Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

Sight Unseen

The North Remembers
Nov 18, 2009
1,064
0
0
Shadow-Phoenix said:
Sight Unseen said:
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

Hat Man
Legacy
Apr 21, 2020
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
1337mokro said:
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

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
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

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
Pyrian said:
1337mokro said:
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

Hat Man
Legacy
Apr 21, 2020
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
1337mokro said:
Pyrian said:
1337mokro said:
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

New member
Nov 18, 2011
330
0
0
1337mokro said:
Pyrian said:
1337mokro said:
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

I'm anticipating DmC. Flame me.
Jul 23, 2008
1,645
0
0
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

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
Pyrian said:
1337mokro said:
Pyrian said:
1337mokro said:
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

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
Cecilo said:
1337mokro said:
Pyrian said:
1337mokro said:
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

New member
Aug 11, 2009
1,116
0
0
Hateren47 said:
Fdzzaigl said:
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

New member
Jul 9, 2012
998
0
0
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

New member
Aug 16, 2010
579
0
0
Warachia said:
Hateren47 said:
Fdzzaigl said:
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

New member
Jul 13, 2011
232
0
0
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.
 

Eve Charm

New member
Aug 10, 2011
760
0
0
cypher-raige said:
Eve Charm said:
And as far as Gmod and Rust go, How hard would it really be for someone to clone those and stick them up for free in an open market with ads?
They would not have the community that Facepunch/Valve has and their games would be called out for the ripoffs that they are, like with the WarZ.
Um Facepunch? Ya a guy that's only made one game or technically hasn't even made one yet with it still being in early access has a following? The community isn't any bigger then any other mildly popular online indie game.

Also Steams current "TOP SELLING" game is the forest, then there was how 7 days to died released, WarZ looks like GOTY now compared to the average "Early access title"

top seller on steam
http://youtu.be/Kkb4bKeCYSc
 

Cecilo

New member
Nov 18, 2011
330
0
0
1337mokro said:
Cecilo said:
1337mokro said:
Pyrian said:
1337mokro said:
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.
I didn't mean it in the way the reviewer has power over what is released, I meant it more, it is released, and then the reviewer, reviews it, gives out the review and people can choose if they want to buy it or not. Like it currently should be, and as far as I can tell. Is.

Also if the idea is that the vetting system is so cheap that skipping a week's worth of meals can get you in, it isn't going to stop games meant to scam you, they will take the hundred dollar hit in the endeavor to scam people of that hundred dollars, plus a couple thousand more.
 

Sofus

New member
Apr 15, 2011
223
0
0
Steam has always been about providing the users with services and games that Steam/Valve thought that we would not only be interested in, but that they could also be proud of advertising to us.

I thought Garry's Mod was a nice idea, but that was only because it felt more like a tribute to Valve than anything else.. it was sort of in the same ballpark as counter-strike.


Can Steam be proud of having garbage such as "Day One : Garry's Incident" on their store page? can we as a community be proud of supporting Steam if they continue to add games like that?

I can only think of two solutions at the top of my head.. either Steam refuses to add these crappy games to their store, or they make seperate sections so that triple A games (and other quality products) don't get mixed with all the shovelware and amateur projects that are constantly being added.

edit

It should be noted that Steam doesn't allow their customers to refund games (something I have always supported), but if this trend continues then I don't think anyone can justify the no-refund policy.

I still trust Steam.. but that trust is being abused when I neither have a gurantee that the games I buy actually have some semblance of quality or the ability to refund terribly developed games.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Thats interesting because reading this I kept thinking that an indie developer who thinks

Garry Newman said:
"The focus should be on the users, not the developers. Users getting the choice ... is a good thing,"
.... but chooses to lock down their own product into a client that takes focus and freedom away from customers (not "users") and are actively engaged in eliminating customer choice would have been a much more accurate definition of "insane"

How do you try to come off as a consumer advocate championing choice, and actively withholding reasonable options for your own customers to chose from?

How about you put focus on the customers rather than the developer by giving customers choice if they wish to subscribe to a revokable license to access your product, or actually legally purchase a copy of your game and then we can start to determine if this assessment of insanity has merit, or just more self destructive and hypocritical cheer leading. The way it looks at first glance this reads like one of Kim Jong's low level generals making a public declaration affirming undying love for the glorious leader in the hopes it will quell anti-establishment rumblings amongst the people.

TL;DR:

Has "do as I say, not as I do" ever NOT been a gigantic steaming load?
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
Apparently Mr. Newman is unfamiliar with his history because market over saturation is exactly what caused the great crash of the '83.
More accurately, it was over-saturation of garbage.
Finding a real game was a total gamble when 99% of everything was cheap shovelware.

But unlike '83, the gaming world has access to critical-user feedback. Near-Instantaneous feedback at that.
It's just got to the point where people are too damn lazy to take the 2 minutes to figure out if a game is real or not; or to at least wait until a game is out of Early Access before buying.
 

Hateren47

New member
Aug 16, 2010
579
0
0
viranimus said:
How about you put focus on the customers rather than the developer by giving customers choice if they wish to subscribe to a revokable license to access your product, or actually legally purchase a copy of your game and then we can start to determine if this assessment of insanity has merit, or just more self destructive and hypocritical cheer leading.
What would be the point? You couldn't afford to buy his game anyway and he could only sell it once. You would also have to pay someone to finish it when you take it off his hands. Not saying it couldn't be sold online but Steam wouldn't be the place to do it.

I'm sorry but are going to have to settle for buying licenses for software someone else owns, if you want to buy digitally distributed games. It's probably for the best this way as someone else might like to buy a license and play the game as well.

If you want to own software you make it yourself or pay someone handsomely for making it for you.

Captcha-clone: downward slope

Yup.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Atmos Duality said:
canadamus_prime said:
Apparently Mr. Newman is unfamiliar with his history because market over saturation is exactly what caused the great crash of the '83.
More accurately, it was over-saturation of garbage.
Finding a real game was a total gamble when 99% of everything was cheap shovelware.

But unlike '83, the gaming world has access to critical-user feedback. Near-Instantaneous feedback at that.
It's just got to the point where people are too damn lazy to take the 2 minutes to figure out if a game is real or not; or to at least wait until a game is out of Early Access before buying.
As I pointed out to a previous poster, I really don't think having access to all the info really makes a difference, in fact I think it only exasperates the problem. Speaking for myself, it's painful enough sifting through all the garbage looking for the good stuff and that's without having to sift though all the feedback on the garbage as well. It's tedious and time consuming, time I'd much rather spend actually playing the games.