valve still the king?

[BadNewDingus]

I believe if any service has a chance to overthrow them, it's Good Ole Games. They are doing everything that Steam does terrible in a good way.

Also, Steam got too big and still haven't hired more people to take it on(long customer support time, just got refunds, hiring customers to mod the forums, and so on). I think they're fixing that now, but the damage is already done. Now they're just riding off their fame- of which, who knows how long they'll keep it up.

 

[Vigormortis]

"If a company has zero transparency, all criticism against them is void."

Putting words into my mouth. I see we're off to a great start.

This is not even remotely what I said.

No sir. Valve couldn't even release numbers and then poop on speculators because we are consumers forced to assume the worst.

Sorry, what? I don't understand what you're trying to say here.

"The 30% rumor doesn't exist. Never has."
But you're wrong.

https://www.quora.com/Valve-Corporation-1/What-percentage-does-Steam-keep-from-sales

One guy says the MINIMUM is 30%, and he's an indie dev.

I like that you apparently Googled "what cut does Steam take" and just posted the first link that said something negative.

Here are some of the ones you left out:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/10/12/the-steamy-issue-of-digital-distribution/
http://www.gamedev.net/topic/662452-steam-takes-30/
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/07/volume-vs-price-one-indie-dev-describes-steam-sales/
http://www.pcgamer.com/steam-and-gog-take-30-revenue-cut-suggests-fez-creator-phil-fish/

And just for clarity's sake: It seems GOG, Uplay, and Origin all take similar cuts.

"Services like origin and uplay aren't denied many opportunities due to competition from steam."
Companies make their own drm just to save on costs from going to steam, their platforms don't even begin to compete with the amount of options steam has.

You said Steam was a monopoly. I demonstrated that it isn't. Arguing that Steam is more popular or offers more options doesn't negate that.

On the paid social services, things like images, more info, limited space and unadjustable boxes, all of which cost money or lots of time, and are worse than free services, such as square space(not exactly string free itself). I don't expect to be blown away in this department, but absolutely nothing here is impressive for a paid service.

I already covered backgrounds (which are publicly displayed), but what are you referring to with "more info", "limited space", and "nonadjustable boxes"?

And again, "paid service"? Other than gaining full access to all Community and Market features (you do have limited access from the start) after spending a minimum of $5USD on game content for a new account, what exactly are you being forced to pay for? What further charges is Steam making to you for you to have access to your account and the Community, Workshop, Market, and Storefront services?

I'm seriously starting to think you either don't actually use Steam or you're still confusing it with Xbox Live or some other pay-to-use service.

Also: Squarespace isn't "free". Nor is it an even remotely similar service to Steam. Why are you comparing the two?

On the forums, all of them. Every steam community is underwhelming, especially the official forums, which i'm not even gonna bother talking about.

Why? Why not elucidate your point? Otherwise this is just a subjective opinion.

The devs clearly don't use forums so they don't know what they can improve on, but communities are treated more as quarantines than places where they can grow and develop.

Which developers? There are a number of games I play whose developers regularly use the Steam forums and game hub to stay in touch with their players.

Maybe you're playing the wrong games?

Imagine if the steam hubs elected users to host group events or even had small competitions in order to keep a community alive.

Something that already happens with some games?

Oh wait, that's an insane idea because Valve isn't a billion dollar company with a vast majority of the pc gaming market hostage.

Hostage. [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hostage]

In reality, we get to see valves elegance in keeping games like natural selection 2 and strike vector alive and healthy, something that could be done very easily.

Why is it Valve's responsibility to keep those games alive? That should fall on the developers of those games, should it not?

"the updates to their three titles are exceptional."
CS:GO, after a few months of dead silence, got a single pistol and added more rng to the game which nobody asked for. Remember all those people who make suggestions to the meta and want more rapid testing? Well valve doesn't because they proved they havn't given a darn about them since their existence, and with at least 20,000 daily costumers(500,000 daily players) and 64 tick servers to reduce cost that's not impressive. The mod I referenced, ultimate apocolypse, does in fact update faster, with more content, and more balance consideration, for free.

And the updates to CS:GO weren't free?

Congratulations on pointing out a bad update, though. That clearly invalidates every other content and balance update Valve has ever released for the game. It's not as though the game's a completely different beast than it was when it first released.

Nope. It's exactly the same.

Dota 2 is a bit exceptional, although they also prefer rng to situational randomness.

I just...don't even know how to begin addressing this one. It hurts my brain to see how much you're dismissing to continue with this thought.

Tf2 is competing in the world Olympics with ignoring it's community, with PRIVATE SERVICES such as esea fostering the competitive scene more than valve itself. Left 4 dead 2 is the same.

I take it you've not kept up at all with the changes made, and changes upcoming, to the game?

Not surprising, based on the claims you've made so far.

As I'd said before: There are SO MANY THINGS you could be criticizing Valve for. SO MANY THINGS you could be bringing up to harp on them over. Why are you sticking to these absurdities?

 

[MysticSlayer]

Well, yes, Valve is "king" of PC gaming due to the simple fact that they've gotten us all to lock hundreds to thousands of dollars worth of games to their piece of DRM so that moving to anything else would be prohibitively expensive. When you've established a virtual monopoly that stays in power through locking everyone's stuff away unless they check with you before getting it, then you are "king" of that market. I wouldn't say that's a good thing, though. Maybe it's good for Valve but certainly not good for consumers.

 

[DoPo]

Well, yes, Valve is "king" of PC gaming due to the simple fact that they've gotten us all to lock hundreds to thousands of dollars worth of games to their piece of DRM so that moving to anything else would be prohibitively expensive. When you've established a virtual monopoly that stays in power through locking everyone's stuff away unless they check with you before getting it, then you are "king" of that market. I wouldn't say that's a good thing, though. Maybe it's good for Valve but certainly not good for consumers.

Umm, isn't it up to the consumers to actually promote that? I happily get games from both GOG and Steam, nobody is forcing me to buy from just one. Heck, I've got one game (solely) on Uplay and a couple on Green Man Gaming's DD platform. A few games I've bought from the developers but they've subsequently also released Steam and/or GOG keys, so I claimed their games on there for ease, as well. I'd have gotten something off Origin if there was anything there I cared about enough.

If people shouldn't be spending all their money on Steam, then maybe they...shouldn't be spending all their money on Steam. Sure, it has the widest selection, but it doesn't mean you have to get everything from there.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Umm, isn't it up to the consumers to actually promote that?

Except for when games are exclusive to one platform, which is often the case. At that point, we can go with Steam, pirate it, or get it on consoles. If someone wants to play games like Grand Theft Auto V and Fallout 4 on PC without pirating it, they can't just choose their favorite service. They have to go with Steam.

But with that said...

I happily get games from both GOG and Steam, nobody is forcing me to buy from just one. Heck, I've got one game (solely) on Uplay and a couple on Green Man Gaming's DD platform. A few games I've bought from the developers but they've subsequently also released Steam and/or GOG keys, so I claimed their games on there for ease, as well. I'd have gotten something off Origin if there was anything there I cared about enough.

If people shouldn't be spending all their money on Steam, then maybe they...shouldn't be spending all their money on Steam. Sure, it has the widest selection, but it doesn't mean you have to get everything from there.

My point wasn't so much that you can never buy anything from another service. My point was that, once purchased on Steam, it is locked to Steam. If I want the game accessible from another service (provided it is even available) I have to buy it there. If I end up disliking the direction Steam goes (or find a new service I vastly prefer), then the process of moving my whole library (if possible) would be a massive cost. Valve knows most people won't (and can't) undertake, especially in one go. And that keeps them coming back to Steam.

And on top of that, most people don't want to have to manage multiple accounts. Jim Sterling even made a video a couple years ago where he ranted about all the accounts he had to make to keep up with all his games because everyone (Valve, Ubisoft, EA, and a few others) have their own service that you have to sign up for. When EA announced Battlefield 3 would only be on Origin, one of the biggest complaints was how that would fracture people's library between Steam and Origin (there were others but that was a big one). So even beyond just the simple monetary cost moving to another service, there's the loss of convenience of even using another service.

And I'm not saying all of this to say that I refuse to use Steam (I have quite a few games on it myself) or that Valve and Steam are some special evil. However, I don't think Valve's dominance and control over people's existing libraries is a good thing for consumers.

 

[DoPo]

Umm, isn't it up to the consumers to actually promote that?

Except for when games are exclusive to one platform, which is often the case. At that point, we can go with Steam, pirate it, or get it on consoles. If someone wants to play games like Grand Theft Auto V and Fallout 4 on PC without pirating it, they can't just choose their favorite service. They have to go with Steam.

That alone does not lock you to only getting games on Steam, though.

the process of moving my whole library (if possible) would be a massive cost

"Moving"? You don't need to move it. Stop using Steam, deactivate (or whatever the status was) your account and just keep playing the games you have on there.

And on top of that, most people don't want to have to manage multiple accounts. Jim Sterling even made a video a couple years ago where he ranted about all the accounts he had to make to keep up with all his games because everyone (Valve, Ubisoft, EA, and a few others) have their own service that you have to sign up for.

The problem with Ubisoft and EA is that they require their service on top of using Steam. That's just really annoying.

But simply having multiple accounts? Erm, how many online accounts do you have right now? How many accounts does a normal person have? I've got 2 email accounts[footnote]that I actively use. There is another 5 that are "legacy" to various degree[/footnote], my work account[footnote]backed by Active Directory, otherwise, there are, like 6-7 systems I use on a regular basis, and several more that I also have access to, but rarely use. Used to be the case that I needed about 4 accounts until IT migrated everything to AD[/footnote], this account, another couple of forum accounts I use actively nowadays, Skype account, Dropbox account. These are the ones I use almost daily, not counting DD accounts. Still on a regular basis, I've got Kickstarter, Reddit, TVTropes[footnote]well, "account"[/footnote], Amazon, eBay, PayPal[footnote]it still keep it, even if it's unused[/footnote], Firefox, Tesco, Dominos, Imgur, few websites that I just have an account for the customisation features, as well as my online banking account. There are even more accounts that I don't log into that often but I still have - Microsoft account, for example, or GitHub[footnote]a couple, actually[/footnote] and ImageShack. This isn't really an exhaustive list, either, as these are just the ones off the top of my head. I started filling in more but I stopped because there are just too many. I'm even thinking of listing the ones I use once every few years. However, I'm moving to a new place soon and I'll be having the gas, electricity, water, and internet accounts to my name now[footnote]they ere handled by a flatmate now[/footnote] - they all come with online accounts as well.

Is having more than one DD account really that bad? I've not listed social media there but I've got accounts on there. I don't actually use them, hence why I've not listed them, however, other people would. They may not have some accounts that I do, but then there is Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Instagram and so on - there is a high likelyhood other people would be actively using more than one of these.

We deal with lots of accounts already. Having to log into two or three DD services to play a game is quite annoying, yes, but having access to two or three accounts to play different games on? It isn't as bad as you make it out to be. If it was, then people would be unable to function online at all, as they'd have to juggle at least two accounts at any one time.

Yes, you can play games on Steam and something else. I'm pretty sure everybody can. There are various tools that assist you with that, as well.

Back to "moving" now - since you are perfectly capable of using more than one online account at a time (again, you are doing it right now), then there is little reason to "move". Play what you have on Steam, get what you want from elsewhere. If you decide to "move" from Steam...you simply do that.

 

[Vigormortis]

"Moving"? You don't need to move it. Stop using Steam, deactivate (or whatever the status was) your account and just keep playing the games you have on there.

It still amazes me how few people realize this is an option. That quite a lot of Steam games can be played without the Steam client running.

'Course, a lot of people still think there's no way to keep Steam from popping up news and Storefront alert windows upon startup.

I guess clicking on the "Settings" menu is too hard...

 

[Estarc]

Valve has a near monopoly on digital distribution at the moment. There are competing platforms, but none anywhere near as big as Steam. Hell, a lot of the time if you buy a physical game with a DVD it redeems the game through Steam. Due to this lack of real competition the quality of Steam has suffered over the last couple years. I hope they turn it around, but I have no faith that they will. Instead I will be watching competitors like GOG and their Galaxy client. While my existing Steam library exerts a lot of gravity, if GOG can deliver a better quality service than Steam I will start buying all my games from them and deal with my PC games library being split in two.

 

[Ishigami]

Last game I bought from Valve was Portal. It was pretty cool.
If it wasn't for Steam, that I'm required to have by law if I want to continue PC gaming*, then I would have forgotten about them.

*And don't tell me that's not the case.
I recently bought the retail version of Rise of the Tomb Raider: Step 1 is installing or checking the Steam client.
Q.E.D.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Ok, here is the thing. Most gamers tend to think of steam from the consumer point of view. I would ask you to look at it from a developer point of view.

30% is a damn good deal for everything a developer gets when they distribute on Steam. Or, at least, it was back when Valve started steam.

You have to understand that distributing software is far, far more difficult problem that you would think. It is a logistic nightmare if you want to do it in a financially efficient way even now. Back when Steam started being a real platform for third party devs it was an even bigger, virtually insurmountable problem for low-budget developers. There were all sorts of problems, from how do you even get it to the person buying it to the need to print tens of thousands of copies on the hope that a good portion of them would sell... Just trust me, there were a lot of problems. I was involved in an attempted launch of an indie title pre digital distribution (my dad created the game, I helped with parts of it.) As it turns out, it wasn't even worth trying. Distribution was just too much of a problem if you couldn't make an initial investment of many thousands of dollars (with the very real possibility it will bomb and that investment vanishes.)

When Steam came along and suddenly there was an option to abstract that all away onto another company that was expert at the problem. It was like magical Christmas land. And all they asked was a measly 30ish percent! No large upfront fees, no massive production risk. No one tries to take your IP. You could price the game yourself, they didn't even require an exclusive contract! It was insanity.

Steam destroyed the competition in the distribution market. Their service was so competitive it was basically the only option.

Steam originally became king because they used the technology available in new and powerful ways. That made them beyond competitive as a distribution service/storefront, which they wisely used to establish a massive head start in terms of both developer and consumer behavior patterns. Steam is dominant in terms of established brand, almost synonymous with PC gaming.

And they still remain competitive on both fronts in terms of the service offered. Even now there are only a handful of distributors that can claim they offer a service half as good for both developers and consumers, and only one or two that can claim being just as good or better.

I hope those competitors to Steam do well. Steam is a kind-of monopoly and it would be good to get some serious competition out there. I try to support platforms like GOG over steam for a variety of reasons, but it isn't always possible.

 

[Chester Rabbit]

I would say in the last four years all the love and good will the public had towards Steam and valve has almost completely depleted due to just what a mess Steam and the lack of activity in being an actual developer and you know, the paid mods thing ect.

 

[MysticSlayer]

"Moving"? You don't need to move it. Stop using Steam, deactivate (or whatever the status was) your account and just keep playing the games you have on there.

...Back to "moving" now - since you are perfectly capable of using more than one online account at a time (again, you are doing it right now), then there is little reason to "move". Play what you have on Steam, get what you want from elsewhere. If you decide to "move" from Steam...you simply do that.

Except when the client isn't working and/or I'm without Internet for any extended period (it's different for different games), then I may become locked out playing some, if not all, games in my library. And yes, this has happened to me. In fact, client issues kept me locked out of my games on one of my computers for two years (and that's only the worst of it). I couldn't just simply re-buy those games on GOG on get around the issue and have the peace of mind that I could actually access my library from any computer and any time. Many of the games are exclusive to Steam, and it would cost a lot of money to get all the ones that are on GOG or anywhere else.

Maybe you haven't had serious issues with Steam, but I have. So despite any other options (which may not even exist for many games), I'm not going to say it isn't at least far from ideal that a service that makes itself the only option for many games can lock anyone out of a game (even just one game) for no good reason whatsoever.

 

[DoPo]

"Moving"? You don't need to move it. Stop using Steam, deactivate (or whatever the status was) your account and just keep playing the games you have on there.

...Back to "moving" now - since you are perfectly capable of using more than one online account at a time (again, you are doing it right now), then there is little reason to "move". Play what you have on Steam, get what you want from elsewhere. If you decide to "move" from Steam...you simply do that.

Except when the client isn't working and/or I'm without Internet for any extended period (it's different for different games), then I may become locked out playing some, if not all, games in my library. And yes, this has happened to me. In fact, client issues kept me locked out of my games on one of my computers for two years (and that's only the worst of it). I couldn't just simply re-buy those games on GOG on get around the issue and have the peace of mind that I could actually access my library from any computer and any time. Many of the games are exclusive to Steam, and it would cost a lot of money to get all the ones that are on GOG or anywhere else.

That's completely different from your previous argument of "all games should be bought on Steam".

I'll address the "without Internet" first - that could be a problem with any digital distribution platform. By their very definition, these services require the Internet to give you the games. However, most of the time you'd don't require connectivity to play. Sure, there are some games that do that, but they are not nearly a majority. What this means is that if you already have the game, you can still play it[footnote]unless it's always online[/footnote] offline. To this effect, Steam allows you to backup games, so you can install them at a later point. With GOG you can download the installation instead but still - no Internet - no download - no play, thus you need access to the web at some point prior to playing. It's sort of similar situation, albeit with GOG the process is easier.

So, no Internet is not an insurmountable problem. It is a problem but it's inherent to DD as a concept, not specifically to Steam.

As for client issues - yeah, I've not experienced any. Well, few times but rather minor ones[footnote]Most recently I had trouble deleting the saves from a game. I had to learn about how the Steam cloud stuff worked, in order to actually obliterate them. It was really confusing at first because I found the saves in %APPDATA% but deleting them didn't work. Turns out they were mirrored in Steam userdata, yet were also read from both places. To delete them, I had to manually cause a conflict that requires manual resolution.[/footnote]. If Steam doesn't work, I'd advise contacting support and/or trying to figure it out yourself. It sucks, I agree, and it can keep you away from games, however, at the same time I don't think it happens that often.

Yet if your claim is "yeah, Steam can break, thus taking away all your games" it all cicles back to my initial claim that you don't need to have all your games on Steam.

 

[MysticSlayer]

That's completely different from your previous argument of "all games should be bought on Steam".

When did I ever say that? I know that I made a comment about Steam being absolutely dominant and having a lot of exclusive titles, but I don't recall saying that all games must be bought through Steam. If I did say something to that effect, sorry for the confusion.

I'll address the "without Internet" first - that could be a problem with any digital distribution platform. By their very definition, these services require the Internet to give you the games.

The difference between Steam (and Origin and UPlay) and GOG (or getting the game from a developer's site) is that with Steam, from my experience, there is a limited amount of time a game is playable without ever logging into the Steam client. It's a complete hit or miss, though, how long this will be. I've had games stop working after a day while others were playable for up to a month. Most seem to lose it all after a few days.

On the flip side, GOG and store fronts not tied to a client would allow me to play those games regardless of how often I log in. Sure, I can't play online, but I could at least play my singleplayer games, which Steam may (and has) locked me out of.

If Steam doesn't work, I'd advise contacting support and/or trying to figure it out yourself.

I think I stopped wasting my time with Steam support when a "fast" response was a week. There are even a few support tickets I put in 2-3 years ago that still haven't gotten a response. (I can't remember if the client issue was among them.) By extension, that means I do often spend time trying to fix the problem myself. I didn't just sit around while the client didn't work.

It sucks, I agree, and it can keep you away from games, however, at the same time I don't think it happens that often.

I don't really care how often it happens. If it ever locks me out, that's a problem, and the fact that it can do it again is a massive issue hanging over Steam. And considering how awful Valve's customer service is, that only compounds the problem when it happens.

 

[DoPo]

That's completely different from your previous argument of "all games should be bought on Steam".

When did I ever say that? I know that I made a comment about Steam being absolutely dominant and having a lot of exclusive titles, but I don't recall saying that all games must be bought through Steam. If I did say something to that effect, sorry for the confusion.

OK, let me amend that - your claim was that people are somehow shackled to Steam and couldn't use multiple platforms. Which I pointed was not true and you never really came back to me on that aside from "oh, mutliple accounts are so-o-o-o hard". It wasn't exactly "all should be bought from Steam" but you did suggest that getting game from more than one place was somehow not that good an option because everything should be in one place for whatever reason.

I'll address the "without Internet" first - that could be a problem with any digital distribution platform. By their very definition, these services require the Internet to give you the games.

The difference between Steam (and Origin and UPlay) and GOG (or getting the game from a developer's site) is that with Steam, from my experience, there is a limited amount of time a game is playable without ever logging into the Steam client. It's a complete hit or miss, though, how long this will be. I've had games stop working after a day while others were playable for up to a month. Most seem to lose it all after a few days.

That used to be the case, with Steam like 3-4 years ago - offline mode lasted And it a month or two or something. It's been fixed since - now offline mode works indefinitely. I don't know about the offline options of UPlay or Origin - I almost don't use the former, and completely not the latter.

 

[Laughing Man]

Valve is a bit of a joke to be honest.

The rumour being that employees can work on whatever they feel like, so if someone wants to work on HL3 they can do that and even better they aren't pressed to meet deadlines, they just get to do what they want. So you would imagine that with Valve rolling in Steam Cash they should be producing the best most original games ever, back in the day before they were truly big they didn't have the huge wads of Steam Cash so they would have had at least some financial pressure governing their game production, yet we got HL1, HL2, Portal, L4D some truly amazing games. Imagine what they could produce if they had literally no pressures forcing them to push games out the door.... well it would seem the answer to that is fuck all.

If the rumours are true it would appear that the majority of their employees turn up to work and sit around doing fuck all for most of the day, some of them work on Steam updates that barely improve the decade old client, some work on TF2 hats, others work on CSGO skins, and the truly mad ones spend their time trying to convince us that the Steam Machine is a thing rather than the result of a Gabe fuelled rage at Windows Marketplace.

 

[MysticSlayer]

OK, let me amend that - your claim was that people are somehow shackled to Steam and couldn't use multiple platforms.

I still don't know where I said that. What I did say was that Steam has exclusive titles and forces you to go through the client to access your library that may be worth potentially thousands of dollars. That controls (or at least attempts to control) and limits the consumer.

Which I pointed was not true and you never really came back to me on that aside from "oh, mutliple accounts are so-o-o-o hard". It wasn't exactly "all should be bought from Steam" but you did suggest that getting game from more than one place was somehow not that good an option because everything should be in one place for whatever reason.

Well thanks for ignoring everything I said except one paragraph from one post. And at that, you weren't even paying that good of attention to it. The reason I brought it up was from what other people (that I mentioned) said, not what I said, and pointing out how that at least creates a psychological opposition (for some people that are not necessarily me) to using anything but Steam.

That used to be the case, with Steam like 3-4 years ago - offline mode lasted And it a month or two or something. It's been fixed since - now offline mode works indefinitely. I don't know about the offline options of UPlay or Origin - I almost don't use the former, and completely not the latter.

If it weren't for the fact that I talked to someone a couple months ago that couldn't access part of their Steam library, I would believe you.

 

[Vigormortis]

If it weren't for the fact that I talked to someone a couple months ago that couldn't access part of their Steam library, I would believe you.

"Part"? Which part? Which games? Given how the Offline system provides access, this story seems fishy. I'd be interested in more details as it doesn't add up.

If they could access most of their Steam Library while in offline mode, doesn't it seem more likely that another layer of DRM[footnote]Uplay, Origin, or some other system implemented by the game's developer[/footnote] was the culprit? It seems odd to solely blame the Steam client's Offline Mode for letting your friend play some games and not others, since the Offline Mode doesn't operate on a game-by-game basis.

The reason I brought it up was from what other people (that I mentioned) said, not what I said, and pointing out how that at least creates a psychological opposition (for some people that are not necessarily me) to using anything but Steam.

Which isn't Valve's problem. It's not an 'issue' with Steam that users prefer to stick with the platform. It's up to other DD clients and providers to offer incentives for people to use their platform, either instead of or in tandem with Steam.

If Steam had exclusive control over the vast majority of the gaming market (it doesn't), then it could be argued that it is a monopoly and that it's 'muscling out' the competition. As it is, it's continued success is only a sign of the competition's failures.

 

[AnthrSolidSnake]

The last thing I bought remotely Valve related was a Steam Link. That little streaming thing. Bought that and a pair of Network/Powerline adapters so I could play my games downstairs. I was pretty impressed with it. Barring a very, very slight input delay, I'm able to play most games just fine. I even played some Rocket League on it the other day, and despite it being a competitive game I managed to win a few matches.

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

On the one hand their games(other than Counterstrike) have been really great, I also really REALLY love the steam controller because I actually use a trackball mouse for everything, even fps games. I cannot stress enough how good the trackball mode on the steam controller feels.

HOWEVER, some of the problems with Valve's business model have started to show through with things like the paid mods fiasco and the counter-strike go hitboxes. Pretty much if it isn't something somebody at the company is passionate about there is no real testing or oversight on anything. Paid mods was DOOMED from the start, and its painfully obvious that since looking into hitboxes and how they work is boring nobody bothered to actually do it because there was nobody to force them to.