Well, I never play anything online on steam. Does that mean I just pay full price except for sales?
This does however seem very griefer friendly.
This does however seem very griefer friendly.
Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
That would be a great tool to commit heinous acts of super dickery. Just picking random people and reporting them, while acting like an angel all the time would become status quo.
Actually, the article talked about giving discounts for good behavior, and that jerks would only ever be charged full price.Nautical Honors Society said:
If this gets introduced and players have the ability to rate other players, this is going to be misused like anything.
Otherwise, good idea.
Otherwise, good idea.
This is almost as bad as the sex offender app on the iphone.
90% of the people valve decides as "jerk" may be jerks but the rest of the 10% may have a different story. They may have gotten banned by a server by mistake or they don't have anyone in their friends list because they are recluse.
I also don't see how Valve can even benefit from this. It's too risky.
90% of the people valve decides as "jerk" may be jerks but the rest of the 10% may have a different story. They may have gotten banned by a server by mistake or they don't have anyone in their friends list because they are recluse.
I also don't see how Valve can even benefit from this. It's too risky.
Toasty Virus said:
outside of steam games..online would be overrun by trolls
OT: nice concept but so is alot of other concepts and look how they turn out in human hands... (cough*communism*cough)
It's a good theory, but on many accounts there's alot of flaws in it.
With the whole Credit store for hats creators thing, They only ever pick 1-2 artists from all the submissions and use multiples of their creations. Somehow that is maddeningly unfair considering only 2 players every....4-5 months would be allowed to gain such a prize.
Like I said, good theory but Newell doesnt think correctly for EVERYONE, not just the elite and hat-hungry.
With the whole Credit store for hats creators thing, They only ever pick 1-2 artists from all the submissions and use multiples of their creations. Somehow that is maddeningly unfair considering only 2 players every....4-5 months would be allowed to gain such a prize.
Like I said, good theory but Newell doesnt think correctly for EVERYONE, not just the elite and hat-hungry.
This is one of those, 'good ideas' that is going to go HORRIBLY wrong. 1st off, what defines a 'good' player in the first place? Second off, what stops a bunch of idiots forming a system to promote themselves as 'good players' once said conditions for 'good players' is found.
Honestly valve dont be retarded and base things off popularity. People are dumb, and this system will only promote that stupidity.
Im going to use a really old game as an example. Gunz the duel. A Fantastic F2P Action MMO that was based on in-game exploits. Once you became familiar with the exploits of the game and made a new char, people in the lower levels would think you were hacking and group kick you. Is it that persons fault they are 'that good'? NO ITS NOT. Honestly dont trust the masses, they will inevitably do something stupid and ruin it.
Honestly valve dont be retarded and base things off popularity. People are dumb, and this system will only promote that stupidity.
Im going to use a really old game as an example. Gunz the duel. A Fantastic F2P Action MMO that was based on in-game exploits. Once you became familiar with the exploits of the game and made a new char, people in the lower levels would think you were hacking and group kick you. Is it that persons fault they are 'that good'? NO ITS NOT. Honestly dont trust the masses, they will inevitably do something stupid and ruin it.
No the article talks about charging "jerks" extra money for basic features on top of the game at full price.ArmorArmadillo said:
Here's a quote...
"Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice."
I've heard this before from him.
And it's still a great idea.
The only argument I've ever seen raised against it is that you'll price too many people out of the game with the system, meaning fewer people will be on servers for those who do buy the game.
But that whole argument against this system is based on two assumptions: (1) that the particularly "bad" players who would be priced out make up a large enough part of the playerbase that server populations would be too low without them and/or (2) that Valve will do a bad job of creating and implementing the scale.
Addressing the concerns:
(1) This is unlikely to price out anyone. We're talking about reductions in costs. Games aren't becoming more expensive and cost will be, at worst, equally prohibitive as it is at present. If they did something like charging more for voice for "bad" players, they also have an incentive to avoid charging so much that any but perhaps the absolute worst offenders are actually priced out. Spoiler alert: Valve is a business and likes to make money. And that "worst" segment that they actually may want to price out is typically a very small proportion of the playerbase.
(2) This is also something of a two-parter. First, they're going to create the scale that nets them the most profit, so once again they're going to avoid pricing people out as much as possible. This isn't intended to prevent the "bad" people from playing these games, it's intended to give them an incentive to stop acting in a "bad" way. Second, people seem to have an idea that this will make it possible to "grief" people by manipulating whatever is used to score behaviour. Valve isn't that dumb. The system will be set up such that griefing is impossible, unlikely, or easily reversed. At the very least, I'm certain they'd be very responsive to anyone filing a claim that people tried them in this way.
And it's still a great idea.
The only argument I've ever seen raised against it is that you'll price too many people out of the game with the system, meaning fewer people will be on servers for those who do buy the game.
But that whole argument against this system is based on two assumptions: (1) that the particularly "bad" players who would be priced out make up a large enough part of the playerbase that server populations would be too low without them and/or (2) that Valve will do a bad job of creating and implementing the scale.
Addressing the concerns:
(1) This is unlikely to price out anyone. We're talking about reductions in costs. Games aren't becoming more expensive and cost will be, at worst, equally prohibitive as it is at present. If they did something like charging more for voice for "bad" players, they also have an incentive to avoid charging so much that any but perhaps the absolute worst offenders are actually priced out. Spoiler alert: Valve is a business and likes to make money. And that "worst" segment that they actually may want to price out is typically a very small proportion of the playerbase.
(2) This is also something of a two-parter. First, they're going to create the scale that nets them the most profit, so once again they're going to avoid pricing people out as much as possible. This isn't intended to prevent the "bad" people from playing these games, it's intended to give them an incentive to stop acting in a "bad" way. Second, people seem to have an idea that this will make it possible to "grief" people by manipulating whatever is used to score behaviour. Valve isn't that dumb. The system will be set up such that griefing is impossible, unlikely, or easily reversed. At the very least, I'm certain they'd be very responsive to anyone filing a claim that people tried them in this way.
What about those of us who don't care for multiplayer? I don't see while someone should get games for free while I still have to pay. I really like Steam lately and I've already bough a handful of games there. I just hope they keep it as it is and make more discount sales and packages.
The "already own" argument against locked content is incredibly flawed. Did you knowingly buy a product with disabled features that cost more to unlock? If you did and you didn't pay the fee to unlock them, by definition, you did not buy a game with those features. Your argument only holds if "the game" that you bought actually had those features, but it didn't.Nautical Honors Society said:
And then everyone tries to salvage the argument by claiming that the features are on the disc and you bought the disc, so withholding them just for the sake of money is unethical. First, buying the disc is not the same thing as buying all of the content on it. If you want those to be the same thing, you're going to become a very unhappy person very quickly when you realise how hard this would make legally distributing hardware containing intellectual property. Second, by that logic, selling virtually any product is unethical. Third and perhaps most importantly, the reason they're on the disc is because it makes distribution of the features easier. They could just as easily not put them on the disc, but that would mean the difference between a simple patch to enable the content and actually having to patch in the content. It's hard to make an argument that it's less ethical if they're on the disc and disabled than if they weren't included at all given that the only time it makes a difference to the consumer is when they do want to unlock the feature, in which case leaving it on the disc is advantageous to the consumer. If you don't unlock the content, the decision of whether or not to include it on the disc is completely inconsequential to you as a consumer.
And when talking about a platform like Steam, you can't even claim that you own the entire content of the data just because you purchased hardware containing all of the data.