Borderlands 3

[Metro]

That crooked Gearbox hack actually had me interested in one of his products, but then he saved me from supporting him because the PC port of Borderlands Redux doesn't have split-screen. Something the console versions have.

PC master race does not play couch coop you phag-mo.

I'm a console player trapped in a PC body.

Or you just have actual IRL friends. Either way.

PC gamers are not allowed to have IRL friends.

 

[Plaguecrafter]

PC gamers are not allowed to have IRL friends.

Am PC gamer. Can confirm.

 

[Dexter]

The Randy Pitchfork believes this to be a threat.

What can everyone do to get them to remove the rest of their cancer from Steam? Maybe Epic Games can become the gathering place for all the scumfuck anti-consumer and talentless hack primadonna developers of the world.

 

[LESS T_T]

I wonder if Valve will decide these "off-topic review bombs" under their new policy, and exclude them from the review scores.

 

[Orma]

Victim blaming

Oh, you poor capitalists, g*d forbid you lose some profit because of negative reviews

 

[rusty_shackleford]

The Randy Pitchfork believes this to be a threat.

What can everyone do to get them to remove the rest of their cancer from Steam? Maybe Epic Games can become the gathering place for all the scumfuck anti-consumer and talentless hack primadonna developers of the world.

It's not a misuse of the review system, warning potential customers about anti-consumer tactics of the publisher or developer is a valid review.

 

[LESS T_T]

I wonder if Valve will decide these "off-topic review bombs" under their new policy, and exclude them from the review scores.

They actually did!



https://store.steampowered.com/app/49520/Borderlands_2/#app_reviews_hash

 

[Dexter]

I wonder if Valve will decide these "off-topic review bombs" under their new policy, and exclude them from the review scores.

They actually did!



https://store.steampowered.com/app/49520/Borderlands_2/#app_reviews_hash

I still think it's pretty fucking disgusting how they gave in on this shit. People can rate products on Amazon badly for almost any reason, they can give a restaurant or a hotel a bad review for any reason they choose to and nobody asks why I rate a movie on IMDb high or low, but for some reason "game developers" are exempt from backlash over acting like stupid assholes... because?

At least there's a way to disable this bullshit by clicking on one's Username at the top right, clicking "Store preferences" and changing the "REVIEW SCORE SETTINGS".

I guess people will have to space out their bad reviews or Update them after they've been "discounted" in the future.

 

[vortex]

This review bombing is such primitive thing. It won't solve the issue. Rather orient player's needs and wishes to ES.

 

[DalekFlay]

Off-topic reviews are always annoying on any store and the only people who defend that shit are whiny complainers with agendas, as we see here. Reviews should be about the product, period.

Don't get me wrong, for a game like this I get that you want to use your existing friends list and feature set. There are reasons to be annoyed by this one going to the Epic Store, as opposed to Metro where it matters fuck all if you ask me. However that's shit to put in a review of Borderlands 3, not Borderlands 2. You're just making asses of yourselves.

 

[Dexter]

This developer is a scumbag because of <bad business practice> is about the product.

An even better example that Steam gave, this game is shit because <DRM> is also about the product.

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. Our reasoning is that the "general" Steam player doesn't care as much about them, so the Review Score is more accurate if it doesn't contain them. In addition, we believe that players who do care about topics like DRM are often willing to dig a little deeper into games before purchasing - which is why we still keep all the reviews within the review bombs. It only takes a minute to dig into those reviews to see if the issue is something you care about.

It's not incumbent upon them to decide whether <reason their customers think a product is shit> is valid or not. They may and apparently are suppressing bad reviews - which is a bad anti-consumer practice they have decided to engage in for pacification purposes, but they don't have the authority to determine whether the reason I think a product is shit is valid or not. That's still a customers decision.

 

[Infinitron]

I see people making the argument that "reviews are the only way we can express our disapproval a way that the developer will notice".

There is another way though...don't buy the game on the Epic Games Store!



Like I said in The Outer Worlds thread, in the end it's not angry gaming activists who will decide the fate of the Epic Games Store - it's the normies. So it might be more honest if the review-bombers said they were review-bombing these games in hopes that the normies will see it and stay away from the Epic Games Store.

But of course Valve have a right not to make their platform a vehicle for what is effectively a propaganda campaign.

(BTW, Dexter will like some of Chet's tweets in that thread.)

 

[DalekFlay]

This developer is a scumbag because of <bad business practice> is about the product.

An even better example that Steam gave, this game is shit because <DRM> is also about the product.

It's about the Borderlands 3 product, yes. It's not about Borderlands 2 at all, which is on Steam and only has Steam DRM. Therefore your reviews are useless whining on the Borderlands 2 page, which just annoys anyone without a bug up their ass about this situation. If you want to spam Borderlands 3 reviews somewhere with comments like "can't use my friends list, no achievements" or whatever else, that would be more appropriate.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I see people making the argument that "reviews are the only way we can express our disapproval a way that the developer will notice".

There is another way though...don't buy the game on the Epic Games Store!



Like I a said in The Outer Worlds thread, in the end it's not angry gaming activists who will decide the fate of the Epic Games Store - it's the normies. So it might be more honest if the review-bombers said they were review-bombing these games in hopes that the normies will see it and stay away from the Epic Games Store.

But of course Valve have a right not to make their platform a vehicle for what is effectively a propaganda campaign.

(BTW, Dexter will like some of Chet's tweets in that thread.)

GAMERS
BAD

 

[Dexter]

(BTW, Dexter will like some of Chet's tweets in that thread.)

I don't particularly, I'm kinda of neutral towards them. His heart seems in the right place regarding this issue, and there's some truth to what he says, but it's a bit simplistic and I think customers also have many other venues of reaction especially nowadays e.g. see the "Unmeme-able Anthem" for example as a reaction to Andromeda or YouTubers/Social media (for good or bad) and similar that might influence the larger market in general. Although it's pretty clear why the "clique" (both in "games journalism" and the Indie scene) would want to get rid of users reviews and any type of direct consumer feedback and openly lobby for it like Rami does there, and it was pretty obvious 5 years ago.

I'm more perplexed by seeing you constantly shilling for the "Epic Games Store" and engaging in polemic like calling people that are expressing their opinion "angry gaming activists" in defense of Obsidian, given the history of this site full of "angry gaming activists" fighting against the noble Bethesda Game Studios and BioWare and their virtuous pursuit of Streamlining Fallout and other dusty outdated game franchises, or giving up old-school RPG design with the aspirations of "reaching the normies" with wonderful modern design choices and engaging in evil propaganda campaigns against the righteous Bethesda Game Studios that led to the blacklisting of this site. Or the fallacy that posting a bad review or imparting one's opinion would preclude not buying from the "Epic Games Store". See also for instance the effect that "angry gaming activists" (or vocal consumers as one might also call them) had on Microsoft and both their plans for and subsequent sales of the Xbone or even earlier than that their attempt to bring console-based Online Subscription services to the PC with GfWL: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/games-for-windows-live-is-now-free and consider why you are vehemently railing against these horrible "angry gaming activists", especially in relation to The Outer Worlds.

 

[Infinitron]

I'm more perplexed by seeing you constantly shilling for the "Epic Games Store" and engaging in polemic like calling people that are expressing their opinion "angry gaming activists" in defense of Obsidian, given the history of this site full of "angry gaming activists" fighting against the noble Bethesda Game Studios and BioWare and their virtuous pursuit of Streamlining Fallout and other dusty outdated game franchises, or giving up old-school RPG design with the aspirations of "reaching the normies" with wonderful modern design choices and engaging in the fallacy that posting a bad review or imparting one's opinion would preclude not buying from the "Epic Games Store". See also for instance the effect that "angry gaming activists" (or vocal consumers as one might also call them) had on Microsoft and both their plans and sales of the Xbone.

That's not my intent at all, I'm just stating a fact. Who would deny that Codexers are an angry minority? But I think that Codexers have historically not participated in review-bombing campaigns and things of that sort. We've published reviews, engaged in free uncensored discussion, and let our opinions speak for themselves.

I guess what I'm saying is, if the Epic Games Store is so obviously inferior, so obviously shittier than Steam in terms of features and so on, then it seems like you don't really need to get that mad about it (mad enough to review-bomb), right? Just let the free market do its work.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I'm more perplexed by seeing you constantly shilling for the "Epic Games Store" and engaging in polemic like calling people that are expressing their opinion "angry gaming activists" in defense of Obsidian, given the history of this site full of "angry gaming activists" fighting against the noble Bethesda Game Studios and BioWare and their virtuous pursuit of Streamlining Fallout and other dusty outdated game franchises, or giving up old-school RPG design with the aspirations of "reaching the normies" with wonderful modern design choices and engaging in the fallacy that posting a bad review or imparting one's opinion would preclude not buying from the "Epic Games Store". See also for instance the effect that "angry gaming activists" (or vocal consumers as one might also call them) had on Microsoft and both their plans and sales of the Xbone.

That's not my intent at all, I'm just stating a fact. Who would deny that Codexers are an angry minority? But I think that Codexers have historically not participated in review-bombing campaigns and things of that sort. We've published reviews, engaged in free uncensored discussion, and let our opinions speak for themselves.

I guess what I'm saying is, if the Epic Games Store is so obviously inferior, so obviously shittier than Steam in terms of features and so on, then it seems like you don't really need to get that mad about it (mad enough to review-bomb), right? Just let the free market do its work.

The invisible hand of the free market is about to throw you out of a helicopter for being a shill

 

[Infinitron]

The invisible hand of the free market is about to throw you out of a helicopter for being a shill

This shill has no Epic Games Store account and intends to avoid creating one for as long as he possibly can. I'm satisfied with my current setup with Steam & GOG, and see no reason to change it. So what else am I supposed to do, get mad on Twitter? Sorry, don't care enough either way. I'm just here to watch the fight and provide commentary

 

[Dexter]

I guess what I'm saying is, if the Epic Games Store is so obviously inferior, so obviously shittier than Steam in terms of features and so on, then it seems like you don't really need to get that mad about it (mad enough to review-bomb), right? Just let the free market do its work.

I didn't "review bomb" anything, I don't even own Borderlands 2 on Steam because it's a shit, boring game series. But I even resent and reject the term "review bombing" or the implied framing of the basic action of consumer feedback that has existed for hundreds of years and continues to do so (but is apparently regarded as a problem to be "fixed" in the field of gaming), usually triggered as a reaction to an explicitly anti-consumer action or visibly political move or comment by a publisher or developer. It reminds me of other classic PR fails that might be argued weren't "about the product" based on Valve's criteria, but bankrupted entire businesses in response nonetheless. Some cases of "review bombings" I might regard as stupid myself, but I never had the urge overcome me of "Oh no, consumers are expressing themselves, we need to stop this!" It's kind of an alien mind-set, since any issue that someone had where they took time to write an "angry review" over it (even in a "trolling" manner) is likely regarded as important to them, doubly so on Steam since only product owners can write reviews in the first place.

And if you think back, this isn't the first time Pitchfork has expressed similar sentiments following bullshit anti-consumer moves: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141589-Gearbox-CEO-Dismisses-Gamer-Criticism

Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford dismisses vocal, highly critical gamers as "the kid that kicks down your sandcastle".

"There is always the person who's got to stand on the sandcastle, they must crush it," said Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford at the Develop conference in Brighton, UK. "That's their way of relating to that. It's typically a less sophisticated mind. There's a dark part of us all that likes the idea of crushing a sandcastle, but most of us will respect it and let it be."

Pitchford used this sandcastle analogy to describe to the "problem" of vocal, highly critical gamers in today's industry, making some allusions to his own studio's critically panned Aliens: Colonial Marines and Duke Nukem Forever.

"If you're making entertainment on a grand scale, if you're reaching millions, there will be tens of thousands of people who absolutely hate us, and some percentage of those will take it upon themselves to let us known how they feel," he said.

"I read it in this way: we moved those people, we touched them - even the person who hates [your game] so much, you've affected them. That's why we fight, we're creating emotion and experience - and some people thrive on that type of feeling, some people are sadists."

As part of his keynote, Pitchford performed a magic trick based on the classic Three Card Monte street scam, explaining to attendees that while the vast majority of spectators would quietly appreciate the entertainment act, a small percentage would be critical and seek to validate that by attempting to convert others.

So there you go. According to Pitchford's speech, all of you guys complaining about how laughably broken Colonial Marines was are just that jerk kid at the beach who kicks over sandcastles.

 

[Infinitron]

I guess what I'm saying is, if the Epic Games Store is so obviously inferior, so obviously shittier than Steam in terms of features and so on, then it seems like you don't really need to get that mad about it (mad enough to review-bomb), right? Just let the free market do its work.

I didn't "review bomb" anything, I don't even own Borderlands 2 on Steam because it's a shit, boring game series. But I even resent and reject the term "review bombing" or the implied framing of the basic action of consumer feedback that has existed for hundreds of years and continues to do so (but is apparently regarded as a problem to be "fixed" in the field of gaming), usually triggered as a reaction to an explicitly anti-consumer action or visibly political move or comment by a publisher or developer. It reminds me of other classic PR fails that might be argued weren't "about the product" based on Valve's criteria, but bankrupted entire businesses in response nonetheless. Some cases of "review bombings" I might regard as stupid myself, but I never had the urge overcome me of "Oh no, consumers are expressing themselves, we need to stop this!" It's kind of an alien mind-set, since any issue that someone had where they took time to write an "angry review" over it is likely regarded as important to them.

I wasn't referring to you personally.

IMO, a legitimate complaint one can have about review-bombing is that it can result in reviews not being representative of the average gamer's opinion. I think Valve have a right to say, "We want the first review that shows up when you scroll down on a game's store page to be the opinion of John Q. Normie".

Remember this whole discussion started because of Steam reviews specifically. Even if I personally think the whole thing is a bit silly, there's nothing wrong with providing your anti-Epic consumer feedback via Twitter, YouTube, etc.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Remember this whole discussion started because of Steam reviews specifically. Even if I personally think the whole thing is a bit silly, there's nothing wrong with providing your anti-Epic consumer feedback via Twitter, YouTube, etc.

Bullshit.
Until it hurts their bottom line they simply don't care, it's why "review bombing" triggers them so much. It's one of the few things gamers can do as consumers to get their point across.

 

[DalekFlay]

This shill has no Epic Games Store account and intends to avoid creating one for as long as he possibly can. I'm satisfied with my current setup with Steam & GOG, and see no reason to change it. So what else am I supposed to do, get mad on Twitter? Sorry, don't care enough either way. I'm just here to watch the fight and provide commentary

I just made an account for free The Witness. Like I said though, all clients are pointless to me as I never play online and use offline private modes, so it doesn't matter much in the end IMO. If you're big into online games and shit I could see wanting to keep things centralized.

 

[Dexter]

IMO, a legitimate complaint one can have about review-bombing is that it can result in reviews not being representative of the average gamer's opinion. I think Valve have a right to say, "We want the first review that shows up when you scroll down on a game's store page to be the opinion of John Q. Normie".

The thing is that you don't get to decide what a legitimate complaint is for anyone (nor should Valve, why they have to step in and decide what is "legitimate" and "illegitimate" consumer feedback is beyond me - this always ends up as a slippery slope, just like "hateful content" and it's obviously a biased endeavour for the purpose of damage control from the start, since it's not going to consider any positive reviews as "review bombings" and just remove negative ones to boost review scores). If they bought a game that contained the color red too much, and they disliked the color red and complain about it, that's as valid a review as any other and the top reviews on a game's store page are decided by vote tallies, so if 50+ people agreed that there's too much red in the game and didn't agree with "John Q. Normie", that'll be at the top.

Besides, two things Galyonkin himself discovered, one that user reviews generally matter (which is why they care and complain about "review bombs"): https://galyonk.in/some-things-you-should-know-about-steam-5eaffcf33218

Ignoring the reviews
It is a common misconception amongst game developers to ignore gamers or press when they don’t agree with you or with your vision. A good game is good regardless of what everyone says, right?

Well, yes, it is true, but good reviews usually correlate with good sales, meaning that if the game is good, people will recommend it and when the game is bad, they will advise against it.

But on the other hand: Even bad reviews are better than complete silence surrounding your game.

Another is that "John Q. Normie" isn't the one that buys most games on Steam (nor is he going to be the one that will decide over "The Outer Worlds" success or not, no offense) because he usually buys FIFA, Madden and Call of Duty on consoles and maybe dabbles in some Bethesda games and most likely couldn't give less of a shit about Obsidian's output.

https://galyonk.in/your-target-audience-doesn-t-exist-999b78aa77ae

Classic “core gamers” — the ones that play most major hits or jump from indie game to indie game — are relatively rare when compared to overall gaming audience.

In fact, 1% of Steam gamers own 33% of all copies of games on Steam. 20% of Steam gamers own 88% of games. That’s even more than Pareto principle suggests.

So, to be a member of the “1% group” of Steam gamers you have to own 107 games or more. That’s not much considering how Steam is selling games at discount prices and how easy it is to obtain games in bundles.

We’re talking about 1.3M PC gamers that could fall into definition of “core gamer that buys several games per year”. And that’s including discounted games as well.

Of course we could extend it to, I don’t know, “softcore gamers” — the 20% that own 88% games. To be included you’d have to own 4 (FOUR) games or more on Steam — not exactly a huge number, right?

 

[DalekFlay]

The thing is that you don't get to decide what a legitimate complaint is for anyone (nor should Valve, why they have to step in and decide what is "legitimate" and "illegitimate" consumer feedback is beyond me). If they bought a game that contained the color red too much, and they disliked the color red and complain about it, that's as valid a review as any other and the top reviews on a game's store page are decided by vote tallies, so if 50+ people agreed that there's too much red in the game and didn't agree with "John Q. Normie".

I agree 100%, but it has to apply to the fucking game you're reviewing. These don't.

 

[Akratus]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/141589-Gearbox-CEO-Dismisses-Gamer-Criticism

Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford dismisses vocal, highly critical gamers as "the kid that kicks down your sandcastle".

"There is always the person who's got to stand on the sandcastle, they must crush it," said Gearbox CEO Randy Pitchford at the Develop conference in Brighton, UK. "That's their way of relating to that. It's typically a less sophisticated mind. There's a dark part of us all that likes the idea of crushing a sandcastle, but most of us will respect it and let it be."

Pitchford used this sandcastle analogy to describe to the "problem" of vocal, highly critical gamers in today's industry, making some allusions to his own studio's critically panned Aliens: Colonial Marines and Duke Nukem Forever.

"If you're making entertainment on a grand scale, if you're reaching millions, there will be tens of thousands of people who absolutely hate us, and some percentage of those will take it upon themselves to let us known how they feel," he said.

"I read it in this way: we moved those people, we touched them - even the person who hates [your game] so much, you've affected them. That's why we fight, we're creating emotion and experience - and some people thrive on that type of feeling, some people are sadists."

As part of his keynote, Pitchford performed a magic trick based on the classic Three Card Monte street scam, explaining to attendees that while the vast majority of spectators would quietly appreciate the entertainment act, a small percentage would be critical and seek to validate that by attempting to convert others.

So there you go. According to Pitchford's speech, all of you guys complaining about how laughably broken Colonial Marines was are just that jerk kid at the beach who kicks over sandcastles.

Hahaha! Jesus christ how does a guy like this become CEO? What a crybaby. .