Microsoft Rethinks Indie Rating System Following Abuse

[Muco5681]

i might just be a bit cynical here but limiting reviews to gold member ship seems to help jack all and is a cheap way to Microsoft to get the maximum profit with minimum effort...juuuust like blizzard and activation

 

[Proton Packmule]

The problem with letting only people who own the game vote is that ratings will always be positive.

Not so. I have about 10 Indie games that had a deceptively good demo, then absolutely sucked when I shelled out for them. If I thought reviews mattered, I'd review every one. As it is, my additional one star rating is a drop in the ocean of illegitimate ratings so I don't see the point trying to put people off with my blunt hatred of the waste of MSpoints.

i might just be a bit cynical here but limiting reviews to gold member ship seems to help jack all and is a cheap way to Microsoft to get the maximum profit with minimum effort...juuuust like blizzard and activation

How? It's utterly ludicrous to think that people will buy Gold to fraudulently vote, and while the whole 'owners only' system makes more sense, restricting it to Gold will trim off the one-vote-wonders a little. I don't really see how it affects profit.

 

[Uber Waddles]

IDEA!

You cant vote on the game unless you purchased it.

That solves the issue of rating bombing, while letting you keep your star-reviewing system. Short, sweet, to the point. Why should someone who doesnt have the game have the right to vote on how good or not it is, if they don't own it? While I could see a myriad of excuses (played at a friends house, other XBL accounts, etc.), you should really either own the game to judge it, or should only be able to downvote it once, etc.

Er, did you even read the thread before posting? Your "idea" was said about a dozen times already.

OT: This is what happens when you leave important things to the public.

Actually, at the time of posting the idea, there was no posts in this thread. My slow typing, distractions, etc. lead to a me hitting post far later than expected, causing people to ninja what I said. boo.

Anyways, letting the public decide on things isnt bad. Its just when you dont give them any restrictions, and let them have a field day, that the shit hits the fan

 

[Irridium]

surely it would make more sense for them to only be allowed to reveiw games that they actually own

Seriously Microsoft, do this. Its just so damn simple and the fact that you can't seem to figure it out is just unbelievable.

You didn't fix the problem you idiots, people can still abuse the system.

 

[gigastar]

such as restricting rating privileges to people who actually own the game the game in question.

'Tis a true statement, but just reread that a couple times.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

such as restricting rating privileges to people who actually own the game the game in question.

'Tis a true statement, but just reread that a couple times.

Huh, went a bit Foghorn Leghorn there. Thanks for the heads up!

 

[fundayz]

lolol who buys Xbox live indie games anyway? Overpriced trash if you ask me.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Really, Microsoft couldn't take a step further and limit rating to ID's that actually own the material? Why "restrict" it to Gold members? So you can give them so-called more enticement to switch from Silver to Gold?

Give me a break MS and do the right thing for once with that tight system you have there.

That ID's idea is actually quite solid, its a darn shame Microsoft will never come upon such an idea since they ran into this problem in the first place without coming up with a decent countermeasure only to say "there is more that Microsoft could do to prevent rating sabotage."

 

[LadyMint]

For me, seeing statistics like how many people have played a game, played its demo, and purchased the full copy are more telling than "user ratings." Some people just like rating things down for no good reason.

 

[Marudas]

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read. Surely the best method is, as people mentioned already, restrict games to being voted on only by people who already own the game, or perhaps people that have a few achievements from it. Then the cost of trying to comply with the developers wishes is higher, and people won't go for it. And really, if people are buying your game so they can vote it down, mission accomplished right?

Does anyone with common sense work at Microsoft anymore?

 

[mjc0961]

How does that help, exactly? Plenty of people have Gold accounts. Granted, it will cut down on the abuse considering that a lot of Free (not Silver) accounts just got blocked, but there is still a lot of room for abuse.

As it says in the article, they should have just gone for blocking people who hadn't played.

 

[Podunk]

Surely the best method is, as people mentioned already, restrict games to being voted on only by people who already own the game, or perhaps people that have a few achievements from it.

That is a bad idea, as it would artificially inflate all ratings (further). You don't buy games you don't like. You play trials or demos or maybe play them at friends' places. If they restricted it to accounts with some kind of play time then that would make sense, but having to buy a game to rate it poorly would be stupid. I don't need to own Dragon Age or Lost Planet to know they are bad(in my opinion), though I have played them.


CAPTCHA: owspor work.