Jimquisition: Steam Needs Quality Control

[Diablo1099_v1legacy]

While I agree with the notion that there are a LOT of poor quality Steam games, I saw a retail copy of "Ride to Hell: Retribution" at Gamestop priced at ?60.
While Valve might want to consider Quality Control in order to help counteract this image problem, it does seem a tad bit unfair to blame Steam for something that Retail outlets have been doing for years.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

While I agree with the notion that there are a LOT of poor quality Steam games, I saw a retail copy of "Ride to Hell: Retribution" at Gamestop priced at ?60.

Then GameStop should be taken to task for selling a knowingly broken and unfinished game. As should any retailer that sells broken products, Steam included.

While Valve might want to consider Quality Control in order to help counteract this image problem, it does seem a tad bit unfair to blame Steam for something that Retail outlets have been doing for years.

So because this has been an ongoing issue with other retail outlets for years, that makes it okay for Steam to engage in the same behavior? Remember, this Jimquisition episode was specifically about Steam, but I'm sure Jim would have chosen to talk about other retailers had he felt the need to.

Look, Valve supposedly stake their reputation on how they treat their customer base. They should know better than to allow publishers and developers to engage in behavior that actively misleads the buying public, but in (too) many cases that's exactly what is happening. Valve need to step up and take some form of responsibility, whether it's streamlining Greenlight and Early Access, offering a more reasonable refund policy, a dedicated QA team, or stronger oversight of what gets sold on Steam.

 

[LordLundar]

So, I've been seeing a lot of replies to my comments (most of which actually being offended that I question Sterling) and they always provide the same replies, so I'll tackle them right now.

Shelf space being a reason for quality control in physical stores. Clearly you have not been to a physical store that sells games recently. Or ever for that matter. There's TONS of space filled up with copies of stuff that is far worse than most stuff on Steam. just because you're too blind to notice doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It sits on the shelf doing nothing until the store is forced to either try for a refund at a considerable loss or destroy it to make room for more junk. Stores don't fill the shelves based on quality, they fill them based on market research telling them what sells. This means that absolute garbage goes on the shelf because there's people stupid enough to buy it.

Valve has a quality assurance division. This is true. FOR VALVE TITLES AND SERVICES! They do not, nor are they required to utilize their own quality assurance staff to ensure that other companies products work on your computer. That's the concern of the publisher/developer. Hey, here's a thought! GameStop's digital store has a Quality Control team for their client as well! That means they HAVE to test every game that sees the light of day on it and if it doesn't pass muster then it doesn't get sold! Oh wait, they sell Simcity 2013 on it and have done so since day one? Well, there goes that theory!

The Early Access/community choice response. These services simply function as a method of exposure, not giving control over to Valve. At no point is Valve responsible for their success, failure, quality or fame/infamy. If these functions didn't exist developers would simply find another outlet. Hell, There was a recent sale promoting the fact that the titles weren't on greenlight and if you thought Greenlight had some bad options you haven't seen anything.

This brings me to my final issue. The "pro steam filtering" group is sounding a lot like the "anti violent games" campaign that was shut down due to violating the first amendment. In fact, I could replace the argument about quality with the argument about violence and it would be identical. As such, my response is the same to you as it was to them: You are in no way forced to purchase the titles you are saying should not exist. But with that freedom of choice comes the restriction that you do not get to infringe on the rights of the makers to put it out there. You have outlets to run with for fraudulent claims that do not infringe on the creators rights. Maybe you should exercise that instead of raising the placard calling for a ban on a title you don't like.

The sad part is there has only been one person who was honest in their reply to my original question as to why only Valve should be required when no one else should. The response boiled down to "I don't want to fix the problem, I just don't want to see the problem." It's a terrible reason, but at least it's honest. Otherwise, no one, not even Jim has given a single reason why Valve's Steam store is required to filter their placement based on subjective quality when no other store, physical or digital, has that same requirement applied to them. You want to fix the problem? Stop looking for a scapegoat.

 

[lukesparow]

However, I don't think Steam should necesarrily have a big emphasis on quality control. It's a free market out there. If the game's shit you simply shouldn't buy it.

It's up to the consumer to see what's good and what isn't and then make choices accordingly. That's my view on this matter anyway.

So, when you do your groceries or other shopping, you don't expect the retailer to take any role in quality control at all?

So, the supermarket can just sell you food that has a high chance of poisoning you, and that's OK, because you should have known that? Or, an electronics retailer can just sell products with a known high rate of failure, and then you can't return it because you should have known better?

In the case of Steam, it's arguably even worse than that, as Steam allowed its sellers to make false claims about the said products. So, not just selling a terrible product, but allowing them to sell it while also claiming it isn't terrible.

While that's an interesting analogy, I don't think it quite holds up. Steam is very different from a grocery store. When you're selling health-related products people NEED to buy there should obviously be quality control.
However, any game you buy is completely optional. Therefore I'd say quality control is unnecesarry. It's not like people's lives are dependant on it.

I do however completely agree with what you said about Steam's ludacrous policy on how developers get to advocate their own games. It's ridiculous that these guys are allowed to just straight-up lie about what they're selling. I also think Valve needs to implement some sort of return option. It's the main reason I hardly buy anything from Steam, unless I know precisely what I'm getting. I'm not sure how they could implement such a feature though. With this downloading system it seems to me like you could just download it, burn it onto a disc and then return it, basically making Steam prone to piracy.
Then again, I'm not a genius so I might not be seeing an easy solution.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Actually not the job of a store is to sell products people want to buy. If people want to buy the junk then that's the peoples fault. Steam caters to most demographics unlike many stores which focus on a few or a single one.

Sorry,you don't understand how stores work. The customers don't dictate what a store sells. When a business owner starts a store, it is up to them to decide what they want to sell, at what prices, and what level of service they want to provide.

Many stores sell junk, but many stores specifically choose not to sell junk and focus on high-end products. Just because most people want a Toyota, doesn't mean that a Rolls Royce dealership has to sell Toyotas. (Note: I'm not saying that Toyota is junk, just popular)

Regardless of whose "fault" it is, if your store sells junk, you will quickly develop a reputation as a store that sells junk.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Or you could just be an informed consumer, think for more than 30 seconds, and not buy shitty games.

Not going to do that?

Ok... just blame Steam, the marketplace, instead.

Yeesh... no wonder our governments suck. "Let's use government to save us from our own stupidity"... ignoring the fact that the people deciding that government intervention is the best policy are ones who need to be saved and probably aren't very good at making decisions in the first place.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

If you pay $10 for a game 70% of people disliked, you have earned whatever you get. Honestly, the low price point makes me more forgiving of shortcomings as well.

So, "The food there is terrible, but at least the serving sizes are large!"?

It's exactly this kind of "forgiveness" that terrible developers rely on. And I think it's quite destructive to the industry, much like the freemium model. Why bother selling a well-crafted game for a bit extra, when you can develop shovelware, and people won't complain because it's cheap?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Ok... just blame Steam, the marketplace, instead.

This a the mistake that many people in this thread are making. Steam is not the marketplace, any more than your local supermarket is "the marketplace" Steam is just one player in a broader market.

The fact that people are equating Steam with the entire marketplace is a bit troubling. It is just one vendor. It is also not like the government in any way. That people make such a comparison kind of indicates that things might be a little out of control.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Otherwise, no one, not even Jim has given a single reason why Valve's Steam store is required to filter their placement based on subjective quality when no other store, physical or digital, has that same requirement applied to them. You want to fix the problem? Stop looking for a scapegoat.

I don't recall anybody claiming that Valve should be required to filter their store.

All I've seen are people arguing that it would be nice if they had better quality control, not that it should be forced upon them. Don't we have the freedom to criticize Steam? Or is it somehow above judgement?

I may be wrong, perhaps you can point me to the post that argued that this should be forced onto Steam. Otherwise, it kind of bugs me when people argue with arguments that haven't actually been made. Although that does seem like a common sport around these parts.

 

[OuroborosChoked]

Ok... just blame Steam, the marketplace, instead.

This a the mistake that many people in this thread are making. Steam is not the marketplace, any more than your local supermarket is "the marketplace" Steam is just one player in a broader market.

The fact that people are equating Steam with the entire marketplace is a bit troubling. It is just one vendor. It is also not like the government in any way. That people make such a comparison kind of indicates that things might be a little out of control.

Um, at no point did I say or even insinuate that Steam was the only game in town. That's your reading, buddy. I know other stores exist. I've bought things from Gamer's Gate and GOG... even direct from publishers. But Steam is its own marketplace and in the context of this discussion, "the marketplace" in question is Steam. Your attempt at derailing aside...

Who cares what Steam sells? The only people that should matter to are the employees at Valve. If they start losing market share due to an abundance of crap, they'll likely do something. Complaining that there's no "quality control" isn't Valve's problem. It's not their job, either.

You have a brain, right? So decide for yourself! Read reviews. Surely if someone bought the game and hated it, there'd be a review somewhere online. Look at the screen shots. Does it look like a game you'd want to play? Do the screen shots look real or a little too good? Are they just sketches? Read up on the person or group making the game. Do they have a reputation? Is it a good or bad one? What are other developers saying about the game? Developers play LOADS of games. Ask around! Check what the best sellers are. Chances are if the game blows, people aren't buying it.

It comes down to this: it's your money. Steam isn't there to make your choices for you... nor should they.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Um, at no point did I say or even insinuate that Steam was the only game in town. That's your reading, buddy. I know other stores exist. I've bought things from Gamer's Gate and GOG... even direct from publishers. But Steam is its own marketplace and in the context of this discussion, "the marketplace" in question is Steam. Your attempt at derailing aside...

Attempt at derailing? What?

I simply responded to what you wrote. Which was that Steam is the marketplace. If you meant to say something different, then maybe you should have written something different?

Who cares what Steam sells? The only people that should matter to are the employees at Valve. If they start losing market share due to an abundance of crap, they'll likely do something. Complaining that there's no "quality control" isn't Valve's problem. It's not their job, either.

Well, yeah, it is their problem if it loses them sales. Do you see how circular your reasoning is?

And, as a customer of Steam, why can't I complain about lack of quality control? That matters to me as a customer, and it's one of the reasons I hardly ever visit the store anymore.

You have a brain, right? So decide for yourself! Read reviews.

I do.

It comes down to this: it's your money. Steam isn't there to make your choices for you... nor should they.

When did I say that Steam should be making my choices for me? You're constructing straw men here.

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

Look, Valve supposedly stake their reputation on how they treat their customer base. They should know better than to allow publishers and developers to engage in behavior that actively misleads the buying public, but in (too) many cases that's exactly what is happening. Valve need to step up and take some form of responsibility, whether it's streamlining Greenlight and Early Access, offering a more reasonable refund policy, a dedicated QA team, or stronger oversight of what gets sold on Steam.

Valve can only act when people show it up. At present what people are claiming is they want a quality barrier, the problem is quality is quite subjective.

The drive to pull The War Z from the marketplace was only successful because of the number of people that complained about it. The same goes for an insignificantly small handful of titles like Dark Matter. What about all the other "broken" games that remain in the Steam Store -- the ones that have misleading information on their store pages, or the ones that the developers sell as finished but are obviously not? Valve completely ignore those until an unavoidably loud public outcry arises. For Valve, it's all "business as usual" until the internet at large makes a stink. For Christ's sake, the people running Steam can't even be bothered to fact-check the store pages of the products they sell; there's simply no justification for that kind of laziness.

Foisting the blame for those kinds of situations on the consumer is, frankly, bullshit. And I've seen plenty of people here doing just that.

Functional isn't subjective but that's not what's been brought up here.

But functionality has been brought up several times, not only by posters in this thread but by Jim himself in the video. I'd go so far to say that broken functionality (open to objective criticism), not intentional design (open to subjective criticism), is at the heart of Jim's argument.

Why is it okay for Valve to sell broken products when no other retailer is normally allowed to get away with it?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Naw. It's like taking a girl out to dinner. Sure you could take her to a nice place, spend your $60 for a reasonable expectation of a good meal. Instead you went to McDonalds and spent $10. Results may vary but there is a level of common sense expectation that comes with that choice.

Fast. Cheap. Good. You can only pick two. Sometimes only one.

Terrible analogy. When you go to McDonalds, you expect the food to be prepared under sanitary conditions, you expect to get what's advertised. You get nutritional documentation saying what the food contains. And if the food isn't up to par, it's easy to get a refund. The service is usually quite good. And most people think it tastes good.

The more valid comparison with Steam is if you got food that was cold, not as advertised, made you sick, and the staff tell you to piss off when you complain or ask for a refund.

As for only picking two out of three - that wasn't how it always was on Steam. They got to the market position they have now, largely by selling great games at insanely low prices, in a very convenient form. So no, we haven't always expected such compromises with Steam.

Another factor is how insanely price-sensitive people are. Charge $10, and people will forgive you for crap. Charge $30, and people practically expect a blow-job with their game. It's extremely disproportionate. Which is what I was commenting on with letting developers get away with shit. Because it seems the more they try to deliver a good product, the more crap they get. And people who try to deliver good products actually care about criticism. people who are trying to scam you with crap don't give a shit, and just ignore criticism.

I'd say the comparison is less to McDonalds, and more to a terrible food truck at a carnival that has no reason to care about your repeat business.

 

[C14N]

Well it is kind of the way of the internet store to do this. Apple don't filter the many terrible apps on their closed appstore, Netflix certainly don't try to ensure a high overall quality in the films they show. You can't really just go telling people that you don't think they're good enough for your store. I actually commend Steam for generally sticking a Metascore next to the game. Generally if there isn't one you know you're taking a risk.

At the same time if a game just doesn't work then they should at the very least offer a refund. If I buy a PS3 game at Gamestop and it doesn't work I'm allowed to bring it back and selling alpha games seems kind of like a furniture shop selling you an unsanded table with a leg missing, promising that you'll hopefully get a finished version in less than 12 months as long as the company is still in business. And giving moderation power to the developers is completely mad. Can you imagine if eBay let sellers remove any feedback on a whim or if IMDB let film studios remove low scores? It defeats the entire purpose of having a review system and I can't see why Valve would run it that way at all.

 

[orangeapples]

Valve should have some standards for what is allowed on their platform. Ubisoft and EA don't just let ANY game be sold on their platform. Perhaps Valve can have a games jury like how websites have forum moderators. Give these people limited access, say 48 hours from when they start the game to submit a verdict. If they have 20 people try the game then at least 15 need to say this is good.

They do free weekends all the time, so giving a handful of people the game to test isn't going to be a big deal. Also they need to stop with that early access BS. That nonsense needs to stop.