Quantcast
Valve Says It Will Now Allow Everything on Steam Unless It's Illegal or "Straight-up Trolling"

Forums - PC Discussion - Valve Says It Will Now Allow Everything on Steam Unless It's Illegal or "Straight-up Trolling"

Chazore said:
Hiku said:

On their platform?
You can't go into a physical store and expect to buy any product you want. You can only buy products that the store endorses/carries. While that's not always a case of quality over quantity, if they don't want to sell a product because they think it will cause customer dissatisfaction, whether it's due to poor quality leading to complaints or something else, it's perfectly normal if they refrain from doing so.

Steam is a private company and has the philosophy that they do not want to tell you what you can/cannot buy. 

What is quality to someone, will be garbage to another. it is a subjective issue, not an objective one. 

Well that's why they are deciding what you can or cannot buy in their store.
It's their prerogative where they chose to set the bar. In this case they chose to set the bar very low. Allowing you to buy virtually anything.

Any game that they wouldn't have allowed on their store would always be purchasable somewhere else. But it would have been understandable for any company if they want to make that choice. However, Steam doesn't really have any real competition, and this decision takes away another potential incentive for customers to chose a competitor's service.
I get what you're saying though. You want to be able to buy as many games as possible because you want the deciding factor to be your own judgement. It's just the way you said it.

As for me, I think I'm on the side of more quality control. Not for my own sake because I think I can properly judge if a game is for me or not. But rather for people who are not particularly good at it. Though at the same time, I would also like the bar to be set rather low, because one of the things I liked about PS2 was that it had so much of everything. And I found some nice gems in obscure titles.

I still don't understand how Sony allowed Life of Black Tiger on PS4. They even promoted it with a trailer from the official Playstation youtube account. And I feel a bit bad for anyone who spent money on it unwittingly, because I have a hard time believing they wouldn't have gotten a lot more enjoyment out of their money from another product. 

Last edited by Hiku - on 07 June 2018

Around the Network

Some people seem to think Valve could afford to hire people to curate Steam, and I'd be stunned if they weren't absolutely right. However, I think that shows lack of understanding the situation. I think Valve doesn't curate Steam very much not because they're cheap or some other bizarre 'explanation', but instead because Steam is huge and Valve feels like curating Steam heavily would be unfair and potentially problematic from a freedom of speech point of view (but mostly unfair). Sales will handle whatever curation is absolutely necessary, and Valve simply needs to provide the tools so that players can find the games they're interested in. Mind you, I think the tools have been quite lacking, and I'm hoping for improvement.

Last edited by Zkuq - on 07 June 2018

Hiku said:

Well that's why they are deciding what you can or cannot buy in their store.
It's their prerogative where they chose to set the bar. In this case they chose to set the bar very low. Allowing you to buy virtually anything.

Any game that they wouldn't have allowed on their store would always be purchasable somewhere else. But Steam doesn't really have any real competition, and this decision takes away another potential incentive for customers to chose a competitor's service.
I get what you're saying. You want to be able to buy as many games as possible because you want the deciding factor to be your own judgement. It's just the way you said it.


As for me, I think I'm on the side of more quality control. Not for my own sake because I think I can properly judge if a game is for me or not. But rather for people who are not particularly good at it. Though at the same time, I would also like the bar to be set rather low, because one of the things I liked about PS2 was that it had so much of everything. And I found some nice gems in obscure titles.

Except they are limiting it to "trolling/illegal", and not "everything".

They set the bar lower than most, and even then, most out there are subjectively choosing what they think is "quality". 

They have apparent competition from the likes of GoG (but then again, that storefront blocked a popular dev's puzzle game based on the grounds of it looking like a "mobile game"), B.net, Beth.net, Uplay, origin etc. if you think those aren't all within competing with one another, then you should take that up with others on the forum here.

I'm not sure how denying more games, more "selected" games from a small group (yes, it will always be small no matter what universe or angle, because there are millions more consumers than there are those that can serve and judge) would be better for all of us (myself included) and cause me to stay with Steam and not choose another's storefront.

I already see myself not using Origin, because all it has is Battlefield, the only series I'm interested in at this point. EA did a bang up premium job of killing off C&C, Theme Hospital, Sims, SIm City, Dungeon Keeper, Battlefront and more for me.

I hardly bother with Uplay due to buying games on Steam requiring yet another client to run, and even then Ubisoft games come loaded with extra DRM that bogs down my overall performance. I'm essentially buying higher priced games from them, only to net myself a worse off experience, and a neutered one at that. 

I don't use Beth.net because what they have on there is found on Steam, and Steam has built in mod support and is just better than beth/net

I don't use Epic's client because I dislike what Epic have become and who they are now controlled by.

I hardly use GoG because it doesn't really have the games I want, let alone mod support, built in forums and a vastly better wishlist/gifting service. 

 

yes, Steam has garbage, but to me, so do a lot of the other storefronts, and a lot of those storefronts have lesser features, while also at times asking for money money for a lesser experience. 

If I am to ever pay for a Ubisoft game at it's highest price, and use it on a beastly PC, I expect the Royal party treatment, not a watered down experience for more money. That is never how that should work, yet it does with Ubisoft countless times. 

 

For me, I wouldn't want to set a bar for quality control, because I know that others out there would disagree with it.



                                       

shikamaru317 said:

I'm kind of surprised at the negative reaction by many in this thread. My interpretation of what they said is that they're going to stop wasting their time moderating things that might offend some snowflakes, such as erotic content in niche visual novels, and will instead refocus the moderating team toward actual good moderation. They said they would remove illegal games, which should cover games that use stolen assets, and they also said they will remove games that are "straight up trolling", which would seem to cover shovelware games by definition. *shrugs*

In 99,999% of the cases those assets are not stolen, but freely available with the engines or on the stores of those engines.

Showelvare is not trolling by any definition. Straight up trolling would be a game where the only theme is to troll somebody, like for instance a game where all you can do is produce pelt totalbisquit or Jim Sterling, but not Shovelware. I mean, f***ing Aids Simulator is not even considered trolling by Steam, even though it admits it's a short, bad, asset ridden game. Just look at the game's "features":

Features:
- Asset Flip
- Very short
- NO NUDITY
- Poor performance
- First-person shooter
- Zero effort cash grab

I literally copied that from the storepage of the game. If that's not trolling yet, then you can't consider valve to consider all the shovelware as trolling either, not even by a longshot, country mile and then some added exponentially on each other

In short, what Valve is doing is opening the floodgates even further than ever

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 07 June 2018

Bofferbrauer2 said:
shikamaru317 said:

I'm kind of surprised at the negative reaction by many in this thread. My interpretation of what they said is that they're going to stop wasting their time moderating things that might offend some snowflakes, such as erotic content in niche visual novels, and will instead refocus the moderating team toward actual good moderation. They said they would remove illegal games, which should cover games that use stolen assets, and they also said they will remove games that are "straight up trolling", which would seem to cover shovelware games by definition. *shrugs*

In 99,999% of the cases those assets are not stolen, but freely available with the engines or on the stores of those engines.

Showelvare is not trolling by any definition. Straight up trolling would be a game where the only theme is to troll somebody, like for instance a game where all you can do is produce pelt totalbisquit or Jim Sterling, but not Shovelware. I mean, f***ing Aids Simulator is not even considered trolling by Steam, even though it admits it's a short, bad, asset ridden game. Just look at the game's "features":

Features:
- Asset Flip
- Very short
- NO NUDITY
- Poor performance
- First-person shooter
- Zero effort cash grab

In short, what Valve is doing is opening the floodgates even further than ever

Some of those shovelware games use stolen art assets for sure. I remember a shovelware game a few years ago that Sony's QA team let slip through the cracks that had stolen art assets from Skyrim, stolen UI assets from another game (don't remember the game now), and which had a trailer featuring stolen music from Ori and the Blind Forest. Pretty sure that game was also on Steam at the time.

Do you honestly believe anybody that doesn't want to buy a garbage game like AIDS Simulator will buy it? And even if they do buy it without realizing how bad it will be, Steam has a pretty generous refund policy. The fact remains that there are people who will want to buy that game, alot of streamers/youtubers like to buy these types of garbage games to stream or let's play, because there are alot of people that like to watch streams/videos of broken garbage games just for shits and giggles.

Even if I'm wrong and this will result in even less moderation of asset flip type games, little to no good moderation is still better than lots of bad moderation. Valve proved recently that they can't handle the rigors of good moderation when they attempted to ban some niche erotic games, even though several of the games they tried to ban already had already been censored specifically for the Steam release. Worse yet, they targeted only niche games, and ignored AA and AAA games with erotic content, which was a double standard. People who are that bad at moderation are probably better off not even trying to moderate. 



Around the Network
shikamaru317 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

In 99,999% of the cases those assets are not stolen, but freely available with the engines or on the stores of those engines.

Showelvare is not trolling by any definition. Straight up trolling would be a game where the only theme is to troll somebody, like for instance a game where all you can do is produce pelt totalbisquit or Jim Sterling, but not Shovelware. I mean, f***ing Aids Simulator is not even considered trolling by Steam, even though it admits it's a short, bad, asset ridden game. Just look at the game's "features":

Features:
- Asset Flip
- Very short
- NO NUDITY
- Poor performance
- First-person shooter
- Zero effort cash grab

In short, what Valve is doing is opening the floodgates even further than ever

Some of those shovelware games use stolen art assets for sure. I remember a shovelware game a few years ago that Sony's QA team let slip through the cracks that had stolen art assets from Skyrim, stolen UI assets from another game (don't remember the game now), and which had a trailer featuring stolen music from Ori and the Blind Forest. Pretty sure that game was also on Steam at the time.

Do you honestly believe anybody that doesn't want to buy a garbage game like AIDS Simulator will buy it? And even if they do buy it without realizing how bad it will be, Steam has a pretty generous refund policy. The fact remains that there are people who will want to buy that game, alot of streamers/youtubers like to buy these types of garbage games to stream or let's play, because there are alot of people that like to watch streams/videos of broken garbage games just for shits and giggles.

Even if I'm wrong and this will result in even less moderation of asset flip type games, little to no good moderation is still better than lots of bad moderation. Valve proved recently that they can't handle the rigors of good moderation when they attempted to ban some niche erotic games, even though several of the games they tried to ban already had already been censored specifically for the Steam release. Worse yet, they targeted only niche games, and ignored AA and AAA games with erotic content, which was a double standard. People who are that bad at moderation are probably better off not even trying to moderate. 

Nobody needs to buy those games for them to be profitable on Steam, and that's the problem. They are financing themselves through the Steam trading card system by basically selling those to the card collectors

Also, the problem isn't only buying or not - try finding something you don't know the exact name of when over 100 games get added per week



Chazore said:
Hiku said:

Well that's why they are deciding what you can or cannot buy in their store.
It's their prerogative where they chose to set the bar. In this case they chose to set the bar very low. Allowing you to buy virtually anything.

Any game that they wouldn't have allowed on their store would always be purchasable somewhere else. But Steam doesn't really have any real competition, and this decision takes away another potential incentive for customers to chose a competitor's service.
I get what you're saying. You want to be able to buy as many games as possible because you want the deciding factor to be your own judgement. It's just the way you said it.


As for me, I think I'm on the side of more quality control. Not for my own sake because I think I can properly judge if a game is for me or not. But rather for people who are not particularly good at it. Though at the same time, I would also like the bar to be set rather low, because one of the things I liked about PS2 was that it had so much of everything. And I found some nice gems in obscure titles.

Except they are limiting it to "trolling/illegal", and not "everything".

They set the bar lower than most, and even then, most out there are subjectively choosing what they think is "quality". 

They have apparent competition from the likes of GoG (but then again, that storefront blocked a popular dev's puzzle game based on the grounds of it looking like a "mobile game"), B.net, Beth.net, Uplay, origin etc. if you think those aren't all within competing with one another, then you should take that up with others on the forum here.

I'm not sure how denying more games, more "selected" games from a small group (yes, it will always be small no matter what universe or angle, because there are millions more consumers than there are those that can serve and judge) would be better for all of us (myself included) and cause me to stay with Steam and not choose another's storefront.

I already see myself not using Origin, because all it has is Battlefield, the only series I'm interested in at this point. EA did a bang up premium job of killing off C&C, Theme Hospital, Sims, SIm City, Dungeon Keeper, Battlefront and more for me.

I hardly bother with Uplay due to buying games on Steam requiring yet another client to run, and even then Ubisoft games come loaded with extra DRM that bogs down my overall performance. I'm essentially buying higher priced games from them, only to net myself a worse off experience, and a neutered one at that. 

I don't use Beth.net because what they have on there is found on Steam, and Steam has built in mod support and is just better than beth/net

I don't use Epic's client because I dislike what Epic have become and who they are now controlled by.

I hardly use GoG because it doesn't really have the games I want, let alone mod support, built in forums and a vastly better wishlist/gifting service. 

 

yes, Steam has garbage, but to me, so do a lot of the other storefronts, and a lot of those storefronts have lesser features, while also at times asking for money money for a lesser experience. 

If I am to ever pay for a Ubisoft game at it's highest price, and use it on a beastly PC, I expect the Royal party treatment, not a watered down experience for more money. That is never how that should work, yet it does with Ubisoft countless times. 

 

For me, I wouldn't want to set a bar for quality control, because I know that others out there would disagree with it.

Yeah, I said "virtually everything" rather than just "everything" because of the limit to illegal/trolling games.

The good thing about setting the bar this low means there's very little room for games being excluded for reasons you don't agree with. The downside is the increased chance for some people to spend their money poorly, and I guess in some cases there's an argument for complacency from developers to do better if their competition is getting away with bare minimum effort.

I don't know if there's an ideal solution that's just better for everyone. But I think from Valve's perspective, this was probably a safer decision on their part.

Last edited by Hiku - on 07 June 2018

I really do have to feel for Steam though. People are going to complain no matter what they do. Though I guess they brought this upon themselves since they have never had any kind of quality standards now people will look at anything they do as taking games away (even if they are garbage). Then there is people like me who will complain that the average quality is extremely low and needs to be improved.

They are in a lose/lose situation at this point



rolltide101x said:
JEMC said:

It's funny how you're contradicting youself in the same post. Either everything is allowed or not, but not both things.

And, by the way, most of us are against this new policy because it will mean a lot more shovelware on the store.

Actually I am not at all. If it were all or nothing then explain consoles? Consoles wade through the games that want to be on their platform and (mostly) get rid of shovelware. 

 

Content that some may find offensive SHOULD NOT be blocked

Content that is not finished SHOULD be blocked. 

But you are. Shovelware is some kind of content, like it or not, so getting rid of any kind of active curation (they'll review a game after a complaint has been filled) will only make it easier for this kind of content to appear on the store, making it worse.

Consoles wade through (nice expression that I didn't know! Thanks :) ) shitty games because they do curate the games for their consoles. Devs/publishers ask for permission to release their games and Nintendo, Sony and MSoft decide, after inspecting it, if they give the green light or not. But that curating is what Valve will get rid of, so as long as someone pays the $100 needed to publish a game on Steam, they'll be able to launch their games on the platform.

That's why being happy with this change and asking for no shovelware are almost mutually exclusive, it's impossible to have both things at the same time.



Please excuse my bad English.

Currently gaming on a PC with an i5-4670k@stock (for now), 16Gb RAM 1600 MHz and a GTX 1070

Steam / Live / NNID : jonxiquet    Add me if you want, but I'm a single player gamer.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
shikamaru317 said:

Some of those shovelware games use stolen art assets for sure. I remember a shovelware game a few years ago that Sony's QA team let slip through the cracks that had stolen art assets from Skyrim, stolen UI assets from another game (don't remember the game now), and which had a trailer featuring stolen music from Ori and the Blind Forest. Pretty sure that game was also on Steam at the time.

Do you honestly believe anybody that doesn't want to buy a garbage game like AIDS Simulator will buy it? And even if they do buy it without realizing how bad it will be, Steam has a pretty generous refund policy. The fact remains that there are people who will want to buy that game, alot of streamers/youtubers like to buy these types of garbage games to stream or let's play, because there are alot of people that like to watch streams/videos of broken garbage games just for shits and giggles.

Even if I'm wrong and this will result in even less moderation of asset flip type games, little to no good moderation is still better than lots of bad moderation. Valve proved recently that they can't handle the rigors of good moderation when they attempted to ban some niche erotic games, even though several of the games they tried to ban already had already been censored specifically for the Steam release. Worse yet, they targeted only niche games, and ignored AA and AAA games with erotic content, which was a double standard. People who are that bad at moderation are probably better off not even trying to moderate. 

Nobody needs to buy those games for them to be profitable on Steam, and that's the problem. They are financing themselves through the Steam trading card system by basically selling those to the card collectors

Also, the problem isn't only buying or not - try finding something you don't know the exact name of when over 100 games get added per week

So they've found a way to play the system and you want to stop them from doing it? While it is pretty shitty that these developers make a living making these types of lazy games, the fact remains that they have a legal right to do it as long as they don't use stolen assets. While I can understand you wanting Valve to "stick it to them", if it comes at the expense of more bad moderation like the recent erotic games situation, I can live with these types of lazy asset flip games existing. I certainly won't be buying them, and I don't really feel like infringing on the rights of others to buy those games if they choose to.

As for your 2nd point, Valve did say they plan to add better tools for allowing consumers to find the games they want to find. Hopefully they are able to deliver on that promise.