Valve making steps to address 'off-topic review bombs' on Steam

Quoting: monnef

Quoting: einherjar

Quoting: monnef

Quoting: stuffAnother example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release.

Price and value of the game is definitely part of my ratings and reviews. This is IMO deserved, they should have not cut price so soon after release ....

Hmm, but every one looking at the game a few month after release, will see a negative rating. And this does not help these customers. They want to know if the game is good if it is fun to play. They do not care, if someone thinks, the game was lowered in price to early.
So it is a point of view. If I want to inform me, if the game is fun to play - what does the reviews help me, that rate the game down, just because it was going cheap to early (and this is just a feeling of the ones, who bought it at a higher price).

The act of lowering prematurely is still present. People who bought it early were paying for a service they didn't get (exclusivity in exchange for money, they lack money and exclusivity, theft?). This is not some subjective metric, you can compare all AAA games in last several years and look at how long it should remain at the top price. Weren't last Battlefield and Fallout just weeks after release hugely discounted? Right there, that is anti-consumer and in my opinion should reflect rating of a game, because if they pulled such scam once, people should expect to pull it again and this (rating and reviews) can warn new customers against scummy practices.

I am for everything being on-topic, because seeing how Valve is incompetent - saying DRM and EULA are OFF-TOPIC and not part of a game (WTF? DRM is literally part of a game and EULA must be accepted before playing, so, in my view, part as well). I don't trust them to not **** up, because they have several times already.

This strikes me as a massive overreaction. You sound like the game publishers were conspiring with the later buyers against the initial buyers like some kind of backwards pump-and-dump stock scheme, which seems kind of unlikely since both groups are random assortments of individuals, and if there were people they really wanted to have the game cheap, they could just give those people keys individually. The game publishers have no reason to prefer any one group of random individuals over another group. Presumably they dropped the price because it seemed like they weren't selling enough at the original price.
Also, precisely because it's a matter of one group getting a lower price than another group, it can hardly be considered "anti-consumer" in general. It favours one group of consumers over another. But there are inevitably going to be sales and price drops in the end, and the people who buy for cheap inevitably get a better deal than people who buy at full price. Sales starting soon after release just mean fewer people had to pay full price. But those few early buyers would still have paid full price if the sales started a year later--they just would have had more company. So essentially, they're complaining not because they got a bad deal, but because someone else is getting a good deal.
Given all that, I don't see why consumers coming along later to decide whether they should take the good deal, should want to be influenced by people who specifically would prefer they be getting a worse deal. Really, how persuasive is "I want you to have to pay more for this game, so don't buy it cheap!" What's my incentive to want those people's reviews included in the game's score?


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 17 March 2019 at 6:17 pm UTC

I think it's a step in the right direction. Maybe there's better mechanics to differentiate between product quality and issues with licence, dev behaviour, pricing or whatever there is to have an opinion about, but please remember a review bomb is quite destructive, and who guarantees the bombers are right every time?
On the other hand, does anyone of you believe your voice, with your special weighed out mix of opinions will be recognised from within the blunt force of a review bomb?

Quoting: EikeI wonder if they could use some "AI" to extract the reason of the review bombing and add this information to the store page, like at the place where you see "similar to games you played", "played by friend" etc:
* Review bombed for going to sale
* Review bombed for leaving Steam
* Review bombed for featuring pronouns
* Review bombed for DRM
etc pp

so use AI to turn it into youtube. suuuuure x3

Quoting: stuffWell, before just putting out pitchforks, we should remain objective. There are instances with games being review bombed and these reviews having nothing to to with the quality of the game. For example Metro series because Metro Exodus is an Epic store exclusive. This has nothing to to with the quality of the game and should not be taken into consideration for the rating in the store. Another example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release. Some other games because of some Youtuber.
Because of that, this feature might be not necessarily anti-consumer, but actually pro-consumer. So, if anyone has info which games' ratings were purged, it would be nice to know. Because then we can see if this system is used in a sensible way.

While I agree, the case of Metro:Exodus had nothing to do at all about the quality of the game. (although the Denuvo DRM part does screw up player experience and lower the quality.)

It was review bombed because of the Epic Game Store exclusivity agreement. However, as we all know, exclusivity agreements are anti-consumer.

Other than a you-tuber not getting his/her narcissistic fantasies fulfilled, I would argue that review bombs are generally pro-consumer as they notify the public to anti-consumer behavior, whether that is DRM, micro-transactions in paid games, broken or horribly programmed garbage, or exclusivity agreements.

Quoting: stretch611

Quoting: stuffWell, before just putting out pitchforks, we should remain objective. There are instances with games being review bombed and these reviews having nothing to to with the quality of the game. For example Metro series because Metro Exodus is an Epic store exclusive. This has nothing to to with the quality of the game and should not be taken into consideration for the rating in the store. Another example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release. Some other games because of some Youtuber.
Because of that, this feature might be not necessarily anti-consumer, but actually pro-consumer. So, if anyone has info which games' ratings were purged, it would be nice to know. Because then we can see if this system is used in a sensible way.

While I agree, the case of Metro:Exodus had nothing to do at all about the quality of the game. (although the Denuvo DRM part does screw up player experience and lower the quality.)

It was review bombed because of the Epic Game Store exclusivity agreement. However, as we all know, exclusivity agreements are anti-consumer.

Other than a you-tuber not getting his/her narcissistic fantasies fulfilled, I would argue that review bombs are generally pro-consumer as they notify the public to anti-consumer behavior, whether that is DRM, micro-transactions in paid games, broken or horribly programmed garbage, or exclusivity agreements.

I would argue they are a matter of force, not of quality and diversity of arguments.

Quoting: doomiebaby

Quoting: EikeI wonder if they could use some "AI" to extract the reason of the review bombing and add this information to the store page, like at the place where you see "similar to games you played", "played by friend" etc:
* Review bombed for going to sale
* Review bombed for leaving Steam
* Review bombed for featuring pronouns
* Review bombed for DRM
etc pp

so use AI to turn it into youtube. suuuuure x3

I don't understand what you want to tell me.
If I wasn't clear enough:
I don't want review bombs to contaminate overall rating,
but I do want to know if a game has been review bombed and why.

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: monnef

Quoting: einherjar

Quoting: monnef

Quoting: stuffAnother example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release.

Price and value of the game is definitely part of my ratings and reviews. This is IMO deserved, they should have not cut price so soon after release ....

Hmm, but every one looking at the game a few month after release, will see a negative rating. And this does not help these customers. They want to know if the game is good if it is fun to play. They do not care, if someone thinks, the game was lowered in price to early.
So it is a point of view. If I want to inform me, if the game is fun to play - what does the reviews help me, that rate the game down, just because it was going cheap to early (and this is just a feeling of the ones, who bought it at a higher price).

The act of lowering prematurely is still present. People who bought it early were paying for a service they didn't get (exclusivity in exchange for money, they lack money and exclusivity, theft?). This is not some subjective metric, you can compare all AAA games in last several years and look at how long it should remain at the top price. Weren't last Battlefield and Fallout just weeks after release hugely discounted? Right there, that is anti-consumer and in my opinion should reflect rating of a game, because if they pulled such scam once, people should expect to pull it again and this (rating and reviews) can warn new customers against scummy practices.

I am for everything being on-topic, because seeing how Valve is incompetent - saying DRM and EULA are OFF-TOPIC and not part of a game (WTF? DRM is literally part of a game and EULA must be accepted before playing, so, in my view, part as well). I don't trust them to not **** up, because they have several times already.

This strikes me as a massive overreaction. You sound like the game publishers were conspiring with the later buyers against the initial buyers like some kind of backwards pump-and-dump stock scheme, which seems kind of unlikely since both groups are random assortments of individuals, and if there were people they really wanted to have the game cheap, they could just give those people keys individually. The game publishers have no reason to prefer any one group of random individuals over another group. Presumably they dropped the price because it seemed like they weren't selling enough at the original price.
Also, precisely because it's a matter of one group getting a lower price than another group, it can hardly be considered "anti-consumer" in general. It favours one group of consumers over another. But there are inevitably going to be sales and price drops in the end, and the people who buy for cheap inevitably get a better deal than people who buy at full price. Sales starting soon after release just mean fewer people had to pay full price. But those few early buyers would still have paid full price if the sales started a year later--they just would have had more company. So essentially, they're complaining not because they got a bad deal, but because someone else is getting a good deal.
Given all that, I don't see why consumers coming along later to decide whether they should take the good deal, should want to be influenced by people who specifically would prefer they be getting a worse deal. Really, how persuasive is "I want you to have to pay more for this game, so don't buy it cheap!" What's my incentive to want those people's reviews included in the game's score?

I am simply stating that buyers after release are paying for time-limited exclusivity, for a new game to experience it first and for some time. It is reasonable to expect for like a month or more to price not to drop, that is the service they are paying for. So yes, it is anti-consumer if publisher halves price after a week. I, honestly, don't see it that much pro-consumer even from the perspective of later buyers. When the price drops so heavily so quickly, it usually means the product has major flaws and later buyers are now buying it knowing the risks, essentially gambling. But definitely knowing risks more than the initial release buyers.

So yes, IMO a game should have worse score and reviews if its price was halved in first week and customers weren't compensated (e.g. returned portion of money or some points for cash shop). Remember, this can happen multiple times, not just once. It can happen for its DLCs and sequels as well.

PS: No, I didn't mean publisher is conspiring with later buyers, just screwing early buyers by not providing expected service.

Quoting: monnefSo yes, IMO a game should have worse score and reviews if its price was halved in first week and customers weren't compensated (e.g. returned portion of money or some points for cash shop).

The review score is meant to represent the quality of the game.
Not how nice the publisher is.
Not how nice the developer is.
Not how some random dev tweeted something that offended a few people.
Not for how fitting the price policy is (except if a game is overpriced, of course).

Nothing of that says anything about the game.
And nothing of that should be part of the review score.

Yes, I know it is the only "channel" that some users WRONGLY think to have. Well, though shit, it's still the wrong place.

If at all, introduce a second review score, one that actually is focused on the developer (and/or publisher).


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 18 March 2019 at 8:25 am UTC

Finally some action against those fake reviews. Or those reviewers that have 0.5 hours on record... Why are they even allowed to review...
Since it is now up to the viewers, I want to have a filter that can filter out minimal playtime for instance. Or more statistics, like how many down and ups per week, so we can easily see if there was a shitstorm of people blindly echoing eachother not really knowing why they are doing it, just to be herding.
But personally, if a game has a negative score, I usually ignore it, and try to determine myself if I would like a game.
I have never regretted buying a game that has a bad score.

For being a Linux site this is really full of corporate drones, which are like, "ohh my God, those poor devs".
Review bombing works both ways, it was used on GTA V when Take Two decided to shut down the modding scene of the game by sending a C&D letter to Open GTA developers and also worked (in a positive way) when ASW (maybe most of you arent aware of this) a fighting games developer was doing their first port for PC, which were awful but everyone was happy to see the company developing for PC and everyone was like, "port is awful but ASW is trying".

This is just another move Valve is doing to please AAA developers, the ones who hates customers to have a voice and since Devs can ban anyone who dares to say anything negative in their hubs, this is another way for sweeping things under the rug. Too bad for Valve, so afraid of AAA devs moving to Epic Fail Store.

IMO review bombing is the best tool for consumers to recommend games but also recommend companies which behavior can be controlled thanks to these tools, now they can go back to being the bunch of 4ssh0l3s they really are.

Also we stopped paid mods thanks to review bombing, but it seems being a pro-corporate anti-consumer guy is the trend these days. Funny thing all of you are consumers...


Last edited by orochi_kyo on 18 March 2019 at 3:20 am UTC