Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

[Hateren47]

I gotta agree with Garry Newman. Steam is a distribution platform for software not a museum or art gallery. It's not Valves job to check other devs software for bugs or decide if a game is too boring, bad or generic to be sold. As long as it's not a direct scam, it's just another product like no-name dish detergent, more or less "classic" movie DVD box sets or store brand toilet paper in your local supermarket which you can buy or leave on the shelve.

And for the ones having issues with the Early Access program. Just don't buy the games and let me play Prison Architect, Spacebase DF9 (119 hours already), Gnomoria and Next Car Game in their unfinished states. I like the program in concept and that I can buy a game and influence the devs (if my ideas are good enough), through their forums, to make their game even better before it's released. If you remove Early Access from Steam you take away stuff I like. I'd rather have EA and Ubisoft games removed from Steam than Rust and Starbound (and I don't plan on buying either game). But I'm not going to start campaigning against Steam having boring AAA games made for the lowest common denominator and profit, just because I'm not interested those games. Live and let live.

Also, how would you determine if a game is good enough to be on Steam? Metacritic? I've never had anything but laughs all around when I've played ORION: Dino horde with friends and that game has a 36/100 on metacritic and has gone through a bunch of revisions and renamings. I'm certain I have had more fun with that than I would with Transistor or Dark Souls 2.

Can I have Transistor or Dark Souls 2 removed from Steam because I don't think they are interesting enough for me to spend time and money on? "No Hateren47! You can not. Now, fuck off, back to your dinosaurs and gnome-filled space bases!"

 

[josemlopes]

Right...because indie developers often have a large marketing budget to "help their works stand apart from the crowd". In fact, the very definition of a "good developer" to me is someone who doesn't use their money for marketing, but instead uses it to better their game. So if anything, the shitty developers would have more marketing dollars to cloud the picture (since they obviously aren't putting as much effort into their games), while the good developers would continue to get lost in the shuffle.

I think that Steam is just a shop, it isnt there for a marketing boost.

Apparently Mr. Newman is unfamiliar with his history because market over saturation is exactly what caused the great crash of the '83.

What a foolish sentiment. Remember the crash in 87. While it's not likely to happen again don't underestimate the situation. It's very bad to overwhelm the consumer with choice and expect them to do all the work. There very much is such a thing as too much choice just as mush as there is too little. It's important to find that sweet spot.

Back then there was barely any internet or a way to know if the game was good, now you have the metacritic score right there on the page, a list of basic features (not the description, the part where it says "Singleplayer, Playable with Controller, Leaderboards, etc...) and Steam reviews, add to that a search on Google and you will know exactly what you are buying.

Mashed is a crappy game from 2004 that I used to love playing on the Xbox, just now it got released on Steam, metascore doesnt even have any review for it but now I can have it on Steam, a lot of people probably dont care but they can just not buy that game if they arent interested. Do we really need someone there to tell us if a certain game is good enough to be on Steam? Certain professional reviewers gave Resident Evil 6 a 2/10 and Alpha Protocol a 1/10, imagine if those guys were in control of what games are and arent on Steam.

And if its because a game is broken, well, a lot of people dont mind playing through a broken game untill there is a unnoficial fix, see games like STALKER, Fallout 3, and Rage.

 

[Jandau]

The problem isn't so much the quantity of releases, it's the fact that Steam's filtering options are so basic and primitive as to make navigating the newfound glut of trash nigh-impossible. Limited categories, the inability to filter out certain things, only 100 results per category, etc. etc. Their interface is woefully outdated and inadequate for the growth they've attained. They need a thorough storefront redesign to accomodate a more robust search system with more options for the user to find the things that interest him.

Secondly, they need to start dating releases realistically. If a game from 1995 is released on Steam, the date of release should be 1995, not 2014. This is extremely misleading and annoying. Also, it would screw with the results even if they did make a better search interface.

Finally, some basic quality control should be instituted. A bare minimum, at least. Particularly where Early access is concerned.

 

[teebeeohh]

well that is a very comfortable high horse we are speaking from, mr newmann? riding the hypetrain from dayz all the success with an unfinished game you didn't even have a long term roadmap for, belittling people who spend their time actually finishing games before selling them for not doing enough marketing.


what steam needs is a better storefont. new releases(or things that were released on console in the last month or so) on the front page and a bunch of tabs for early access, old and rereleased shit. and giant flashing warning signs over each of them telling people what is actually in there

 

[Hateren47]

What I find hilarious is that this is by the dev of Rust, which is a steam early access game that is horrendously unfinished, and was an unplayable mess on release. Early access is absolutely retarded anyway. BETAs should be free or they shouldn't exist. It is absurd to pay to do a job that used to be...well a legitimate job.

It's just crowd sourcing video games. In the case of Rust, a video game by the guy who made Garry's Mod. A lot of people seemed to like that. Why is it retarded (in any sense of the word retarded) for them to pay Garry in advance to make another game?
Because he might not finish it? He might get hit by a car and die or just run off with the money and ruin his own name? Some people are willing to take that chance. Whether it's because they like Garry and his games and don't want him to starve while making more. Or the "it's cool and I want it now"-mentality. Or if it's just to see what all the hubbub is about. It doesn't matter. They want Garry to finish the game. His game. Not EA's game or any others. Just Garry's next game. That or they just want to run around naked in the woods and it's too cold outside.

It is, of course, unfortunate if someone buy's an Early Access game thinking it's finished. But Early Access comes with a warning that says:

"Note: This Early Access game may or may not change significantly over the course of development. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you may want to wait until the game progresses further in development"

So I don't think that could happen.

Also I think you are confusing betas with demos. Paid demos are definitely "retarded".

 

[Fdzzaigl]

He's right in a way to be honest. If you limit the releases are you guaranteed to have better games releasing, or will you just be limiting the releases to a small inner circle elite who can still bring out a shitty game, but have better ways of marketing it, or better personal connections. While smaller projects that could end up being gems get ignored.

There is a ton of shit on Steam, but it isn't exactly hard to spot things that are shit. The examples talked about in the last few weeks on Jim's show and Totalbiscuit's were OBVIOUSLY shit, even if the makers tried to censor the user reviews section.

The latter is something that shouldn't be possible though. A free and open platform to release content OK, but then you need to be forced to undergo the same scrutiny as everyone.

Once we have that, I think the users can take their responsibility. And the people who review them will be all too happy that they still have a whole bunch of crappy games to tear apart.

 

[shirkbot]

I gotta agree with Garry Newman. Steam is a distribution platform for software not a museum or art gallery. It's not Valves job to check other devs software for bugs or decide if a game is too boring, bad or generic to be sold. As long as it's not a direct scam, it's just another product like no-name dish detergent, more or less "classic" movie DVD box sets or store brand toilet paper in your local supermarket which you can buy or leave on the shelve.

[...]

Also, how would you determine if a game is good enough to be on Steam? Metacritic?[...]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on a couple of grounds. First and foremost, even as a distribution platform Valve has clearly shown that they play favorites, both with their storefront and with their regulation of their tagging system. Steam is a shop, and like any shop they choose what they put on the eye-level shelves. Secondly, store brand products are almost always perfectly functional. The difference between off-brand and name brand is luxury, not functionality. Some games on Steam, even ignoring Early Access and Greenlight, are straight-up broken, and Steam's refund policy is absurd. Taken directly from the FAQ:

Spoiler: Steam Refund Policy

Steam Refund Policy

As with most software products, we do not offer refunds or exchanges on games, DLC or in-game items purchased on our website or through the Steam Client. Please review Section 3 of the Steam Subscriber Agreement for more information.
Steam Subscriber Agreement

Steam Subscriber Agreement

An exception is made for games purchased during a pre-order period if the request is received prior to the games' release date.

You fix that and I'll be fine with a completely unregulated store. Until then there is not sufficient consumer protection in place. Additionally, I'd just love the Storefront to be customizable so that I can see what I like without actually changing release practices. Give me those things and Steam can release whatever it likes.

As to "good enough", I just want a base standard of functionality before a game is released. That <a=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYArgbWVtGc&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0zAt8sV33ZsMCVlOgWjVoy>Air Control is allowed to be on Steam is shameful. Nothing, and I mean nothing, which is so broken should be allowed in any store, much less the primary source of PC games.

 

[josemlopes]

snip

Uhhh what? Resident Evil 6 was an awful game and is nearly universally hated for being both bad at horror and bad at action.

Secondly, metascores are worthless. If you ever based a purchase off metascores, your pretty bad at the whole educated consumer thing.

So we shouldnt have Resident Evil 6 on Steam? (a friend of mine even likes the game) I dont like DOTA 2 and there is a lot of people that dont like it either, do we remove it too?

And even if the metacritic score isnt a good way of telling if the game is good or not its a very good way of getting a first impression of what to expect before doing further research into the game. Its like you didnt even read my fucking post and went after the most retarded conclusion possible "Hurr you use metacritic? You are a terrible consumer durr!"

When a game has a metacritic of 20/100 you better be a bit more carefull into why it has that score, if its 80/100 you probably have the idea that at least it isnt shovelware or some extremely flawed niche game, I never even said to base the purchase on metacritic alone, I used it as another factor that gives you an idea of the quality of the product. If its a game that you dont even know about you can even go as far as looking for complaints and praises in forums.

EDIT: This is awfully similar to how parents want the goverment to regulate what games are sold, except in here the gamers that cant do research are the parents and the private company that sells the games is the goverment.

Just fucking do some research, with the internet it isnt hard at all, is 20 minutes of roaming around youtube and forums that much to ask from consumers?

 

[Alterego-X]

Pretty sure he'd be singing a different tune if Rust got bumped off the front page of the store by 9 Freddie Fish games being re-released en masse.

Here is the thing. It's NOT being "bumped off the front page". All these rumored shovelware are being consistently ignored by buyers, while other unfinished Early Access games that are good enough for the users are going viral.

Rust is one of them. Why would it's developer ever "sing a different tune", if that would mean banning HIS OWN game from Steam? In retrospect we might count Rust as a self-evidently "Good Game", but it's also exactly the kind of game that wouldn't have hada chance at starting up on a more restrictive platform.

Steam has little to lose by letting the shovelware on, (as they don't bump off anything else and they don't scare away anyone since no one plays them), but they have a lot to lose by accidentally filtering out games like Rust.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

It's pretty much been said already, but the problem isn't the games being there, it's them being so obvious and clouding out possibly better games. Steam could at least attempt to separate them, or give users the ability to do so.

 

[Hateren47]

I gotta agree with Garry Newman. Steam is a distribution platform for software not a museum or art gallery. It's not Valves job to check other devs software for bugs or decide if a game is too boring, bad or generic to be sold. As long as it's not a direct scam, it's just another product like no-name dish detergent, more or less "classic" movie DVD box sets or store brand toilet paper in your local supermarket which you can buy or leave on the shelve.

[...]

Also, how would you determine if a game is good enough to be on Steam? Metacritic?[...]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on a couple of grounds. First and foremost, even as a distribution platform Valve has clearly shown that they play favorites, both with their storefront and with their regulation of their tagging system. Steam is a shop, and like any shop they choose what they put on the eye-level shelves. Secondly, store brand products are almost always perfectly functional. The difference between off-brand and name brand is luxury, not functionality.

I'd say quality is part of the difference as well. Just like how IKEA's flat-pack furniture is more solid and better designed than other brands but my not-IKEA computer table is still stable and functional. And name brand dish detergent smells better. And if we go by functionality, Saints Row 2 should be removed from Steam because it won't run if your PC has more than 1 monitor connected and as such is one of the only games I have had technical issues with.

And I agree with you. Steam is a shop and they decide what goes where on the store. I just don't see a problem with that in it's current state.

Some games on Steam, even ignoring Early Access and Greenlight, are straight-up broken, and Steam's refund policy is absurd. Taken directly from the FAQ:

Spoiler: Steam Refund Policy

Steam Refund Policy

As with most software products, we do not offer refunds or exchanges on games, DLC or in-game items purchased on our website or through the Steam Client. Please review Section 3 of the Steam Subscriber Agreement for more information.
Steam Subscriber Agreement

Steam Subscriber Agreement

An exception is made for games purchased during a pre-order period if the request is received prior to the games' release date.

You fix that and I'll be fine with a completely unregulated store.

I don't have to fix anything for you. Those are completely sound terms for a company that sells single-user licenses for software and I agree with them. If you think you have a better business strategy for those kinds of products you should open your own store.

Until then there is not sufficient consumer protection in place. Additionally, I'd just love the Storefront to be customizable so that I can see what I like without actually changing release practices. Give me those things and Steam can release whatever it likes.

You're acting awfully entitled and you should work on that. It might give people the wrong perception of you. Steam doesn't owe you anything. I sure as shit don't owe you anything. But, I'm a nice guy, so here you go, buddy http://www.enhancedsteam.com/index.php . It's not my software, so I can't add your specific demands to it but it does some of the stuff you want. Like highlighting your wishlist items, pointing out 3rd-party DRM and other nice things. Pretty customizable too.

As to "good enough", I just want a base standard of functionality before a game is released. That <a=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYArgbWVtGc&list=PLlRceUcRZcK0zAt8sV33ZsMCVlOgWjVoy>Air Control is allowed to be on Steam is shameful. Nothing, and I mean nothing, which is so broken should be allowed in any store, much less the primary source of PC games.

I can't see your video but I looked the game up and it certainly looks like a terrible game. From the screens on Steam I don't think anyone buys that thinking they will have a good time. If it is an actual scam I agree (and did so in my first post) that it should be removed and people should have their money back and the developer sued.

 

[Karadalis]

Yeah because this worked so well for the Wii and totaly not made it a joke in the eyes of gamers worldwide.. what with being drowned in tons n tons of heartless quick buck shovelware and abysmal movie license games.

 

[Alterego-X]

Yeah because this worked so well for the Wii and totaly not made it a joke in the eyes of gamers worldwide.. what with being drowned in tons n tons of heartless quick buck shovelware and abysmal movie license games.

The Wii's problem was not the amounts of shovelware, but the lack of better alternatives.

For decades the PC was a far more open platform than the Wii, and it got by fine. It had shovelware, but it also had great games that it's audience focused on.

Limiting shovelware isn't worth to accidentally filter out some potentially great games along with it as well.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

You're acting awfully entitled and you should work on that. It might give people the wrong perception of you. Steam doesn't owe you anything. I sure as shit don't owe you anything. But, I'm a nice guy, so here you go, buddy http://www.enhancedsteam.com/index.php . It's not my software, so I can't add your specific demands to it but it does some of the stuff you want. Like highlighting your wishlist items, pointing out 3rd-party DRM and other nice things. Pretty customizable too.

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.

I'm not against an unlimited amount of game releases. But the guy is right when he says consumer protection needs to be intact. Even though some projects are obvious bad apples, not all are. Aka: The Colonial Marines, or Sword of the Stars 2's of this world.

 

[Karadalis]

Yeah because this worked so well for the Wii and totaly not made it a joke in the eyes of gamers worldwide.. what with being drowned in tons n tons of heartless quick buck shovelware and abysmal movie license games.

The Wii's problem was not the amounts of shovelware, but the lack of better alternatives.

For decades the PC was a far more open platform than the Wii, and it got by fine. It had shovelware, but it also had great games that it's audience focused on.

Limiting shovelware isn't worth to accidentally filter out some potentially great games along with it as well.

The lack of better alternatives was a direct reaction to the amounts of shovelware being brought out for the Wii. The Wii had phenomenal initial sales.. yet none of the big publisher would try to develop anything but movie license titles for the damn thing.

The only "serious" games came either directly from nintendo or the odd now and then Jrpg that people had to actually fight for to get them to the states and europe... go figure.

Gamers simply didnt took the Wii serious and because of that the industry didnt took the console serious either, it was a kiddy console in most peoples eyes, a console for casual gamers that relegated the Wii to a backseat existance.

Wich now in turn bit the Wii U in the ass because no one wants to buy or develop games for the bloody thing due to their experience with the Wii. Nintendo destroyed their own brand name when they opened the floodgates for every crappy half baked cash grab game to be released on the Wii and its hurting them now.

The same thing is happening to steam right now, they are gambling away their reputation as a dependable shop for a quick buck, completly leaving their customers in the dust should a product turn out to be a big fat scam. Steam seems to simply not care for their customers anymore and allows blatant false advertisement on their service to bait in customers. Shops like GoG have shown that you can still make a good profit with a refund policy AND with zero anti piracy measures.

Its only a matter of time till alternatives grow up... Steam has the advantage of having the digital distribution market for PC games cornered right now but it wont last if it keeps alienating its customers.