review bombing

[MRY]

I love more data, and Primordia benefits enormously from the weight given the user ratings, so Valve's approach makes me happy. That said, it doesn't really seem at all responsive to the concerns it purports to address. The overall rating is used (I think?) for all sorts of things, like how often a game appears on the front page, whether or not it gets recommended to customers, etc. The graph doesn't really respond to that issue. I find it implausible that someone will get to a game's page, hesitate about buying it because of a low score, load the graph, figure out from the graph that there as some "review bomb" outrage, and then decide to buy it because of this new information. To the extent there is a problem, this isn't a fix.

One fix would seem to be that customers who buy the game, review it, and then return it should have their reviews lumped into the "not counted for overall rating" pile with gifts and bundle purchases. (Or does it work that way already?) I am not opposed to the idea of allowing such customers to leave reviews, though. If you play the game and hate it, why not be allowed to warn people of it? Another possibility would be to list the top three positive and top three negative reviews, always (as I think Amazon does), rather than allowing negative reviews to occupy the entire top reviews list. (Though I suppose then people could down vote coherent positive reviews and up vote incoherent ones...)

As for whether review bombing is a problem, I'm agnostic. There have to be some bases on which a review bomb would be improper. But as forms of public protest go, it is so mild compared to other things going on in current year, I'm inclined not to worry too much about it. Negatively reviewing a game because of some corporate policy (like a DRM change or copyright takedowns or something) seems within the consuming public's rights. And I suspect that once there was a "review bombs forbidden" policy in place, it would turn out that things that are totally legitimate -- like the backlash against No Man's Sky -- would be recharacterized as a review bomb.

Incidentally, I also think that while negative reviews motivated from hostility toward the developer do happen, I suspect they are less common than positive reviews motivated from friendliness toward the developer. Potemkin reviews are probably worse than review bombs because they tend to be stealthier, so if you're going to go after the one, it's not clear why you shouldn't go after the other. Of course, since I benefit from "he seems like a nice chap" reviews, I certainly hope they don't follow my prescription...

 

[fantadomat]

Well for hostility toward the developer only people that responsible are the devs.Most people don't really care much about devs until the devs decide to do something stupid.

 

[Stavrophore]

mustard for real.

I hope you meant mustard gas

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Roguey]

These dummies are forgetting that Steam switched to greenlight and their new system because they got tired of having the responsibility of being Curator. They're not going to make a decision that results in their having to do more work, and no they're not going to hire you dummies.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Also, something needs to be done to the "800 hours on record: shit game, don't buy" people. Like, if you played more than 50 hours, you can't downvote, you fucking liar.

Some games are time-sinks by nature. You can play them for hundreds of hours and still say they're shit.

 

[MLMarkland]

As a developer I am 100% in favor of adding developer ratings.

Key talent in movies have a ratings system.

 

[Sore Loser]

.

 

[Excommunicator]

Generally I support it and often it's justified. Name another avenue in which consumes have the ability to voice extreme frustration with a developer or game. Key word extreme frustration - it's rarely done lightly by the players. Choosing not to purchase a game is not the same - if a game sees low sales more often than not the developer will substitute in whatever reasons they want to believe for a products failure. Review bombing is a kind of consumer justice and trying to stop it would 1. increase frustration of those who aren't being heard and 2. hide problems that many consumers want to be aware of.

Suggestion to block reviews from those who refund the game is a bad idea - if you're unhappy with a product then you refund it and you should be able to voice your opinion on that. Label them as "Product Refunded" reviews instead

 

[J_C]

Generally I support it and often it's justified. Name another avenue in which consumes have the ability to voice extreme frustration with a developer or game. Key word extreme frustration - it's rarely done lightly by the players. Choosing not to purchase a game is not the same - if a game sees low sales more often than not the developer will substitute in whatever reasons they want to believe for a products failure. Review bombing is a kind of consumer justice and trying to stop it would 1. increase frustration of those who aren't being heard and 2. hide problems that many consumers want to be aware of.

Suggestion to block reviews from those who refund the game is a bad idea - if you're unhappy with a product then you refund it and you should be able to voice your opinion on that. Label them as "Product Refunded" reviews instead

Agree.

And it is really the only "weapon" the consumers have if they have already bought the game. They can't return it, they can't reach the dev in any other meaningful way. Review bombing is the only way to show the dev he, she, it did something retarded.

 

[Alienman]

In general I approve of review bombing and as many of you have said - it is the only way for the public to show that they are collectively pissed off. But one example that I can think off that I find undeserving of review bombing is Battle Brothers. Basically they got review bombed for finishing the game. They are still at a high number (86) but it dropped from Overwhelmingly to Very positive.

 

[Grauken]

All the places who whine about Valve not doing more moderating about review bombs will be the first places to whine when one of their legitimate protests against developers with the wrong attitude is classified as review bombing

Also, adding more data to reviews by Valve was the most monocled thing to do

 

[passerby]

But one example that I can think off that I find undeserving of review bombing is Battle Brothers. Basically they got review bombed for finishing the game. They are still at a high number (86) but it dropped from Overwhelmingly to Very positive.

I didn't follow the game, so I may be wrong, but review bombing because the've finished the game doesn't make sense.
Isn't it more like some people are pissed, because they've supported the game in early stages, expecting some promised features, that won't be delivered since they've finished the work on the game ?

 

[Alienman]

Mod support to my knowledge was never promised, but they were talking about an eventual expansion. They came to the conclusion that it was not viable for financial reasons and that got people pissed off. They explained the reason why and also explained why certain features had to be cut, but people just couldn't accept that the game was done saying stuff like they abandon the game. Basically calling it an early access scam when that is really far from the truth.

 

[Dr Skeleton]

They never went back on promised features as far as I remember. They showed a lot of mock-ups of stuff that never made it into the game (dungeons, fortification defense/assault, female mercs) but I think it was always as "we'd like to maybe have that in the game one day". No modding really sucks but they never said there would be modding, it's just something people had hoped for. I don't think they deserved most of the backlash (the game is finished, they delivered on the stuff they promised etc) but if someone wants to change their review to negative because Overhype decided to not provide further content updates they should still be able to do that. It must feel bad to read from devs' perspective (game's good played for 1000h but no modding now it's shit 1/10) but it's up to consumers to read these and decide for themselves, it's a small price to pay for not having some sort of system that hides or deletes "review bombing", Valve is handling this very well.

 

[passerby]

So thanks to the new system I was able to skim throgh rougly 50 out of 70 different negative reviews from the month following release of Battle Brothers.
Shame the graph interface is available only on the store page, not on the reviews page, so we can't include all reviews in our investigations, hope the'll improve it.

Anyway, there were like only three negative reviews mentioning mod support, only one were it was the reason for negative rating, two where reviewers found game boring and lacking content, believing "modders could fix it" if there were tools.
None of these reviews was heavily upvoted. There is no sign of review bombing at all. What you can notice is a change in the positive/negative ratio after release, that remained consistent in the following months.

Imo most of the people who are slightly dissapointed with the game in early access won't post a negative review intil devs finish with the game.
Once it's finished both old supporters and new players don't have any reason to hold off with their negative opinion.

 

[Catacombs]

I always focus on the ones who put in the hours to play the game and write a thoughtful review. I also look at reviews from different points in time. Steam usually puts the most recent and helpful review at the top. It's helpful to go back and read what people had to say when the game first came out and see how opinions changed over time.

Review bombing is just a way to flame the developers if the players don't like something. Sometimes it effective. Other times it's annoying, especially when people complain, for example, if a DLC is worth more than their weekly allowance.

 

[passerby]

Well, after further investigation some limited review bombing indeed started a month after release, but still there is no mentions of it being promised.
In all cases reviewers believe the game to be unfinished / barebone and lacking many promised features, hence the demand for at least modding tools, if the devs don't want to continue development.
Seems some dissapointed players who didn't bother to write a review before, liked the concept enough to be mobilised by the cause. If these players were satisfied with the games as it is, they'd never rate negative over mod tools.

Do they distort the score, because they were mobilised ?

 

[Gepeu]

What makes me mad is that only a negative reviews' influx is considered "bad" (why?), while huge amounts of 1 liners after 2 hours of positive reviews is "good boi points". It's a customer's feedback, not "bombing". The dev/publisher does something bad that affects the playerbase, and it speaks back. If the former had good attitude towards its customers, no "bombing" would occur.

A vile manipulation is taking place, if you ask me.

 

[fantadomat]

What makes me mad is that only a negative reviews' influx is considered "bad" (why?), while huge amounts of 1 liners after 2 hours of positive reviews is "good boi points". It's a customer's feedback, not "bombing". The dev/publisher does something bad that affects the playerbase, and it speaks back. If the former had good attitude towards its customers, no "bombing" would occur.

A vile manipulation is taking place, if you ask me.

Yeah i agree with you mate.There is lot of time when devs come out and whine that they are review bombed,while they are just getting negative reviews because people don't like the game.Good example is beamdogs and their shit game.They were begging their supporters to write good reviews because misogyny.

 

[Dexter]

Let me clarify:

Titan Souls was review bombed in April 2015 by supporters of the Youtuber TotalBiscuit after the indie game's developer mocked a statement that the reviewer made saying the game was "absolutely not for me", and Totalbiscuit responded saying he would no longer cover the game, reducing the game's Steam rating to "negative".[6]

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim was review bombed in 2015 by customers angry about the game's introduction of paid mods, leading Valve to reverse their decision and remove the paid mod functionality.[7]

Nier: Automata was review bombed in April 2017 by Chinese players demanding a translation of the game to Chinese, whom PC Gamer called "a powerful new voice".[7]

Grand Theft Auto V was review bombed throughout June and July 2017 after publisher Take 2 Interactive issued a cease and desist against the widely-used game modification tool OpenIV, as an attempt to stop single player and multiplayer mods for GTA V and GTA Online. The review bombing reduced GTA V's overall Steam review rating from "positive" to "mixed".[8]

Crusader Kings II was review bombed in the same month by customers angry that they had raised the prices in some regions.[7]

Notice how none of them are "Because the users believed the game itself was 'awful, dumbed down and a disgrace to what came before, yet mainsteam gaming media highly praised and awarded it, and it was one of the biggest successes of the year as a result of marketing and ignorance as opposed to quality'".

I can think of more than a few games I'd send minions to bomb if I weren't bound by a code of ethics and actually had mindless drones to carry it out. Starting with the first Bioshock game to offset all the incredibly retarded and undeserved acclaim.

You're quoting a Wikipedia page that is used to push an agenda and was created in August slightly over a month ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Review_bomb&action=history

As "proof" for the things it claims it quotes 3 Kotaku articles, 3 PCGamer articles, and also 1 each of Polygon/VICE Waypoint/GamesIndustry.biz/EuroGamer.

The asshole who wrote the GamesIndustry.biz article is a progressive activist who wrote this a week ago: https://archive.is/axr7x

Why I deleted my Steam account
Valve's dominance in the PC gaming space is made more harmful by its tolerance for toxic users

Furthermore if you follow "Titan Souls" to Steam and actually look at the results for April you can see that there was no "review bomb" and none of the featured reviews even mention "TotalBiscuit": http://store.steampowered.com/app/297130/Titan_Souls/#app_reviews_hash

All that aside, this entire thing is a farce and another power play from progressive bloggers who dislike it whenever actual customers have actual say in things that they dislike. "Review bomb" (which apparently never applies for positive reviews made for dubious reasons, go figure) is just an euphemism for "customers being able to express their opinions visibly" since Steam already limits the people that can review products to people that actually bought said game and even displays the hours played.

They want to act as the sole arbiters of what is an "issue" and control any consumer activism as "intermediaries", like when they come along with their latest outrage about "Feminism/skimpy clothing/Racism/game is too hard/not enough muh diversity" or whatever the fuck while they want to entirely suppress any actual issues that the playerbase might have like bullshit DLC or Microtransaction practices, price hikes, Paid Mods, broken promises or false advertising (No Man's Sky) etc since all of that is "entitlement". The latest thing that ticked them off is how they couldn't control the narrative against the horrible racist PewDiePie and how both developers and gamers are against him, since said developer (foundational to the "Indie clique") got the actual consumer backlash instead. As such they will fight any way for consumers to directly have their voices heard since it impedes them spreading their cancer. Their win state to keep their influence (at least for a little while) is to suppress consumers while either decreasing the influence or turning YouTubers into cancer too.

 

[Lahey]

The irony continues. Why wouldn't it? This time "bombing" is conflated with in-game "harassment" too, because why not? Emphasis mine. http://archive.is/ODcm0

Blizzard knuckles down on community as Valve fiddles
A few graphs won't fix review bombing and abuse; if Valve wants tips, it could look to the tough decisions and hard work Blizzard is doing on Overwatch
Rob Fahey

It's taken a while, but Valve has finally decided that perhaps it's not a particularly good thing for its Steam retail platform to be an effective vector for online hate mobs to attack game creators' livelihoods, and has taken exactly the kind of firm, decisive action we've come to expect of the company; it's added some graphs to the interface. Nothing's going to top the sheer shade of Gamasutra's headline on this topic - "Steam considers preventing review bombs, adds graphs instead" - which perfectly sums up the exasperation so many developers feel with the service at this point. "We're aware of the problem, and doing as little as humanly possible to fix it" is in many ways the worst response the company could have conjured.

Review bombs, for the uninitiated, are when a mob descends on Steam to leave a flood of poor reviews - often accompanied by a grossly offensive comment - on a game whose developer has done something to raise their hackles. The most recent example was the review-bombing of Firewatch after its developers demanded PewDiePie remove videos of the game following his latest racist "slip of the tongue", but dozens of developers have been targeted for this kind of treatment, often simply for the sin of being female or a minority, or for in some way otherwise upsetting the denizens of Reddit and 4chan. Review bombing can hammer a game's rating on Steam and consequently seriously damage its sales - it's a direct and effective way for online mobs to damage the livelihoods of developers.

Valve's response has been to effectively shrug off responsibility for these problems and place it entirely on the shoulders of its customers. Steam users will now be expected to look at a graph for a game to make sure it's not being review bombed, a process that assumes that they've bothered looking at a game with a low review score in the first place, that they understand what review bombing is, and that they know what it looks like on a graph - all of which seem vanishingly unlikely, making this move entirely unhelpful. What's most frustrating is that the data Valve is now revealing makes it clear how trivial it would be to fix this problem if they actually cared; an automated system that flagged possible review bombing for human review would be beyond trivial to implement.

This is the crux; the problem is not technological, it's philosophical. Valve clearly has a strong philosophy and political standpoint about how online services should work and about how the freedom of users (including users who haven't actually bought a game but still want to give it a 1-star review and call its creator a variety of colourful names) should be balanced against the protection of creators' livelihoods. Moreover, it has a belief that where problems do arise, they can be fixed with more data and tweaked algorithms; this reflects the broad Silicon Valley ideological fervour about the power and purity of algorithms, which conveniently ignores the extraordinary degree to which code that deals with human behaviour tends to reflect the implicit biases of its authors. Valve absolutely knows it could fix this issue with tighter rules, more human supervision and, yes, some better algorithms to report back to those supervisors; it just doesn't want to do that, because that's not its philosophy.

On the flip side of this coin, you've got Blizzard - a company which embraces technology with every bit as much fervour as Valve, but takes a very different approach to protecting its players and policing its community. Last week, Overwatch game director Jeff Kaplan laid things out very clearly - the team has absolutely refocused personnel and resources away from other features and content in order to address player toxicity in the Overwatch community.

It's throwing people, time and money into making its blockbuster game into an environment where people can play without facing abuse and harassment. Some of that effort boils down to developing smarter systems - Kaplan bemoaned the fact that resources have been diverted from other features in order to implement player-reporting on consoles, a feature Overwatch initially lacked on those platforms in the belief that consoles' own native player management systems would suffice. Other simple aspects of the game's systems and designs are clearly designed to avoid player harassment - dropping kill:death ratios from the scoreboard is one such move, for example.

Ultimately, though, the work Blizzard is doing on Overwatch - and that other companies that genuinely care about this issue, such as League of Legends creator Riot, are doing on their games - is about people, not algorithms. Clever design and good code gets you so far in managing human behaviour, but there will always be a subset of people who get their kicks from aggressively ruining other people's fun, and will devote themselves to learning to game any system you throw in their way. For them, harassment and abuse is the game, more so than the game itself; to deal with them, ultimately, you need living, breathing people empowered to make good decisions on behalf of the community.

This is, perhaps, what Valve doesn't understand - or is the understanding which it rejects on the grounds of its philosophy. Review bombing is a form of "gaming" Steam's systems; it arose because groups of people discovered that it was possible to manipulate Steam's data and algorithms in a way that achieved their political objectives. You can't fix that by just providing more data; the only way to prevent it from impacting on the income and livelihoods of developers (who, let's remember, give Steam a hell of a cut of their sales, and deserve to be treated with a damned sight more respect by Valve) is to seal up loopholes and add a layer of human supervision, in the form of people with clear priorities to protect creators and preserve Steam as a great retail platform, not a vector for online abuse mobs.

Blizzard's philosophy here (and again, it's not just Blizzard - plenty of other game operators also recognise and value of properly policing and improving their communities) is a great counter-example, and a window into what a service like Steam could be like if Valve rooted out some of this counter-productive philosophy from its way of doing business.

Steam is one of the most important developments in the games business in the last 20 years; it effectively rescued PC gaming from commercial doldrums and placed it on a path to the rude health it's in now. Its very importance, both commercially and culturally, cries out for better management; for it to slide into being a hostile environment for developers and a vector for online abuse (and thus also a pretty unpleasant place for the average consumer to shop for games) is a deeply worrying and unfortunate outcome.

Valve's critics don't pile on the company out of dislike, but out of disappointment at seeing such a vital part of the industry go to seed; if the company is really serious about fixing these issues, we'd suggest that a good first step would be to put down the graphs and see if maybe Blizzard is free for a chat on the phone.

EDIT: added more emphasis, a rather revealing line.

 

[MLMarkland]

.

 

[Dexter]

This is the crux; the problem is not technological, it's philosophical. Valve clearly has a strong philosophy and political standpoint about how online services should work and about how the freedom of users (including users who haven't actually bought a game but still want to give it a 1-star review and call its creator a variety of colourful names) should be balanced against the protection of creators' livelihoods. Moreover, it has a belief that where problems do arise, they can be fixed with more data and tweaked algorithms; this reflects the broad Silicon Valley ideological fervour about the power and purity of algorithms, which conveniently ignores the extraordinary degree to which code that deals with human behaviour tends to reflect the implicit biases of its authors. Valve absolutely knows it could fix this issue with tighter rules, more human supervision and, yes, some better algorithms to report back to those supervisors; it just doesn't want to do that, because that's not its philosophy.

You forgot to point out the best part.

 

[MLMarkland]

This is the crux; the problem is not technological, it's philosophical. Valve clearly has a strong philosophy and political standpoint about how online services should work and about how the freedom of users (including users who haven't actually bought a game but still want to give it a 1-star review and call its creator a variety of colourful names) should be balanced against the protection of creators' livelihoods. Moreover, it has a belief that where problems do arise, they can be fixed with more data and tweaked algorithms; this reflects the broad Silicon Valley ideological fervour about the power and purity of algorithms, which conveniently ignores the extraordinary degree to which code that deals with human behaviour tends to reflect the implicit biases of its authors. Valve absolutely knows it could fix this issue with tighter rules, more human supervision and, yes, some better algorithms to report back to those supervisors; it just doesn't want to do that, because that's not its philosophy.

You forgot to point out the best part.