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Imagine someone with an outdated OS, such as Winnows 10 losing security updates in 4 months, or that doesn't have the latest UEFI with security flaws patched in.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