Steam restricting accounts which have not spent money

[CommanderL]

I support this

lately I have had to delete tons of spam from my steam account
and tons of spamers trying to add me

 

[DoPo]

So steam officially has a paywall now.
What's next - premium subscription?

This...has been the case for a long time now. Other features were "gated off" before if you hadn't bought anything on Steam. I can't remember what exactly but I seem to remember the Marketplace or something along those lines. Things that weren't integral to playing or anyyhing but could be abused.

Why weren't you against it before?

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Good for me who has games. Shitty for people who don't buy games. Like a ton of my dota friends.
I didn't spend anything on steam for ages.

 

[Strazdas]

I do not like this because it is done at legitimate users expense. Imagine a user that plays TF2 or DotA2 or has got a code gifted and created account for that. he plays them and is active part of community. yet since he done no purchases he cannot add friends? he cannot submit mods to community workshop? Same would apply to that guy that bought CS:GO for 4.99 on sale because its 1 cent short?

In my opinion paywalls harm legitimate costumers too much to be a good tactic to get rid of scammers.

BTW, scammers are so fun:

given how easy it is to get money for steam (you can get cards at Gamestop) it's not that big of a deal.

There is no Gamestop here. in fact i have never seen a steam card in my life.

If they're teenagers and can't add money to their account then they need to stop wasting their money. It's not hard to make $5. I worked a paper route when I was 11 and got a fast food job at 15. As somebody else mentioned, free-to-play multiplayer games usually have their own friends lists anyway.

No such thing as paper routes here. US is not the entire world. if we account for wage disparity it would be asking to spend 20 dollars here. No fast food place will take anyone bellow 18 here. you might find work in construction during summer if your above 15, or perhaps as a cleaner.

Honestly if you're the type of person who isn't using bots who hasn't spent 5$ on steam, it's unlikely you'd be doing any of those things anyway.

If i bought CS:GO on sale for 4.99 and play on that game its unlikely i want to have friends?

This is actually proven to be an effective way to cull unwanted elements, such as trolls, spammers and scammers. Same reason why Something Awful has a 10$ cost for signing up.

Amazing, maybe we should ask 10 dollars for making a forum account on the escapist. see how many users are left. (there is a reason something awful is considered dead).

Why weren't you against it before?

I cant speak for Tayh, but i was always against gating features based on levels on steam.

 

[Silvanus]

Didn't like the idea of this at first, but I've come around to it now. $5 seems reasonable.

 

[Mutant1988]

This is actually proven to be an effective way to cull unwanted elements, such as trolls, spammers and scammers. Same reason why Something Awful has a 10$ cost for signing up.

Amazing, maybe we should ask 10 dollars for making a forum account on the escapist. see how many users are left. (there is a reason something awful is considered dead).

I'd say it's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for if you wish to retain some kind of standard of quality. Especially in regards to people trying to scam you of your possessions, like on Steam.

The Escapist doesn't need it because it has extremely diligent moderators to cull the bad elements. How many more millions of users do Steam have? And how much monetary worth does Escapist accounts have?

It is an effective means to keep scammers and trolls out and when such a practise is applied to a marketplace, where you purchase products, I fail to see the problem. Especially when so many of the F2Ps have integrated friend list and messaging systems making the restrictions on Steam communications completely irrelevant. And you can still accept friend requests, you just can't make them.

I'd say that getting rid (Or drastically reducing the amount) of scammers is more important than your convenience.

Or rather, it's more important to appease paying customers (Who have a lot more to lose than you and who Valve owe a lot more for their own commercial success) than it is to accommodate non-payers, when in doing so you facilitate the unrestricted creation of scamming accounts.

In my opinion paywalls harm legitimate costumers too much to be a good tactic to get rid of scammers.

I think our definitions of customers differ. I don't consider someone that doesn't pay anything a customer and I don't think a non-customer is owed any kind of service or convenience.

Just as an example of how this could be bad, if two friends opened Steam accounts and got a F2P multiplayer game so they could play together, how could they? Neither of them can send friend invites because neither of them have spent $5.

There is a ridiculously easy way to get around that - Allow communication between "free" accounts, but not from free to paid.

This still accomplishes the purpose of the restriction, which is to impede scammers. Scammers being able to message free accounts is a far lesser issue, because the free accounts are less likely targets, since much less (Monetary worth) has been invested in them (And thus those accounts would sell for less).

And if any one of those users spend money, at any time, they can just send a friend request to whoever hasn't.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Hmm, well I've never, ever spent a single dime on Steam, despite having an account for several years now. Not by my own choice though. Several games I have physical retail copies of have, for some reason that still escapes me, Steam requirements to install and run. Without them I would never have made an account in the first place.

Oh well, so long as these restrictions don't prevent me chatting to my friend on there I don't really care. Not like I was involved in the service outside of actually playing the games that much anyway.

 

[Strazdas]

I'd say it's a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for if you wish to retain some kind of standard of quality. Especially in regards to people trying to scam you of your possessions, like on Steam.

The Escapist doesn't need it because it has extremely diligent moderators to cull the bad elements. How many more millions of users do Steam have? And how much monetary worth does Escapist accounts have?

So what you are saying that a websites whose users are more important from a monetary perspective has worse moderation. wouldnt the solution then would be to have actual moderation on steam instead?

It is an effective means to keep scammers and trolls out and when such a practise is applied to a marketplace, where you purchase products, I fail to see the problem. Especially when so many of the F2Ps have integrated friend list and messaging systems making the restrictions on Steam communications completely irrelevant. And you can still accept friend requests, you just can't make them.

Thats the problem - its not only applied to a marketplace but also restricting peoples features putting them behind a paywall. Legitimate costumers are being hurt because scammers exist. This is very much a "lets ban cars because there are many drunk drivers" situation.

Yeah, does TF2 have integrated friends list? How about L4D2 which was free last christmas? How about Dota 2? How about those people that bought CS:GO for less than 5 dollars during sale? or do you think valves own games are irrelevant to thier userbase?

I'd say that getting rid (Or drastically reducing the amount) of scammers is more important than your convenience.

Then you would be wrong. You would just be replacing one inconvienience with another and not actually solve anything.

I think our definitions of customers differ. I don't consider someone that doesn't pay anything a customer and I don't think a non-customer is owed any kind of service or convenience.

Havent bought anything from steam store =/= does not pay anything. First ~20 games of mine were gained by recieving keys to activate. my steam account balance shown i have spent 0 at that time. yet im sure steam took a cut when i bought the key.
Also in business a customer is defined as [http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/customer.html] A party that receives or consumes products (goods or services) and has the ability to choose between different products and suppliers.

Payment is not required for customer to fit the definition.

 

[Mutant1988]

So what you are saying that a websites whose users are more important from a monetary perspective has worse moderation. wouldnt the solution then would be to have actual moderation on steam instead?

They do have moderation on Steam. That moderation doesn't do much for people already scammed.

Thats the problem - its not only applied to a marketplace but also restricting peoples features putting them behind a paywall. Legitimate costumers are being hurt because scammers exist. This is very much a "lets ban cars because there are many drunk drivers" situation.

Except you're not a customer unless you pay for a service or product. You might be a customer of the company making that F2P, but you are not a customer of Valve.

Also, no - It's nothing like outlawing bars.

It's more like having an entry fee to a bar, so that people can't just crowd in and enjoy the free music and bar quiz or what have you. The plus side is that it keeps people out that are just there to ruin things for everyone else. Well, it doesn't - But at least the proprietor of the bar get to keep those idiots money after they've been kicked out.

Yeah, does TF2 have integrated friends list? How about L4D2 which was free last christmas? How about Dota 2? How about those people that bought CS:GO for less than 5 dollars during sale? or do you think valves own games are irrelevant to thier userbase?

Paying customers are more important than non-paying customers. That's a simple fact of operating a business.

Then you would be wrong. You would just be replacing one inconvienience with another and not actually solve anything.

Valve taking 5 bucks from every scammer (Because they can't scam anyone without paying that) and putting that towards the continuation of the Steam service counts as a win for me.

Havent bought anything from steam store =/= does not pay anything. First ~20 games of mine were gained by recieving keys to activate. my steam account balance shown i have spent 0 at that time. yet im sure steam took a cut when i bought the key.
Also in business a customer is defined as [http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/customer.html] A party that receives or consumes products (goods or services) and has the ability to choose between different products and suppliers.

Payment is not required for customer to fit the definition.

Most restaurants ask you to leave unless you order something. You can argue the definition of what constitutes a customer all you want, because if you don't make them any money - You're not important. That's not me saying that Valve is that cynical - But that's how a business needs to operate to stay in business.

Paying customers are more important and if keeping paying customers from being hassled by scammers requires limiting the services available to non-payers, than that's a sound business decision.

You can type however much you want but the simple fact is that you are now owed the ability to send friend requests on a service you do not pay for in any capacity. Call it unfair if you want, but it's only practical.

---

Hell, I can think of another super easy way to circumvent the restriction entirely - Instead of sending requests, a free account requires both users to add the others name for it to be approved. That way you can never accept anyone that you don't know through any other means.

I would honestly be surprised if Valve didn't do something like that. But then again their store search feature is still a piece of crap even after all these years, so who knows?

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

You know that thing where when you walk into a mcdonalds and try and use the wi-fi they make you buy something. Or at Starbucks (I wouldn't know, there's none near me). Most places would want you to purchase something before using their restrooms.

Why should people who pay nothing get to use steam? They aren't customers, so why should steam have to deal with bots and scammers because of them?

This feature has already been around for a while, it's just the friend invite restriction which has been changed I believe. It used to be that I instantly accepted all friend requests because they usually came straight from the last or current multiplayer game I was in and I wanted to play with those people again. (yay for online friends). Now, however, I receive at least one friend request every 1-2 days that's just another scammer. As soon as I accept, I'll get some bullshit line and a phishing link and I mutter "for fucks sake" before blocking them yet again.

I know how to deal with it, but it's a major issue and frankly considering that all of the F2P games on steam have no way of making money apart from ingame purchases (which would count towards the Steam unlock, I assume) as none of the F2P games I know of use ads, this is an ok way to deal with the problem. It's really not going to be that much of an issue for paying customers, and even those who have physical cards or gifts will be fine because they count towards the limit too (at least, they already have).

 

[Strazdas]

They do have moderation on Steam. That moderation doesn't do much for people already scammed.

Sure it does. Ive seen items restored, ect.
Not to mention that most scammers wouldnt exist if people wouldnt randomly give out their passwords to everyone.

Except you're not a customer unless you pay for a service or product. You might be a customer of the company making that F2P, but you are not a customer of Valve.

and if Valve is the company making that F2P? Notice how every game i mentioned is published by Valve.

Paying customers are more important than non-paying customers. That's a simple fact of operating a business.

So lets alienate existing customers because a few people were dumb enough to get scammed?

Valve taking 5 bucks from every scammer (Because they can't scam anyone without paying that) and putting that towards the continuation of the Steam service counts as a win for me.

your working under assumtions that are both not even hinted at in my post nor confirmable in any way.

Paying customers are more important and if keeping paying customers from being hassled by scammers requires limiting the services available to non-payers, than that's a sound business decision.

So i guess you are going to completely ignore all those examples of paying costumers being shafted i gave you?

Hell, I can think of another super easy way to circumvent the restriction entirely - Instead of sending requests, a free account requires both users to add the others name for it to be approved. That way you can never accept anyone that you don't know through any other means.

I would honestly be surprised if Valve didn't do something like that. But then again their store search feature is still a piece of crap even after all these years, so who knows?

But this is already the case. You have to accept a friend invite to become friends and if you set that only friends can text you, they cant text you unless you accept.

You know that thing where when you walk into a mcdonalds and try and use the wi-fi they make you buy something. Or at Starbucks (I wouldn't know, there's none near me). Most places would want you to purchase something before using their restrooms.

Why should people who pay nothing get to use steam? They aren't customers, so why should steam have to deal with bots and scammers because of them?

people can pay quite a lot without showing up on steams account balance. for example - every physical or digital copy activated through steam that was not bought directly through steam store. bought a physical copy? still spent 0 on steam account page. bought from amazon? still spent 0 on steam account page.

Edit: fixed quotes

 

[Mutant1988]

So i guess you are going to completely ignore all those examples of paying costumers being shafted i gave you?

The guy buying the items you sold doesn't have to suffer any restriction, because he actually gave Valve money. I don't know what kind of backwards logic you use that would make you a customer of Valve when you're the one making money.

So let me get this straight then - Is the Steam wallet exempted from unlocking full community privileges? If it's not, then there's no problem. Sell F2P items, buy stuff - Problem solved.

If you're buying things through other retailers, then it's up to those retailers to actually work out a deal to enable you full privileges. But for all we know, that might be part of what they are going to implement.

So lets alienate existing customers because a few people were dumb enough to get scammed?

Someone who doesn't buy something isn't a customer.

But this is already the case. You have to accept a friend invite to become friends and if you set that only friends can text you, they cant text you unless you accept.

The point of this entire design is to curb the very existence of scam accounts, as they cannot scam anyone if they cannot send messages without paying money.

If they pay money, that's a win for Steam as a service - Money that can easily be put into the customer service department responsible for recovery of stolen accounts.

People will always be stupid, that's not going to change. What is going to change is scammers being dissuaded by the mandatory price tag they need to pay to enable them to scam, hopefully resulting in less scams and scam accounts.

The issue isn't just that people are stupid, it's that scammers are insanely persistent and annoying and prey on those least savvy (Like kids). The less scam requests that get sent, the better for all of us.

 

[Fractral]

I could have sworn this was already the case, and had been for several years. A number of my friends had issues when they created their steam accounts with not being allowed to friend me, though I could add them without any problem. Those issues vanished when they started buying games. Even recently someone who I gave a spare key to couldn't add me until I added them first.

 

[ryan_cs]

I do not like this because it is done at legitimate users expense. Imagine a user that plays TF2 or DotA2 or has got a code gifted and created account for that. he plays them and is active part of community. yet since he done no purchases he cannot add friends? he cannot submit mods to community workshop? Same would apply to that guy that bought CS:GO for 4.99 on sale because its 1 cent short?

Isn't the minimum amount of money you have to buy $5? The system might count the amount of money added to the steam wallet instead of the amount spent. This way even if I didn't buy anything I would still be able to get all the benefits.

 

[Strazdas]

The guy buying the items you sold doesn't have to suffer any restriction, because he actually gave Valve money. I don't know what kind of backwards logic you use that would make you a customer of Valve when you're the one making money.

So let me get this straight then - Is the Steam wallet exempted from unlocking full community privileges? If it's not, then there's no problem. Sell F2P items, buy stuff - Problem solved.

If you're buying things through other retailers, then it's up to those retailers to actually work out a deal to enable you full privileges. But for all we know, that might be part of what they are going to implement.

how am i making money if i pay for microtransactions in, say, DotA2? Am i not a costumer for paying for them? Am i not a costumer if i buy a physical copy that actives through steam? Because all those things will still leave you with steam telling you that you spent 0 on your account since they cant track other peoples prices.

They may or may not implement that for retailers, but as it is right now no such feature exist.

The point of this entire design is to curb the very existence of scam accounts, as they cannot scam anyone if they cannot send messages without paying money.

If they pay money, that's a win for Steam as a service - Money that can easily be put into the customer service department responsible for recovery of stolen accounts.

I know whats the point of this design is. im merely arguing that the price for it is too high from a moral perspective.

No, if they pay thats a win for steam as a company. that is, its a win for its owners money. they have no obligation to put this money into costumer service. It certainly isnt the lack of funds[footnote]Valve is the most profitable company in the world in terms of profit per person working[/footnote] that makes the current costumer service so bad.

The issue isn't just that people are stupid, it's that scammers are insanely persistent and annoying and prey on those least savvy (Like kids). The less scam requests that get sent, the better for all of us.

I agree, i just dont think this is the right method to do it.

Isn't the minimum amount of money you have to buy $5? The system might count the amount of money added to the steam wallet instead of the amount spent. This way even if I didn't buy anything I would still be able to get all the benefits.

If you add 5 dollars to your steam wallet - sure. But there are other methods of buying steam games than steam wallet money.

 

[endtherapture]

It sounds like a bad idea to me. I understand there's a problem but I don't think this is the best way to deal with it. I have a steam account but I haven't bought anything on it yet, imagine I will in the future though.

Just as an example of how this could be bad, if two friends opened Steam accounts and got a F2P multiplayer game so they could play together, how could they? Neither of them can send friend invites because neither of them have spent $5. Should they have to spend that money first before they can play together? What if they're teenagers or something and can't add money to their account?

If you can't afford £5 one off purchase to play online with your friends you probably should be spending your money on the food you're not buying instead of on your internet connection.

 

[Mutant1988]

I agree, i just dont think this is the right method to do it.

I think it is, because I know it works and honestly - It seems to be the only preventive measure that could work.

All other issues Valve has notwithstanding, I support this design, as long as due consideration is made for functionality for people that pay by other means.

After all, even if you don't spend money right now - You might spend money tomorrow.

I think just having non-payers be unable to friend payers would be sufficient. That would then demand a monetary investment by scammers to operate, which is an improvement on the current situation and likely to be an effective deterrent against all but the most extensive scamming operations.

If non-payers can send friend requests to one another, that essentially removes the entire issue of crippled functionality. It would just mean that non-payers might suffer scammers, which is an improvement from the current situation where everyone has to. Given that non-spenders are far less of a target too, it seems perfectly reasonable.

If you want to play with people that have spent money, they can just send a friend request to you.

I really don't want Valve to screw people over, but I think the method of how they would go about reducing scammers is sound, all my arguments about what constitutes a costumer or not aside.

I'm by no means a corporate apologist. I've got quite a few issues with Steam, mostly in regard of how absolutely awful their store search functionality is (Need exception filters!) and how often the store browsing seems to break. I also have some issues with their (Practically non-existing) refund policies.

 

[Signa]

This doesn't seem like a bad idea. I get why some people might immediately scoff at any idea, but $5 is nothing, and there is a real problem with bots and spammers. Even if this negatively impacts a few people who only use the service for free games, well, who cares really. They aren't actually customers if they don't buy anything, so I don' think it's that much of a big deal if they don't have access to certain fetures.

I'm slightly concerned because I don't think they have to be customers to matter. However, the abuse of the system I alone have received (read: not much) is enough to say that this is still a good idea. If Steam didn't have the constant sales they do, then this might be a bigger issue. You really shouldn't bother with Steam if you are unwilling to buy into one $5 sale at some point.