Support NeoGAF

[Revolutionary]

Should be enabled by default IMO, so it can reveal how many "runs like shit" reviews are actually below minimum or recommended spec.

 

[Skyfox]

Good idea

 

[rebellio]

Next step 1 hour minimum gametime

 

[Durin]

Yeah, that's one of those ideas so simple you expected it to be in there years ago.

Will likely help out devs as well, if they get someone with below minimum spec acting like their game is busted, when it's just someone who can't read.

 

[PeteBull]

Good option, i would also request adding penis size to the reviews, gotta know what we working with, after all

 

[Polaris]

Next step 1 hour minimum gametime

They should just use the time they already employ for refunds.
Two hours minimum required for a review.

 

[RagnarokIV]

Guaranteed that 95% the "game runs like shit on 4090 i9 64gb rig" gang won't attach specs.

 

[Gonzito]

Good

We will finally see who plays with a toaster and who plays with a computer

 

[Fabieter]

Guaranteed that 95% the "game runs like shit on 4090 i9 64gb rig" gang won't attach specs.

I wouldnt take any future review without it seriously tbh.

 

[Autistic_Pancake]

Good

We will finally see who plays with a toaster and who plays with a computer

Ryzen Threadripper multi-GPU workstation on the way to Steam reviews:

 

[calistan]

They should just use the time they already employ for refunds.
Two hours minimum required for a review.

At the very least, the 'product refunded' guys should also have the review removed from their accounts.

 

[winjer]

At the very least, the 'product refunded' guys should also have the review removed from their accounts.

No. If someone has reasons to refund a product, that means the product has issues and a review warning others is very important.
Removing this ability would only serve to encourage scummy studios to push out even more broken, half assed games.

 

[Kacho]

Needs to be mandatory

 

[winjer]

Needs to be mandatory

That is a bad idea, as it can represent a security risk.
Imagine someone with an outdated OS, such as Winnows 10 losing security updates in 4 months, or that doesn't have the latest UEFI with security flaws patched in.
In an age of AI, hackers can scrape this information and create a list of people vulnerable systems. And then just attack.

One thing is to give the choice, with the user understanding what he is doing. Another thing is to mandate such a thing.

 

[darrylgorn]

I would make it mandatory but it's a good start.

 

[Wolzard]

This is something that's in ProtonDB. Good addition.

 

[Kacho]

That is a bad idea, as it can represent a security risk.
Imagine someone with an outdated OS, such as Winnows 10 losing security updates in 4 months, or that doesn't have the latest UEFI with security flaws patched in.
In an age of AI, hackers can scrape this information and create a list of people vulnerable systems. And then just attack.

One thing is to give the choice, with the user understanding what he is doing. Another thing is to mandate such a thing.

I don't buy that. This should be a requirement so potential customers have context for reviews claiming the game runs poorly. People with outdated machines aren't going to check that box, making this feature irrelevant.

 

[calistan]

No. If someone has reasons to refund a product, that means the product has issues and a review warning others is very important.
Removing this ability would only serve to encourage scummy studios to push out even more broken, half assed games.

I'm not sure you can genuinely tell that something is broken and half assed from an hour of play. And if something just doesn't work properly on your particular system, that's no reason to leave a review.

There are thousands of people of who buy the product purely to leave a negative review, I think locking them out would be a benefit. Like the Highguard guy said, people were dropping a negative review without even finishing the tutorial - the game may well be shit, but not one of those reviews is valid.

 

[winjer]

I don't buy that. This should be a requirement so potential customers have context for reviews claiming the game runs poorly. People with outdated machines aren't going to check that box, making this feature irrelevant.

So you just want to sacrifice people's security for your benefit?

 

[Kacho]

So you just want to sacrifice people's security for your benefit?

I reject your fear-mongering.

 

[winjer]

I'm not sure you can genuinely tell that something is broken and half assed from an hour of play. And if something just doesn't work properly on your particular system, that's no reason to leave a review.

There are thousands of people of who buy the product purely to leave a negative review, I think locking them out would be a benefit. Like the Highguard guy said, people were dropping a negative review without even finishing the tutorial - the game may well be shit, but not one of those reviews is valid.

The idea that thousands of people are buying games just to leave a bad review, is nonsense. And you have no concrete data on that.
If that was some big problem, Steam would have already made changes to the system.
The reality is that is the exception, and very far from the rule.
Was is very, very common is for studios to release broken games. So denying users the ability to review bad games, would only serve to encourage studios to release more broken games. As if there aren't enough of these already.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

Great idea. I usually add my specs to a review when games don't seem to run as expected to give others a good indication as to what they can expect. Nice to know I don't need to do that anymore.

 

[winjer]

I reject your fear-mongering.

Yes, you reject reality and substitute your own.

 

[Kacho]

Yes, you reject reality and substitute your own.

No, I just reject you.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Now that's cool. Should be there now so let's make it there, asap.

Good add

 

[Topher]

Steam keeps getting better

Next step 1 hour minimum gametime

You can filter out reviews that are under 1 hour already

 

[Hadoukens]

At the very least, the 'product refunded' guys should also have the review removed from their accounts.

No

Needs to be mandatory

No

I'm not sure you can genuinely tell that something is broken and half assed from an hour of play. And if something just doesn't work properly on your particular system, that's no reason to leave a review.

There are thousands of people of who buy the product purely to leave a negative review, I think locking them out would be a benefit. Like the Highguard guy said, people were dropping a negative review without even finishing the tutorial - the game may well be shit, but not one of those reviews is valid.

No

No. If someone has reasons to refund a product, that means the product has issues and a review warning others is very important.
Removing this ability would only serve to encourage scummy studios to push out even more broken, half assed games.

Yes

The idea that thousands of people are buying games just to leave a bad review, is nonsense. And you have no concrete data on that.
If that was some big problem, Steam would have already made changes to the system.
The reality is that is the exception, and very far from the rule.
Was is very, very common is for studios to release broken games. So denying users the ability to review bad games, would only serve to encourage studios to release more broken games. As if there aren't enough of these already.

Yes

Yes, you reject reality and substitute your own.

He does.

 

[rebellio]

Steam keeps getting better



You can filter out reviews that are under 1 hour already

I know, I'm pretty sure publisher / developers angry for Valve less than hour user getting approved review. Probably middle ground 30 minutes to 1 hour satisfied publisher or developers

 

[Topher]

I know, I'm pretty sure publisher / developers angry for Valve less than hour user getting approved review. Probably middle ground 30 minutes to 1 hour satisfied publisher or developers

Eh...let them be mad. If I buy a game and it doesn't run then a negative review is warranted regardless of how long I played. This is why it is important to read the reviews and get an idea what the problems are. If the <1 hour reviews seem frivolous then just adjust the filter.

 

[David_Android]

Should be enabled by default IMO, so it can reveal how many "runs like shit" reviews are actually below minimum or recommended spec.

Moden Pc Gamer are the dumbest breed of people i have ever seen.

hur durhrh my gtx 1060 cant play this at Ultra 60Fps. entitled idiots.

thats why Developer straight back dial graphic settings way back or even lock higher than ultra settings behind code lines that only experienced user can use. earlier we knew our hardware would be way to slow, if we wanted to play on Ultra it was to be expected even with top of the line hardware, since when you replay a game years later you can have higher settings since you likely have faster gpu too. this is all but dead now thanks to these morons who dont can even activate xmp and watch other people playing on their computer instead of playing themselves.

 

[diffusionx]

you know the only people that wil be doing this are those flexing their e-peen, it's how the pcfat community has always worked.

 

[rodrigolfp]

So you just want to sacrifice people's security for your benefit?

How saying that you have an RTX 5090 + 9800x3D + 32GB DDR5 6000 + Windows 10 will sacrifice your security???

 

[winjer]

How saying that you have an RTX 5090 + 9800x3D + 32GB DDR5 6000 + Windows 10 will sacrifice your security???

Really, you don't understand how having an outdated OS, without the latest security patches, can be a security risk?

 

[HRK69]

Moden Pc Gamer are the dumbest breed of people i have ever seen.

hur durhrh my gtx 1060 cant play this at Ultra 60Fps. entitled idiots.

Those complaints are usually from people venting frustration with poorly optimized launches, not demanding impossible performance on obsolete hardware

Ultra settings in many games are often diminishing returns anyway

 

[David_Android]

Those complaints are usually from people venting frustration with poorly optimized launches, not demanding impossible performance on obsolete hardware

Ultra settings in many games are often diminishing returns anyway

utter nonsense. most people have by far not even close to competent hardware

 

[Buggy Loop]

Good

We will finally see who plays with a toaster and who plays with a computer

It should be forced to include specs in review for that to work

I suspect a shitload of the performance downvotes are the threat interactive cult trying to play 2025-26 games with a 1060 3GB or worse

 

[HRK69]

utter nonsense. most people have by far not even close to competent hardware

My guy, PS5 is outpaced by the hardware of the average Steam user. Your example of 1060 complainers are the outliers

Most of the time it's 100% an optimization issue. PC games are riddled with them

 

[David_Android]

optimization issue.

You cant even define that.

 

[HRK69]

You cant even define that.

Funny how you skipped my other point. I guess you realized you hadn't actually read the Steam Hardware & Software Survey and were just going off VIBES. Classic.

But PC games have been riddled with these issues in recent years. This isn't vague or anecdotal, it's measurable, repeatable and consistently called out by major tech reviewers

If it's not optimization, then what is it when a $2000+ rig stutters while running a remaster of a 10 year old game? (HINT: That's basically a rhetorical question but I'd genuinely love to see how you'd try to answer it)

 

[mopspear]

ProtonDB does this for helping people (I should just say "men". It's all men.) get games running on Linux. It's very useful.

 

[Topher]

utter nonsense. most people have by far not even close to competent hardware

What do you consider "competent hardware" to be?

 

[TintoConCasera]

Really, you don't understand how having an outdated OS, without the latest security patches, can be a security risk?

Could just be CPU + GPU + RAM. No need to say anything about the OS or the drivers you are using while running the game. Would that still present a security risk?

 

[winjer]

Could just be CPU + GPU + RAM. No need to say anything about the OS or the drivers you are using while running the game. Would that still present a security risk?

If it's an older system with an old, unpatched UEFI, yes. There is also the issue of showing your system doesn't have modern security hardware options, such as a TPM2.
And even drivers have security risks. AMD, NVidia and Intel release several drivers to patch security exploits.

 

[TintoConCasera]

If it's an older system with an old, unpatched UEFI, yes. There is also the issue of showing your system doesn't have modern security hardware options, such as a TPM2.
And even drivers have security risks. AMD, NVidia and Intel release several drivers to patch security exploits.

If that's the case then adding the option might not have been that great of an idea. I hope people with older systems know what they are doing but as it's been pointed out already, I bet those are the ones that are never going to click on that checkbox anyway.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Meanwhile Epic Store and the others:

"whY is StEaM bAd?"

 

[winjer]

If that's the case then adding the option might not have been that great of an idea. I hope people with older systems know what they are doing but as it's been pointed out already, I bet those are the ones that are never going to click on that checkbox anyway.

For a hacker knowing is the first step. This means the more they know about a person and it's system, the more able they are to exploit it.

Here is an example that most people never realize, but that has been used a lot to attack companies. LinkedIn.
A lot of people put a ton of info in LinkedIn, that usually is not even relevant for a job. But can be very useful for hackers, especially when they then start cross referencing with other social media platforms.
A hacker can immediately know who to target in a company, the IT manager, the Financial Department leader, etc. And they can know the structure of the company, who works with whom.
They can then start sending phishing emails to the right person, with the right information, from what looks like another person inside the company.

 

[StereoVsn]

Next step 1 hour minimum gametime

That's a bad idea. Some games have pretty serious technical issues. Others you can pretty much tell they are crap or not your cup of tea from the start.

 

[StereoVsn]

The idea that thousands of people are buying games just to leave a bad review, is nonsense. And you have no concrete data on that.
If that was some big problem, Steam would have already made changes to the system.
The reality is that is the exception, and very far from the rule.
Was is very, very common is for studios to release broken games. So denying users the ability to review bad games, would only serve to encourage studios to release more broken games. As if there aren't enough of these already.

And again, people can easily have technical or other issues within first hour or hell, 15 min, of start.

It's ridiculous to try to constrain reviews in this manner as potential customers would not be aware of technical issues about the product.

 

[David_Android]

What do you consider "competent hardware" to be?

Above average. Average is the baseline aka most user have that hardware. that baseline in what steam placed the steam machine but in a time stop vacuum.

the issue is often this millions of new pc gamers who dont even know what dlss is or what it does.

 

[StereoVsn]

Above average. Average is the baseline aka most user have that hardware. that baseline in what steam placed the steam machine but in a time stop vacuum.

the issue is often this millions of new pc gamers who dont even know what dlss is or what it does.

What is average in your mind? What if a user has an AMD or Intel card and doesn't have FSR or Xess options because the devs don't bother to include them?

Either way, it's good to have an option to include hardware in the review. It shouldn't be mandatory.