Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

[whycantijustdeletemyaccount]

*sigh*

This again? Look, Steam needs less games, not more. What it needs, and what people have been asking for, is quality over quantity at this stage. Steam has more games than any other platform but that's meaningless if the extra stuff is shit - which a huge proportion is.

I think it's quite arrogant to say that the burden is on the devs to simply make quality games that stand out from the crowd as that's not really possible with the marketplace in its current state. Personally I'm not really inclined to take the chance on indie games anymore unless in special circumstances as probability states that no matter how good it looks or sounds, it's probably going to be shit.

* Who gets to decide what constitutes a "good" game and what constitutes a "bad" game?
* By what metric(s) are we to gauge the quality of a game?
* Do these metrics include a user's personal enjoyment of a game, regardless of quality?
* Do these metrics include some method of gauging what a game is worth, monetarily?
* Does this gauging of worth factor into a forced pricing model?
* To whom do we grant the power and right to tell all gamers everywhere what games they're supposed to enjoy?
* Will you ***** and moan when that little indie project you're all excited for ends up being denied from Steam because it failed to live up to Steam's "level of quality"?

I'll take a stab at a couple here.

Many of the games people are complaining about are objectively bad. I'm not saying a game that'll review poorly or I may think is bad, but one that bad because of bugs, glitches, broken controls etc. This might have some impact on bigger budget ports as well but fuck em. The metric can be exactly the same as the one GOG uses - an objectively broken and bad game should not be up for sale - it's practically law ffs.

I'm not touching the pricing thing, that's especially subjective with short indie games so I think the market can decide that. Steam sales tend to right those things anyway.

This isn't about what some arbitrary committee is deciding is good, it's about ensuring a healthy marketplace where consumer rights are protected and where developers get a fair chance because there isn't an assumption that the stuff out there is crap.

It's in the interest of the consumer, Valve and every decent indie developer out there that there are some limitations placed on Steam for the sake of a basic quality assurance. GoG is doing it, the console manufacturers do it, heck even Origin is ahead of Steam on this one. At least you can ask for your money back there.

 

[Albino Boo]

*sigh*

This again? Look, Steam needs less games, not more. What it needs, and what people have been asking for, is quality over quantity at this stage. Steam has more games than any other platform but that's meaningless if the extra stuff is shit - which a huge proportion is.

I think it's quite arrogant to say that the burden is on the devs to simply make quality games that stand out from the crowd as that's not really possible with the marketplace in its current state. Personally I'm not really inclined to take the chance on indie games anymore unless in special circumstances as probability states that no matter how good it looks or sounds, it's probably going to be shit.

It's in the interest of the consumer, Valve and every decent indie developer out there that there are some limitations placed on Steam for the sake of a basic quality assurance.

The itunes store contains 26,000,000+ songs worldwide, 1,000,000+ podcasts (US), 40,000+ music videos (US), 3,000+ TV shows (US), 20,000+ audiobooks (US), 45,000+ movies (US), 1,000,000+ App Store apps. The kindle store contains 513000 books. Why is one digital storefront not like another? Why do you think games are special and different to music, books, films and TV?

 

[camazotz]

Steam can add anything it wants. All I want is for Steam to include a button I can click which hides all the "early access" titles so I don't see them until they are actually done.

 

[whycantijustdeletemyaccount]

.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

Umm... There's way more RTS's than just Planetary Annihilation.

http://store.steampowered.com/tag/en/RTS/

Ho?, did I imply in my previous post there there were no other RTS games?, I am well aware that there are some from the past, I am also well aware of the sub-genre known as RTT, most of those games on that page alone are mostly RTT based games with only one or two new ones being RTS and even then they are more akin to company of heroes and not what PA,AOE and C&C are about.

What I was implying is that there is a huge lack of RTS games based on the latter I mentioned at the end above, PA comes to mind because it basically is a lot like it's predecessors but with a slight new innovative twist, that twist alone is what makes that game an instant sell for me, I'm not seeing other RTS games out there today that are doing the same, the more recent few on that page as of this year or last were again more like Company of heroes or being RTT and not RTS, why is it hard to make RTS games like C&C, AOE,SC and UAW?, PA has managed to accomplish that and add something new yet everyone else has gone chasing Company of Heroes so much that it's caused a divide and lack of RTS games like C&C, this is why I bought into PA at the time, in the past I looked into previous RTS's dating back at least 7 years, most of them again like company of heroes besides the much older games from 2004 to the prior decade.

If you look at today's Strategy games there's more RTT and turn based than there are real time with base building and resource based management (resource base al la Supreme commander/C&C/AOE etc, not COH), I'm only seeing Grey Goo and PA along with possibly a third RTS to peak my interest but even then that's such a small number compared to all the ones I played in the past which is why I see there being a severe shortage of actual RTS games with involved base building, resource management while adding something new to the table.

I love the RTS games of the past but I don't count them towards what we should be expecting of the current present, other genres are doing fine and blooming as usual, the RTS one doesn't seem a big massive smash hit like it once was at least a decade or two ago.

 

[Albino Boo]

The itunes store contains 26,000,000+ songs worldwide, 1,000,000+ podcasts (US), 40,000+ music videos (US), 3,000+ TV shows (US), 20,000+ audiobooks (US), 45,000+ movies (US), 1,000,000+ App Store apps. The kindle store contains 513000 books. Why is one digital storefront not like another? Why do you think games are special and different to music, books, films and TV?

App store is a good example. Songs, podcasts, videos and so on aren't usually broken.

One of the strengths of the app store is that it's regulated to an extent. Consumer rights are actually a thing (I don't think Steam knows what they even are) and you can't just put up any old shit that doesn't work, is violating a copyright or whatever. I wouldn't say it's perfect but it seems better monitored than the steam storefront. By the way, as a consequence of the smallest amount of regulation, I'm far more willing to take a risk in Apple's store than in Google's.

Also, if I buy an ebook it's not going to crash a chapter in and claim "it's early access, I've not finished the story yet".

There is difference between something being broken and you not liking it. Other people have different opinions to you as what they think is good and bad and there opinion is no less valid than yours. Your contention that steam carries more bad quality items in its 3600 games than itunes 29 million or the kindles 513000 just doesn't stand up to basic maths. Valve
have heard of consumer rights and their very expensive lawyers that draft the ToS know more than random guy on the internet about consumer law. Dont pay attention to internet forum lawyers, they are usually found of sound and fury signifying nothing and just rant away about laws that valves $1000 an hour lawyers have taken into account. For instance your position about early access

What is the game like to play right now?
When you buy an Early Access game, you should consider what the game is like to play right now. Look at the screenshots and videos to see what the game looks like in its current state. There are a lot of ways a game can go as it develops over time, so if you aren't excited to play the game in its current state, then hold off and wait until the next update--it shouldn't be far off.

and

Is this the same as pre-purchasing a game?
No. Early Access is a full purchase of a playable game. By purchasing, you gain immediate access to download and play the game in its current form and as it evolves. You keep access to the game, even if the game later moves from Early Access into fully released.

from
http://store.steampowered.com/earlyaccessfaq/?snr=1_200_200_Early+Access

Valve have written clearly warning that early access is buying as is and legally that covers them.

 

[1337mokro]

No it's not. Steam needs some SERIOUS quality control.

I can buy broken barely functional game because these have literally never been play tested. Developers can just lie about features on their page and sell their game.

We need steam to have a vetting program that EVERYONE can enter in, where the game is made sure to be playable and complies with the sales description.

Greenlight is a useless system because of the quantity. It would be a full time job if I actually took it serious instead of just voting on the games I already knew about and wanted on steam like for example Project Zomboid or Sang Frost.

 

[Sight Unseen]

Umm... There's way more RTS's than just Planetary Annihilation.

http://store.steampowered.com/tag/en/RTS/

Ho?, did I imply in my previous post there there were no other RTS games?, I am well aware that there are some from the past, I am also well aware of the sub-genre known as RTT, most of those games on that page alone are mostly RTT based games with only one or two new ones being RTS and even then they are more akin to company of heroes and not what PA,AOE and C&C are about.

What I was implying is that there is a huge lack of RTS games based on the latter I mentioned at the end above, PA comes to mind because it basically is a lot like it's predecessors but with a slight new innovative twist, that twist alone is what makes that game an instant sell for me, I'm not seeing other RTS games out there today that are doing the same, the more recent few on that page as of this year or last were again more like Company of heroes or being RTT and not RTS, why is it hard to make RTS games like C&C, AOE,SC and UAW?, PA has managed to accomplish that and add something new yet everyone else has gone chasing Company of Heroes so much that it's caused a divide and lack of RTS games like C&C, this is why I bought into PA at the time, in the past I looked into previous RTS's dating back at least 7 years, most of them again like company of heroes besides the much older games from 2004 to the prior decade.

If you look at today's Strategy games there's more RTT and turn based than there are real time with base building and resource based management (resource base al la Supreme commander/C&C/AOE etc, not COH), I'm only seeing Grey Goo and PA along with possibly a third RTS to peak my interest but even then that's such a small number compared to all the ones I played in the past which is why I see there being a severe shortage of actual RTS games with involved base building, resource management while adding something new to the table.

I love the RTS games of the past but I don't count them towards what we should be expecting of the current present, other genres are doing fine and blooming as usual, the RTS one doesn't seem a big massive smash hit like it once was at least a decade or two ago.

I think RTS games are just less popular/ profitable than they used to be. I'm not really a huge RTS gamer myself so I can't say too much based on experience, I haven't seriously played an RTS since LOTR: Battle For Middle Earth and I'm not even sure what an RTT is.

Also to your initial reply, you didn't just imply that there were no RTS's, you directly stated it:

So far Planetary Annihilation seems like the only actual RTS game on there and it's still in early access

so I apologize for misunderstanding your meaning by that.

Genres often have dormant periods. Recently horror games have had a big comeback after being practically non-existant for years, same can be said of platformers and CRPGs. RTS's and other genres that are in a slump right now will hopefully make a comeback in the future. I'm personally hoping for a come back of band based music games because I was super into Rock Band in its prime and was really sad when it died completely.

 

[Pyrian]

We need steam to have a vetting program that EVERYONE can enter in, where the game is made sure to be playable and complies with the sales description.

And who's going to pay for that? There's only one answer. The person submitting the game. Which means "EVERYONE" can't enter.

 

[SecondPrize]

I've yet to be disappointed by a game on steam but I read reviews from trusted critics before purchasing and wait for a sale if I'm iffy on something. In cases where the product was not what was advertised Steam has been pretty good like taking The War Z down and offering refunds and taking down the recent game which I forget but it had a number in the title.

Valve is in the business of selling games. They are not in the business of protecting you from poor purchasing decisions. That's your job. Spending resources to actually limit the products they sell makes no sense at all, considering that tastes vary and some people are actually happy with games you may feel shouldn't be on Steam.

Protip: Recently released isn't the only filter for games in the store, use the other ones.

 

[1337mokro]

We need steam to have a vetting program that EVERYONE can enter in, where the game is made sure to be playable and complies with the sales description.

And who's going to pay for that? There's only one answer. The person submitting the game. Which means "EVERYONE" can't enter.

Who's going to pay for that?

What you can't pay money to get your game vetted? A 100$ is to much for you? Yeah I am sure that you had NOOOO problem developing a game for months, but can't afford 100$ for submission.

The problem right now is that you don't KNOW what the criteria are. If you get a list and make sure to check em off then pay 100$ for what is essentially a sales exam you are in.

 

[Pyrian]

We need steam to have a vetting program that EVERYONE can enter in, where the game is made sure to be playable and complies with the sales description.

And who's going to pay for that? There's only one answer. The person submitting the game. Which means "EVERYONE" can't enter.

A 100$ is to much for you?

No, $100 is not too much for me, but that's not going to pay for a game to be vetted. That's a speed-bump charge to prevent spamming. $10,000 is too much for me, and these days that's unlikely to be enough to pay for a game to be vetted. QA is only free when you've got some supportive buddies with spare time.

 

[Cecilo]

We need steam to have a vetting program that EVERYONE can enter in, where the game is made sure to be playable and complies with the sales description.

And who's going to pay for that? There's only one answer. The person submitting the game. Which means "EVERYONE" can't enter.

Who's going to pay for that?

What you can't pay money to get your game vetted? A 100$ is to much for you? Yeah I am sure that you had NOOOO problem developing a game for months, but can't afford 100$ for submission.

The problem right now is that you don't KNOW what the criteria are. If you get a list and make sure to check em off then pay 100$ for what is essentially a sales exam you are in.

Some indie devs can't afford anything at the point of release. Some of them have literally put everything on the line. If you want an example of this, Sword of the Stars 1, originally going to be an independent release, they had to sign up and be published by Lighthouse interactive because at the time of release, not having a boxed release was a death sentence for your PC Game and they literally no money to spend. None.

Plus we already have a vetting system, and it's free. Well. Relatively free. It's called reviews.

 

[DirgeNovak]

What a stupid statement. Nobody is suggesting "allowing X games a month" on Steam. Nobody. What people are asking for is quality control. Stop putting disgusting cashgrabs shat out by cynical assholes like Earth 2066 or Air Control to let the actual good games get noticed.

 

[1337mokro]

We need steam to have a vetting program that EVERYONE can enter in, where the game is made sure to be playable and complies with the sales description.

And who's going to pay for that? There's only one answer. The person submitting the game. Which means "EVERYONE" can't enter.

A 100$ is to much for you?

No, $100 is not too much for me, but that's not going to pay for a game to be vetted. That's a speed-bump charge to prevent spamming. $10,000 is too much for me, and these days that's unlikely to be enough to pay for a game to be vetted. QA is only free when you've got some supportive buddies with spare time.

No it's not... this isn't bullshit Xbone live.

You literally hire a Q&A tester to play the game for 3 hours and pay them 15$. That's your entire Q&A division and for each game you got about 55$ left for administrative fees.

The 10'000$ is a discouragement charge to make sure people finish their game before putting it on the device. It's microsoft telling devs to go fuck themselves.

 

[1337mokro]

We need steam to have a vetting program that EVERYONE can enter in, where the game is made sure to be playable and complies with the sales description.

And who's going to pay for that? There's only one answer. The person submitting the game. Which means "EVERYONE" can't enter.

Who's going to pay for that?

What you can't pay money to get your game vetted? A 100$ is to much for you? Yeah I am sure that you had NOOOO problem developing a game for months, but can't afford 100$ for submission.

The problem right now is that you don't KNOW what the criteria are. If you get a list and make sure to check em off then pay 100$ for what is essentially a sales exam you are in.

Some indie devs can't afford anything at the point of release. Some of them have literally put everything on the line. If you want an example of this, Sword of the Stars 1, originally going to be an independent release, they had to sign up and be published by Lighthouse interactive because at the time of release, not having a boxed release was a death sentence for your PC Game and they literally no money to spend. None.

Plus we already have a vetting system, and it's free. Well. Relatively free. It's called reviews.

Your game needs to be released before it's reviewed and also reviews can be bought or just be wrong.

If a reviewer doesn't like your game it's not going to be released? Screw that.

Heck 100$ you could get from a bum on the street. Sword of the Stars had 100$ in his wallet for food, so don't eat that week and pay your charge.

 

[Warachia]

He is entitled to quite a few things when he buys from Steam. A contract made between seller and buyers always automatically entails a few protections for both parties. To ensure that the seller gets his money in a timely fashion and that the buyer receives a product that worked as the seller advertised, within certain limits.

Steam IS the seller here, it can't just withdraw from any responsibility under the guise of *just being a virtual platform*. What Steam tries to do with its refund policies is to one-sidedly put the responsibility for a purchase on the shoulders of the consumer. That's not the way it works, contracts can't give all the rights to one party and all the responsibility to another.

Definitely not in the EU, where their policy of "no refunds" is simply illigal and in following the Steam forums, many people have been aware of that and have pursued their refunds from Steam for nonfunctional games successfully.

He is not entitled to anything from me, right? I don't know if you're an expert on EU law, but if I (an EU citizen in an EU member state) order a pizza on just-eat.dk (restaurants sign up and sell food of already questionable quality there and Just-Eat takes a 10% cut), and I am not satisfied with my meal and want a 100% refund, I'm entitled to it? And who should reimburse me. The pizzeria or Just-Eat? The pizza is right here, untouched and in the original packaging.

It's not that I want to defend bad business practice or that fastfood and digital PC game licenses are ecxactly the same. But they are similar in the sense that they are worthless once sold and that Steam and Just-Eat just provides the platform and takes their cut. In my experience Steam is cheaper than Just-Eat as well.

If you get your pizza with none of the toppings you had ordered, or if they didn't cook it, you would be entitled to a full refund.

Several games on Steam are unplayable pieces of shit, thinking that you are not entitled to a refund on something when Steam told you it would work, and your computer met the operating specs for it, is ridiculous (and illegal), yet that's what they try to claim in their TOS.

 

[GAunderrated]

Well sorry rust Dev but the over saturation of games on steam is exactly why I have to rely once again on word of mouth for good games and not actually browse the store. I can't even go to the sales without having to navigate 100 sales, 95 of which are shovelware.

 

[Hateren47]

He is entitled to quite a few things when he buys from Steam. A contract made between seller and buyers always automatically entails a few protections for both parties. To ensure that the seller gets his money in a timely fashion and that the buyer receives a product that worked as the seller advertised, within certain limits.

Steam IS the seller here, it can't just withdraw from any responsibility under the guise of *just being a virtual platform*. What Steam tries to do with its refund policies is to one-sidedly put the responsibility for a purchase on the shoulders of the consumer. That's not the way it works, contracts can't give all the rights to one party and all the responsibility to another.

Definitely not in the EU, where their policy of "no refunds" is simply illigal and in following the Steam forums, many people have been aware of that and have pursued their refunds from Steam for nonfunctional games successfully.

He is not entitled to anything from me, right? I don't know if you're an expert on EU law, but if I (an EU citizen in an EU member state) order a pizza on just-eat.dk (restaurants sign up and sell food of already questionable quality there and Just-Eat takes a 10% cut), and I am not satisfied with my meal and want a 100% refund, I'm entitled to it? And who should reimburse me. The pizzeria or Just-Eat? The pizza is right here, untouched and in the original packaging.

It's not that I want to defend bad business practice or that fastfood and digital PC game licenses are ecxactly the same. But they are similar in the sense that they are worthless once sold and that Steam and Just-Eat just provides the platform and takes their cut. In my experience Steam is cheaper than Just-Eat as well.

If you get your pizza with none of the toppings you had ordered, or if they didn't cook it, you would be entitled to a full refund.

Several games on Steam are unplayable pieces of shit, thinking that you are not entitled to a refund on something when Steam told you it would work, and your computer met the operating specs for it, is ridiculous (and illegal), yet that's what they try to claim in their TOS.

I assure you that there are more items on Just-Eat that are inedible, than there are games on Steam that are unplayable xD

And Just-Eat only has 24 restaurants on it within my location.

I've answered your questions about the pizza earlier in the thread. It ended up with me trying to turn it in for chicken and fries in a random restaurant , like a console game, because I have consumer rights. Pizza didn't quite work for me. Didn't fit on my plate or something.

If you buy a game on Steam or the Humble Store or any other reseller that activates on Steam and you want your money back it's between you and the developer. Just like, if I want a refund on the pizza I ordered and payed online, it's between me and the restaurant.

Steam is a platform for developers to sell their games as much as it is a store for you and me to buy them. If a game doesn't work on your computer but it does on mine, then you still own a license to play the game you just don't own the computer for it and I don't see why you should be entitled to a refund at all.

I can see why some would refund you, though. You don't know how software licenses have been sold since forever and you got your fingers burned. It would be the nice thing to just take the blow for you and suck up the wasted money in the short term to profit on you in the long term. The whole swings and round-a-bouts thing. But it has never been your right because you still own a license for software that technically works and can't be resold. We are not talking about a wobbly chair that can be replaced a couple of times before refunding you, you know the rights of the seller or re-seller. Because you don't want the software you just bought a license for at all.

I also ranted earlier in the thread about why you can't and shouldn't treat software like hardware. It ends with software patents AKA computer implemented solutions and software being sold on hardware (You already can't remove and get a refund for the OS on your new windows laptop), killing digital. Or just patented into oblivion so only EA can release games. Imagine if Mojang patented every computer implemented function in Minecraft. From hitting things, picking things up and placing things and all the way through. They would take and own patents on computer implemented solutions used in every game from Microsoft Solitaire over Battlefield to StarCraft and every future game development in every genre have to pay royalties or legal fees to Mojang before they can even install the software for making their new game. This is of course an extreme scenario that hopefully wouldn't fly in any court. But it is the direction you want to move software into when you treat it as hardware.

And the consumers and their rights are the ones forcing this through their own, and their politicians, ignorance. And why wouldn't they be ignorant? No one tells them this, because money, and the politicians are idiots when it comes to IT and computers anyway. Specially the ones in the EU who are the ones who are not good enough to run at home or the old and wooly political mammoths you have to get rid of. So you dump them off in the EP for a nice retirement.

 

[Carrots_macduff]

fuck you gary.

im sick to death of seeing that grinning purple car clogging up the new release list

seriously how can he think a complete lack of quality control is a good thing. that was one of the main reasons why the game industry crashed in the eighties. there is so much wrong with this statement.