Jimquisition: Salt Of The Earth - A Steam Fail Story

[red255]

Spoiler

This is getting towards falling foul of at least UK product description laws. The law is woefully behind the times (otherwise the worst 'free to play' games would probably have fallen foul of this) but there is supposed to be some basic expectation of accurate description and functionality when a product is purchased.

Unfortunately - much like eBay - Steam does not recognise international law when it comes to this sort of thing.

As a quick example, I once spoke to Steam about getting a refund on God Mode (a game which while more playable than Earth: Year 2066 was still bad) and got no dice with it. Even after citing the UK's "Distance Selling Regulations 2000", Steam refused to issue a refund, citing that the law did not cover Digital products.

And yet, this is despite...well...

Boy. If only the US actually cared about consumer rights. One can dream.

Don't they give you a month in america? I remember when diablo III came out and it was NOTHING like the demo and people got their money back if they made digital purchases. Didn't think it mattered where they were from.

But you are asking STEAM to take a hit for your purchase because I don't think they'll get the money back from this guy.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

 

[Zontar]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

 

[Zontar]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

They where for a time when they came out, but by far the worst offender was DayZ, which somehow managed to stay at the top for a month, including threw a whole Winter Sale despite all logic.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

They where for a time when they came out, but by far the worst offender was DayZ, which somehow managed to stay at the top for a month, including threw a whole Winter Sale despite all logic.

i had this same discussion like a month ago, are you the same guy i what that discussion with? anyways dayz is going to be more expensive at release, not cheaper

and regarding the other games, sure they were on the best selling list for s short while, but not anymore and they havent been for a loooong while, unless they go on sale

 

[Zontar]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

They where for a time when they came out, but by far the worst offender was DayZ, which somehow managed to stay at the top for a month, including threw a whole Winter Sale despite all logic.

i had this same discussion like a month ago, are you the same guy i what that discussion with? anyways dayz is going to be more expensive at release, not cheaper

and regarding the other games, sure they were on the best selling list for s short while, but not anymore and they havent been for a loooong while, unless they go on sale

Yes I was that same guy, I'll even go so far as to state again that DayZ is included on the list because it was stated to originally be priced at 10-15$ at release. I also find it sketchy that the dev things there'll be a market for DayZ above the current price.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

To me, the only games which should be sold on Early Access, are those which can be sold for the labelled price, and without modification be considered a proper purchase. Minecraft, Kerbal and a few others are good examples of that. Those who fail at it miserably are: 2066, Planetary Annihilators, Wasteland 2, and some others.

If you want 20$ or 30$ from me now, you need to give me something WORTH 20$ or 30$ now, not something worth nothing with the promise of something worth the money I pay in the future.

Now, to annex the Sudetenland.

well the thing is, thats not exactly reasonable, theres a reason why wasteland and planetary annihilation are worth that much

And as a customer it is not my job to care at all for those reasons. From my end all it is, is 2 games which are incomplete which had the audacity to charge far more then their retail price for their incomplete state. There could be 50 legitimate reasons for it and it wouldn't change the fact that, as a customer, I don't and shouldn't care.

and what about the people who wanted to have early access to the game, even at a premium, and have enjoyed the game so far?

arent they customers as well?

They are customers, but they are also customers who are ruining the industry for the rest of us by telling companies they can sell you half a game for over twice the final price and get away with it.

hardly, let me ask you something, check the best selling games list on steam, tell me do you see either wasteland 2 or planetary annihilation anywhere near the top 10 best selling games?, top 20? top 40?

if those games arent selling all that well, can we argue these customers are pushing devs towards selling over-expensive betas in the future?

They where for a time when they came out, but by far the worst offender was DayZ, which somehow managed to stay at the top for a month, including threw a whole Winter Sale despite all logic.

i had this same discussion like a month ago, are you the same guy i what that discussion with? anyways dayz is going to be more expensive at release, not cheaper

and regarding the other games, sure they were on the best selling list for s short while, but not anymore and they havent been for a loooong while, unless they go on sale

Yes I was that same guy, I'll even go so far as to state again that DayZ is included on the list because it was stated to originally be priced at 10-15$ at release. I also find it sketchy that the dev things there'll be a market for DayZ above the current price.

well then i give up, if all the evidence i showed you the last time wasnt enough i dont think what will take to change your mind, what i will tell you is that theres absolutely no evidene to support the idea that charging more for a beta is going to become a trend, or atleast a successful/profitable one

 

[Strazdas]

First of all, Steam does have a best seller list on the front page. Currently, it's top 10 includes Dark Souls II, Portal II, DayZ, Portal Bundle, Watch Dogs, CS:GO, Rust, Trials Fusion, Space Engineers, and Skullgirls.

If your new claim about average gamers not checking any metrics such as popularity were true, then it's pretty srange that the bestsellers are still consistently games with particularly good press, rather than an entirely random sample of shoverware.

The very fact that games are able to get hugely popular, proves that the average gamer pays attention to popularity, and thus a positive feedback loop can form.

How else do you explain that Earth 2066 only has a maximum of 3 people playing it at the same time, as charted for it a a record?

It is not "the average gamer" buying Earth 2066, the average gamer is buying Dark Souls and Portal. It is a small fringe of contrarians and hipsters and reviewers and self-appointed greatness-seakers, who are willing to dig into unknown, unproven Early Access games for the sake of sampling random games.

point taken, some metrics are provided by steam and world of mouth exists. It is however not all encompassing, and allowing people who are less aware to be scammed (because thats what 2066 is, a scam) is not a good thing. People buying random crap are not hipsters, merely people who dont look around and just see the "recommended for you" section which works as arbitrary as any other recommendation section. "one single tag matching with game you liked, then you must like this game too!"

With definitions that would also filter out early Minecraft. I'm not doubting that you can produce wider definitions of "playable", I'm just saying that such definitions would end up filtering out games that are playable according to one person and unplayable according to another.

Not necessarely. Minecraft alpha was fully palyable, worked and had all the core mechanics in it. Also, Minecraft alpha/beta wasnt on steam to begin with.

your whole argument here is akin to "laws shouldn't exist because someone may think differently"

It's fine, but in Steam's case, it would be a bad business choice.

They are on their way to encompass the essence of PC gaming. Not just a specific high quality brand, but an universal super-brand inside of which you can find many solid groupings such as AAA games, viral games, or the soon to come user stores, that can serve as the inner quality "brands". The next Minecraft is going to happen inside of it, not outside.

When Rust makes a million sales and Earth 2066 makes hundreds, that right there is the difference between average gamers and people who blindly buy games just because they are on Steam.
snipped whatifs.

No, it would be a good business choice. it would bring back the sense of costumer trust that allwoed it to become almost untouchably popular in the first place.
If they want to emcompass the essence of PC gaming, they are failing. they themselves admit it and want to close down the greenlight.

Worst case scenario is steam going bancrupt. you know, people who are hobbyist already consider Origin to be a better service now. Steam seems to be sleeping on its popularity, and if this continues they will get into obscurity.

Was this actually featured on the front page? I don't check it every day but I've never seen anything like this shown on the front page. Some things haven't been great but even the alphas are usually only the most ambitious ones (stuff like Prison Architect, Day Z and Rust), not something like this which could scarcely be called a game.

i dont look at the frontpage but other people in this thread mentioned that. it did show up on my recommendation list though.

 

[NortherWolf]

So, let me get this straight. One asshole releases a shitty product. The fault is his, but the real villain here, the mastermind of madness, the dictator of darkness...Is VALVE! They(or , Steam as they've apparently renamed themselves) are the true blight upon PC gaming! They, as the owners of a gaming store should enforce draconian rules so as not to sully the genepool of the master race!

Why, of course this is so, just the other day I tossed excrement at a Game Shop employee for daring to carry a bad game. It is my duty as a Member of the PC Master Gaming Race after all. We cannot allow free choice...

Shame about you Jim, thought you had some good stuff for a while, but your "STEAM NEEDS TO ANSWER!" stuff is a bit tiresome. Steam is a damn store, the only thing Valve need to answer is refunds and keeping obvious scams gone. But people here seem to want for steam to crash so they can roll around in their own smug filth and go "Told you so! Filthy pleb!"

If crime is high in a city, in order to lower crime do you blame the criminals or the police?

Valve is the police here, if you didn't get the analogy.

I did. It's probably the most inept one I've ever heard, but I did.
Because, ding ding ding ding! They're not the cops(too little random beatings for that) and it's not a city. It's a game shop. Filled with games. Some of which are shit.
I've bought shitty games in my days, and I refunded them or just tossed them in a box somewhere. Hell, I keep some shitty DnD Fighting game for the PSX around so I can remember that sometimes, it pays off not to buy everything you think could be awesome.
So, again: The only thing I think Steam should do is what a poster below me said; pick out the obvious lies and deal with them. But if Joe Idiot fucks up in a buy, it's not the store that's at fault. It's the idiot.
Or wold Game Stop/Game be forced to, for example, grovel because they sold ME3, a game that some consider the Spawn of Cthulhu?

It's as much the store's fault for carrying poor products than it is the people who buy them from the store. Actually it's probably more the fault of the store because the products will try to deceive the customers into thinking they're good, through fraudulent trailers and promotional materials, fake reviews and ratings, and deletion of all criticism.

Games are a black box - you never really know if they suck or not until you play them. Well maybe not a completely black box, if you put your eye up to it maybe you can see inside sometimes without opening it, or ask someone nearby whether the contents of the box are crap or not, but once you open the box there's no refunds, so the people selling the box are to blame for knowingly selling it to you knowing it contained crap.

Yeah, no. We're to blame there too. The customer can't sit on his fat arse and go "OMG! I AM OUTRAGED!" if he does a stupid buy.
But back to my core point. If Game Stop or Game sells me a shitty game, is it their fault, all of it, and I should get a refund because of it? I don't have any responsibility to find reviews, word of mouth etc? I don't agree with that. Sure, it'd be nice if Valve were nicer with refunds and not as legendary dodgy about it as they seem to be. But the guys making this shit are the real baddies, followed by the lazy and uniformed jackass, and then the damned store.
Gamers really are a entitled bunch :/.

Yes, Gamestop will give refunds (some shadily in store credit but still). Valve does not, unless you really put the screws to them and only on a good day and you find a customer service guy who hates them.

There is nothing you or I can do to stop these "baddies." Are you saying we should find the dev's house and beat them up? Send death threats like what usually happens?

No. The only people who can stop these people are Valve. They are the only ones who can make it stop. Even if word gets around and only 10 people buy the game, that's scammed money the developer didn't deserve. Only Valve can say "No, we're not sending you a check this month. And we're shutting your scam down." The "community" may have stopped more people from falling for it, but some people still did. Valve needs to take some of the responsibility for keeping their streets clean.

You're dancing and dancing and dancing around the statement you really want to make and that's the usual "Buyer Beware!" nonsense. Fortunately Jim already debunked that:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8974-Buyer-Beware

You should probably go back and rewatch that one.

*sighs*Death threats are not really something I can get behind. At all. However, we gamers do fall easily back on them, yes?
Dance around it? Hell no, I demand that people actually own up if they do some stupid shit. Now, after checking out Valve's refund policy on steam I back on that issue and admit that it seems shit, and they should rework it so it's buyer friendly, but they're still a fucking game shop. I'll hold them to the same standards as I do every other game shop, that is: if I buy a broken product, I return it. If I buy something that's shit due to my own stupidity, then that's on me.
On the otherh and...After thinking my posts over, I realize they come across as a bit too customer hostile, and that's not what i want. At all. But I just get annoyed at this topic as it always seems to boil down to "We don't like Valve...So we'll demand a completely new and lofty standard of them.".
Eh, I admit defeat in this debate and bow out.

 

[JonSherwell]

Well at least we can't fault him for not letting us spend time in his pretty skybox...

 

[Demonchaser27]

Spoiler

This is getting towards falling foul of at least UK product description laws. The law is woefully behind the times (otherwise the worst 'free to play' games would probably have fallen foul of this) but there is supposed to be some basic expectation of accurate description and functionality when a product is purchased.

Unfortunately - much like eBay - Steam does not recognise international law when it comes to this sort of thing.

As a quick example, I once spoke to Steam about getting a refund on God Mode (a game which while more playable than Earth: Year 2066 was still bad) and got no dice with it. Even after citing the UK's "Distance Selling Regulations 2000", Steam refused to issue a refund, citing that the law did not cover Digital products.

And yet, this is despite...well...

Boy. If only the US actually cared about consumer rights. One can dream.

Don't they give you a month in america? I remember when diablo III came out and it was NOTHING like the demo and people got their money back if they made digital purchases. Didn't think it mattered where they were from.

But you are asking STEAM to take a hit for your purchase because I don't think they'll get the money back from this guy.

Well it wasn't my purchase. But no. I didn't know that happened with Diablo 3. Every game up to this point I've ever heard of have had the problem of not being able to get a return, even with misguided advertising. Unless of course hundreds of thousands of people ***** about it. It shouldn't take hundreds of thousands of people complaining to call out lies and get your money back.

 

[Deadcyde]

Now switch the name Muxwell for Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.

Wait, what? You mean it's sexist now despite their content being rubbish?

Nice way to illustrate double standards there Jim.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

Now switch the name Muxwell for Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.

Wait, what? You mean it's sexist now despite their content being rubbish?

Nice way to illustrate double standards there Jim.

If you think Anita Sarkeesian, and Zoe Quinn's content is "rubbish" then start an appropriate forum for it, so we can have an actual discussion instead of a mudslinging contest.

 

[Karadalis]

Now switch the name Muxwell for Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.

Wait, what? You mean it's sexist now despite their content being rubbish?

Nice way to illustrate double standards there Jim.

If you think Anita Sarkeesian, and Zoe Quinn's content is "rubbish" then start an appropriate forum for it, so we can have an actual discussion instead of a mudslinging contest.

Please no.. as if the 35890 topics created wouldnt be enough allready.

OT:

The thing is we have seen all of this before.

The Nintendos Wii had the same problem with tons and tons of shovelware for every 1 decent title and it came back to bite them in the ass with the Wii U. Silly confusing naming aside no real gamer takes the Wii U serious anymore because nintendo pandered to much to the "casual" crowd with all those half assed attempts of "games" thatcame out for the wii u all the time.

Remember when nintendo had a seal of quality? Remember when steam didnt let every scam artist list their half baked concept for 20 dollars and people still had respect for steam cause you could be sure that the stuff they sold actually worked as advertised?

I see steam like the Wii now.. at first really innovative and a predecesor for a certain thing (motion controll for the Wii, online sales for steam)and then both got downed by their owners greed.

Opening the sewers floodgate will hurt steam just asmuch as it had hurt nintendo.

 

[Dragonbums]

Now switch the name Muxwell for Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.

Wait, what? You mean it's sexist now despite their content being rubbish?

Nice way to illustrate double standards there Jim.

I wasn't aware that Anita was selling a product for $20.00 online.

 

[Deadcyde]

Now switch the name Muxwell for Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.

Wait, what? You mean it's sexist now despite their content being rubbish?

Nice way to illustrate double standards there Jim.

I wasn't aware that Anita was selling a product for $20.00 online.

Well except the kickstarter for a ridiculous amount of money that no one seems to have gotten monies worth from.

Besides my original point was simple.. Jim went all out to rag on Muxwell yet goes completely white knight for Zoe and Anita when it's arguable the backlash is for the same thing.. rubbish content and immature feedback.

I'm not saying either\or deserves what they get.. Simply that Jim cannot pretend moral high ground if he has double standards.

 

[Dragonbums]

Now switch the name Muxwell for Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian.

Wait, what? You mean it's sexist now despite their content being rubbish?

Nice way to illustrate double standards there Jim.

I wasn't aware that Anita was selling a product for $20.00 online.

Well except the kickstarter for a ridiculous amount of money that no one seems to have gotten monies worth from.

Besides my original point was simple.. Jim went all out to rag on Muxwell yet goes completely white knight for Zoe and Anita when it's arguable the backlash is for the same thing.. rubbish content and immature feedback.

I'm not saying either\or deserves what they get.. Simply that Jim cannot pretend moral high ground if he has double standards.

Oh, you mean the voluntary donation pool that absolutely nobody was obligated to give money to and only got that much money because a bunch of fanatic atheist Youtubers ranted and raved about her to make her out to be something bigger than she actually was at the time?

 

[arranskye]

I have just had an epiphany: Jim sterling is muxwell and the man is a genius.
Follow my reasoning and you to will come to realize this.
First Jim makes a jimquisition asking people to turn off adblock so that he will get paid more for his show.
Second he creates the persona of muxwell and uses it to create one of the world?s worst games which he then sells at an exorbitant price.
Third he makes a jimquisition (which he is now earning more money off as you have turned off adblock) telling just how bad the game is so we all go and look at the game as any publicity is good publicity thus selling more copies of the game.
Fourth he uses the muxwell persona to behave like a cock on the forums so that everyone keeps putting up links to jims review of the game and in so doing making himself even more money.
Finally he then release a Jim sterling addition of the game at an even higher price what some people will actually pay for as an (all be it expensive) sarcastic joke.

 

[antman890]

lol FYI they've started refunding earth: 2066 customers