead of profiting off of what could have been a tightly controlled market, they gave it all away for free to benefit the industry. They realized some users wanted to have the option of playing at a couch, and developed Big Picture mode, SteamOS, Steam Link, in-home streaming, and the Steam controller to add more value. They developed the Steam controller and its software, and although it competes against their own product, they now support just about every controller. I could go on...

They compete by making people want to use Steam due to its features.

What kind of reality to these sentiments come from where console platform-holders and most of the large publishers exist?

Well said.

Valve is obviously a for-profit company, but the way they go about achieving that profit is incredibly far more in line with my personal idea of what I want my gaming platform to be than anyone else who is in the running.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Well said.

Valve is obviously a for-profit company, but the way they go about achieving that profit is incredibly far more in line with my personal idea of what I want my gaming platform to be than anyone else who is in the running.

I agree. Valve has its issues but I can't imagine what PC gaming would be like today if Steam had been developed by Microsoft, Sony or EA. It's a nightmare scenario.

 

[EatinOlives]

In what scenario are neither of those covered by the existing refund policy?

A basic certification process would block un-launchable games from even appearing in the first place. Letting them in instead, and relying on people to 1) buy the game, 2) try it out, 3) realize it's not playable, 4) flood the refund request system with refunds for bogus games is introducing a bunch of unnecessary extra steps required for both Valve and the consumer.

The refund policy isn't a magical wand that nullifies the existence of un-launchable games. They're still there. Valve should absolutely not be content with having its customers look at random indie games and not know if they're even going to launch. Yes, they can get a refund, no it doesn't mean the entire process isn't more of a hassle than it should be.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Nobody applies a lot of the complaints Steam receives regularly on GAF to... anything else? Like, nobody freaks out that Spotify has all the music, including a lot of really terrible nonsense.

There isn't any music on spotify that might crash or not run on your iPod, there's also no music on spotify which is a bizarre non-song that exists solely to generate trading cards for a spotify metagame. These are two things that, at a minimum, should have some kind of oversight. Valve can afford to put a few employees on hand to make sure that games released on the platform pass the most basic muster, whether or not they're high quality games is only a secondary concern.

 

[aeolist]

i'm fine with some kind of review team working at valve to take obvious bullshit out of their system but it should be reactive instead of proactive. having humans approve every single title before it goes up is entirely against every move valve has made over the last decade.

instead they should just make the reporting function a lot more obvious (one way would be integrating it into the refund process), encourage users to report flagrant abuses of the system, and have the team go over the worst offenders to see if they should be taken down. basically what they do now (i think) but a little beefed up.

 

[Nuu]

I agree. Valve has its issues but I can't imagine what PC gaming would be like today if Steam had been developed by Microsoft, Sony or EA. It's a nightmare scenario.

People have to remember that Valve isn't a corporation in a traditional sense but a cooperative. It really shows with the company culture and how they handle business.

 

[Omega Kirby]

oops nevermind

 

[Dynasty]

Totalbiscuit released a 2h video talking about Steams curation with some developers and a steamspy analyst. I'm currently 30 mins in and it is a pretty good discussion so far.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wPm4HsM-IUQ

 

[Parsnip]

A basic certification process would block un-launchable games from even appearing in the first place. Letting them in instead, and relying on people to 1) buy the game, 2) try it out, 3) realize it's not playable, 4) flood the refund request system with refunds for bogus games is introducing a bunch of unnecessary extra steps required for both Valve and the consumer.

There isn't any music on spotify that might crash or not run on your iPod, there's also no music on spotify which is a bizarre non-song that exists solely to generate trading cards for a spotify metagame. These are two things that, at a minimum, should have some kind of oversight. Valve can afford to put a few employees on hand to make sure that games released on the platform pass the most basic muster, whether or not they're high quality games is only a secondary concern.

What you are asking is already there.
Valve reviews games before release, they check that the games run, don't contain malicious shit and stuff like that.

 

[Pixieking]

The repeated insistence Valve does something it already does is pretty damning of the company, in a way. People read a badly informed article, and because Valve don't go out of their way to correct it, people take it as gospel.

I just swiftly checked over the RPS article again - no corrections, no apologies. Now, honestly, both parties are to blame - John Walker for writing incorrect information, and Valve, for not issuing a statement saying "Yeah, we know there's issues, but this point here *big flashing arrows* we already do."

As an aside, this is why when EA withdrew most of their games from Steam, they played the media so well - because the company knows how to spin a narrative. Valve couldn't spin a cure for cancer without people complaining, they're just so inept at messaging.

 

[MaLDo]

A basic certification process would block un-launchable games from even appearing in the first place. Letting them in instead, and relying on people to 1) buy the game, 2) try it out, 3) realize it's not playable, 4) flood the refund request system with refunds for bogus games is introducing a bunch of unnecessary extra steps required for both Valve and the consumer.

The refund policy isn't a magical wand that nullifies the existence of un-launchable games. They're still there. Valve should absolutely not be content with having its customers look at random indie games and not know if they're even going to launch. Yes, they can get a refund, no it doesn't mean the entire process isn't more of a hassle than it should be.

Sorry, this is a waste of time. How many pc configurations that certification have to test? This is the developer job. Not store job. A game that launch perfectly in my pc maybe doesn't start in yours. Refunds are way better because is a per-user solution.

What you are asking is already there.
Valve reviews games before release, they check that the games run, don't contain malicious shit and stuff like that.

And this.

I've seen the sentiment that Valve is some nefarious corporation that exploits their customers with their market dominance and abusive micro-transactions expressed quite a few times on this forum. And I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of it all.

Of all the leaders, platform-holders, and large publishers of this industry, Valve is one of the few that pushes for an open-platform. They insist on fair competition, which is why they refuse to make exclusive deals, timed or otherwise. They allow free use of their APIs and software, without forcing developer to even publish on Steam. Developers and other storefronts can sell their products, taking advantage of all of Steam's features, but without having to pay Valve any royalties. They did a significant portion of the research and development for VR, and instead of profiting off of what could have been a tightly controlled market, they gave it all away for free to benefit the industry. They realized some users wanted to have the option of playing at a couch, and developed Big Picture mode, SteamOS, Steam Link, in-home streaming, and the Steam controller to add more value. They developed the Steam controller and its software, and although it competes against their own product, they now support just about every controller. I could go on...

They compete by making people want to use Steam due to its features.

What kind of reality to these sentiments come from where console platform-holders and most of the large publishers exist?

 

[JaseC]

Just to drive the point home:

That non-functioning games can be released may seem like an issue, but it is a decidedly rare occurrence and one that the refund system insures against -- nobody remains out of pocket when they pay $5 for something the developer broke with a post-approval patch. The instant iteration and response times a barrier-free update system inherently provide are far more important than fixing something that only appears to be a problem when viewed in isolation.

Edit: And Valve does pull broken games if the issue is something it can't fix and there's no solution in sight from the developer. A game that doesn't work doesn't earn the developer or Valve any money as people just refund the purchase.

 

[grandwizard]

I'm getting real tired of game journalists constantly decrying Steam's release numbers becasue it makes their job harder. There is no problem to me as a consumer that Steam has a lot of games. Many times it has actually benefited me by having me play and enjoy a game that might not have made it on the store when it was more locked down. How many people bought and enjoyed Undertale and made it into a huge hit, both commercially and culturally? That game would have never made it on 2009 Steam or more locked down marketplaces like the consoles have.

Instead of constantly complaining about the flood of releases being harder to sift through I think reviewers and journalists need to see the huge opportunity here for them to be more relevant than ever. Now is the time to find stuff they find appealing or think their audience would like and shine a light on it. It's not the old market of a huge AAA release every month that everyone focuses on and pushes out samey safe reviews. It's easier than ever to be personal about what you like because there is just so much choice out there.

I also find it really ironic that Steam opened the flood gates largely in response to game journalist articles that it was too hard to get onto Steam and how devastating it was for their indie friends to have their game denied a Steam release. Greenlight happened in response to that and then the larger opening to more releases. Now you have people complaining about the opposite.

 

[Pixieking]

Just to drive the point home:

That non-functioning games can be released may seem like an issue, but it is a decidedly rare occurrence and one that the refund system insures against -- nobody remains out of pocket when they pay $5 for something the developer broke with a post-approval patch. The instant iteration and response times a barrier-free update system inherently provide are far more important than fixing something that only appears to be a problem when viewed in isolation.

Edit: And Valve does pull broken games if the issue is something it can't fix and there's no solution in sight from the developer. A game that doesn't work doesn't earn the developer or Valve any money as people just refund the purchase.

And to add to that last point, Valve have also removed the ability to sell cards, emotes or backgrounds for games that have been removed from the store. So, devs/pubs can no longer earn a penny from a game that's been taken off.

Another random aside: Grossly misunderstanding Steam/Valve and spreading misinformation about them is the main reason I got a gamesindustry.biz account, years ago. I got absolutely fed-up with people who ought to know better saying stuff that even I knew was wrong (and I'm no JaseC. ).

 

[JaseC]

And to add to that last point, Valve have also removed the ability to sell cards, emotes or backgrounds for games that have been removed from the store. So, devs/pubs can no longer earn a penny from a game that's been taken off.

Well, sort of. That's only true of games pulled due to the developer's distribution contract being terminated. I think it's a little heavy-handed, though; the developer's cut should just go to Valve or, ideally, the user.

 

[TheRedSnifit]

I've seen the sentiment that Valve is some nefarious corporation that exploits their customers with their market dominance and abusive micro-transactions expressed quite a few times on this forum. And I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of it all.

Of all the leaders, platform-holders, and large publishers of this industry, Valve is one of the few that pushes for an open-platform. They insist on fair competition, which is why they refuse to make exclusive deals, timed or otherwise. They allow free use of their APIs and software, without forcing developer to even publish on Steam. Developers and other storefronts can sell their products, taking advantage of all of Steam's features, but without having to pay Valve any royalties. They did a significant portion of the research and development for VR, and instead of profiting off of what could have been a tightly controlled market, they gave it all away for free to benefit the industry. They realized some users wanted to have the option of playing at a couch, and developed Big Picture mode, SteamOS, Steam Link, in-home streaming, and the Steam controller to add more value. They developed the Steam controller and its software, and although it competes against their own product, they now support just about every controller. I could go on...

They compete by making people want to use Steam due to its features.

What kind of reality to these sentiments come from where console platform-holders and most of the large publishers exist?

It's system warz, nothing more. 95% of the people who trash Steam are console warriors bitter that Valve doesn't contribute towards their plastic box of choice, 4% are no-DRM purists, and 1% are games journalists upset that it makes their jobs harder.

 

[Pixieking]

Well, sort of. That's only true of games pulled due to the developer's distribution contract being terminated. I think it's a little heavy-handed, though; the developer's cut should just go to Valve or, ideally, the user.

Oh, really? I didn't think there was any nuance to it. That's cool. It does seem a bit overkill, but maybe it's meant as warning to devs not to do anything stupid?

 

[JaseC]

Oh, really? I didn't think there was any nuance to it. That's cool. It does seem a bit overkill, but maybe it's meant as warning to devs not to do anything stupid?

Oh, sure, but even so I don't think it's necessary to remove the marketability of the cards entirely. Hell, allowing people to still sell them would be tantamount to taunting. "Look at all of this money you're not making!"

 

[MUnited83]

Oh, sure, but even so I don't think it's necessary to remove the marketability of the cards entirely. Hell, allowing people to still sell them would be tantamount to taunting. "Look at all of this money you're not making!"

I'm assuming that doing that would open the possibility of those devs try and sue Valve.

 

[JaseC]

I'm assuming that doing that would open the possibility of those devs try and sue Valve.

Possibly, however it was previously possible to buy/sell items generated by forcibly removed games (e.g. Paranautical Activity). If the change was due to legal concerns, the distribution contract could just be updated accordingly, although obviously current games would be unaffected.

 

[IC5]

You're asking Valve to do, say, Ubisoft's job for them. You get that, right? You get that, for example, AssCreed save files being deleted is something that Ubisoft's QA should've picked-up on, right? And you get that even if Valve had denied the offending AssCreed games a release until the bug was fixed, the games would still be available on UPlay, various other stores selling UPlay activatable keys, and physically, in stores such as Game.

You do understand that, right?

I mean, certainly in the case of save-file eating, it's not like the dev/pub is wanting to release it in such a state, so they're already going to be trying to fix it.

Yes, I understand that.

If Steam started denying games due to problems which greatly affect play-ability, it would not be a trivial denial. It would force companies/developers to plan for better testing, pre-release. Be they big companies, or small indies. Because Steam is a significant source of sales. Indeed, Valve would be doing a job that they shouldn't have to. But they are rich enough to handle it. And I think it would only take a year or two, for devs to get the point and do better pre-release testing. Stuff like that is good for the industry.

Yeah, a couple of large companies think that they are big and cool enough to sorta skip Steam, anyway. But, if Valve set such a precedent with everyone else, those company specific platforms which be highlighted even more for releasing junkware as a final game.

Hell, the reason that "framepacing" is a household term nowadays, is because back in 2013 and 2014, PC graphics journalists were noticing problems and demanding tools to test them. It was revealed/admitted that AMD had pretty much been ignoring framepacing in their driver QC and had effectively bread an entire driver base with problems. Everybody won, when it was all said and done.

 

[Pixieking]

Yes, I understand that.

If Steam started denying games due to problems which greatly affect play-ability, it would not be a trivial denial. It would force companies/developers to plan for better testing, pre-release.

Games are so complicated now that how much testing is "better testing"? I've never been affected by the AssCreed save file bug, whereas I think JaseC has (multiple times?). How do you test for that? At what point do you accept a release as good enough?

Couple that with the fact that missing a release greatly affects a company's bottom-line (and shareholder dividends, too, if it's public), and you'll still have company's releasing games that have flaws. They'll take the initial hit, and come back, as long as Valve doesn't find something immediately. Which is another question - how much testing should Valve do? At what point would a game have the "Valve Seal of Quality"?

Be they big companies, or small indies. Because Steam is a significant source of sales. Indeed, Valve would be doing a job that they shouldn't have to. But they are rich enough to handle it. And I think it would only take a year or two, for devs to get the point and do better pre-release testing.

Yeah, a couple of large companies think that they are big and cool enough to sorta skip Steam, anyway. But, if Valve set such a precedent with everyone else, those company specific platforms which be highlighted even more for releasing junkware as a final game.

Agree to disagree here, but I think once Valve start pushing the "We QA your titles and maybe not let them be released if they're buggy", a lot of developers and publishers will move elsewhere. Ubisoft could easily push UPlay as "the next Steam" considering a lot of gamers already have UPlay installed. Bethesda are just waiting for Valve to trip-up in a big way, and they start hawking their own platform as the only place to get the next Elder Scrolls and Fallout. EA will turn-around with a big "We told you so!"

I think it's important to remember that Steam is as big as it is due to developer and publisher support, so once you start playing with that balance, it becomes a fraught situation (from Valve's perspective). The only reason EA's loss didn't affect them all that much is because, really, EA's big franchises are on console, not PC. Even Battlefield has lost its sheen.

 

[Rathorial]

Steam needs curation, and yes, guess what, that will be boring work. But at this point, boring work is the only thing that will fix the problems.

Ugh...I'm getting so sick of these short-sighted articles acting like Valve employee curation will be the solution to Steam's woes, and that it's their responsibility to give every dev proper exposure. Apple already does what they're asking for in terms of curation at the extent of they check if the software works at a basic level, yet the problem of trying to discover good games among the crap still exists. I do agree Valve should check new software for basic usability like launching and control input works, but the same basic problem will remain. More developers exist each year making more games than the last, many of them are thoroughly average but deserving sale still, and a digital storefront is selling tons of old software on top of new content.

Expecting more employees hand-picking new games and what to advertise still leaves other devs out in the cold for exposure, and wastes space on the front-page because not every user likes the same content. Instead, Valve is learning like Netflix, Amazon or Spotify that you need to create automated tools that learn about a given users tastes. RPS can say that Valve's "featured and recommended" section is useless, but it has objectively gotten better over time. Steam Curators isn't Valve passing down responsibility, it's simply them offering a tool that brings in the various tastemakers of the internet that already existed to Steam, and letting you pick which one's you trust. Automated learning tools + bringing in various tastemakers are the best solutions for handling a crowded market, but Valve's tools and execution just need to be better.

I use Steam to game the most because they simply have the most varied and interesting content to play, and that is both a result of them keeping a comparatively open ecosystem + offering devs tools that make it easier to get their content up for sale.

Valve shouldn't waste money hiring extra employees for curation, they should be hiring them for customer service where real people can do greater good.

 

[MUnited83]

Possibly, however it was previously possible to buy/sell items generated by forcibly removed games (e.g. Paranautical Activity). If the change was due to legal concerns, the distribution contract could just be updated accordingly, although obviously current games would be unaffected.

That is true, but I would have to think it's a much bigger concern now since they have actively started to heavily crack down on both devs that break their terms of service, as well as cracking down on games that receive DMCA and copyright complaints. Not only they would be open to be sued by the infringing devs, they would also be open to be sued by the affected third parties that had their copyright infringed so they get the money that was supposedly owned to them. This is why I think they did it.

 

[Par Score]

Gonna repeat what I said in the Jimquisition thread about Steam needing curation.

Valve themselves have said that Stardew Valley and many other indie darlings would not be on the store if they took their old curated approach.

I've seen the sentiment that Valve is some nefarious corporation that exploits their customers with their market dominance and abusive micro-transactions expressed quite a few times on this forum. And I can't help but laugh at the absurdity of it all.

Of all the leaders, platform-holders, and large publishers of this industry, Valve is one of the few that pushes for an open-platform. They insist on fair competition, which is why they refuse to make exclusive deals, timed or otherwise. They allow free use of their APIs and software, without forcing developer to even publish on Steam. Developers and other storefronts can sell their products, taking advantage of all of Steam's features, but without having to pay Valve any royalties. They did a significant portion of the research and development for VR, and instead of profiting off of what could have been a tightly controlled market, they gave it all away for free to benefit the industry. They realized some users wanted to have the option of playing at a couch, and developed Big Picture mode, SteamOS, Steam Link, in-home streaming, and the Steam controller to add more value. They developed the Steam controller and its software, and although it competes against their own product, they now support just about every controller. I could go on...

They compete by making people want to use Steam due to its features.

What kind of reality to these sentiments come from where console platform-holders and most of the large publishers exist?

Great post, totally agreed.

 

[JaseC]

That is true, but I would have to think it's a much bigger concern now since they have actively started to heavily crack down on both devs that break their terms of service, as well as cracking down on games that receive DMCA and copyright complaints. Not only they would be open to be sued by the infringing devs, they would also be open to be sued by the affected third parties that had their copyright infringed so they get the money that was supposedly owned to them. This is why I think they did it.

Ah, yeah, that's a fair point.

 

[Nocturno999]

Refunds and players' reviews solve most issues.

There may be a problem with newer, low profile games exposure but there's still a "new releases" list.

Also, this is more of a publisher/dev responsibility to promote their own title than rely on a front page.

 

[IC5]

Games are so complicated now that how much testing is "better testing"? I've never been affected by the AssCreed save file bug, whereas I think JaseC has (multiple times?). How do you test for that? At what point do you accept a release as good enough?

I think that a general idea has been established that games should ship in a form which doesn't have bugs with basic functionality. Should be able to play without predictable crashing. Should be able to save and depend upon that save. Settings should change what they say they will change. The RPS article echoes stuff like that.

I mean, look back and we can see points of reference: Save file bugs have been a pretty common issue, industry wide, over the past few years. WTF? Before say...2008, I'd never heard of widespread issues with saves. And the save bugs are often platform/version agnostic. Meaning, an issue with the main codebase. Stuff like this shouldn't be a problem with released games. Especially now, that people have been burned on this now, several times. It should go without saying, but no game should be releasing with common save issues. Ok, one guy didn't experience. But someone out of 15 probably does. So, design a team to account for enough gaps to represent a slice of the market.

Consoles have certification processes on games and patches. It seems to often work. Its a semi-closed system. So naturally, its a little easier to do.

But it doesn't always work! BF4 was a shitshow on all paltforms, at release. A lot of that was to do with the backend. Which probably isn't certified as well.

Yes, games are more complex. Testing should expand to reflect that. Valve shouldn't have to do it. But, Valve or someone like them, may have to do something, to push the issue. If customers have to be beta testers, then Valve should back us more aggressively. and it wouldn't take long for some push back to improve things enough that they wouldn't have to do it, even though the threat is there.

Greenlight and Early Access imply that a game isn't finished. May be buggy. So what determines that a game is ready? The dev says so?

Couple that with the fact that missing a release greatly affects a company's bottom-line (and shareholder dividends, too, if it's public), and you'll still have company's releasing games that have flaws. They'll take the initial hit, and come back, as long as Valve doesn't find something immediately. Which is another question - how much testing should Valve do? At what point would a game have the "Valve Seal of Quality"?

I don't think we need to hash out a detailed process, here. A company should know that botching a release will hurt them. So, they should do everything they can to make that release, good. If someone knows at the 11th hour that a thing is wrong----delay. It hurts a company, but that isn't our fault. If the company survives the delay, then hopefully a lesson is learned. Or maybe someone in a position like Valve delists a poor release, until the game is fixed. and hopefully a lesson is learned. Nowadays, poor sales and/or feedback on a single release, can shelve a franchise. Can even fold a dev house. I would think devs and companies would be doing everything they can to at least release functioning products. Still, we see insider articles every now and then, which talk about how mismanaged some projects are. I've never contributed to a game's development before and even I can read those and facepalm at the parts where the big time team director missed the mark.

I can't remember what it was, but recently read an article about a dev team where everyone is constantly playing the game as they create their respective content. and I'm like, yeah, good! DUH to anyone who isn't doing that.

Agree to disagree here, but I think once Valve start pushing the "We QA your titles and maybe not let them be released if they're buggy", a lot of developers and publishers will move elsewhere. Ubisoft could easily push UPlay as "the next Steam" considering a lot of gamers already have UPlay installed. Bethesda are just waiting for Valve to trip-up in a big way, and they start hawking their own platform as the only place to get the next Elder Scrolls and Fallout. EA will turn-around with a big "We told you so!"

I think it's important to remember that Steam is as big as it is due to developer and publisher support, so once you start playing with that balance, it becomes a fraught situation (from Valve's perspective). The only reason EA's loss didn't affect them all that much is because, really, EA's big franchises are on console, not PC. Even Battlefield has lost its sheen.

I see what you are saying. Totally. However, with "agree to disagree"---its all an unknown. The RPS article is fed up with Valve pushing it onto the customer. Valve the leading digital vendor on the PC platform and I heard once that they account for like 1/4 of all internet bandwidth or something. With great power comes great responsibility.

app culture is flooding the Steam market with cheap shit. Hoping to make aggregate riches. Its also drowning out small games which are actually decent or better. But they get swept away in the flood and blocked out by the suns of big name games. But sometimes even those big name games don't really work so well. Valve is rich enough to figure this out. They are slow on the draw and so far, they are asking us to pull the trigger. or asking for a bounty.

Rumors of as much as 5 grand. I bet a game like Super Hexagon, that's probably a significant portion of their total development costs. But Super Hexagon deserves to be on steam. So a pay wall isn't going to work.

 

[MaLDo]

I think that a general idea has been established that games should ship in a form which doesn't have bugs with basic functionality. Should be able to play without predictable crashing. Should be able to save and depend upon that save. Settings should change what they say they will change. The RPS article echoes stuff like that.

I mean, look back and we can see points of reference: Save file bugs have been a pretty common issue, industry wide, over the past few years. WTF? Before say...2008, I'd never heard of widespread issues with saves. And the save bugs are often platform/version agnostic. Meaning, an issue with the main codebase. Stuff like this shouldn't be a problem with released games. Especially now, that people have been burned on this now, several times. It should go without saying, but no game should be releasing with common save issues. Ok, one guy didn't experience. But someone out of 15 probably does. So, design a team to account for enough gaps to represent a slice of the market.

Consoles have certification processes on games and patches. It seems to often work. Its a semi-closed system. So naturally, its a little easier to do.

But it doesn't always work! BF4 was a shitshow on all paltforms, at release. A lot of that was to do with the backend. Which probably isn't certified as well.

Yes, games are more complex. Testing should expand to reflect that. Valve shouldn't have to do it. But, Valve or someone like them, may have to do something, to push the issue. If customers have to be beta testers, then Valve should back us more aggressively. and it wouldn't take long for some push back to improve things enough that they wouldn't have to do it, even though the threat is there.

Greenlight and Early Access imply that a game isn't finished. May be buggy. So what determines that a game is ready? The dev says so?



I don't think we need to hash out a detailed process, here. A company should know that botching a release will hurt them. So, they should do everything they can to make that release, good. If someone knows at the 11th hour that a thing is wrong----delay. It hurts a company, but that isn't our fault. If the company survives the delay, then hopefully a lesson is learned. Or maybe someone in a position like Valve delists a poor release, until the game is fixed. and hopefully a lesson is learned. Nowadays, poor sales and/or feedback on a single release, can shelve a franchise. Can even fold a dev house. I would think devs and companies would be doing everything they can to at least release functioning products. Still, we see insider articles every now and then, which talk about how mismanaged some projects are. I've never contributed to a game's development before and even I can read those and facepalm at the parts where the big time team director missed the mark.

I can't remember what it was, but recently read an article about a dev team where everyone is constantly playing the game as they create their respective content. and I'm like, yeah, good! DUH to anyone who isn't doing that.



I see what you are saying. Totally. However, with "agree to disagree"---its all an unknown. The RPS article is fed up with Valve pushing it onto the customer. Valve the leading digital vendor on the PC platform and I heard once that they account for like 1/4 of all internet bandwidth or something. With great power comes great responsibility.

app culture is flooding the Steam market with cheap shit. Hoping to make aggregate riches. Its also drowning out small games which are actually decent or better. But they get swept away in the flood and blocked out by the suns of big name games. But sometimes even those big name games don't really work so well. Valve is rich enough to figure this out. They are slow on the draw and so far, they are asking us to pull the trigger. or asking for a bounty.

Rumors of as much as 5 grand. I bet a game like Super Hexagon, that's probably a significant portion of their total development costs. But Super Hexagon deserves to be on steam. So a pay wall isn't going to work.

What if a gpu driver version is the culprit of a game bug?. Or a Windows update? How many drivers versions and updates Valve have to test?

What you are saying has no sense at all.

Devs are responsible for the problems of their games. The only logical decision between users and developers is to stop buying games under assumptions that work they properly.

The only option for Valve as an intermediary between both, is to return the money to the user and remove it from the seller. Steam is a store, it can not take responsibility for the quality of everything it sells when this quality depends in many cases on the quality and condition of the buyer's computer.

Most of the problems about games are related with how are the user's computers. I mean, Steam introduced the mandatory redist installation before the first game launch for every item in the store. But there are a lot of other things that could go wrong because most of the users don't use their computer as a only gaming machine. I do, and it's fantastic. But a lot of people uses his computer as a multipurpose device and then expects the games to work miraculously without any maintenance or special care.

 

[Superkewl]

You guys might want to actually use the thing instead of leaving it for years and claiming it's a shitshow despite not having it used since significant improvements have been made.

What are you on about? I use steam. I have used to the options to hide tags. Still a shitshow. Am I missing something else?