No Submitting to Steam Workshop without 5$ spending

[ls612]

The reason this was added wasn't because valve is greedy and hates gamers. The reason this was added was to crack down on spammers who would create 1000s of throwaway accounts and then commit steam trading fraud/ID theft/other malicious things.

 

[LeeS]

The reason this was added wasn't because valve is greedy and hates gamers. The reason this was added was to crack down on spammers who would create 1000s of throwaway accounts and then commit steam trading fraud/ID theft/other malicious things.

Anything that cuts back on the 'Free Steam Wallet' spam-waves I occasionally get on my mod discussion pages seems a reasonable action to me. Course, I always promptly deleted such 'comments' from my mod discussion pages -- but it was a real pain when the cycle came up aces to drop all those in every CIV5 mod-page discussion because I'd be getting and deleting multiple such 'comments' over a week-long period. Also annoying because I'd think I had a 'real' feedback comment...only to find pernicious spam.

 

[Peng Qi]

This is part of the solution to Steam Greenlight abuse.

I honestly can't think of a single con to this change.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Oh, and what happens when it`s $10, then $15, then $20?

It`s that kind of thinking which is why we are even at this point. People need to stand up and say, `NO!` and stop just taking it in the rear. STOP THE APATHY.

Apathy is an economic reality, same with the gaming industry having an increasing tendency to "sell product then finish it"...though I suppose that's not unique to gaming software.

For each issue, there is a price point/degree of low quality where even lowest-common-denominator type consumers won't buy it any longer, and sensible firms will avoid crossing that line. I don't think we can move that needle much no matter what we say on a forum.

Steam probably won't catch much bad PR or lose much sales/usage on this compare to the cost incurred, so they do it. If they go to 20$, maybe they lose a large enough % of the market to make it not worth their while.

I don't like it either but that's the reality. This industry tendency allowed even this very title (Civ V) to be released as an arguably unfinished mess (try playing MP as advertised in 1.0 vanilla, then note the game advertises MP with up to x players. Non-conforming good?). Unless the consumer culture on this shifts considerably we'll see more of the same.

The reason this was added wasn't because valve is greedy and hates gamers. The reason this was added was to crack down on spammers who would create 1000s of throwaway accounts and then commit steam trading fraud/ID theft/other malicious things.

In this case I agree.

 

[binhthuy71]

Apathy is an economic reality, same with the gaming industry having an increasing tendency to "sell product then finish it"...though I suppose that's not unique to gaming software.

For each issue, there is a price point/degree of low quality where even lowest-common-denominator type consumers won't buy it any longer, and sensible firms will avoid crossing that line. I don't think we can move that needle much no matter what we say on a forum.

Steam probably won't catch much bad PR or lose much sales/usage on this compare to the cost incurred, so they do it. If they go to 20$, maybe they lose a large enough % of the market to make it not worth their while.

I don't like it either but that's the reality. This industry tendency allowed even this very title (Civ V) to be released as an arguably unfinished mess (try playing MP as advertised in 1.0 vanilla, then note the game advertises MP with up to x players. Non-conforming good?). Unless the consumer culture on this shifts considerably we'll see more of the same.



In this case I agree.

"Sell the product then finish it" has been around since games were published on floppy discs. Only in those days they either didn't finish them or if they did the lucky customer got to spend a few hours downloading the patch over a phone modem.

Yes, I'm Old.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Sell the product then finish it" has been around since games were published on floppy discs. Only in those days they either didn't finish them or if they did the lucky customer got to spend a few hours downloading the patch over a phone modem.

Yes, I'm Old.

I'm old enough to remember floppy disk game days too, though I was a kid at the time. Nothing like spending a few hours in space quest only to realize you can't win now and have to restart. Thankfully I never played the King's Quest where you couldn't go over the bridge too many times.

But the standard and proportion between then and now are different. I'm surprised more games don't get hit with "non conforming good" type criticisms honestly. Good or bad are subjective evaluations, to some degree even "this isn't finished/refined" is subjective. However, once you get into the territory of "advertising says you can do X", then X doesn't work for months, at what point is that overt false advertising? I've seen a lot of that, so presumably there's some kind of loophole there, but I can't imagine what the loophole is.

 

[LeeS]

The loophole is the 'software agreement' that pretty much any game or for that matter other software requires you to accept before you can load the software. They all pretty much have verbiage in them that says 'we can do what we want, and you get to live with it, or you get to return the product.'

 

[ThorHammerz]

The loophole is the 'software agreement' that pretty much any game or for that matter other software requires you to accept before you can load the software. They all pretty much have verbiage in them that says 'we can do what we want, and you get to live with it, or you get to return the product.'

Including the right to discontinue your license on using the game (because you don't "own" the actual copy, just a "license" to use it) for whatever arbitrary reason (or no reason) at any time .

 

[nokmirt]

Not if you bought the hard copy pack from Amazon, Game, your local retail store, ...

I don't think spending 5 bucks is that difficult. And if it is, then post mods etc here.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Good to see freedom of speech is alive and well in the good ole US of A

There was never freedom of speech on Steam to begin with. This particular complaint is a non-issue.

 

[Amylase_]

Yeah, I don't really see a problem with this. I think it's a pretty good way to combat spammers, and 5 bucks isn't that much anyways.
There's people who spend more on a cup of coffee haha.
I think most people on steam have spent way over 5 dollars anyways.

 

[Camikaze]

I agree with ls612. However, it'd be nice if they could have some sort of anti-spammer verification that didn't involve spending money. I think I've only ever bought one or two games on Steam, because I don't stock up on sales, and outside of those sales their prices in Australia are almost always higher than other retailers (and other retailers have those sales too). So it's a somewhat anti-competitive measure.

 

[cooldude1128]

I'm sorry, I didn't read the source very well, apparently.

 

[Socratatus]

If Valve didn`t do it for greed, then why have they now started a `selling Mods` policy where they get 75% of the profit?

But even worse, it is likely to destroy the whole altruistic modding scene forever.

When will you people see what valve REALLY is and always has been? Do they have to steal the very shirt off your backs before you`ll realise how unethical they are?