Nice fallacy there. I'm not even going to bother responding to that at length because of how silly it is given the overall tone of the discussion we're having.The_Kodu said:Exactly because a hand full of complaints could simply be one company trying to sabotage another.
No, it takes a big outcry because no company likes bad press, and getting the entirety of the internet into a tizzy is about as "bad press" as it gets for a digital retailer like Steam. If you think Valve aren't investigating smaller issues solely because of sabotage or hired goons, you're freaking delusional.It takes a big outcry because then it's clear there is a problem and its not just some hired goons or one guy who spend 5 days jumping at one wall in the game until he fell through it.
Where did I claim nobody should be under any obligation to do their own research? I'm a big proponent of making consumers more self-aware, but what -- given the context of what you and I are discussing -- exactly does that have to do with Valve allowing developers to release unfinished games on Steam or publishers putting misleading technical info into their Steam Store listings? Personal research only goes so far, and the way Steam is set up now makes it even more difficult for consumers to make a truthfully informed decision.So doing all of 5 minute research on your purchase is considered too much now ?
Just because it's on steam doesn't mean you have to buy it.
Just because it's just come out doesn't mean you have to buy it.
That does happen, as it rightfully should. But which company is complacent in allowing those developers to abuse the very system this company created, and which company gets away with that complacency every time by riding on the goodwill of its drooling fans? You get one guess.The person to blame is the developers for actually abusing the system to mislead customer and you know what happens to them out in the west of the internet ?
Internet outback justice. They get slammed and their name is destroyed in the public eye. That's what happens.
I understand what you're getting at, but you seem to be under the impression that I'm somehow advocating that Valve start censoring their library of Steam games based on vague subjective notions of what "quality" consists of. I'm simply arguing that Valve need to be more proactive when it comes to publishers and developers who manipulate a poorly-supervised system. In fact, I'd like to point out that out of the many responses Jim's video has gotten, a very, very small minority could be construed as actually arguing in favor of total censorship and removal of low-quality games.Can the game be played ?
Yes
Is the experience extremely poor ?
Yes
Is it therefore broken as it can be played ?
No its just extremely poor quality.
How can people still want to blame Steam for selling poor quality games when music shops still sell the works of Justin Beiber?
If you want to continue to beat that dead horse, go ahead. Just don't expect me to accept it as a valid counterpoint to my own opinion. We've already gone over the difference between "objective" and "subjective", so you're doing nothing here but attempting to move the goalposts (as are many other pro-Valve posters in this thread). Since you're so distressed at the thought of a company exerting more preventative oversight on its retail inventory, could you please take it up with the people who are actually pushing for that?