I run most games at low-mid setting with 60 or more FPS (e.g. Overwatch). But not 7dtd, it was awful. On lowest settings 30-40 with common drops to much lower numbers. I really hope they fixed this now, because I don't consider unstable 30FPS being playable (same issue with Grim Dawn).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pmatulkaAre you ready? Download our app to test your PC.
System Requirements: Windows 10, SteamOS, Linux

Error: Incorrect platform.

Yeah... Linux support. :)

It installed for me, but doesn't do anything. Then I read on an app page:

Note that while Valve Index supports Linux and SteamOS, this application currently does not.

:(

Does anybody know how many square meters is required? Does it differ for different VR devices? Or is rather game dependent?
I don't know much about VR, but seeing a Linux support I am considering to start saving.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

No more models/shadows flickering in Grim Dawn, yey! ^_^

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Last time I checked SWTOR, it was rather a demo with subscription, if you want to continue, than F2P. Honestly, I like subscription models most. F2P too often are/become slimy P2W (I view unreasonable grind as P2W as well).

Quoting: JuliusLots of people on Steam giving it negative reviews because the servers are overloaded today... F2P gamers really are the smartest bunch /s

To be fair, how would you rate a game you downloaded, yet cannot play? IMO devs/publishers brought it on themselves. This was totally predictable.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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

Probably could, but easier is to identify "review bombing" by AI and a person would add a tag. But snowflake developers and greedy publishers would eat Valve alive, because this shows Valve could detect "review bombing" and yet Valve would not be doing anything with it - e.g. deleting reviews and ratings from the time of "review bombing".

I am using "review bombing" in quotation marks, because I don't believe what Valve is targeting is an organized effort (campaign), I think it will be in most cases organic. Valve is just silencing unhappy customers. Quite good video about the topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Rhua9WcZs [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: chris.echozGood thing it's optional

But by default enabled, toggle hidden behind like 5 screens and I believe it is only a matter of time when they disallow disabling it entirely (won't probably matter, majority of people will see manipulated reviews and ratings so publishers will have free hand at screwing customers).

I am limiting my spending on Steam, probably won't buy anything beyond the new Grimdawn dlc (only because I already have game and a DLC on Steam). Maybe use GoG and Nintendo store a bit, mostly waiting for a free-speech supporting game store where all legal games are allowed and reviews and ratings are not manipulated in any way. I wouldn't even care if games would be 10-20% more expensive, because I don't like supporting authoritative censorious companies.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

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 resulting in ripping off fans. I consider behaviour of studio/publisher relevant to the game's ratings (e.g. being rude to customers when publicly discussing their game) and in this case their actions directly negatively impacted customers - devaluing merchandise - the game. Why shouldn't be publisher punished for this?

I think too many people is confusing review bombing (organized) with unsatisfied customers (organic, usually in response to some *** publisher and/or devs did).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

So, Valve is fighting with anti-consumer Epic Games Store by ... getting more anti-consumer? For me, major reason to use Steam are the reviews, ratings and big selection of games. For a few months now they are ramping up random censorship of games (no rules and one standard really, games "breaking" same rules as others (which were banned) are allowed to stay - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL4Eex7JZT0 [External Link] ) and now they are starting to manipulate ratings? Marking arbitrary things, like DRM, Eula and publisher's/dev's behaviour as "off-topic", worthy of losing your vote and voice?

Maybe time will come to stop rejecting Epic (because Steam will be on a same level of garbage) and use other means to get non-manipulated more reliable reviews and ratings, e.g. Metacritic or Dissenter...

View this comment - View article - View full comments