Here's a case of how to definitely not deal with getting negative feedback. A developer of Depth of Extinction revoked a user's key after a negative review. Update: A statement from the developer.
Depth of Extinction is a game that went through itch's "First Access" program where they sold limited amounts of keys across various rounds. Like a lot of games that start off on itch.io, the developer promised a Steam key when the game makes into onto Valve's store. So to make matters worse, this was a user who helped fund them a little before the wider release.
You can see the Steam forum post here where the user talks about it, which is now locked by the developer which was made after they put up this user review on Steam. Looking at the short review, they're not even saying all that much and it sounds like a pretty honest post as well as remaining quite polite with their negative thoughts about it.
The reply the developer sent to the user, is a great example of how to not respond to players of your game who dislike certain aspects of it:
Sorry about that, but I thought I you weren't interested in playing the game. I would have loved to get your feedback during the First Access but I didn't see anything from you until the Steam review, which was a little confusing. I really don't see how you saw enough of the current version of the game to make the judgement call you did there since we made massive changes in the last few months that were all just on Steam.
I can get you another key if you are interested in playing more and perhaps providing some feedback on how we can improve the game.
As polite as the developer reply may seem, how could they have thought this would be a good idea? They did also apologise in a later post after. Since I actually quite like the game, it also stings a bit to see a developer I also supported do something like this. Thankfully, the situation is now resolved and the user does have access to it on Steam once again. Honestly though, I'm a little in shock that doing something like this would ever cross someone's mind.
I've given plenty of negative reviews in my time here and on Steam itself, I've later changed my mind on it especially in times when there's been a patch to improve things and this user could have done the same but that's not the point. This feels like an attempt to silence negative feedback to me, it doesn't sit right at all.
It does also bring up some interesting questions about how easy it is for developers to remove peoples access to their games. While it's a system that can help developers in certain situations, it's also a system that is quite obviously open to a bit of abuse. I do have to wonder what Valve think about this as well, so I've reached out to them for a comment and I will update this if they reply.
This does make another interesting case for DRM free games outside of Steam, since a developer can't just take away your ability to play it. While a DRM free store could remove the game from you, you're still able to fully back it up yourself.
Hat tip to madpinger for the info.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyI read that the phrase originates with the Roman lawyer Accursius in the thirteenth century. I'd assume aircraft weren't much of a concern back then.Quoting: tuubiOf course many other laws do not agree with that principle of common law. I'm pretty sure that in Canada, mineral rights are/can be separated from general land ownership, even though we are a country which has sort of inherited the British common law. And I'm pretty sure most jurisdictions do not allow most private property owners to stop planes from overflying their property; things would be tough for the airline industry otherwise.Quoting: chancho_zombieMy favourite principle of common law is Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos which translates to "whoever's is the soil, it is theirs all the way to Heaven and all the way to Hell"I'm pretty sure the principle refers to the land owner's rights to the air above and the ground below their plot. I like your dramatic interpretation though. :)
bluntly putting it: If you f**ck with land property we will drink your blood and take your soul.
Quoting: tuubiI read that the phrase originates with the Roman lawyer Accursius in the thirteenth century. I'd assume aircraft weren't much of a concern back then.
For this very reason, I wonder what the rights towards heaven were worth back then...
Quoting: EikeQuoting: tuubiI read that the phrase originates with the Roman lawyer Accursius in the thirteenth century. I'd assume aircraft weren't much of a concern back then.
For this very reason, I wonder what the rights towards heaven were worth back then...
I could imagine to have the rights to hunt everything that walks and flies above each ground.
Quoting: Purple Library GuyOf course many other laws do not agree with that principle of common law. I'm pretty sure that in Canada, mineral rights are/can be separated from general land ownership, even though we are a country which has sort of inherited the British common law. And I'm pretty sure most jurisdictions do not allow most private property owners to stop planes from overflying their property; things would be tough for the airline industry otherwise.
I actually looked this up a couple of months ago out of curiosity and mineral ownership only applies in Australia if you bought your property before a certain year (sometime in the 1960s, if I remember correctly); furthermore, if the property is passed from one family member to another, the latter is subject to the current laws (i.e. the Crown has exclusive rights to any minerals under your land). Frustratingly, I cannot find the specific legal reference at this time, and I really can't be be bothered digging deep for it just to prove a point - but there's plenty of easily located discussions regarding this.
With regards to upwards, it gets a little more complicated... The general rule is that you own high enough that you can have a "reasonable expectation of privacy"; most areas in Australia have state or local laws which prevent you from building your own private version of Isengard though, before anyone gets excited.
Of course ultimately, you only purchase the right to use the land in Australia (rather than "pure" ownership in the traditional sense) and there are countless laws under which the Government can revoke this right at their discretion... But that's a whole other discussion.
Last edited by Cyba.Cowboy on 22 October 2018 at 9:58 pm UTC
See more from me