Forums - PC Discussion - Carzy Zarx's PC gaming emporium - Catch up on all the latest PC Gaming related news

Zarx changed his avatar again. Thoughts?

Noice 239 62.73%
 
So soon? I just got used to the last one 12 3.15%
 
it sucks 20 5.25%
 
Your cropping skills are lacking 13 3.41%
 
Too noisy, can't tell WTF it even is 11 2.89%
 
Meh 25 6.56%
 
Total:320
vivster said:

So Valve is going to replace Greenlight with Steam Direct. It basically just scraps the voting process and lets any developer publish on Steam for a fee. Depending on how high the fee is we might see Steam drown in trash even more.

http://www.pcgamer.com/steam-direct-is-better-than-greenlight-but-the-size-of-the-fee-will-make-or-break-it/

Also a funny quote with it:

"Quality is subjective" - Valve

Yeah right Valve. The quality of a game that crashes every time it starts is totally subjective. Seeing that statement pretty much cements that Valve doesn't give a shit. They don't care what they sell as long as they get money for it. This is absolutely fucking disgusting.

Well they got no questions asked refunds available for 2hrs of playtime/2 weeks since purchase. So that's pretty much covered

Anyways, I'm for this move. Greenlight is kind of a silly idea anyway, just encourages paying for votes to release games, the money might as well go direct to Valve instead.



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

So Valve is going to replace Greenlight with Steam Direct. It basically just scraps the voting process and lets any developer publish on Steam for a fee. Depending on how high the fee is we might see Steam drown in trash even more.

http://www.pcgamer.com/steam-direct-is-better-than-greenlight-but-the-size-of-the-fee-will-make-or-break-it/

Also a funny quote with it:

"Quality is subjective" - Valve

Yeah right Valve. The quality of a game that crashes every time it starts is totally subjective. Seeing that statement pretty much cements that Valve doesn't give a shit. They don't care what they sell as long as they get money for it. This is absolutely fucking disgusting.

Well they got no questions asked refunds available for 2hrs of playtime/2 weeks since purchase. So that's pretty much covered

Anyways, I'm for this move. Greenlight is kind of a silly idea anyway, just encourages paying for votes to release games, the money might as well go direct to Valve instead.

The more you post the more I'm convinced you're on Valve's payroll. No actual consumer would advocate putting the burden of quality control on the consumer.

"What, the ladder we sold you broke and caused your paralization from the neck down? No problem, we will refund the ladder no questions asked" -asshat company
"You should've checked if the ladder would carry you before getting on it. It doesn't matter that the ladder said it would hold your weight" - Kapi



heh

vivster said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Well they got no questions asked refunds available for 2hrs of playtime/2 weeks since purchase. So that's pretty much covered

Anyways, I'm for this move. Greenlight is kind of a silly idea anyway, just encourages paying for votes to release games, the money might as well go direct to Valve instead.

The more you post the more I'm convinced you're on Valve's payroll. No actual consumer would advocate putting the burden of quality control on the consumer.

"What, the ladder we sold you broke and caused your paralization from the neck down? No problem, we will refund the ladder no questions asked" -asshat company
"You should've checked if the ladder would carry you before getting on it. It doesn't matter that the ladder said it would hold your weight" - Kapi

I wish

I'm just not a fan of protecting people from their own stupidity. If people are stupid enough to buy bad games, well that's on them. And hey, if some of those people actually like those games, then why shouldn't Valve be happy to sell them to those people?

Not really sure you're example works though. Ignoring the fact that there could be other factors in there that would make that company not asshats, that would still be more false advertising than anything else. I think it's pretty clear that bad games on Steam look bad from the information, pictures and videos about them. As long as they don't advertise themselves as good games that work correct... why would you assume they are rather than the terrible games they look like?



I sorta hope that the fee is like 5 thousand dollars.... Especially if they only keep the money as a deposit until you hit a certain revenue, as is suggested could be an alternative in the article. Because 5 thousand dollars is hardly insurmountable, and if you are serious about your game, and you're not just trying to make a quick buck or whatever, that isn't an unacceptable price to pay to get your game on Steam imo.

Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

The more you post the more I'm convinced you're on Valve's payroll. No actual consumer would advocate putting the burden of quality control on the consumer.

"What, the ladder we sold you broke and caused your paralization from the neck down? No problem, we will refund the ladder no questions asked" -asshat company
"You should've checked if the ladder would carry you before getting on it. It doesn't matter that the ladder said it would hold your weight" - Kapi

I wish

I'm just not a fan of protecting people from their own stupidity. If people are stupid enough to buy bad games, well that's on them. And hey, if some of those people actually like those games, then why shouldn't Valve be happy to sell them to those people?

Not really sure you're example works though. Ignoring the fact that there could be other factors in there that would make that company not asshats, that would still be more false advertising than anything else. I think it's pretty clear that bad games on Steam look bad from the information, pictures and videos about them. As long as they don't advertise themselves as good games that work correct... why would you assume they are rather than the terrible games they look like?

It's not about protecting idiots from spending their idiot money. It's about protecting good and talented people from how idiots spend their money. Ask any proper indie developer and they will tell you how much they hate to fight against the flood of garbage.

Look at what happened to mobile. There is no quality control on there either and it's gotten so bad that mobile gaming is forever marked as trash because 99% of it actually is. A lot of good mobile games are getting ignored or simply overlooked. It hurts the whole industry. What does mobile being considered as shit lead to? Shitty dedicated handhelds people have to buy because they think there are no good mobile games. And no new AAA games on mobile because developers know that people regard the platform as shit. And why? Because the stores are only filled with trash. Trash that is the first thing everyone sees when looking through ths store and then instantly decides that everything is trash.



heh

vivster said:

It's not about protecting idiots from spending their idiot money. It's about protecting good and talented people from how idiots spend their money. Ask any proper indie developer and they will tell you how much they hate to fight against the flood of garbage.

Look at what happened to mobile. There is no quality control on there either and it's gotten so bad that mobile gaming is forever marked as trash because 99% of it actually is. A lot of good mobile games are getting ignored or simply overlooked. It hurts the whole industry. What does mobile being considered as shit lead to? Shitty dedicated handhelds people have to buy because they think there are no good mobile games. And no new AAA games on mobile because developers know that people regard the platform as shit. And why? Because the stores are only filled with trash. Trash that is the first thing everyone sees when looking through ths store and then instantly decides that everything is trash.

Well if these "good and talented" devs aren't making as much money as you think they should, perhaps the reason is that they simply aren't as "good and talented" as you think

And as much as you want to shit on mobile gaming, it's pretty clear it still has a sizable audience so obviously not that many people actually think it's all shit and turn to dedicated handhelds instead. Those stores and some mobile games can still make a shit tonne of cash and be massively popular, so has it really hurt the industry? You say no new AAA games on mobile, but has there ever even been one to start with? And even if there had, perhaps that's not what the mobile audience want and they'd simply prefer their "shit" mobile games instead.

You may have a point about there being some seriously bad games out there, but honestly despite that your posts still reek of "people should only buy what I like so more of that gets made". Maybe you think they're crap games, maybe I agree, but if people are making them then clearly people are buying them. If people have bought them and continue buying them then maybe there is a market there and if there's a market there why shouldn't devs be able to target that market? And as for your preferred evs, is it really even hurting them? If there's a market that likes bad games then unless they start making bad games instead why would that market suddenly start buying their games instead?



It could be a good change from Greenlight as basically anything got through Greenlight anyway lol, I suppose charging something like $2000 could stop pointless games and asset flips as people would just refund within the 2 hour window and developers of those trash games would not make a thing and possible loose money. On the other hand it could hurt legitimate develops by having to fork out so much upfront if they are developing a niche game that would only be making a few thousand anyway.

Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

It's not about protecting idiots from spending their idiot money. It's about protecting good and talented people from how idiots spend their money. Ask any proper indie developer and they will tell you how much they hate to fight against the flood of garbage.

Look at what happened to mobile. There is no quality control on there either and it's gotten so bad that mobile gaming is forever marked as trash because 99% of it actually is. A lot of good mobile games are getting ignored or simply overlooked. It hurts the whole industry. What does mobile being considered as shit lead to? Shitty dedicated handhelds people have to buy because they think there are no good mobile games. And no new AAA games on mobile because developers know that people regard the platform as shit. And why? Because the stores are only filled with trash. Trash that is the first thing everyone sees when looking through ths store and then instantly decides that everything is trash.

Well if these "good and talented" devs aren't making as much money as you think they should, perhaps the reason is that they simply aren't as "good and talented" as you think

And as much as you want to shit on mobile gaming, it's pretty clear it still has a sizable audience so obviously not that many people actually think it's all shit and turn to dedicated handhelds instead. Those stores and some mobile games can still make a shit tonne of cash and be massively popular, so has it really hurt the industry? You say no new AAA games on mobile, but has there ever even been one to start with? And even if there had, perhaps that's not what the mobile audience want and they'd simply prefer their "shit" mobile games instead.

You may have a point about there being some seriously bad games out there, but honestly despite that your posts still reek of "people should only buy what I like so more of that gets made". Maybe you think they're crap games, maybe I agree, but if people are making them then clearly people are buying them. If people have bought them and continue buying them then maybe there is a market there and if there's a market there why shouldn't devs be able to target that market? And as for your preferred evs, is it really even hurting them? If there's a market that likes bad games then unless they start making bad games instead why would that market suddenly start buying their games instead?

Since you still don't get what I mean I would like to refer you to Jim Sterling's youtube channel.

This is not about games I don't like. It's about games that have no business even being called that. Asset flips with no dev input whatsoever, games that barely run, games that are so contentless that they actually are nothing. It's about objectively terrible software that has no business being sold anywhere. It's about software that is a significantly worse clone from something that is already a hundred times featured. Games that took the "developer" an hour to make. I don't see the reason for software like this to share the same space of games where devs actually put some effort into their work.

It's not me shitting on mobile, it's everyone else. Try to defend mobile games on this forum and see how well that goes. Mobile games are constantly attacked for being trash by people who don't even know that good mobile games can exist, hell 90% of all Nintendo handheld games are easily possible on mobile. The market is huge but devs shy away because of the bad reputation mobile has. They don't release AAA games on mobile because they don't think they have an audience and people don't go to mobile for AAA because they don't think it has any. It's a catch 22. I don't have a solution to help mobile as a platform but no quality control is definitely not it.

Steam is headed the same way. Saying that a game not succeeding is solely on the ability of the devs is just narrow minded and false. Most indie devs do not have the money for expensive ad campaigns. Most marketing they get is by being featured on the front page on a store. But that doesn't help anymore when there are dozens of games released every single game and they get pushed down. They never had the chance to even show their game.

Don't you think that it would be easier for devs if their game is one of the very few games released in a certain week instead of just being in a list of 30 other trash games nobody will have a second look at? A lot of indie's success today is based on chance. That is not how it should be and that is not how it has to be.



heh

vivster said:
Ka-pi96 said:

Well if these "good and talented" devs aren't making as much money as you think they should, perhaps the reason is that they simply aren't as "good and talented" as you think

And as much as you want to shit on mobile gaming, it's pretty clear it still has a sizable audience so obviously not that many people actually think it's all shit and turn to dedicated handhelds instead. Those stores and some mobile games can still make a shit tonne of cash and be massively popular, so has it really hurt the industry? You say no new AAA games on mobile, but has there ever even been one to start with? And even if there had, perhaps that's not what the mobile audience want and they'd simply prefer their "shit" mobile games instead.

You may have a point about there being some seriously bad games out there, but honestly despite that your posts still reek of "people should only buy what I like so more of that gets made". Maybe you think they're crap games, maybe I agree, but if people are making them then clearly people are buying them. If people have bought them and continue buying them then maybe there is a market there and if there's a market there why shouldn't devs be able to target that market? And as for your preferred evs, is it really even hurting them? If there's a market that likes bad games then unless they start making bad games instead why would that market suddenly start buying their games instead?

Since you still don't get what I mean I would like to refer you to Jim Sterling's youtube channel.

This is not about games I don't like. It's about games that have no business even being called that. Asset flips with no dev input whatsoever, games that barely run, games that are so contentless that they actually are nothing. It's about objectively terrible software that has no business being sold anywhere. It's about software that is a significantly worse clone from something that is already a hundred times featured. Games that took the "developer" an hour to make. I don't see the reason for software like this to share the same space of games where devs actually put some effort into their work.

It's not me shitting on mobile, it's everyone else. Try to defend mobile games on this forum and see how well that goes. Mobile games are constantly attacked for being trash by people who don't even know that good mobile games can exist, hell 90% of all Nintendo handheld games are easily possible on mobile. The market is huge but devs shy away because of the bad reputation mobile has. They don't release AAA games on mobile because they don't think they have an audience and people don't go to mobile for AAA because they don't think it has any. It's a catch 22. I don't have a solution to help mobile as a platform but no quality control is definitely not it.

Steam is headed the same way. Saying that a game not succeeding is solely on the ability of the devs is just narrow minded and false. Most indie devs do not have the money for expensive ad campaigns. Most marketing they get is by being featured on the front page on a store. But that doesn't help anymore when there are dozens of games released every single game and they get pushed down. They never had the chance to even show their game.

Don't you think that it would be easier for devs if their game is one of the very few games released in a certain week instead of just being in a list of 30 other trash games nobody will have a second look at? A lot of indie's success today is based on chance. That is not how it should be and that is not how it has to be.

Was actually thinking about him, and how you want to put him out of a job

So people on this forum think mobile games are bad, last I checked this forum =/= everyone. Haven't mobile games already surpassed console games in revenue? If they haven't already then they're definitely on track to do it in the future. So clearly not everyone considers them crap.

eh, I simply don't care about those indie devs that you think make "good games" and why should I? Why should competition be restricted just to try and give them a chance at better sales, only a chance because there's no guarantee they'd actually sell well. Every other industry faces competition, but they beat that competition by being better than them. People prefer brand name products than cheap knock offs because the quality is there. So if those indie devs can't produce a good enough game to sell it on it's own merits and have to rely on competition simply not existing... then why would they deserve those sales?



Around the Network
Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

Since you still don't get what I mean I would like to refer you to Jim Sterling's youtube channel.

This is not about games I don't like. It's about games that have no business even being called that. Asset flips with no dev input whatsoever, games that barely run, games that are so contentless that they actually are nothing. It's about objectively terrible software that has no business being sold anywhere. It's about software that is a significantly worse clone from something that is already a hundred times featured. Games that took the "developer" an hour to make. I don't see the reason for software like this to share the same space of games where devs actually put some effort into their work.

It's not me shitting on mobile, it's everyone else. Try to defend mobile games on this forum and see how well that goes. Mobile games are constantly attacked for being trash by people who don't even know that good mobile games can exist, hell 90% of all Nintendo handheld games are easily possible on mobile. The market is huge but devs shy away because of the bad reputation mobile has. They don't release AAA games on mobile because they don't think they have an audience and people don't go to mobile for AAA because they don't think it has any. It's a catch 22. I don't have a solution to help mobile as a platform but no quality control is definitely not it.

Steam is headed the same way. Saying that a game not succeeding is solely on the ability of the devs is just narrow minded and false. Most indie devs do not have the money for expensive ad campaigns. Most marketing they get is by being featured on the front page on a store. But that doesn't help anymore when there are dozens of games released every single game and they get pushed down. They never had the chance to even show their game.

Don't you think that it would be easier for devs if their game is one of the very few games released in a certain week instead of just being in a list of 30 other trash games nobody will have a second look at? A lot of indie's success today is based on chance. That is not how it should be and that is not how it has to be.

Was actually thinking about him, and how you want to put him out of a job

So people on this forum think mobile games are bad, last I checked this forum =/= everyone. Haven't mobile games already surpassed console games in revenue? If they haven't already then they're definitely on track to do it in the future. So clearly not everyone considers them crap.

eh, I simply don't care about those indie devs that you think make "good games" and why should I? Why should competition be restricted just to try and give them a chance at better sales, only a chance because there's no guarantee they'd actually sell well. Every other industry faces competition, but they beat that competition by being better than them. People prefer brand name products than cheap knock offs because the quality is there. So if those indie devs can't produce a good enough game to sell it on it's own merits and have to rely on competition simply not existing... then why would they deserve those sales?

Mobile has high revenue from free to play skinner boxes. That's like saying "How can smoking be bad if tobacco companies make billions?" The revenue from quality games that ask for money on front don't even register on the scale. That's not saying that the highest grossing mobile games are bad. They're just the ones that had the luck to be noticed in time by the right people.

Being buried by garbage isn't competition. There is no competition when your game can't even be seen unless directly searched for it. Which means only people rich enough to spend money on marketing are getting through. You say you want to give smaller devs a chance and at the same time only want people to succeed who already have a ton of money to spend or have giant luck. How is that fair?

Why shouldn't talented people who put great effort into their work be rewarded? Why should we have fewer good games? Consoles have had quality control for a long time and indies are thriving there and why shouldn't they? Look at all the success stories of indie devs who succeeded and are now putting out great game after great game. Most of them wouldn't even be seen in today's market.

All that pro consumer bullshit aside, why would you want to reward idiots and give them a platform? Last time I checked you were quite fond of the idea that idiots fail for their idiot decisions.



heh