By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - [Confirmed] Valve has no oversight for its own platform

Goatseye said:

Well, they have to satisfy gamers by giving them couple of "free" games monthly and by doing that they have to compensate devs/pubs.

They have to maintain servers for online gaming and modern competitive games require robust network infrastructure (Killer Instinct is the game with the best netcode I've seen so far this gen).

It "welps" them during software droughts to offset losses and they wouldn't want to dig into that honeypot. Investors wouldn't want that.

Why would they cut into their revenue, if they can arrange a solution where pubs and devs could work out a deal and the three parts come out favored? That's in a perfect world. MS does that but other publishers reportedly are too greedy to let devs get a significant cut.


Like I've said, I don't think consoles are at the point where they really need quality control yet. However, I think you are overstating the weight that this would put on MS. Nintendo already lotchecks every eShop game and they have for a while. It really isn't very difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if MS and Sony already had some system in place to check to make sure the games work so it really wouldn't be very difficult to turn up the quality control by one tick.

I would like to stress again that my insistence on the need for quality control is really for Steam only at this point in time.

As for your last point, the "three parts come out favored" seems fairly arguable. I'm not sure what specific system you are talking about, but I've already discussed numerous problems with the parity clause and the publisher requirement. As such, I really don't think you can argue that MS does indie better than everybody else (if that is in fact what you are trying to say) although they been pressured to remove some of the bullshit restrictions that they have been implimenting.



Around the Network
StarOcean said:

Well they allowed it and they can either keep it and ride it through or get rid of it and cause the same backlash they got with Hatred. The problem is that they allowed it in the first place, yes, but as it stands in its current state they're in a lose-lose situation.

I'm not saying it is against freed speech to get rid of/not allowing it -this is more directed to the people saying it shouldn't be allowed to exist which a few commenters on different sites have said (haven't really read the comments here in this thread). Should they have better standards? Of course. Is this the tipping point? No, the tipping point happened a LONG time ago. Hopefully in the near future they'll improve their greenlight system.

Yeah. They have to start somewhere, and I think the "backlash" over Hatred was pretty minimal. I imagine there would be even less of a backlash for this one. If they just give some guidelines and explain why these games aren't suitable for Steam, I doubt anyone would honestly care.



sundin13 said:


Like I've said, I don't think consoles are at the point where they really need quality control yet. However, I think you are overstating the weight that this would put on MS. Nintendo already lotchecks every eShop game and they have for a while. It really isn't very difficult. I wouldn't be surprised if MS and Sony already had some system in place to check to make sure the games work so it really wouldn't be very difficult to turn up the quality control by one tick.

I would like to stress again that my insistence on the need for quality control is really for Steam only at this point in time.

As for your last point, the "three parts come out favored" seems fairly arguable. I'm not sure what specific system you are talking about, but I've already discussed numerous problems with the parity clause and the publisher requirement. As such, I really don't think you can argue that MS does indie better than everybody else (if that is in fact what you are trying to say) although they been pressured to remove some of the bullshit restrictions that they have been implimenting.

X360 has 2 marketplace sections for small downloadable games: Arcade and Indie.

Indie games are self published, they use X360dev kit and it mostly gets published with no supervision. Its contents have the least quality obviously.

Then there is the Arcade section, which games placed here have to have a publisher and by doing that, it has to go through a certification process (I believe internally).

I don't know why you're bringing the parity clause up over and over, as we're not talking about Indies relationship with MS but Indie software quality.

In my honest opinion, MS should've been indiferent to most Indies released until now and invest in more partnerships to reinforce the brand (type?) Arcade Games. Which brought us State of Decay, Battleblock Theater, Shadow Complex, Iron Brigade, Toy Soldier, Geometry Wars, Dust: Tale of Elysium, etc... all made for X360 first.



the_dengle said:
StarOcean said:

Well they allowed it and they can either keep it and ride it through or get rid of it and cause the same backlash they got with Hatred. The problem is that they allowed it in the first place, yes, but as it stands in its current state they're in a lose-lose situation.

I'm not saying it is against freed speech to get rid of/not allowing it -this is more directed to the people saying it shouldn't be allowed to exist which a few commenters on different sites have said (haven't really read the comments here in this thread). Should they have better standards? Of course. Is this the tipping point? No, the tipping point happened a LONG time ago. Hopefully in the near future they'll improve their greenlight system.

Yeah. They have to start somewhere, and I think the "backlash" over Hatred was pretty minimal. I imagine there would be even less of a backlash for this one. If they just give some guidelines and explain why these games aren't suitable for Steam, I doubt anyone would honestly care.

Trying to pander to everyone has these types of setbacks.



Goatseye said:

X360 has 2 marketplace sections for small downloadable games: Arcade and Indie.

Indie games are self published, they use X360dev kit and it mostly gets published with no supervision. Its contents have the least quality obviously.

Then there is the Arcade section, which games placed here have to have a publisher and by doing that, it has to go through a certification process (I believe internally).

I don't know why you're bringing the parity clause up over and over, as we're not talking about Indies relationship with MS but Indie software quality.

In my honest opinion, MS should've been indiferent to most Indies released until now and invest in more partnerships to reinforce the brand (type?) Arcade Games. Which brought us State of Decay, Battleblock Theater, Shadow Complex, Iron Brigade, Toy Soldier, Geometry Wars, Dust: Tale of Elysium, etc... all made for X360 first.


Xbox Live Indie Games was an absolute mess and was pretty much just as bad as Steam Greenlight if not worse because it lacks the exposure.

Taking away all of the bullshit that MS has pulled in the past (you want to pretend that it isn't a part of this conversation when it is), Arcade is no better structurally than PSN or eShop.



Around the Network
the_dengle said:
StarOcean said:

Well they allowed it and they can either keep it and ride it through or get rid of it and cause the same backlash they got with Hatred. The problem is that they allowed it in the first place, yes, but as it stands in its current state they're in a lose-lose situation.

I'm not saying it is against freed speech to get rid of/not allowing it -this is more directed to the people saying it shouldn't be allowed to exist which a few commenters on different sites have said (haven't really read the comments here in this thread). Should they have better standards? Of course. Is this the tipping point? No, the tipping point happened a LONG time ago. Hopefully in the near future they'll improve their greenlight system.

Yeah. They have to start somewhere, and I think the "backlash" over Hatred was pretty minimal. I imagine there would be even less of a backlash for this one. If they just give some guidelines and explain why these games aren't suitable for Steam, I doubt anyone would honestly care.

Why is this game not suitable for steam? sure, its disgusting, but is that enough to ban a game?



generic-user-1 said:

Why is this game not suitable for steam? sure, its disgusting, but is that enough to ban a game?

Valve has the right to decide what makes a game unsuitable for their own platform. You would think that a game like this that is ass garbage and exists for no other reason than to be offensive might be something a platform owner would like to avoid. If Valve doesn't want to restrict content on their platform at all that's up to them. That's the way they've been doing things for a while and consequently Steam is bogged down with absolutely worthless crap being sold for $10-20. If Valve is okay with their platform being the definitive cesspool of indie sludge, the PC gaming equivalent of the App Store, they can continue business as usual. I think a small amount of quality control wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Again, it's not being banned just because Valve decides not to sell it. The devs are free to distribute it elsewhere.





In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Blame the amount of idiots that exist for approving the game. Not Valve.

There have been tons of great games that have come out of this. Asking Valve to make a new department to test the quality of a game before it is greenlighted costs money and makes it seem like they do not trust the community all that much. lose/lose situation.
The idc approach is pretty simple to live by. The amount of people in this world that get offended over such petty stuff is mind boggling.



the_dengle said:
generic-user-1 said:

Why is this game not suitable for steam? sure, its disgusting, but is that enough to ban a game?

Valve has the right to decide what makes a game unsuitable for their own platform. You would think that a game like this that is ass garbage and exists for no other reason than to be offensive might be something a platform owner would like to avoid. If Valve doesn't want to restrict content on their platform at all that's up to them. That's the way they've been doing things for a while and consequently Steam is bogged down with absolutely worthless crap being sold for $10-20. If Valve is okay with their platform being the definitive cesspool of indie sludge, the PC gaming equivalent of the App Store, they can continue business as usual. I think a small amount of quality control wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Again, it's not being banned just because Valve decides not to sell it. The devs are free to distribute it elsewhere.

well if a monopoly decides to stop distribute something, well thats censorship of some kind too.

and yes, im all for  quality controll, but thy should ban a game from steam just because it offends some people.