Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

[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.

 

[Valkaar]

While more games are definitely good and there should be an influx of new games, we can't be having any half-assed publisher dropping their shovelware hidden mystery games on Steam, flooding the frontpage and burying good games.

Steam needs better quality control. One that actually works.

Stuff like WarZ and Towns would never have existed, or at least not in that sorry-ass state they were released if they had a propert quality control system.

As far as old game re-releases, I have no real beef with it.
I mean, you have the whole internet in your disposal, you can do some research before purchasing.

That said, I do have a beef with not including the original dates of the releases. It borders on consumer deception, since there are quite many indie games going for the 'retro' look.

It is really bad business to include the actual new releases along with the ones who are new releases on steam but were on retail years ago.

There needs to be at the very least a 'new on steam' tab in the frontpage, where all games that are new on steam but from whatever year can be listed. An the new releases holding only true new releases.

The best solution, in my opinion, would be including the actual release date of the games either in a spot on the frontpage or the game page.

If neither is done, Valve will be damaging their street cred again, which is something they really shouldn't be doing, especially now, when they are trying to get people away from Windows and into SteamOS, Steamboxes and the like.

 

[Aerosteam]

He's aware that Steam can sell games which are complete ass, right? That's a problem now, and without a limit there's gonna be more. Hey, maybe without a limit is fine, just put some quality control to match it.

 

[Sanunes]

My issue with Steam isn't the amount of games they are releasing, but how they are limiting my options with a poor refund policy, games storefronts are misleading such as allowing the developer to edit the comments about their products, and a storefront that can't handle the amount of games being released with no way to customize what is being displayed.

I used to use Steam as my default digital platform but since they have been allowing all these games to be released I have been using GoG and Origin more then Steam and that hurts me for I have enjoyed Steam's product until they decided to put up more product then what their store seems to be able to handle.

 

[Alterego-X]

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.

Like I have already said, your theory doesn't really account for this having been the norm for PC gaming as a whole for decades anyways, Steam or not.

If an open platform inherently spirals into nothing but shovelware, then how comes that the ultimate open platform gave us Starcraft, Half-Life, Diablo, Total War, Sim City, Torment, Monkey Island, League of Legends, Supreme Commander, STALKER, Minecraft, and Deus Ex?

And these were all popular and *successful* games, not hidden gems drowned out by a flood of shovelware.

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.

If you want to buy a solid, critic-approved, safe game, you can buymost of those either from Steam, OR form it's competitors. But you can't buy Rust anywhere else than on Steam, and that's because Steam also sells unproven, risky, alternative games.

There is no audience that has a reason to abandon Steam. Average gamers buy familiar, big, hyped titles, and those are the same wherever you buy them, so they might as well buy it from the bigest platform.

Small, risky, untested games are only on Steam, so the kind of people who expect to seek "hidden gems" is left to browse Steam. They might complain about how it's recently harder to browse like this because of all the shovelware, but to them, the only alternative would be ANOTHER open store, not a walled garden of popular safe bets.

The worst thing Steam could do is tpo turn themselves into another generic web store with the same solid lineup as everyone else, and give up their adventage of being the Store with the widest offering that made them market leader.

 

[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.

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.

Yes of course everybody's rights should be protected, but you can't sell PC software like you sell PC hardware. It has to be under different terms or future computers will have to be cartridge based (for access speed) and you can buy and resell your software cartridge and everything exists in finite amounts. That is just not a view I want to support. It's gonna suck. And the EU is wrong in this case if it is indeed as you say.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

The call to fix this is of course 'quality control' but those that say it have no real concept of what it means. See here's the thing. A game only has to meet one and ONLY ONE Criteria. It must provide entertainment value to someone. Just as food only really need satisfy a nutritional value, how the food tastes is irrelevant (not unimportant just irrelevant, more on that later). So you see as long as someone can honestly say they enjoyed the game well then the game is of quality. It may have glitches, bugs, janky geometry and irresponsive controls but if someone actually can sit down and crack a smile as they're playing it and say: "I had fun". Believe it or not, playing bad games can be to some people like watching a bad movie. In the right mood and mindset it can be hilarious. Some even see it as an extra challenge,m figuring out ways around the glitches and bugs to get through. Others take it as a chance to practice deconstruction, seeing where the designers mis-stepped, where they did things right, how could it be fixed. There are many ways to enjoy bad annd unplayable games. There are Good ideas buried in every bad idea if you bother to look for them.

Sorry but no.

If you buy breakfast cereal in a store with a cover that very clearly tells you it's breakfast flakes covered with chocolade like any other, it can't be that upon opening the pack you find a bag of whole grains to grind yourself, together with some chocolade powder.

You have a point with your last paragraph, but you're totally oversimplifying things. It's not only the consumers who need to deal with increased choices, it's also the retailer who needs to make sure their products are in line with a few regulations.
If you want to make analogies to the food industry, that sector has an enormous amount of quality control going on as well, not just for the consumers, but out of self-interest too. Because if X number of kids get sick and end up in the hospital after eating that breakfast cereal, it's gonna be all over the news.

Unlimited releases are OK and Steam shouldn't become like Origin of battle.net (or the myriad of other systems that exist to further a companies agenda and promote their own shit).
But they should get it in their heads to provide better consumer protection and a number of guidelines that releases can not get away from, to prevent false advertising and nonfunctional releases.

 

[shirkbot]

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.

Incidentally, a problem that could have been resolved with a better refund policy. GOG has a better refund policy than Steam, but they're not selling single-license games, so for a better comparison I'm just going to point to Origin. I may hate everything about Origin and EA on a gut level, but they at least have a reasonable return/refund policy.

It could also have been prevented by the original, unfiltered tagging system (had it existed at the time). "Bad Port" used to be an actual tag, and a useful one, until Valve culled it. It's absurd that Valve can quality control tags, but refuses to do so with its own inventory. I'm not asking for much, just a base level of assurance that things will function, or that I can return them. Again, they're losing to EA at this point. EA.

I thank you for the link, and I will likely use it, but think about this: Why couldn't Valve just do this itself? Maybe I am entitled, but I'm asking for the most basic of things: Some interface changes and a refund policy more in line with the real world. Valve has no shortage of money and talent, and it would be nice to see them applied to Steam every once in a while rather than just getting things to the point of usability and walking away.

Additional note: You seem to have taken my "you" in the previous post as a personal demand, but it's just a general term for someone that is not the speaker. In this case, Valve/Steam. I'm not holding you, personally, responsible for what I believe to be shortcomings of a major corporation.

 

[Therumancer]

I don't think STEAM should limit the number of games they put out, but they should do more quality control, for starters they need to stop releasing "Early Access" games and only put up finished works. While it might involve some subjectivity, a big part of the problem is a lot of the stuff is *obvious* in being rapidly produced shovelware, and honestly I think STEAM should be more assertive in telling people "no". Among other things I personally feel they should also disallow anything produced with say RPG maker (even if they sell the software for it). To me it seems like STEAM's system has meant everyone churning out a quick JRPG product figures they can stick it on STEAM for a couple of bucks, instead of just putting it up for free download like the old days. This leads to tons of this stuff glutting the marketplace... and I think it detracts from more "serious" indie developers like the guys doing "Darkest Dungeons" and "Starcrawlers".

Quality control is the definition of limiting games. It's either quality or quantity, chaos or restriction, freedom or order.

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.

Well, the problem seems to be that Beta testing turned into more of a free preview rather than actual testing or commentary. When developers started becoming blunt about this fact, offering "beta" access as a pre-order bonus, and then flat out as a paid product... and now that has become an industry standard. It started with MMOs and has gotten into single player games as well.

The thing is that most games have their own "internal testers" who are taken seriously, to public "beta testers" are not. The only thing beta testers really seem to "test" is server stress in MMOs. Bugs are not quashed or even acknowleged (and can be in betas for months and make it into release) broken areas get released, and companies manage to act shocked when things beta testers have told them were a bad idea make it into release. Basically even if thousands of people tell a company that a product needs substantial design revisions, they will pretty much ignore it. To be honest I suspect this is one of the reasons why so much crap is on the market, and why MMOs in particular have it rough, the only people they listen to are pre-determined "yes men", and seem to treat beta testers like freeloaders and stress testing fodder. Heck, most MMOs during testing are only up at very specific times when they want to test mass loading, and that means the players online can barely test anyway.

I've done a LOT of beta tests, and you'll notice while I respect the NDA I'm fond of saying "this game has potential, but it will remain to see if it will live up to it", which is code to say that they have some neat idea (all of them do) but have loaded the game down with so many bugs and bad design decisions that it remains to be seen if they will be able to whip it into shape a few months after release, where if they had let the testers seriously test, and made those fixes (perhaps delaying a few months) they could release in better shape. Heck, if I ever run a game design company I'd actually plan around a few months of massive revisions based on mass testing, I still wouldn't get it perfect, but I'd probably wind up with a game in a state you normally only see a few months in... which is typically when the first wave of users have decided "this sucks" and moved on.


That said Betas have been a mixed bag for me, the most awful one was "Auto Assault" (if you've never heard of it, there is good reason, it's demise doesn't surprise me). The best was probably going as far back as I dunno, maybe Ascheron's Call because that was when the Devs had people actually in the game, and responded when you had something to say. To be honest I haven't seen an online game doing testing that had a dev or three in the mass chat channels hanging out and talking with testers for years now.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

yepp definitely this.

That said, I think steam's storefront desperately needs to be redone, and give much more control to the user on what shows up/doesn't show up on the main page. there should be filters you can turn on and off to not see any early access or "new developers" type stuff (most developers who are worth their weight have released a game on steam, they can avoid the chopping block of the bajillions of indie games pouring in). I wouldn't want any of this to be restricted in terms of getting your game on ther if it is legitamate, or for early access to not work, because without it I wouldn't have known about kerbal space program and that game is bloody amazing. I know the market had a crash last time there was oversaturation, but this is the digital era and many different other factors that I don't think will cause any sort of crash (at least on the scale that it was back then)