New Valve Tool Will Address Steam Review Bombings

Hope it helps.

161 Comments
Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Great New 2019 PC Games To Watch Out For - Steam Punks

Valve has announced it's revisiting user reviews on Steam in order to combat review bombing. In a blog post, Valve wrote it will now "identify off-topic review bombs, and remove them from the Review Score."

"We define an off-topic review bomb as one where the focus of those reviews is on a topic that we consider unrelated to the likelihood that future purchasers will be happy if they buy the game, and hence not something that should be added to the Review Score," Valve continued. The company admits there's still a bit of a grey area with this definition, so it's developed a tool that "identifies any anomalous review activity on all games on Steam in as close to real-time as possible."

After the tool has identified possibly troublesome reviews, it will inform Valve and the company will then begin an investigation. If Valve decides the user reviews are an off-topic bomb, the company will inform the developer that every review within the time period of the review bomb will be removed from the game's overall Steam score. At this point, however, the user reviews will still be live. It will be up to the developer's discretion over which are deleted.

The downside to this process is that every user review during an off-topic review bomb will be removed from a game's overall Steam score, even the good ones. "But as we mentioned back in our first User Review post, our data shows us that review bombs tend to be temporary distortions, so we believe the Review Score will still be accurate, and other players will still be able to find and read your review within the period," Valve wrote. Plenty of negative comments that focus on DRM or EULA changes will also be considered off-topic review bombings as well.

Developers who don't want this new tool combing through their games' comments and Valve declaring when an off-topic review bomb is happening can opt out of the process by going into their Steam Store options. Valve is working on a few more changes to user reviews as well, but they'll be shipped out at a later date.

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 161 comments about this story
161 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for ruediix
ruediix

They REALLY need an option for a nuetral review.

There are many cases in which I really can't give a game a positive or negative score. My review simply equates to the game is not for me even if I thought otherwise, and maybe you should consider this before buying the game.

Avatar image for ggregd
ggregd

I think they should just flag the game info somewhere indicating they detected evidence of review bombing and let people who are interested in the game figure out what's up. If it's just a case of the usual suspects angry because a game has the audacity to feature a non-white male lead character (or whatever might make lefties hate a game) it's always painfully obvious. These people aren't a brain trust.

Avatar image for jumalan75
jumalan75

I don’t know that I agree with Steam thwarting people getting upset about EULA changes... seems like something that’s pretty integral to the users privacy

Avatar image for thedarklinglord
thedarklinglord

The only system that will work here is having actual Valve employees who read the reviews and use their friggin' brains - along with some set guidelines - to determine which reviews are bullsh*t and need to be removed and which ones are valid complaints.

"I can't buy the new game on Steam, therefore the previous games by this developer/publisher are crap. Wah!" Not a valid complaint.

"This game has DRM that forces you to verify your purchase every ****ing time you start it, forcing you to waste your damn time when all you want to do is play the friggin' game you paid for, basically accusing you a being a filthy pirate even though you bought the damn game legitimately." Kind of a valid complaint. (If the DRM can impact your enjoyment of a game, that makes it as legitimate a grievance as exceptionally long load times. But, again, Valve would need actual human beings checking to ensure that the game does, in fact, include DRM - and it's not review bombers exploiting a loophole - and that it does negatively impact the experience.)

"This game includes spyware that gathers system information without permission and bogs down your system performance." Absolutely a valid reason to crucify a game with negative reviews. (Again, provided Valve has employees that can verify the claim. At which point, they should really just remove the game from the store and issue a warning to the developer that such practice will not be tolerated.)

This isn't an issue that can be solved with an algorithm. Sure, they can implement a system that flags games that suddenly get a deluge of negative reviews, bringing the matter to someone's attention, but then Valve is going to need actual human beings to read those reviews, sift through the sh*t, and decide whether it's an issue of review bombing or legitimate criticism. Sorry, Valve, but some of your employees are actually going to have to work. They clearly aren't making games, so what the hell else do they have to do?

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@thedarklinglord: I'd have to disagree with you on the Metro Exodus example. It's basically a warning that you can't buy the game because the developer had to get greedy and lazy and make it an Epic Game Store exclusive instead of doing what was done with Jacket for Payday 2 for PC and try to work out a deal to get Metro content in Fortnite for those who bought the game on there instead. A better example for the Metro series that doesn't seem valid involves an elderly woman known as Christine McMillan.

Avatar image for thedarklinglord
thedarklinglord

@Jinzo_111887: But how does not being able to buy Metro Exodus on Steam suddenly make Metro 2033 and/or Metro Last Light bad games? Because that's what happened. Those games went from having Positive/Mostly Positive ratings to Overwhelmingly Negative ratings shortly after Metro Exodus had to be pulled off Steam. People weren't rating down Metro Exodus, they were rating down those older games based on the fact that they suddenly couldn't buy the new game on Steam. As such, their ratings had nothing to do with the quality of those previous games, making those reviews completely irrelevant.

Those people were certainly entitled to their opinions and their outrage, but trashing the old games simply because the new one wasn't going to be available on their service of choice was inexcusable. They could've taken to Twitter or Facebook with their outrage. They could've started an online petition (for all the good those things do). They could have inundated Deep Silver's office with letters, emails, phone calls, texts. They could've at least tried to conduct themselves with some level of civility instead of acting like spoiled children throwing tantrums.

And it wasn't entirely clear who those people were even mad at. Epic, for stealing Metro Exodus away from Steam? Valve, for not fighting harder or offering Deep Silver a better deal to keep the game on Steam? Deep Silver, for being "greedy" and trying to get a better cut of profits from an alternate marketplace or taking whatever payout Epic offered them to make the game exclusive to their store? And what did they really hope to accomplish by review bombing those old games? Because, honestly, I'm surprised Deep Silver didn't pull 2033 and Last Light from Steam after that and make them exclusive to Epic's store, if for no other reason than to leave those unjustified negative reviews behind.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@thedarklinglord: Why bother starting a story you know you can't finish because you're being denied the entire third installment for a year unless you give into their demands and install that spyware crap client? Honestly, those bad reviews were justified for what they did as they deserve a punishment for that kind of crap. However, review bombing it sure is better than telling people to go pirate the game, wouldn't you agree? I also consider them a bit foolish to give up the bigger audience for a bigger percentage. 70% of 180 million is likely bigger than 88% of Fortnite players. Besides, as I said, if they wanted more people to buy it from Epic, they should appeal to those who play Fortnite as well instead of taking the "my way or the highway" approach. As for me, while I've not personally played the Metro games despite having got the first two for free, I'd rather see this Epic Game Store exclusivity crap die off and rather Epic compete with a gimmick instead. Fortnite becoming something of a Crossover Battle Royale game where you get characters based on the games you have on the Epic Game Store would be one possibility.

Avatar image for thedarklinglord
thedarklinglord

@Jinzo_111887: So...if the game hadn't release for another year from now, they'd still deserve to be punished for not ensuring that people could 'finish the story' right now on their platform and service of choice? Again, that's just childish. This outrageous sense of entitlement that people have these days...

I wasn't thrilled that Deep Silver opted to go with Epic over Steam, but I understand that it's a business and they're doing what's best for them - not just now but, ideally, for the future. The reason they chose to go with the smaller market share on Epic over Steam wasn't just about a larger percentage of profits on this one game. Epic almost certainly paid them something to get that first year exclusivity but, more than that, companies are supporting Epic because they're trying to create a competitive market where they'll be able to negotiate fairer if not better deals in the future. (It's not unlike companies selling their consoles at a loss just so they can get more units into more homes, with the goal being to better establish their system and make it up on the back end through software and services.) If Epic starts buying exclusives for their service, Steam will inevitably have to start competing, whether through offering better terms or by fronting payments to get their own exclusives. So, whether they're receiving those payouts for timed exclusivity or they're getting a better percentage on profits, developers/publishers benefit from throwing their support behind Epic now, since Epic has the money - all that Fortnite money - that puts them in the best position to compete with Steam. It's no different than what you see on consoles - with the big exception being that Valve, unlike Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo, no longer bothers to develop their own first-party titles. Valve has just been sponging off the profits of developers/publishers who do all the hard work, pay all the expenses for development and take all the risks of making games. And they've been able to get away with it because they've been the only game in town - unless companies want to start their own exclusive clients, which plenty of companies have and most people don't want to use for a variety of reasons.

While I'm no fan of exclusivity, I've accepted it as an unfortunate and necessary evil. Exclusivity is what gets consumers to choose your console or your service over the competition. If it's not exclusivity of software, it's exclusivity of services or features - until the other guy decides to follow suit and copy those services/features. Microsoft had achievements, people really seemed to like that, so Sony implemented trophies. Sony needed more people to subscribe to PS+ and decided to offer monthly free games to subscribers, a feature that Microsoft ultimately felt compelled to bring to their service in order to compete. We're just seeing that same thing play out now with Epic and Steam. It sucks, but that's just the way business works.

As for review bombing being better than pirating games...you're only talking by a matter of degrees. You're basically saying that lying about someone's product so that people won't buy it is better than just outright stealing it. Which, I mean, yeah, I guess. But both are pretty reprehensible behavior. End of the day, you're costing the company money. It's just a question of whether or not you're personally taking it for yourself.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@thedarklinglord:

Yes, especially with console ports playable. PC gamers get crapped on left and right and I'm tired of it.

Giving up 180 million users to chase a larger percentage of a smaller audience is better? I'd go for the 180 million or better yet go for both and use the Payday 2 approach for Jacket and work with Epic to get Metro content into Fortnite for those who buy the game from Epic. Seems fair to everyone.

Exclusivity of games is something that needs to die. It's one contributing factor to how consoles are getting away with being glorified ransomware machines.

If they're going to do crappy things like what Deep Silver and Sega did, they 100% deserve such a review bombing.

Avatar image for deactivated-5ca4ef000ae56

@thedarklinglord: Well said. Two things to add to what you said:

1. It's unfair to get mad because of distributor exclusives and compare them to console exclusives for the simple fact that you don't have to purchase an entirely new system to get them. As of right now Origin, Uplay, Epic, GOG, Steam, and Microsoft Store are literally just a free download away (also altogether take up no more than 3 GB worth of space). Which really makes the whole Metro review bombs absurd.

2. I never understand the logic behind pirating a game, because it has DRM. "Hey the put DRM in games because we've been pirating them, so let's pirate the games because they put DRM in them" smh. An unending cycle that assures that DRM will never go away.

Avatar image for thedarklinglord
thedarklinglord

@xxpaaxx: I can understand why people were angry about feeling forced to use Epic's client if they wanted to play the game. Hell, I have plenty of issues with Epic's client, and won't be bullied into using it. But that's my choice. It's not a great choice - play our game on this service or don't play it - but it is still a choice. And there are games I just straight up haven't/don't play because I'd have to use an alternate service. I haven't played a Blizzard game (on PC) since Warcraft III because I won't use Battle.net - even though I loved Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo back in the day. I occasional wonder what I'm missing, but I don't feel the need to lash out like a child, review bombing all of Activision's games because Activision owns Blizzard and Blizzard won't let me play their games on Steam. It wouldn't change anything and would only serve to make me look like an irrational, insufferable d*ck.

Again, it's that sense of entitlement that people - mostly the younger crowd, but you see quite a few adult suffering from it too - have these days. The majority of people who pirate stuff - movies, music, games - are just common petty thieves. They aren't doing it to make a statement, they just feel they're entitled to have the stuff and shouldn't have to pay for it so they just steal it. The very small percentage that pirate games as an act of war against DRM...I can understand and, to some degree, I sympathize with that attitude - particularly when they pirate those games, strip out the DRM, and then redistribute them to the masses (though, sadly, its the masses of those first type of pirates) DRM-free. Because DRM isn't stopping piracy. It's only penalizing people who buy the game legitimately and are then forced them to jump through the hoops of that anti-piracy bullsh*t. It's exactly the sort of thing that pushes those honest consumers toward piracy, where they just want to play the game without the DRM, but since there's no option to buy a DRM-free version, why not just download the pirated version that's had it removed? Do that often enough and it might become hard to ever go back to paying for games, DRM or no. It's why I have nothing buy love for CD Projekt Red, who've just accepted that some percentage of dirtbags are just going to steal their sh*t and, rather than fight it with DRM, have decided that their only option is try and make damn good games that the majority of people are happy to purchase legitimately.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@thedarklinglord: For starters, spyware. It gathers data from the Steam client without permission. There's also them taking games from other store fronts to make them exclusive, which means they have a monopoly on them. I don't mind Epic having those games, but they shouldn't be exclusive. If they want to compete, work out deals with publishers to make Fortnite something more of a crossover battle royale game. Would provide a reason for people to consider games such as Doom and Halo on Epic Game Store instead and keep things going for new seasons of the game.

Avatar image for thedarklinglord
thedarklinglord

@Jinzo_111887: I get it. You don't like exclusives. Can't say I'm a fan of them either. (Hell, I'd argue that only fanboys get off on having games exclusive to their preferred platform.) I mean, I really wanted to play Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - actually, there have been a handful of Zelda games I wanted to play over the last decade or so - but Nintendo's systems just haven't really appealed to me, especially the Switch, and I couldn't justify spending a few hundred dollars to play, at best, a handful of games on each system. Doesn't mean I should throw a damn hissy fit and leave negative reviews for every Nintendo product that exists on any website/webstore that have allows consumer reviews simply because they aren't making their games available on a system I already own and prefer. Instead, I just don't play Nintendo's games. Because exclusives aren't going anywhere. People either need to just learn to accept it and move on with their lives, playing all the games that are available to them, or, if it really bothers them that much, they should just stop gaming altogether.

And it's worth noting that Metro Exodus is only exclusive to Epic's store temporarily, not in perpetuity. So, all this lashing out and review bombing isn't even about people not being able to play the game on Steam, it's about them whining that they can't play it on Steam right nooooooow, like the bunch of spoiled Veruca Salts that they are.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@thedarklinglord: The situation with Metro is a bit different than console exclusives, though. It was going to be sold on Steam on a set date, but then the developer decided to go back on their word and make it a timed exclusive. I'm kind of hoping they'll pull a similar stunt on Epic and release it on Steam early as Metro Exodus Redux or something like that.

Avatar image for deactivated-5ca4ef000ae56

@thedarklinglord: See you get it. You can't control what happens to you, but you can control how you react. You have some of the same gripes as those posting those reviews, but you don't react like - how did you put it? - a manchild (hilarious word by the way). It's refreshing to see maturity on a game website.

Thanks for explaining the DRM vs Piracy. You pointed out a few things I wasn't aware of. I don't think people will ever stop pirating, because as you said entitled turds exist. I also don't think DRM will go away, because who can blame a company for trying to get credit/money for the hard work they put into their product. They just need to better implement it. Somehow make it stronger, so it isn't cracked so easily (maybe consider hiring some of those hackers). They also need to implement it in a way that allows people to keep what that bought over a lifetime.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@xxpaaxx: 1.) I'm picky about what I install on my machine and after what I've found out about it, there's no chance I'll install that spyware. It seems they're taking private info from the Steam Client without permission.

2.) And that's the problem. Consumers are left with bloated games and a chance being locked out of the games they bought because of this cycle.

Avatar image for DoctorTanaka
DoctorTanaka

Hey! That "I just made a million dollars working at home" review bomb didn't make it into these comments! Funny that!

Avatar image for deviltaz35
DEVILTAZ35

Valve is just pandering to devs as all this will do is stop people posting legit reviews for fear it will be misconstrued and removed anyway.

This is how it starts, first this then they start just removing anything they don't like or what may be ''offensive'' to the snowflake generation.

I agree with anyone below that said it should seek out and remove anything to do with people's feelings as feelings have no consequence on whether a game is good or not. It should be set criteria and whether or not it offended or upset someone in the process should be immaterial.

Avatar image for kgsg-19-2
kgsg-19-2

eh... I understand the reasoning behind taking down reviews, and I agree w/ it, but also disagree w/ it. I don't trust some of these dev's to not take down bad reviews that aren't review bombs, but it's understandable that they should be able to. At the same time, I think consumers should have a right to review bomb dev's or whoever because of shady or bad practices to let the dev know that it's not ok and to inform other consumers.

Somebody else mentioned this as well but, adding a totally separate dev review section would satisfy both anti-review bomb people and the others who don't want reviews taken down. That way you can see if a game is good or not but also know if the dev has some shady stuff going on and you can choose to purchase or not from that info based on what you believe in.

Avatar image for Roman217
Roman217

Rather than removing reviews being handled by Steam or by the developers, why not make an algorithm which places way more weight on what other Steam users feel about reviews? Isn't that generally the purpose of the whole "Found this review helpful" or "Found this review funny" system is? Why not offer options to say you think that this review is not helpful or is not relevant or spam? Then when it gets enough votes on those negative traits, it can be flagged by the algorithm to either be deleted or else have its weight in the overall rating of the game be significantly reduced. Same thing for very helpful reviews, they can have increased weight in the overall rating of the game.

Avatar image for kgsg-19-2
kgsg-19-2

@Roman217: Not a bad idea, but no thank you. This is what netflix and metacritic has and what happens is that people upvote and downvote based on whether they agree or disagree on the review's score and not on whether it was actually helpful or not. So if a movie is highly rated but I think it's actually garbage so I rate it as such and review it in an intelligently and well reasoned post, it'll still get downvoted just because people disagree w/ it.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@Roman217: They did something like that, but it worked the opposite. Instead of the number of people who found reviews helpful, the more reviews a person voted as helpful, the less weight their opinion had.

Avatar image for santinegrete
santinegrete

Is this an update? Because the 1st beta of the algorythm created for this issue is still in , well beta. Customers bitching is bad now? maybe any dev should taclke the issue from the root, wich is usually a new arbitrary restriction (locking mods) or shady new microtransaction imposition.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@santinegrete: Or DRM locking people out of the game they already paid for, which kind of ruins the concept of "getting what you paid for."

Avatar image for Slash_out
Slash_out

I'm not completely okay with this.

The reviews not being counted in the total score... Why not, not happy with it but I understand.

But the devs should not have the opportunity to decide if yes or no the review should be deleted. Steam deciding would; not be okay, but I would understand. But the devs deciding themselves if they should remove the review criticizing them? Are you kidding? They'll just go through every review tagged as offtopic and remove the bad ones, even if they really are on topic, and leave the good ones even if they really are off topic.

Aside from the obvious fact that devs should not police their reviews, even if they are tagged as off-topic, I am not okay with it, because while the review might not reflect the games, it reflects the devs or the publisher. Buying a game, is buying a product but it's also voting with your wallet, we should all be familiar with it. And people should know if the devs have sketchy practices.

Just added a very suspicious EULA? A barely legal DRM ? The devs insults its consumer base? All important to know, and while there are other places to find this out, there are none more clear than the place you actually buy the game and dev/publishers SHOULD be punished for bad practices. You don't mess with your client base, this should be obvious. If you run a bakery and your bread is good but you have a bunch of under-age slaves baking it in the basement, then that's not okay. That goes for everything, are those shoes made in a sweat shop? Does this company spy on its users? The final product, no matter how good, is not everything.

User reviews should not be held on the same standard as professional reviews, they are more personal and raw. And that's how it should be. I understand if the score is not counted on the total BUT the review should stay.

Avatar image for NaturallyEvil
NaturallyEvil

I think the only way to really be fair about this would be to have separate reviews for either the developers or publishers. You might see that Destiny has a "Mostly Positive" rating, but underneath you would see "Publisher Rating: Overwhelmingly Negative" and you could click on it to see the review page for Activision if you care.

As for how they're doing things currently, AFAIK Valve saw this as a non-issue up until now. So I ask myself, "What happened recently to change their mind?" My best guess is that this is about scummy publishers becoming exclusive to Epic, so sadly this system will probably be geared toward giving scumbags the chance to censor players' warnings.

At the end of the day though, in 2019 Steam's reviews are merely a convenience. If you are worried about this sort if thing, it's not too hard to research the major complaints about a game with a quick internet search.

Avatar image for Bamda
Bamda

I think this is a great idea. I hate how people turn reviews into something it was never intended to be. But instead, turn the review into a commentary on the company's poor support on a previous game or for not getting a refund because they played beyond the refund time. They are just out to hurt the developer and this is one option.

Avatar image for titan6669
titan6669

People seem to be misunderstanding. Review bombs are not just negative reviews, It's specifically when a group of people negatively review a game for something that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAID GAME.

Like metro getting bombs because the third game when to epic, or when all the total war games got bombed for the Rome 2 female generals "controversy", or that indie game whose developer criticized china, or the any of the other countless fucking examples.

Avatar image for Roman217
Roman217

@titan6669: In my opinion the Metro example would depend on what way it is given. I personally buy games on Steam and hope that whole series will be available on Steam otherwise I would run into a situation where I can only partially play the series but not the whole series. And I know there are likely many out there with the same opinion as me. So warning someone that if they buy one of the other Metro games that they won't be able to play the newest one (if they're like me) is a completely fair thing to do, and you could be saving someone money early on if they find out that they don't want to buy it if the whole series won't be available on Steam.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@Roman217: Bingo. I see you get it.

Avatar image for santinegrete
santinegrete

@titan6669: Your Metro exodus example is a very eloquent one, but I've seen so few examples of it compared to the bombing of some games locking mods and adding draconian P2W microtransaction schemes.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@titan6669: Actually, I'd say Metro Exodus is a good one since it's them not allowing people who bought the first two games to get the complete series on Steam and force them to wait.

Avatar image for alexubel989
alexubel989

@Jinzo_111887: To be fair, while I didn't agree with what happened with Metro Exodus, the people that pre-ordered the game on Steam, got their copy on Steam upon release. They aren't waiting the year it will be exclusive to Epic Games.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@alexubel989: After Sonic Mania, people have a reason not to preorder games. I was one of those people that got burned by a nasty surprised that wasn't revealed during the preorder period.

Avatar image for superklyph
SuperKlyph

@Jinzo_111887: Actually you'd be wrong.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@superklyph: Completely fair since it's saying"don't get attached to this franchise." However, maybe people would stop going after the games if they were able review the publisher/developer and have that posted on Steam store page as well so people can factor in crappy publisher/developer behaviors into their buying habits. If you want an example involving Metro that the games could be review bombed that actually isn't related to the game itself, research Christine McMillan's connection into the game.

Avatar image for masscrack
masscrack

Censorship, steam is the latest Rotten Tomatoes.

Avatar image for bruta
bruta

credit where credit's due, but they're doing this mostly because of the recent Metro 2033/LL review bombing. did nothing but harm towards Steam's image.

edgy crap and something/10 was already pathetic, now you have to scroll through ASCII defecation 'reviews'. definitely not something to be proud of

Avatar image for Tiwill44
Tiwill44

This is probably the best solution you could hope for.

I think review bombing is a legitimate way for users to express their discontempt about a game or warn other users that the company behind it did something bad. But there's no reason it needs to affect the review score of the game if the game itself is good.

Now if you see an asterisk next to a positive score, it means the game itself could be good, but there's some controversy happening around it and you should check the reviews to see what's wrong. This is far more informative than it was before.

With this update, review bombing will remain as effective as before. But now it'll be clearer what the complaints are about.

Avatar image for Bamda
Bamda

@Tiwill44: People should be posting their issues on the Community Hub, not in reviews.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@Bamda: Best to hit both, but if you're going to do so, explain why it's an issue for you. For me, the Metro Exodus thing is an issue because Sonic Mania killed my faith in preordering and this means if I want to buy it, I'd either have to buy a console and get it on that which I won't do as all three current gen consoles have ransomware for online play, install the spyware riddled Epic Game Store client, or wait a year while trying to avoid spoilers.

Avatar image for Bamda
Bamda

@Jinzo_111887: Again this is about corrupting the reviewing system. If you are using that system for your own personal issue and its not a review on the game then you are abusing the system. All other issues need to be addressed in the discussions area, aka Community Hub (forums).

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@Bamda: If it has to deal with the game or the franchise in question, it's fair game. Metro Exodus is fair game for those who like to have the entire series in one place, but can't because the developer got greedy. Besides, this system is open to abuse from the other end. Developers could make an effort to sweep complaints about bugs and glitches under the rug with this kind of power now.

Avatar image for Bamda
Bamda

@Jinzo_111887: Well this the last thing I am going to say on this subject. Game reviews are for game reviews. Forums (Steam Community Hub) are for discussing everything else.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@Bamda: And games are a franchise. Besides, the forums are already easy to sweep stuff under the rug. I've seen trolls frequently get topics they don't want discussed locked or deleted on the forums, thus the issue doesn't get addressed. The reviews were a better place to get the developer to address the issue until this allowed the issues brought up in reviews to be swept in under the rug.

Avatar image for superklyph
SuperKlyph

@Bamda: Big time, but people can't be trusted.

Avatar image for Tiwill44
Tiwill44

@Bamda: Ideally, but people are gonna use whatever makes the most impact. Devs are more likely to listen if you leave a negative review than if you make a peaceful post in the community hub, because nothing in the community hub has any impact on what people will see on the store page.

The idea is that if you hurt a game's front page image, less people will be inclined to buy the game, and so the devs will be forced to listen otherwise they lose money. And it has worked many times in the past.

Avatar image for Bamda
Bamda

@Tiwill44: And this is why sites like Rotton Tomatoes, Steam and others are making changes to prevent people from using reviews to damage a game or movie.

As for me, I have never let a bad review prevent me from getting the game, just delaying my purchase till I feel the game is in a state that I feel comfortable purchasing, games like No Man's Sky, Tom Clancy's The Division, Mass Effect Andromeda, Diablo III, and Destiny 2 to name a few.

Avatar image for Jinzo_111887
Jinzo_111887

@Tiwill44: If it actually worked. Some people are claiming it changing your settings doesn't.