Steam. Pioneering the future. I think my pants need changing. This will most certainly be an interesting and historical day for the industry. Sadly, there will be a lot of miscommunication and a lot of QQ.
Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Wow, I knew some sick bastard have thought of that scam but I didn't know it was our dear old pal Gabe Newell.powell86 said:
Given that I play very little multiplayer, and my only experience with being "ranked" was one time on Xbox Live with Halo 3, when near as I can tell some little punk teen got upset that I and the other players wouldn't help him get his elaborate headshot achievements (and spent most of the match gunning him down). Not long after I got an "unsportsmanlike" mark which irritated the hell out of me. If I subsequently found my cost for games had gone up as a result, I'd be ditching that service asap.
Rewarding good behavior is good....punishing bad behavior is very counter productive. And in an environment where all it takes is you upsetting some crusading Pollyana's applecart (and mind you, I'm very much against trollish or poor behavior in games and the internet in general) to get a black mark, it seems to me that this way lies madness.
Rewarding good behavior is good....punishing bad behavior is very counter productive. And in an environment where all it takes is you upsetting some crusading Pollyana's applecart (and mind you, I'm very much against trollish or poor behavior in games and the internet in general) to get a black mark, it seems to me that this way lies madness.
wow... this sounds an awful lot like a virtual dictatorship. So how are they going to judge who is naughty and who is nice? They going to Contract out Santa Clause? Are they going to judge people solely based upon the number of friends they have? So now you're going to take us back to the popularity contests of highschool?
This is the most juvenile idea I've ever heard someone come up with?! let alone the CEO of a major company. Please Mr. Newell if you have any interest at all in being a good person don't do this.
This is the most juvenile idea I've ever heard someone come up with?! let alone the CEO of a major company. Please Mr. Newell if you have any interest at all in being a good person don't do this.
In my experience it is usually bad behaviour that is reported. People tend to report bad behaviour from others while their blood is still boiling over some OOC skirmish. Not many would bother making a report on a stranger just because he/she was behaving in a manner that is to be expected.
I can see a paid service coming about where you can pay a group to file "good guy" reports for you... 100 thumbs up for $10 perhaps? Or, perhaps, you could pay this group to give the thumbs down to a rival player?
Perhaps Steam just thought that they hadn't been in the news enough recently.
I can see a paid service coming about where you can pay a group to file "good guy" reports for you... 100 thumbs up for $10 perhaps? Or, perhaps, you could pay this group to give the thumbs down to a rival player?
Perhaps Steam just thought that they hadn't been in the news enough recently.
I'd prefer that this idea was limited to people that contribute good game content - like the TF2 hats (which I personally couldn't care less about) or people who contribute in some sort of way to help make their games better - answering those weekly questions that are on L4D2 being a nice small example.
The last thing I'd want is a new form of griefing where a bunch of random griefer-types say I'm a troublesome player and Steam decides I should pay more for games and/or certain features.
The last thing I'd want is a new form of griefing where a bunch of random griefer-types say I'm a troublesome player and Steam decides I should pay more for games and/or certain features.
Me. I never understood the point of tea-bagging dead opponents, or obscenely trash-talking to internet strangers through a microphone, or camping a 12-year-old in Call of Duty until he cries.joeman098 said:
And I'm not making these examples up or taking them at hearsay. These are all things I've seen actual people do in real life.
If other people find this fun, that's their bag, but it's always seemed stupid to me. Don't get me wrong, I believe there is a place for senseless and juvenile fun (my friends and I went around the table taking shots of extremely powerful hot sauce in the Dominican Republic), but when one person's fun comes from causing another person actual grief, it's no longer a matter of "oh, they just need to lighten up," it is, in my opinion, a matter of being inconsiderate.
The problem for me comes in that when we do something like trash-talk to people face-to-face, we can read facial expressions and reactions to determine the line between "good-natured fun" and "actual grief," so we know how to avoid crossing into the "inconsiderate" zone. There's no way to do this over the internet unless you're playing with people that you personally know really well.
Call me a stuffy, boring adult who needs to lighten up (side note: I couldn't care less if you do), but I completely support a system like this, so long as the system for determining who is a respectful and friendly player isn't open to abuse.
Sweet Butterlicking Jesus Christ.
I think this is one of the more horrible Concept of Two... or better said three Class concept I hever heard.
A crossover between 1984 and the worst nighmares of communists, where guys who already do and get stuff get even more, while the others just have to try working up to that point (in meaning of Popularity, kinda hard on such a huge scale of players right?) or fear of gettin pulled down?
I Mean... Nice that they do stuff for guys who do stuff for the Community, already felt a bit like outsourcing. Sweet idea of proving Community strenght.
But beeing punished THAT harshly for things you can easily achieve by kickbanning?
And what about us oldschool Singleplayers. They'll prolly just will be the swamp of the middle, or the top of the lower Plaer classes...
Giving Rewards for Popularity is kinda weird, thats like giving Paris Hilton money for beiing Paris Hilton... oh wait!
I think this is one of the more horrible Concept of Two... or better said three Class concept I hever heard.
A crossover between 1984 and the worst nighmares of communists, where guys who already do and get stuff get even more, while the others just have to try working up to that point (in meaning of Popularity, kinda hard on such a huge scale of players right?) or fear of gettin pulled down?
I Mean... Nice that they do stuff for guys who do stuff for the Community, already felt a bit like outsourcing. Sweet idea of proving Community strenght.
But beeing punished THAT harshly for things you can easily achieve by kickbanning?
And what about us oldschool Singleplayers. They'll prolly just will be the swamp of the middle, or the top of the lower Plaer classes...
Giving Rewards for Popularity is kinda weird, thats like giving Paris Hilton money for beiing Paris Hilton... oh wait!
"Think Of The Children" affects everything, as it's not so much a position in of itself, but a non-position used to avoid addressing issues. "Think Of The Children" is pretty much a way of justifying position on a non-issue, and why it needs to be focused on.Ewyx said:
Right now the problems facing the USA, and heck, the world, are ones without any real easy answers. Especially when our morality has locked us into a position where we can't take any actions without basically having to reconsider things we previously defined as the worst kinds of evils.
For example take things like immigration, nobody wants to touch the issue of having to institute tighter policies, deport people, remove citizenship from people who immigrated, or heck even take enough action to stop people with absolutly nothing to lose from coming into the US. The bottom line is that if we did perform the rather inhumane and immoral (by current standards) nessicary to deal with the situation, it would be progress, but have little notable effect on the big picture. It's a matter of a LOT of issues like that all adding up when they are all addressed, many of which are unrelated. No politician can get anything immediate out of that and say "things are better now that I've put all that blood on my hands and all that shit on my boots" because there won't be any massive changes, until you address all the other similar sacred cow issues as well, not one of which will be pleasant or easy.
Targeting black culture is another big issue. Bill Cosby who has a PHD in Children's Education has for example pointed out that a big problem with Black America is it's own attitudes and culture. The race war is over, equal rights have been obtained, the oppertunities are there, but nobody wants to go to school, become educated, and then go on to become another cog in the wheel of society. It's all "git rich or die trying". People line up to donate books, computers, and materials to these schools through the inner city, and the people there just destroy them. A kid getting educated, or just planning on fitting into society becomes an "Oreo" (black on the outside, white on the inside) and a subject of scorn. Of course dealing with this issue involves singling out a minority culture for special action and doing the kinds of things that we have been saying are morally wrong... and in the end even if you win, just like immigration above, it hardly causes society to change overall, it takes a lot of things like this together.
No matter what someone can at the very least say "well, why pick on this, and do all these things when there are all these OTHER problems that can be dealt with" and no matter what issue you go after you can always say that, meaning nothing gets done since everything is a big mess.
"Think Of The Children" is a way of creating an issue, so you have something of your own creation to attack to show that your doing something. Going after something like video game violence, internet pornography, and all kinds of other issues are little things that can be turned into boogiemen by saying that they threaten children. Non-issues with a populance that can't fight back against overwhelming political pressure, making such debates one sides, and all are also things that can be found in the house or neighborhood of just about anyone, irregardless of economic condition, ethnicity, or whatever else. Convince parents that Junior's video games are evil, or at least an issue worth discussion, and then you've got something you can run with at the polls. Basically you convince people that something incidental is a threat to their children and you can use it for political pressure without having to address any real issues. Especially seeing as real issues also involve the populance to get involved and do things that they don't want to... path of least resistance so to speak. It's one thing to maybe prevent Junior from playing video games, it's another to say support getting your neighbor's citizenship revoked and have him deported if such laws were to be passed, or be called upon to do your part to patrol the borders in a militia to get the needed manpower. Nobody wants to be handed a gun and shoot down some poor, desperate, kid trying to climb a fence or swim a river, greater good aside, people know they still have to live with that. Never mind the possibility of these guys opening fire at a border patrol, or vengeance killings by the ones who get into the US or whatever else. See, back in the 1960s being tolerant could cause you problems because of societal inertia, right now it's the path of least resistance.
At any rate, these kinds of issues go anywhere that people do. Basically since people talk about "think of the children" issues and convince themselves that they are important, they worm their way onto internet forums. Right now when the whole "think of the children" attitude is being tied into the advancement of technology, and how to many people "The Internet" is still new and scary, it's not surprising that it becomes a subject of attck, especially seeing as it can be tied into things like games and porn. Not to mention with kids being more tech savvy than their parents, parents tend to be inherantly suspicious of anything their kids do that they can't observe or control, largely motivated by protection.
At any rate I'm rambling and I'm hoping specific issues haven't clouded the overall point. The overall point is that The Internet is simply a target of oppertunity, directly or indirectly, just as "think of the children" issues are by their very nature.
Sadly it's impossible to ignore "think of the children" or "garbage" issues when they are brought right into your back yard.
Simply put, with the proliferation of the internet, the lowest human denominator has come with it, and with the lowest common denominator has come the issues that they are lead to think are important.
Wow. Like the exploiters aren't immediately going to exploit that to grief everyone they can in real terms, instead of just in game. When will these so-called "smart" people learn that exploiters are named that because they EXPLOIT SYSTEMS :\
The method I saw that worked best was in LOTRO. When someone was being a jerk in chat channels (like obscenity or gold-selling), you got a right-click "Report" button which instantly muted them as well. And within minutes (every time) a GM was on their case, because the Report function grabbed their chat and included it.
How could this work for L4D2 against griefers? Since Valve is not going to GM these games, you need a slightly different approach. The same right-click "report" function would be necessary, but that person would then be instantly on your "not-friend" list, so you can't join a game with them in it, and they can't join a game with you in it.
Does this reduce the number of games you can get into? Probably. Do you want to play a game with a known griefer in it anyways? I don't.
Does this limit the number of games a griefer can get into? DEFINITELY. I can see that taken to the extreme, griefers would be shunted into games with other griefers only, thus leaving us players the heck alone. I like that idea a lot.
The method I saw that worked best was in LOTRO. When someone was being a jerk in chat channels (like obscenity or gold-selling), you got a right-click "Report" button which instantly muted them as well. And within minutes (every time) a GM was on their case, because the Report function grabbed their chat and included it.
How could this work for L4D2 against griefers? Since Valve is not going to GM these games, you need a slightly different approach. The same right-click "report" function would be necessary, but that person would then be instantly on your "not-friend" list, so you can't join a game with them in it, and they can't join a game with you in it.
Does this reduce the number of games you can get into? Probably. Do you want to play a game with a known griefer in it anyways? I don't.
Does this limit the number of games a griefer can get into? DEFINITELY. I can see that taken to the extreme, griefers would be shunted into games with other griefers only, thus leaving us players the heck alone. I like that idea a lot.
Achivement unlocked: Hi Dennis!
You are an A-S-S-H-O-L-E, your purchases will cost 10% more for the next 30 days.
Gosh it's a shame they have a monopoly. Oh wait, they don't. The best they could do is charge extra for Valve, but as for non-valve games that aren't bought through Steam the highest they could raise a price is retail price.
You are an A-S-S-H-O-L-E, your purchases will cost 10% more for the next 30 days.
Gosh it's a shame they have a monopoly. Oh wait, they don't. The best they could do is charge extra for Valve, but as for non-valve games that aren't bought through Steam the highest they could raise a price is retail price.
This is a great idea. In theory. Kind of like communism.
In practice though any number of things can and will go wrong, people will get annoyed and the entire system will come crashing down.
Don't misunderstand me, I do think a system that rewards players for giving back to the community and ***** slaps the idiots and trolls is a great idea.
I just don't think the idea pitched by valve is the right implementation.
In practice though any number of things can and will go wrong, people will get annoyed and the entire system will come crashing down.
Don't misunderstand me, I do think a system that rewards players for giving back to the community and ***** slaps the idiots and trolls is a great idea.
I just don't think the idea pitched by valve is the right implementation.
I do not want to be part of a system where the vendor plays favorites that way. DO NOT WANT.
Also, it seems like it will have the unintended effect of enfranchising the wealthy: I.E. you can be as much of a dick as you like, so long as you've got the cash. That type of special privilege for the wealthy is something that liberal society has struggled to rid itself of for about two hundred years now.
Also, it seems like it will have the unintended effect of enfranchising the wealthy: I.E. you can be as much of a dick as you like, so long as you've got the cash. That type of special privilege for the wealthy is something that liberal society has struggled to rid itself of for about two hundred years now.
Actually, I just realized something.
My avatars would cause me to have to buy everything at outrageous prices all the time. I guess it's a good way to keep the account names in line, but having an LoL account named "DoransTroll" (emphasis on the troll part) means I am dismissed as soon as I chime into any conversation. And the fact that I'm one of the few people out there that is willing to experiment around and break away from the cookie cutter model (often with great results) wouldn't bode well for my "popularity".
My avatars would cause me to have to buy everything at outrageous prices all the time. I guess it's a good way to keep the account names in line, but having an LoL account named "DoransTroll" (emphasis on the troll part) means I am dismissed as soon as I chime into any conversation. And the fact that I'm one of the few people out there that is willing to experiment around and break away from the cookie cutter model (often with great results) wouldn't bode well for my "popularity".
here is a better idea get rid of your stupid hats make a game on its own merit not through skinner box, ya know like the ORIGINAL GAME