It sounds like an innovative system, but could seriously be corrupted. People could false flag people so they have to pay more.
Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
This sounds good, but I think it will fail on execution.
Points
A) You say its based on players popularity. If he joins a game then others join after him. Does this work for all games that are not as easy as right clicking the persons name and selecting join game? If not how will you decide who gets the credit for being the popular one if a bunch of people get together and decide to play a certain game and all join around the same exact time?
B) Whats to keep people from promoting each other just for the sake of getting games for a cheaper price, or keep quitting and joining games to cheat the stats? Is there going to be a team of people or a mechanic that doesn't register the popularity counter for so long after joining one game?
C) Whats to keep people from bad mouthing others with slander just because the victim quit the clan or pissed off the wrong people so way more people then interacted with the group bad mouth him over steam.
D) Opinion on this one: Most people are assholes by nature or they may have different opinions on something in a server and get banned for it. I play a lot of games by myself. I do a lot of solo pubbing. So I might get a few bad marks here or there from players who disagree with me, but not from everyone. So I will just continue a downward spiral until all games cost full price? Because I am not popular and I usually join off of other people I will never get the benefit of having a cheaper game, but a more expensive one all the time cause I get trolled by people who just want to be assholes and report me for nothing?
I dunno sounds like this will take a whole lot of work to make right.
Points
A) You say its based on players popularity. If he joins a game then others join after him. Does this work for all games that are not as easy as right clicking the persons name and selecting join game? If not how will you decide who gets the credit for being the popular one if a bunch of people get together and decide to play a certain game and all join around the same exact time?
B) Whats to keep people from promoting each other just for the sake of getting games for a cheaper price, or keep quitting and joining games to cheat the stats? Is there going to be a team of people or a mechanic that doesn't register the popularity counter for so long after joining one game?
C) Whats to keep people from bad mouthing others with slander just because the victim quit the clan or pissed off the wrong people so way more people then interacted with the group bad mouth him over steam.
D) Opinion on this one: Most people are assholes by nature or they may have different opinions on something in a server and get banned for it. I play a lot of games by myself. I do a lot of solo pubbing. So I might get a few bad marks here or there from players who disagree with me, but not from everyone. So I will just continue a downward spiral until all games cost full price? Because I am not popular and I usually join off of other people I will never get the benefit of having a cheaper game, but a more expensive one all the time cause I get trolled by people who just want to be assholes and report me for nothing?
I dunno sounds like this will take a whole lot of work to make right.
Lol a dickhead tax, I like it. Does that mean most CoD players will be paying like 50k for their copy?
Possible issues I have with this idea (may vary depending on actual execution):
- very easy to manipulate
- if people are required to so something like click on "Like" or "Dislike", you don't know if that's an honest vote or a redirect from the person's blog/YouTube Account/whatever saying "hello, all my subscribers, even if you don't know what this rating system is about, please give me a Thumbs Up!", making the entire system pointless.
- peer pressure when you just want to relax/have fun; I have no problem with people being more friendly than in the past, but it's a hollow, strained happiness and fake smiles - indeed I think it'll make it hard to judge who is honest and who wants a discount. The internet can be a rough sewer, but this roughness is a side-effect of deliberated honesty, something I also value.
- buying things over a shared "goody good person" proxy account should still be possible
- popularity doesn't equal likability and both things cannot be expressed in simple numbers imo
- seems hard to break out of this system, once you get a pretty negative rep nobody will give you a second chance, starting a vicious cycle.
- of course, MASSIVE griefing potential, be it through your own friends, by accident because you thought your little sibling was more well-mannered on the internet than he really is, or because Anonymous or another group of people just dislikes you - so they take revenge by making you pay in the future. That can be because you're behaving like an asshole, that can be because you had the "wrong" opinion among a certain kind of people. Again, that would make the system pointless as people don't judge your playing behavior.
- Expect massive amounts of Dislikes if you're a good player and people ragequit because of you.
...and this is from a guy that mains Medic and Engineer and helps his team despite he'd like to play Spy; but alas, two Spies on a 5-man-team are already too much.
Really, just imagine a 100-member-strong group of people that dislikes this system so much they just leave negative feedback on pretty much any account. I don't think Valve would track every single Like/Dislike or hear both sides for justification or their mailbox would explode, so these events could become possible.
- very easy to manipulate
- if people are required to so something like click on "Like" or "Dislike", you don't know if that's an honest vote or a redirect from the person's blog/YouTube Account/whatever saying "hello, all my subscribers, even if you don't know what this rating system is about, please give me a Thumbs Up!", making the entire system pointless.
- peer pressure when you just want to relax/have fun; I have no problem with people being more friendly than in the past, but it's a hollow, strained happiness and fake smiles - indeed I think it'll make it hard to judge who is honest and who wants a discount. The internet can be a rough sewer, but this roughness is a side-effect of deliberated honesty, something I also value.
- buying things over a shared "goody good person" proxy account should still be possible
- popularity doesn't equal likability and both things cannot be expressed in simple numbers imo
- seems hard to break out of this system, once you get a pretty negative rep nobody will give you a second chance, starting a vicious cycle.
- of course, MASSIVE griefing potential, be it through your own friends, by accident because you thought your little sibling was more well-mannered on the internet than he really is, or because Anonymous or another group of people just dislikes you - so they take revenge by making you pay in the future. That can be because you're behaving like an asshole, that can be because you had the "wrong" opinion among a certain kind of people. Again, that would make the system pointless as people don't judge your playing behavior.
- Expect massive amounts of Dislikes if you're a good player and people ragequit because of you.
...and this is from a guy that mains Medic and Engineer and helps his team despite he'd like to play Spy; but alas, two Spies on a 5-man-team are already too much.
Really, just imagine a 100-member-strong group of people that dislikes this system so much they just leave negative feedback on pretty much any account. I don't think Valve would track every single Like/Dislike or hear both sides for justification or their mailbox would explode, so these events could become possible.
So what happens to those of us who are good people but only play singleplayer? Do we get charged full price because we don't play multiplayer? That's just stupid and
I would join this group.
So what about Joe Schmoe who doesn't talk to much but doesn't cause much trouble either? Do they still pay the same price? Do they pay more because a lot of people happen to leave (to go to bed or because they are done playing) when they join a server? Do they pay less because they happen to join before a whole slew of people get off of school/work? Are people going to be charged more because they don't have a mic for games like DotA 2, and therefore can't communicate as effectively, thus making fewer people want to play with them? Are they a bad shot, but just really enjoy playing games (though these are not on steam) like Gears of War or Halo, where slaying your opponent is the objective? I can think of so many other examples where people would be overcharged for utterly terrible reasons (like SSF4, you ONLY get negative reviews, because no one bothers to give you a positive one)
I don't like the idea in the slightest, nobody should ever be charged based upon their popularity. The products value is exactly what should be paid, that's why it's the product's value. Now understandably, NO ONE wants to play with an utter dick, and EVERYONE wants to play with that super awesome guy who knows all the tricks, but that should (in no way) change how much they are charged. There are ban systems in place for people who are troublesome, and there are other ways to reward nice players.
I also find it very interesting that he chose DotA 2 as an example of a reward. I cannot think of a single MOBA community that is not a bile-spewing pit of hate, and I also cannot fathom a way of figuring out how someone acts in different games and in different communities. If they implement this payment scheme, I hope Valve can do the social science dance.
I don't like the idea in the slightest, nobody should ever be charged based upon their popularity. The products value is exactly what should be paid, that's why it's the product's value. Now understandably, NO ONE wants to play with an utter dick, and EVERYONE wants to play with that super awesome guy who knows all the tricks, but that should (in no way) change how much they are charged. There are ban systems in place for people who are troublesome, and there are other ways to reward nice players.
I also find it very interesting that he chose DotA 2 as an example of a reward. I cannot think of a single MOBA community that is not a bile-spewing pit of hate, and I also cannot fathom a way of figuring out how someone acts in different games and in different communities. If they implement this payment scheme, I hope Valve can do the social science dance.
Gabe, this business model can go wrong in many different ways:
-Abuse from users outside of steam like Youtube or Facebook who decide 'Holy shit, I want free games, better exploit my fanbase!'
-Abuse from overly hateful, aggressive and competitive gamers who get bent out of shape over a loss or what they consider 'cheating' or 'against the rules' (I could totally see some butthurt FPS player neg modding/disliking/downvoting some newbie who used the grenade launcher in the FPS of their choice)
-Newcomers who don't get part of some inner circle or don't wish to do anything besides play solo games would have no use of this system whatsoever OR they'd be the victim of the system
It's not an idea that needs to be pushed off the table completely, but it is an idea that is in DIRE need of rethinking and reorganizing. There's potential... It's just too likely to be abused.
-Abuse from users outside of steam like Youtube or Facebook who decide 'Holy shit, I want free games, better exploit my fanbase!'
-Abuse from overly hateful, aggressive and competitive gamers who get bent out of shape over a loss or what they consider 'cheating' or 'against the rules' (I could totally see some butthurt FPS player neg modding/disliking/downvoting some newbie who used the grenade launcher in the FPS of their choice)
-Newcomers who don't get part of some inner circle or don't wish to do anything besides play solo games would have no use of this system whatsoever OR they'd be the victim of the system
It's not an idea that needs to be pushed off the table completely, but it is an idea that is in DIRE need of rethinking and reorganizing. There's potential... It's just too likely to be abused.
can we gamble on it then? i say 20 bucks on activision.PixelKing said:
but in all seriousness, this is an interesting concept. i doubt it would be a good idea to allow people to play for free in the long run (as soon everyone will be good if it works), but its the best solution I've seen for online trolls in as long as i can remember. but that isnt really saying much (can only really remember the past couple years)
My main objection is that it seems to reward community/multiplayer-based gamers, whilst individualists who prize each game as a separate experience are ignored.
I'm a massive Valve fan who has bought practically every Valve game since 1999, sometimes on multiple consoles. But I have no interest in multiplayer games at all.
Why should all those people who can potentially circle-jerk their way through their 'friends' list (in reality: 'people I shot at once on a TF2 map') get a free ride, whilst hardcore 'solo' gamers are penalised.
Yet another example of Valve's 'abandonment' of the single-player experience. I love you Valve, but you piss me off sometimes.
I'm a massive Valve fan who has bought practically every Valve game since 1999, sometimes on multiple consoles. But I have no interest in multiplayer games at all.
Why should all those people who can potentially circle-jerk their way through their 'friends' list (in reality: 'people I shot at once on a TF2 map') get a free ride, whilst hardcore 'solo' gamers are penalised.
Yet another example of Valve's 'abandonment' of the single-player experience. I love you Valve, but you piss me off sometimes.
I don't like this idea for one reason: That some people are less capable of handling jokes at their own expense than others. Really. I mean, I'm sure there are some people that call for a ban if someone says "Good game, dude" because they thought the person was being sarcastic.Tom Goldman said:
It's an interesting idea and I'd actually love to see how it'd work. But my prediction is it won't work in the grand scheme of things.
It's not really a motivator if its money. Its more of a 'mover'linkvegeta said:
Motivation is something that comes from within. A mover is an external force influencing your actions (like money).
It's a nice idea in theory but I doubt it would work in practise. It's kind of pulling people's arms to try and make them nicer. Rather than actually making them go 'Oh gee, Im actually quite a douche. Maybe I won't shout obscenities at people when I get killed anymore' its making them go 'Hey fuck, I can get a free game if I can become cooler'.
It might sound similar but as soon as you take out the external factor (teh monies) then the concept really does become about motivation rather than movement.
payment based on a vaguely described sense of popularity? that cant possibly be abused.
what about people who, you know, play games for single player? there is just way too many unfortunate implications in valve deciding a customer's worth.
i do believe the basic strategy in dealing with trolls is to ignore them, not create a whole new pricing system with them in mind. ive a feeling making such a big deal about online idiots is a bad idea regardless of whats involved.
what about people who, you know, play games for single player? there is just way too many unfortunate implications in valve deciding a customer's worth.
i do believe the basic strategy in dealing with trolls is to ignore them, not create a whole new pricing system with them in mind. ive a feeling making such a big deal about online idiots is a bad idea regardless of whats involved.