So apparently Steam was selling a game that was clearly dead.

[Infernal Lawyer]

If someone is buying an older game on Steam (or anywhere really), it is that customers job to see if there is still an active multi-player audience if that's what you are interested in. I've seen the question come up on Steam forum threads many times. The same thing happens with old console multi-player games as well. So do your research before buying a game for its multi-player.

I would like to say that a consumer should do some research on the things they purchase. Are you telling me that they couldn't have found out the servers were dead through a cursory Google search? There are even threads on that game's community page ON STEAM saying that they game is dead. SO instead of blasting Steam so much, who are still culpable btw, let's not forget that consumers are responsible for the purchases they make. The refund thing is shitty but honestly, people don't deserve a refund for being stupid.

As has been said, the consumer absolutely shouldn't have to research whether a sold multiplayer-only game still has servers to make it get past the start screen. If there was a sliver of single-player action, then perhaps, but to say it's your own fault for not making sure a game isn't 100% dead is an incredibly anti-consumer attitude.

There are some things a customer should take it upon themselves to look out for, but outright illegal practices from one of the biggest and most highly-regarded companies in the world absolutely shouldn't be one of them.

Is it actually steam's job to see if all the servers are up for all the games they are selling?
This is not a rhetorical question, I'm actually curious. I don't think it is. I mean, you can still do LAN, right?

If not, it's still disgusting that the developers couldn't even give a heads-up to Valve. It's hard to have any sympathy for them even if their studio had to shut down after a few months, since they're apparently okay with continuing to trick people into buying their non-game.

And from what I understand, you can't even get past the title screen without signing into a long-dead server.

You remember when Valve said they want you to do their job for them? Let me rephrase that, remember when Valve said they want Steam to be more community driven? This is part of it. Buyer beware and all that. They're not going to tell you everything, whether intentional or by misinformation.

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 refuse to believe that Valve never noticed that a game they were selling was completely unplayable for over 1.5 years. And even then, as I said why couldn't the developers say anything when they couldn't pay for the servers?

And even if it's really not Valve's responsibility to notice this kind of crap, they've had a plethora of people complaining and asking for their money back, all of which were refused on the first try, so it's not like they haven't had tons of people pointing it out to them.

I don't understand why people are saying that users should be checking that games that are currently available for sale are still actually playable.

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.

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).

Not the point at all. You simply should not have to check that an item being sold fulfils its purpose - regardless of how easy such checking is. To suggest otherwise is the most absurd anti-consumer nonsense.

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.

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.

It really is shocking that you would attribute a customer not taking the time to see if a game is actually playable to 'laziness'.

Even in this shitty world, selling something that doesn't work, regardless of how much information the customer has to find out this fact, is downright illegal.

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.

Except as has been explained, there's been no shortage of people contacting support so it's not like they didn't notice when it's being screamed at them, and they DIDN'T give out refunds, except for some of those who kept demanding one.

 

[teebeeohh]

Valve needs QA.
i know that as a whole valve is a company that believes the solution to everything lies in the right piece of software instead of just hiring people to do things. at this point they just need to hire people to curate their store, at least until the gabemastergamechecksystem is working.
and proabably not for most people here but rather for random steam user 42, who installed the thing because it was needed for a game he picked up because he liked the boxart and who got his mind blown by the concept of DD.

 

[Madman123456]

This seems to be easy; call up a lawyer.
When buying a product you generally assume that the product is functioning. It isn't and people should get their money back.

 

[TallanKhan]

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.

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.

So, I can get hold of old Betamax tapes (were they tapes?). Can I get hold of the old servers to play this game, or are they more tightly tied to this specific game than individual Betamax tapes (?) are to the Betamax player?

I can, for instance, source my tapes from a variety of suppliers and can watch a variety of those tapes. Where can I source my server? I should also point out the massive difference between a relatively well-known and no longer used technology that everyone knows is out of date and a modern multiplayer game that one would assume in playable on account of it being available for sale at the present time.

I'm not going to pursue this further, because I like to avoid being rude and we're clearly on different sides of a fence. I feel Valve have been negligent rather than dishonest, I just don't understand why people would defend a business practice that is so clearly wrong.

So you don't like the Betamax comparison, what about selling an analogue TV in a territory where they no longer broadcast an analogue TV signal?

But thank you for making my point for me when you point out the key difference that "everyone knows" Betamax is out of date. Yes they do, which is why no one would buy one. But the ignorance of the consumer cannot be held up as a failing of the seller. The information that the Fray servers are no longer operational is a matter of record and easily accessible.

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not on Steam's side here. I think this whole incident is symptomatic of bigger issues with Steam, both in terms of it's customer service and it's quality control procedures and I very much hope the outcome will be that people think twice about what they buy from Steam in the future. However, what i take issue with is the fact that two often, poor practice on the part of a business is used to completely absolve consumers of their failure to consume responsibly. It is high time consumers discarded this victim complex and accepted that their purchasing decisions are what drive the evolution of business practice, not the other way around.

 

[Fsyco]

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 refuse to believe that Valve never noticed that a game they were selling was completely unplayable for over 1.5 years. And even then, as I said why couldn't the developers say anything when they couldn't pay for the servers?

And even if it's really not Valve's responsibility to notice this kind of crap, they've had a plethora of people complaining and asking for their money back, all of which were refused on the first try, so it's not like they haven't had tons of people pointing it out to them.

They also get a lot of complaints about other games, and some of them might not be legitimate. Fray, for example, didn't appear to sell all that well, so the 'plethora' of people complaining about it are probably outnumbered by other complaints about other games. So it's not like they're just sitting around in their offices twiddling their thumbs and staring at the wall, hoping that Fray would sell well.
Also, the developers probably didn't say anything because they're dishonest and wanted their money back on the investment, the same reason that any dev ships a broken game. And that kind of underlies the problem with a refund system: people are dishonest and will try to game the system. Not saying that everyone would, but its a big enough concern for Valve to not want to do it. Personally, I think they should, since that seems to work out well enough for GoG.

 

[TallanKhan]

But thank you for making my point for me when you point out the key difference that "everyone knows" Betamax is out of date. Yes they do, which is why no one would buy one. But the ignorance of the consumer cannot be held up as a failing of the seller. The information that the Fray servers are no longer operational is a matter of record and easily accessible.

I don't really feel I have made your point. You seem to feel that ANY lack of knowledge on the part of the consumer makes the consumer liable for mis-selling practices, despite the fact that the seller exists more wholly in that field of work/knowledge and, simply put, either should know better or is deliberately ripping people off (as a Betamax or analogue TV seller would be). My all means, blame yourself every time you get ripped off, even defend those who do it to you. I just don't understand why you would.

For a brief example, because I am tired: you purchase cavity wall insulation because you want to be warm in December. The seller says 'This is brilliant stuff, you'll be sitting in your pants in the middle of winter'. Two years later, all your paint and wallpaper has peeled off and there's mould everywhere, because you breached the damp-proof course of your house with insulation and the water from outside is working its ways inside (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you've proved my point, but still don't deserve a shitty damp house). Now, you, as the average homeowner, did not know that would happen, but in your know-all scenario, your damp house, which is a real shit to fix, is on your own head, because you weren't smarter than a con-man.

If valve slapped a big banner across this game that said something to the effect of 'This game is completely unplayable' and slapped a bunch of warnings into the purchasing process, that would be fine. They did not.

Well first of all if I intended to purchase cavity wall insulation I would investigate how/what i needed to purchase before i did so. But in your example the con-man is actively mis-representing the product which is the difference. Steam have made no claims about the status of the servers, had they said that anyone downloading this game would be able to connect to the servers then they would have mis-sold the product, but they didn't. The purchaser is making an assumption rather than the seller lying about the product. Plus, as previously detailed, the title is not completely unplayable, should you chose to go to the trouble of setting up a LAN game you can still do so.

 

[J.McMillen]

As has been said, the consumer absolutely shouldn't have to research whether a sold multiplayer-only game still has servers to make it get past the start screen. If there was a sliver of single-player action, then perhaps, but to say it's your own fault for not making sure a game isn't 100% dead is an incredibly anti-consumer attitude.

There are some things a customer should take it upon themselves to look out for, but outright illegal practices from one of the biggest and most highly-regarded companies in the world absolutely shouldn't be one of them.

Actually, making sure there is still an online community is something the customer should be on the look out for. In some cases a game may have player run servers that are up, but nobody is ever playing. So while it is possible to play online, there's nobody out there to play with. Most of the time a simple look at the forums will usually reveal a post (or twelve) about the game being dead.

And it's up to the publisher to keep Steam up to date on the status of their game. Heck, I've seen defunct MMO's still being sold in stores after the game was shut down because the publisher never recalled unsold copies. Odds are that Steam wasn't told about the servers being shut down so they didn't know to pull the game from the store.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

As has been said, the consumer absolutely shouldn't have to research whether a sold multiplayer-only game still has servers to make it get past the start screen. If there was a sliver of single-player action, then perhaps, but to say it's your own fault for not making sure a game isn't 100% dead is an incredibly anti-consumer attitude.

There are some things a customer should take it upon themselves to look out for, but outright illegal practices from one of the biggest and most highly-regarded companies in the world absolutely shouldn't be one of them.

Actually, making sure there is still an online community is something the customer should be on the look out for. In some cases a game may have player run servers that are up, but nobody is ever playing. So while it is possible to play online, there's nobody out there to play with. Most of the time a simple look at the forums will usually reveal a post (or twelve) about the game being dead.

And it's up to the publisher to keep Steam up to date on the status of their game. Heck, I've seen defunct MMO's still being sold in stores after the game was shut down because the publisher never recalled unsold copies. Odds are that Steam wasn't told about the servers being shut down so they didn't know to pull the game from the store.

How is some games having ghost-town servers relevant? If the servers are dead so that the game isn't even playable, who's fault is it that there's no community? If your game is labled as multiplayer-only and you're incapable of delivering on that multiplayer, that's daylight robbery. I'm sorry, but that takes the whole "consumer responsibility" attitude WAY too fucking far.

As for your second point, that just leaves the responsibility on the developer, and even then it's not like there haven't been a plethora of people contacting Steam Support, so I refuse to accept they didn't know or never thought "Gee, practically every ticket we got about this game was about it being dead, maybe we should check that out".

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 refuse to believe that Valve never noticed that a game they were selling was completely unplayable for over 1.5 years. And even then, as I said why couldn't the developers say anything when they couldn't pay for the servers?

And even if it's really not Valve's responsibility to notice this kind of crap, they've had a plethora of people complaining and asking for their money back, all of which were refused on the first try, so it's not like they haven't had tons of people pointing it out to them.

They also get a lot of complaints about other games, and some of them might not be legitimate. Fray, for example, didn't appear to sell all that well, so the 'plethora' of people complaining about it are probably outnumbered by other complaints about other games. So it's not like they're just sitting around in their offices twiddling their thumbs and staring at the wall, hoping that Fray would sell well.
Also, the developers probably didn't say anything because they're dishonest and wanted their money back on the investment, the same reason that any dev ships a broken game. And that kind of underlies the problem with a refund system: people are dishonest and will try to game the system. Not saying that everyone would, but its a big enough concern for Valve to not want to do it. Personally, I think they should, since that seems to work out well enough for GoG.

Well, I'd like to think that when the only tickets you get on a game are "this game is dead", you'd notice, regardless of how many other thousands you'd have to deal with.

As for your second point, unfortunately I can see your point. Seeing as outright broken games are being sold and even excused on a regular basis, it's not surprising Valve doesn't particularly want to deal with people wanting their money back.

 

[Rob Robson]

Same thing for "Delve Deeper!", a fundamentally unplayable game that crashes five minutes into any game for the vast majority of users. Not only is it still being sold, they are still pushing it with sales. Scum.

 

[J.McMillen]

How is some games having ghost-town servers relevant?

Wouldn't you feel ripped off if you bought a multi-player game only to find out nobody was playing? Whether there are available servers or not, most people will feel like they got ripped off if they bought a multi-player game if there is nobody to play with.

It's called personal responsibility. As a consumer of anything, it's up to the buyer to do any research on whatever it is that person wants to buy. Now I can understand those who bought the game right before the servers were shut down may have valid complaints. But the servers were apparently shut down some time ago. A simple 2 minute search of the games forum would reveal multiple threads about the game being dead, most on the first page.

 

[Infernal Lawyer]

How is some games having ghost-town servers relevant?

Wouldn't you feel ripped off if you bought a multi-player game only to find out nobody was playing? Whether there are available servers or not, most people will feel like they got ripped off if they bought a multi-player game if there is nobody to play with.

What? Did I ever imply I wouldn't be? I'm honestly not sure what your point is.

It's called personal responsibility. As a consumer of anything, it's up to the buyer to do any research on whatever it is that person wants to buy. Now I can understand those who bought the game right before the servers were shut down may have valid complaints. But the servers were apparently shut down some time ago. A simple 2 minute search of the games forum would reveal multiple threads about the game being dead, most on the first page.

As I said before, you're taking "consumer/personal responsibility" way too far. There's being disappointed with a product because it wasn't quite as good as you thought it would be, and then there's being mad that you bought something that's CLEARLY not suitable for the purposes advertised by any stretch.

I should not have to spend two SECONDS to find out if a game is even possible to run, I have every damn right to assume that will be the case by default, regardless of how many patches or fixes I may end up having to deal with, regardless of how dissatisfied I may end up with the product, or even how many threads there are saying "game's dead" (because why isn't the STORE PAGE saying that?). That's not just my opinion, that's just how the LAW works. That's the PUBLISHER'S responsibility, not the consumer's.

I'm sorry if I'm coming off as aggressive, I just find the idea that it's the consumer's job to see if a product acts even remotely as advertised incredibly offensive.

 

[Doom-Slayer]

The fault lies with the consumer for trusting Valve on anything. They are greedy scumbags and everyone knows it.

Completely don't agree. Here's a simple comparison to explain why. Imagine you walk into a retail store, buy a toaster or something, it breaks, and you find out that that specific product has a widespread fault. You have ever right to go to the store and ask for a refund, but saying the store are "greedy scumbags" is pushing the line really hard.

They are distributes, they should definitely be informed of the fault and stop selling the product, but complaining the fault rests on them is wrong.

Problems with products rest on the shoulders of the companies that make the products, problems with distribution rest on the distributors. So calling them slightly inept for not taking the product down is correct, calling them greedy? not so much.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The fault lies with the consumer for trusting Valve on anything. They are greedy scumbags and everyone knows it.

Because one broken game out of thousands of functional games is clearly grounds to damn everyone who ever used Steam.