Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity

[Anthan]

This does seem like an idea in need of a few re-drafts.

It wouldn't work for start, someone playing to win would recieve bad votes from someone playing to have fun and vice versa.

Gabe Newell is a really intelegent person. He wouldn't throw out an idea as reckless as this unless it really is just a theory which 'could' be possible with a better safety plan.

---

Then there's people like EvilDaedelus on YouTube, he's a notorious 'polite' griefer who brings laughter to everyone who sees his videos as well as most people on the servers he plays on, (everyone except the people he annoys).

People's opinions on other people differ to much to make this viable for now.

 

[ShoryukenDude]

I'm one of those crazy 'nice guys' you run into online, so if this turns out to be true and works as it should, I have no problem with this.

But I'd still bet $10 this is going to turn out to be a joke sometime down the line. This is Gabe Newell we're talking about here.

 

[zad1212]

Though I like the idea, its going to be greifed. It would need a system so people can't just spam report, or just say your being an awful person.

 

[Reishadowen]

...OH. MY. GOD. This man is INSANE. Seriously, I am willing to bet that this guy is literally, clinically INSANE to some degree. I agree that people being jerks to you online is a creating a bad image for us gamers, but I mean come on. This is just lunacy.

How could you possibly even make that work? And even if you did, it doesn't seem fair to someone to have to pay more because people online think you're a jerk. Last I checked, that's discrimination, and that's a no-no in our market. What's to keep people from leaving when your game gets too expensive? Don't think you're some sort of great gaming god that people will pay no matter what you charge. That's a Sony train of thought, and last I checked, that train jumped the rails YEARS ago.

Besides, it would just turn the game into a popularity contest. Some people (like me) play games online because it does not require the kind of interaction with people as in real life, at which we tend to kind of suck at. Games are an escape, and we don't want our little island of paradise judging us.

 

[Marik Bentusi]

First Reaction: Oh god, he's gone bonkers now.

Second Reaction: No really, he has gone batshit insane.

Third Reaction: Wait, are you serious?

Fourth Reaction: If that isnt a Troll, then Gabe really has gone whacko.

Alternatively, he's talking about extreme cases.

So it won't matter if you're a helpful Medic in TF2 or teabag noobs in CS, but it will matter if you write scripts and programs to bypass security measurements or contribute content or big bugfixes etc, much like private people make money from their hats in the item store and massively contributing to the wiki gets you a hat, or you get shiny items for helping polish the game (translations, pointing out text errors, writing trivia for loading screens, making new default avatars, etc).

This sort of contribution would be much easier to fake (either way) than the alternative, which would be that everyone can rate everyone and every user gets a score from that system that determines pricing on his/her future games (which as I pointed out in my own post in this thread, is a system screaming to be abused).

 

[numbersix1979]

While chucking the douchebags out of online gaming sounds like something to be championed, I'm worried that a system like this would be both a colossal failure and fundamentally unfair.

I don't really see how the current system of pricing games is 'broken'. It means video games are priced the same as pretty much everything else in the current economic system besides produce bought by the pound. Not to mention, how will this system be maintained? Popular vote? So jerks will be voting which other jerks to kick off the servers? Or will moderators do it, moderators who time and time again prove to be vastly out of touch with the hoi-paloi under their purview? Also, sounds like a good way to cyber-bully someone. Get everyone at school to vote down someone's reputation, so they have to pay for their next game.

Valve shows once again they are willing to discuss pretty much anything in interviews and board meetings, with the possible exception of Half-Life 2, Episode 3.

 

[Allan Foe]

What's all the hubbub about?
"You contribute to the community? Have some of our stuff for free!" seems like a mighty fine system to me. Gabe seems like a smart enough man not to go for the community rating system that would be abusable by griefers, and it's an interesting social experiment (which is, honestly, all that matters for me, personally).

Go Team Gabe!

 

[Galletea]

It wouldn't work and would cost more to implement and regulate than it's worth. It looks like Valve are just saying "Hey, we're still here. Remember we think about the fans" When what they should be doing is making half-life 3 instead of buying fans off with this bullshit.
That is just how I see it, anyway.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Wouldn't work?

Portal shouldn't have worked.

Team Fortress, lets make the sequel all cartoony and change stuff every week - shouldn't work.

HL2 Ep3 - lets not release it, even tho it should make people rage at us,they'll keep buying more Steam stuff - shouldn't work.

Hell, if I was Valve- I'd announce HL2 ep4 just to watch forums implode with rage across the world, ho ho ho.

If anyone can make a good idea that sounds bad, work, it's Valve.

On a minor level some games have a similar system in place.

In WOW, if you're a massive douche, you don't get to be in a guild for long, which means you don't get all the in game perks, or any of the assistance offered to those who show themselves as decent, honest players. (your mileage may vary, but I run a NICE guild )

I'm not sure about punishing bad players, as that could be abused, but being allowed say 5 votes a month, to reward 5 players that have treated you well, and each vote gets you say, a few percent off next month's sub, it means those who really make the community that much better could end up playing for free, in exchange for helping other players out for a few hours a week.

It wouldn't even be a loss of revenue for Blizzard, as being encouraged to play honourably and with good grace would improve the community and maybe even bring back some people who had bad experiences with douchey players.

 

[tgcPheonix]

ok so step 1 : add everyone on steam to your friends list
step 2 : "like" or positive every person and do the same back
step 3 : continue till every person on stem gets free games
step 4 : watch as valve realises this was a bad idea
step 5 : watch as valve goes bankrupt because everyone gets every game for free also screwing over pirate sites
everyone's happy
the end