So apparently Steam was selling a game that was clearly dead.
- Thread starter Infernal Lawyer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Everyone seems to be jumping on the 'Valve needs to do more QA' bandwagon, and while I certainly think it's a good idea, nobody seems to realize exactly what that would entail. Valve aren't currently doing it, which means they'd have to make a new department and hire people and buy new equipment just for playtesting games, they'd have to have a bunch of people all playing the same game because that's how error analysis works, and all that adds up to increased costs for Valve that they'd like shift to the consumer.
I don't particularly mind the system where consumers try the product and then spread by word of mouth if its any good, but if they want to continue that model, they definitely need a refund system so customers can return broken games.
I don't particularly mind the system where consumers try the product and then spread by word of mouth if its any good, but if they want to continue that model, they definitely need a refund system so customers can return broken games.
I have mixed feelings about this issue. Yes absolutley if Steam have been selling a multiplayer only game that now can't be played because the necessary infastructure to support it no longer exisits then that is an outright deplorable thing to do. However, to jump on my usual soapbox here, to my mind, final responsibility rests with the consumer and unless Steam have actually misled customers by outright saying it can still be played, then for me it is a case of "they should have checked before they brought it". After all, you are purchasing online, it isn't like your stood in a store deciding whether to contact, you can just open a new tab and google this stuff.
I am no fan of Steam, and the only decent thing to do, if you are going to sell effectivley defunct software, is at least lebel it accordingly, however, the people who brought it without checkings are the ones most at fault here.
I am no fan of Steam, and the only decent thing to do, if you are going to sell effectivley defunct software, is at least lebel it accordingly, however, the people who brought it without checkings are the ones most at fault here.
Not thats its hard to check. You dont even need to Google it. You just need to check the Steam forum relevant to that game, a direct link for which is on the store page for released games.Baffle said:
And if youre too lazy to do that, then the tags will likely reveal a wealth of information (not in this case, but in future cases).
The funny thing about all this is that it seems know one knows anything behind the history of this game.
To all the people saying that Steam isn't responsible and people should do their research...the game launched without any working servers and it never actually worked correctly. In fact the devs came out with a "Reloaded" version because the previous one was un-salvageable. So basically this game launched and was sold on steam as an unplayable game from Jun 2012 - Nov 2012. Finally they relaunched in 2012...and then a few short months later the devs dropped it completely.
People were complaining from Day 1, the fact that Steam let these guys come back, rerelease, and continue to sell after putting a defunct game on steam is akin to the War Z nonsense.
Sadly I doubt most people will get this far down the thread to read this. I also would contest that if Steam puts a game in a daily deal it really should at least take a cursory glance at the title. I know I've seen Fray up there at least once or twice.
To all the people saying that Steam isn't responsible and people should do their research...the game launched without any working servers and it never actually worked correctly. In fact the devs came out with a "Reloaded" version because the previous one was un-salvageable. So basically this game launched and was sold on steam as an unplayable game from Jun 2012 - Nov 2012. Finally they relaunched in 2012...and then a few short months later the devs dropped it completely.
People were complaining from Day 1, the fact that Steam let these guys come back, rerelease, and continue to sell after putting a defunct game on steam is akin to the War Z nonsense.
Sadly I doubt most people will get this far down the thread to read this. I also would contest that if Steam puts a game in a daily deal it really should at least take a cursory glance at the title. I know I've seen Fray up there at least once or twice.
Ok, while I agree on your overall statement of "Valve is a business, Steam is a way to generate revenue", you seem to not understand some of the things that happen on it.Vilealbaniandwarf said:
Valve doesn't make the prices. An unfinished game at full price is the developer, not Valve. The one thing actually falling into Valve's realm of responsibility (which they haven't kept up with) is that unfinished games have to go under the Early Access system instead of the normal one.
Day one releases are expensive because... well, it's complicated, but Valve doesn't have anything to do with it. See, it's like this - if Publishers allowed developers to allow Steam to sell games at less than full price at launch, not only would they probably go bankrupt pretty soon since with most games a big chunk of the overall profit comes from the first week of sales, most importantly, it would piss the brick-and-mortar shops off. That doesn't sound like much, but even now normal retail is a gigantic factor. If you piss those guys off, you will bleed money for it.
And you are pretty darn wrong about every business on earth treating all of their customers as badly as they can get away with. Not every big business is a soul sucking money generator. But I doubt you would ever see that through the thick coating of cynicism visible in this post.
EDIT: Maybe I should also talk about the thing at hand. You know. Like I'm supposed to. Because even though I "defend" Valve in this post, this is pretty much unacceptable, and Valve has slacked off significantly when it came to this kind of thing. Just reminding everyone of the Dino Horde debacle and other ways to game the system.
Stuff like this will become more common as Steam progresses further towards a more open and neutral platform. However, they should still refund the game without too many questions asked and I'd expect a request to have much higher chances now that it seems to be removed from the store, at least for recent buyers.
However, it seems that Steam will also introduce better reporting functions for stuff like that. One can only hope that they'll actually read the reports and react to them once that system is online. Chances are it'll just be flooded by idiots and the system will be clogged for the cases that actually need it.
However, it seems that Steam will also introduce better reporting functions for stuff like that. One can only hope that they'll actually read the reports and react to them once that system is online. Chances are it'll just be flooded by idiots and the system will be clogged for the cases that actually need it.
Luckily being smart or stupid has nothing to do with whether a person deserves a refund on a product that doesn't function as advertised.Splitzi said:
First, if you're buying a game that has a 27% metascore, you deserve to have that money taken from you.
In any case, I don't see why people are trying to make it seem like Valve was deliberately trying to screw with their customers. There are two simple explanations for why this game was still on Steam:
1. The fact that it was unplayable was overlooked by Valve - not surprising due to the thousands of games that are sold on Steam.
2. Valve, in an attempt to gain a quick buck, deliberately kept this game on sale despite knowing that literally the instant people bought it they knew they were being scammed.
Now, since Valve probably makes millions of dollars just on TF2 hats, we can surmise that they weren't deliberately screwing with the 3 or so people who actually bought this piece of shit. Most likely it was an oversight. Valve, knowing that a company's reputation is a valuable commodity, will probably refund whoever bought it.
In any case, I don't see why people are trying to make it seem like Valve was deliberately trying to screw with their customers. There are two simple explanations for why this game was still on Steam:
1. The fact that it was unplayable was overlooked by Valve - not surprising due to the thousands of games that are sold on Steam.
2. Valve, in an attempt to gain a quick buck, deliberately kept this game on sale despite knowing that literally the instant people bought it they knew they were being scammed.
Now, since Valve probably makes millions of dollars just on TF2 hats, we can surmise that they weren't deliberately screwing with the 3 or so people who actually bought this piece of shit. Most likely it was an oversight. Valve, knowing that a company's reputation is a valuable commodity, will probably refund whoever bought it.
Fact of the matter is, you do need to check. And if you consciously made the decision to buy a non-functioning game only to find that its non-functional afterwards, then youre not blameless for this.Baffle said:
Doing the research prevents situations like this, and there wouldnt be anything like this going on if people just took 5 minutes of their time to look it up instead of just throwing away their money.
Yes, in a perfect world, there would be no need to research it. But we have this shitty one instead, so make do with what you got.
I cannot clam GMG do this but in Amazon's case they can sell books, movies and games for the price they do because they set the prices. Not just to the customers either, they tell publishers "we will only X amount of £?$ per item" they also employ every tax dodge under the sun. They do this to keep their prices attractive.shintakie10 said:
No i am not suggesting that at all. What Steam are selling is the software, not the service you use the software with. A better comparison would be if a retail chain started stocking Betamax players. They aren't under any obligation to check whether their customers can access the movies they would watch in Betamax format, what they are selling is the device and as long as it functions they have discharged their legal requirements. In the same way Steam are selling the software, they are under no obligation to ensure the server that the software connects to is still running as long as the software itself functions. It is even still technically possible to play the game without the servers as I understand it can also be played over LAN.Baffle said:
As i said in my initial post, I don't approve, and I think the decent thing would have been to notify the customer of the nature of the functionality they could expect to enjoy. However, the majority of the blame sits with the consumer.
If the game is still being advertised as having certain features but those features cannot be used, in this case multiplayer, then you can claim false advertisement or that its faulty. In some countries this will get you a refund (such as EU countries). I also advise you look up the specific law to quote at them and then cannot deny that.
However i do always recommend that when purchasing older multiplayer games that you research whether its alive before hand so you can avoid the hassle.
However i do always recommend that when purchasing older multiplayer games that you research whether its alive before hand so you can avoid the hassle.
while that is certainly awful i think its just a matter of steam becoming too big for its own good, and the staff at valve are having problems keeping it up nice and tidy