Support NeoGAF

[Kyougar]

They obviously don't play literally every game or use every app, but yes, there are actual honest-to-God humans doing editorial on the App Store. (And no, they don't sell Editor's Choice spots.)

but how do they come to the decision WHICH game they play? Does a monkey throw a bunch of darts on a game release list and they then play these games and take a pick?

Of course not! There is a list that was brought together by some algorithm that said: here those games are currently successfull in either units sold or 5-stars, lets take a look at that.

This is nothing more than the technology behind the discovery queue that gets curated from the appstore.

Not your OWN discovery queue mind you, just the worldwide taste.

In Steam terms that would be just some dude looking through your recommendations and discovery queue saying: "This looks neat, try it"

 

[duckroll]

Did you actually read the article? It's not really about full curation, it's largely about basic "does it run"-level quality control. The point is that instead of taking any sort of measure to prevent non-functional crap that is, by any reasonable definition, unfit for sale from reaching the storefront, and instead expect users to just deal with it via reviews and refunds. Reviews and refunds aren't bad by themselves (though based on the description in the article, Steam's review system may be considerably more deficient than I thought it was), but as the only tools to deal with this kind of crap they simply aren't sufficient. The only purpose this kind of stuff serves being on Steam's storefront is hurting Steam's reputation and giving people more crap to wade through.

How far do you think the quality control should go? What qualifies as "does it run"? It might seem like I am being dismissive, but I am not. Rather I don't think people realize when they ask for this, how significant the cost of having basic QA is, and how complex it can be to define what a fail case is. Especially on a platform such as the PC, with a huge range of hardware variations. There is also the fact to consider that this is not a free cost ultimately. It -will- be passed on to consumers. This isn't something that any company can justify doing for free, and then just absorbing all the cost for no reason. If there is a QA level on Steam's end, it will mean that every single game published on Steam will have an additional fee levied on the publisher to offset this cost. As a consequence this will affect the cost publishers (or indie developers) decide to charge customers. This fee is separate from what is already charged as the cut they get from selling things as a storefront.

Now, considering all that, the question then is - how bad is this perceived problem of non-working games being bought by unknowing people and it giving them grieve or inconvenience? Is it significant enough to justify implementing what was described? Is every person invested into steam be it as a customer or publisher or developer actually keen to pay an additional tax just to fix this problem? If not, then why spend more money and effort into correcting a problem which isn't really there when the result is worse for everyone else?

That is something to consider.

 

[jrcbandit]

As long as Steam Direct charges somewhere in the $500-1000 range per game release, it will get rid of allot of the asset flips and other dreck. So I don't think curation will be necessary and could do more harm than good.

 

[Pixieking]

QA is also something that he's proposing a retailer does.

If I order something off of Amazon, should I expect Amazon to have checked it's working? Do I expect Amazon to check every TV, console, water filter, or whatever to make sure it's working as expected?

Why would anyone expect a store to do that?

This is why refunds are a bloody thing in the first place!

Man alive.

This is also why I don't read RPS anymore. It's just stupid.

Anyone arguing for Steam to run QA needs to argue the same basic point with Macys/Amazon/John Lewis/Tesco, etc. If you can make a good case with them, then maybe Steam should do QA. Otherwise...

 

[Guess Who]

but how do they come to the decision WHICH game they play? Does a monkey throw a bunch of darts on a game release list and they then play these games and take a pick?

Of course not! There is a list that was brought together by some algorithm that said: here those games are currently successfull in either units sold or 5-stars, lets take a look at that.

This is nothing more than the technology behind the discovery queue that gets curated from the appstore.

Not your OWN discovery queue mind you, just the worldwide taste.

In Steam terms that would be just some dude looking through your recommendations and discovery queue saying: "This looks neat, try it"

Not true. Every app submitted to the App Store gets a basic QA pass (does the app run? Does it use any private APIs? Does it conform to App Store rules and regulations?) where a human takes a look at it before it hits the store. (This is part of why new apps can take days to get approved, as any iOS dev could tell you.) From there, the editorial team can keep an eye out for new games and apps that look interesting, take a look into them, and approach the developer about being featured on the store.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

QA is also something that he's proposing a retailer does.

If I order something off of Amazon, should I expect Amazon to have checked it's working? Do I expect Amazon to check every TV, console, water filter, or whatever to make sure it's working as expected?

Why would anyone expect a store to do that?

This is why refunds are a bloody thing in the first place!

Man alive.

This is also why I don't read RPS anymore. It's just stupid.

Anyone arguing for Steam to run QA needs to argue the same basic point with Macys/Amazon/John Lewis/Tesco, etc. If you can make a good case with them, then maybe Steam should do QA. Otherwise...

No it isn't. Digital goods don't need per-key inspection like physical goods which need per-item inspection.

If retailers sell items which have widespread issues, then the manufacturers themselves usually recall everything. Retailers are putting their reputation at risk if they continue to sell malfunctioning goods. Tesco isn't interested in wasting their shelf-space on problematic products.

 

[The Wart]

QA is also something that he's proposing a retailer does.

If I order something off of Amazon, should I expect Amazon to have checked it's working? Do I expect Amazon to check every TV, console, water filter, or whatever to make sure it's working as expected?

Why would anyone expect a store to do that?

This is why refunds are a bloody thing in the first place!

Man alive.

This is also why I don't read RPS anymore. It's just stupid.

Anyone arguing for Steam to run QA needs to argue the same basic point with Macys/Amazon/John Lewis/Tesco, etc. If you can make a good case with them, then maybe Steam should do QA. Otherwise...

To be fair, only John Walker writes articles as dumb as this. I knew it was him from the headline.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

QA is also something that he's proposing a retailer does.

If I order something off of Amazon, should I expect Amazon to have checked it's working? Do I expect Amazon to check every TV, console, water filter, or whatever to make sure it's working as expected?

Why would anyone expect a store to do that?

This is why refunds are a bloody thing in the first place!

Man alive.

This is also why I don't read RPS anymore. It's just stupid.

Anyone arguing for Steam to run QA needs to argue the same basic point with Macys/Amazon/John Lewis/Tesco, etc. If you can make a good case with them, then maybe Steam should do QA. Otherwise...

Well stated.

 

[spineduke]

Nearly 40 percent of all Steam games ever released were released in 2016. And waaaaaay too many of those are shitty asset flips. That is the issue. People who are just trying to make a quick buck with a bunch of Unity assets cobbled together in a barely running, barely functioning state.

This is being somewhat addressed by Steam Direct. We'll have to wait and see how effective the results are.

To be fair, only John Walker writes articles as dumb as this. I knew it was him from the headline.

Same, i often get the impression he's in the wrong line of work.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

It's a storefront. It's not up to them to curate the content. Just like it's not up to Amazon, GameStop, Walmart or any other store.

 

[MJLord]

As long as Steam Direct charges somewhere in the $500-1000 range per game release, it will get rid of allot of the asset flips and other dreck. So I don't think curation will be necessary and could do more harm than good.

and solo indie developers.

I think what we have now is fine. Steam Curators helps people find the types of games they might want to try, Steam Reviews give you an indication of quality and if you still manage to buy a game you're either not interested in or just plain doesn't work then you can refund it no questions asked. You can't ask for better from a consumer standpoint.

Excessive refunds and negative reviews could in theory flag up games that could be nominated for removal from the store or a more human review.

The system is fine, it just needs expanding. Unfortunately I don't think Valve are committed to that. They've used the backlash from the current system to make a cash grab at the same time and I think it will move to undermine the open storefront they've managed to create.

 

[Haly]

GameStop, Walmart or any other store.

I was thinking about this and physical storefronts do curate their content to an extent, because shelf space isn't free. Space dedicated to a poor seller is money down the drain, and digital storefronts really never have this issue, which is why it's impossible to actually, say, find green tea leaves you can trust to be fresh, real green tea leaves without reviews/recommendations on Amazon, where anything goes.

 

[Gipsy Danger]

I was thinking about this and physical storefronts do curate their content to an extent, because shelf space isn't free. Space dedicated to a poor seller is money down the drain, and digital storefronts really never have this issue, which is why it's impossible to actually, say, find green tea leaves you can trust to be fresh, real green tea leaves without reviews/recommendations on Amazon, where anything goes.

That's what the review system is for. And if you end up with a product which doesn't run or even you just don't like, there is a refund system in place for that. I would never ask for curation because it could mean we could miss out on some gems that with curation may never end up on the store.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

As long as Steam Direct charges somewhere in the $500-1000 range per game release, it will get rid of allot of the asset flips and other dreck. So I don't think curation will be necessary and could do more harm than good.

I'm honestly thinking a rising fee per game/year would be good.

 

[MJLord]

I'm honestly thinking a rising fee per game/year would be good.

Every studio must release one game per year to be judged by the community. Only then after the years judging procedure has finished may any studio be eligible to release another game.

EDIT: switch studio to publisher. Whichever makes this example more absurd.

 

[ArtHands]

Nearly 40 percent of all Steam games ever released were released in 2016. And waaaaaay too many of those are shitty asset flips. That is the issue. People who are just trying to make a quick buck with a bunch of Unity assets cobbled together in a barely running, barely functioning state.

You got any proof that most are asset flips?

 

[Pixieking]

No it isn't. Digital goods don't need per-key inspection like physical goods which need per-item inspection.

If retailers sell items which have widespread issues, then the manufacturers themselves usually recall everything. Retailers are putting their reputation at risk if they continue to sell malfunctioning goods. Tesco isn't interested in wasting their shelf-space on problematic products.

But you still run the risk of a faulty product, regardless of physical or digital. A basic "Does this game start-up" is one thing. But beyond that, you have so many configurations of computer that "per key" inspection is essentially pointless.

As for the bolded, a short story.

A few Christmases ago, my wife bought an electric whisk from Marks and Spencer, to make meringue with. 3 hours of constant beating and it melted.

2 points raised from this:

1) How long should a product be tested before it can be released. This applies to both physical and digital products.

2) That whisk wasn't fit for purpose, and its malfunction could conceivably have been dangerous. It was not recalled.

In either case, making it a retailer issue is grossly stupid. It was badly manufactured, and the only recourse is to return and refund. As it goes for whisks, so it goes for digital games.

 

[MUnited83]

I'm honestly thinking a rising fee per game/year would be good.

That would be terrible. If your first title isn't a success you doomed yourself to not ever release a good one ever again as the costs of trying will go up and up.
It would be extremely easy to get around as well. Just create a different company and submit a new game under them.

 

[Renekton]

I think what we have now is fine. Steam Curators helps people find the types of games they might want to try, Steam Reviews give you an indication of quality and if you still manage to buy a game you're either not interested in or just plain doesn't work then you can refund it no questions asked. You can't ask for better from a consumer standpoint.

You have zero issues with the browse and filter functions?

 

[spineduke]

I'm honestly thinking a rising fee per game/year would be good.

That's not a bad idea - combined with some sort of release limit for newly established devs, that would target heavily asset flip devs who like to churn out titles.

That would be terrible. If your first title isn't a success you doomed yourself to not ever release a good one ever again as the costs of trying will go up and up.
It would be extremely easy to get around as well. Just create a different company and submit a new game under them.

Valve has the data to determine the average release cycle and price it determingly. They can start low and after a certain threshold it can get prohibitively high in order to dissuade spam.

And the verification barrier can be enough to slow down the abuse for setting up separate accounts.

 

[JaseC]

Did you actually read the article? It's not really about full curation, it's largely about basic "does it run"-level quality control. The point is that instead of taking any sort of measure to prevent non-functional crap that is, by any reasonable definition, unfit for sale from reaching the storefront, and instead expect users to just deal with it via reviews and refunds. Reviews and refunds aren't bad by themselves (though based on the description in the article, Steam's review system may be considerably more deficient than I thought it was), but as the only tools to deal with this kind of crap they simply aren't sufficient. The only purpose this kind of stuff serves being on Steam's storefront is hurting Steam's reputation and giving people more crap to wade through.

To quote myself:

This actually already happens as part of the release approval process. The "issue" is that there's no similar system for patches, so there's no safeguard in place to prevent a stuff-up later down the track.

You got any proof that most are asset flips?

Valve actually takes that sort of thing very seriously. Games that infringe upon copyright are not only pulled but also have their store/retail subs disabled to prevent the developer from selling keys outside of Steam.

 

[Durante]

No, Steam doesn't need content curation.

QA is also something that he's proposing a retailer does.

If I order something off of Amazon, should I expect Amazon to have checked it's working? Do I expect Amazon to check every TV, console, water filter, or whatever to make sure it's working as expected?

Why would anyone expect a store to do that?

This is why refunds are a bloody thing in the first place!

Man alive.

This is also why I don't read RPS anymore. It's just stupid.

Anyone arguing for Steam to run QA needs to argue the same basic point with Macys/Amazon/John Lewis/Tesco, etc. If you can make a good case with them, then maybe Steam should do QA. Otherwise...

Exactly.

Unconditional refunds solve every problem you can expect a retailer to solve. Everything else should be up to the customer. If you prefer a platform that restricts your purchasing choices then there are plenty of other options available to you.

 

[Plumpbiscuit]

Simple really, allow the user to outright block and hide games under certain categories or with certain tags. I'm not interested in MMO or MOBA and I will never play them so give me the tools to block those games from search results (not the store page themselves).

There is only so much that can be done before Valve have to step in manually to quality control.

 

[Haly]

The tag system should be a lot more robust. That's my main wish for the storefront.

I should be able to search for "cyberpunk bartender waifu corgi anime" and get Va11 Hall-a.

 

[JaseC]

Simple really, allow the user to outright block and hide games under certain categories or with certain tags.

https://store.steampowered.com/account/preferences Three's the limit, though. I assume the intention is to encourage people to put some serious consideration into the types of games they want to block, but even so the number really ought to be higher. At least 10, I'd say.

 

[MUnited83]

The tag system should be a lot more robust. That's my main wish for the storefront.

I should be able to search for "cyberpunk bartender waifu corgi anime" and get Va11 Hall-a.

I have good news for you

 

[MJLord]

You have zero issues with the browse and filter functions?

I always find something to play when I do go into the store and aimlessly browse if that's what you're asking?

If I ever have something in mind the search function always provides me with what I'm searching for.

 

[kiguel182]

Crowdsourcing content curation is actually a pretty smart idea and a very unique one.

It comes with some challenges but the idea itself is pretty great and it improved steam a ton.

 

[Haly]

I have good news for you

It needs to work in reverse too. For example, say I really enjoyed corgis in Va11 Hall-a. I should be able to click "corgi" and see all the games tagged with "corgi". Currently it doesn't do that!

There is no actual "corgi" tag. The search function just uses "fuzzy search" like Google does.

 

[dgrdsv]

Never understood the issue with loads of crap being released on Steam. There's a search field there, you type the name of a game you're interested in and BAM you've found it. Are people actually trying to buy every single Steam release of something? Or are they somehow using the storefront (an advertisement basically) to decide whether some game should be bought by them? Who's fault is it that they do?

 

[Haly]

I think people want to browse Steam's total stock like they would browse GameStop's and it just doesn't work like that. It's trying to apply an analog paradigm to a digital environment.

 

[CecilRousso]

Never understood the issue with loads of crap being released on Steam. There's a search field there, you type the name of a game you're interested in and BAM you've found it. Are people actually trying to buy every single Steam release of something? Or are they somehow using the storefront (an advertisement basically) to decide whether some game should be bought by them? Who's fault is it that they do?

John Walker is actually going through all new releases, as a part of his job. Problem is that he (like always) applies his situation and his feelings to everyone else.

For me, the new front page, the discovery queues, the curators and the customization works very well, and I don't see most of the noise releases at all.

Edit: And just like that, he of course posted a new article about it. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/02/15/steam-new-releases/

 

[Nzyme32]

It does but it's too late now, it's turned into the shitfest mobile gaming has always been.

No, it doesn't need curration, and it hasn't turned into to "the mobile shitfest"; it has turned into a better representation of what PC gaming has always been. Tons of quality titles, tons of amateur stuff that can surprise, and yes some shit and spam along the way.

I don't need to be baby sat to make my own decision or at worst case get a refund. I have yet to have a game be so problematic that I'd consider it spam or complete shit. The only way to find that content is for me to actively look for it.

 

[Jerry]

Yeh, refunds solve this.

A bad, poorly written and researched article.

 

[HK-47]

To be fair, only John Walker writes articles as dumb as this. I knew it was him from the headline.

This does seem to be a theme with Walker. Easily the worst of the regular writers.

 

[The Wart]

Nobody applies a lot of the complaints Steam receives regularly on GAF to... anything else? Like, nobody freaks out that Spotify has all the music, including a lot of really terrible nonsense. That's actually seen as a good thing. You type in what you want and find it. You use the discovery tools they have to find similar stuff, which isn't the same as a really solid lead from a friend or whatever but it does serve up more decent content than you'll have time to engage with.

Absolutely this. The storage and delivery of content is a completely separate problem from curation and discovery. Users should be free to choose a variety of curation and discovery methods, and Steam should and does enable such methods, but there's no reason to yoke storage and delivery to a particular set of those methods unless you absolutely have to.

It especially baffles me to see John Walker complain about this considering game curation is effectively a revenue source for him. Except it doesn't really baffle me anymore because he has a history of writing weirdly indignant editorials about this sort of thing.

 

[ArtHands]

To quote myself:






Valve actually takes that sort of thing very seriously. Games that infringe upon copyright are not only pulled but also have their store/retail subs disabled to prevent the developer from selling keys outside of Steam.

I didn't say it is not a serious problem,but more of how widespread this problem is.

 

[JaseC]

I didn't say it is not a serious problem,but more of how widespread this problem is.

I was agreeing with you that it isn't a widespread problem as action is taken against the relatively few asset flips that do make it through (people are very quick to point out or otherwise report policy infringements). I actually maintain a list of the removed games that I don't own and by my recollection I'd say there have been no more than half a dozen such delistings since the year began. By far the biggest reason for Valve pulling the plug on a developer's distribution contract is manipulation of the review system (i.e. generating keys for alternate accounts and posting positive reviews).

 

[Nessus]

I wouldn't be so wary of Steam Direct if Valve hadn't previously demonstrated a high tolerance for some really sketchy behavior.

They have, through their APIs and virtual stock market, tacitly encouraged stuff like CS:GO gambling, the messed up cottage industry that has sprung up around trading cards, "developers" selling their shitty asset flip games for a few cents and making profits off of the trading cards, and groups like YOLO Army exploiting Steam Greenlight.

I'd love to believe this time it will be different, but with Valve's strict hands-off policy, I'm almost certain we'll see similarly shady practices grow out of Steam Direct.

I just wish Steam wouldn't be so damn libertarian about this. I like a certain level of moderation. I like curation. If I want Wild West there's a big Internet out there.

There are now (at least) hundreds of demonstrably, objectively awful games on Steam. How does that benefit anyone besides the creators of these games?

I liked how in the past I sorta knew if a game made it onto Steam it met a minimum threshold of quality. And if I was still unsure I could check the handy Metacritic score listed next to each game to get a rough idea. But now there's no more Metacritic listing (partly because big publishers didn't like it and partly because most of these new games haven't even been reviewed) and I have very little trust that stuff I see in the store is any good.

 

[Coriolanus]

Not to mention the volunteers translating everything

http://translation.steampowered.com/

yarp, that one is hella fucked up.

 

[Durante]

This does seem to be a theme with Walker. Easily the worst of the regular writers.

He's the sole reason I stopped reading RPS years ago.

Yes, he's that bad.

 

[Patryn]

My biggest problem is that thus far I can't find a way to filter out all Early Access games from my search results.

I have zero interest in Early Access titles, but the only thing I can see is a way to only show my EA titles. Similarly, I often also want to exclude all multiplayer-only titles.

Am I missing something, or is there no way to add a tag for excluding titles from a search?

 

[Durante]

My biggest problem is that thus far I can't find a way to filter out all Early Access games from my search results.

I have zero interest in Early Access titles, but the only thing I can see is a way to only show my EA titles. Similarly, I often also want to exclude all multiplayer-only titles.

Am I missing something, or is there no way to add a tag for excluding titles from a search?

They might need to add a huge fat banner about this for everyone who has never visited the page or something.
(also, the suggestions for me are kind of hilarious. I guess that is what happens when you mark a lot of action adventures as "not interested". Even though I love indie games, adventures, single player and multiplayer )

 

[Patryn]

They might need to add a huge fat banner about this for everyone who has never visited the page or something.
(also, the suggestions for me are kind of hilarious. I guess that is what happens when you mark a lot of action adventures as "not interested". Even though I love indie games, adventures, single player and multiplayer )

That's a permanent solution, but is there any way to have a transitory solution? Like if for a single search I want to exclude a tag, but not have that be a permanent exclusion? Or do I have to constantly go back and change that page every time I do a search?

 

[Holundrian]

I don't understand how the press is complaining about the flood of games. You would think this is perfect for them to shine as testmakers and be actual curators people can trust. Recommending gems that might otherwise be lost.
But no too many games steam should do my work me.
What is games press even good for these days(slightly exaggerated statement).

 

[JaseC]

yarp, that one is hella fucked up.

As the system has always been voluntary with no incentivisation or promise of compensation, the lack of a reward is really just poor form rather than downright malicious. At the very least, contributors should receive a discount coupon for a wishlisted game for every x amount of strings validated.

 

[Durante]

Nobody applies a lot of the complaints Steam receives regularly on GAF to... anything else? Like, nobody freaks out that Spotify has all the music, including a lot of really terrible nonsense. That's actually seen as a good thing. You type in what you want and find it. You use the discovery tools they have to find similar stuff, which isn't the same as a really solid lead from a friend or whatever but it does serve up more decent content than you'll have time to engage with.

Exactly.

Recently, I asked someone "Do you look at the 'all new books' tab at Amazon?" (if there was such a thing) in the context of this discussion.
Thinking about that afterwards actually made me even more confident in my position, and also drives home just how much of an aberration - across all media - the gaming marketplace on "curated" platforms is.

That's a permanent solution, but is there any way to have a transitory solution? Like if for a single search I want to exclude a tag, but not have that be a permanent exclusion? Or do I have to constantly go back and change that page every time I do a search?

Not that I'm aware of. Something like -tag in searches would be useful.

 

[Pixieking]

As the system has always been voluntary with no incentivisation or promise of compensation, the lack of a reward is really just poor form rather than downright malicious. At the very least, contributing x amount of validated strings should result in a discount coupon for a wishlisted game.

Yeah, it's always seems like the translating stuff is a leftover from when Steam was a smaller project. Someone really should email Gabe (or collar him on his next AMA) and push him on the subject.

 

[jblank83]

I think you overestimate how many of these kinds of issues require that kind of exhaustive tests to find. I mean, Jim Sterling has reported downloading a game on Steam that didn't even have an executable.

Jim Sterling intentionally tries to find the worst games on Steam so he can make funny videos about them.

By and large, Steam is already "curated" by pushing large corporate games and by algorithms such as "most popular".

The only thing Valve needs to do is add yet more, yet more powerful and sophisticated ways to browse content.

 

[JaseC]

That's a permanent solution, but is there any way to have a transitory solution? Like if for a single search I want to exclude a tag, but not have that be a permanent exclusion? Or do I have to constantly go back and change that page every time I do a search?

Nope. The search system doesn't actually search tags, just titles and descriptions. The tag system is separate.

Edit: Actually, it seems they are intertwined.