Jimquisition: Steam Needs Quality Control
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Er, given the popularity of places where anyone can sell a thing (even a used thing), regardless of the thing's actual quality (eBay, Craig's List, Amazon, just about any app store, etc.), I can't honestly agree that Steam has an unsustainable business model. I'm not saying it's a very customer-centric business model, but it's not going to drive them out of business any time soon. It might even appeal to people who fear some censor board saying "This game is bad, because it has things in it our censor board disagrees with (but is not functionally broken in any way)." Besides, to have an all-inclusive library of games that are good, you'd need a board of reviewers larger than all of Valve, and I'd bet that's not financially feasible. Some games would have to be censored on time constraints alone, and that could hurt Valve significantly if those games were amazing and offered on other platforms (not to say we shouldn't have other platforms...).
If I got to offer a fix, it wouldn't be: Valve should hire hundreds of reviewers to decide what goes on Steam. I'd say: What if customers got to flag games as markedly busted, and get a refund for them? If a game gets enough "This game is unplayable/broken, DO NOT BUY" flags, maybe a smaller board of reviewers could take a look, then pull it from Steam. In the mean time, people who sunk money into a pile of crap could get their money back (or maybe after the game was pulled, everyone who wanted a refund could get their money back), and anyone who might be looking at the game could see how many "Game broke, don't buy" flags there were, and make decisions from there. Valve wouldn't have to hire a ton of people, gamers wouldn't have to necessarily risk spending jillions on crap just to find out it's crap, and Valve still wouldn't need a numerical rating system for their reviews section ("This game does not function as advertised" is much different than "This game functions, I just hate it").
If I got to offer a fix, it wouldn't be: Valve should hire hundreds of reviewers to decide what goes on Steam. I'd say: What if customers got to flag games as markedly busted, and get a refund for them? If a game gets enough "This game is unplayable/broken, DO NOT BUY" flags, maybe a smaller board of reviewers could take a look, then pull it from Steam. In the mean time, people who sunk money into a pile of crap could get their money back (or maybe after the game was pulled, everyone who wanted a refund could get their money back), and anyone who might be looking at the game could see how many "Game broke, don't buy" flags there were, and make decisions from there. Valve wouldn't have to hire a ton of people, gamers wouldn't have to necessarily risk spending jillions on crap just to find out it's crap, and Valve still wouldn't need a numerical rating system for their reviews section ("This game does not function as advertised" is much different than "This game functions, I just hate it").
Because physical stores have a return policy?LordLundar said:
Gamefly is a rental service - by its own promotion and purpose for existing, Gamefly is a 'try before you buy' service, one that also happens to offer the 'buy' service, but you also aren't stuck with a game after buying it like you would be through Steam because you're likely to rent it first. There's next to no need for QA here.
GameStop is even more simple - how many copies of Ride to Hell do you think your local GameStop has? Physical merchandising space is taken up by the games that will sell the most. It's why they generally have a billion copies of Call of Duty's latest schlock, but maybe only one copy of that obscure Japanese rhythm game. Hell, most stores don't even display PSP merchandise, despite still having it in stock. The other difference is that GameStop has a pretty nice return policy for used games as you can bring them back within seven days for a full refund. Not store credit, just whatever you paid for. You might be surprised to learn that most of their digital catalog will redirect you to Steam.
I'm not saying that Steam should handle their business model like that, but a return policy would be the minimum amount of effort Steam could put forth to show they're at least trying to help before they get crushed under the weight of terrible schemes like Greenlight.
While I agree that Steam probably needs some kind of vetting process, I believe that is something to worry about after the technical limitations they are attempting to break have been resolved. From what I gathered from GabeN's lecture at University of Texas, Austin, they feel like Steam's current store front is creating artificial scarcity in the form of barriers to entry and that their goal is to not only streamline the process of getting your product on the store shelves, but also implement self directed training on the store systems through the use of achievements.
I have reiterate that I agree with the principle, but I believe it can be address once the store space is actually laid open. The movements toward a community based review system are a step in the right direction and adoption of a GOG.com style satisfaction based refund policy would cement the deal.
I have reiterate that I agree with the principle, but I believe it can be address once the store space is actually laid open. The movements toward a community based review system are a step in the right direction and adoption of a GOG.com style satisfaction based refund policy would cement the deal.
There are two points to this issue
1)Customers want more choices and consistency in quality
2)Developers want to publish more games with easier access to said customers
You can give customers more diversity and a higher quality by putting a wall or filter between the games and your market, but that's costly and timely for both Valve and Developers.
You can open the flood gates and vastly lower the cost and time, but you get over-saturation of 'same'y' products and a huge drop in quality.
In order to grow Valve 'needs' to have a market that's more open than it was previously, but in order to maintain that growth, they need to monitor it. As with Youtube and the App Store, quality management with growth has been proven to be an extremely difficult task, and unlike Google or Apple, Valve doesn't bring in nearly enough money to program filters for PC games, or allow for their storefront to 'fend for itself'.
So they're at an impasse. They need money in order to increase quality control measures, but they need growth in order to increase revenue. One way to solve this is to outsource it, potentially at a low cost, or for free. Greenlight and Early Access were something they were throwing at the 'wall'. Neither seem to stick, so now what? Well that's what Valve are in the process of trying to solve.
1)Customers want more choices and consistency in quality
2)Developers want to publish more games with easier access to said customers
You can give customers more diversity and a higher quality by putting a wall or filter between the games and your market, but that's costly and timely for both Valve and Developers.
You can open the flood gates and vastly lower the cost and time, but you get over-saturation of 'same'y' products and a huge drop in quality.
In order to grow Valve 'needs' to have a market that's more open than it was previously, but in order to maintain that growth, they need to monitor it. As with Youtube and the App Store, quality management with growth has been proven to be an extremely difficult task, and unlike Google or Apple, Valve doesn't bring in nearly enough money to program filters for PC games, or allow for their storefront to 'fend for itself'.
So they're at an impasse. They need money in order to increase quality control measures, but they need growth in order to increase revenue. One way to solve this is to outsource it, potentially at a low cost, or for free. Greenlight and Early Access were something they were throwing at the 'wall'. Neither seem to stick, so now what? Well that's what Valve are in the process of trying to solve.
I don't agree that Valve should be responsible for the quality of the games it sells on steam, the devs are responsible for that.
They SHOULD however be responsible to ensure that the customer is not lied to on the product page advertising features that aren't there.
They SHOULD however be responsible to ensure that the customer is not lied to on the product page advertising features that aren't there.
I don't know if I really want valve to pull an apple on us here and have "quality control" that's so eccentric, you have absolutely no idea if you pass it with "just a good game".
Or a microsoft with how they treated indies like crap and shoved them into the darkest corner of their terrible 360 dashboard.
I also don't think this is valves place.
This is what sites like the escapist are there for, right.
So we can inform ourselves of what is and what isn't a good purchase.
Or a microsoft with how they treated indies like crap and shoved them into the darkest corner of their terrible 360 dashboard.
I also don't think this is valves place.
This is what sites like the escapist are there for, right.
So we can inform ourselves of what is and what isn't a good purchase.
This is one way to solve it, but can potentially backfire.Shdwrnr said:
I'd say that they can probably manage partial refunds on Full Releases(full refunds should it be broken), full refunds on green lit games, and no refund on Early Access(it defeats the purpose). Anything else could lead to issues when it comes to a marketplace like Steam. It works for EA, GoG, and Amazon because their products are practically guaranteed to work AND satisfy, and their Marktetplace is smaller(half of Amazons goes through Steam) so I'm not sure how Valve could manage.
I agree with 93% of what you said, but I really like Motor Rock. $7 for a remake of an Abandonware game is a great deal. There are additional tracks and additional cars, not to mention more customization available, so it isn't a total rip-off. Now that they've changed the announcer, it is hardly much more of a rip-off of Rock n' Roll Racing than Rock n' Roll Racing was a rip-off of Racing Destruction Set.Jimothy Sterling said:
On the other hand, Valve needs to cull its store to get rid of games that are broken or were sold with deceptive claims and needs to punish publishers that silence legitimate bad reviews.
Interesting episode but i have to say i disagree. I personally have always be suspicious of greenlight games and i don't buy unless i'm damn sure they are going to be good but that's the attitude i maintain for all games.
Agree. Fully.
So many unfinished titles. Old games that suppose to work and they dont .... because (and no return policy). Greenlight is nice concept but for 1 good games that get thru 5 utter crap too. Why the hell they sell unfinished games that costs more than AAA title (wasteland) that whats Kickstarter for ....
I am currently mad at steam so this piece fits exactly to my mindset.
gj
So many unfinished titles. Old games that suppose to work and they dont .... because (and no return policy). Greenlight is nice concept but for 1 good games that get thru 5 utter crap too. Why the hell they sell unfinished games that costs more than AAA title (wasteland) that whats Kickstarter for ....
I am currently mad at steam so this piece fits exactly to my mindset.
gj
True words Jim! It got out of hand.
And just saying ?Steam is just a store and the dev/publisher are responsible!? is also a rather irresponsible stance to be honest.
In any other business than video games/software the retail store selling goods very well have responsibilities to their customers! ? If it doesn?t work I can return it for example or the store takes care about it getting fixed. Only video games/software are the exception and it SUCKS!
Not to mention that Steam made this business practice acceptable by presenting it to wide audiences it also pushed it forward by e.g. including early access games in their hit lists!
And just saying ?Steam is just a store and the dev/publisher are responsible!? is also a rather irresponsible stance to be honest.
In any other business than video games/software the retail store selling goods very well have responsibilities to their customers! ? If it doesn?t work I can return it for example or the store takes care about it getting fixed. Only video games/software are the exception and it SUCKS!
Not to mention that Steam made this business practice acceptable by presenting it to wide audiences it also pushed it forward by e.g. including early access games in their hit lists!
Fully agree with everything in this video. Greenlight started as a great idea but so much shit gets passed through it that it boggles my mind. Whenever I occasionally vote on potential Greenlight candidates I usually don't vote for more than 1 out of every 20. Most look awful and I'm not going to vote someone through on the promise of an idea that will in all likeliness, never be fully or even partially realized. I think a lot of people who vote in it must just go "ya that looks alright" and then vote for it without ever intending to buy the game if it was greenlit. It really just needs to go away.
While it may be something of a crime against all humans, Jim, and other reviewers, aren't known by everyone. ;psynobal said:
:/ Plus, as Jim pointed out, there are people on Steam not only misrepresenting the info on their games, and removing info that says bad stuff about their games. But also, people have outright lied about what's in the games.
Most people "in the know" now have knowledge of that, but hindsight is 20/20, and what not.
There should be 3 things the guy who's supposed to approve what games' are allowed on Steam: Yes, No, and "What are you, shitting me?!"
I have to agree with just about all of this video. Looking at the releases being announced as coming soon on Steam, it leaves me with a sense of getting choked on games that, in concept, look like interesting, appealing new ideas. Then once they come out and I actually pick a few to spend money on, they're barely work the time, let alone the money I spend on them. Contagion is something I got early and gave out as a gift around Christmas, but while I think it had (and potentially still has) potential, the controls are sluggish as hell and the animations are pretty stiff, at least the last time I played it they were. Nether, a game I got as a gift and had been looking at with a lot of interest, has come across as rather lackluster early on and pretty unforgiving to players early in the game.
There have definitely been some genuine gems that have come out on Steam as of late, such as Starbound (even in its early release state), Payday 2, Mercenary Kings and Metro: Last Light. But the better ones have tended to be the ones created by the more mainstream designers; say what you want about triple-A companies, they at least have the cash to create something impressive-looking. However, I'll readily admit big-name developers and publishers still produce plenty of shit - Ride to Hell: Retribution and Aliens: Colonial Marines are proof of that. However, I think we've seen less of a tendency to release half-finished products from these major developers...although on reflection that is something that's been on the rise even WITH big budget companies.
I definitely agree with Jim that Greenlight was something that had, and still has, a lot of good potential, but this recent wave of poorly-made drek clogging up the market is not reflecting well on it. And something I think is even worse, is that it will serve as a reason for mainstream developers to continue with the business model that has sent many people looking more to the indie developers. Programs like Greenlight and Kickstarter were made, to my understanding, as a way for small developers with creative ideas to get money for their projects because mainstream publishers have shunned new and original ideas because they break from the mold of things that have proven popular; the mainstream companies seem to fear risk-taking and want to do nothing but maintain status quo by creating design-by-committee games based on trends and focus groups. But now it looks like there's a growing number of people trying to use programs like Greenlight not to put out an idea they've put time, attention and care into developing, but a hastily stitched together product that's rushed out in an attempt to turn a profit as fast as possible. I'd personally be afraid that mainstream publishers would see this and jump to the conclusion that all new developers with an original idea are going to act this way, further cementing the publishers in their habits of only making games that ape what's already popular or are yet another installment in a series that has gone stale long ago; more Halo's, more Final Fantasies, and so on.
I have to wonder if these developers pushing half-baked games onto Steam are doing so because they feel pressured to get something out as fast as possible to satisfy their supporters. If that's the case, then I'm also reminded of Jim's past video on "Launch Splooge;" it's as if these small-time developers are in such a hurry to get something out there so they can get their development studio off the ground, they're throwing half-finished games onto the market so they can get something out there during a consumer feeding frenzy, namely this explosive interest in early release titles. If that's so, then I'd say it would behoove both publishers and developers to take the time to make a finished product to ensure customers don't feel taken advantage of, and it would behoove customers to neither demand developers work within an unreasonable schedule nor get caught up in a trend that has them buy without thinking first.
There have definitely been some genuine gems that have come out on Steam as of late, such as Starbound (even in its early release state), Payday 2, Mercenary Kings and Metro: Last Light. But the better ones have tended to be the ones created by the more mainstream designers; say what you want about triple-A companies, they at least have the cash to create something impressive-looking. However, I'll readily admit big-name developers and publishers still produce plenty of shit - Ride to Hell: Retribution and Aliens: Colonial Marines are proof of that. However, I think we've seen less of a tendency to release half-finished products from these major developers...although on reflection that is something that's been on the rise even WITH big budget companies.
I definitely agree with Jim that Greenlight was something that had, and still has, a lot of good potential, but this recent wave of poorly-made drek clogging up the market is not reflecting well on it. And something I think is even worse, is that it will serve as a reason for mainstream developers to continue with the business model that has sent many people looking more to the indie developers. Programs like Greenlight and Kickstarter were made, to my understanding, as a way for small developers with creative ideas to get money for their projects because mainstream publishers have shunned new and original ideas because they break from the mold of things that have proven popular; the mainstream companies seem to fear risk-taking and want to do nothing but maintain status quo by creating design-by-committee games based on trends and focus groups. But now it looks like there's a growing number of people trying to use programs like Greenlight not to put out an idea they've put time, attention and care into developing, but a hastily stitched together product that's rushed out in an attempt to turn a profit as fast as possible. I'd personally be afraid that mainstream publishers would see this and jump to the conclusion that all new developers with an original idea are going to act this way, further cementing the publishers in their habits of only making games that ape what's already popular or are yet another installment in a series that has gone stale long ago; more Halo's, more Final Fantasies, and so on.
I have to wonder if these developers pushing half-baked games onto Steam are doing so because they feel pressured to get something out as fast as possible to satisfy their supporters. If that's the case, then I'm also reminded of Jim's past video on "Launch Splooge;" it's as if these small-time developers are in such a hurry to get something out there so they can get their development studio off the ground, they're throwing half-finished games onto the market so they can get something out there during a consumer feeding frenzy, namely this explosive interest in early release titles. If that's so, then I'd say it would behoove both publishers and developers to take the time to make a finished product to ensure customers don't feel taken advantage of, and it would behoove customers to neither demand developers work within an unreasonable schedule nor get caught up in a trend that has them buy without thinking first.
Sigh...I'm of two minds for this subject. ("Duality" seems more justified than ever, doesn't it?)
*****************************************
I
On one hand, Steam's leniency has enabled some truly great smaller (and indie) games to get attention and flourish where they would not have otherwise. It's adhering more closely to the principle of a free market than either AAA or consoles do and you CANNOT I repeat CANNOT expect a free market to be devoid of profiteers and quick-cash junk. That exists in every single free market on the planet in some form or another. It's unavoidable.
Personally, I don't seem to suffer from "accidentally" buying garbage as badly as it's made out here. Perhaps it's because I actually possess more intelligence and self control than a magpie and actually do some rudimentary research before considering a purchase. It's not hard to learn, and it doesn't take that much time to do.
So, for all the bitching about how the consumer shouldn't have to do that much work...uh, yeah. They do. In fact, it's kinda integral to the entire economic process; especially for luxuries.
Better informed consumers force a better response from the market; WE, as part of Demand, not Supply, are the de-weeders.
It's our job to steer quality control by establishing standards based on what we will/won't buy, and ENFORCING those standards through practice where able.
"Vote with your wallet" is only effective when you know what you're voting for and WHY.
And given the ENORMOUS number of sources of information (credible sources even!) to learn about a product at any given time on the Internet, there is no excuse to not at least try.
That, and if Steam does start policing games, what sort of standards would they employ?
How many promising WiP titles would suffer as a result?
*****************************************
II
On the other hand, Steam is still a proprietary system. Proprietary systems are more restrictive than a free market model by their very nature. So to win over the consumer, they MUST leverage their nature wisely by consistently filtering for quality. In short: Reputation matters.
This principle is (for better and worse) why Apple is so successful, and it's not a new concept to gaming either. It's actually one of the gaming industry's oldest concepts since a stable reputation is exactly how Nintendo not only pulled the business out of its crash, but kept it from crashing again.
Now, Steam isn't solely guilty of failing to filter properly. Pretty much every proprietary gaming system in the industry is at some point.
Nintendo, for all of their Seals of Quality and market filtering still approved droves of shovelware for every system they've made (well, except the Virtual Boy...maybe). But their lowered/nil standards are becoming more apparent with their growing popularity.
Back on Steam, the issue will keep growing with Steam's popularity.
More people = more suckers, and even if a tiny % of a large population buys a really shitty game, if it's made cheap enough it will still turn a profit.
Greenlight was supposed to let users automate the process via a sort of democratic vote, but as with any such system, low voter turnout allows vote fixing so rubbish still gets through the approval process fairly regularly.
I don't think it's unreasonable to try and filter out obvious cheap ass scams like War Z or Guise of the Wolf; those games are on par with really shitty PS2 games from over a decade ago.
The fourth factor that contributed to the crash, or rather, its absence: Openly available sources of information to the consumer; namely critical feedback and coverage.
The first game crash came before the internet. Hell, it came before dedicated gaming magazines.
There was no coverage of the games, just the publisher's word and the box art. So it was basically ripe for one-sided exploitation, and eventually, the consumers just lost all trust in the market.
But now, we have information. We have the internet. Word of mouth, critical feedback, and intermediary user feedback like Video and Lets Plays are all readily available within a day if not HOURS of a new game with any sort of visibility being launched (the sort of visibility that Steam can provide).
Even in Jim's video, he cites The War Z, an infamously terrible game and an obvious scam on launch.
But here's the thing: He didn't have to explain to us why the War Z was relevant. He could assume we knew, or that we could quickly learn if we didn't WHY that was a relevant example. Or Guise of the Wolf. This is literally the FIRST TIME I've even heard of that game let alone seen it, and even cutting Jim's commentary out (apart from the name) I could tell the game was total ass and would never even CONSIDER buying it; not even ironically.
It isn't due to any sort of superpower Jim possesses (though I'm sure others may speculate exactly what Jim's superpowers are. ;p), it's just due to the fact that we live in the Information Age.
*****************************************
I
On one hand, Steam's leniency has enabled some truly great smaller (and indie) games to get attention and flourish where they would not have otherwise. It's adhering more closely to the principle of a free market than either AAA or consoles do and you CANNOT I repeat CANNOT expect a free market to be devoid of profiteers and quick-cash junk. That exists in every single free market on the planet in some form or another. It's unavoidable.
Personally, I don't seem to suffer from "accidentally" buying garbage as badly as it's made out here. Perhaps it's because I actually possess more intelligence and self control than a magpie and actually do some rudimentary research before considering a purchase. It's not hard to learn, and it doesn't take that much time to do.
So, for all the bitching about how the consumer shouldn't have to do that much work...uh, yeah. They do. In fact, it's kinda integral to the entire economic process; especially for luxuries.
Better informed consumers force a better response from the market; WE, as part of Demand, not Supply, are the de-weeders.
It's our job to steer quality control by establishing standards based on what we will/won't buy, and ENFORCING those standards through practice where able.
"Vote with your wallet" is only effective when you know what you're voting for and WHY.
And given the ENORMOUS number of sources of information (credible sources even!) to learn about a product at any given time on the Internet, there is no excuse to not at least try.
That, and if Steam does start policing games, what sort of standards would they employ?
How many promising WiP titles would suffer as a result?
*****************************************
II
On the other hand, Steam is still a proprietary system. Proprietary systems are more restrictive than a free market model by their very nature. So to win over the consumer, they MUST leverage their nature wisely by consistently filtering for quality. In short: Reputation matters.
This principle is (for better and worse) why Apple is so successful, and it's not a new concept to gaming either. It's actually one of the gaming industry's oldest concepts since a stable reputation is exactly how Nintendo not only pulled the business out of its crash, but kept it from crashing again.
Now, Steam isn't solely guilty of failing to filter properly. Pretty much every proprietary gaming system in the industry is at some point.
Nintendo, for all of their Seals of Quality and market filtering still approved droves of shovelware for every system they've made (well, except the Virtual Boy...maybe). But their lowered/nil standards are becoming more apparent with their growing popularity.
Back on Steam, the issue will keep growing with Steam's popularity.
More people = more suckers, and even if a tiny % of a large population buys a really shitty game, if it's made cheap enough it will still turn a profit.
Greenlight was supposed to let users automate the process via a sort of democratic vote, but as with any such system, low voter turnout allows vote fixing so rubbish still gets through the approval process fairly regularly.
I don't think it's unreasonable to try and filter out obvious cheap ass scams like War Z or Guise of the Wolf; those games are on par with really shitty PS2 games from over a decade ago.
While we're "not" insinuating points relevant to the 80s crash, I'll add another one.J Tyran said:
The fourth factor that contributed to the crash, or rather, its absence: Openly available sources of information to the consumer; namely critical feedback and coverage.
The first game crash came before the internet. Hell, it came before dedicated gaming magazines.
There was no coverage of the games, just the publisher's word and the box art. So it was basically ripe for one-sided exploitation, and eventually, the consumers just lost all trust in the market.
But now, we have information. We have the internet. Word of mouth, critical feedback, and intermediary user feedback like Video and Lets Plays are all readily available within a day if not HOURS of a new game with any sort of visibility being launched (the sort of visibility that Steam can provide).
Even in Jim's video, he cites The War Z, an infamously terrible game and an obvious scam on launch.
But here's the thing: He didn't have to explain to us why the War Z was relevant. He could assume we knew, or that we could quickly learn if we didn't WHY that was a relevant example. Or Guise of the Wolf. This is literally the FIRST TIME I've even heard of that game let alone seen it, and even cutting Jim's commentary out (apart from the name) I could tell the game was total ass and would never even CONSIDER buying it; not even ironically.
It isn't due to any sort of superpower Jim possesses (though I'm sure others may speculate exactly what Jim's superpowers are. ;p), it's just due to the fact that we live in the Information Age.