Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity

[Atmos Duality]

That is a terrible idea.
Private business payments based on your public approval? No. There is far far FAR too much room for abuse there.

 

[i7omahawki]

Okay then Gabe, we'll have that system in place, and then we can do the same to developers.

We should only pay full price if the developer is 'popular' enough. If they've churned out some shitty sequels or left a buggy game without any support then their next games' price will be significantly lower.

Will give all the developers reason to step up and provide good content.

But really, this is just a blue sky idea that I don't see being implemented in any decent state. I mean sure, give priveleges to those players who really make an effort to make the scene a nicer place. But don't effectively charge far more to gamers who are unpopular, a lot of good gamers are unpopular for that very reason.

 

[AWAR]

What?? This sounds like an elaborate April fools joke.
Overall it's just a bad idea, we are talking about gaming - having fun e.t.c. those kind of stuff remember? Everyone should be entitled to the same privileges, it's up to the players themselves and the server admins to decide how an individual should be treated in-game.

 

[fundayz]

This would be awesome but it would never work in practice.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

Okay then Gabe, we'll have that system in place, and then we can do the same to developers.

We should only pay full price if the developer is 'popular' enough. If they've churned out some shitty sequels or left a buggy game without any support then their next games' price will be significantly lower.

Will give all the developers reason to step up and provide good content.

But really, this is just a blue sky idea that I don't see being implemented in any decent state. I mean sure, give priveleges to those players who really make an effort to make the scene a nicer place. But don't effectively charge far more to gamers who are unpopular, a lot of good gamers are unpopular for that very reason.

How does that threaten Valve at all?

 

[Ghost]

What an absolute load of shit, I had to explicitly check the post date to ensure it wasn't 'April 1'. How does he intend to actually spy on every single person in every server of every steam game? People will just open more private servers to avoid this intrusiveness. "Now, a real jerk that annoys everyone, they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice." WHAT? Bad day for people with speech impediments I guess, since they'll get the most anti voice chat complaints filed against them.

What if someone is 'nicer' than someone else, but the less nice guy gets a bigger discount on his games? What if someone is an asshat on CSS then simply makes a new Steam account to buy a new game to avoid paying the $100 extra voice chat fee?

This is probably Gabe style trolling to build up to Episode's 3 release somehow. I think I have maybe misunderstood a lot of the post because people taking this seriously makes zero sense to me, the last line 'It's people who make hats get paid. People who are really popular play for less, or free' just emphasises how surreal the whole concept really is.

It's like some kind of massive discrimination, with people who make hats getting preferential treatment? Fuck, if they do this I could just have someone set up a new steam account for the sole purpose of abusing me on a game, I could then report that player and gain 'nice credit' to my account to save money in the long run.

 

[Brandon237]

Too many ways it can be abused, complained about, made to go horribly wrong even if completely by accident.

they can still play, but a game is full price and they have to pay an extra hundred dollars if they want voice."

HOLY HELL! Why not just ask for their souls while you are at it?

This leads to the "Many ways it can be abused" statement. *Glares at Ubisoft*.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

Yeah. Sounds like good system. Everyone goes and thinks "oh, that's cool, I'm a nice and likeable person, I deserve free games, and the jerkasses who are always the other people should suffer because they are losers", whichi is totally cool.
Also, some people have rather shitty social skills (I am looking at me), so this is doubleplusbad for everyone.
And the developers would run out of customers, and Gabe Newell would starve and not be fat. Oh god no.

 

[GeorgW]

This can not, in any way, be handled fairly, not be exploited, or make people rage. It could however force people to behave, which is always nice. I still say it's very hard to implement and it will be interesting where it goes.

 

[ImprovizoR]

"Extra 100 bucks if they want voice".
This guy is a genius. But it can never work.

 

[Baresark]

This doesn't really work. How much would the game cost on release? What is the determining factor for what drives the prices down? If I own a game, and other people on my friend list also buy the game, does the price go down for buying it? If I buy it first, do I pay a larger price than all my friends who buy it after me? Do people get a check box for naughty or nice, then the game price is determined by that?

The system isn't broke because everyone has to pay the same for a game. The system is broke because certain companies charge $50-$60 for everything they make, no matter how shitty it is, no matter how much money they put into it.

Offering incentives to be an upstanding community member is one thing, but punishing people will make everyone's life harder. I don't want to have to worry about someone getting pissed because he invites me into a game and I decline repeatedly.

Also, what about people who aren't into playing online, how does that work? An earlier comment said then perhaps someone who doesn't use online would have to pay full price for the game, which is retarded. Why charge someone more for not using all the features of a game?

Edit: Encouraging people to play nice is good. Punishing people like the police for not being nice is not good. This will only create a more hostile play environment. Say a guy decides that he hates all the people who play a certain game, maybe it's worth him going online and streaming racist profanities for $100 extra. Valve, at that point, has no right to punish him, he is paying of the right to do that by paying a significantly extra amount of money to do it.

Edit2: The forced nicety will have the same negative effects of civil rights era laws. Forced integration strained relations of people who were different races. This won't make people be nice, it will simply give them more justification to do the things they do based on the extra money they payed to do it.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

Is this just for multiplayer games? Because i don't really care for multiplayer games and i don't see how it's fair to charge people less because they play multiplayer.

 

[Buizel91]

What if you're an outstanding individual but you're just buying your first Steam game? Surely you'll have to pay full price since they have no way of knowing how valuable a customer you are.

I think it would work better if everyone paid full price but Valve introduced ways in the game or community of earning points to spend in their store - that way, your game is cheaper as you're kinda getting money back on it (albeit money that's still technically Valve's). How you would earn points, I have no idea, but I think it's a better system. Whatever system they choose to employ, it will need to go through extensive grief-proof testing hehe.

Maybe getting these points by doing certain achievements? to be honest, your system sounds ALOT better than Gabes...

OT: Yeh this would get abused to hell, if this does happen then i'm kinda glad i rarely use steam...

 

[Harbinger_]

I like Valve but I dislike the idea that they are putting forward. Attempting to enforce manners and good behavior through price shifting will only chase away potential customers.