Jimquisition: Air Control - A Steam Abuse Story

[Thanatos2k]

Why are you mischaracterizing it as "shouting reviews at people"? (Actually, I do know - the old "use hyperbole to characterize the argument you can't debunk" tactic) Does Publix or Walmart FORBID you from discussing products negatively while in their store with other people in the checkout line?

Try standing by the product and repeat your negative or even positive review for everyone that passes by and glances your way. THey will stop you.

Stop misrepresenting what is happening here, because that is not even close to remotely it.

I'll repeat, these are businesses that sell a wide variety of products and rely on their reviews as a reason consumers go to them. Steam just sells games and it does not hurt or help them to have reliable information unless it's negative. If you buy a shitty game, it doesn't impact steam. You're not thinking that steam is bad anymore than you'd blame Amazon for buying a cheap product from another vendor on their site.

Steam sells a wide variety of video games. I can't seriously believe you are continuing onwards with this argument.

"it does not hurt or help them to have reliable information"

In what universe is this true for ANY PRODUCT anywhere? My god....

Let me ask you, how do you think reliable reviews would help steam's bottom line? Yet Walmart and Bestbuy and everything else has a pretty robust refund policy and unhappy customers mean not only the cost of restocking returned merchandise but also potentially lost revenue in the future. Steam however? That's just digital games and a no refunds policy.

The lack of refunds is not the driving factor behind this. Really?

I'm saying that it isn't a company's responsibility to provide negative reviews or information about their product. A drink company can sell you dirty taint juice and tell you it's filtered water (filtered through someone's balls in fine print) and they can leave it at that. If you just buy it without any additional research from an unbiased source then that's the risk YOU are taking.

Ah, so you think that a grocery store should carry all produce produced by everyone? I mean, sure, one farmer put in rotten tomatoes somewhere in there, but it's the consumer's responsibility to know what is an isn't rotten. E-coli? Buyer beware!

You don't put the weasel in charge of the henhouse AND ask him if he's doing a good job guarding them. You take a look and see for yourself. I'm sorry and I know Jim thinks this isn't true. But the burden of research IS on the customer and the vendor doesn't have to provide that information.

The weasel being in charge of the henhouse is exactly what is happening when developers are allowed to quash unfavorable posts and reviews. Thanks for agreeing.

The problem is that you think Steam is the only site to review products on and you haven't made the connection that a game's page is actually the development/publisher's online storefront that they're renting from Steam. It isn't steam's page that they're maintaining for developers.

It SHOULD be reliable enough so that it could be the only reviews that you need. It's not, because of the terrible mechanics involved, the very things we're talking about now. I'm still not sure why you oppose fixing the issue. Do you just like to argue? Please don't turn into the Aadvark.

 

[lord.jeff]

I don't think Steam wants quality control they just want to be the biggest store front and sell every title that they can. Can that cause trouble for consumers yes but a little research would solve that which you can do by scrolling down the steam page and reading user reviews.

 

[Thanatos2k]

NONSENSE. The "somewhere in the marketing materials" is every marketing material the game has.

Again, the game IS A SURGERY SIMULATOR. Do you deny this? There is absolutely nothing misleading about it.

I bought Watch Dogs and it had nothing to do with watches or dogs! I WANT A REFUND! Do you see how dumb this is getting?

...not a particularly good example, because Watch Dogs actually does have government entities that maintain databases on its citizens--i.e. "Watch Dogs"--in it.

Like Surgery Simulator has a surgery simulation? Funny how that worked. You're saying there's actual NUANCE that you need to parse beyond just a name?

Regardless, I'm not talking about Watch Dogs, or Man of Steel, or even (a better example) Twitter or Facebook. The marketing that went into naming those clearly wasn't trying to build customer expectations as to the exact function of the product. "Surgeon Simulator" or "Flight Simulator" or "Air Control" or hell, even "Tie Fighter" or "Modern Warfare" are. The names are a deliberate attempt at marketing to build up customer expectations for what the software entails, at least as much as any other marketing material that describes it.

Legend of Zelda often isn't even about Zelda. Refund please.

Did you complain about Goat Simulator too?

And please, point out the specific example of marketing material for Air Control that is lying about the game more than calling Surgeon Simulator a simulator is lying. I don't disagree that Surgeon simulator IS a simulator, but I brought it up for comparison with people saying Air Control is false advertizing. How is Surgeon Simulator less false than Air Control? Or rather, how do you write a rule that will punish the devs for Air Control, because they are deliberately misleading customers, without punishing Surgery Simulator, who are misleading for the purpose of irony?

There's nothing misleading about it. At all.

 

[Lightknight]

Why are you mischaracterizing it as "shouting reviews at people"? (Actually, I do know - the old "use hyperbole to characterize the argument you can't debunk" tactic) Does Publix or Walmart FORBID you from discussing products negatively while in their store with other people in the checkout line?

Try standing by the product and repeat your negative or even positive review for everyone that passes by and glances your way. THey will stop you.

Stop misrepresenting what is happening here, because that is not even close to remotely it.

How is a review permanently posted under a product not akin to a person standing next to a product telling you what they think about it?

"Close" means nearby, akin, similar to.

Steam sells a wide variety of video games. I can't seriously believe you are continuing onwards with this argument.

A variety of video games is not a variety of products, it's just digital games as the product. It's not mops and TVs and food.

"it does not hurt or help them to have reliable information"

In what universe is this true for ANY PRODUCT anywhere? My god....

Ugh... I can give you a HUGE number of examples. For example, any shitty product for sale benefits from a lack of information. Basically, negative reviews means fewer sales. Why is this hard for you to grasp? Negative reviews mean fewer sales and positively reviewed games sell themselves.

All that really helps most products is that there is information available at all. Marketing. But reliable information? Nope.

Let me ask you, how do you think reliable reviews would help steam's bottom line? Yet Walmart and Bestbuy and everything else has a pretty robust refund policy and unhappy customers mean not only the cost of restocking returned merchandise but also potentially lost revenue in the future. Steam however? That's just digital games and a no refunds policy.

The lack of refunds is not the driving factor behind this. Really?

I'm unsure how you came to the conclusion that this is what I said. Where in the cited paragraph do you see me saying anything that could be construed as no refund policies not being a driving factor? You'd better believe that reliable reviews matter when refunds are possible. Me bringing up the no-refunds policy is me directly citing it as a factor.

Ah, so you think that a grocery store should carry all produce produced by everyone? I mean, sure, one farmer put in rotten tomatoes somewhere in there, but it's the consumer's responsibility to know what is an isn't rotten. E-coli? Buyer beware!

The food industry is heavily regulated and is not a luxury product. You live or die on what you eat, you don't live or die on what game you play.

The weasel being in charge of the henhouse is exactly what is happening when developers are allowed to quash unfavorable posts and reviews. Thanks for agreeing.

So then it's the consumers job to get their information elsewhere now that you agree that this is like going to the weasel.

It SHOULD be reliable enough so that it could be the only reviews that you need.

Why? How would it benefit Steam to prevent people from giving them money? Hell, a bad purchase not only gets Steam money but even likely speeds up the amount of time between the sale of the next game to the same consumer. Are you saying it should be reliable so it'll be convenient for you? That's a nice sentiment but it isn't your right to have that.

Look, not only is it not the individual store front's job to allow negative information but it doesn't make Steam any sort of business sense to curate it. People are complaining an awful lot about all these poorly made games but I haven't fallen into the trap even once. So that leads me to believe that people are putting next to no effort into researching their purchase. Then again I take the time to look at other products any time I buy something new so maybe I'm the odd one out but if I go into something blind I at least understand that it's the risk I'm taking.

FYI, here's a review from May 23rd off of Steam (the day it was launched)

"This game is disgusting. It rarly works and most of the time sound only plays through one of your ears. You can barly do anything you read about in the description and the screenshots do not look anything like the game itself. DO NOT BUY!. It is the WarZ of plane simulators!"

 

[Thanatos2k]

Stop misrepresenting what is happening here, because that is not even close to remotely it.

How is a review permanently posted under a product not akin to a person standing next to a product telling you what they think about it?

1. To view a review you have to go looking for a review. So it's not the same thing at all.

2. A review is not the same as a person shouting their opinion to anyone nearby who may or may not want to hear it. So it's not the same thing at all. I noticed you stopped saying shouting too. Odd.

Steam sells a wide variety of video games. I can't seriously believe you are continuing onwards with this argument.

A variety of video games is not a variety of products

Newegg sells a variety of computer stuff. Since it's all about computers that means it's all the same. Right? A grocery store sells just food. All the same, right?

Think of how many different companies have products on Steam, and say again how that is not a variety of products?

"it does not hurt or help them to have reliable information"

In what universe is this true for ANY PRODUCT anywhere? My god....

Ugh... I can give you a HUGE number of examples. For example, any shitty product for sale benefits from a lack of information. Basically, negative reviews means fewer sales. Why is this hard for you to grasp? Negative reviews mean fewer sales and positively reviewed games sell themselves.

So you're admitting that these shitty games are attempting to deliberately restrict the information available to customers or mislead them. Good.

Why is this a good thing for the consumer? Why shouldn't this problem be corrected?

Ah, so you think that a grocery store should carry all produce produced by everyone? I mean, sure, one farmer put in rotten tomatoes somewhere in there, but it's the consumer's responsibility to know what is an isn't rotten. E-coli? Buyer beware!

The food industry is heavily regulated and is not a luxury product. You live or die on what you eat, you don't live or die on what game you play.

Are you suggesting that losing money in a scam gaming purchase hasn't harmed anyone? Money is money.

And WHY would we care about people getting sick from food? It's their fault! Why do they deserve protection from bad food but not from bad luxury products? Go on, spin up some bs for that.

The weasel being in charge of the henhouse is exactly what is happening when developers are allowed to quash unfavorable posts and reviews. Thanks for agreeing.

So then it's the consumers job to get their information elsewhere now that you agree that this is like going to the weasel.

Because Steam is allowing it. If they did not, then it would not be like this. So the onus is on Steam to correct the problem. Steam is the one that put the weasel in charge.

It SHOULD be reliable enough so that it could be the only reviews that you need.

Why? How would it benefit Steam to prevent people from giving them money?

Because companies that get a reputation of being unreliable and offering low quality products lose sales and revenue. This isn't a complicated concept. There's a different between the reputation of Whole Foods and Aldi. Which reputation would you like your store to have?

Look, not only is it not the individual store front's job to allow negative information but it doesn't make Steam any sort of business sense to curate it.

Pure nonsense. Apply the exact same logic to Newegg, a seller of "luxury products." Why would Newegg allow reviews? Someone might see bad reviews and not buy a certain product. Therefore it makes no business sense for Newegg to allow bad reviews.

This example will continue to obliterate your argument, and there's no escaping it.

 

[Abnaxis]

NONSENSE. The "somewhere in the marketing materials" is every marketing material the game has.

Again, the game IS A SURGERY SIMULATOR. Do you deny this? There is absolutely nothing misleading about it.

I bought Watch Dogs and it had nothing to do with watches or dogs! I WANT A REFUND! Do you see how dumb this is getting?

...not a particularly good example, because Watch Dogs actually does have government entities that maintain databases on its citizens--i.e. "Watch Dogs"--in it.

Like Surgery Simulator has a surgery simulation? Funny how that worked. You're saying there's actual NUANCE that you need to parse beyond just a name?

Regardless, I'm not talking about Watch Dogs, or Man of Steel, or even (a better example) Twitter or Facebook. The marketing that went into naming those clearly wasn't trying to build customer expectations as to the exact function of the product. "Surgeon Simulator" or "Flight Simulator" or "Air Control" or hell, even "Tie Fighter" or "Modern Warfare" are. The names are a deliberate attempt at marketing to build up customer expectations for what the software entails, at least as much as any other marketing material that describes it.

Legend of Zelda often isn't even about Zelda. Refund please.

Did you complain about Goat Simulator too?

And please, point out the specific example of marketing material for Air Control that is lying about the game more than calling Surgeon Simulator a simulator is lying. I don't disagree that Surgeon simulator IS a simulator, but I brought it up for comparison with people saying Air Control is false advertizing. How is Surgeon Simulator less false than Air Control? Or rather, how do you write a rule that will punish the devs for Air Control, because they are deliberately misleading customers, without punishing Surgery Simulator, who are misleading for the purpose of irony?

There's nothing misleading about it. At all.

Once more, slowly this time.

Many people are flinging criticism at Air Control because they say it violates Truth in Advertizing.

I am saying that Air Control does NOT violate Truth in Advertizing.

I am saying this, because if we ding Air Control for lying, we would also need to ding Surgeon Simulator.

I am not saying I need a refund for Surgeon Simulator. I am saying the opposite, that we need to NOT punish Surgeon Simulator.

Consequently, we can't pull Air Control (BAD) from Steam on the grounds of False Advertizing without also pulling Surgery Simulator (GOOD).

Please address what I'm actually saying, and stop flipping out over something I'm not.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Once more, slowly this time.

Many people are flinging criticism at Air Control because they say it violates Truth in Advertizing.

I am saying that Air Control does NOT violate Truth in Advertizing.

I am saying this, because if we ding Air Control for lying, we would also need to ding Surgeon Simulator.

I am not saying I need a refund for Surgeon Simulator. I am saying the opposite, that we need to NOT punish Surgeon Simulator.

Consequently, we can't pull Air Control (BAD) from Steam on the grounds of False Advertizing without also pulling Surgery Simulator (GOOD).

Please address what I'm actually saying, and stop flipping out over something I'm not.

But your argument is wrong, no matter how slowly you repeat it. Surgery Simulator has not been deceptive in the SLIGHTEST bit. All of its marketing materials indicate the game is comedic. The name describes the content of the game. If you thought that because the game was named Surgery Simulator that it would contain a realistic simulation, then I don't know what to tell you because there's something wrong with you. Someone who only looks at the name of a game and then draws erroneous conclusions is beyond help. One can only wonder what such a defective person would expect when they purchase a game sight unseen called Kingdom Hearts, Resonance of Fate, Star Fox, Wild Arms, Deus Ex, or Mass Effect. What a bunch of terrible misleading games.

Air Control on the other hand, deliberately misleads using its marketing materials.

Simple enough for you?

 

[Lightknight]

This example will continue to obliterate your argument, and there's no escaping it.

Your only argument is that you feel that they should give people better information. This is more of a philosophical argument since they certainly aren't legally obligated to do so. So I'm sorry but you're not sitting on top of some kind of absolute truth soapbox right.

You may have posted after I edited my thread though. Jim was kind of wrong, they can't or didn't edit the reviews on the game store front. Just go to the game page and scroll down:

"This game is disgusting. It rarly works and most of the time sound only plays through one of your ears. You can barly do anything you read about in the description and the screenshots do not look anything like the game itself. DO NOT BUY!. It is the WarZ of plane simulators!"

That was from the day of launch. They have several more and each have a ton of comments affirming their statements. Likewise, the positive votes have all been downvoted for helpfulness (the lack there of).

Why do you think it is important that the forum on the game is moderated if this is still available on the Steam store too? Or were you unaware that this existed?

 

[Abnaxis]

But your argument is wrong, no matter how slowly you repeat it. Surgery Simulator has not been deceptive in the SLIGHTEST bit. All of its marketing materials indicate the game is comedic. The name describes the content of the game. If you thought that because the game was named Surgery Simulator that it would contain a realistic simulation, then I don't know what to tell you because there's something wrong with you. Someone who only looks at the name of a game and then draws erroneous conclusions is beyond help.

Air Control on the other hand, deliberately misleads using its marketing materials.

Simple enough for you?

As much as you can come up with contrary examples--of which there are plenty--if I put and explicit description of a product in the name of the product, I am building expectations with my customers. If I make a widget, name it "THE BEST HAMMER EVER?", and sell it to you, you are completely within you rights to take me to court because you bought it expecting a hammer, and I mailed you a screwdriver. That does NOT mean that every single product name has to be literally descriptive of the product in question, but WHEN THE PRODUCT NAME PLAINLY, EXPLICITLY, AND DELIBERATELY DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT, that description has to be accurate or it's deliberately misleading customers.

And once again, please point me to the marketing material for Air Control that is more of a stretch than calling Surgeon Simulator a simulator.

What it sounds like, is that the INTENT is what you're worried about. Marketing the game as "Surgeon Simulator" is clearly a joke--it does a horrible, terrible job of simulating actual surgery, that's the point. However, the intent of Air Control marketing to deceive people into thinking it's a flight sim, when it does a horrible, terrible job of simulating flight.

However, there's no way to objectively prove intent.

 

[Thanatos2k]

This example will continue to obliterate your argument, and there's no escaping it.

Your only argument is that you feel that they should give people better information. This is more of a philosophical argument since they certainly aren't legally obligated to do so. So I'm sorry but you're not sitting on top of some kind of absolute truth soapbox right.

Whenever the defense of something is "Well they're not legally obligated to do so", you know you've lost an argument.

You may have posted after I edited my thread though. Jim was kind of wrong, they can't or didn't edit the reviews on the game store front. Just go to the game page and scroll down:

"This game is disgusting. It rarly works and most of the time sound only plays through one of your ears. You can barly do anything you read about in the description and the screenshots do not look anything like the game itself. DO NOT BUY!. It is the WarZ of plane simulators!"

That was from the day of launch. They have several more and each have a ton of comments affirming their statements. Likewise, the positive votes have all been downvoted for helpfulness (the lack there of).

Why do you think it is important that the forum on the game is moderated if this is still available on the Steam store too? Or were you unaware that this existed?

The really bad games cannot stifle all information. It's highly likely the bad reviews are coming in faster than this terrible developer can delete them, so they gave up. The really bad games are a problem, but the real problem is the games that are merely bad, or the mediocre ones. Think of how many reviews or bad sentiment that has been shaped by those devs, without anyone really noticing.

As much as you can come up with contrary examples--of which there are plenty--if I put and explicit description of a product in the name of the product, I am building expectations with my customers.

Oh, now you're the judge of what is and isn't an explicit description now? I'd think the only expectation one would get from the name is that it's a surgery simulator.

Surgery Simulator is a surgery simulator. AGAIN, are you denying this? They are not sending you a screwdriver, and if you think they sent you a screwdriver you have problems that go far beyond buying games based only on their names and drawing false conclusions about those names.

If I make a widget, name it "THE BEST HAMMER EVER?", and sell it to you, you are completely within you rights to take me to court because you bought it expecting a hammer, and I mailed you a screwdriver. That does NOT mean that every single product name has to be literally descriptive of the product in question, but WHEN THE PRODUCT NAME PLAINLY, EXPLICITLY, AND DELIBERATELY DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT, that description has to be accurate or it's deliberately misleading customers.

What does "THE BEST HAMMER EVER" even imply? Is it the best at hammering? What does that even mean? Does it last a long time? It is the easiest hammer to use? Maybe it's a toy hammer?

If you bought it purely on the name and got this in the mail:
https://img.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/800371.jpg

Would you say that the description was not accurate? They sent you a hammer. Many would call it the best hammer ever.

Again, there is nothing about Surgery Simulator that is deceptive. If you think there is, you are projecting your own bad assumptions onto it, and the problem lies with you and only you.

 

[Darknacht]

Once more, slowly this time.

Many people are flinging criticism at Air Control because they say it violates Truth in Advertizing.

I am saying that Air Control does NOT violate Truth in Advertizing.

I am saying this, because if we ding Air Control for lying, we would also need to ding Surgeon Simulator.

I am not saying I need a refund for Surgeon Simulator. I am saying the opposite, that we need to NOT punish Surgeon Simulator.

Consequently, we can't pull Air Control (BAD) from Steam on the grounds of False Advertizing without also pulling Surgery Simulator (GOOD).

Please address what I'm actually saying, and stop flipping out over something I'm not.

But your argument is wrong, no matter how slowly you repeat it. Surgery Simulator has not been deceptive in the SLIGHTEST bit. All of its marketing materials indicate the game is comedic. The name describes the content of the game. If you thought that because the game was named Surgery Simulator that it would contain a realistic simulation, then I don't know what to tell you because there's something wrong with you. Someone who only looks at the name of a game and then draws erroneous conclusions is beyond help. One can only wonder what such a defective person would expect when they purchase a game sight unseen called Kingdom Hearts, Resonance of Fate, Star Fox, Wild Arms, Deus Ex, or Mass Effect. What a bunch of terrible misleading games.

Air Control on the other hand, deliberately misleads using its marketing materials.

Simple enough for you?

Have you seem the Steam page for Air Control?
If you are mislead into thinking its some sort of high quality fight sim or even that this games is anything other than a cheap joke then there is something wrong with you, at one point in the game play vid it shows that part of the game is just a flappy bird clone.
Also the dev is not deleting bad reviews, just responding to the by saying their computer sucks. Even the community hub is full of people saying the game sucks and this goes back quite a while. Its clear the dev is not censoring all negative comments, he appears to be specifically targeting content from people with large Internet following to intentionally piss them off and get publicity.

 

[Abnaxis]

As much as you can come up with contrary examples--of which there are plenty--if I put and explicit description of a product in the name of the product, I am building expectations with my customers.

Oh, now you're the judge of what is and isn't an explicit description now? I'd think the only expectation one would get from the name is that it's a surgery simulator.

Surgery Simulator is a surgery simulator. AGAIN, are you denying this? They are not sending you a screwdriver, and if you think they sent you a screwdriver you have problems that go far beyond buying games based only on their names and drawing false conclusions about those names.

If I make a widget, name it "THE BEST HAMMER EVER?", and sell it to you, you are completely within you rights to take me to court because you bought it expecting a hammer, and I mailed you a screwdriver. That does NOT mean that every single product name has to be literally descriptive of the product in question, but WHEN THE PRODUCT NAME PLAINLY, EXPLICITLY, AND DELIBERATELY DESCRIBES THE PRODUCT, that description has to be accurate or it's deliberately misleading customers.

What does "THE BEST HAMMER EVER" even imply? Is it the best at hammering? What does that even mean? Does it last a long time? It is the easiest hammer to use? Maybe it's a toy hammer?

If you bought it purely on the name and got this in the mail:
https://img.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/800371.jpg

Would you say that the description was not accurate? They sent you a hammer. Many would call it the best hammer ever.

Again, there is nothing about Surgery Simulator that is deceptive. If you think there is, you are projecting your own bad assumptions onto it, and the problem lies with you and only you.

Once again STOP putting words in my mouth. I ALREADY KNOW SURGEON SIMULATOR IS NOT UNDULY DECEPTIVE THAT IS MY FRIGGIN' *POINT*. Tell me, with specific example, how Air Control is different in the claims they make about their product, that make THEM guilty of false advertizing. The closest EITHER gets to false advertizing, is that both of them claim to be "simulations," which is not TECHNICALLY false in either case, but can lead consumers to false expectations in BOTH cases.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Once again STOP putting words in my mouth. I ALREADY KNOW SURGEON SIMULATOR IS NOT UNDULY DECEPTIVE THAT IS MY FRIGGIN' *POINT*. Tell me, with specific example, how Air Control is different in the claims they make about their product, that make THEM guilty of false advertizing. The closest EITHER gets to false advertizing, is that both of them claim to be "simulations," which is not TECHNICALLY false in either case, but can lead consumers to false expectations in BOTH cases.

No where in the marketing materials I've seen does Air Control claim to be a comedically bad game. The key with Surgeon Simulator is that it's tongue-in-cheek. Not so with Air Control.

That's the difference. That's why Surgeon Simulator is not false advertising.

 

[Something Amyss]

Try standing by the product and repeat your negative or even positive review for everyone that passes by and glances your way. THey will stop you.

And yet, they have a website where you can not only rate products but review them. And you can do so in a negative fashion.

 

[Lightknight]

Try standing by the product and repeat your negative or even positive review for everyone that passes by and glances your way. THey will stop you.

And yet, they have a website where you can not only rate products but review them. And you can do so in a negative fashion.

How about the individual product producer's websites? How many of those have a site that you can say shit about their products? Does Downey have a comment section where people can claim that their mountain fresh version gives you herpes?

 

[Lightknight]

Whenever the defense of something is "Well they're not legally obligated to do so", you know you've lost an argument.

Oh? That sounds like you're claiming an absolute truth again. Legal obligation is the main reason companies perform an action or do not perform an action. No company is obligated to create a free source forum where you can say whatever you want against their product or in favor of a competitive product. In fact, it's generally a negative thing for themselves to do, even when a product is good you still run the risk of really bad trolling.

So no, discussing legal obligation might as well be discussing a moral imperative from a business' eyes. It's the first question they ask before then filtering down to whether or not it fits their vision and benefits the company.

The really bad games cannot stifle all information. It's highly likely the bad reviews are coming in faster than this terrible developer can delete them, so they gave up. The really bad games are a problem, but the real problem is the games that are merely bad, or the mediocre ones. Think of how many reviews or bad sentiment that has been shaped by those devs, without anyone really noticing.

Actually, the developer has responded to most of them including that one. So... it seems like people missed that section.

Again, the one I sited was from day one and has a ton of comments under it every day since.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Try standing by the product and repeat your negative or even positive review for everyone that passes by and glances your way. THey will stop you.

And yet, they have a website where you can not only rate products but review them. And you can do so in a negative fashion.

How about the individual product producer's websites? How many of those have a site that you can say shit about their products? Does Downey have a comment section where people can claim that their mountain fresh version gives you herpes?

Again, Downey can do what it wants in Downey's store. But Steam is not Downey's store. If you ran a store that sold things other than Downey, it would be a really bad idea for Downey to be able to suppress any opinions about fabric softeners so that your customers couldn't make informed buying decisions.

Oh? That sounds like you're claiming an absolute truth again. Legal obligation is the main reason companies perform an action or do not perform an action.

Give me a break. There's countless actions a business does or does not take that have nothing to do with legality. No business legally has to give good customer service, but it's definitely a good idea to do so!

Steam does not legally have to do anything, but it would be a really good idea for them to fix this issue!

Actually, the developer has responded to most of them including that one. So... it seems like people missed that section.

Again, the one I sited was from day one and has a ton of comments under it every day since.

...? I don't think you're getting what I was saying.

 

[orangeapples]

I'd like to see this Steam shaming become its own series.

 

[xGrimReaperzZ]

The game is still up as of the 4th of July.

Nah, Steam doesn't need quality-control, even the creator of GMod said so..

I mean, as Jim has previously said, nobody minds the existance of bad games on steam, but games that simply do not work? games with stolen material? games that are incomplete? false-advertising in Steam?


Just when you think that nothing can go wrong since everything else for PC gaming is getting better and better with every passing month..

 

[Eve Charm]

The game is still up as of the 4th of July.

Nah, Steam doesn't need quality-control, even the creator of GMod said so..

I mean, as Jim has previously said, nobody minds the existance of bad games on steam, but games that simply do not work? games with stolen material? games that are incomplete? false-advertising in Steam?


Just when you think that nothing can go wrong since everything else for PC gaming is getting better and better with every passing month..

Ya well the maker of Gmod is to busy not updating rust since it came out like 6 months ago. Not exactly the guy I'd listen to because of steam started removing crap, well their early access game they've sold pretty well is starting to look like something that will never be done, and is pretty crappy on it's own.