Jimquisition: Steam Needs Quality Control

[Aardvaarkman]

I assume s/he meant Steam's marketplace specifically, since that's been the point of discussion in the video and 7 pages of this thread. Semantics aside, his (her) original point is one I agree with; it seems like people are blaming Steam for...well, the effects of Poe's Law.

But Steam isn't a marketplace, it's just a retail store.

As for Poe's Law, Steam is under no obligation to sell every game that anybody wants to release, so they are totally to blame if they choose to sell a lot of crap. They could always choose to just sell the better stuff.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Except as it turns out it's some what true.

No, it isn't.

They are cooked and prepared with salt, pepper and nothing else; no preservatives ? no fillers.

Therefore the burger is not 100% beef. It contains salt and pepper as binding agents because you need something to bind the beef together.

Firstly, the burger patty does not contain the salt and pepper - this is added after it is cooked, as part of the assembly of the burger. Also, salt and pepper are not "binding agents."

Furthermore, you don't need "binding agents" to cook a burger patty. I cook hamburgers all the time, and I never use anything to bind it. You just shape the ground beef into a patty, and cook it on the grill. Why would you need something to bind it together, when ground beef already holds together on its own?

Even furthermore, you claimed a conspiracy that there is a company named "100% Beef" that supplies McDonalds, which is totally not true at all, and a ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Point being. People are complaining about poor quality games on steam and acting as though every steam game ever has been a must buy.

Except that nobody actually said that.

There are just two of many titles that have been released on steam previously which are quite niche titles to say the least. So how many people here are going to say those were must buy titles.

Probably nobody. But what's your point? Nobody claimed that every title released by Steam was a must-buy.

 

[C14N]

Does Whole Foods sell all food? No, they pick and choose what products they're going to sell. MOST STORES tell tons of products that they're not good enough for their store.

Steam does NOT have to sell every single PC game in existence. That is the whole point of this episode - they are trying to do so and it is damaging the perception of the quality of their store. They're selling Coca Cola alongside President's Choice at nearly the same price, and without meticulous research it's starting to get harder to figure out which ones are the quality soda and which ones are the generic crap.

No but Walmart does. Wholefoods serves a niche market, the kind of people who go there usually have a bit more money to spend so they go to a classier supermarket to buy more expensive food. Valve seem to be going more for the wholesale model. Whatever you want, they'll have it. Besides, what is and isn't good is always subjective. Loads of people might hate Branston Pickle but that doesn't mean a supermarket should stop selling it to the people who do want it. Granted, if it doesn't work (or if all the Pickle is out of date) you should be entitled to a refund but that doesn't mean they're obligated to stop selling functional versions of something that you just don't like.

Also, in the olden days when you just walked into a game shop on the street, they sold pretty much everything too. The PC section in particular carried an awful lot of tripe.

What I don't understand is this idea that you need to sift through all the crappy games. Do people just sort of decide they're in the mood to buy a game so they go onto Steam and browse around? Then they pick out a previously-unheard-of game, put down $10-15 (or even more) and find out that it's crap? This is all such an alien concept to me. I can understand people seeing a game on the Steam homepage, thinking it looks interesting and then buying it on that but those games are usually the higher-quality ones that do work, usually some big AAA game or an indie game that's won an award or something. I mean with sales and stuff I genuinely try to avoid buying games on Steam unless it's a really great deal. I'm not saying "everyone should do it like me", I just kind of assumed that was what most people already did. Not to mention that the Metascore is right there on the page. Who are these people who see a 45% game and still want it?

 

[KungFuJazzHands]

Snip

Ugh. I think we're both done here. You keep throwing in fallacious and speculative arguments, you quote me directly and then respond with completely inaccurate assumptions about my intentions, and you constantly misrepresent what I have to say in favor of bolstering your logically shaky pro-Valve defense.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on, please.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

Does Whole Foods sell all food? No, they pick and choose what products they're going to sell...

No but Walmart does.

Actually, Wal-Mart are notoriously selective in what they sell. For example, they don't sell "explicit" audio CDs, and will commission special censored versions of CDs to sell in the stores. They also reject suppliers who don't give them the profit margins they want, and go to extreme lengths to strong-arm suppliers into giving them what they want.

If your company doesn't meet Wal-Mart's expectations, you are banned from the shelves.

Do you really think that you can just walk up to WalMart and they will automatically stock your product? No way. Being stocked by WalMart is a huge deal in the retail world, and suppliers have to work hard to even be considered for shelf space.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html

 

[Aardvaarkman]

So making the patty isn't part of the preparation ?

I'm not sure what the hell you're talking about. The patty is 100% beef.

The "preparation" is the assembly of the burger. Which includes things like bread and cheese, as well as salt and pepper. I'm not sure how the inclusion of bread and cheese in the final product somehow makes the burger patty any less 100% beef. I'm especially not sure how it makes your claim of it being supplied by a company named "100% Beef" any more valid.

No they didn't have to the implication is pretty clear. I mean the title of the discussion is steam needs quality control and plenty of people here have voiced their concerns about the poor quality of recent releases. and others have said how Valve's reputation rests on them selling good quality products. I was pointing out if that is so then how is it the following games are on steam and not seeing seething rage aimed at them:

But the problem is that Steam is now overwhelmed by crappy games, when they were not the norm in the past. Nobody was claiming that Steam has never sold crappy games before. This is especially noticeable with the "Greenlight" project, where they are selling fundamentally broken games on a level never seen before.

A stores job is to sell products people want to buy.
People voted for some on greenlight and publishers backed others. For a publisher to back a game they normally have to have something to gain, therefore Valve would assume people wanted said product as no publisher will back a loss unless there is something in it long game.

Publishers will back this, because Steam has (in the past) had a good reputation. So, being featured on Steam means easy profits. The publishers are eroding Steam's reputation by publishing shit, because they know that if it's on Steam, it will sell. That's fine and capitalistic, if Steam is willing to have such publishers trade on the brand's good name and reduce it to ashes.

It's also hardly unusual for publishers to be uninterested in the long-term. The way most of them are set up, short-term profits usually take precedence. So, releasing a crappy game on Steam for immediate profit makes a lot more sense to many publishers than bothering to make a quality game for long-term gains.

So what you're saying is you'd rather Valve only stock highly profitable games.
Games that generally will sell well due to a mass appeal ?
So you'd happily say bye bye to anything seen as a niche genre game ?

No, that's not what I'm saying, and it's incredibly bizarre that you would infer that from my post. I do not like Wal-Mart or their business practices.

The point of my post comes back around to my first reply to you - that you don't seem to understand how retail stores work. they aren't some kind of neutral marketplace - they all choose what they want to sell.

If you want Valve to be wallmart then please go ahead.

When did I say that I want Valve to be like Wal-Mart?

My comment on that topic was in response to somebody who claimed that, unlike Whole Foods, Wal-Mart is not selective about what they sell. I was merely correcting that, because Wal-Mart is just as selective as Whole Foods, if not more.

I'd like to hear the logic that says Valve shouldn't release games with niche appeal when they have the capacity to allow it and bring things for everyone rather than a homologous grey goo they have to keep telling us is what we want.

Again, I never said anything resembling this. I'm not sure why you insist on putting words in other people's mouths.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Does Whole Foods sell all food? No, they pick and choose what products they're going to sell. MOST STORES tell tons of products that they're not good enough for their store.

Steam does NOT have to sell every single PC game in existence. That is the whole point of this episode - they are trying to do so and it is damaging the perception of the quality of their store. They're selling Coca Cola alongside President's Choice at nearly the same price, and without meticulous research it's starting to get harder to figure out which ones are the quality soda and which ones are the generic crap.

No but Walmart does. Wholefoods serves a niche market, the kind of people who go there usually have a bit more money to spend so they go to a classier supermarket to buy more expensive food. Valve seem to be going more for the wholesale model. Whatever you want, they'll have it. Besides, what is and isn't good is always subjective. Loads of people might hate Branston Pickle but that doesn't mean a supermarket should stop selling it to the people who do want it. Granted, if it doesn't work (or if all the Pickle is out of date) you should be entitled to a refund but that doesn't mean they're obligated to stop selling functional versions of something that you just don't like.

But Walmart DOESN'T have everything. They don't carry high end high quality products and cater towards the low and mid range. And considering I haven't shopped at a Walmart in over a decade their reputation precedes them. Do we REALLY want Steam to become the Walmart of PC game stores? Disgusting.

Also, in the olden days when you just walked into a game shop on the street, they sold pretty much everything too. The PC section in particular carried an awful lot of tripe.

What I don't understand is this idea that you need to sift through all the crappy games. Do people just sort of decide they're in the mood to buy a game so they go onto Steam and browse around? Then they pick out a previously-unheard-of game, put down $10-15 (or even more) and find out that it's crap? This is all such an alien concept to me. I can understand people seeing a game on the Steam homepage, thinking it looks interesting and then buying it on that but those games are usually the higher-quality ones that do work, usually some big AAA game or an indie game that's won an award or something. I mean with sales and stuff I genuinely try to avoid buying games on Steam unless it's a really great deal. I'm not saying "everyone should do it like me", I just kind of assumed that was what most people already did. Not to mention that the Metascore is right there on the page. Who are these people who see a 45% game and still want it?

In the "olden days" the number of games that were out could actually be represented on the wall of Electronics Boutique. Do you know how many PC games are out there now? Browsed through an App Store lately? The good to garbage ratio has plummeted.

 

[Something Amyss]

Except in entertainment. When you watch a bad movie or buy a bad book, you aren't necessarily entitled to a refund.

Except we're talking about the equivalent of a book that's missing pages or a movie that won't play certain scenes. In that case, you are entitled to a refund legally.

It's more a case of this:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/10985-2-Pro-4-U

 

[Something Amyss]

Hence steam does have someone on the door either needing a large portion of people to let the game in (greenlight) or some-one to vouch for them (a publisher). Even so short of closing all borders, steam will always have some bad titles get in. It's just the nature of allowing someone else's products onto your service.

Yes, they will always have some bad titles. But they're flooded with it right now. By the same logic, there will always be some sex offenders, so why make public masturbation a crime?

 

[deadish]

When you are "open" like Google's Android Store or Valve's Steam, people complain there is too much crap. Well, that's what you get for "freedom".

When you are a "walled-garden" like Apple's App Store, Sony and MS console ecosystem, people complain that you are being a dictator and should DIAF.

Damn if you do, damn if you don't.

/shrug

 

[Aardvaarkman]

To say greenlight is bad denys it being responsible for the release of:
Papers Please
Organ trail
McPixel
Sang Froid
DLC Quest
Reciever
Contrast
Octodad
Artemis
The Stanley Parable
The Cat Lady
War for the Overworld

Firstly, I never said Greenlight was bad.

You are also assuming that these games would not have been released if Greenlight didn't exist. These games could have just as likely been released via support from Kickstarter, investors, or publishers. You don't have any evidence they wouldn't have been released without Greenlight.

Out of 194 released games 6 have been bad.
Wow a whole 3% of the games released via greenlight have been bad

So lets compare that to the releases by EA

The broken
Need for Speed Rivals (locked to 30FPs and changing it breaks the game physics)
Battlefield 4 (serious server issues)
Sim City (Broken servers and a seriously reduced game)
Real Racing 3 on mobile (Micro transactions out the whazoo such as 3 hours to refuel the car.......)

thats 4 out of 24
That's 16%

You are comparing apples and oranges. The "bad" games from EA are flawed games that mostly work as advertised. The flawed games on green light are pretty much completely broken.

The reason a lot of games go through greenlight is that publishers won't back them.
So if being on steam = a licence to print money why wouldn't publishers back more of the games that ended up going for grrenlight ?

Chicken and egg issue.

Also, Greenlight is not the same as Steam. Plenty of publishers release stuff on Steam without going through Greenlight.

Also steam isn't publishing it. Steam are selling it as the retailer.

That's a blurry line. Greenlight makes Steam more than just a retailer - Steam is contributing to the funding and development of these games, much as a publisher does.

Just because it's on steam doesn't mean its endorsed by Valve or Gabe. It's a product, they're a store.

If they're just a store, then what's Greenlight about, then?

So you don't want publishers to release games on steam yet you don't want greenlight either.
Are you after totalitarian control of steam by any chance ?

Why do you continue to put words in my mouth? I did not suggest anything of the sort. How does "better quality control" somehow equate in your mind to "don't want publishers to release games," "don't want Greenlight," or "Totalitarianism" of all things?

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing my posts, or are having reading comprehension problems. You might want to learn about something called "Godwin's Law" - because casually throwing around words like "Totalitarianism" when people disagree with you doesn't help your argument.

And you seem to miss the point. Valve doesn't need to, it has the space to sell niche titles and to try different products out.

Just because they can, doesn't necessarily mean they should.

And mine was to point out how without experimenting and getting it wrong sometimes Valve wouldn't be selling some very good, unique and original games on steam either. Because they are willing to take a bit more of a risk.

But a big risk here is tanking the indie games industry by releasing crap that gives good indie games a bad reputation by association.

So you don't want greenlight games.

When did I say that?

You're claiming valve should quality control games. Now you're claiming Valve should be allowed to release niche titles that may not provide the quality you want due to being in a genre you don't enjoy ?
Is that about the size of this now ?

I don't know how to respond to this, these sentences are incoherent and don't make sense.

You appear to be saying something about me saying Valve should be able to release titles? I never said Valve should be disallowed from releasing anything. I'm not sure where you're getting the "should be allowed" idea from. If it's not illegal, Valve are allowed to do whatever they want, and I don't remember anybody proposing that Valve should be prohibited from releasing whatever games they want.

 

[Aardvaarkman]

No you didn't say greenlight itself was bad. What you did say was

But the problem is that Steam is now overwhelmed by crappy games, when they were not the norm in the past. Nobody was claiming that Steam has never sold crappy games before. This is especially noticeable with the "Greenlight" project, where they are selling fundamentally broken games on a level never seen before.

so yeh you're saying the greenlight project is a place for them to sell fundamentally broken games and is populated overwhelmingly with crappy games.

No, I'm saying that quality control on Steam is poor, and what's being released on Greenlight is a symptom of this. That's a very different thing than saying "Greenlight is bad."

So yeh 3% of the greenlight games released have been bad. 3%. I get some governments can be on power on a 30% share but I'd hardly say 3% was an overwhelming majority. Nor would I claim the point of greenlight is to sell broken games.

But that's only by your reckoning. I'd say there are way more bad games on Greenlight than 3%. 3% might be a reasonable figure for totally broken games, but there are plenty more games that are bad, but not broken. Of course, that's all subjective.

I find it quite interesting to see people now saying they would prefer the big name publishers to be able to act how they did before and take advantage of smaller developers. All because a few low quality games were released.

I didn't say anything of the sort.

As for "taking advantage of developers" - publishers can't do that unless developers enter into a contract with them. If a developer feels like that contract takes advantage of them, then maybe they shouldn't sign it? Any abuse of the contract would be legally actionable. So, the developers are freely entering into these arrangements.

Looked at from another perspective, it could be seen as developers taking advantage of publishers, as the publishers pay for development.

Also again you're not claiming greenlight is bad just all the games on greenlight except I guess that minority of 97% ?

Again with the incomprehensible writing. What the hell is that sentence supposed to mean?

Yeh because if you have a publisher you don't have to apply through greenlight. Only self publishing titles need to go through greenlight.

Right, but this discussion is about Steam in general, not just Greenlight. It includes titles released by publishers directly to Steam.

Also steam isn't publishing it. Steam are selling it as the retailer.

That's a blurry line. Greenlight makes Steam more than just a retailer - Steam is contributing to the funding and development of these games, much as a publisher does.

Actually it doesn't. Developers pay $100 to be listed on greenlight. Steam doesn't pay the developers until the game is selling on the service.

How does that change anything, or make the line any less blurry? How does paying $100 suddenly make Greenlight not a development-funding entity much like a publisher?

Simple, a giant piece of market research for them. Rather than having pannels and focus groups they're getting everyone to vote and working on what gets said.

It's obviously more than research, as it results in the approval and funding of games. This is not how stores usually operate.

Well some of the poor games released have publishers backing them.

Right. Which is an issue of quality control on Steam. I don't care whether a shitty game comes from publisher or Greenlight. It's kind of a weird thing to say, anyway, because every game, even Greenlight ones, come from publishers. When an individual developer sells a game on Steam, he becomes a publisher.

It's clear you're against greenlight.

How is that clear, when I'm not against Greenlight?

But you want no poor games and as some of those poor games are on steam thanks to publisher backing then you obviously don't want that as a route in either.

Right. I want quality control, regardless of the source. It's a pretty simple argument. I don't why you've gone to such lengths to twist my arguments and claim things I didn't say, when that's been my simple argument all along.

I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing my posts, or are having reading comprehension problems. You might want to learn about something called "Godwin's Law" - because casually throwing around words like "Totalitarianism" when people disagree with you doesn't help your argument.

I didn't say the N word now did I Adolf ? I merely pointed out how if you're so against any bad games having any way onto steam then that is the only way to make sure no games you see as poor quality get onto the service. [/quote]

No, it isn't. Having quality control doesn't imply totalitarianism. You don't seem to understand what totalitarianism is. Steam not being a government would kind of rule it out of being totalitarian in the first place. Businesses are free to choose to sell or not sell whatever they want, and that is not Totalitarianism - that is freedom.

So let me get you to confirm this. You don't want steam to sell products to a demographic seen as niche ?

No. I don't want Steam to sell crap, whether it be niche crap, or mainstream crap.

The indie games industry will always exist because of startups entering it. Unless you are saying people are so dumb they will see that it's an indie game and automatically think all indie games will have the same quality level.

Once again, you infer completely made up arguments ("unless people are so dumb") out of whole cloth.

Do you really think that Steam doesn't have enough influence in the market that it can't damage the indie game market? Earlier in this thread you were arguing that certain games have only been released because of Steam. But if Steam has enough power to positively influence the industry, then it also has the power to negatively influence it.

You're claiming valve should quality control games. Now you're claiming Valve should be allowed to release niche titles that may not provide the quality you want due to being in a genre you don't enjoy ?
Is that about the size of this now ?

I don't know how to respond to this, these sentences are incoherent and don't make sense.

That's your argument laid bare. If you can't make sense of it then obviously you can see how it's broken.

No it's not. It doesn't make sense because your grammar is so poor, and it has nothing to do with anything I wrote.

You appear to be saying something about me saying Valve should be able to release titles? I never said Valve should be disallowed from releasing anything.

Except any game which you see and poor quality or "broken".

No, when did I say that Valve should not be allowed to release anything they want? I am arguing that they shouldn't, out of their own choice - not that they should be somehow banned from doing so.

Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion as you'd get sometimes broken games see release and as a good consumer you're meant to avoid them and not spend money on them, not blame the store and expect them the perfectly keep the entire system free of anything you have to avoid.

I never said anything about them doing it perfectly. I just think they should make an effort to try better.

Do you complain to your ISP each month because they don't block websites you don't like automatically for you ?

Wow, what an incredible non-sequitur. How do you come up with these arguments?

I'm not sure where you're getting the "should be allowed" idea from. If it's not illegal, Valve are allowed to do whatever they want, and I don't remember anybody proposing that Valve should be prohibited from releasing whatever games they want.

except again if people were accepting of Valve to be allowed to try and allowed to have games fail then maybe this thread would have been over by page 2

Huh? I totally believe that Valve should be allowed to try, and to have games fail. I also think they're doing a shitty job of quality control, and that allowing developers to censor negative posts about their games is a terrible idea.

 

[Something Amyss]

The simple thing people are missing is it can be dealt with.
In the case of public masturbation the person gets arrested.
In the case of bad games on steam you don't buy it.

Except that's a false comparison. We have law enforcement to deal with one. We have no enforcement to deal with the other. That is what people are asking for.

Do you go out every day personally hunting down and arresting those who masturbate in public ?

See, that's the thing. I have no burden to. Public masturbators are dealt with by law enforcement. Again, your argument is that we shouldn't have enforcement because people will still manage to get away with it. That's nonsense.

So why are you going out for Valves head over bad games on the system ?

Who's out for Valve's head, exactly?