Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
So the popular kids get games for free and the anti-social people get charged extra? Another spectacular showing of how incompetent of a company Valve really is.
Gabe's system sounds even more broken, exploitable by the company itself which could ask employees to report people as "bad players" so that they'd have to pay "an extra hundred dollars for voice," even those who are good and likeable players.
needs modification... $100 for voice is just staggering... there are ALWAYS GOING TO BE NOOBS, and they are NOT bad, every games needs frag bait, they are like life stock of online gaming, and they are always getting picked on... for good sportsmen ship noobs, they deserve some sort of rewards.
though I agree there are popular players, and there are unpopular players. I think all players' popularity/votes/kicks/jerk server/drop rates/drop after voice rates...etc should all be calculated, and spacial circumstances; in competitive sports such as clan matches/tournaments, we should NOT count the "bad voicing" because taunting/intimidating are used as tactics, not trolling. (that's just one thing I can think off my head right now... )
I think using "extra charge" is bad, how about "every one pays some for voices, and GOOD voice behaviors can earn weeks/months of free voice, and other free-bee" that way, the system won't look so scampy (also it's positive reinforcement)!
Are they going to actually heir people to tap in games? to record game voice and archive them? how are they deciding to tell who's trash talking?
perhaps a voting system on line? on the website? "Troll of the day" , and "good voice of the day" <insert player's name> these trolls would have points against them whitch will keep them away from reaching rewards, and trolls' votes don't count, and "good voice" votes will bring players better rewards, and players who plays more rounds (non drop half ways) have multiple points of votes, and NO SELF VOTES... something like that would be auto...
though I agree there are popular players, and there are unpopular players. I think all players' popularity/votes/kicks/jerk server/drop rates/drop after voice rates...etc should all be calculated, and spacial circumstances; in competitive sports such as clan matches/tournaments, we should NOT count the "bad voicing" because taunting/intimidating are used as tactics, not trolling. (that's just one thing I can think off my head right now... )
I think using "extra charge" is bad, how about "every one pays some for voices, and GOOD voice behaviors can earn weeks/months of free voice, and other free-bee" that way, the system won't look so scampy (also it's positive reinforcement)!
Are they going to actually heir people to tap in games? to record game voice and archive them? how are they deciding to tell who's trash talking?
perhaps a voting system on line? on the website? "Troll of the day" , and "good voice of the day" <insert player's name> these trolls would have points against them whitch will keep them away from reaching rewards, and trolls' votes don't count, and "good voice" votes will bring players better rewards, and players who plays more rounds (non drop half ways) have multiple points of votes, and NO SELF VOTES... something like that would be auto...
I hope they make this work, I'm all for it. Especially with the upcoming release of DOTA 2. I'm sick and tired of all the flaming, name calling and elitism I encounter every day in Heroes of Newerth and League of Legends.
I love this idea.
I love this idea.
This idea sounds incredibly stupid. Not only does the idea of making some people pay more than others reek of uninhibited prejudice, but the very task is potentially beyond belief.
We already know that peers cannot be trusted to accurately judge one another. How would Valve go about personally judging each individual based on their...popularity? What does that even MEAN? This sounds so easily exploitable that I can't fathom the mind that could seriously propose this.
And that, folks, is Gabe Newell in a nutshell. I guess I'll eat my words when he is proven to be a genius with this idea somehow. Still, I'm guessing this goes about as well as his episodic release schedule.
We already know that peers cannot be trusted to accurately judge one another. How would Valve go about personally judging each individual based on their...popularity? What does that even MEAN? This sounds so easily exploitable that I can't fathom the mind that could seriously propose this.
And that, folks, is Gabe Newell in a nutshell. I guess I'll eat my words when he is proven to be a genius with this idea somehow. Still, I'm guessing this goes about as well as his episodic release schedule.
If it was implemented, I would love it if other companies besides Valve would implement it as well.viranimus said:
One game that it would be hilarious to see it happen would be Halo: Reach. The incentives might not be as amazing, but they would use the credits and armory system as an incentive. If players play honorably, they get way more credits for ranking up and getting new armor in the armory. It would be like proper ranking in the real military, the people that are honorable and perform to the best of their abilities, get promoted faster. Also stiff penalties for things like team killing.
It would be awesome to know that the countless people on my team that killed me just so they can get the weapon they wanted, would get some kind of punishment. Or punish the people that don't participate properly if the game that was voted for isn't the game type they wanted to play, and so they sabotage their team because they figure one of them voted for that game type.
Example: In big team flag games which are 8v8, when I am partied up with a few friends, two of us stay at the base to defend and two go out into the field. Well, a friend of mine likes to take the shotgun and stay inside the base to defend, and I usually stay for support. Well our strategy(on Hemorrhage) is to take an extra warthog or mongoose, drive it down through the top of the base and park it on top the flag. It prevents the other team from being able grab it until they move the vehicle.
Well, what sometimes happens is we get some dick on our team that doesn't like the game type or possibly our strategy. This bad team player will throw grenades in on us to blow up the warthog and if we get caught in the explosion, team kill us as well.
It is stuff like that that I would like to see punished. But it isn't just Halo that has bad players like that, I have played other games with such people. I want to have a way in these games to stop people from doing such things or ways that will force them to act like model players, and if they can't they shouldn't be playing the game.
This is genius......................................................................................................................................................................................no, no its not.
I don't care for it myself for a lot of reasons, largely because it's by it's nature subjective. I can also see it leading to a very unpleasant playing enviroment as people try and kiss up to Valve indirectly, and they eventually wind up going Emo about "oh why oh why did this guy get a free game and I didn't?" The whining alone (and it will happen) is going to be a problem.
Also, given the fact that there is rarely going to be a person involved in looking at the complaints and ratings, simply due to the players vs. employees ratio, such a system is going to be a problem due to the way people "play" it. For example one of the reasons why I haven't done many fighting games online is because while bad at them, whenever I beat someone with a decent ranking they would ALWAYS put a complaint on my record for "unsportsmanlike conduct", this being an occurance on Xboxlive. The actual reason being that by putting a mark on someone's record it reduces the chance of them having to ever play someone who beat them again, which for someone looking to climb competitive rankings is an advantage. I'd hate for someone to say look at my Soul Calubur IV complaints and go "hmmm 78 unsportsmanship like conduct complaints, let's raise this guy's prices".
Not to mention how things unrelated to gameplay are going to creep into things like this. To be painfully honest, things like gay rights, racial politics, abortion, and other issues are hot button topics and represent major divides in the US, like 50-50 despite what the media says, which is why there are ungoing battles and people have to fight tooth and nail for rulings in one direction or another. In the course of a discussion if someone says he doesn't support some aspect of gay rights, takes what some call the Cosby approach to black culture, politics and education (explaining it would take a long), or other big issues, or heck even says something in the opposite direction like expressing a support for gun control, that can generate negativity and of course if it shows up on Valve's radar someone is going to wind up with more expensive games. What's more some of this stuff might creep in from sites unrelated or only partially rated to gaming... but affect what people say IN a game because they recognize someone's handle or whatever.
Then of course there is the issue of what's REALLY good for the company in question, see what a business wants is traffic. Someone who raises contreversial issues well causes comments and dialogue, gets people posting, and/or has them stick around. Heck, I'll even say someone who pushes buttons for the lulz and is constantly a deliverably offensive joker is a boon, a good troll is worth a thousand regular users because he gets people to post, and to keep looking at the site/message channel/etc... just so people can listen to him to share in the lulz (knowing it's a troll) or to be sure they can respond with appropriate outrage. I don't fit int his catagory, but I've known plenty of people who do, and honestly I think Valve's system doesn't account for that on top of everything else. People might not want to admit it, but a pack of Care Bears having a picnic saying "this is great" and always in constant agreement, or at least polite, tends to lead to very little traffic overall.
To put it bluntly haters, contrarians, opposers, or whatever are the lifesblood of the internet. Especially when it comes to business, after all whether they decide to listen or not, wise companies at least know enough to make pretensions of caring what the fans think and opening the doors to hear feedback about what should be changed. 99% of the traffic out there related to products is negative because saying "I liked this" and someone else saying "yep" doesn't give much information or generate traffic. Heck, I think that's pretty much covered by the equivilent of a Facebook "like" button.
What's more developers ignore this kind of feedback at their own risk. I look at "Dragon Age 2" and the critical panning it received from users, even if professional paid reviewers stuck by it. How would things have played out if Bioware had decided to listen to it's users, pushed the game up six months to a year and given the fans what they wanted in the way of a deeper character creation system instead of being handed "Hawke is a human" character which when they inquired about it got an overwhelmingly negative response... and yeah, I think Bioware ASKING and then lying about the results and doing what they wanted to anyway influanced what people thought of the game along with all of the other things that irked people (mobs spawning in waves, constantly re-used enviroments, spiders the size of elephants appearing in then air, guys in plate mail jumping out of the sky like ninjas, etc...). "Saint's Row 2" demonstrated how you can have more than one voice track for the protaganist of a story as well. Quashing negativity by charging those who become unpopular for being honest (especially when it's a matter of a company throwing a 4-year old tantrum over hearing things they don't like) is actually going to have a negative influance on the industry as a whole as well.
While I suppose this will raise all my game prices, I'll just say that all my various rambling thoughts (which go beyond what I've said above) make me think that perhaps Gabe is getting too full of himself. "Critical Miss" did a very funny strip about the "God Emperor Of Steam" because along with a valid point about dependency and what would happen to people's games if it ever did go down, it also portrayed Bobby in a rather funny light which was amusing because it was so absurd and out of character from what we've seen. Yet right now, this kind of logic seems very much like the ego trip of someone who wants to play king. Bobby pretty much figuring he's got users by the wrinklies due to all the money they have already invested in Steam (so it's not like they can just up and leave) so he figures he and his people can take the royal position of subjectively granting favor and disfavor. Once he has that, it's only one step from the guys running Valve to demand people kiss the royal pinky ring, or risk their prices raising. (and yes, that's an old school Colonization referance, albiet if you do kiss it in the game your prices rise, if you don't kiss it, it kicks off a revolution).
However, by all means, if Valve DOES decide to make this official policy, please have Gabe annouce it in person, on video, and have him wear an Ozymandias costume, or dress like Emperor Papaltine (I prefer the former as it's become traditional due to the comic strip). Given the amount of money I've invested in Steam already despite my dislike of digital technology I'm doubtlessly going to wind up bowing my head and falling to one knee, but I
at least want something to Lol about in exchange for when I change my handle outside of STEAM and begin organizing the rebellion.... oh wait, I didn't say that, I meant keep my handle and scream the praises of God Emperor Kotick to the 4 corners of the internet, that ring with a little flower on it? A pimpernel, just jewlery I assure you.
Also, given the fact that there is rarely going to be a person involved in looking at the complaints and ratings, simply due to the players vs. employees ratio, such a system is going to be a problem due to the way people "play" it. For example one of the reasons why I haven't done many fighting games online is because while bad at them, whenever I beat someone with a decent ranking they would ALWAYS put a complaint on my record for "unsportsmanlike conduct", this being an occurance on Xboxlive. The actual reason being that by putting a mark on someone's record it reduces the chance of them having to ever play someone who beat them again, which for someone looking to climb competitive rankings is an advantage. I'd hate for someone to say look at my Soul Calubur IV complaints and go "hmmm 78 unsportsmanship like conduct complaints, let's raise this guy's prices".
Not to mention how things unrelated to gameplay are going to creep into things like this. To be painfully honest, things like gay rights, racial politics, abortion, and other issues are hot button topics and represent major divides in the US, like 50-50 despite what the media says, which is why there are ungoing battles and people have to fight tooth and nail for rulings in one direction or another. In the course of a discussion if someone says he doesn't support some aspect of gay rights, takes what some call the Cosby approach to black culture, politics and education (explaining it would take a long), or other big issues, or heck even says something in the opposite direction like expressing a support for gun control, that can generate negativity and of course if it shows up on Valve's radar someone is going to wind up with more expensive games. What's more some of this stuff might creep in from sites unrelated or only partially rated to gaming... but affect what people say IN a game because they recognize someone's handle or whatever.
Then of course there is the issue of what's REALLY good for the company in question, see what a business wants is traffic. Someone who raises contreversial issues well causes comments and dialogue, gets people posting, and/or has them stick around. Heck, I'll even say someone who pushes buttons for the lulz and is constantly a deliverably offensive joker is a boon, a good troll is worth a thousand regular users because he gets people to post, and to keep looking at the site/message channel/etc... just so people can listen to him to share in the lulz (knowing it's a troll) or to be sure they can respond with appropriate outrage. I don't fit int his catagory, but I've known plenty of people who do, and honestly I think Valve's system doesn't account for that on top of everything else. People might not want to admit it, but a pack of Care Bears having a picnic saying "this is great" and always in constant agreement, or at least polite, tends to lead to very little traffic overall.
To put it bluntly haters, contrarians, opposers, or whatever are the lifesblood of the internet. Especially when it comes to business, after all whether they decide to listen or not, wise companies at least know enough to make pretensions of caring what the fans think and opening the doors to hear feedback about what should be changed. 99% of the traffic out there related to products is negative because saying "I liked this" and someone else saying "yep" doesn't give much information or generate traffic. Heck, I think that's pretty much covered by the equivilent of a Facebook "like" button.
What's more developers ignore this kind of feedback at their own risk. I look at "Dragon Age 2" and the critical panning it received from users, even if professional paid reviewers stuck by it. How would things have played out if Bioware had decided to listen to it's users, pushed the game up six months to a year and given the fans what they wanted in the way of a deeper character creation system instead of being handed "Hawke is a human" character which when they inquired about it got an overwhelmingly negative response... and yeah, I think Bioware ASKING and then lying about the results and doing what they wanted to anyway influanced what people thought of the game along with all of the other things that irked people (mobs spawning in waves, constantly re-used enviroments, spiders the size of elephants appearing in then air, guys in plate mail jumping out of the sky like ninjas, etc...). "Saint's Row 2" demonstrated how you can have more than one voice track for the protaganist of a story as well. Quashing negativity by charging those who become unpopular for being honest (especially when it's a matter of a company throwing a 4-year old tantrum over hearing things they don't like) is actually going to have a negative influance on the industry as a whole as well.
While I suppose this will raise all my game prices, I'll just say that all my various rambling thoughts (which go beyond what I've said above) make me think that perhaps Gabe is getting too full of himself. "Critical Miss" did a very funny strip about the "God Emperor Of Steam" because along with a valid point about dependency and what would happen to people's games if it ever did go down, it also portrayed Bobby in a rather funny light which was amusing because it was so absurd and out of character from what we've seen. Yet right now, this kind of logic seems very much like the ego trip of someone who wants to play king. Bobby pretty much figuring he's got users by the wrinklies due to all the money they have already invested in Steam (so it's not like they can just up and leave) so he figures he and his people can take the royal position of subjectively granting favor and disfavor. Once he has that, it's only one step from the guys running Valve to demand people kiss the royal pinky ring, or risk their prices raising. (and yes, that's an old school Colonization referance, albiet if you do kiss it in the game your prices rise, if you don't kiss it, it kicks off a revolution).
However, by all means, if Valve DOES decide to make this official policy, please have Gabe annouce it in person, on video, and have him wear an Ozymandias costume, or dress like Emperor Papaltine (I prefer the former as it's become traditional due to the comic strip). Given the amount of money I've invested in Steam already despite my dislike of digital technology I'm doubtlessly going to wind up bowing my head and falling to one knee, but I
at least want something to Lol about in exchange for when I change my handle outside of STEAM and begin organizing the rebellion.... oh wait, I didn't say that, I meant keep my handle and scream the praises of God Emperor Kotick to the 4 corners of the internet, that ring with a little flower on it? A pimpernel, just jewlery I assure you.
And what about people like me, who don't join in communities in games like these?
Who you know, just play the game, often going solo.
Full price? Additional charge?
Not like it should matter, Newell always has some new 'revolutionary idea' which never gets implamented.
Who you know, just play the game, often going solo.
Full price? Additional charge?
Not like it should matter, Newell always has some new 'revolutionary idea' which never gets implamented.
Actually if these "pros" are playing nice and honorably, not doing anything offensive or in bad sport, then they should have nothing to fear from people that grade them wrongfully.Kysafen said:
I doubt Valve will take the reports as face value, they will review them.
Example: If Microsoft can go into Call of Duty or Halo and review all the games that one player has played and then ban them for multiple repeat offenses of saying racially charged remarks, then Valve should be able to do the same to review if a player got a proper grading.
You might not know it, but all the games that are played on such team games are recorded and stored for future viewing by the company in case a complaint arises.
So I would say that "pros" would be able to file a complaint that they were wrongfully "1'd by rag quitters" as you put it and then Valve would review the game in question where it happened and then see if the "1" grad was made properly or just used because the rage quitter was wanted to do it out of spite.
As I said above, if Microsoft does it with every complaint about improper and bad players, Valve can do it with every case where someone complains about wrongfully being graded by other players.Sammyjb17 said:
You do have a point,there are many ways this system could fail. (People could play mostly with their friends and be friendly with them as a scheme to get free games)LavaLampBamboo said:
gabe new'll allway's has new and interesting idiea's , and so far , ALL ended up total awsome
i admit im skeptical abouot this idiea , but new'll havent disapointed me so ofar and i dont think he's gonna start now
looking forwored to se how valve will build this into they'r games
i admit im skeptical abouot this idiea , but new'll havent disapointed me so ofar and i dont think he's gonna start now
looking forwored to se how valve will build this into they'r games
Now, I like the sound of that, not really sure how they would go about policing it but in theory I find it intriguing.
Cost price of games and services directly tied to your conduct in game... In theory it could kill two birds with one stone, reward good customers and reduce the number of bad customers... but the devil is in the details I suspect.
Hmmm, on the whole I think its a good idea, but it is effectively a justice system, and like any justice system for it to be fair you need to be able to defend yourself, i'm just not sure how that would work.