rudra wrote on May 9, 2016, 05:12:
humanity is always the problem

ALWAYS

Huge manatees are the real threat.

Suppa7 wrote on May 9, 2016, 03:28:

Dev wrote on May 9, 2016, 01:23:
a) Steam took us away from crazy levels of DRM like starforce, to much more reasonable levels of steam DRM.

Sorry to tell you that ain't the case. EA is planning for a future where they "Stream" games to us, aka everything will go 'online only' in the future. That's the future they want where videogames are encrypted internet broadcasts, they want to turn games into TV.

Dev wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:20:
a) Steam took us away from crazy levels of DRM like starforce,

The DRM fenix rises again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo

Sorry to tell you also, "online games", overwatch is drm'd game. So we're already there. You now have paid for a game that can be shut off if blizzard deems it so.

MMO's are drm'd games FYI. The are just software rebadged via marketing speak.

Dev wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:20:
Basically the crazier and greedier grabs for money keep getting worse, and people don't stop buying them but just keep sucking it up, so it keeps getting worse. Steam didn't cause that.

Yeah they did, alright since they have market power in the relationship and the average human being is ignorant as fuck. Because they have billions of dollar and armies of psychologists they get to push changes on people who are ignorant and unaware of how they are being ripped off. Most people don't understand how technology works nor should they be expected to know how it works, the human mind didn't evolve to participate in a high tech capitalist society. This is why we have such bizarre and corrupt behaviour being fed by the illiterate and ignorant among mankind.

The problem is human reasoning does not work anything like free market theory requires in order to function.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

humanity is always the problem

ALWAYS

Dev wrote on May 9, 2016, 01:23:
a) Steam took us away from crazy levels of DRM like starforce, to much more reasonable levels of steam DRM.

Sorry to tell you that ain't the case. EA is planning for a future where they "Stream" games to us, aka everything will go 'online only' in the future. That's the future they want where videogames are encrypted internet broadcasts, they want to turn games into TV.

Dev wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:20:
a) Steam took us away from crazy levels of DRM like starforce,

The DRM fenix rises again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denuvo

Sorry to tell you also, "online games", overwatch is drm'd game. So we're already there. You now have paid for a game that can be shut off if blizzard deems it so.

MMO's are drm'd games FYI. The are just software rebadged via marketing speak.

Dev wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:20:
Basically the crazier and greedier grabs for money keep getting worse, and people don't stop buying them but just keep sucking it up, so it keeps getting worse. Steam didn't cause that.

Yeah they did, alright since they have market power in the relationship and the average human being is ignorant as fuck. Because they have billions of dollar and armies of psychologists they get to push changes on people who are ignorant and unaware of how they are being ripped off. Most people don't understand how technology works nor should they be expected to know how it works, the human mind didn't evolve to participate in a high tech capitalist society. This is why we have such bizarre and corrupt behaviour being fed by the illiterate and ignorant among mankind.

The problem is human reasoning does not work anything like free market theory requires in order to function.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ

This comment was edited on May 9, 2016, 03:45.

Suppa7 wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:20:

Slashman wrote on May 7, 2016, 19:49:
Anybody who truly believes that Steam has not been the strongest force in ensuring the continuing health of PC gaming over the past decade is in complete denial.

Bullshit, steam enabled online DRM and normalized it. The rise of F2P games like league of legends where you can't make new levels, skins, or mod the game is total bullshit and notice more and more big releases are rebadged with marketing terms "online only" or "social game" or blizzard rebranding/telling us "diablo 3 was really meant to be an MMO"

a) Steam took us away from crazy levels of DRM like starforce, to much more reasonable levels of steam DRM. And nowadays you have GoG and humble bundle selling lots of DRM free titles.
b) That crap is mostly due to EA & actiblizz and mobile games. Basically the crazier and greedier grabs for money keep getting worse, and people don't stop buying them but just keep sucking it up, so it keeps getting worse. Steam didn't cause that.

Quboid wrote on May 8, 2016, 09:49:
Mashiki Amiketo will be complaining that gaming journalists don't have journalism degrees next.

You don't understand how reviews work, so your ideas about shill reviews are useless. How can you call any reviewer a shill when you don't understand the entire point of their job?

That depends, are they claiming to be journalists? Because many of them do. Seems you know less about what's actually going on then you think. If xyz person is writing about xyz person and is shacked up with them, that's not a shill review? You know like the guy over at IGN who was shacked up with a Ubisoft PR person, and wrote stuff from that point of view. I guess that's not a problem.

Or like Marty Silva who gives games poor reviews if they don't pander to his ideology. I suppose that's just subjective, then again it's not difficult to write an objective article when reviewing something either. Let's toss in something else, ever notice all those book reviewers who are able to objectively write about a book, but have their own beliefs polar opposite of the material in the book. Yep.

Seems you hold game reviewers to a very low standard or no standard at all. While there are plenty of other people who expect them to have some standards, and be open in doing so. You know, like any other group of objective reviewers of a medium.

yonder wrote on May 8, 2016, 10:54:

Devinoch wrote on May 8, 2016, 02:50:

Warskull wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:36:
The establishment see Steam reviews as a threat because they are actually good and cutting them out of the loop.

"The establishment." That's hilarious. Tell that to some indie developer struggling to eat because he's dared to have a non-backwater social philosophy (completely unreflected in his game) and someone's waterboarded the reviews section because of it.

But you go on and tell yourself you're doing The Lord's work. He certainly didn't say "love thy neighbor." Wait, hang on a minute...

That's some QUALITY strawman you got there. Highly entertaining! Don't stop,please!

Oh look, ad hominem! DO go on...

And this was what i was thinking all along, but I did not want to interrupt the clusterduck.

Fahey’s piece would be compelling if it contained at least a shred of evidence, or at least a tangible and easily recognizable example (of which I’m sure there should be a few), but instead it’s little more than a harangue aimed at vilifying Valve for not taking a stronger position against these phantom menaces who make up for this large, nebulous terror group supposedly infecting Steam.

RedEye9 wrote on May 8, 2016, 11:00:

Slashman wrote on May 8, 2016, 10:43:
Who wrote those forum rules anyway?

i saw the information somewhere but i can't find it.

I see what you did there...

Slashman wrote on May 8, 2016, 10:43:
Who wrote those forum rules anyway?

i saw the information somewhere but i can't find it.

Devinoch wrote on May 8, 2016, 02:50:

Warskull wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:36:
The establishment see Steam reviews as a threat because they are actually good and cutting them out of the loop.

"The establishment." That's hilarious. Tell that to some indie developer struggling to eat because he's dared to have a non-backwater social philosophy (completely unreflected in his game) and someone's waterboarded the reviews section because of it.

But you go on and tell yourself you're doing The Lord's work. He certainly didn't say "love thy neighbor." Wait, hang on a minute...

That's some QUALITY strawman you got there. Highly entertaining! Don't stop,please!

Who wrote those forum rules anyway?

Beamer wrote on May 8, 2016, 10:00:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on May 8, 2016, 01:03:
I don't? archive.today/kwlHD vs archive.today/NhE84 I can keep going. How about Leigh Alexanders on GTAIV vs GTAV? Should I keep going or is that enough?

First off, thank you for being too lazy to link those. But I see why you didn't.
That first review? An 8/10. This is the "low review scores" you're terrified of, an 8 out of 10? The second one is a 7.5 out of 10. And it's the one I'd already mentioned.

You're so bad at this you're giving people evidence already discounted. If an 8 out of 10 is a huge ethical sin for you, what do you make of Armond White?

I can't even find a Leigh Alexander GTA review, and neither could you, since you offer no links. There's this mock review, which does not count, and there are some opinion articles (which a review technically is, but these are not reviews), but I see no review.


Do you even know what you're angry about?

Looks to me like he's just following the forum rules.

RedEye9 wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:41:
1) Never read the actual article.
2) Misconstrue another posters comments and take immediate offense.
3) Always say you saw the information somewhere but you can't find it.
4) When you have nothing to say, you are required to post.
5) Remember, you are always correct. No ifs, ands, or buts.
6) Never post up to date reliable sources.
7) Cut and paste directly from wikipedia, especially if it's not pertinent.
8) Never proofread for the gramer and spelleng.
9) Only the games that you like matter, and make sure others suffer for it.
10) Hate everything, no matter what.

And I forgot 11) If you have the choice between using facts or conjecture, use the latter.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on May 8, 2016, 01:03:
I don't? archive.today/kwlHD vs archive.today/NhE84 I can keep going. How about Leigh Alexanders on GTAIV vs GTAV? Should I keep going or is that enough?

First off, thank you for being too lazy to link those. But I see why you didn't.
That first review? An 8/10. This is the "low review scores" you're terrified of, an 8 out of 10? The second one is a 7.5 out of 10. And it's the one I'd already mentioned.

You're so bad at this you're giving people evidence already discounted. If an 8 out of 10 is a huge ethical sin for you, what do you make of Armond White?

I can't even find a Leigh Alexander GTA review, and neither could you, since you offer no links. There's this mock review, which does not count, and there are some opinion articles (which a review technically is, but these are not reviews), but I see no review.


Do you even know what you're angry about?

yuastnav wrote on May 8, 2016, 07:21:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on May 7, 2016, 11:49:
[...]
If a reviewer is willing to shit on a game because of their identity politics, they'll have no problems shilling out if a company lavishes them with goodies or free shit.

Alright, so how exactly did you deduce one from the other? I really don't see the connection so I'd ask you to provide at least a little proof for your hypothesis.

What he thinks: If they do one thing wrong, they'll do another thing wrong.
What is actually happening: If they don't act like the world revolves around me - like it does - in one respect, they won't act like that world revolves around me in another respect.

yuastnav wrote on May 8, 2016, 07:21:

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on May 8, 2016, 01:03:
[...]
So now you're saying that it's okay if they want to pander to their politics, and not weight a game objectively, [...]

What about a review is not subjective? A review is an opinion. People like to throw the word "objective" around as if it was meaningful. Nothing about a review can ever be objective. Hell, even if you say that a game is objectively bad because it's running at 5 fps you might find someone who really digs a low framerate or just doesn't care. Everything is subjective. There are just some things that you like and others that you don't like; so the former are objective and the latter subjective.

This is the crux of the issue, reviews are not objective. I thought GamerGate had got this through their heads a year ago but nope, they're still at it. Mashiki Amiketo will be complaining that gaming journalists don't have journalism degrees next.

You don't understand how reviews work, so your ideas about shill reviews are useless. How can you call any reviewer a shill when you don't understand the entire point of their job?

Steam requires you to have buy the game from them and to have installed and played it, before they allow you to enter a review.

So thousands of morons dog-pile-ing, in a huge group bash, is not a thing.

This is a great example of a buggy whip maker, dissing those weird new horseless carriages.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on May 7, 2016, 11:49:
[...]
Gotcha. So when a reviewer give a game a low score because it disagrees with their identity politics because there's sexy women or has water or doesn't include xyz group or includes adult themes it's okay. Even though the game is a technical and artistic masterpiece and people agree that it's a really good game, and people should buy it. And that the game has received dozens if not hundreds of awards for being a really good game. But calling it for what it is, is bad.
[...]

Of course it's fucking okay. A review is an opinion. Someone plays a game and then writes an article about what he thought about this game. Where is the problem?

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on May 7, 2016, 11:49:
[...]
If a reviewer is willing to shit on a game because of their identity politics, they'll have no problems shilling out if a company lavishes them with goodies or free shit.

Alright, so how exactly did you deduce one from the other? I really don't see the connection so I'd ask you to provide at least a little proof for your hypothesis.

Mashiki Amiketo wrote on May 8, 2016, 01:03:
[...]
So now you're saying that it's okay if they want to pander to their politics, and not weight a game objectively, [...]

What about a review is not subjective? A review is an opinion. People like to throw the word "objective" around as if it was meaningful. Nothing about a review can ever be objective. Hell, even if you say that a game is objectively bad because it's running at 5 fps you might find someone who really digs a low framerate or just doesn't care. Everything is subjective. There are just some things that you like and others that you don't like; so the former are objective and the latter subjective.

Slashman wrote on May 7, 2016, 14:14:
I really wish people would just stick to facts here.

1) Every developer has complete control over the forums for their own game on Steam. They can moderate and ban people who violate their rules as they like. I've seen this done many times to many an idiot.

Stem has always had the policy of giving the developers the tools and letting them do things their own way. I'd be very surprised if they ever personally tried to moderate a developer's forum unless things were way out of hand or violating a law.

2) Developers have no control over user reviews on Steam. This is as it should be and it would be bad IMO if they ever did. Now this is where Steam CAN, to a certain extent try to stop the more vitriolic/offensive type of posts in reviews.

But if Steam does take an active hand in moderating reviews, it needs to be very carefully balanced. I'm all for squelching racial slurs, attacks based on religion, sexuality etc. But you cannot, and should not, be banning or deleting reviews which are simply about someone's opinion of a game. It is a fine line to walk and I'm guessing would take a ridiculous amount of effort based on the sheer number of reviews that both already exist and get added every day.

3) Anybody who truly believes that Steam has not been the strongest force in ensuring the continuing health of PC gaming over the past decade is in complete denial. And pretty much every single indie developer and several of the larger dev studios will tell you as much. Bury your head in the sand if you want to feel cool for opposing 'The Man' but facts are facts.

Bluesnews comments don't have up-votes. If they did, I'd give this '+5 Informative.' Great post.

That's weird. I've always found the Steam forums pretty helpful. Not sure what he's talking about exactly.

Warskull wrote on May 7, 2016, 20:36:
The establishment see Steam reviews as a threat because they are actually good and cutting them out of the loop.

"The establishment." That's hilarious. Tell that to some indie developer struggling to eat because he's dared to have a non-backwater social philosophy (completely unreflected in his game) and someone's waterboarded the reviews section because of it.

But you go on and tell yourself you're doing The Lord's work. He certainly didn't say "love thy neighbor." Wait, hang on a minute...

Beamer wrote on May 7, 2016, 12:29:
The best part is that you have no examples of this. You'll endlessly rage against Polygon for a Bayonetta review that got a 7.5, which isn't a low score. Or you'll complain about a sidebar mentioning women in a review about Mad Max that thoroughly destroys how boring it find the combat, and swear up and down the two sentence sidebar, not even in the full review, is why the score was low.

I don't? archive.today/kwlHD vs archive.today/NhE84 I can keep going. How about Leigh Alexanders on GTAIV vs GTAV? Should I keep going or is that enough?

Quboid wrote on May 7, 2016, 12:37:
Reviewers write what they think about the game. They do not parrot what everyone else says if that's not what they think. Do you really think any reviewer should give a high score to a game they didn't like just because everyone did? It's politics to you because you don't care, if it affects their experience then it should affect their score.

I don't care about game music, I wish reviewers would keep their audio-politics out of their ratings. Now metacritic isn't tailored specifically to me!

So now you're saying that it's okay if they want to pander to their politics, and not weight a game objectively, despite that they'll claim that they're weighting subject matter objectively. Or write about both things, and keep them separate in the same article. Funny how CCG is able to do this with an artistic score and a moral score. This isn't rocket surgery, good movie reviewers have been able to do this for 80 years...but somehow game reviewers don't seem to be able to, but steam reviewers are.

Maybe the author of the article just needs to grow a spine.