Massive changes to the Steam Store after the waifu holocaust

[matrix07012]

Here's a great satirical article about this:

https://polytaku.press/index.php/2018/06/07/valve-opens-toxicity-and-nazism-onto-consumers/

[Humbug]

You can get bet though that Valve is gonna get a lot of shit from the mainstream media for not doing the politically correct thing.

[matrix07012]

9 minutes ago, Humbug said:

You can get bet though that Valve is gonna get a lot of shit from the mainstream media for not doing the politically correct thing.

Oh boy

 

Ben Kuchera / Polygon - "Valve new Steam policy gives up on responsibility"

https://archive.fo/iEU6N

Brendan Sinclair / Gamesindustry.biz - "Valve's new content policy is a gutless attempt to dodge responsibility"

https://archive.fo/S0TBJ

Adam Rosenberg / Mashable - "Valve's video game marketplace Steam is now the anti-App Store"

https://archive.fo/ImvhS

Garrett Martin / Paste - Valve Ignores Its Responsibility with Its New Steam Content Policy

https://archive.fo/Abss3

Mark Serrels / CNET - "Valve still lives in the waking nightmare of Web 2.0"

https://archive.fo/Msec2

Tyler Wilde / PC Gamer - "Steam's new 'anything goes' policy is doomed from the start"

https://archive.fo/lLTe8

 

Twitter bullshit:

Rami Ismail: https://archive.li/pj0LO

Nathan Grayson: https://archive.fo/kc4u1

Heather Alexandra: https://archive.li/wHdqq

Leaf Corcoran: https://archive.fo/IWbXu

Patrick Klepek: https://archive.fo/nfJnZ

Nick Caozzoli: https://archive.fo/r2VGG

Luke Plunkett: https://archive.fo/z3JeM

[Sauron]

14 hours ago, onlybuilt4cubanxlinx said:

Beautiful.

 

Does this change the release of 'Active Shooter' then?

Quote

TL;DR - if it's not illegal or an obvious troll game, it's allowed

There's your answer  

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, matrix07012 said:

Oh boy

 

Ben Kuchera / Polygon - "Valve new Steam policy gives up on responsibility"

https://archive.fo/iEU6N

Brendan Sinclair / Gamesindustry.biz - "Valve's new content policy is a gutless attempt to dodge responsibility"

https://archive.fo/S0TBJ

Adam Rosenberg / Mashable - "Valve's video game marketplace Steam is now the anti-App Store"

https://archive.fo/ImvhS

Garrett Martin / Paste - Valve Ignores Its Responsibility with Its New Steam Content Policy

https://archive.fo/Abss3

Mark Serrels / CNET - "Valve still lives in the waking nightmare of Web 2.0"

https://archive.fo/Msec2

Tyler Wilde / PC Gamer - "Steam's new 'anything goes' policy is doomed from the start"

https://archive.fo/lLTe8

 

Twitter bullshit:

Rami Ismail: https://archive.li/pj0LO

Nathan Grayson: https://archive.fo/kc4u1

Heather Alexandra: https://archive.li/wHdqq

Leaf Corcoran: https://archive.fo/IWbXu

Patrick Klepek: https://archive.fo/nfJnZ

Nick Caozzoli: https://archive.fo/r2VGG

Luke Plunkett: https://archive.fo/z3JeM

It is true though that they basically changed nothing - they just stated plainly that they won't be curating the store. It may seem like a big declaration of support for free speech or something, but the truth is they simply never cared and they're trying to spin their preexisting non-policy into something that will garner them some simpathy. They carefully avoided addressing the REAL problems with the marketplace (endless shovelware through steam direct, early access scams, etc.) and hid behind the banner of free speech to gracefully say "don't expect us to QA the products we sell". Regardless of what you think about banning "offensive" games, no steps forwards were taken.

1 hour ago, Ben Quigley said:

Don't we all my friend!

 

I'm sick of companies being at the wim of any governing body, group of people or payment provider/advertising agency, If it ain't illegal then it should be fine! 

Sure, but this is how you might get "governing bodies" to MAKE it illegal. As for "being at the whim" of advertisers... are you going to force other companies to pay you for ads they don't want?

[Brooksie359]

4 minutes ago, Sauron said:

It is true though that they basically changed nothing - they just stated plainly that they won't be curating the store. It may seem like a big declaration of support for free speech or something, but the truth is they simply never cared and they're trying to spin their preexisting non-policy into something that will garner them some simpathy. They carefully avoided addressing the REAL problems with the marketplace (endless shovelware through steam direct, early access scams, etc.) and hid behind the banner of free speech to gracefully say "don't expect us to QA the products we sell". Regardless of what you think about banning "offensive" games, no steps forwards were taken.

Sure, but this is how you might get "governing bodies" to MAKE it illegal. As for "being at the whim" of advertisers... are you going to force other companies to pay you for ads they don't want?

It may be a move to justify the lack of quality control but tbh i prefer it this way. How do you even decide what is a good enough game to put on steam? That is the problem with people wanting valve to curate games. There is no good way to determine if a game warrants being on steam or not so why even try. It's the same with most laws. You can't enforce it unless it is very specific and that is impossible with doing QA requirements. If a game is bad then nobody will buy it and it will go away but if it is good people will find it and become popular. The main problem is you can't have it both ways. You can't ban the stuff you don't like and expect that what you like to be protected. 

[Sauron]

Just now, Brooksie359 said:

It may be a move to justify the lack of quality control but tbh i prefer it this way. How do you even decide what is a good enough game to put on steam?

A game that works would be a good start - there are games on steam that are so broken they won't even get to the main menu. Secondly, games with unacceptably low performance on high end hardware despite the low graphical fidelity can be written off. The same goes for games with game breaking bugs that don't allow you to get to the end, games that feature virtually no original contribution by the author ("asset flips"), games that are made specifically as an insult with no additional merit...

 

There are some pretty objective criteria if you think about it, and waifu games generally don't fit any of them.

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

It's the same with most laws. You can't enforce it unless it is very specific and that is impossible with doing QA requirements.

Try this: "it is illegal for a videogame to contain pornography, including any stylized depiction of sexual organs". Hardly unenforceable... the problem is that it's using a bazooka to kill an ant and the collateral damage is a bigger problem than the ant ever was. We don't want this sort of regulation, but sometimes the only way to avoid them is to make some compromise - trying to kill the ant ourselves in a less destructive way. Obviously this is just an example, replace "pornography" with any other slightly controversial content and you'll see the problem.

11 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

If a game is bad then nobody will buy it and it will go away but if it is good people will find it and become popular. The main problem is you can't have it both ways. You can't ban the stuff you don't like and expect that what you like to be protected. 

You can't always tell how good a game will be from the cover... and reviewers can't review every single game that comes out. It's one thing to buy a game and not like it, it's another to buy a game only to find out it's a broken mess and you can barely play it, let alone figure out if you like it or not...

 

Easy or not, every store on the planet does some curation on what they sell and there is no reason Valve should be the exception. It's their job to figure it out.

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

A game that works would be a good start - there are games on steam that are so broken they won't even get to the main menu. Secondly, games with unacceptably low performance on high end hardware despite the low graphical fidelity can be written off. The same goes for games with game breaking bugs that don't allow you to get to the end, games that feature virtually no original contribution by the author ("asset flips"), games that are made specifically as an insult with no additional merit...

 

There are some pretty objective criteria if you think about it, and waifu games generally don't fit any of them.

Try this: "it is illegal for a videogame to contain pornography, including any stylized depiction of sexual organs". Hardly unenforceable... the problem is that it's using a bazooka to kill an ant and the collateral damage is a bigger problem than the ant ever was. We don't want this sort of regulation, but sometimes the only way to avoid them is to make some compromise - trying to kill the ant ourselves in a less destructive way. Obviously this is just an example, replace "pornography" with any other slightly controversial content and you'll see the problem.

You can't always tell how good a game will be from the cover... and reviewers can't review every single game that comes out. It's one thing to buy a game and not like it, it's another to buy a game only to find out it's a broken mess and you can barely play it, let alone figure out if you like it or not...

 

Easy or not, every store on the planet does some curation on what they sell and there is no reason Valve should be the exception. It's their job to figure it out.

Steam has a return policy that can solve most of these problems. Also game breaking bugs is still hard to quantify as well. I mean there are game breaking bugs in fallout 4 but it is still one of my favorite games. You make it sound easy but it really isn't.

[Humbug]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

A game that works would be a good start - there are games on steam that are so broken they won't even get to the main menu.

Not really, this is something that Valve actually does test for, to make sure the game works.

If something doesn't work it's not a widespread problem, more likely a specific update or incompatibility.

[Sauron]

2 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

Steam has a return policy that can solve most of these problems. Also game breaking bugs is still hard to quantify as well. I mean there are game breaking bugs in fallout 4 but it is still one of my favorite games. You make it sound easy but it really isn't.

Fallout 4 still allows you to get to the end of the game... it's really not hard to decide which games are of sufficient quality to be on the store and playing devil's advocate serves no purpose. Nobody  would complain if stuff like "the slaughtering grounds" wasn't allowed to hit the store front. The return policy does NOT solve the problem because 1) it's a hassle and many people won't bother if they only spent 2-3$ on a "game" and 2) what happens if a game breaking bug manifests 3 hours into the game?

 

Furthermore, in my opinion AAA developers shouldn't be allowed to get away with shipping broken games at full price. If Fallout 4 is broken, then by all means it should not be for sale until Bethesda fixes it. I'm sure you'd like the game even more if it weren't a broken mess...

3 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Not really, this is something that Valve actually does test for, to make sure the game works.

They don't and I can prove it. This game is still on the store almost a year after release and it originally shipped without an executable file. If Valve actively tested whether the game runs or not they wouldn't have allowed it.

[Misanthrope]

Hello free speech absolutists: Let me remind you that Steam operates their virtual store localized to places like Germany where this "Anything goes" policy would basically get them in hot shit anyways because there's laws that supersedes this notion of "free speech anything goes!" that most Americans subscribe to.

[Drak3]

20 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Hello free speech absolutists: Let me remind you that Steam operates their virtual store localized to places like Germany where this "Anything goes" policy would basically get them in hot shit anyways because there's laws that supersedes this notion of "free speech anything goes!" that most Americans subscribe to.

What's your point? Anything illegal is still barred and Steam doesn't have a singular universal catalogue that's served, they already break it up to comply with local laws.

[Misanthrope]

46 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

What's your point? Anything illegal is still barred and Steam doesn't have a singular universal catalogue that's served, they already break it up to comply with local laws.

Steam is proposing mostly a no-holds-barrered anything goes you opt out system.

 

Legal requirements are vastly different on different regions.

 

They could just react to the reported games and, in this example, remove the illegal games from the Germany localized store.

 

Except this means that the publicized "Anything goes" statement Steam just announced isn't really true for the Germany store at the very least and all games would have to be screened and then opted into the store once they're shown to actually be legal.

 

The alternative is that what Valve said is true and they wouldn't screen all games for the Germany store and just remove them as they are reported and at one point, it won't be long before cheap, antisemitic games flood the store and Germany decides "Nope, Valve policy of reacting is not enough here"

 

Do you see how what they said vs what needs to be true for some regions is just impossible? Valve seems to be trying to appease a very specific vocal minority of American based customers but I just don't think I they can deliver on their promises.

[vanished]

18 hours ago, TimeOmnivore said:

I support this decision - so long as they give us better means of filtering out stuff we don't care about than what we have now.

 

Also, I wonder if this means they'll be straight up allowing full-on porn/hentai games, now, without the devs needing to create 18+ patches.

The existing system has always felt a little half-assed tbh.  Their age check, like many other sites, is about as good of a lock as this cheeto

Spoiler

and it's almost as if they know this and thus try to stay away from 18+ things.  The problem is this is one of those areas where there is no middle ground.  Same as the legal system - you can't be 30% sure someone's committed a crime and just give them a small sentence, you have to be certain they're innocent and let them go, or certain they did it and give the whole thing.  Sounds like they're ready to start properly allowing full 18+ stuff, which, imo, is a good move.  I assume that this means improvements to the age check will come in order to make it safe for those who aren't ready.

[Brooksie359]

2 hours ago, Sauron said:

Fallout 4 still allows you to get to the end of the game... it's really not hard to decide which games are of sufficient quality to be on the store and playing devil's advocate serves no purpose. Nobody  would complain if stuff like "the slaughtering grounds" wasn't allowed to hit the store front. The return policy does NOT solve the problem because 1) it's a hassle and many people won't bother if they only spent 2-3$ on a "game" and 2) what happens if a game breaking bug manifests 3 hours into the game?

 

Furthermore, in my opinion AAA developers shouldn't be allowed to get away with shipping broken games at full price. If Fallout 4 is broken, then by all means it should not be for sale until Bethesda fixes it. I'm sure you'd like the game even more if it weren't a broken mess...

They don't and I can prove it. This game is still on the store almost a year after release and it originally shipped without an executable file. If Valve actively tested whether the game runs or not they wouldn't have allowed it.

If there is a game breaking bug after 3 hours you can ask for a refund with a reasoning and valve will look at it and decide if there is merit to your claim. There are processes to a dress your concerns but if people are to lazy to take advantage of them it on them not valve. 

[Sniperfox47]

2 hours ago, Misanthrope said:

Steam is proposing mostly a no-holds-barrered anything goes you opt out system.

 

Legal requirements are vastly different on different regions.

 

They could just react to the reported games and, in this example, remove the illegal games from the Germany localized store.

 

Except this means that the publicized "Anything goes" statement Steam just announced isn't really true for the Germany store at the very least and all games would have to be screened and then opted into the store once they're shown to actually be legal.

 

The alternative is that what Valve said is true and they wouldn't screen all games for the Germany store and just remove them as they are reported and at one point, it won't be long before cheap, antisemitic games flood the store and Germany decides "Nope, Valve policy of reacting is not enough here"

 

Do you see how what they said vs what needs to be true for some regions is just impossible? Valve seems to be trying to appease a very specific vocal minority of American based customers but I just don't think I they can deliver on their promises.

Umm I just want to point out that nowhere in there did they say the games wouldn't be screened. In fact they implied that they *would* screen illegal and "troll" games. And if a game can't be released into the German version of the store without breaking laws then it most definitely falls into the "illegal" folder. Same as most pornographic games in North America as they are illegal to have on Steam without proper age gating, something they do not currently have.

 

 

30 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

The existing system has always felt a little half-assed tbh.  Their age check, like many other sites, is about as good of a lock as this cheeto

  Reveal hidden contents

and it's almost as if they know this and thus try to stay away from 18+ things.  The problem is this is one of those areas where there is no middle ground.  Same as the legal system - you can't be 30% sure someone's committed a crime and just give them a small sentence, you have to be certain they're innocent and let them go, or certain they did it and give the whole thing.  Sounds like they're ready to start properly allowing full 18+ stuff, which, imo, is a good move.  I assume that this means improvements to the age check will come in order to make it safe for those who aren't ready.

I have no evidence but I'm like 90% sure that their age gating was something a developer threw together in like 20 minutes to reduce parents complaining about them not following box store policies regarding M rated titles (only selling to 18+ year olds)

 

The fact that it doesn't even remember your age in the browser in the steam client itself is just awkward and clunky and so much unlike the entire rest of their service that revolves around making money as easy to spend as possible.

 

I would *love* to see a better age gating system to come into place to facilitate the sale of sexually explicit content, but I don't see it happening any time soon. That's something I can't imagine Valve wanting to get associated with even with this speach. Lack of proper age gating gives them a "we said nothing illegal!" escape clause from explicit content.

[vanished]

3 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I have no evidence but I'm like 90% sure that their age gating was something a developer threw together in like 20 minutes to reduce parents complaining about them not following box store policies regarding M rated titles (only selling to 18+ year olds)

yeah definitely could be

3 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The fact that it doesn't even remember your age in the browser in the steam client itself is just awkward and clunky and so much unlike the entire rest of their service that revolves around making money as easy to spend as possible.

I guess the flip side of that is they don't store that personal information

3 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

I would *love* to see a better age gating system to come into place to facilitate the sale of sexually explicit content, but I don't see it happening any time soon. That's something I can't imagine Valve wanting to get associated with even with this speach. Lack of proper age gating gives them a "we said nothing illegal!" escape clause from explicit content.

In the past, I've seen a variety of suggestions on how to limit access to adult sites and most if not all have been stupid, but that doesn't mean those ideas might not work in another context.  One that I remember was basing it on your credit card.  People didn't like that idea for porn sites because a) they didn't otherwise need them to have payment info, especially since lots of the sites are kinda sketchy, and b) it was personally identifying on something they wanted anonymous.  Well, in the context of Steam, neither of these are issues - they already have payment info if you're buying games unless you're going out of your way to hide it with gift cards or something, and I think most people generally trust them or they wouldn't exist.  I'm sure some people would still resist if they added in a method like this, but I wonder how many it would be?

[Sniperfox47]

3 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

~snip~

The credit card thing is the one I see most often but the issue is that increasingly nowadays people don't have credit cards. Especially the latest generation. All my online purchases are Visa Virtual Debit on my normal bank card, and I know a ton of young adults who don't have credit cards simply due to "temptation" and poor credit management factors.

[vanished]

1 minute ago, Sniperfox47 said:

The credit card thing is the one I see most often but the issue is that increasingly nowadays people don't have credit cards. Especially the latest generation. All my online purchases are Visa Virtual Debit on my normal bank card, and I know a ton of young adults who don't have credit cards simply due to "temptation" and poor credit management factors.

Yeah, it's not perfect but it's the best thing I could think of.

 

Maybe the existing system is actually good enough.  I mean, it's terrible, but it's no worse than porn sites, and if it works for them...

 

It would be good to bet able to set a flag to show (or not) that content globally though, rather than asking on each individual game, and when it's not set, those games don't even show up in the store.

[Sniperfox47]

4 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Yeah, it's not perfect but it's the best thing I could think of.

 

Maybe the existing system is actually good enough.  I mean, it's terrible, but it's no worse than porn sites, and if it works for them...

 

It would be good to bet able to set a flag to show (or not) that content globally though, rather than asking on each individual game, and when it's not set, those games don't even show up in the store.

Turn safesearch off

[vanished]

2 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

Turn safesearch off

true

[kaiju_wars]

Good, I'm glad this happened.  Valve is sticking up for both devs and the consumer, and allowing them to voice themselves.  As they said, people will find some things stupid, and not like it.  But they may also find an audience for their content.  How it should be.

 

 

This also means I can keep getting my VNs, something I'll admit I have a guilty pleasure for.

 

Even if I didn't, I'd still support this decision. 

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Brooksie359 said:

If there is a game breaking bug after 3 hours you can ask for a refund with a reasoning and valve will look at it and decide if there is merit to your claim. There are processes to a dress your concerns but if people are to lazy to take advantage of them it on them not valve. 

No, it's Valve who is lazy. Going through a refund process that might take weeks is needlessly annoying.

[Wolther]

Thank you valve. This is exactly what I wanted and I’m sure the vast majority agrees with me.

[Brooksie359]

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

No, it's Valve who is lazy. Going through a refund process that might take weeks is needlessly annoying.

I don't consider it lazy when the time and resources to do what you want them to do would be massive and be subjective. A return policy is honestly a better solution than the one that you propose.