Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity

[Random Argument Man]

..This sounds like a "George Lucas" idea. (Have an idea and no one is there to slap him to say that's a terrible idea)

Note* Or we could call them one-side ideas. We ignore every possible consequences.

 

[DTWolfwood]

I love you valve, but this is a step to far.

You account for the top 2% of the player base and the Bottom 10%, what about everyone in the middle?

Its great the you give those that made hats money for their work, as they should, but what about the hundreds of other submissions that were rejected? or the thousands that were just trying to play you?

Where do one draw the line as to who is worthy and who isn't?

Do you give discounts to return costumers of other games? or just play favorites to those that play YOUR games?

Also never a good idea to make everyone else feel inferior when you willingly tout a elitist class.

right now i downright feel offended that some1 gets a discount on something as arbitrary as how well liked he is in a server. Nothing makes me more irritated when i get into a server than seeing those chummy to each other making everyone else feel completely excluded in their little club.

yes go ahead and foster the "Popular girls and boys" club the rest of us average folk hated from school.

 

[Weslebear]

Worst idea I have heard in a long time.

All that will happen is anyone who is being punished for being a twat will report everyone else for everything until everyone has to pay more, no way can they keep this all monitored without some kind of community rep system which is more representative of the dicks you play with than the person themselves.

Not going to work and if they implement this I am out, so many people will be driven away from Steam it will ruin them.

Also, this means it's now impossible to vent when you need it. Absolutely no one will stay calm and unoffensive for 100% of their gaming career, everyone will be punished at some point.

On top of this, what about people who only play singleplayer, do they instantly get free games since they can't offend anyone?

Valve you absolute asshats, the system we have now is not broken, don't try to fix it with your cock handed shit.

 

[graverobber2]

I wouldn't mind a discount for 'nice' people (i.e. people who actively contribute to make steam a nicer place; like creating mods for everyone to play etc,...), but punishing players by raising the price for them will only cause them to buy there game elsewhere

to have less people buy stuff and give a discount to others doesn't seem like a brilliant business model

 

[Plurralbles]

It makes sense. Kinda' like retail's valued customer systems and the way insurance companies decide how much to charge you- but different and for videogames.

 

[Folio]

Sounds like some kind of 'game police'. It sounds reasonable, but unfair in a way. I can't charge extra if my customer is a dickwad. I could charge for the things he broke before paying.

How can someone judge every single person on the internet if he/she acts like a decent person? What if obsenities are allowed on a server?

 

[Binerexis]

Wasn't this mentioned a few months ago?

 

[370999]

Innovative idea however I don't think it is very pratical.

Imagine I was very popular at school and so my friends joined, but I was a horrible person who reguarly engaged in homophobic or racist comments. However I was playing to a crowd that loved it. I would get it for cheaper.

Or if I was anti-social but a nice chap, nobody joined because of me but I was very important in keep them still involved in the game by just being friendly and online a lot of the time. I wouldn't be rewarded.

 

[timeadept]

This sounds like a good system, but surely this would become griefed. What happens if I happen to have a really crappy connection and then I drop out a bunch of times. I don't want other people to have to pay extra for other games.

Or if it was like a reporting system where you report a person being really offensive. That'd just end up being misused all the time...

But it's an interesting concept. I'd love to see where it goes and how this idea develops.

well it's not a system yet, is it? It's just a marketing philosophy. They still need to put the systems in place that will reflect the philosophy as closely as possible.

But I do think it would be pretty cool if it worked out. I'll be interested to see how this ends.

 

[Elate]

I'm generally that guy who a bunch of players "run" with, but I don't care for cheaper games, I'm quite happy with the current system, if I don't like a player I mute them. How about people who've spent x amount of money on steam games get increasing amounts of money off new games, or maybe just new releases? That way you encourage people to buy more of your games, while rewarding them, without it being so obviously open to abuse.

 

[loogie]

My problem with that is the people that are actually skilled, and yet aren't dicks.. When I play a FPS I'm quite good at (games I used to play competatively) I am frequently called a hacker, and people rage quit on me often because they think I'm using an aimbot or something... Sure to me that is a compliment, but to a "scoring" system that is grading me on my friendliness.. I would lose points.. just for being good... that doesn't make sense.

 

[geizr]

Interesting idea in theory, but it sounds like you're trying to get a computer system to be able to make value judgements of people's behavior. That's going to be extremely difficult to get right, in my opinion.

 

[JoshGod]

So if we complain does that mean the cost goes up? Also people need to learn how to handle trolls eventually.

 

[loogie]

nevermind the people who would be flaging people as "bad users" because they were popped in the head by them one too many times.. It's an interesting idea, but a general populus the power to make a user spend more money, with no other gauge then your opinion on them? that's an unfair and very flawed logic.

sticking with a school theme.. being unpopular for many is a very emotionally scarring thing, but it doesn't even have any physical manifest... imaging how different things would be at school if you had to pay money every day based on how popular you are... sure many bullies and jerks would have to pay up, but so would many of those who fly under the radar, or that don't fit in to the various cliques that appear in school, and don't you doubt, if a system like this came about, there would be cliques, or gangs, or clans with a fairly exclusive membership.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

It's a nice idea, but unfortunately it's impossible to implement/police.

For starters what makes a jerk, a jerk is subjective. What some might find annoying, others might find funny.

The other thing with the example of people joining a server and others leaving... happens during lop-sided games or if someone who's godlike starts playing.
So people leave when a pro joins, but that says nothing about how likeable a person this player is.

 

[powell86]

Hmmm i wonder about the legality of it. Cuz it is effectively a discrimination type of pricing. Valve might need to start defending why they label certain people as "punks" and charge them more. According to the horse's mouth "100 dollars more for voice" now that is significant for a game that may cost $60. I can assume that people might be challenging them for this decision and a few class action suits might follow as well.

All in all, imo not very practical in implementation.

p.s. for those who say that Valve can choose whoever they wanna do business with and price whatever they want for whoever, answer is no, at least not freely.

Abstracted from uslegal.com:
"If different prices are charged to different customers for a good faith reason, such as a an effort by the seller to meet the competitor's price or a change in market conditions, it is not illegal price discrimination. Merely charging different prices to different customers is not illegal, when there is no intent to harm competitors."

Major hurdle that I that Valve will need to prove: this price discrimination is done in good faith -> there is really a cost that is tangible and traceable to selling to "jerks".

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson?Patman_Act
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price-discrimination/

 

[Daystar Clarion]

If this is a joke then it's rather funny.

If it isn't, then it's the worst marketing idea since chocolate fire guards.

 

[Jack Macaque]

Pretty sure this would only make the raging worse, no?

Then comes the hatemail, the flaming, the everything, MORE anti-Valve websites and blogs, just the regular stuff.

And I would hate Valve forever if they did this, pretty sure someone would have a lawsuit on the way in the form of some human right or something.

 

[Big Bruce]

I laughed hard at "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."

If something like this were to be implemented I doubt it would have a big impact. I'm sure they wouldn't charge someone 100 dollars to talk, maybe 5-10 dollar difference in game prices.

 

[mightybozz]

Hmmm i wonder about the legality of it. Cuz it is effectively a discrimination type of pricing. Valve might need to start defending why they label certain people as "punks" and charge them more. According to the horse's mouth "100 dollars more for voice" now that is significant for a game that may cost $60. I can assume that people might be challenging them for this decision and a few class action suits might follow as well.

All in all, imo not very practical in implementation.

p.s. for those who say that Valve can choose whoever they wanna do business with and price whatever they want for whoever, answer is no, at least not freely.

Abstracted from uslegal.com:
"If different prices are charged to different customers for a good faith reason, such as a an effort by the seller to meet the competitor's price or a change in market conditions, it is not illegal price discrimination. Merely charging different prices to different customers is not illegal, when there is no intent to harm competitors."

Major hurdle that I that Valve will need to prove: this price discrimination is done in good faith -> there is really a cost that is tangible and traceable to selling to "jerks".

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson?Patman_Act
http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price-discrimination/

Burden of proof would be on the applicant to show that it was not good faith, meaning someone would have to prove bad faith against Valve. And that's not easy. I find it hard to think of a way in which Valve might be accused of operating in bad faith with this. I guess we're only speculating though, in the absence of any specific guidelines from Valve as to how they'd implement the idea.
Maybe if they were unduly favourable to people who did mods for them? Even then, it would probably be okay.