Valve Discusses Charging Customers Based on Popularity
198 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Mad Chatter;29858298]I want some of whatever Gabe is smoking.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/6913/imagetc.png[/img]
I thought this was some late April fools type of thing.
If this gets implemented it will be the Halo Reach voice-ban all over again...
Why do developers like causing community drama like this?
[editline]16th May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=dass;29866369]Valve's second [b]worst idea after dynamic pricing in css[/b][/QUOTE]
:frog:
DWP was great. It kept people from constantly whoring OP shit like the AWP.
Then CSS's autistic community got butthurt when the AWP was priced at $36,000 so they shut out one of the best features of CSS.
[QUOTE=certified;29872967]If this gets implemented it will be the Halo Reach voice-ban all over again...
Why do developers like causing community drama like this?
[editline]16th May 2011[/editline]
:frog:
DWP was great. It kept people from constantly whoring OP shit like the AWP.
Then CSS's autistic community got butthurt when the AWP was priced at $36,000 so they shut out one of the best features of CSS.[/QUOTE]
That was the best part were the people bitching. I actually started getting kills when they had the damn dynamic pricing in CSS.
As soon as they removed it, I stopped playing because it was obvious it was going to be like DoTA.....the best players are assholes and n00bs don't know where to go.
[QUOTE=Swilly;29870028]And you know this how?
If you're gonna claim that he's making shit up, give sources to back up your claims.[/QUOTE]
No, he actually literally did. I asked him where he got that info from 1 or 2 pages ago and he gave a nice, lengthy reply. No sources, admitted that it was based on his own speculation, or "inferencing." At no point in time did he even claim that what he posted came from Valve, a Valve employee, or a Valve representative.
[QUOTE=Robber;29867391]Fixed[/QUOTE]
3 bad ideas then.
I'd include L4D2 aswell but thats crossing the line a bit already. It isn't that bad, or bad at all.
[QUOTE=animephreak135;29873821]No, he actually literally did. I asked him where he got that info from 1 or 2 pages ago and he gave a nice, lengthy reply. No sources, admitted that it was based on his own speculation, or "inferencing." At no point in time did he even claim that what he posted came from Valve, a Valve employee, or a Valve representative.[/QUOTE]
Is it really that difficult for you to fathom that people say things that aren't intended to be taken literally? Do you honestly believe they'd charge a griefer $100 for voice-chat? or that they'd give a player a game for free because is "popular"? Come on! Use your brain.
This is about rewarding people that significantly improve a game in some way, not about punishing players that berate others. You don't need to hear Gabe say it to realize that.
Idiotic idea. I can see trolls and butthurt people rated people negative. Eventually you need $100 to buy a game.
[QUOTE=ChristopherB;29874964]Is it really that difficult for you to fathom that people say things that aren't intended to be taken literally? Do you honestly believe they'd charge a griefer $100 for voice-chat? or that they'd give a player a game for free because is "popular"? Come on! Use your brain.
This is about rewarding people that significantly improve a game in some way, not about punishing players that berate others. You don't need to hear Gabe say it to realize that.[/QUOTE]
No one is taking the $100 fee thing seriously, that's all concept. It doesn't change the fact that this is an idea that's being tossed around Valve. Gabe is careful, as is any representative, about what he's quoted as saying. He wouldn't have mentioned something that could possibly hurt the company unless it's something they were seriously considering. Like I said, this is a case where we're just going to have to wait and see what happens.
You're working off of the false assumption that I'm taking everything that he was quoted as saying literally. He gave us a good idea of the system they're thinking about using, the $100 fee was a simple example. No one is insinuating that they're literally going to charge that amount.
A good majority of the people here are taking your carefully worded, speculatory posts as fact; assuming they represent Valve's official stance on the matter. You're speculating as much as everyone else in this thread, you're simply doing it in positive light as opposed to negative speculation.
[QUOTE=johan_sm;29861436]So real popularity gets you chicks, internet popularity gets you free games.
Do they really expect me to buy a game and then pay additional 100$ for voice? Well this is not how you please your community, valve. I usually don't pirate games, but when I do, it's for reasons like this.[/QUOTE]
You are a moron if you think this justifies piracy.
Sounds like a good idea at first, but I can see how it would be abused.
This confuses and enrages me!
Gabe Newell just doesn't want customers anymore.
"Time to be use fat piece of shit all day and give cool cats free games! And make bad people pay 100$ for Mic Support"
This reminds me of the ill-fated market pricing in CS:S
[QUOTE=Ridge;29876755]This reminds me of the ill-fated market pricing in CS:S[/QUOTE]
Shut it, that was awesome.
Wait-to-go Facepunch for believing such an outright lie.
If this is implemented I don't think I will ever buy from steam again
ITS FUCKING SATIRE.
This. is. not. real.
[img]http://nobodyputsbabyinahorner.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mad-men-peggy-facedesk.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Strongbad;29877176]ITS FUCKING SATIRE.
This. is. not. real.
[img_thumb]http://nobodyputsbabyinahorner.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/mad-men-peggy-facedesk.gif[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
It's been a long day
Come on Valve, what are you doing?
[QUOTE=animephreak135;29875408]No one is taking the $100 fee thing seriously, that's all concept. It doesn't change the fact that this is an idea that's being tossed around Valve. Gabe is careful, as is any representative, about what he's quoted as saying. He wouldn't have mentioned something that could possibly hurt the company unless it's something they were seriously considering. Like I said, this is a case where we're just going to have to wait and see what happens.
You're working off of the false assumption that I'm taking everything that he was quoted as saying literally. He gave us a good idea of the system they're thinking about using, the $100 fee was a simple example. No one is insinuating that they're literally going to charge that amount.
A good majority of the people here are taking your carefully worded, speculatory posts as fact; assuming they represent Valve's official stance on the matter. You're speculating as much as everyone else in this thread, you're simply doing it in positive light as opposed to negative speculation.[/QUOTE]
I never claimed my statements were official stances from Valve. The only reason people are taking my word as "fact" is that this thread consists almost entirely of people losing their heads over a simple concept that Gabe discussed in an interview. My inferences may be just that, inferences, but at least they are calm and rational.
Valve is one of the few companies that are really "tuned-in" to their customer base right now. To think they'd destroy all of the goodwill they have built by instituting a ridiculous, popularity-based coupon system is denying them credibility. We know better, as do they.
If you went paragon Shepard in Mass Effect 2, maybe you'll get ME3 for free.
[editline]17th May 2011[/editline]
Others will have to pay the regular price; $49.99 to buy the game and an additional $29.99 for the DLC (which you can't complete the campaign without).
[QUOTE=Tetracycline;29857941]This is such an atrocious idea oh my god[/QUOTE]
If popularity dictated price you would never buy anything again you dirty JB fan
-snip- automerge
When did Bobby Kotic get his name changed?
:siren:[b]ATTENTION![/b]:siren:
STOP POSTING.
THIS IS FAKE THIS IS FAKE THIS IS FAKE THIS IS FAKE.
This is by The Escapist. The Escapist is a satire magazine.
[b]It.[/b]
[b]Is.[/b]
[b]Not.
Real.[/b]
[QUOTE=Strongbad;29880441]:siren:[b]ATTENTION![/b]:siren:
STOP POSTING.
THIS IS FAKE THIS IS FAKE THIS IS FAKE THIS IS FAKE.
This is by The Escapist. The Escapist is a satire magazine.
[b]It.[/b]
[b]Is.[/b]
[b]Not.
Real.[/b][/QUOTE]
No shit, I thought everyone with half a brain could see that.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;29877176]ITS FUCKING SATIRE.
This. is. not. real.[/QUOTE]
No it's not, don't be a dumbfuck.
He's talked about things of this sort in interviews before:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOMI0BxB0yA[/media]
Start around 12 minutes in with his "pricing as a service" thing. He talks about the impact "jerks" have on the online community compared to how likable players/people who host servers/people who develop content are more likely to make the community happier and more profitable, and thus deserve some variety of reward or recognition. In this example he used forcing assholes to watch ads, but making assholes pay extra is entirely in line with the kind of things he's been thinking about.
[QUOTE=Sanius;29857759]That's incredibly stupid. There's no way this will work in theory or in practice.[/QUOTE]
It's a brilliant idea.
What happens when you're a tremendous cheating jerkwad? You get VAC banned. What should happen if your presence on a server measurably makes other people leave? You should be forcibly up the fuck shut or given an option of paying for the damage you cause the community.
It only doesn't make sense to people looking at the industry differently than they do, and considering they're pretty much always testing everything constantly I'd say they've already got a decent idea of how it could successfully be implemented.
I mean, what is anybody in this thread saying the consequences are anyway, they'd boycott steam because they're not allowed to troll anymore? Douchebags don't make up the majority of any game's player base, and if it can be proven that removing them actually improves profitability, then so-fucking-long!
[QUOTE=ColdWave;29877024]Wait-to-go Facepunch for believing such an outright lie.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure it's just Way to go, not Wait-to-go.
This is really stupid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.