Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Oh dear...
Ok this is A GOOD IDEA.
But equally it is a shit and possibly disastrous thing to put into practice.
Firstly, those who contribute to game making, getting discounts. No quarrels, good idea!
But then the problems arise:
Punishing those who are annoying on chat. Good idea, but who is going to be monitoring this? Is a decision made by the community?... well what if people who dislike someone because they are good... tally up and result in punishment. I've have someone playing a remix of the infamous Navi's "Hey listen!" but this risks punishing more than just them.
You could do it by number of friends but... I am the sort of person who doesn't have 1000 friends... I have 12, and I know all of them personally, so because of my lack of friends should I be in fact punished?
Next, I tend to play at the hours where the servers see their decreasing in people playing. On servers with specific regional communities existing, or even clan servers with no password, I have found that in 20 mins it went from 32 players to about 5. Will I get punished for a simple cycle which I cannot predict.
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/(And here is proof its not just me).
Overall could this work? Yes...
Will it? No xD No it really won't xD
There is a small chance that this would work, but it would need lots and lots of work. Admittedly if anyone could do it... it would be Valve... but... it would be late, it wouldn't work at first, it would be expensive and we'd all get a bit annoyed about it all.
Ok this is A GOOD IDEA.
But equally it is a shit and possibly disastrous thing to put into practice.
Firstly, those who contribute to game making, getting discounts. No quarrels, good idea!
But then the problems arise:
Punishing those who are annoying on chat. Good idea, but who is going to be monitoring this? Is a decision made by the community?... well what if people who dislike someone because they are good... tally up and result in punishment. I've have someone playing a remix of the infamous Navi's "Hey listen!" but this risks punishing more than just them.
You could do it by number of friends but... I am the sort of person who doesn't have 1000 friends... I have 12, and I know all of them personally, so because of my lack of friends should I be in fact punished?
Next, I tend to play at the hours where the servers see their decreasing in people playing. On servers with specific regional communities existing, or even clan servers with no password, I have found that in 20 mins it went from 32 players to about 5. Will I get punished for a simple cycle which I cannot predict.
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/(And here is proof its not just me).
Overall could this work? Yes...
Will it? No xD No it really won't xD
There is a small chance that this would work, but it would need lots and lots of work. Admittedly if anyone could do it... it would be Valve... but... it would be late, it wouldn't work at first, it would be expensive and we'd all get a bit annoyed about it all.
This would make me behave worse, just because I'd dislike the system. I'm generally a really passive guy, and tend to get along well and not rage. But if they'd actually charge me more on my behavior, I'd probably just run from server to server screaming obscenities.
Seriously, since when is internet serious business? When I first came, everyone was a huge dick, but we enjoyed it. Why is everyone taking these assholes personally? Whenever someone rages on you, he's probably more bitter about whatever than you are... take enjoyment out of that, instead of clinging to some imaginary ethics that only exist in your head to inflate your ego because you're actually standing by them.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer friendly communities (Thought honestly, I find the escapist community leaning more towards the "stepford smiler [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StepfordSmiler]". ) But honestly, this whole forced "let's make internet a happy place" trend is disgusting. It should be a place where people can let out their meanest parts, because... y'know it's all virtual and there are no consequences, and if everyone would simply accept that, it would all be much better.
But hey... keep taking to heart what some idiot said in team fortress, if you're actually offended by his actions, it means it's probably your problem not his, because if there was no underlying issue, you'd be able to just shrug it away.
Seriously, since when is internet serious business? When I first came, everyone was a huge dick, but we enjoyed it. Why is everyone taking these assholes personally? Whenever someone rages on you, he's probably more bitter about whatever than you are... take enjoyment out of that, instead of clinging to some imaginary ethics that only exist in your head to inflate your ego because you're actually standing by them.
Don't get me wrong, I prefer friendly communities (Thought honestly, I find the escapist community leaning more towards the "stepford smiler [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StepfordSmiler]". ) But honestly, this whole forced "let's make internet a happy place" trend is disgusting. It should be a place where people can let out their meanest parts, because... y'know it's all virtual and there are no consequences, and if everyone would simply accept that, it would all be much better.
But hey... keep taking to heart what some idiot said in team fortress, if you're actually offended by his actions, it means it's probably your problem not his, because if there was no underlying issue, you'd be able to just shrug it away.
TelHybrid said:
Thumper17 said:
-
I took the Oz costume thing from "Critical Miss" if you thought that was funny, read the "God Emperor Of Steam" series here on The Escapist, best thing that team has done to date IMO.
At any rate, the problem with this system is that it's impossible to "implement right". What I was trying to get at in my post is that this kind of thing is entirely subjective. What's more given that no company can have enough people to watch an entire games community of millions to form fair opinions, all they can go by are user responses, which can be tainted by people doing things like lodging complaints against people they don't want to play against because they were beaten, or even cases where with something at stake now some goober can say "do what I want, or I'll make a complaint against you with Valve and it will contribute towards your prices going up".
The point is that until they have a method for actively evaluating every single thing going on, and can also come up with a way to ensure such desicians aren't subjective, there is no way to do this "right". To be honest, I doubt that we'll ever have the abillity to make such a system work and for it to be fair. We'd basically need something like a dedicated AI with a purely objective set of guidelines set down to stand apart from various political issues and the like, to pretty much spy on and evaluate every user involved in the network constantly. Even then it's not perfect because such observation (heck, even with people involved) raises questions of privacy.
This worries me a bit. We have all been on the receiving end of some brash persons comments or actions online, and I believe a movement like this could clean up the online scene much for the better. But 'how' they plan to judge the criteria of naughty or nice is a tough line to draw, and with monetary expenses on the line they could end up costing civil gamers hard earned money.
let me explain where i can see this failing.
If based on an overall rating system by other users then you run into bias from a number of perspectives. Having witnessed irrational persons on Live and Steam get upset not by the players demeanor or actions but their skill or execution. For example, after a winning game of Domination in CoDBO I received a heated message from an opposing player that was upset with my camping strategy. He subsequently rated my reputation down. This is my main gripe with this system. If you give this already claimed irrational/foul populous of online servers the power to eliminate those who they don't enjoy then gamers of lesser skill or of differing tactics may be railed against by these users. It doesn't make sense in games that offer differing styles of play to not only excommunicate but charge players of different styles or skills as a result.
Serious work and careful execution must be considered before this can be a viable way to trim the fat of online servers.
let me explain where i can see this failing.
If based on an overall rating system by other users then you run into bias from a number of perspectives. Having witnessed irrational persons on Live and Steam get upset not by the players demeanor or actions but their skill or execution. For example, after a winning game of Domination in CoDBO I received a heated message from an opposing player that was upset with my camping strategy. He subsequently rated my reputation down. This is my main gripe with this system. If you give this already claimed irrational/foul populous of online servers the power to eliminate those who they don't enjoy then gamers of lesser skill or of differing tactics may be railed against by these users. It doesn't make sense in games that offer differing styles of play to not only excommunicate but charge players of different styles or skills as a result.
Serious work and careful execution must be considered before this can be a viable way to trim the fat of online servers.
Seems abusable, jerks probably wouldn't have TOO hard a time rebooting their "personality" periodically to get back to zero, how subjective is the measurement for "good," etc. etc.
I dunno. I'm iffy on the idea, and this is as a guy who goes out of his way to be nice and entertaining when I'm playing with folks online, theoretically Valve's target for positive reinforcement. I'm still leery of it.
I dunno. I'm iffy on the idea, and this is as a guy who goes out of his way to be nice and entertaining when I'm playing with folks online, theoretically Valve's target for positive reinforcement. I'm still leery of it.
Completely agreed.Bonelord said:
No one wants to be discriminated against, and they will stop buying, in turn stabs the devolper in the back if there title is steamworks.
but then again, I always liked disk better...
Ewyx said:
Well, in general I don't think getting upset to most internet behavior is the fault of the person getting upset. Someone heading into a chat channel or game lobby and trying to get a rise out of people is definatly at fault. I tend to agree it's the fault of the listener when it comes to debates on politics and the like, some people just can't handle running into someone who can argue the other end of something they believe and hold dear, or get offended by the very existance of people who think differantly than they do.
The problem with The Internet in general right now is too many powerful business interests getting involved and wanting to harness it's power as a communications tool. These business interests want the internet to only serve them, and be used to do things like bombard people with advertisements, and promote the image that they want to be seen. They do not like the idea of people being able to use the same tool to be used to provide negative feedback or promote an image they don't want to be out there (true or not). In the real world companies are used to being able to control just about everything. Deserved or not, they can use their monetary resources and lawyers to quash any kind of opposition by citizens, and bury anything they don't want to see heard. The anonimity of The Internet and the fact that it's beyond their direct control bothers them, and prevents them from using it as a tool only for their own goals. As a result business interests are buying the political support to get the goverment to more tightly regulate The Internet and your seeing what was once a place of free expression becoming far more formal. While it's not terrible that this hurts trolling, along with it comes a situation where people are just generally scared of speaking their own minds because of the potential repercussions. It's increasingly easier for someone you say bad things about on The Internet to come after you for Slander or Libel, and even if your right it doesn't much matter when they can afford big time lawyers and you cannot.
I'll also say that as a result of these changes your seeing a lot of private sites becoming far more assertive even without those kinds of goals in mind.
See, back when I was growing up and taking criminal justice classes, the rights of private information platforms was a big deal. Nobody had taken the issue of things like whether or not a private BBS system with publically open forums could ban a member or edit/delete his posts if they were on topic to court. Nobody involved had the money or the inclination to do so, so you saw nerd rage, but that was about the end of it. It wasn't the focus of the classes I was taken but was mentioned as one of the "frontiers" for law in general in the future. Understand that this is over a decade ago (I was like 18 or 19 and I'm 35 now so we're talking close to TWO decades).
Largely due to corperate interests getting increasingly involved in The Internet we've seen rulings in their favor as they have literally forced things to court so that there would be a ruling made and hired the best lawyers. A lot of corperations also pay lawyers who are experts in this kind of thing a few bucks, so that way even if not used, those lawyers will never operate on the other side of the equasion against them due to a conflict of interests.
As a trickle down effect, Bob's message board is now known to have rights favoring Bob in any dispute with the user base, much like it's "his house" when they wasn't clear once upon a time, and from a legal perspective it probably shouldn't be that way... however that's how the businesses wanted it. As a result you see a lot of people being far more polite as those running websites know that the laws pretty much support them doing whatever they want.
Of course this isn't as "solid" as it might seem, because this is in direct violation of other precedents like various "town green" laws. The "town green" refers to how in a public park anyone can pretty much rant about anything they want. This is how you get all these crazy guys running around with their sandwich boards from time to time, and where the whole thing about a "soapbox" comes from given that standing on a crate used to be a common thing for people who wanted to try and deliver imprompteu public speeches on a given subject. The "town green" laws were extended to include private venues which are open to the public. So as a result if you open a private park to the public you can't pick and choose who gets to "put down a soapbox" and rant, you either have to allow everyone or no one. In certain areas people have been able to limit venues by topic, but even so, you can't run someone off if they are on topic just because you disagree with them.
This is also incidently why the solicitation laws exist in places like Malls. It's because they have to remain closed to public speaking in general (even groups they might otherwise approve of) because if they let one guy do it, legally they then have to let everyone. Of course there are loopholes in this based around them renting space, so they can rent space to someone to do a promotion or whatever, which falls under the same basic guidelines as someone renting a ballroom (it can get complicated).
Please not this goes back quite a while that I was learning this. At any rate a lot of the internet rulings have never been attacked on those kinds of grounds (and angle of attack is VERY important) as far as I've seen, largely because none of the people or lawyers doing this understand enough about the relevent laws... all the really good guys who could build a case like that by knowing the specific laws, precedents, etc... are generally paid by corperations (being in law to make money, the crusading attorney of TV fame basically doesn't exist) where it's a conflict of interest to get involved. At the very best someone making a case like this is liable to wind up with an attorney who is more or less a generalist (rare, but they do exist) going up against teams of specialists, which generally amounts to a vigorous pounding. Being able to stack the decks that way is also why big business hates internet Anonimity because so far that's the one big thing they haven't been able to do away with. If some anonymous guy decides to show up on a platform they don't control and badmouth them, whether it's a lie or the truth doesn't matter, they can't do anything about it. Their big scary legal teams might as well not exist if there is nobody to send them after.
The basic point is that The Internet has been becoming increasingly serious business, a serious businesses get more heavily invested in it. Sites are also becoming far more powerful as users are becoming less so, just as the goverment is increasingly making inroads (both for itself and businesses interests) in removing the level of anonimity we currently enjoy. You see more and more of the "stepford smiler" stuff because it's becoming more like real life where people are afraid to speak their minds where they didn't have a many problems previously. Free expression with all it's beauty and ugliness is rapidly disappearing. Unless something changes, The Internet we've all known for years is probably going to be gone soon (and really part of my rant's point is that you can't just point a finger at one paticular group or cause).
It sounds like a good idea, but it's not practical. For one, who would be the ultimate decider? There's @ least 1 million steam users on at any given moment. Would there be an entire team dedicated to scouting the personality traits of everyone playing a game? You would need a Super AI that has a tuned Algorithm with all kinds of functions for behavior traits. And that kind of CONSUMER technology is probably more than a decade away. So if we're talking a total human judgment rating on who gets what this ain't going to happen. Looks to me like this is just developer ranting/wishful thinking. And it's actually kinda irritating that a developer would have the balls to assume that they can have that much power. In my book, I'mthe consumer, once I choose to purchase your product you, the developer, serve me; not the other way around. As much success that Valve has had w/ their very limited product line, they are a wee bit arrogant at times.
Kinda reminds me of Bobby Kotick and the way Activision's success has let all that crap spew forth from his pie hole.
Kinda reminds me of Bobby Kotick and the way Activision's success has let all that crap spew forth from his pie hole.
Just wanted to say I actually read that with interest, and I appreciate the time and effort you put into it. I'm glad you outlined the state, and went into a few specifics why it's like that. While I'm a newcomer to The Internet compared to you (10 years), in my early days, it was quite different than it is now.Therumancer said:
I would like to ask, how do you think that the whole 'protect the children' mentality is affecting the internet, while we see a lot of laws being passed, so politicians can drum up some cheap votes, it's obviously affecting the internet as well.
On the other hand... there's always freenet [http://freenetproject.org/]
(Hopefully we're going to maintain the amount of anonymity and freedom that it won't actually require us to move there, but if it comes as far, I'd be all up for it.)
