Jimquisition: Steam Needs Quality Control

[Aardvaarkman]

So making the patty isn't part of the preparation ?

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. The patty is 100% beef.

The "preparation" is the assembly of the burger. Which includes things like bread and cheese, as well as salt and pepper. I'm not sure how the inclusion of bread and cheese in the final product somehow makes the burger patty any less 100% beef. I'm especially not sure how it makes your claim of it being supplied by a company named "100% Beef" any more valid.

No they didn't have to the implication is pretty clear. I mean the title of the discussion is steam needs quality control and plenty of people here have voiced their concerns about the poor quality of recent releases. and others have said how Valve's reputation rests on them selling good quality products. I was pointing out if that is so then how is it the following games are on steam and not seeing seething rage aimed at them:

But the problem is that Steam is now overwhelmed by crappy games, when they were not the norm in the past. Nobody was claiming that Steam has never sold crappy games before. This is especially noticeable with the "Greenlight" project, where they are selling fundamentally broken games on a level never seen before.

A stores job is to sell products people want to buy.
People voted for some on greenlight and publishers backed others. For a publisher to back a game they normally have to have something to gain, therefore Valve would assume people wanted said product as no publisher will back a loss unless there is something in it long game.

Publishers will back this, because Steam has (in the past) had a good reputation. So, being featured on Steam means easy profits. The publishers are eroding Steam's reputation by publishing shit, because they know that if it's on Steam, it will sell. That's fine and capitalistic, if Steam is willing to have such publishers trade on the brand's good name and reduce it to ashes.

It's also hardly unusual for publishers to be uninterested in the long-term. The way most of them are set up, short-term profits usually take precedence. So, releasing a crappy game on Steam for immediate profit makes a lot more sense to many publishers than bothering to make a quality game for long-term gains.

So what you're saying is you'd rather Valve only stock highly profitable games.
Games that generally will sell well due to a mass appeal ?
So you'd happily say bye bye to anything seen as a niche genre game ?

No, that's not what I'm saying, and it's incredibly bizarre that you would infer that from my post. I do not like Wal-Mart or their business practices.

The point of my post comes back around to my first reply to you - that you don't seem to understand how retail stores work. they aren't some kind of neutral marketplace - they all choose what they want to sell.

If you want Valve to be wallmart then please go ahead.

When did I say that I want Valve to be like Wal-Mart?

My comment on that topic was in response to somebody who claimed that, unlike Whole Foods, Wal-Mart is not selective about what they sell. I was merely correcting that, because Wal-Mart is just as selective as Whole Foods, if not more.

I'd like to hear the logic that says Valve shouldn't release games with niche appeal when they have the capacity to allow it and bring things for everyone rather than a homologous grey goo they have to keep telling us is what we want.

Again, I never said anything resembling this. I'm not sure why you insist on putting words in other people's mouths.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Does Whole Foods sell all food? No, they pick and choose what products they're going to sell. MOST STORES tell tons of products that they're not good enough for their store.

Steam does NOT have to sell every single PC game in existence. That is the whole point of this episode - they are trying to do so and it is damaging the perception of the quality of their store. They're selling Coca Cola alongside President's Choice at nearly the same price, and without meticulous research it's starting to get harder to figure out which ones are the quality soda and which ones are the generic crap.

No but Walmart does. Wholefoods serves a niche market, the kind of people who go there usually have a bit more money to spend so they go to a classier supermarket to buy more expensive food. Valve seem to be going more for the wholesale model. Whatever you want, they'll have it. Besides, what is and isn't good is always subjective. Loads of people might hate Branston Pickle but that doesn't mean a supermarket should stop selling it to the people who do want it. Granted, if it doesn't work (or if all the Pickle is out of date) you should be entitled to a refund but that doesn't mean they're obligated to stop selling functional versions of something that you just don't like.

But Walmart DOESN'T have everything. They don't carry high end high quality products and cater towards the low and mid range. And considering I haven't shopped at a Walmart in over a decade their reputation precedes them. Do we REALLY want Steam to become the Walmart of PC game stores? Disgusting.

Also, in the olden days when you just walked into a game shop on the street, they sold pretty much everything too. The PC section in particular carried an awful lot of tripe.

What I don't understand is this idea that you need to sift through all the crappy games. Do people just sort of decide they're in the mood to buy a game so they go onto Steam and browse around? Then they pick out a previously-unheard-of game, put down $10-15 (or even more) and find out that it's crap? This is all such an alien concept to me. I can understand people seeing a game on the Steam homepage, thinking it looks interesting and then buying it on that but those games are usually the higher-quality ones that do work, usually some big AAA game or an indie game that's won an award or something. I mean with sales and stuff I genuinely try to avoid buying games on Steam unless it's a really great deal. I'm not saying "everyone should do it like me", I just kind of assumed that was what most people already did. Not to mention that the Metascore is right there on the page. Who are these people who see a 45% game and still want it?

In the "olden days" the number of games that were out could actually be represented on the wall of Electronics Boutique. Do you know how many PC games are out there now? Browsed through an App Store lately? The good to garbage ratio has plummeted.

 

[Something Amyss]

Except in entertainment. When you watch a bad movie or buy a bad book, you aren't necessarily entitled to a refund.

Except we're talking about the equivalent of a book that's missing pages or a movie that won't play certain scenes. In that case, you are entitled to a refund legally.

It's more a case of this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10985-2-Pro-4-U

 

[Something Amyss]

Hence steam does have someone on the door either needing a large portion of people to let the game in (greenlight) or some-one to vouch for them (a publisher). Even so short of closing all borders, steam will always have some bad titles get in. It's just the nature of allowing someone else's products onto your service.

Yes, they will always have some bad titles. But they're flooded with it right now. By the same logic, there will always be some sex offenders, so why make public masturbation a crime?

 

[deadish]

When you are "open" like Google's Android Store or Valve's Steam, people complain there is too much crap. Well, that's what you get for "freedom".

When you are a "walled-garden" like Apple's App Store, Sony and MS console ecosystem, people complain that you are being a dictator and should DIAF.

Damn if you do, damn if you don't.

/shrug

 

[Aardvaarkman]

To say greenlight is bad denys it being responsible for the release of:
Papers Please
Organ trail
McPixel
Sang Froid
DLC Quest
Reciever
Contrast
Octodad
Artemis
The Stanley Parable
The Cat Lady
War for the Overworld

Firstly, I never said Greenlight was bad.

You are also assuming that these games would not have been released if Greenlight didn't exist. These games could have just as likely been released via support from Kickstarter, investors, or publishers. You don't have any evidence they wouldn't have been released without Greenlight.

Out of 194 released games 6 have been bad.
Wow a whole 3% of the games released via greenlight have been bad

So lets compare that to the releases by EA

The broken
Need for Speed Rivals (locked to 30FPs and changing it breaks the game physics)
Battlefield 4 (serious server issues)
Sim City (Broken servers and a seriously reduced game)
Real Racing 3 on mobile (Micro transactions out the whazoo such as 3 hours to refuel the car.......)

thats 4 out of 24
That's 16%

You are comparing apples and oranges. The "bad" games from EA are flawed games that mostly work as advertised. The flawed games on green light are pretty much completely broken.

The reason a lot of games go through greenlight is that publishers won't back them.
So if being on steam = a licence to print money why wouldn't publishers back more of the games that ended up going for grrenlight ?

Chicken and egg issue.

Also, Greenlight is not the same as Steam. Plenty of publishers release stuff on Steam without going through Greenlight.

Also steam isn't publishing it. Steam are selling it as the retailer.

That's a blurry line. Greenlight makes Steam more than just a retailer - Steam is contributing to the funding and development of these games, much as a publisher does.

Just because it's on steam doesn't mean its endorsed by Valve or Gabe. It's a product, they're a store.

If they're just a store, then what's Greenlight about, then?

So you don't want publishers to release games on steam yet you don't want greenlight either.
Are you after totalitarian control of steam by any chance ?

Why do you continue to put words in my mouth? I did not suggest anything of the sort. How does "better quality control" somehow equate in your mind to "don't want publishers to release games," "don't want Greenlight," or "Totalitarianism" of all things?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing my posts, or are having reading comprehension problems. You might want to learn about something called "Godwin's Law" - because casually throwing around words like "Totalitarianism" when people disagree with you doesn't help your argument.

And you seem to miss the point. Valve doesn't need to, it has the space to sell niche titles and to try different products out.

Just because they can, doesn't necessarily mean they should.

And mine was to point out how without experimenting and getting it wrong sometimes Valve wouldn't be selling some very good, unique and original games on steam either. Because they are willing to take a bit more of a risk.

But a big risk here is tanking the indie games industry by releasing crap that gives good indie games a bad reputation by association.

So you don't want greenlight games.

When did I say that?

You're claiming valve should quality control games. Now you're claiming Valve should be allowed to release niche titles that may not provide the quality you want due to being in a genre you don't enjoy ?
Is that about the size of this now ?

I don't know how to respond to this, these sentences are incoherent and don't make sense.

You appear to be saying something about me saying Valve should be able to release titles? I never said Valve should be disallowed from releasing anything. I'm not sure where you're getting the "should be allowed" idea from. If it's not illegal, Valve are allowed to do whatever they want, and I don't remember anybody proposing that Valve should be prohibited from releasing whatever games they want.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

No you didn't say greenlight itself was bad. What you did say was

But the problem is that Steam is now overwhelmed by crappy games, when they were not the norm in the past. Nobody was claiming that Steam has never sold crappy games before. This is especially noticeable with the "Greenlight" project, where they are selling fundamentally broken games on a level never seen before.

so yeh you're saying the greenlight project is a place for them to sell fundamentally broken games and is populated overwhelmingly with crappy games.

No, I'm saying that quality control on Steam is poor, and what's being released on Greenlight is a symptom of this. That's a very different thing than saying "Greenlight is bad."

So yeh 3% of the greenlight games released have been bad. 3%. I get some governments can be on power on a 30% share but I'd hardly say 3% was an overwhelming majority. Nor would I claim the point of greenlight is to sell broken games.

But that's only by your reckoning. I'd say there are way more bad games on Greenlight than 3%. 3% might be a reasonable figure for totally broken games, but there are plenty more games that are bad, but not broken. Of course, that's all subjective.

I find it quite interesting to see people now saying they would prefer the big name publishers to be able to act how they did before and take advantage of smaller developers. All because a few low quality games were released.

I didn't say anything of the sort.

As for "taking advantage of developers" - publishers can't do that unless developers enter into a contract with them. If a developer feels like that contract takes advantage of them, then maybe they shouldn't sign it? Any abuse of the contract would be legally actionable. So, the developers are freely entering into these arrangements.

Looked at from another perspective, it could be seen as developers taking advantage of publishers, as the publishers pay for development.

Also again you're not claiming greenlight is bad just all the games on greenlight except I guess that minority of 97% ?

Again with the incomprehensible writing. What the hell is that sentence supposed to mean?

Yeh because if you have a publisher you don't have to apply through greenlight. Only self publishing titles need to go through greenlight.

Right, but this discussion is about Steam in general, not just Greenlight. It includes titles released by publishers directly to Steam.

Also steam isn't publishing it. Steam are selling it as the retailer.

That's a blurry line. Greenlight makes Steam more than just a retailer - Steam is contributing to the funding and development of these games, much as a publisher does.

Actually it doesn't. Developers pay $100 to be listed on greenlight. Steam doesn't pay the developers until the game is selling on the service.

How does that change anything, or make the line any less blurry? How does paying $100 suddenly make Greenlight not a development-funding entity much like a publisher?

Simple, a giant piece of market research for them. Rather than having pannels and focus groups they're getting everyone to vote and working on what gets said.

It's obviously more than research, as it results in the approval and funding of games. This is not how stores usually operate.

Well some of the poor games released have publishers backing them.

Right. Which is an issue of quality control on Steam. I don't care whether a shitty game comes from publisher or Greenlight. It's kind of a weird thing to say, anyway, because every game, even Greenlight ones, come from publishers. When an individual developer sells a game on Steam, he becomes a publisher.

It's clear you're against greenlight.

How is that clear, when I'm not against Greenlight?

But you want no poor games and as some of those poor games are on steam thanks to publisher backing then you obviously don't want that as a route in either.

Right. I want quality control, regardless of the source. It's a pretty simple argument. I don't why you've gone to such lengths to twist my arguments and claim things I didn't say, when that's been my simple argument all along.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing my posts, or are having reading comprehension problems. You might want to learn about something called "Godwin's Law" - because casually throwing around words like "Totalitarianism" when people disagree with you doesn't help your argument.

I didn't say the N word now did I Adolf ? I merely pointed out how if you're so against any bad games having any way onto steam then that is the only way to make sure no games you see as poor quality get onto the service. [/quote]

No, it isn't. Having quality control doesn't imply totalitarianism. You don't seem to understand what totalitarianism is. Steam not being a government would kind of rule it out of being totalitarian in the first place. Businesses are free to choose to sell or not sell whatever they want, and that is not Totalitarianism - that is freedom.

So let me get you to confirm this. You don't want steam to sell products to a demographic seen as niche ?

No. I don't want Steam to sell crap, whether it be niche crap, or mainstream crap.

The indie games industry will always exist because of startups entering it. Unless you are saying people are so dumb they will see that it's an indie game and automatically think all indie games will have the same quality level.

Once again, you infer completely made up arguments ("unless people are so dumb") out of whole cloth.

Do you really think that Steam doesn't have enough influence in the market that it can't damage the indie game market? Earlier in this thread you were arguing that certain games have only been released because of Steam. But if Steam has enough power to positively influence the industry, then it also has the power to negatively influence it.

You're claiming valve should quality control games. Now you're claiming Valve should be allowed to release niche titles that may not provide the quality you want due to being in a genre you don't enjoy ?
Is that about the size of this now ?

I don't know how to respond to this, these sentences are incoherent and don't make sense.

That's your argument laid bare. If you can't make sense of it then obviously you can see how it's broken.

No it's not. It doesn't make sense because your grammar is so poor, and it has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

You appear to be saying something about me saying Valve should be able to release titles? I never said Valve should be disallowed from releasing anything.

Except any game which you see and poor quality or "broken".

No, when did I say that Valve should not be allowed to release anything they want? I am arguing that they shouldn't, out of their own choice - not that they should be somehow banned from doing so.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion as you'd get sometimes broken games see release and as a good consumer you're meant to avoid them and not spend money on them, not blame the store and expect them the perfectly keep the entire system free of anything you have to avoid.

I never said anything about them doing it perfectly. I just think they should make an effort to try better.

Do you complain to your ISP each month because they don't block websites you don't like automatically for you ?

Wow, what an incredible non-sequitur. How do you come up with these arguments?

I'm not sure where you're getting the "should be allowed" idea from. If it's not illegal, Valve are allowed to do whatever they want, and I don't remember anybody proposing that Valve should be prohibited from releasing whatever games they want.

except again if people were accepting of Valve to be allowed to try and allowed to have games fail then maybe this thread would have been over by page 2

Huh? I totally believe that Valve should be allowed to try, and to have games fail. I also think they're doing a shitty job of quality control, and that allowing developers to censor negative posts about their games is a terrible idea.

 

[Something Amyss]

The simple thing people are missing is it can be dealt with.
In the case of public masturbation the person gets arrested.
In the case of bad games on steam you don't buy it.

Except that's a false comparison. We have law enforcement to deal with one. We have no enforcement to deal with the other. That is what people are asking for.

Do you go out every day personally hunting down and arresting those who masturbate in public ?

See, that's the thing. I have no burden to. Public masturbators are dealt with by law enforcement. Again, your argument is that we shouldn't have enforcement because people will still manage to get away with it. That's nonsense.

So why are you going out for Valves head over bad games on the system ?

Who's out for Valve's head, exactly?

 

[Something Amyss]

[
It is a false comparison hence why I could break it as I did.

You didn't break it.

As far as I'm aware it's not illegal to make a bad game.

Nobody claimed it was.

One where people need to realise Valve isn't infallible and some subjectively bad games will be released.

Please point to where I said Valve was infallible. In fact, my argument stems from the opposite. Just because they can't get everyone doesn't mean they shouldn't make attempts.

No my argument is you shouldn't sweat it.

But I don't have to sweat it because there are police doing their jobs. That's why your argument breaks down under any scrutiny.

Those seemingly claiming Valve are releasing nothing but bad games and claiming the majority of releases are broken.

Please point to someone claiming that. I didn't, and you aimed that comment at me. So are you lying, or just knocking down a strawman?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But you claimed the majority of greenlight games were broken and that the system was in place to sell broken games.

No I didn't. What the hell is up with you and making things up?

If you're going to say that greenlight is a symptom of Valves lack of quality control you seem to be missing the fact that greenlight games have to be released before they are sold.

That doesn't seem to be true. They are selling "early access" to pre-release games that have come from Greenlight, aren't they?

No you just seemed to oppose greenlight very strongly and the idea of self publishing. As you seemed very in favour of very strict quality controls

I'm in favour of strict quality control. But I'm not sure why you think this would mean I'm against Greenlight as a concept. Maybe you should read what I write, rather than what I "seem to" write?

As I pointed out the only real way onto steam now without greenlight is with a publisher. You claimed these games could have made it without greenlight. To get onto steam without going through greenlight now needs a publisher. That's the only way. The way it read was you suggesting there were far better alternatives to greenlight when the only viable one isn't that great and reduces creative control.

Any game, that's successfully funded via Kickstarter, or via any other means, shouldn't have any trouble picking up a publisher.

Also again you're not claiming greenlight is bad just all the games on greenlight except I guess that minority of 97% ?

Again with the incomprehensible writing. What the hell is that sentence supposed to mean?

It's being deliberately facetious after you comments about greenlight.
Glad you can see how stupid it is.

What the hell?

You write a sentence with such poor grammar it is nearly impossible to parse, and has nothing to do with anything I've said, and you blame it on me?

Yeh because if you have a publisher you don't have to apply through greenlight. Only self publishing titles need to go through greenlight.

Right, but this discussion is about Steam in general, not just Greenlight. It includes titles released by publishers directly to Steam.

Yes and you're calling for tighter control on quality, that hits both areas.

Exactly.

So... how are your arguments relevant to this? You were trying to argue that I'm against Greenlight, when clearly I'm against lack of quality control regardless of the source.

How does that change anything, or make the line any less blurry? How does paying $100 suddenly make Greenlight not a development-funding entity much like a publisher?

How does that change anything ?
Really you claimed Valve was acting like a publisher and giving financial support during development to greenlight titles. I pointed out not only do they not do that they actually charge for submission onto greenlight.

But they are giving financial support to Greenlight titles by making them available on Steam. If this was not worth anything, then what is the point of Greenlight? You yourself said that certain games would not exist if it weren't for Greenlight.

So which is it, does green light have any effect on development, or not? Do you really think that $100 amounts to a drop in the ocean compared to the massive financial boost of being featured on Steam?

It's obviously more than research, as it results in the approval and funding of games. This is not how stores usually operate.

Where' this idea of funding for the game coming from ?

Steam customers.

It's hard to see the great support for a service you believe is designed to sell broken games and the majority of the games on it are broken.

Except I don't believe that, and never said that. that's just another thing you made up.

Simple argument. Complex root cause.
You don't want any crappy games on steam.
Define crappy in an objective way ?

Why do I have to define it in an objective way, when it's an entirely subjective thing? Since when did "quality control" only apply to objective measures?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing my posts, or are having reading comprehension problems. You might want to learn about something called "Godwin's Law" - because casually throwing around words like "Totalitarianism" when people disagree with you doesn't help your argument.

I didn't say the N word now did I Adolf ? I merely pointed out how if you're so against any bad games having any way onto steam then that is the only way to make sure no games you see as poor quality get onto the service.

No, it isn't. Having quality control doesn't imply totalitarianism. You don't seem to understand what totalitarianism is. Steam not being a government would kind of rule it out of being totalitarian in the first place. Businesses are free to choose to sell or not sell whatever they want, and that is not Totalitarianism - that is freedom.

Providing no solid objective definition leads to the concept that the definition is a subjective one and as such controlled by the individual.

Since when did "controlled by the individual" become the definition of "Totalitarianism"? When you choose what flavour of ice-cream you want to eat, are you being a totalitarian?

It seems that if we go by your definition, every private business owner is a totalitarian, as they choose how to run their own businesses.

It's all well and good saying "quality control" however you need to define it in an objective way.

Why?

Otherwise why aren't you yelling at Radio stations for playing Justin Beiber ?

Who says I'm not?

Is it crap because it doesn't appeal to you or some other magical standards ?

Yep.

You claimed that Steam releasing poor quality indie games would kill off all indie games as no-one would buy them...........

No, I didn't.

You're claiming valve should quality control games. Now you're claiming Valve should be allowed to release niche titles that may not provide the quality you want due to being in a genre you don't enjoy ?
Is that about the size of this now ?

I don't know how to respond to this, these sentences are incoherent and don't make sense.

That's your argument laid bare. If you can't make sense of it then obviously you can see how it's broken.

No it's not. It doesn't make sense because your grammar is so poor, and it has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

Hurts to have the truth laid out doesn't it. It's a very confusing convoluted argument you're putting forward that follows its own antilogic.

No, it doesn't hurt, because what you posted has nothing to do with the truth, or my argument. As for my argument, it is extremely simple. It is contained within the title of Jim's video that this comment thread is attached to.

It's nowhere near as convoluted as the arguments you are putting forth, which included (paraphrased):

"McDonalds burger patties aren't actually 100% beef, but are in fact made by a company named '100% Beef' in order to confuse consumers,"

... and...

"Quality control is Totalitarianism."

One mans trash is another mans treasure.
crap is subjective
Broken is objective

Incorrect. Both are subjective. What's "broken" for one person works for another. Some people may have more fun with one "broken" game than they do with another that is not. Barring a game that doesn't actually run at all, the definition of brokenness in games is rather subjective.

But I'm not seeing the problem with subjectivity. Subjectivity is perfectly fine. Objectivity is mostly an illusion.

My example being one of the biggest publishers out there managing a 16% bad release lot.

What was that you were just saying about objectivity?

 

[Aardvaarkman]

But you claimed the majority of greenlight games were broken and that the system was in place to sell broken games.

No I didn't. What the hell is up with you and making things up?

"Greenlight" project, where they are selling fundamentally broken games on a level never seen before

The flawed games on green light are pretty much completely broken

Sorry didn't you say the above quotes ?
Have I just made those quotes up now is that what you're telling me ?

No, those quotes are accurate.

What is not accurate is where you say that I am claiming that "the majority of greenlight games were broken and that the system was in place to sell broken games."

Did I get that quote right? You did claim that I said that the majority of Greenlight games are broken, and the system is in place to sell broken games, didn't you? Despite the fact the I never said that?

I don't know how you infer that from my posts. Sorry, you're just making up straw men. Seeing as you stubbornly continue to twist other people's words and make up non-existent arguments to battle against, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

 

[Atmos Duality]

But Steam isn't a marketplace, it's just a retail store.

Pointless semantics.
By definition, it is a marketplace. Just not the entire global marketplace.

As for Poe's Law, Steam is under no obligation to sell every game that anybody wants to release, so they are totally to blame if they choose to sell a lot of crap. They could always choose to just sell the better stuff.

Conversely, they're under no obligation to only sell "good" or "better" games either.
Because it's DEMAND (ie, the consumers) and not SUPPLY (Steam, in this case) who determines what is "good".
Why? Because it's DEMAND'S MONEY that SUPPLY is chasing. So unless you want to claim that Steam is issuing mind-control rays, it's still entirely in the power of the consumer to do a little bit of research and/or just not buy shitty games.

The most involved Supply ever becomes in market control (aka "Quality control") is to respond to what Demand calls "good" (or "popular").

That's economic law.

As a distributor the only way Steam would be culpable here, is if they imposed a hard price floor or ceiling on what they choose to distribute that's way out of range of what Demand considers acceptable. Which obviously isn't happening.

But Jim and others are blaming Steam for the deluge of crap by calling for standards of quality control. Standards that as consumers, is their job to provide in the first place.

Initially, I was split enough on the subject to not want to assert either way, but after considering how niche and concept games nearly died out completely thanks to the domination of consoles (which were subject to far more stringent quality control), I think I'm OK with sifting through a sea of junk to find some real gems, rather than relying on the endless parade of polished turds the rest of mainstream gaming has pushed out year in and year out.

 

[Something Amyss]

so comparing a crime to bad games wasn't a false comparison then ?

I didn't compare a crime to bad games.

hence the comparison breaks down

Only if you think "comparison" means "two things which are identical." At which point the definition breaks down/

Here's the kicker people are moaning about just that. Valve selling games that aren't great

But "moeaning about selling games that aren't great" isn't "just that." You claimed people needed to realise Valve wasn't infallible. I asked for evidence they thought otherwise. This isn't evidence.

So the police catch everyone ?
There's where that falls down.

Considering my argument was "just because the police can't catch everyone doesn't mean they shouldn't try," I'm not sure how it breaks down my argument at all. It seems to bolster it.

That was the comparison in the first place. People said that Valve should try to impose quality standards. You said if they did, some games would still slip through. I said that was bogus reasoning; the notion that they shouldn't try because they won't catch everyone parallels to saying that cops shouldn't try and catch people doing something illegal because they won't catch everyone. The core comparison here is that it's inane to say that people shouldn't do something simply because they won't have a 100% success rate.

Valve don't catch every bad game before one comes out.

They don't catch any bad game.

yet I don't see huge campaigns calling for stronger police action to stop people masturbating in public.

But that's a false comparison. There are already laws in place and people set up to actually catch people who masturbate in public. No such analogue exists.

See other posts in this forum. The implication is clear.

No it's not. Unless you can point to one that actually does say it, you're making a false claim.

 

[Something Amyss]

So the fact you previously talked about an overwhelming majority of broken games before talking about greenlight in the same paragraph means there was no link between those ideas ?

Except he didn't say that. At least, not based on the lines you have shown.

Aardvarkman is potentially right: ether you're making up these false counter arguments or you simply don't understand what people are saying. Even after it's been explicitly spelled out to you.

 

[Do4600]

You have a valid point. In most cases though I would say it would take only a few seconds to find something online that would show you more of the game and probably give you an idea of whether or not you wanted to play it. The internet is what separates us from the video game crash.

I think people who buy $60 games investigate them, and advertising is supposed to provide a bridge from the producer to the consumer. If you preorder a game you either have an expectation based on the reputation of the company, the reputation of the series or based on what you are told about the game by the publisher. In indie games there is no reputation, most of them are the first product by that team. I would think you would investigate their products more thoroughly before purchasing them.

I doubt the games you mentioned in the episode would have been much better if they actually had been finished, they look like shit anyway. I think it's irrelevant that the games weren't finished because even when finished they would be terrible games. So, whose fault is it when you purchase a shitty game? Is it Valve's fault for not filtering out bad games? Or your fault for not knowing anything about the product you purchased?

 

[Something Amyss]

Actually you compared the act or public masturbation to the release of bad games ^ see.

Actually, I compared the logic behind lack of enforcement to the logic behind lack of enforcement.

Except a good analogy should hold more water than a sieve

Now that you're aware of that, try making an argument that passes those criteria.

wanting perfection and the sheer volume of complaints is evidence enough. If customers all realised Valve was going to make mistakes and accepted that this thread wouldn't be into 8 pages already.

Has a single person asked for perfection? Can you link to them? I doubt it.

Valve is going to make mistakes, but what they're doing right now includes promoting bad games to make money, which isn't a mistake so much as intent.

Yes and my argument was, just as you're not the police you're not Valves quality control team either.

Who said I was? Good God, are you making up another new argument that nobody's contesting?

who says Valve don't already do something ?
even in the video Jim pointed out Steam do reject games.

Which has nothing to do with the processes listed here. The ones germane to Jim's video, no less.

So you have access to the complete list of games rejected by Steam ?

So your defense to lack of evidence is that I can't refute your lack of evidence?

So there needs to be laws in place to prosecute those selling bad games ?

Steam need to have policies in place, the analogue in this situation.


"But the problem is that Steam is now overwhelmed by crappy games, when they were not the norm in the past. Nobody was claiming that Steam has never sold crappy games before. This is especially noticeable with the "Greenlight" project, where they are selling fundamentally broken games on a level never seen before."[/quote]

Sweet, but that does absolutely nothing to back up your claim.

 

[Something Amyss]

by likening one thing to another, yes.
So you did compare them.

Enforcement to enforcement. You're trying to pretend it's something else.

Try breaking some of my arguments.

Done and done.

I think the main one I'm responsible for and not someone else was Valve as the bouncer of a club.

The problem is they're in no way acting as a bouncer, as they're not actually keeping people out. A bouncer is still a form of enforcement and you're yet to demonstrate that they're actually enforcing anything.

Has a single person asked for perfection ?
No

So your claim is bull and completely meaningless. Thank you.

Is this thread full of people calling for quality control when 3% of the greenlight games released have been in a state you could call "broken" ? Why yes, some are even pointing out just how many broken games are apparently on greenlight. Though strangely they can't name them......

Fake statistics and definitions you apply on a sliding scale don't make a compelling argument.

By promoting bad games do you mean allowing them to go discounted sale ?

And, you know, featuring them.

If so unless it's a steam sale then this kind of thing is agreed with the developers normally.

And that changes things, how?

No-one however you seemed to be happy to realise why you don't go out hunting down people masturbating in public but more than happy to get really upset because some bad games you weren't forced to buy were released on steam......

I already know why I don't go hunting down public masturbators. Why are you so happy to lie about things?

If anything, you're the one who wants me to police the games myself. In your model, the consumer is asked to actively police the product. I, on the other hand, never said I was a cop, just that cops should exist. And on the same note, I never said I was the arbiter of Steam, only that policies should exist. It's no surprise that what I'm saying is an exact analogue for the scenario I was illustrating it with.

But let's continue this analogy:

When I see someone masturbating in public, or doing anything bad, I can call the police and the police will do something.

When I see a broken game, I can contact Valve but Valve won't do something unless met with overwhelming pressure. In fact, they continue to promote broken games after waves of complaints.

There's no evidence of any enforcement on Steam, up to and including any requirement that Early Access games ever really complete themselves. Why? Because Steam isn't like a bouncer. Bouncers keep people out and resolve trouble. All one has to do to get in is have any publisher sign off (and that's part of the problem Jim pointed out), and you can cause all the trouble you want.

So a thread about Jim's video has no relevance to Jim's video ?

Jim's video talks about the fact that their policies are useless, since you only need to appeal to the public based on a concept or get a publisher to sign off and there are publishers doing just that with crap games. A thread about Jim's video has everything to do with Jim's video, and that was a disingenuous attempt to shift things.

Sorry but I think when the video actually confirms my point that Steam does reject some titles so much have some level of quality control seems quite relevant here.

Since it doesn't do so on the basis of quality, it's false to claim it's indicative of quality control.

Or are you saying the video can't be used in evidence here because it actually helps my point ?

If it helps your point, you've done an amazing job of disguising your point.

Well the simple evidence is to look at the app store or google play store and considering those titles are eligible for steam release if they were ported to PC then why isn't steam in the same state as the app store or google play store ?
The obvious answer is that steam must have some kind of closed door.

So you don't have evidence, just speculation.

just because it's not made obvious doesn't mean it doesn't go on.

Prove that this is an issue of quality control. You can't.

So you know for a fact it doesn't ?

I've discussed the policies it does have, the ones devs have complained about and the ones Jim mentioned in the video. Or are you saying the video can't be used as evidence because it's detrimental to your point?

Except I was claiming that people in this thread were saying that.

Not when I asked you to back up your claims.

I said:

Please point to where I said Valve was infallible. In fact, my argument stems from the opposite. Just because they can't get everyone doesn't mean they shouldn't make attempts.

You went on to post a quote (unverified, which is amazing since you clearly know how to quote someone) saying that there were a lot of bad games on Steam. That has nothing to do with people thinking or demanding Valve be infallible, and everything to do with something other than your claim--the presence of a lot of bad games.

It's not that hard to look back 2-3 posts and see exactly what you claimed.

 

[Something Amyss]

So either according to you
The comparison isn't valid, you pointed that out.
Or you weren't comparing them in which case all that has added nothing to this discussion.

I've demonstrated it multiple times. You're still replying with "nuh uh!"

seduce me
pirates vs zombies

Again if Steam were allowing anything on just to sell it then why isn't it like the google play store or app store now ?

Prove that this is quality control. Just repeating the same lines doesn't make it true/

So you're going to deny people here are calling for near perfection and faultless releases on Steam ?

Barring evidence to the contrary, yes. Everything you've pointed to falls far short of this claim.

Would you like to check my maths on that. Based on the greenlight releases

You still haven't even defined your terms. Mostly because you want to provide a sliding scale based on what's convenient.

Present games on the featured list for steam.

And those are the only games Steam has ever featured or will ever feature! My God, you're right!

Do you blame the council for a market trader selling something 1/2 off on their stall ?
It's the developers choice mostly not Valve.

Steam has a hand in it. If that same trader was using Steam's sale feature to advertise a sale, you might have a half-competent analogy.

Yes because as you've said there are people to deal with it. Do you realise the connection yet ?

You mean the connection that keeps reinforcing my point?

tell me how have I told a lie here.

Just did.

By avoiding the product ?

That is handling it yourself, yes.

Are you really telling me not buying a game is comparable in level to that ?

No, I'm saying that dealing with public offenders yourself is similar to dealing with the games market yourself. Are you doing this intentionally?

And you have proof the policies don't exist when games have been rejected. Heck I've named two games that were rejected.

You can't seem to prove they were rejected on quality control grounds. You know, the grounds on which relate to this thread. Hell, have you even proved they tried o get on Steam?

Except when the police receive calls again and a gain from the same number leading to false claims they tend to be a bit more aware and respond differently due to the volume of prank calls.

They don't stop doing their jobs, however.

Valve most likely receives hundreds of bogus complaints from less than reputable companies trying to destroy rivals. It can't tell a prank from a real one due to the nature of the complaint submission so it has to have enough evidence to act. Remember Valve signed a contract to sell this companies game. Valve doesn't want to end up in breach of contract and liable to them for damages etc.

You're making excuses, not actually making an argument.

Except with War Z which was removed.

War Z was one of the games I was alluding to. You need a giant shitstorm for them to even look into it, and they continued to sell it even after it drew their attention.

and my point was saying you need quality control to stop bad games causes a hugely subjective issue which could easily lead to far more trouble and less variety.

Yes, having to actually look at games to determine if they were workable would totally ruin Steam.

The point raised was that Steam has no quality control.
The video points out Steam are rejecting games, it doesn't say which and it doesn't go into detail but it does say "God knows what games Steam are rejecting". The clear implication being they are rejecting some titles. Unless again you're claiming the games aren't rejected and its all done by magic ?

Who said anything about magic? Knocking down another strawman, are we? Look, I've said it about ten times, ncluding multiple time sin that post itself. If you're just going to ignore what I say and make things up, what's the point of even replying to me?

speculation would mean there is no firm evidence.

Exactly. And until you can demonstrate firm evidence, you're stuck on speculation./

Look up the game "Seduce me", now play it. Now that was rejected by Steam. There must be some content control policies to have prevented it's release.

Prove that this was a quality issue.

You haven't said what the actual policies are.

The policies discussed in the video, which I've both alluded to and stated explicitly? What?

You actually ask for me to point to where people in this thread said an overwhelming number of bad games were being released.

Again, that's a lie.

Asking for me to point out where you said Valve was infallible was a separate point and I addressed it as such.

You said nothing but bad games. I asked you for evidence. You posted Aardvarkman's quote addressing something else.

now just so you can't say that it's not fully referenced

Except he's still not saying they've released nothing but bad games. Please back that up with an actual quote from an actual person actually saying that.

 

[C14N]

Actually, Wal-Mart are notoriously selective in what they sell. For example, they don't sell "explicit" audio CDs, and will commission special censored versions of CDs to sell in the stores. They also reject suppliers who don't give them the profit margins they want, and go to extreme lengths to strong-arm suppliers into giving them what they want.

If your company doesn't meet Wal-Mart's expectations, you are banned from the shelves.

Do you really think that you can just walk up to WalMart and they will automatically stock your product? No way. Being stocked by WalMart is a huge deal in the retail world, and suppliers have to work hard to even be considered for shelf space.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html

I was talking about food specifically, in reference to the fact that you can buy a lot of really crappy food at Walmart. I had heard about the CD thing but that's less about quality control and more about weird corporate policy that probably goes back to the short-lived panic about what kids are listening to in the 80s.

But Walmart DOESN'T have everything. They don't carry high end high quality products and cater towards the low and mid range. And considering I haven't shopped at a Walmart in over a decade their reputation precedes them. Do we REALLY want Steam to become the Walmart of PC game stores? Disgusting.

I don't know, I don't shop at Walmart either but they're one of the biggest companies in the world so clearly a lot of people do. Generally that sort of model tends to be more financially successful. A few years ago I bought an expensive home cinema system from a boutique shop. It was a family-run place where the guys knew all about what they were selling and definitely wouldn't want to be seen to sell rubbish. It was really classy and everything but those guys are never going to be as popular as the Best Buys and Currys of this world and I can see why Valve would want to take the model that makes more money. Especially when it comes to video games, which are probably the only industry where review scores are widely known and influential (most developers prepare for the worst if they get a Metascore lower than 80).

Regarding Walmart's wares: I haven't been there much but when I was I could find some decent food to buy as well as the cheap muck.

In the "olden days" the number of games that were out could actually be represented on the wall of Electronics Boutique. Do you know how many PC games are out there now? Browsed through an App Store lately? The good to garbage ratio has plummeted.

No they weren't. I'm not talking about way back in the Atari or NES days here, I'm talking about late 90s-early 2000s shortly before the internet started gaining attention. I could walk into a game or toy shop and find hundreds of games on all systems, and most of them were probably crap. Like I said, the PC section in particular had an awful lot of shite. They priced the crap fairly cheap like Steam but it was still crap. They didn't practice any quality control at all. There probably is more crap now since it's so easy to make and distribute but that doesn't mean that if you were picking out games based on boxart before that you were likely to get a winner.

 

[Something Amyss]

Demonstrated which way ? so far it's gone like this

That's completely revisionist. You keep trying to tack elements on to my claim, then when I say those elements aren't mine, you say it must have been my argument because ponies.

Anyway, the bulk of your claim rests on how Steam obviously has quality control. Rather than lengthening this argument, I'm just going to request you demonstrate proof that such quality control actually exists and is the foundation for rejected games.

If you can't even do that, you have no claim and we're done.