Jimquisition: Salt Of The Earth - A Steam Fail Story

[PG]

Valve really needs to place some condition under which a game is Early Access. The whole point is playtesting en mass, but this is only valid if the developer is actually taking strides to address the problems that are being found and take on suggestions to expand or add to existing features.
It's also not something that is suitable to all types of games because it's not just a bugtesting platform. It's there for gamers to suggest a direction for the game, to expand the original idea beyond the capabilities of a single team.

A game like Earth: Year 2066 neither deserves, nor is suited to this kind of crowd sourced feedback and most of the games currently listed as Early Access have no capacity to take advantage of what should be a very powerful tool. They've taken a pure concept and turned it into the most craven exploitation of instant gratification.

No you're not buying a game to help improve its development and ultimately make a more enriched experience than could have been possible by other means, you're paying to get a game before it's finished because you don't want to wait for the game to be finished. That's all.

 

[Metalrocks]

good thing i stay away from early access games and seeing this just supports my view on it. steam should actually respond to this behavior of devs and even take action. changing maybe their agreement to devs what they can and can not do.

steam generally is slowly pissing me off that origin looks better. valve wants my damn ID to confirm that i live in hong kong because the prices are still shown in USD (which are in australia as well) and my paypal is not accepted anymore and even the money i have on my steam account is not accepted due the currency.
origin on the other hand automatically switched to HKD and have no issues what so ever with paypal.

 

[Colt47]

Thanks Jim! Was trying to figure out what was going on with that game and developer on steam and it sounds like a real fiasco.

 

[Deadagent]

a) This isn't relevent.

Just pointing out hypocrisy

b) She recieved thousands of death threats and promises of rape and torture before she even started her series. I think she was pretty fucking justified in taking a 'fuck off with your comments' approach.

She also recieved them before the kickstarter. And saying that shes scamming is not a death or rape threat, it's an accusation, leveled at her many many times. And she could have easily avoided this by being open about how she spends the money (like every good kickstarter should do I might add) and citing sources, but she hasn't.

This is exactly what I mean, all decent of her no matter what is seen as death threats and rape threats when that's a lie.
Even if alot of it was that, there was legimate critisim there, and failing to acknowledge that is dishonest and quite despicable.

 

[Abnaxis]

I'm not sure what I think about this.

On the one hand, this game is ridiculous. It is unfinished, buggy, and stupid, and obviously not worth $20.

On the other hand, part of the point of Early Access is for developers with a good idea but short on cash to get an influx of resources--the flip side of that system, being that some developers will put up crap only to be rejected by the community. Crap like this showing up on Early Access shouldn't only be expected, it's necessary for the thing to work as intended.

On the third hand, the community does not have the proper tools to filter the way they should be able to. We can't return a product that's shiity. We can't use the forums for criticism.

On the fourth hand (what? I'm a spider!) it's a real project providing those tools. You can't have a forum with zero moderators, so who will moderate developers forums if not the developers? Returns cause a lot of headache, because how can you tell when a game is used up (i.e. finished) and thus not a valid return any more?

These problems with Early Access seem solvable, but not trivial. To me, the whole thing sorely needs a calibration, but then it will be golden.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

I really wish there are detailed sales statistics available for Steam. I really want to see how the shitstorm resulting from cases such as this affects sales.

 

[Steve2911]

a) This isn't relevent.

Just pointing out hypocrisy

b) She recieved thousands of death threats and promises of rape and torture before she even started her series. I think she was pretty fucking justified in taking a 'fuck off with your comments' approach.

She also recieved them before the kickstarter. And saying that shes scamming is not a death or rape threat, it's an accusation, leveled at her many many times. And she could have easily avoided this by being open about how she spends the money (like every good kickstarter should do I might add) and citing sources, but she hasn't.

This is exactly what I mean, all decent of her no matter what is seen as death threats and rape threats when that's a lie.
Even if alot of it was that, there was legimate critisim there, and failing to acknowledge that is dishonest and quite despicable.

My point is that, whether what she did was a scam or not (I don't personally believe it comes close to the definition of 'scam', especially when she only asked for $6000, but agree that she could have done a lot more with the format), I don't have a problem cutting her some slack when she's had that much abuse thrown at her, because no one deserves that. If this Muxwell guy had to put with the same sort of thing every single day of his life, I'd cut him slack too.

But he hasn't.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Thing is "early access" was something called "playable demo" you got to try out the game in advance without paying. I could say that the Ground Zeroes game could be considered early access version of Phantom Pain, but atleast there was a lot of love and attention put into gameplay and graphics. Regardless whether you think its worth the price tag, its a AAA quality made product.

I think early access has become a scam to dump shovel ware - and will digital downloading, your screwed as its not like you can return it for a refund. My advice is for developers with actual quality products made with passion, to charge cheap for early access or just release a one level demo. Because then we can trust them with our money.

 

[The Lunatic]

Steam really has to address stuff like this. I know it's been said to death at this stage, but, ultimately, steam is responsible for what appears on its market.

I've very little trust for Early Access games, which is a real shame, the idea is great, but until we can get basic stuff like, you know, refunds, I'm sticking to buying games when they come out.

Also, a scammer saying that everyone who's critizising them is troll, where have I seen this behaviour before? It was with a certain feminist who got a handsome sum of money to do youtube videos that she could have clearly done even without the money.

Honestly, it's pretty impressive how many people she got with that spin. Like, credit where it's due, it's a good play.

 

[Abnaxis]

Valve really needs to place some condition under which a game is Early Access. The whole point is playtesting en mass, but this is only valid if the developer is actually taking strides to address the problems that are being found and take on suggestions to expand or add to existing features.
It's also not something that is suitable to all types of games because it's not just a bugtesting platform. It's there for gamers to suggest a direction for the game, to expand the original idea beyond the capabilities of a single team.

A game like Earth: Year 2066 neither deserves, nor is suited to this kind of crowd sourced feedback and most of the games currently listed as Early Access have no capacity to take advantage of what should be a very powerful tool. They've taken a pure concept and turned it into the most craven exploitation of instant gratification.

No you're not buying a game to help improve its development and ultimately make a more enriched experience than could have been possible by other means, you're paying to get a game before it's finished because you don't want to wait for the game to be finished. That's all.

That's the thing though--the whole point of crowd-sourcing is that the crowd is supposed to make that decision, not Valve. Valve just needs to give gamers the proper tools to do our thing.

If the customers don't want anything other than instant gratification, with no interest in providing constructive criticism...then that's just how it is. Pre-order sales have existed for a long time, and customers get even less for them, so clearly it's a thing people want.

 

[jehk]

I'm not sure what I think about this.

On the one hand, this game is ridiculous. It is unfinished, buggy, and stupid, and obviously not worth $20.

On the other hand, part of the point of Early Access is for developers with a good idea but short on cash to get an influx of resources--the flip side of that system, being that some developers will put up crap only to be rejected by the community. Crap like this showing up on Early Access shouldn't only be expected, it's necessary for the thing to work as intended.

On the third hand, the community does not have the proper tools to filter the way they should be able to. We can't return a product that's shiity. We can't use the forums for criticism.

On the fourth hand (what? I'm a spider!) it's a real project providing those tools. You can't have a forum with zero moderators, so who will moderate developers forums if not the developers? Returns cause a lot of headache, because how can you tell when a game is used up (i.e. finished) and thus not a valid return any more?

These problems with Early Access seem solvable, but not trivial. To me, the whole thing sorely needs a calibration, but then it will be golden.

Some really good questions. I don't want to see Greenlight and Early Access go away. I want to see them fixed. Like Jim said, they are good in theory. However, there's almost no regulation. That opens it up for abuse and misuse.

I take issue with one thing you said. We shouldn't be allowed to return a game that is simply shitty. If that were the case I'd get my money back on CoD in a second. Being able to get our money back on broken or misleading games is a must to save Steam imo.

Using the community to provide checks and balances could work. But without returns that requires someone to get burned. Someone has to pay money before they can find out the game is shit.

 

[Alterego-X]

Whatever. If not for Steam, that guy could still do the exact same thing on his own website. PC gaming is an open platform.

It makes much more sense for Steam to grab for all of it, than to be a small walled garden somewhere inside of it. More like an universal marketplace for the whole platform, than a brand that's pre-filtered products you "trust".

If they would try to appeal to quality control and a reliable lineup, they would accidentally filter out at least SOME potential gems, and that would give an opportunity to other webstores to gain a foothold by gathering those. It makes more sense to let in ALL the developers, good ones and shitty ones, and let others build inner recommedation lists and branded lineups inside the platform they own.

 

[Deadagent]

My point is that, whether what she did was a scam or not (I don't personally believe it comes close to the definition of 'scam', especially when she only asked for $6000, but agree that she could have done a lot more with the format), I don't have a problem cutting her some slack when she's had that much abuse thrown at her, because no one deserves that. If this Muxwell guy had to put with the same sort of thing every single day of his life, I'd cut him slack too.

But he hasn't.

Wait wait waitwaitwaitwait. Are you telling me that it's ok to scam people if theres a group of people calling you with bad names and giving you death threats?

Also the amount has nothing to do with whether or not something is a scam. Just saying.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Good god. Ignoring everything else about this piece of crap (the game, not the video, of course), the very thought of even trying to play that on the Rift is making me queasy.

 

[Steve2911]

My point is that, whether what she did was a scam or not (I don't personally believe it comes close to the definition of 'scam', especially when she only asked for $6000, but agree that she could have done a lot more with the format), I don't have a problem cutting her some slack when she's had that much abuse thrown at her, because no one deserves that. If this Muxwell guy had to put with the same sort of thing every single day of his life, I'd cut him slack too.

But he hasn't.

Wait wait waitwaitwaitwait. Are you telling me that it's ok to scam people if theres a group of people calling you with bad names and giving you death threats?

Also the amount has nothing to do with whether or not something is a scam. Just saying.

Read my post again. Her actions themselves weren't necessarily justified (again, it's subjective), but her response to the accusations absolutely was.

And of course the amount matters. $6000 is a tiny amount of money to make any sort of production with.

Anyway, it was stupid of me to be baited by the shit flinging towards the topic of Anita Sarkeesian. It doesn't have to come up in every fucking thread anymore.

 

[jehk]

Whatever. If not for Steam, that guy could still do the exact same thing on his own website. PC gaming is an open platform.

It makes much more sense for Steam to grab for all of it, than to be a small walled garden somewhere inside of it. More like an universal marketplace for the whole platform, than a brand that's pre-filtered products you "trust".

If they would try to appeal to quality control and a reliable lineup, they would accidentally filter out at least SOME potential gems, and that would give an opportunity to other webstores to gain a foothold by gathering those. It makes more sense to let in ALL the developers, good ones and shitty ones, and let others build inner recommedation lists and branded lineups inside the platform they own.

So you're saying its in Valve's interest to be anti-consumer.

Well great.

 

[Alterego-X]

So you're saying its in Valve's interest to be anti-consumer.

Well great.

Just as I was saying, for the consumer, it is pretty irrelevant whether the overarching open platform on which they buy crappy games is called "the PC" or "Steam", and likewise, it's irrelevant whether the small list from they browse promising games is called "Steam" or "Jimothy's Steam recommendation list".

 

[Thanatos2k]

At some point, Valve is going to have to do something and institute some standards. Just because the PC platform is "open" is no excuse.

Parks are considered nice open free environments, but eventually you have to put up a "No Dumping" sign.

 

[Deadagent]

Read my post again. Her actions themselves weren't necessarily justified (again, it's subjective), but her response to the accusations absolutely was.

Thanks for the clarification, I was talking about her actions though, and also painting your decent as trolls is just not cool. It's also very typical scammer behaviour online.

And of course the amount matters. $6000 is a tiny amount of money to make any sort of production with.

If I claim to need $200 for a camera so I can start filming something, and later on it turns out I already had a camera and used your money for something entierly else. Would it stop being a scam?

 

[Abnaxis]

I take issue with one thing you said. We shouldn't be allowed to return a game that is simply shitty. If that were the case I'd get my money back on CoD in a second. Being able to get our money back on broken or misleading games is a must to save Steam imo.

Meh, if it's not been played, it should be fair game for a return. I can return a shirt as long as I haven't worn it--doesn't matter if it doesn't fit or if I just decided I don't like the color.

The problem is drawing the line on "it's not been played." Some games take an hour to get into and find out they suck, while others are finished within an hour.

Honestly, I don't think taking returns for games will ever work, but ideally we could acknowledge this fact an try to come up with some other recourse to give dissatisfied customers that can't be abused. That's a tough one, though.