Does steam needs quality control?

I somewhat agree with jim here. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8753-Steam-Needs-Quality-Control.

What do you guys think? does steam needs quality control?

@gamerno66666: i agree.

there is a lot of crap on steam and some of it is so terrible it shouldn't be sold to customers. i think steam should penalize publishers/developers whose games' customers have a high rate of requesting refunds.

It does but like Jim said it's too late now,the damage is already done.There's simply too much shit on steam.

No, it would be an fairly impossible task (even consoles have issues) and would reduce our choices and make Steam a more closed platform. I'm a big boy and can decide what to buy and what to avoid. Because of this, I have rarely ever been "burned" by a game and yet still am able to buy dozens of games a year. Apparently some people need someone holding their hands though.

The one area Steam could use improvement is with refunds and customer service though...especially customer service which is frankly non-existent on Steam. For a company that makes as much money as Steam does that's a freaking crime IMO. In the rare event a game launches horribly people who don't want to wait for the game to become playable should have the ability to seek a refund easily.

I think a good start would be to separate early access / beta games and final products. Early access should not be on the front page, it should be a separate page entirely.

If it's clearly marked (which they are...gigantic blue banners on the game page saying early access) what's the difference?

I agree with Jim as well. There's far too much garbage being allowed onto the Steam store, including games that are clearly broken and not ready for prime time. I'm not sure what system they have in place for ensuring quality of content (if they have any at all), but it obviously isn't working very well (or they just don't care). After all, Steam is still getting its cut from every sale.

The other issue, though, is the number of people who still buy games that are broken. Either the standards of quality for gamers has hit rock bottom these days, or bad games are attracting a cult following like bad movies (such as Plan 9 From Outer Space). Neither scenario is very good for the future of the game industry, imo. The game industry has always suffered from a sea of dreck flooding the market each year, but that should mean stores like Steam should be even more vigilant about what they allow to be sold.

@way2funny I agree with your suggestion about Early Access games. A lot of good (complete) games are simply getting buried and shoved off the page by all of these Early Access titles, which means they are not getting enough exposure and time in the spotlight.

@Renevent42 You're right about Steam customer service. It leaves a lot to be desired, in fact it is worse than Origin from what I've heard. I remember when I had an issue with the store failing to process my credit card and raised a support ticket, it took Steam support three weeks to even respond. Their refund policy has been something of a joke until recently, for a service that has been around for ten years.

At the moment, Steam is simply giving the impression that it doesn't really care about the customers spending money on their store, so I find it remarkable how many people will constantly rush to defend the service, even when it has some major failings. There is a lot of room for improvement, from customer service, to curation of content, to improvements to the actual interface, which is starting to leave a lot to be desired. For example, when I visit the GOG store and start browsing through the games, the one's I've already purchased are greyed out, and the cost is replaced with 'Owned'. Such a simple thing, but it makes finding new and interesting games much easier to buy. Steam could do with something similar - yet it took them ages just to add a button to filter out DLC and add-ons which were drowning out actual games on the front page,

At the end of the day, Steam is making a lot of money, but they don't seem to be investing enough of it back into improving the quality of the service.

There's a difference between 'rushing to Steam's defense' and pointing out how utterly ridiculous the things the dude says in the video are. He compared the 'state of Steam' to something akin to the video game crash in the 80's...how can anyone take any of that seriously? It's a joke of a video and frankly the things he states in his video make him sound like some crazed chicken little.

Are there things that Steam can improve? Of course...but closing up the platform and making it harder to put games there isn't where it needs to improve. Which BTW, is another thing this Jim guy COMPLETELY misunderstood. Valve isn't moving away from greenlight because it's a failure and wants to stop sub-par games from getting on Steam, they are trying to make it even easier for devs and moving in a direction that allows greater dev control and participation.

I agree gog.com is a nice site, and obviously comparing one site over the other people are going to find feature x on service y that would be nice, but the reality is the amount of money invested in Steam, and the amount of features on Steam make gog.com look like amateur hour.

Because its not marked on the front page. It is taking up the spotlight that full complete games deserve more. If people want to buy early access, they should go to a separate store page, not the "top sellers" list to something that isn't complete. It is a slight but powerful difference, because people that know the repercussions and risk involved with early access will willingly go to that page, and the average consumer wouldn't be bothered unless they wanted to.

There's like 0-5 games on average released in day, with most of them NOT being greenlight games, and the front page has room for like 10 games at a time and can be scrolled through.

And each individual game is clearly marked as early access (if they are) with all the risks/etc involved with them.

Any issue here is with the consumer, not Steam. It's not like Steam is releasing dozens of games a day...

Even for the average consumer, whatever that means (stupid uninformed consumer?), can easily see what games were released and which were which.

If publishers/developers have any control over the store page user comments/ratings for their games, then that's a major problem. Other than that, Steam includes user reviews and critic scores. Actually, I can't think of anywhere else that sells games that I would even consider trusting anyway.

However, if steam starts to attract console gamers with steam boxes, they had better account for the lower literacy rate.

So you would be okay with a clothing store putting cheaper defective items and the brand new items in the same location?

Its not the best analogy but the point I'm getting at is: while it is still pretty easy for the consumer to inform themselves, Steam is not making it any easier, and having two incomplete games on the front page is pretty disgusting if you ask me. If the game is not complete, it shouldn't be on the front page, if someone wants an incomplete game, they should have to purposefully go find incomplete games. I believe that is more consumer friendly than just slapping "early access" on it yet have it on the front page as a best seller. It is counter intuitive. That's just my opinion.

It's not a good analogy at all. First and foremost, the games are clearly marked...you would have to be willfully ignoring the giant blue banner and all the early access verbiage to not see it. Beyond that, no, I don't there is a problem advertising games like this as long as they are clearly marked (which they are).

Early access games are not defective anyways...they are simply in various stages of development. If you don't want to play a game like that, ignore the games still in early access?

I don't need Steam being my nanny and deciding what is or isn't suitable for me to play. I mean, I agree there needs to be a minimum of quality control so it doesn't turn into the iOS app store, but that does exist on Steam already. I don't think the problem is nearly as bad as Jim tries to make it out to be and its the usual 'making a mountain out of a molehill' because there's a few proper turds there that any self-respecting consumer should be able to weed out with a minimum of research into what they spend their money on. Which is what usually happens. These turds don't sell well. They aren't getting in the way of anything. Its not Steam's job to rate games and tell us what we should and shouldn't play. People don't walk into a Gamestop and blame them for a game they bought that turned out to be awful. Well, maybe the rare idiot does, but again, that's not Gamestop's job, just like it isn't Steam's job. They are there to provide a distribution platform, not a gated community where only the priviledged are allowed in and outliers are considered unwelcome or unwanted.

I really don't understand what the problem is here. I like Jim, he makes a lot of good points often enough, but you have to remember that these people regularly need to find something to complain about to produce content and attract viewership. Its no surprise that this leads to a sometimes cynical outlook, where somebody has to 'reach' and exaggerate a bit in order to make a fully justified rage rant like Jim is known for doing. So again, I like Jim, I watch his videos somewhat regularly, but I also think the very nature of his work can lead to stuff like this that is easily just shrugged off as 'angry man yells at cloud', ya know?

Quality control = authoritative control and that is something that would take away pretty much what many people love about steam. If they want to buy a half-finished, naked, murder simulator - they can.

Gotta take the good with the bad. I think they should tweak early access though to make it even more clear what state the game is, what features are coming. You should be able to set Steam to never show early access games and there needs to be more clarity on what players think about the $30 half-finished games.

Ya steam has horrible quality control. Case and point, X rebirth. A game in worse condition then most of the early access games on steam and it was sold and marketed as a finsihed product and is still being sold as a finished product even though it had major backlash from the community. I've noticed steam still is holding onto small company tactics when it comes to dealing with customers on a case by case bases, as well as tools for customers to use within steam that other services that haven't been around as long are starting to do. Like refunds.

Steam has a long way to go before they make themselves worthy of being able to be in everyone living room. If steam stays on it's current course with 90% of it's content being garbage or broken/early access then their push to the living room will surely fail. No one is going to put up with a steam machine if the store looks and reads like it does now with most games being junk. When consoles are generally fool proof machines where you know if you buy a game it will work steam and it's massive library of not all ways functions products will be off putting the majority of the market that they are trying to grab.

I use steam everyday but I can see the massive glaring flaws in it. It's got some work to do before it becomes something worthy of the living room rather then my pc I like to fiddle around with. Though I'm sure valve all ready has planes to move their download service past it's issues and into their new boxes. It's just going to be a long road with lots of bumps before that happens, and the competitions only getting better.

It's not up to Steam for quality control. They're only responsible for games being accurately represented on their store.

@wis3boi said:

@way2funny said:

@Renevent42 said:

@way2funny said:

I think a good start would be to separate early access / beta games and final products. Early access should not be on the front page, it should be a separate page entirely.

If it's clearly marked (which they are...gigantic blue banners on the game page saying early access) what's the difference?

Because its not marked on the front page. It is taking up the spotlight that full complete games deserve more. If people want to buy early access, they should go to a separate store page, not the "top sellers" list to something that isn't complete. It is a slight but powerful difference, because people that know the repercussions and risk involved with early access will willingly go to that page, and the average consumer wouldn't be bothered unless they wanted to.

Exactly. You don't think a game looks good? Don't buy it. Quality control.

Why should there be any regulations? Is the U.S. Law and the BBB not enough for you? Would you like someone to hold your hand when you purchase games?

I don't understand this train of thinking. Explain please.

All my life, when I went into a physical store to buy PC or video games, the bad games were sitting right next to the good ones on the shelf. Why should it be any different with a digital store like Steam? Once Valve starts picking and choosing games for quality, they open a can of worms I doubt they want to open.

We can all admit there is a ton of crap on Steam, but is it Valve's responsibility for QC? Does Walmart, Gamestop, or any other retailer QC all the games, movies, books, etc. that they sell? Not that I know of.

I usually agree with Jim on his Jimquisitions, but I'm not entirely sold by his solution. I don't think it's that black and white.

I have yet to purchase an early access game because I'd rather put money towards games that are feature complete. It seems weird to me to pay for a beta (or even an alpha) anyway.

I feel I do to an extent. But how is valve going to deem if a product is quality or not? Not to mention how many hours would it take to put a game through proper quality control (like Nintendo does or did)? It's something valve probably doesn't want to do.

Also, really despise early access games being advertised on the MAIN store page. They should be off in the corner somewhere.

Developers shouldn't be allowed to moderate their games forums. It should actually be randomized. Developers can moderate another random developers forums.

@wis3boi said:

@way2funny said:

@Renevent42 said:

@way2funny said:

I think a good start would be to separate early access / beta games and final products. Early access should not be on the front page, it should be a separate page entirely.

If it's clearly marked (which they are...gigantic blue banners on the game page saying early access) what's the difference?

Because its not marked on the front page. It is taking up the spotlight that full complete games deserve more. If people want to buy early access, they should go to a separate store page, not the "top sellers" list to something that isn't complete. It is a slight but powerful difference, because people that know the repercussions and risk involved with early access will willingly go to that page, and the average consumer wouldn't be bothered unless they wanted to.

It still shouldn't be on the front page. And anyway, 'early access' is a vague term. A lot of people don't fully understand the concept.

It should be a totally separate section just like Steam Green-light is. I shouldn't need to shift through all the early access crap to find new games and top sellers.

Somewhat yes. These shitty minecraft/day cashin's with questionable developers just sour the service and in the long run, make it look bad.

I agree, early access should have an entire different section. Not on the front page and not on the highest selling releases page.

My problem with this argument is that on the store page for each game, in nice big font, are messages like

"WARNING: THIS GAME IS EARLY ACCESS ALPHA. PLEASE DO NOT PURCHASE IT UNLESS YOU WANT TO ACTIVELY SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF THE GAME AND ARE PREPARED TO HANDLE WITH SERIOUS ISSUES AND POSSIBLE INTERRUPTIONS OF GAME FUNCTIONING."

"“We are in very early development. Some things work, some things don't. We haven't totally decided where the game is headed - so things will change. Things will change a lot. We might even make changes that you think are wrong. But we have a plan. It's in our interest to make the game awesome - so please trust us.”"

There's absolutely no way to even purchase these games, without knowing what you're getting yourself into. And these games are the top-sellers, why don't they deserve to be on the top page? If more people are enjoying their time playing an unfinished game than finished ones, I don't see the big deal with these games being given visibility. Obviously tons of people are having fun with them, so it's not like a minority is enforcing their opinions on the majority. Steam should give an option to filter out unfinished games for those who desire, but filtering it out for everyone seems extreme.

Dunno if it is up to steam. But lately I find that Steam is being flooded with crap. Could be because of greenlight and people voting on something they don't know know the quality of (yet), but I do feel that many games that look great also made it to steam because of greenlight.

As long as there are people that want to play them, I'm alright with games appearing on steam. PC has always filled lots of niche markets.

I do think early access should be regulated though, if your game is totally broken and unfinished, don't release it. Not under the name or excuse of 'early access', just wait for a better version, something that is like a beta or demo or something.

Sadly, I think (and to an extent it already has happend) the greenlight voters just vote for shit remotely like dayz or minecraft.

I understand that that. However, look at the quote "Please trust us". Why should people trust them with an unfinished product that may NEVER be finished? This big font and warning was added not too long ago, but its not that obvious at a glance on the front page. My issue is they are unfinished products on the front page. These are bad habits that will eventually burn consumers. Do any retail stores sell you unfinished products? More importantly, do any retail stores place unfinished products on display and advertisement? Early access should be a niche in the PC market for people with expendable income that are okay with potentially losing that money. Because Rust and DayZ may never be finished. And then what? What happened to Towns? Another 'beta' 'early access' style game, sold unfinished, with promises, and became vaporware. All those people lost their money because of promises. It is the principle of all this I have an issue with.

people feel the need to be protected from their stupidity

Why should you trust buying from any developer when buying any product? I get sold tons of unfinished games by retail stores all the time.. Recently? Battlefield 4. Does that mean I stopped trusting all developers from completing their games? No...

Big Rigs was made by traditional publishing. And it was the worst game ever made. Does that mean everyone should cease trusting traditionally published games? I mean, these are supposed to be complete, working games right? If anything, I propose the system that you trust so much to be equally as untrustworthy - if not moreso.

At least with Early Access, you know what exactly you're going to get : an unfinished game. When I bought Battlefield 4, I wasn't expecting a game that would be unplayable for a month. So if anything, I trust the people who aren't trying to scam me.

I mean, no offense, but you'd have to be extremely dumb to think a game with 1.3 million sales isn't going to be finished. It's like...common sense for 10 years olds. :\ Bohemia Interactive has made tons of games in the past. With the funding, on what grounds do you think the project would fail? Sounds like you think all early access games are likely to fail because a bunch of idiots invested in another idiot's project and it never finished. Because some random project that nobody has heard of failed doesn't necessarily mean crowd funding is bad. It would be the exact same thing as being too afraid of buying retail games because they might turn out to be Battlefield 4 or Big Rigs.

Ever consider that games are better developed when going through Early Access? Look at Minecraft - this project was more successful than any traditionally published game made recently. It's obvious what game projects are safe investments. If you feel it isn't obvious, then I feel you're pretending to be an idiot just for the sake of arguing. If you need help, just ask. Nobody here would ever tell you to buy a game that would obviously fail.

It just requires the consumer to not be a lazy fuckwad, and do a little research before spending their money. The result? Thousands of amazing games are being made that couldn't have been made otherwise. And these games are so good - that they top sales charts with out even having to be finished.

Yes, I do consider games that got better, and worse through early access. That doesn't change my view that early access should only be a niche in the PC market for people that have expendable income.

I am not saying I need to be protected, in the end its up to the consumer. However, if I was a retailer, I would completely separate them out from the front page; just like Steam Greenlight is. To me, it is more consumer friendly because it is not being advertised. Steam front page is essentially advertisement. And 'finished' games deserve that more than 'unfinished' games. Whatever the definition of 'finished' is (in the case of BF4), its clear that early access is an unfinished product.

Why do finished games deserve more advertisement if the unfinished games are getting more play hours and selling more copies? Seems like it would be in Steam's best interest to make more money...hiding the best selling products doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it? There are user reviews on the store page for every games. Even for incomplete games like DayZ and Rust - the reviews are extremely good. Better than most finished games.

Pretty much this in a nutshell. I've gone through Steam's entire game library in one sitting before. There isn't a TON of crap like people are saying. I think these people that are making such a ridiculous claim are focusing too much on the negative aspects of Steam. Why not focus on the positive aspects of Steam instead? If a customer isn't able to tell the difference between the good and the bad, maybe they need to reevaluate their taste in video games. It's not rocket science.

Steam has become a joke. I stated on these forums months ago that it needs quality control. When I log into Steam now days I just facepalm. The amount of crap on there is astronomical, it's a prime example of quantity over quality just like a flea market.

I totally disagree with that guy. Steam doesn't need a quality control and I think Greenlight and Early Access has brought Steam users some amazing games.

When it really boils down to it, it's the consumer who presses the buy button. There are SO many resources, both on steam and on third party sites, to get information about a game before you buy it that you really have no excuse for buying a piece of shit game.

The problem is many consumers are lazy/ignorant and they buy a game because the idea sounds awesome then they freak out when they play it because it's an alpha build and they don't even know what an alpha is (this more applies with early access).

The only joke here is your mentality of needing someone to hold your hand in making purchases.

So don't then. The fact that it's available isn't making anyone buy anything against their will. It's a complete non-issue. I don't understand how anyone can possibly think there's anything wrong with that. I guess I was just raised to believe that people make their own decisions. Call me old fashioned.

I don't, that doesn't mean I agree or will be passive about a companies business decisions.

even xbox live has a lot of crap games that get through some how, so quality control doesnt work too well. Even back in the NES days, remember all the awful games that were out.

steam does have a review area for games which i find very useful for games i'm not familiar with. most crap games will get bad reviews and the people will show it in the ratings of them

What sort of quality control could Steam feasibly implement?

Whether the game is finished? Whether the game has been properly bug-tested? Whether the game is stable on most systems?

All of those things would prevent major games like Skyrim from ever being released on Steam, and would thus be a massively poor business decision for Valve to make.

Besides, what if I *choose* to buy an Early Access game, or a game that I know is going to be unintentionally hilarious (ie. the Big Rigs argument)? Why should Valve intervene, when people want to buy the games that they want to buy, regardless of the state they are in? As long as the games are correctly labelled, who cares?

Is it though? We live in an era where if any product is fraudulent - it's instantly pointed out to consumers the moment people get ripped off. Just like any industry, reputation is important...

Literally, all you have to do is type "is X a scam?" - 'X' being whatever you're intending to buy. Takes half a second. If you can't find any feasible evidence that it's a scam - then gauge the reputation of the company and how much you trust them - just like any other business in the world.

The phrase "quality control" evokes a more closed platform, like some sort of app store or Microsoft store. I don't think that's the way to go. If developers put a shitty product on steam, the market will respond accordingly. I do think one thing steam could do would be to standardize the application of metascores (including user averages) for every game on steam. Some games that didn't do as well with critics clearly make requests to steam to delay the posting of their score. I get waiting for all the scores to come in before adding it, but all games should have a metascore up at the same time.

Steam user reviews now being available also help with this.