• Earth Year 2066 removed from steam, refunds given out.
    101 replies, posted
[QUOTE=PredGD;44737556]I'm all for keeping Greenlight, but gotta be honest, the majority of the stuff going through there is shit and rarely worth a persons time. there's the rare The Forest for example and other good games, but they are very far apart. Greenlight is gonna need some changes, especially someone to actually control the influx of stuff to a degree so the steam store doesn't get filled up by tons of stuff nobody really wants.[/QUOTE] It just needs non automated quality control. By people who know their shit around videogames.
lol what the fuck are people expecting when they go for an early access game. you know, a game that's [I]not finished[/I]
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;44740673]lol what the fuck are people expecting when they go for an early access game. you know, a game that's [I]not finished[/I][/QUOTE] They're expecting an actual game and not babby's first Unity project.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;44736526]What's even worse is that they're removing Greenlight. I really hope they either replace it with something with higher quality rather than allowing titles to get on more easily, though sadly it's looking more like the latter.[/QUOTE] If they DO wind up getting rid of Greenlight, I'm really curious to know how the HELL they plan on dealing with malware-infected games and the like. Couldn't they get in trouble for inadvertently distributing a virus game through Steam?
This game is the reason i'm worried about steam going the self publish route. When Greenlight first came out i thought it would be used as a tool for valve to bring in the games that people actually wanted while also shortening the time it takes for indie developers to get noticed. I thought Valve would be smart enough to know that even if a game is given a lot of votes but doesn't show quality or even a small bit of development that they don't have to Greenlight it. Instead they pump out 50-100 games each month that are giving the green light, it doesn't matter if they're complete shit or shows nothing else but some pictures. If valve continues to go forward with self publishing route they plan for the future this will become a common thing.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;44740909]If they DO wind up getting rid of Greenlight, I'm really curious to know how the HELL they plan on dealing with malware-infected games and the like. Couldn't they get in trouble for inadvertently distributing a virus game through Steam?[/QUOTE] Don't worry! There's a report malware button on steam now.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44736527]You're in for a bad time in the future, because they want to eventually remove all gatekeeping from the market. Anyone able to put anything on Steam.[/QUOTE] That is honestly the worst, most disgusting, fucking thing ever. Steam is dead, GOG is king. All hail GOG.
I don't see how steam having a free market is the worst thing ever. It means consumers need to exercise more caution. Valve doesn't need gates on their market, they do however need some regulatory system or something to stop scams from riding to the top page, that I do agree with.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44742193]I don't see how steam having a free market is the worst thing ever. [/QUOTE] Most Free Markets have regulation. We don't want to end up like China and have some of our rice bags be partially filled with plastic flakes. The fact that people need to do a ton of research to not be scammed or ripped off is shameful. With cases like this the Devs mislead people and the big reviewers slap high ratings on almost everything.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44742193]I don't see how steam having a free market is the worst thing ever. It means consumers need to exercise more caution. Valve doesn't need gates on their market, they do however need some regulatory system or something to stop scams from riding to the top page, that I do agree with.[/QUOTE] Consumers being cautious in a world where the developers are able to self-censor pages via removing tags, reviews and censor their forums. Yeah, it's a little hard to be cautious and well informed when the devs are openly censoring any negative light in order to drum up more sales through deceiving customers. It's disgusting and I fail to see how it is productive or good in the slightest.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44742193]I don't see how steam having a free market is the worst thing ever. It means consumers need to exercise more caution. Valve doesn't need gates on their market, they do however need some regulatory system or something to stop scams from riding to the top page, that I do agree with.[/QUOTE] haha yep - better be more cautious and do my research! luckily steam doesn't allow developers complete and utter curation powers over reviews and comments, nor do they have a system which allows unfinished games to be sold with absolutely no standard of completion or functionality actually required for it to be considered a final release. and it'd be laughable to say that steam has even failed on the most fundamental level and has let multiple unfinished games bypass the early access system altogethe, and allow developers to outright fabricate release dates! man, that'd just be crazy... oh well, better start hittin' the books, hehe!
[QUOTE=Diet Kane;44740673]lol what the fuck are people expecting when they go for an early access game. you know, a game that's [I]not finished[/I][/QUOTE] maybe something other than what we saw. It doesn't even needs to be complete or near completion. It just needs to not look like ass, sound like ass, play like ass, and make you want to vomit something that should be better to look at.
[QUOTE=CheeseMan;44742313]haha yep - better be more cautious and do my research! luckily steam doesn't allow developers complete and utter curation powers over reviews and comments, nor do they have a system which allows unfinished games to be sold with absolutely no standard of completion or functionality actually required for it to be considered a final release. and it'd be laughable to say that steam has even failed on the most fundamental level and has let multiple unfinished games bypass the early access system altogethe, and allow developers to outright fabricate release dates! man, that'd just be crazy... oh well, better start hittin' the books, hehe![/QUOTE] i never defended those curation policies on their own site I even said shit had to change but nope, 3 people in a row say the same thing having proved they didn't read what someone they disagree with actually fucking said.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44742372]i never defended those curation policies on their own site I even said shit had to change but nope, 3 people in a row say the same thing having proved they didn't read what someone they disagree with actually fucking said.[/QUOTE] I read what you said, and raised exactly why you were dumb for saying it. You opened up with saying how "steam having a free market isn't the worst thing ever" but in reality, it really is the worst possible thing Steam could be doing. If shit changes, it won't be a free market anymore now will it?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;44736657]I think you're seriously underestimating what it takes to do this, by a large amount. Unless you want new releases consistently getting pushed back until the backlog is cleared, or you want preferential treatment shown to a select few titles while others are completely ignored for weeks at best or longer. [editline]6th May 2014[/editline] They stopped largely because they feel it shouldn't be curated, not just because it would cost money. [editline]6th May 2014[/editline] A lot of it is marketing whatever you want to sell and in part it is just blind luck. Hell, the time of day and day of the week can make or break it for you. Put it up on a bad day at the wrong time and it never gets seen, but put it up at the right time on the right day and everyone sees it.[/QUOTE] It's not difficult to set up a system to make it really efficient: 1.) Does the game launch on everyone testing it beforehand's PCs? If not, decline until resubmission. 2.) Check options menu for options. There's a game on Steam right now, Guise of the Wolf, that doesn't even have multiple resolutions or any way to set it. If the game has that level of badness, decline until resubmission. 3.) Once those hurdles are done, how stable is the game? If it crashes every five minutes, decline. 4.) Are all the features that have been said to be in the game actually in the game? If not, decline. 5.) Does it work as it's advertised(What I mean is like, do things advertised work? Takedown: Red Sabre says it has online multiplayer but the only way I could get it to work is using Evolve and being lucky)? If not, decline. It's fairly simple and shouldn't take more than a couple of hours per game, and that's after said game has reached the minimum thumb-ups. [editline]6th May 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44742193]I don't see how steam having a free market is the worst thing ever.[/quote] It basically is if you expect it to retain a sense of any sort of respect or quality. [QUOTE]It means consumers need to exercise more caution.[/QUOTE] Yep, because we could test Day One: Garry's Incident before it was released, right? [QUOTE]Valve doesn't need gates on their market, they do however need some regulatory system or something to stop scams from riding to the top page, that I do agree with.[/QUOTE] It's Valve. Everyfuckingthing they do is slow as shit. What makes you think the system they come up with'll stop people from wasting their money in the three weeks it'll take them to remove the game? Building a dam and letting the good things through in a trickle is better than leaving it a river of unfiltered shit that takes time to remove later.
[QUOTE=mchapra;44737688]Excuse me that's fine and all but how the fuck else are they going to tell you hey this old game is on steam now? Serious question, what's your solution to that problem when a publisher releases an old game on steam and doesn't get any sales because there's no indication that their game is out on steam on the front page or the news posts?[/QUOTE] If you bothered listening to the video, TB mentions that re-releases should be on a separate tab but that if it's a good enough game - a classic - (and not just some shitty shovelware) it could simply get featured.
[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;44742903]If you bothered listening to the video, TB mentions that re-releases should be on a separate tab but that if it's a good enough game - a classic - (and not just some shitty shovelware) it could simply get featured.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't that give unfair representation to more well received games? I mean the featured is for new releases and games with huge updates or events. If you're also giving big representation to games with larger numbers on the rating box wouldn't that give it an unfair elevation over other releases?
Valve should really just hire a whole lot of playtesters, they have the money for it and I'm sure there's a lot of people living around the valve headquarters that fit the qualifications of playing a game and state if it's actually worth being put on the service according to a list of objective criteria.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44747138]Valve should really just hire a whole lot of playtesters, they have the money for it and I'm sure there's a lot of people living around the valve headquarters that fit the qualifications of playing a game and state if it's actually worth being put on the service according to a list of objective criteria.[/QUOTE] Isn't it more of a legal issue rather than a gameplay one? As far as I know, the only reason some of these games are being pulled off is because they provided misinformation either to Steam or on their store page.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;44747138]Valve should really just hire a whole lot of playtesters, they have the money for it and I'm sure there's a lot of people living around the valve headquarters that fit the qualifications of playing a game and state if it's actually worth being put on the service according to a list of objective criteria.[/QUOTE] Hell,a lot of people would playtest for free. I know I would.
Do developers have to pay valve a fee to put a game on stream?
I wouldn't mind seeing a serious, well-developed game being made with a low quality aesthetic like this. There's something that seems really off about it and I honestly think it has a ton of potential.
Makes me miss the old days where people thought Greenlight was a "what do you want to see on Steam?" thing. I'd take multiple pages of people suggesting Blizzards entire catalog, throw away RPG Maker 95 games and people who think they are clever by suggesting cracked Minecraft installs over current Greenlight. For every Postal 2 we get crap like this and 8+ year old MMORPGS trying to pass themselves off as "indie" to get on Steam for cheaper.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;44747874]I wouldn't mind seeing a serious, well-developed game being made with a low quality aesthetic like this. There's something that seems really off about it and I honestly think it has a ton of potential.[/QUOTE] If you like a low quality aesthetics, you'll love A Valley without Wind.
[QUOTE=Smug Bastard;44747874]I wouldn't mind seeing a serious, well-developed game being made with a low quality aesthetic like this. There's something that seems really off about it and I honestly think it has a ton of potential.[/QUOTE] Minecraft? :v: Though admittedly it doesn't really fit "well-developed". Or "serious", for that matter.
[QUOTE=ECrownofFire;44749969]Minecraft? :v: Though admittedly it doesn't really fit "well-developed". Or "serious", for that matter.[/QUOTE] I think he means the whole uncanny valleyness of it all, there's a clear intent with what is going on, but everything is subpar in a way that ends up making it a bit creepy.
[QUOTE=Moreto;44750111]I think he means the whole uncanny valleyness of it all, there's a clear intent with what is going on, but everything is subpar in a way that ends up making it a bit creepy.[/QUOTE] I wonder if this has anything to do with 'older' Horror games being infinitely more scary than anything more modern. No, I am not talking about the specific gameplay or 'quality' of the game itself. I mean the common technological software and hardware used in older games resulted in much less "realistic" graphics, which somehow made them infinitely more scary. We play games today like Amnesia and Outlast that are quality horror games themselves. But something about blocky, polygonal, sharp-edged and low-resolution models from 2000 and prior just scares me more than any high-resolution bump-mapped Unreal Engine 4.0-graphics monster. Blood, for example. Or Afraid of Monsters. Cry of Fear. The original Half Life, Quake and Doom series. There's a game from my childhood that I cannot remember the name of, but it featured the main character as a kid in pajamas with a red baseball cap, fighting undead and whatnot. Whilst not all of those examples are "Horror" games, there is just something unnaturally creepy or otherwise disturbing about the blocky models, jerky animations and accompanying lower-quality audio.
[QUOTE=Venrez;44751529]I wonder if this has anything to do with 'older' Horror games being infinitely more scary than anything more modern. No, I am not talking about the specific gameplay or 'quality' of the game itself. I mean the common technological software and hardware used in older games resulted in much less "realistic" graphics, which somehow made them infinitely more scary. We play games today like Amnesia and Outlast that are quality horror games themselves. But something about blocky, polygonal, sharp-edged and low-resolution models from 2000 and prior just scares me more than any high-resolution bump-mapped Unreal Engine 4.0-graphics monster. Blood, for example. Or Afraid of Monsters. Cry of Fear. The original Half Life, Quake and Doom series. There's a game from my childhood that I cannot remember the name of, but it featured the main character as a kid in pajamas with a red baseball cap, fighting undead and whatnot. Whilst not all of those examples are "Horror" games, there is just something unnaturally creepy or otherwise disturbing about the blocky models, jerky animations and accompanying lower-quality audio.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;4U31LuXTn4k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U31LuXTn4k[/video] you have no idea how scary this shit was
[QUOTE=Venrez;44751529]I wonder if this has anything to do with 'older' Horror games being infinitely more scary than anything more modern. No, I am not talking about the specific gameplay or 'quality' of the game itself. I mean the common technological software and hardware used in older games resulted in much less "realistic" graphics, which somehow made them infinitely more scary. We play games today like Amnesia and Outlast that are quality horror games themselves. But something about blocky, polygonal, sharp-edged and low-resolution models from 2000 and prior just scares me more than any high-resolution bump-mapped Unreal Engine 4.0-graphics monster. Blood, for example. Or Afraid of Monsters. Cry of Fear. The original Half Life, Quake and Doom series. There's a game from my childhood that I cannot remember the name of, but it featured the main character as a kid in pajamas with a red baseball cap, fighting undead and whatnot. Whilst not all of those examples are "Horror" games, there is just something unnaturally creepy or otherwise disturbing about the blocky models, jerky animations and accompanying lower-quality audio.[/QUOTE] I strangely agree, RE2 on an n64 felt more scarier than Dead Space on 360
Mmhn. So much nostalgia here. I miss such old games. [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_vo60wI1-0[/url] The audio was incredible. When lighting the people on fire with the flare gun for example, or when they screamed when shot, it sounded like sheer abject terror and agonizing pain. I was genuinely fearful (and still am) of the dismembered, animated hands that would scuttle along the floor, jump up and grab onto your throat, then strangle you to death. Everything about Blood was creepy. Yes, it played like an action-FPS Quake / Doom style game, but it was just so morbid and dark. Especially when you go through the 'Carnival of Horrors' where various freaks are put on display. You see scores of dead bodies locked in jail-cells for display, having been mocked, hurled abuse and ridiculed by the public until they died of starvation or whatever other woes they suffered locked up in there. Only when you pass through that section of the level, you hear the dead in those jail-cells faintly chanting 'One of us... One of us...' aimed at your character Caleb, who is also an 'outsider'. Freaky as hell. Far more so than any game I've played in modern times.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.