Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is a bit ridiculous seeing as people could abuse the system with everyone being nice thus everyone getting free games? XD
The positive part, rewarding people for being nice and attracting others, perhaps running a server, is good. Punishing jerks won't really work, though. Take the money and run, Valve!
This would never work as an industry standard pricing model. I do not see how you can factor in the personality of your customers to your profit margins.
-Everyone is nice results in a large decrease in revenue.
-Everyone is 'bad' and sales decrease due to a high product price.
-Players who get a discount for their positive popularity are likely to get a string of negative complaints to drag them back down.
-Effective moderation of the system will cost any company more than its worth.
If this was applied to a current mixed situation every player will feel like they are being monitored for every action they do with a financial bonus/penalty for any true or false reports made about their behavior. Does anyone want this stress attributed to their hobby?
Besides the very nature of a good deed would be devalued by the financial reward. The respect given to helpful members of the community would be eroded over time as their current status as 'nice guys' is replaced by 'just doing it for the discount.'
-Everyone is nice results in a large decrease in revenue.
-Everyone is 'bad' and sales decrease due to a high product price.
-Players who get a discount for their positive popularity are likely to get a string of negative complaints to drag them back down.
-Effective moderation of the system will cost any company more than its worth.
If this was applied to a current mixed situation every player will feel like they are being monitored for every action they do with a financial bonus/penalty for any true or false reports made about their behavior. Does anyone want this stress attributed to their hobby?
Besides the very nature of a good deed would be devalued by the financial reward. The respect given to helpful members of the community would be eroded over time as their current status as 'nice guys' is replaced by 'just doing it for the discount.'
Well what if we don't wan't to socialize? Can't we just play a product, conduct ourselves in good manner online but generally avoid community groups? I don't wanna lose out on good prices despite being a loyal customer just because I didn't hang out with the special kid enough.
Lol, awesome idea. I'd better grief on DotA 2 like no tomorrow when it's released before it's too late! Tiny's throw anyone?
That is probably their intention, not a problem.BlueSinbad said:
On the other hand people could boycott players as an act of trolling which is a problem.
Edit: Not free but cheaper I mean. I guess every now and then they throw in free games for good measure.
I agree...EA would love to mess this up...not to mention, how many people use steam and play multiplayer? I have a steam account...but only cause my copy of Supreme Commander 2 required a active Steam account...what would happen to people like me? Would I be forced to pay for being 'unpopular' cause I do not even play multiplayer?PixelKing said:
I think this is also a "broken" idea. Discounts for contributors, outstanding community members, bug reporters and popular modders? Yay. Price increases based on community feedback? Heck no. People downvote for the silliest reasons. What if you were new to the game and couldn't pull your weight in the team? Bam, negative feedback. Have a bad day with heavy/twitch weapons and accidentally get some teamkills? Next Valve game will cost twice as much for you.
i dont like the idea behind this, because i can see Someone with Anti social behavior or a dislike for everyone spending the a large volume of time logging in to games and giving EVERYONE the Bad Review so that it messes with there naughty or nice list
The idea is good in theory, it will make griefers, hackers, spammers and general angry 12 year olds think twice before being idiots. But these same people could flag honest players as bad people simply for killing them or something.
So the system needs to be robust to differentiate between these things.
So the system needs to be robust to differentiate between these things.
What if a person is just having fun and actually is good, then people ragequit?
Does that mean the good person will get punished?
Does that mean the good person will get punished?
Flagging Bonanza!
Its a GREAT idea! All its gunna take is a core group of acouple hundred trolls to downvote as many players as possible! Imagine the groaning anger as millions of players log on to find their new game now costs 100 bucks instead of 10!
Valve: Trolling Excellence!
Its a GREAT idea! All its gunna take is a core group of acouple hundred trolls to downvote as many players as possible! Imagine the groaning anger as millions of players log on to find their new game now costs 100 bucks instead of 10!
Valve: Trolling Excellence!
If I understand it right the "Terribad" players will just have to pay extra so they can communicate with people in the game. Thus limiting their ability to be outright rude and annoying to everyone else...
Although feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong
Although feel free to correct me here if I'm wrong
And this is exactly why central servers that track everything you do SUCK.
The reality is that this system will degenerate into "anyone who does anything to annoy the mods will be penalized to the full extent of their power". This will be justified under incredibly broad "you agree to do nothing offensive" terms of use clause. And complaining, pointing out flaws, asking questions, and inconveniencing the mods in any way will also be punished. Just like every other moderated system in the history of the internet.
There is no need for this kind of thing either, a better system would be a web of trust style system where you can make friends and your friend's ignore lists are weighted to add to your own.
Instead of a central authority decreeing certain people to be undesirables, it is better to give people tools to help them make that decision for themselves.
The reality is that this system will degenerate into "anyone who does anything to annoy the mods will be penalized to the full extent of their power". This will be justified under incredibly broad "you agree to do nothing offensive" terms of use clause. And complaining, pointing out flaws, asking questions, and inconveniencing the mods in any way will also be punished. Just like every other moderated system in the history of the internet.
There is no need for this kind of thing either, a better system would be a web of trust style system where you can make friends and your friend's ignore lists are weighted to add to your own.
Instead of a central authority decreeing certain people to be undesirables, it is better to give people tools to help them make that decision for themselves.