The $100 Steam Direct Fee is Bad for Steam, and Bad for Gamers

[Ugicywapih]

and what's to stop this system being abused? (...) So what's to stop someone setting up a similar group the dev gives the members a bunch of free keys and then they turn up on mass to give the game a series of great reviews and in turn this bumps to the front page

Good question, but that depends on how the system is implemented. I'm hoping SE will have a fairly large user base, meaning it would take a substantial number of crooked members to prop up a sham game, and I imagine this sort of collusion might have serious consequences for both sides if it comes to light. Then there's the fact that if that particular dev's games are shite, their own keys would hold little value and other devs' keys would cost them a pretty penny anyway. Granted, we don't know HOW exactly the whole thing is going to be put in place, but Valve apparently admitted that Greenlight is a trainwreck, which shows a measure of awareness that hopefully might result in some safeguards. There's also the issue WHY games like that sell in the first place. It's not like people who were somehow misled into thinking they're good couldn't return them or leave reviews that'd quickly overwhelm any fake good ones. It seems exploitable trading cards are the root issue and low barriers of entry at most facilitate it. As such, hampering or removing exploitation of the trading card system would mean we don't just have to rely on Explorers to fix the situation.

What Valve should have done is bumped the application amount to 1 maybe 2 thousand dollars. The game then gets submitted to valve directly who then use the cash to employee someone (like they fucking need the cash to do that) to QA the game. If the game is an assest flip or bugged or just isn't of a standard then Valve issues a report back to the developer with hints and tips on what could be done to improve the game. Part of the deal is that the developer can resubmit the game as many times as they wish provided they are making actual positive changes to it.

A couple issues with that idea:
- it hurts small devs, especially from developing countries. For example [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_India] that sort of fee is more or less equal to average yearly income of a person in India. That's not the sort of money you want to gamble on a game that might not sell and it's by far not the poorest country out there either.
- It's still prone to bribery or influence through personal connections - in a way even moreso, as a smaller number of people has a greater effect on a game's ability to get published.
- A group of in-house employees more or less subjectively gauging the quality of games sounds suspiciously like focus groups and we already know those don't work well. Even if you do away with the "just isn't of a standard" criterion, deciding what constitutes a bannable asset flip could also be a contentious issue, seeing as even legitimate works often reuse assets [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_scream].

All in all, I'm not saying Valve is about to cure cancer or something, but they seem aware of the issues with the current model and they appear to have a well-intentioned idea on where to go with it. It may very well all end up in a bust - I'm sure they weren't planning on Greenlight turning out the way it has - but given that it's all still in planning stage, recognizing existing issues and ideas on how to correct them without creating new ones are the best we could hope for and analysis of the elements of the new system they announce shouldn't be done without consideration of what is known of the rest of the system. High financial barrier of entry would offer some utility in keeping low production value games out, but it comes with downsides of its own, so Valve is looking into alternative solutions that more explicitly target asset flippers and creators of unplayable games. IF these systems don't work out, it would be prudent to try and replace them, but as it is we cannot assume they'll fail before they're even given a try. Not to mention, I'm somewhat puzzled why the article discusses the fee without such context, but whatever :d.

 

[SecondPrize]

I've never bought any asset flips on steam. What's your problem?

 

[Ugicywapih]

I've never bought any asset flips on steam. What's your problem?

I think it has less to do with actually buying asset flips than with the fact they apparently show up a lot on Steam for some people, and since they're rubbish, they're bringing the overall user experience down by just getting all up in people's faces. And then there's the fact discovery queue is a neat idea in and of itself, but it can display these sorts of games and its current algorithm (subject to rework if abovementioned vids are to be believed) generally isn't really up to par.

 

[MonsterCrit]

Ugh. Kinda proof that games jarnalism basically just involves parroting without thought. And can we please just drop the whole curation shit right now. You know the problem with curarating entertainment products. They're fucking entertainment product. That's basically what larger publishers do and we've noticed how that turns out.

They declare whole genres dead because ;reasons' then they mindlessly ape others because 'profit'. This is why we wen't through a period where survival horror and classic JRPG's vanished more or less and every game was a coverbased shooter. We've seen how that road turns out. We've all wondered why a store doesn't have a certain game you're looking for because the owner had some objection with it. That's curation. Curation is basically giving someone else the power to decide what you should have the ability to purchase.

Funnily enough steam does have a curation system. Where people can choose a curation group., but mention it and they always say: 'But they might not look at a game I'm interested in' Yet somehow these same sheeple think that Valve handled curation would be any different. So let's call a spade a spade. Thise whole thing is about a bunch of people who are frightened/overwhelmed by choices that they lack the appropriate level of self-awareness to make and thusly want the choices narrowed down, . But at the same time they don't want/like the idea of someone else having their hands on a game that their shortlist doesn't so they want their shortlist to apply to everyone else so they don't feel left out.

Look . You can't reasonavbly curate entertainment products because there's no telling what someone will find fun. I mean flappy bird has no right to be what it is, neither does fruit ninja but be damned if both games aren't fun to some. Same for angry birds. It goes for ever facet of entertainment, books, music, theatre, films, oh god especially films. Hell Manos hand of fate actually has a fanbase. That's all you need to know. So how do you curate a list of games in a way that doesn't involve telling the people who like those games that you deem un worthy that their kind aren't welcome in your hallowed storefront?

You simply can't.

There's a saying in writing: "There are no Great Books." If you comprehend the depth of that statement you understand twhythe call for curation is garbage.

Now that said, the new system is an actual improvement over greenlight(which failed btw because gamers are apparently cheaper to buy than the 50 year-old hooker behind Arby's). It has two differences. One there must actually be a game ready to download and playable. Not a frickin concept pitch for a game that you're developing or thinking about. Secondly. The cost per submission is $100. Which basically means shotgunning cheap asset flips becomes rather expensive. Thirdly. The recent changes to the way card droips work , more or less mean that they won't be able to tap that secondary revenue stream.

The only real downside is that this will make genuine free to play games rather rare. Also Valve started at the lowest settings. Let's consider. When you step on a treadmill for the first time. Do you crank everything up to max before starting it? No. When you're uusing speakers. Do you turnb the volume to max before turning them on? No. When doing these sorts of things you have to start at the lowest settings so as not to aversely impact the system. Any garnder will tell you that in most casses you'll kill a plant faster with over-watering than under-watering.

They have said that they can adjust it, whether by directly increasing the pricem, or by increasing the rate at which the cost grows. They' can't adjust things willy nilly though without some feedback data. They have to implement something, then observe the effect, moddy , observe, repeat until desired effect is reached.

I think this is much like when people were bawling about how the lack of daily and flash deals would ruin steam sales. Joke, sales actually improved. The average discount got higher across the board.

 

[Dark_Ronius]

I disagree with this logic that a higher barrier to entry will prevent bad games... It reeks of a certain snobbery, and all it will prevent is crap games with a low budget.

I guess it depends on whether Steam is envisioned as a console-style platform (where games released on it are implied to go through some kind of testing by Valve), or more like a market (like the Google Play Store). Personally, I prefer the latter- opening up the store so the "common man" can now attempt to compete with the big companies can only be a good thing. And being a PC Gamer, I'm prepared for a certain amount of tinkering or teething problems.

And also, to use an analogy; Amazon, Ebay... All these stores sell huge amounts of crap. It doesn't mean I am forced to buy it. I never, ever buy a game for the sole reason it is available on Steam; just like any other store. It could be seen as slightly patronising to suggest people blindly buy games just because they are on Steam- I don't even do this with console games!

Now maybe there needs to be a testing phase... I quite like how Firefox flags whether an add-on is tested/approved or "experimental". And even then, how do you define quality? By how much it crashes the computer? By whether or not it even launches? If that's the case then a good number of big-name publishers should (rightfully) find their games pulled as well. It's only fair. Why should we accept poor quality just because the game is by Activision rather than Dave down the road?

Again, it all depends on the strategy Valve wants to take... Which seems rather directionless at the moment. If it's truly about ensuring quality, then there should be more of a commitment from publishers to fix bugs large numbers of people have (or face the game being pulled). Alternatively, if they go for more of a market feel, maybe a system similar to Ebay's may be better? (where reviews are actively encouraged and affect a seller's income). I don't actually have a problem with either... Maybe the best solution is even to separate it between Steam and a Steam Market? With Steam games having an implied QA element, whilst Steam Market games have a less restrictive approach? In that sense games with consistently high sales/reviews could still be "greenlighted" to the main store? And for us, as gamers, it can all be available through the same Steam interface?