Steam isn't going to count reviews from review-bomb periods

[Delicieuxz]

1 minute ago, JoostinOnline said:

I'm asking for an article, not just random people misusing the term.

Well, I was talking about how the term is used, everywhere. What I said is:

 

39 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

But, the term "review bomb" is applied anywhere that a game is being heavily negatively-reviewed, for whatever reason, and mass negative reviews often happen due to legitimate issues.

 

The Steam announcement doesn't use the term "review bomb", so we're the ones applying the term "review bomb" to what Valve is trying to filter out. So, when we see this filtering being done to a game, we're assuming that it's a statement by Valve that they have deemed that game to be being review bombed. But, I've been making the case that games this supposedly hands-on filtering is being applied to are not necessarily being negatively-reviewed over flippant matters, using DiRT 2.0 as an example.

 

Yes, review-bombing should refer to deliberate sabotage efforts. Steam's "off-topic" review-filtering, if it exists at all, should be targeting those campaigns honestly. However, it seems Valve are simply applying their "off-topic" filtering to big-title games which receive lots of negative reviews, to prevent a negative impression of the game that could ward off potential buyers.

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

Dumb move, Valve.

 

Remember when Take2 started banning people who modded their offline version of GTA5 and at one point even went as far as to send a cease-and-desist to the publishers of the OpenIV modding tool?  The community quickly lowered GTA5's rating to "overwhelmingly negative", not only because the players didn't agree with the devs' decision but because people were getting unjustly banned from GTA Online or couldn't mod their offline game anymore. 

 

The community's response would now be filtered out even though the changes did actually ruin the game for a whole lot of people.

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

32 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

I'm asking for an article, not just random people misusing the term.

Let me correct part of my previous comment. The Steam page about their new "off-topic" filter does use the term "review bomb" in one part, and uses the term incorrectly, according to the point you're making, and which I agree with as being a more fitting use of the term.

 

Steam calls negative review scores over DRM "review bombs":

Quote

Q: I care about some things that I worry other players don't, like DRM or EULA changes. Review bombs have been about them in the past. Do you consider them unrelated or off-topic?

 

A: We had long debates about these two, and others like them. They're technically not a part of the game, but they are an issue for some players. In the end, we've decided to define them as off-topic review bombs.

 

That obviously is a misuse of the term, and I believe underscores that this "off-topic" filter is motivated by an effort to hide negative PR in general, and not simply abuses of the review system. Valve, themselves, are abusing the concept of an honest review system.

[Sauron]

2 hours ago, matrix07012 said:

Stuff like DRMs, spyware, removing mod support are part of the game, but they don't affect the gameplay experience

They *absolutely* do. DRM, especially stuff like Denuvo, can ruin a game's performance (and with it the gameplay experience). Mods are gameplay, especially in games like GTA. Spyware may not directly impact your gameplay (though it may behave like the DRM) but it makes you less interested in playing the game. All of these are valid complaints and it's fair to point them out in your review, scoring the game accordingly.

 

Review bombs on the other hand don't really seem to get much done and I can see why Steam wouldn't want to count them. If you want to change your review of a game after a scandal, wait a few days and then change it, so it doesn't get included in the "review bomb".

[XenosTech]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

They *absolutely* do. DRM, especially stuff like Denuvo, can ruin a game's performance (and with it the gameplay experience). Mods are gameplay, especially in games like GTA. Spyware may not directly impact your gameplay (though it may behave like the DRM) but it makes you less interested in playing the game. All of these are valid complaints and it's fair to point them out in your review, scoring the game accordingly.

 

Review bombs on the other hand don't really seem to get much done and I can see why Steam wouldn't want to count them. If you want to change your review of a game after a scandal, wait a few days and then change it, so it doesn't get included in the "review bomb".

Well modding is only gameplay if the game devs allow it, though modding has brought us some very good games in the past.

[Sauron]

Just now, XenosTech said:

Well modding is only gameplay if the game devs allow it, though modding has brought us some very good games in the past.

Yes, but the presence or lack of mods influences the gameplay experience and your enjoyment of the game. It makes sense to consider it in a review.

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, Sauron said:

Yes, but the presence or lack of mods influences the gameplay experience and your enjoyment of the game. It makes sense to consider it in a review.

I'd consider that a fair review tbh, but things like people rating the game as negative because the publisher sold out to another company the community doesn't like or they made a bad decision for another game so they downvote the popular game from said dev. Things like that shouldn't be included and there's a lot of that that happens in steam reviews.

[Delicieuxz]

15 minutes ago, Sauron said:

They *absolutely* do. DRM, especially stuff like Denuvo, can ruin a game's performance (and with it the gameplay experience). Mods are gameplay, especially in games like GTA. Spyware may not directly impact your gameplay (though it may behave like the DRM) but it makes you less interested in playing the game. All of these are valid complaints and it's fair to point them out in your review, scoring the game accordingly.

I agree.

 

 

And DRM especially affect the gameplay experience when they prevent people from at-all being able to play the game, as DiRT Rally 2.0's always-online DRM has been doing.

 

DRM also especially affects the gameplay experience when it causes the player to be dropped from the game and all their progress in the game to be lost, as DiRT Rally 2.0's always-online DRM has been doing.

 

DRM also affects the gameplay experience when it significantly worsens the performance of the game:

 

 

Valve saying that they are going to count DRM-issues as "review bombs" is disingenuous to the max. It's like saying that critic reviews that lower the score of a game due to bugs are review bombs, since bugs aren't technically a part of the game. Yet, bugs colour the experience of a game, and shape people's impressions of how much fun a game is, and all critic reviews make note of when there are significant bugs in a game and factor the bugs into the final review score for a game.

 

What Valve are doing is akin to saying that people are not allowed to factor bugs into their reviews and that people have to imaging the game with no bugs, no issues, nothing interfering with the developer's perfect vision for their game. It's ludicrous and shows that Valve have completely lost the plot.

[JoostinOnline]

3 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Let me correct part of my previous comment. The Steam page about their new "off-topic" filter does use the term "review bomb" in one part, and uses the term incorrectly, according to the point you're making, and which I agree with as being a more fitting use of the term.

 

Steam calls negative review scores over DRM "review bombs":

 

That obviously is a misuse of the term, and I believe underscores that this "off-topic" filter is motivated by an effort to hide negative PR in general, and not simply abuses of the review system. Valve, themselves, are abusing the concept of an honest review system.

I've been doing some searching and it seems like in gaming the term is used in a much broader sense, as you described it, so I apologize. While I do game a lot, I usually stick to older titles (I'm a thrifty bastard) so I miss out on the drama. I'm used to hearing about review bombing for films and Amazon products, and it's always about some social or political issue.

[poochyena]

4 hours ago, Captain Chaos said:

Dumb move, Valve.

 

Remember when Take2 started banning people who modded their offline version of GTA5 and at one point even went as far as to send a cease-and-desist to the publishers of the OpenIV modding tool?  The community quickly lowered GTA5's rating to "overwhelmingly negative", not only because the players didn't agree with the devs' decision but because people were getting unjustly banned from GTA Online or couldn't mod their offline game anymore. 

 

The community's response would now be filtered out even though the changes did actually ruin the game for a whole lot of people.

I came here to say the exact same thing. There are lots of good reasons for review bombs to happen. Bad updates to games happen.

[Doobeedoo]

Makes sense and it's good. It's such a pathetic toxic thing people do. Yet they praise the so called mature Steam community. Why even care about reviews at this day and age even. You get enough of trailers and gameplay videos to get enough of an idea. At the end of the day you can just play it your self if you see you seem to like. 

[Blademaster91]

17 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

 

The negative reviews for DiRT Rally 2.0 are well explained, and not "this game sucks".

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Spoiler

 

 

Most of the negative reviews for DiRT Rally 2.0 is for the requirement to be online for single player,  yeah I agree are those very valid complaints and I'd rather Steam actually count those reviews.

[Delicieuxz]

I set my Steam preferences yesterday to show all reviews, and I've verified that it's still set that way just now, but it isn't working - Valve are still censoring negative review periods when I view store pages.

 

 

DiRT Rally 2.0's real score is 61%.

[AlTech]

On 3/15/2019 at 9:12 PM, SocomSuade said:

That is still a valid review. When I review a game I also look at the company. There are a lot of shady indie devs out there. Or in your case, a developer who will abandon a project. I completely disagree with Valve on this. DRM is also part of the experience. People can review a product how they want. TBH idk if it is possible but I hope a class action suit comes out of this.

 

They are essentially dictating what I can say on my review that I paid money for. There is also a major conflict of interest since Valve makes money from each sale on their store. Seems like a very bad move to me.

 

People can have whatever reason they want to dislike a product if I buy a game and do not like it because I spilled my drink on my KB when loading it that is my personal experience.

A class action suit won't come of it because Steam like Epic makes people agree to waive class action rights.

[Ryujin2003]

I don't actually believe the tool is designed to hide negative reviews. Forget the dirt rally thing. When Apex Legends came out on Origin, many people downloaded a different Apex game from steam and negative review bombed it because it wasn't Apex Legends.

 

That's the kind of shit they are trying to stop. A good game or young studio can get buried when something stupid like that happens .

[Ryujin2003]

7 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

Most of the negative reviews for DiRT Rally 2.0 is for the requirement to be online for single player,  yeah I agree are those very valid complaints and I'd rather Steam actually count those reviews.

The online requirement was why I never continued playing Gran Turismo. Will be the same here.

[Hellion]

In other words, a few publishers/devs got pissed that their shitty business practices led to community backlash, whined to valve and they caved.

 

Not at all surprised this was the course of action a DRM/spyware platform took.

[Mihle]

16 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

A class action suit won't come of it because Steam like Epic makes people agree to waive class action rights.

*In USA

Its not legal in Europe for a company to agree you cant do it.

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, Mihle said:

It can still happen outside US. Its not legal in Europe for a company to agree you cant do it.

Well in Europe class action lawsuits aren't really a thing.

[Mihle]

7 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Well in Europe class action lawsuits aren't really a thing.

It is. But not on a EU wide basis. Aka not in all countries. Individual countries DO have it.

For example Norway and Sweden have it. France and Germany have it too, but its limited to some spesific law areas like consumer protection, unfair competition, and some shareholder/capital market ones. (different name tho)

[williamcll]

Easy

Just don't downvote a game all at the same time.
That and also mark (constructive) negative reviews as helpful.

[Delicieuxz]

20 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

A class action suit won't come of it because Steam like Epic makes people agree to waive class action rights.

People who backed the project on Fig haven't agreed to Epic's ToS, and so aren't subject to them.

[kpluck]

On 3/15/2019 at 1:47 PM, matrix07012 said:

a review bomb is where players post a large number of reviews in a short period of time, aimed at lowering the Review Score of a game.

It seems to me limiting this to reviews aimed at lowering the score only is telling you the real reason behind this…money.

 

It doesn't matter if a score is being knocked down, or artificially inflated, either way you have a problem. Since Valve is only interested in trying to do something to eliminate critical reviews, I have to assume they care less about the accuracy of reviews and more about the money in their pockets.

 

-kp

[PlayStation 2]

Valve has slowly been shifting away from their hands-off libertarian moderation more and more, at least in recent times.

I don't really like the way this is going because what we're calling "review bombing" may have some impact on either choices being reverted or choices being made, like when Take2 and Rockstar reverted their decision to ban mods for single-player GTA V and reverted their cease-and-desist on OpenIV and its developer.

I also remember back when Valve made the very rare decision to ban an entire publisher (remember Digital Homicide?) because they were threatening reviewers who negatively reviewed their games.

The company's changed, and it's changed a lot, and I can't really say if it's for the better.

[Lathlaer]

Quick look at Metro 2033 reviews makes me grateful for that option. Because making a picture of two hands showing middle fingers is oh so constructive.

 

I'd rather listen to reviews of people who are somewhat accountable for their words and need to take responsibility for their published opinion. This is why I hardly ever pay attention to user reviews.