You dare to like something I do not?!?!?!? You must be CRAZY!!!!!!!Thanatos2k said:....You BOUGHT Air Control? Your irrational defense of it is starting to make sense now.......
You dare to like something I do not?!?!?!? You must be CRAZY!!!!!!!Thanatos2k said:....You BOUGHT Air Control? Your irrational defense of it is starting to make sense now.......
There's a massive difference, actually. There's a difference between locking a thread, where potential customers can come and have a look at it, and pretending that it never happened.Spearmaster said:So they can just lie calling the critic a moron saying there is nothing wrong with the game and lock the thread, not much different than removing it IMO.
So an indi developer, that is supposed to be working on their early access alpha, should have to spend their day instead moderating and explaining their alpha games current problems to people who buy alpha game expecting the experience of a finished game even though there is a huge banner stating its an early access release? They have to watch people post reviews tearing apart their game when its possibly 2-3 years from even being in beta?Infernal Lawyer said:There's a massive difference, actually. There's a difference between locking a thread, where potential customers can come and have a look at it, and pretending that it never happened.Spearmaster said:So they can just lie calling the critic a moron saying there is nothing wrong with the game and lock the thread, not much different than removing it IMO.
Even if the developer literally said nothing and just locked the thread, that still lets people see the criticism, valid or trolling, and decide whether they're going to use that information to judge whether the game is still worth investing in. For example, "Hmm, I wonder why the developer just ended the discussion instead of debunking the accusations or saying that they'll work on it?"
1. If the developer was already spending their time deleting posts they didn't like I dare say they have time to close them.Spearmaster said:So an indi developer, that is supposed to be working on their early access alpha, should have to spend their day instead moderating and explaining their alpha games current problems to people who buy alpha game expecting the experience of a finished game even though there is a huge banner stating its an early access release? They have to watch people post reviews tearing apart their game when its possibly 2-3 years from even being in beta?Infernal Lawyer said:There's a massive difference, actually. There's a difference between locking a thread, where potential customers can come and have a look at it, and pretending that it never happened.Spearmaster said:So they can just lie calling the critic a moron saying there is nothing wrong with the game and lock the thread, not much different than removing it IMO.
Even if the developer literally said nothing and just locked the thread, that still lets people see the criticism, valid or trolling, and decide whether they're going to use that information to judge whether the game is still worth investing in. For example, "Hmm, I wonder why the developer just ended the discussion instead of debunking the accusations or saying that they'll work on it?"
If people were posting suggestions about ways to fix the game I would have a problem with them being deleted but most "criticism" that I see is "this game is a broken piece of shit" of course it is, its an early alpha. Its like someone trying to get Michelangelo banned from sculpting because "David" just looks like a block of marble.
The whole point of putting an early access game on steam is for an independent developer to try and get help from the gaming community to make their game better and this is how the gaming community responds? Its shameful, IMO. Honestly if someone is dumb enough to ignore the big "early access" banner on the store page they deserve to just get their criticism deleted. Steam doesn't exist to coddle the stupid, that's the government's job, Steam just sells games.
Or just delete them. If they are either abuse, not factual or just a misrepresentation of the game experience and you just lock without taking the time to debunk every post you are leaving damaging posts for potential customers to get the wrong idea from. You might as well not lock it and let your games forum turn into 4chan.Infernal Lawyer said:1. If the developer was already spending their time deleting posts they didn't like I dare say they have time to close them.
Then I will. Deleting abusive threads is way better than locking them.2. I thought that "deleting was the same as locking threads IMO"? Care to make up your mind?
Why go through all the trouble when the content creators moderate their own store page? Its not Valves game.In any case, if they really thought a certain thread was completely unproductive they could red-flag it for Valve's moderators who could delete it.
Exactly and the community responds by wanting every independent game policed by a AAA publisher and plasters their forum with abuses when an early release game has problems.And
3. What? The ENTIRE POINT of Early Access is that they WANT you to tell them where bugs are, they WANT feedback and they WANT suggestions on how to make the game better!
Is there any evidence that this is the case? Any evidence that the deleted posts were in no way abusive?I agree that it's stupid to ***** and whine about an uncompleted product being uncompleted, but if someone posts "There's this bit in the game where these two objects clip, might want to look at that for the next patch", and gets banned for his troubles, there is something very much wrong going on.
So letting people read closed troll threads (which will probably be fill of other people debunking them, if not the devs) may end up being misleading, but letting the developers delete criticism isn't? In what world does that make any sense?Spearmaster said:Or just delete them. If they are either abuse, not factual or just a misrepresentation of the game experience and you just lock without taking the time to debunk every post you are leaving damaging posts for potential customers to get the wrong idea from. You might as well not lock it and let your games forum turn into 4chan.Infernal Lawyer said:1. If the developer was already spending their time deleting posts they didn't like I dare say they have time to close them.
It's Valve's storefront, the developers have too much power to delete anything or ban anyone they don't like regardless of whether it/they are breaking the rules or not (for example when I made a comment telling people they'd be better off reporting EArth 2066 instead of complaining, I got a ban for "spem". No, that's not a typo, at least not on my part) and trust me when I say they've gone into the game-specific forums more than once to post their opinion and moderate. For example, when Earth 2066 was taken down they actually banned the developer (Muxwell) from his own forum.Then I will. Deleting abusive threads is way better than locking them.2. I thought that "deleting was the same as locking threads IMO"? Care to make up your mind?Why go through all the trouble when the content creators moderate their own store page? Its not Valves game.In any case, if they really thought a certain thread was completely unproductive they could red-flag it for Valve's moderators who could delete it.
What can I say? When most of your income comes from impulse purchases you're going to have to deal with people acting surprised that the product is incomplete as adverised. However, as we've seen giving the developers the power to wipe legitimate criticism away along with the abuse from idiots isn't working.Exactly and the community responds by wanting every independent game policed by a AAA publisher and plasters their forum with abuses when an early release game has problems.And
3. What? The ENTIRE POINT of Early Access is that they WANT you to tell them where bugs are, they WANT feedback and they WANT suggestions on how to make the game better!
Plenty of people have made screenshots for the fuckduggery done in the Earth 2066 forums and other such game forums.Is there any evidence that this is the case? Any evidence that the deleted posts were in no way abusive?I agree that it's stupid to ***** and whine about an uncompleted product being uncompleted, but if someone posts "There's this bit in the game where these two objects clip, might want to look at that for the next patch", and gets banned for his troubles, there is something very much wrong going on.
OK, just show me where it is the developers responsibility to host and promote all the negative criticism on its own store page. The criticism is out there for anyone to find. Just look at this Jimquisition episode, its proof that the dev cant block negative criticism. Any savvy consumer does not have a problem finding reviews or criticism about a product, if they don't care enough to look then they don't care enough about what they are buying.Infernal Lawyer said:Snip
Define "savvy". A lot of consumers will probably think they're being "savvy" by checking the Steam Reviews and Forums for the game, without the knowledge that such information can be easily changed or deleted. As Jim said, it's ridiculous to expect that the average consumer will know by default that the information immediately available (supposedly given by OTHER consumers, I might add, not the cherry-picked "reviews" you find on the back of a box or stapled to the actual description in the store page), isn't trustworthy in the slightest.Spearmaster said:OK, just show me where it is the developers responsibility to host and promote all the negative criticism on its own store page. The criticism is out there for anyone to find. Just look at this Jimquisition episode, its proof that the dev cant block negative criticism. Any savvy consumer does not have a problem finding reviews or criticism about a product, if they don't care enough to look then they don't care enough about what they are buying.Infernal Lawyer said:Snip
A completely false comparison argument. You can't compare a forum, or even the reviews on the Steam Store, to the back of a game box. Steam reviews are automatically generated depending on which ones the system finds the most relevant, and you have to choose to go through the forums, which is completely different from casually browsing the back of a box. This would be like more like, to use your description, if Footlocker had a board on display asking people to write up their opinions of their shoes and pin them onto the board for all to see, and then ripped up any review that criticized their products, and then someone came and said "isn't asking people to publicly display their opinions of your product and then getting rid of the ones you don't like a bit go against the entire point, not to mention being a bit of a scummy, dishonest strategy"?Why are you not complaining that all the negative reviews and criticism are not printed on a game box in a store? Seems kind of ridiculous that someone would buy a game from an unknown developer based off that information without doing some research first right? The steam store page is the game box. To provide an example Valve only owns the building in which the stores reside. Its like me complaining that the mall allowed footlocker to over charge me for crummy shoes, so the mall should regulate footlockers prices and shoe quality and allow people to put signs on shoes saying whatever we want about them. Makes no sense when I should have just read some third party reviews first.
Why? Earth 2066 is a perfect example of how a developer endlessly abused the tools he was given. He didn't get caught because the system "works fine", he got caught because he was making his abuses so blatantly obvious that he got his game the wrong kind of media attention.Ill just ignore all the Earth 2066 stuff because Steam did remove the game which just proves that they are doing what people say they are not doing, providing quality control.
Steam's system works fine for 99.9% of its games, why completely change the platform for a few statistical anomalies?
Then they are not Savvy.Infernal Lawyer said:Define "savvy". A lot of consumers will probably think they're being "savvy" by checking the Steam Reviews and Forums for the game, without the knowledge that such information can be easily changed or deleted. As Jim said, it's ridiculous to expect that the average consumer will know by default that the information immediately available (supposedly given by OTHER consumers, I might add, not the cherry-picked "reviews" you find on the back of a box or stapled to the actual description in the store page), isn't trustworthy in the slightest.Spearmaster said:OK, just show me where it is the developers responsibility to host and promote all the negative criticism on its own store page. The criticism is out there for anyone to find. Just look at this Jimquisition episode, its proof that the dev cant block negative criticism. Any savvy consumer does not have a problem finding reviews or criticism about a product, if they don't care enough to look then they don't care enough about what they are buying.Infernal Lawyer said:Snip
Then why go after Steam when its the developer abusing said power?Also, legal =/= right. Valve may have given developers the power to do whatever they want on their forum, but that doesn't make it right if they're abusing said power.
Why not? They are both a developer controlled spaced used to convey information about the game.A completely false comparison argument. You can't compare a forum, or even the reviews on the Steam Store, to the back of a game box.Why are you not complaining that all the negative reviews and criticism are not printed on a game box in a store? Seems kind of ridiculous that someone would buy a game from an unknown developer based off that information without doing some research first right? The steam store page is the game box. To provide an example Valve only owns the building in which the stores reside. Its like me complaining that the mall allowed footlocker to over charge me for crummy shoes, so the mall should regulate footlockers prices and shoe quality and allow people to put signs on shoes saying whatever we want about them. Makes no sense when I should have just read some third party reviews first.
So if someone pinned a note saying "footlocker sucks balls, never buy their products they will give you erectile dysfunction" they should have to keep that note on the board? Its a double edged sword and it could harm hundreds of games, subjecting them to the dregs of the internet, just to avoid a few instances of dishonesty from a developer. Consumers have more avenues to give their criticism on the internet, the developer only has the one steam page in which to sell their game. What you seem to be proposing is giving control of their game page to anyone on the internet whatever their motives may be.Steam reviews are automatically generated depending on which ones the system finds the most relevant, and you have to choose to go through the forums, which is completely different from casually browsing the back of a box. This would be like more like, to use your description, if Footlocker had a board on display asking people to write up their opinions of their shoes and pin them onto the board for all to see, and then ripped up any review that criticized their products, and then someone came and said "isn't asking people to publicly display their opinions of your product and then getting rid of the ones you don't like a bit go against the entire point, not to mention being a bit of a scummy, dishonest strategy"?
As of January Steam has 3,000+ games. With those 3 you are at ".1%"...one tenth of a percent...get it to 5% and maybe I'll listen a little more.Why? Earth 2066 is a perfect example of how a developer endlessly abused the tools he was given. He didn't get caught because the system "works fine", he got caught because he was making his abuses so blatantly obvious that he got his game the wrong kind of media attention.Ill just ignore all the Earth 2066 stuff because Steam did remove the game which just proves that they are doing what people say they are not doing, providing quality control.
Steam's system works fine for 99.9% of its games, why completely change the platform for a few statistical anomalies?
Also, there are quite a few other games where the devs are also abusing their power. Air Control, Day One: Garry's Incident to name a few. None of which have been removed from the store. Shall I get some more?
Ok right hereBigTuk said:I can't say I ever recall seeing this on the steam front page... like ever. I actually had to do a name search just to find this on steam.Imp Emissary said:xD I figured you'd at least mention this game as soon as I saw your Squirty Play of it.
Good Lord it was horrible.
How did it even get on the front page on Steam in the first place?
Neat to find out being a shit game isn't the only crappy thing it does.
I see screen caps but when checking.. you know.,. the products page I see none of that now. I can show a picture of someone in poopy diapers from 20 years ago.. that has nothing to do with what they're wearing right now does it?You did see the part where Jim showed screen grabs of the Dev giving false information that was later removed from the page, right?BigTuk said:The devs have not lied about anything that I can see on their page.
I'll withhold copyright infringement allegations until said copyright holders actually file suit to such effect. I suggest you do the same. Seriously. How do you know they did not optain express permission to use the assets they did. I've heard no legal filings, I've seen no cease and desist orders.. So really if the people who legally own the copyright aren't throwing lawyers at them ... well then it may be safe to say the guy has found some nifty fair-use loophole.Also, the copyrighted material used, the claim that the reviewers just didn't have a strong enough PC, and using people on his friends list (if they are real people) to give them good reviews.