Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

[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)

 

[Fdzzaigl]

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.

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.

He's not entitled from anything from you, nor was he saying he was. It was a manner of speech, chill.

I'm not sure where all these analogies with food are coming from, because they're different things altogether, but ok I'll bite. If you order a pizza caprese via that site (which I don't know btw, but there are different ones here) and a pizza caprese is delivered to your home in time, but you don't like the taste. Then no you can't ask for a refund.
Why not?
Because when you ordered the pizza caprese from the site, you were only agreeing to a service within certain limits. The seller agreed to deliver the pizza to your home within time X, it would be a pizza type Y from producer Z. If the site fulfilled all those requirements, then they adequately took care of their part of the agreement, there's nothing about your personal preference in there, except that the specified food must be delivered in a timely fashion.

But if your pizza you ordered from that site was delivered stone cold, half eaten, a day later, or it wasn't a caprese at all. Would you then have the right to refuse payment? Damn right you would.

That's the whole deal with some games on Steam: they promise this and that service and even go out of their way to paint a completely false picture of what their game actually is. Then when people buy it and want their money back they're regarded as the only responsible party. Sorry no way, that's not how it works.

About the EU part: this is where you need to stop comparing with food. Food is a different kind of goods or service in itself legally (it degrades etc.).

What the EU does is to provide consumer protection through various legislation. Companies on the other hand try to hide behind various "Terms of Use" and "EULA's". In the end, the only thing that counts is the law.
And under that law, you have the right to cancel your purchase within 7 working days and receive a refund within 30 days.

 

[Hateren47]

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.

I don't think I'm entitled to a refund. I own a license to play a game through Steam on any computer I wish to and it will likely work in most cases as long as the computer meets the minimum specifications. I could be a little pissed that it wasn't (and still isn't) mentioned on the store page, but eh... I also don't play EA games any more. The games that goes through EA come out on the other side looking all pretty on the surface and hollow and heartless on the inside. IMO.

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.

Is this controversial? I'm not sure i understand. Even if Steam could scan you hardware and configurations and emulate your computer running the game you're planning to buy and verify that it runs before it allows you to press the final purchase button, some things that doesn't work right would still slip through (like my SR2). And EA is definitely still playing catch-up to Steam if you ask me and they have to cater to the demands from the people they want to steal from Steam. Steam doesn't have to steal customers so they don't have to cater to their users in the same way. I don't believe for a second EA actually wants to give refunds. Also the 2 services are only comparable in that they sell games on-line and have friends lists. I think. Haven't opened Origin in a while. But I do know I find it worse than Uplay.

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.

It's actually a very nice plug-in and you're welcome. What interface options do you think Steam needs and is there stuff that has to go? Either way I'm sure Steam will evolve with it's needs and users demand but you can't ecxactly blame Valve for rushing things.

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.

I only took it personal because you were actually making demands and directing them to me. I knew you didn't mean it like that but it was a nice segue into presenting EnhancedSteam to you so I rolled with it

 

[Hateren47]

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.

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.

He's not entitled from anything from you, nor was he saying he was. It was a manner of speech, chill.

I know.

I'm not sure where all these analogies with food are coming from, because they're different things altogether, but ok I'll bite (my note: HAH!). If you order a pizza caprese via that site (which I don't know btw, but there are different ones here) and a pizza caprese is delivered to your home in time, but you don't like the taste. Then no you can't ask for a refund.
Why not?
Because when you ordered the pizza caprese from the site, you were only agreeing to a service within certain limits. The seller agreed to deliver the pizza to your home within time X, it would be a pizza type Y from producer Z. If the site fulfilled all those requirements, then they adequately took care of their part of the agreement, there's nothing about your personal preference in there, except that the food must be delivered in a timely fashion.

But if you pizza you ordered from that site was delivered stone cold, half eaten, a day later, or it wasn't a caprese at all. Would you then have the right to refuse payment? Damn right you would.

The pizza is fine I just don't want it any more. Who reimburses me on the others behalf? Just-Eat or Mohammed "Pepe" Marzouk? from Pepe's Pizza? I'm sure the EU has a rule for this and it is ill thought out.

That's the whole deal with some games on Steam: they promise this and that service and even go out of their way to paint a completely false picture of what their game actually is. Then when people buy it and want their money back they're regarded as the only responsible party. Sorry no way, that's not how it works.

About the EU part: this is where you need to stop comparing with food. Food is a different kind of goods or service in itself legally (it degrades etc.).

And that is what I'm saying single user licenses do as well. Yes you can always make more but nothing is free. Not even bits.

What the EU does is to provide consumer protection through various legislation. Companies on the other hand try to hide behind various "Terms of Use" and "EULA's". In the end, the only thing that counts is the law.
And under that law, you have the right to cancel your purchase within 7 working days and receive a refund within 30 days.

Unless it's a pizza... But definitely if it's software. I'm quite sure the EU or any high-level politician anywhere, for that matter, can't define software without putting down a committee and spending half a million euros. Not sure why I shouldn't question the law in this case. But that's an entirely different matter.

Any who, I'm heading out so this is the last reply from me in a few hours. Don't want to leave you hanging

 

[StriderShinryu]

As others have posted, the issue isn't with the number of games that appear on Steam, the issue is with the curation of those titles. There is no reason why Early Access titles should be lumped together with new complete releases. There is no reason for bargain bin re-releases of 10 year old games to be lumped in with actual new releases. There is no reason for a store interface used by millions of people to be as user-unfriendly to use and browse as Steam is.

Also, given the level of success that Rust has had, I don't know that I would take their opinion seriously on this. Let us hear instead from the developers who have suffered because of Steam instead of those who won the lottery on it.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

You really think having access you all that info really makes a difference? Having access to all the info in the world isn't going to change the fact that wading through all the shit to find the good stuff is a bloody chore. Besides I'm not suggesting that professional reviewers get to decide what gets to go on Steam based on subjective opinion. I'm suggesting that Steam have some minimum requirements that a game needs to have before it's eligible to be on Steam. You know, to prevent shit like Earth 2066 and the War Z from happening.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Yeah but you ever notice that in most cereals the size of the flakes or what not on the box is someone 'enhanced' not to mention the ration of marshmallow bits and the size of the marshmallow bits. They use misleading tricks all the time. Now to be fair steam will step in where the publisher has blatantly misrepresented their product and they will refund the purchase. If a game shows itself as an FPS in the material but then turns out to be aside scroller that's misleading. That's misrepresentation and that will get youa refund. If the game is patently unplayable when *they* test it on their systems well then. They will give you a refund.

The thing about bugs is that while many consumers maybe affected by glitch (A) there are more than a few who never encounter it so it then boils down to whatever hardware or software on your system which the devs have no control over. SO in short; steam does provide consumer protection as much as it can but remember they are limited in a sense to what is presented to them for all we know the copy that was presented to steam for evaluation and the copy made available for download could be entirely different.

Besides most of the complaints about bad games come from the Early Access set which I really don't understand. Every early access game has a big ass disclaimer top of the page just under the name of the game in a big blue box that says, it's Early Access.
Steam does what they can to fight for the consumer but the consumer has to take the first step and report these things, also be aware enough to recognize when a game is falsely advertised. COnsumer also needs to remember that there isno 'instant money back'. The mediation is not there to fix 'buyer's remorse'.

I agree that the consumer needs to be vocal and conscious about their decisions too.

But I feel like Steam still has a serious ways to go before I'd lean on them to support my rights. Putting plainly that there are no refunds until they decide to offer them for nonfunctional releases is a serious problem imo. In my experience they also try to weasel out of refunds or compensation as much as they can until the public outrage gets too big.

Take the game I mentioned earlier, Sword of the Stars 2. A turn-based 4x game without too much publicity going for it, but it had some good previews out beforehand, together with several promises made by the devs.
When the game launched, the main menu wouldn't even display properly for most people. Aka: the game was literally unplayable for many. After a hotfix for that, the game would invariably crash after turn 30. It took several months before the game became playable.

Personally I did not ask for a refund, as I knew the developers were the kind who would fix their mess. To their credit, they also did so and offered some free bonus content afterward.
However, I fully respected those who asked for a refund. Yet Steam refused to give in to their demands. I'm unsure if they did so later anyway, but in those few first days only the guys who really fought for it got their refunds.

In general, having to rely on the whims of the retailer to respond to outrage or not is not a good situation for consumers. They need a policy that is balanced more towards the users in my opinion. Then the bad releases will also be less likely to pass for long anyhow, or Steam will start screening themselves because they'll actually suffer from letting too many of them go.

It'll be positive for Steam to take good care of their customers, even those who suffer from bugs that no one else suffers from.

 

[Vivi22]

for starters they need to stop releasing "Early Access" games and only put up finished works.

If the game is clearly marked as early access then customers should know what they're getting into. There is no problem there.

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

If a game being rapidly produced shovelware is "obvious" then customers have nothing to worry about if they use their brains and do a modest amount of homework before spending their money.

Among other things I personally feel they should also disallow anything produced with say RPG maker

To the moon was made with RPG Maker and it was great. Why don't we also disallow games made using the source engine? Or Unity and freely available art assets? This is just silly.

What Steam needs is exactly what they've said their heading towards: community curation of the markeplace. Valve will never be able to police the large number of Steam games as well as the community can. And saying they shouldn't limit releases but should exercise more quality control is a suggestion that doesn't even make sense. If you want them to go through and approve every single submission and make sure they meet some quality control standards then you will be limiting releases. And if they did suddenly demand people meet those standards, all it would take is for another company to go for digital distribution with no standards and customers will jump ship to the platform with more releases and developers will support the one that doesn't make them spend time and money they may not have jumping through hoops.

Community policing of the market place is the only solution that makes sense and has a chance of working, and it's remarkable to me that no one seems to realize this. Except Valve apparently.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

The pizza is fine I just don't want it any more. Who reimburses me on the others behalf? Just-Eat or Mohammed "Pepe" Marzouk? from Pepe's Pizza? I'm sure the EU has a rule for this and it is ill thought out.

No, I don't think they've got a rule that reimburses you the other half. Despite the "ridiculous at first sight" nature of many EU rules, there are usually serious reasons behind them.

Unless it's a pizza... But definitely if it's software. I'm quite sure the EU or any high-level politician anywhere, for that matter, can't define software without putting down a committee and spending half a million euros. Not sure why I shouldn't question the law in this case. But that's an entirely different matter.

Any who, I'm heading out so this is the last reply from me in a few hours. Don't want to leave you hanging

You can question the law. But please note that the intention of the law was to bring many of these digital services and goods in line with the existing laws on face-to-face deliveries and goods (for many of which you also have the right to cancel the contract after delivery, something which existed in national law even before the EU).

Digital was in a big empty vacuum before. With the digital retailers being able to hide behind laws (or the lack thereof) in other countries outside the EU. Or simply count on the fact that almost no customers were going to undertake further steps to defend their own rights, because it would cost them more money anyhow.

You can either trust these big firms to self-regulate and hope they defend your rights because it would be bad for them to lose you (which becomes less and less likely as they grow bigger), or you can have legislation which protects you from some bad practices.

Making those laws does cost money (1% of the member states BNP yearly, not including a few tax incomes and other contributions), but in this case you're also getting something back. In fact, as an individual you can even file direct complaints to the European Commission.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

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.

that didnt stop Rust, Minecraft, Terraria and DayZ from becoming huge successes

i agree with Garry, Steam doesnt need to limit the number of releases, but they need to roganize and curate this store better so people can find games they might like more easily

becuase really, what does it matter if steam sells shitty games if they are just hidden in a corner somewhere, plus then theres the fact that some people like different stuff, even when this stuff isnt of the highest quality, i think goat simulator and surgeon simulator showed us that


games that are outright scams tough, that garbage must always be pulled out of the store, steam has no room for dishonest devs