Rust Dev Thinks Limiting Steam Releases is "Insane"

[Eve Charm]

And as far as Gmod and Rust go, How hard would it really be for someone to clone those and stick them up for free in an open market with ads?

They would not have the community that Facepunch/Valve has and their games would be called out for the ripoffs that they are, like with the WarZ.

Um Facepunch? Ya a guy that's only made one game or technically hasn't even made one yet with it still being in early access has a following? The community isn't any bigger then any other mildly popular online indie game.

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

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

 

[Cecilo]

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

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

Who's going to pay for that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I didn't mean it in the way the reviewer has power over what is released, I meant it more, it is released, and then the reviewer, reviews it, gives out the review and people can choose if they want to buy it or not. Like it currently should be, and as far as I can tell. Is.

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

 

[Sofus]

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

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


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

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

edit

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

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

 

[viranimus]

Thats interesting because reading this I kept thinking that an indie developer who thinks

"The focus should be on the users, not the developers. Users getting the choice ... is a good thing,"

.... but chooses to lock down their own product into a client that takes focus and freedom away from customers (not "users") and are actively engaged in eliminating customer choice would have been a much more accurate definition of "insane"

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

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

TL;DR:

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

 

[Atmos Duality]

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

More accurately, it was over-saturation of garbage.
Finding a real game was a total gamble when 99% of everything was cheap shovelware.

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

 

[Hateren47]

How about you put focus on the customers rather than the developer by giving customers choice if they wish to subscribe to a revokable license to access your product, or actually legally purchase a copy of your game and then we can start to determine if this assessment of insanity has merit, or just more self destructive and hypocritical cheer leading.

What would be the point? You couldn't afford to buy his game anyway and he could only sell it once. You would also have to pay someone to finish it when you take it off his hands. Not saying it couldn't be sold online but Steam wouldn't be the place to do it.

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

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

Captcha-clone: downward slope

Yup.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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

More accurately, it was over-saturation of garbage.
Finding a real game was a total gamble when 99% of everything was cheap shovelware.

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

As I pointed out to a previous poster, I really don't think having access to all the info really makes a difference, in fact I think it only exasperates the problem. Speaking for myself, it's painful enough sifting through all the garbage looking for the good stuff and that's without having to sift though all the feedback on the garbage as well. It's tedious and time consuming, time I'd much rather spend actually playing the games.

 

[Warachia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the store page TELLS YOU that it will work on your computer just fine, when it doesn't, and refusing to refund this non-working purchase is ILLEGAL.

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

Hole on a minute here:
"But it has never been your right because you still own a license for software that technically works and can't be resold."
You are missing my issue, the issue is that on a technical level, THE SOFTWARE DOES NOT WORK, and Steam told me it would work, and according to steam, it cannot be resold, or refunded.

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

You seem to be confusing me with somebody else, I fail to see how any of this relates to anything I'm saying, in any case I already don't think software should be treated like hardware.

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

How dare consumers want what they were told they were entitled to! How dare these petty consumers, wanting their programs to work right and not end in them wasting sixty fucking dollars!

I'm also not sure what that whole rant about politics really has to do with anything.

 

[Atmos Duality]

As I pointed out to a previous poster, I really don't think having access to all the info really makes a difference, in fact I think it only exasperates the problem. Speaking for myself, it's painful enough sifting through all the garbage looking for the good stuff and that's without having to sift though all the feedback on the garbage as well. It's tedious and time consuming, time I'd much rather spend actually playing the games.

If that's the case then it seems that this widespread urge for instant-gratification will cause a crash no matter what Steam does.

Just remember: All convenience has a cost. If you want someone to spoon-feed you their recommendations, then you have no right to complain when all you get is stuff suited to their taste (or needs).

 

[Canadamus Prime]

As I pointed out to a previous poster, I really don't think having access to all the info really makes a difference, in fact I think it only exasperates the problem. Speaking for myself, it's painful enough sifting through all the garbage looking for the good stuff and that's without having to sift though all the feedback on the garbage as well. It's tedious and time consuming, time I'd much rather spend actually playing the games.

If that's the case then it seems that this widespread urge for instant-gratification will cause a crash no matter what Steam does.

Just remember: All convenience has a cost. If you want someone to spoon-feed you their recommendations, then you have no right to complain when all you get is stuff suited to their taste (or needs).

I don't want someone to spoon feed me their recommendations. I'm not at all suggesting that Valve employ a team of guys to sit around playing all the potential candidates for Steam and then give the seal of approval. All I'm suggesting is that Steam have some standards and maybe some minimum requirements that games need to meet before being put on the platform. Filter out all the shit like Earth 2066 and the War Z before it even gets on there.

 

[viranimus]

How about you put focus on the customers rather than the developer by giving customers choice if they wish to subscribe to a revokable license to access your product, or actually legally purchase a copy of your game and then we can start to determine if this assessment of insanity has merit, or just more self destructive and hypocritical cheer leading.

What would be the point? You couldn't afford to buy his game anyway and he could only sell it once. You would also have to pay someone to finish it when you take it off his hands. Not saying it couldn't be sold online but Steam wouldn't be the place to do it.

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

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

Captcha-clone: downward slope

Yup.

Nope.

That exhibits a very limited and mistaken understanding of ownership. There is a fundamental difference between the control a content creator has being an owner of an intellectual property versus copies of a creation sold for mass consumption. However this is illustration why this cannot be brought up enough. When erroneous assumptions regarding economic principles that were sorted out long before digital distribution or even games existed are allowed to flourish unchecked to the point they become adopted as "just how it is" en mass it goes a long way in explaining why as a whole consumers fail to take and are unconcerned for the responsibility and consequences of their purchases.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I don't want someone to spoon feed me their recommendations. I'm not at all suggesting that Valve employ a team of guys to sit around playing all the potential candidates for Steam and then give the seal of approval. All I'm suggesting is that Steam have some standards and maybe some minimum requirements that games need to meet before being put on the platform. Filter out all the shit like Earth 2066 and the War Z before it even gets on there.

Alright. What requirements?
How do you ascertain that a game meets these requirements if nobody plays them before they go to market?
How do you enforce these requirements if nobody with authority plays them?

The answer is that you need exactly what you suggest against: A quality control team on Valve's payroll. And even that system is not without fault, as we've seen gobs upon gobs of shovelware shat out onto consoles even since the crash of 83.

I get the desire to see garbage never reach storefront. Earth 2066 was shamelessly obvious exploitation that took the extremely low cost of development* to make a technically legal functional "game" and sell it sale. (and it's not the only one; Garrys Incident, The Forest, and dozens of others)

But at the same time, I now know better than to blindly buy anything. Shit, I don't even look at anything made in Unity now unless it has a lot of positive buzz behind it, like Kerbal Space Program.

(Unity is one of the largest contributors to the problem; it's dirt cheap to exploit on Steam. I estimate you only need to sell 250 units, tops, to break even purchasing the Unity Pro, working solo. 250 is a drop in the ocean for Steam's massive userbase.)

In summary: You can either do your thinking, or have someone do it for you.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't want someone to spoon feed me their recommendations. I'm not at all suggesting that Valve employ a team of guys to sit around playing all the potential candidates for Steam and then give the seal of approval. All I'm suggesting is that Steam have some standards and maybe some minimum requirements that games need to meet before being put on the platform. Filter out all the shit like Earth 2066 and the War Z before it even gets on there.

Alright. What requirements?
How do you ascertain that a game meets these requirements if nobody plays them before they go to market?
How do you enforce these requirements if nobody with authority plays them?

The answer is that you need exactly what you suggest against: A quality control team on Valve's payroll. And even that system is not without fault, as we've seen gobs upon gobs of shovelware shat out onto consoles even since the crash of 83.

I get the desire to see garbage never reach storefront. Earth 2066 was shamelessly obvious exploitation that took the extremely low cost of development* to make a technically legal functional "game" and sell it sale. (and it's not the only one; Garrys Incident, The Forest, and dozens of others)

But at the same time, I now know better than to blindly buy anything. Shit, I don't even look at anything made in Unity now unless it has a lot of positive buzz behind it, like Kerbal Space Program.

(Unity is one of the largest contributors to the problem; it's dirt cheap to exploit on Steam. I estimate you only need to sell 250 units, tops, to break even purchasing the Unity Pro, working solo. 250 is a drop in the ocean for Steam's massive userbase.)

In summary: You can either do your thinking, or have someone do it for you.

You don't understand. It's not about me, it's about Steam. With all this garbage perpetuating itself on their platform it's only a matter of time before people abandon it. It won't take many more Earth 2066's, War Z's and Garry's Incident's before this happens.

 

[Atmos Duality]

You don't understand. It's not about me, it's about Steam. With all this garbage perpetuating itself on their platform it's only a matter of time before people abandon it. It won't take many more Earth 2066's, War Z's and Garry's Incident's before this happens.

Then I'd suggest letting Steam worry about Steam, if it's not you or your thoughts.
Me? I can only speak for myself and my limited understanding of this absurd world I live in.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

You don't understand. It's not about me, it's about Steam. With all this garbage perpetuating itself on their platform it's only a matter of time before people abandon it. It won't take many more Earth 2066's, War Z's and Garry's Incident's before this happens.

Then I'd suggest letting Steam worry about Steam, if it's not you or your thoughts.
Me? I can only speak for myself and my limited understanding of this absurd world I live in.

I'm just saying a lack of quality control and standards could lead to Steam's downfall.

 

[cypher-raige]

Um Facepunch? Ya a guy that's only made one game or technically hasn't even made one yet with it still being in early access has a following? The community isn't any bigger then any other mildly popular online indie game.

Do you even know who you are talking about? Do you have any idea, any idea who he is? Basically, kind of a big deal.

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

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

The game is in an alpha stage and will have bugs. If you don't want an alpha, don't buy it yet.
Most people who bought the game seem to like it as it has majority positive reviews on the store page.

 

[RavenTail]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dude, what does any of that have to do with blatant lying to consumers and the consumer not being able to get a refund?

Let me try and use the most simplistic analogy I can think of here...

I see advertisements for a Square shape, but after the purchase I discover it's actually a Circle shape.

That is the issue people are having with Valve's lack of quality control. That a developer can lie about their software (that non-material thing) and sell it for money (which is a very material thing), and Steam, the service that allowed the developer to sell this false product, takes no responsibility.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I'm just saying a lack of quality control and standards could lead to Steam's downfall.

Personally, I seriously doubt it will. Something much bigger than shitty Early Access titles will be required to end Steam given its huge user base.

Eventually, there will be a lull in this exploitation phase, when people finally get it through their thick skulls to not blindly click "Add To Cart" for every thing that passes their fancy on the front page of the store, just like how most gamers don't even bother with the rows of shovelware on store shelves today.

 

[Hateren47]

snip

The long and short is that you didn't buy a $60 game that doesn't work. You bought a license for software that indeed does work and you can play as much as you want for ever and ever. It doesn't run on your computer maybe but it does on mine. Therefore the license is still valid and you just don't have the hardware for it. You will get a better computer eventually and the license will still be there.

If you don't want software to be treated the same as hardware, why are you demanding it's sold on the same conditions when you can't protect the sellers or re-sellers rights under those conditions? They just have to take a financial hit from their customers inability to read specs and reviews, right? Because they can just send the license back to the license-factory to have it fixed for you twice before reimbursing you and selling it to some one else. You know, the right of the seller not to get screwed by opportunists that will destroy your business if they could without consequences.

I see advertisements for a Square shape, but after the purchase I discover it's actually a Circle shape.

Yes that's a fine analogy. Software is the same as hardware.

What actually happened is that you bought a virtual square peg for a very real hardware play box (with ethernet). Not the play box you own. You just made a random purchase and now you're stuck with it. That, in the world of software, is you problem. And this is fine. You wouldn't want it any other way if you actually like digital distribution of software licenses to be around. If you don't like it, instead of trying to destroy it, couldn't you just not use them?

Nope.

That exhibits a very limited and mistaken understanding of ownership.

What do you own when you buy a new computer with Windows? Anything more than the hardware? I think you have a limited understanding of software licenses.

I bet you would just as upset if developers dropped all the interesting things they are doing in 2014 and just dropped version 1.0 on a store and moved on to the next project just so you an have you refunds and they can still make their money. No updates, DLC's, expansions or even bug fixes. You know, like hardware makers can if they want to. If they get return items they can just take them apart and use the parts in their next game, right?

 

[Signa]

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

I have a fix for metascores that works pretty well for me. Hype compensation.

I gauge the game's hype levels, and compensate on a scale of -10 to +10. Games like GTA or Call of Duty get a -10 to their metascore, and that gives me a far more accurate representation of what I feel the game deserves. Flip that on some indie game that no one really talks about, and the +10 usually ends up being close as well. As subjective as game review are, there are some constants that people latch onto, and that's how games end up with positive or negative reviews. The metascore will always reflect that, because it's a score taken from multiple reviewers. Subjectivity is averaged out more or less, and that just leaves hype to be adjusted for.