The Valve and Steam Platform Discussion Thread

[Telengard]

If you've never been to a focus group and seen how it affects the end result of a product, you should try it. It'll open your eyes. Though not in a good way. You can get just a taste of it on a game's forums, such as the push to change a game to RTwP. Now, imagine a venue where every single babbling idiot on that forum thread is given the opportunity to long-form their particular spiel. While people listen. That's a focus group. (Then somebody tabulates the results, and gives summaries to the executives, who slavishly follow those results.)

A strong-willed dev with a good vision will ignore a lot of the feedback and stay true to the vision. However, even then, feedback influences. It changes things, for good or for bad. And those changes effect me, the end user. Any change made as a result of feedback effects me, since it changes the experience that I, the end user, will have. The quality level of the feedback produced also effects me, since it again effects my experience as the end user. The less professional the feedback pool is, the more likely all of the results will have to do with things like hair. Even just the absence of professional feedback will have a net negative result, since that means there's no one addressing underlying issues, only surface issues.

And that's because any change to the audience pool influences the net results. Maybe slightly, maybe hugely, depending on the change. But any change effects me, the end user, since it effects my experience.

 

[Telengard]

I am curious to know what information is available regarding the type of quality feedback a studio receives based on the price, is there any articles on gamasutra or etc? I was always under the impression that you will always get feedback but the quality will vary until you start doing discounts.

I've never seen magazines do an article on this particular aspect of feedback. It's a pretty narrow subject for an article, though they do do a lot more general articles. However, step outside the games industry, and there are whole books on focus group results, data collection methods, data analysis, and theories about said same. It's not my area of expertise - I'm not one of the psychologists making and interpreting the results - so I can't tell you which books are good. But if you're curious, the info is out there.

Purely anecdotal. 80% of feedback is crap. 20% has some level of quality. But if you're looking for insightful, meaningful feedback, that result changes to 99% useless, 1% useful. However, even crap feedback influences. It changes how you look at the product. And it can even cause things that are near ready to ship out the door to be torn down and reworked from the ground up. Because the feedback gets in your head.

 

[tuluse]

The question on the table from tuluse wasn't whether EA was good/bad for business, nor if it raises needed funds, nor if it makes for better/worse feedback. The question was: If you don't buy EA, then does it have any effect on you?

And it does, of course it does. Any system - whatever system - is put in place to evaluate and feedback the product will effect me, the end user. The type of audience in one's feeback pool will influence the emphasis of the feedback results. For instance, if your feedback pool has only graphics whores, then graphics are going to be a high priority, and that is what a lot of the feedback is likely to then be about.

If the price for entry is higher than retail, that will influence who buys in, which will shape the pool of people offering feedback, which will in turn shape the game - to one degree or another (but hopefully the dev has a vision that they will hold to). If the charge for EA is instead less than retail, that will change the feedback pool, which will result in a different emphasis in the feedback results, which will tend to influence the game in a different way. And if testing is instead done by bums pulled of the street and paid a pittance wage, that will form a much different audience pool, which will affect the game in a different direction.

But no matter what method is chosen, it effects me - the end user who plays the result.

Fair enough, but in my experience Early Access has been a boon to the games I've been a part of. D:OS and WL2.

 

[murloc_gypsy]

Just noticed there are a bunch of CoD games on sale on Steam. Are any of these actual fun on MP?

 

[Destroid]

The question on the table from tuluse wasn't whether EA was good/bad for business, nor if it raises needed funds, nor if it makes for better/worse feedback. The question was: If you don't buy EA, then does it have any effect on you?

And it does, of course it does. Any system - whatever system - is put in place to evaluate and feedback the product will effect me, the end user. The type of audience in one's feeback pool will influence the emphasis of the feedback results. For instance, if your feedback pool has only graphics whores, then graphics are going to be a high priority, and that is what a lot of the feedback is likely to then be about.

If the price for entry is higher than retail, that will influence who buys in, which will shape the pool of people offering feedback, which will in turn shape the game - to one degree or another (but hopefully the dev has a vision that they will hold to). If the charge for EA is instead less than retail, that will change the feedback pool, which will result in a different emphasis in the feedback results, which will tend to influence the game in a different way. And if testing is instead done by bums pulled of the street and paid a pittance wage, that will form a much different audience pool, which will affect the game in a different direction.

But no matter what method is chosen, it effects me - the end user who plays the result.

You make it sound as if E-A (Stop using EA abbreviation, damn it, it's confusing) makes developers change good plans into shit ones due to retardo feedback and in conequence develop a disappointing game. Give us an example of such developer and a game.

The truth is (it's gonna hurt, sorry) such developers would make diarrhea anyway.

Many of the E-A titles are just made for money-grab. Early alphas with great plans but no content so far. Towns for example. Morons bought the game, although it screamed "SCAM!!!" from 10 miles away (at least 10 codexers bought it). Would it be developed a good game if not E-A? No. It would not be developed at all or abandoned on the way. Did anyone lose anything with it being on E-A? No, nobody stole money from you either.

Good developers, on the other hand, take the community's opinions and listen to them while having their goal set. They use the money either to support development or just get rich quicker, but still do what they want to do - make a game. I very much doubt that Kerbal Space Program would be made without E-A as it is today in alpha 0.24, because their original goal was a game on a much smaller scope, it would be much simplier game with - possibly - less content than the current alpha. Moreover, they listen to what community has to say and even pay some modders for their work (to be included in the official version of the game).

In short, E-A does a lot of good and the only people who lose at it are morons buying alphas with no content made by developers who never made a game before. They would spend this money on something just as pointless anyway, so even there there's no harm done.

Agreed, it's basically up to the consumers to make the most of it. You need to be much more discerning when making an early access purchase if you care about getting value out of your money. Towns looked like shit from the start, I can't imagine why anyone would buy it, other than it was riding the first wave of DFlikes along with Gnomoria and made bank on the merits of some other game.

 

[Destroid]

Just noticed there are a bunch of CoD games on sale on Steam. Are any of these actual fun on MP?

CoD was great (single and multi).

 

[Konjad]

Just noticed there are a bunch of CoD games on sale on Steam. Are any of these actual fun on MP?

They are fun, but there are many way better FPS for quick arcade shootan fun than them, so I wouldn't bother. Better get Natural Selection 2 or Red Orchestra 2 than any CoD.

 

[murloc_gypsy]

Which one I should try then? They have Modern Warfare 3 and 4. I'd probably choose the one that still has an active mp community and allows for more play-styles and various vehicle combat thing-a-ma-boos. Inner retard likes vehicle combat and snipping dudes from afar

 

[tuluse]

Which one I should try then? They have Modern Warfare 3 and 4. I'd probably choose the one that still has an active mp community and allows for more play-styles and various vehicle combat thing-a-ma-boos. Inner retard likes vehicle combat and snipping dudes from afar

Call of Duty and multiplayer vehicle combat? I don't think so my friend.

 

[murloc_gypsy]

NO? BUT THEN WHY IS IT POPULAR?!!?!!?

 

[tuluse]

NO? BUT THEN WHY IS IT POPULAR?!!?!!?

It has a low skill floor and lots of mechanics to help noobs get kills.

 

[Konjad]

also achievements and unlocks, which adds a lot to the addicted gamers

 

[murloc_gypsy]

Meh. I'm now looking at a Red Orchestra 2 gameplay video. Looks really good. I'm liking the realism and vastness of the environments. Are there any good games like this? The guy in the video mentioned something about Arma and Iron Front (?).

 

[tuluse]

So guys I have a question about Steam Database. If a game can be found on it, does it necessarily mean it'll eventually be available on the store? Are there previous cases where a game was shown on the db but it never came up to be sold on the actual steam store?

I ask this because apparently the NWN and IWD games have been updated on steamdb four months ago alongside Temple of Elemental Evil, and I still don't have a digital copy of them all. As I definitely don't mind owning "old" games on steam, now I don't know if I should wait for their steam release or if I should just eventually grab them on a GOG sale. My CDs aren't exactly the real thing (local PC magazine release) so it's not like I already have their physical copies, plus I think I've lost my IWD 2 CDs.

Anyway, I just want to know if their presence on steamdb is meaningful or if it constantly receives tons of additions that are never released

I'm not sure about eventually, but iirc FF7 and 8 were in the database for years before actually getting on there.

 

[Explorerbc]

So guys I have a question about Steam Database. If a game can be found on it, does it necessarily mean it'll eventually be available on the store? Are there previous cases where a game was shown on the db but it never came up to be sold on the actual steam store?

Yes, it has happened many times. Every once in a while they also make the news by adding a console exclusive like halo 3 for example, that eventually never gets released. From what I understand they add a lot of games for internal testing or to help the devs try various features, and most of them are at some point added to the store, but sometimes I guess the deal doesn't work out or was never meant to, so all you have is the db entries and hope.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/02/04/halo-3-and-other-titles-sighted-in-steam-database

Edit: I must say though that, I think it is likely these games will get released given the fact, that steam has been releasing a lot of old classic games lately along their modern counterparts, and also their popularity. But the db entry does not guarantee that.

 

[Dr Tomo]

Meh. I'm now looking at a Red Orchestra 2 gameplay video. Looks really good. I'm liking the realism and vastness of the environments. Are there any good games like this? The guy in the video mentioned something about Arma and Iron Front (?).

Looks can be deceiving, if you are into the cod game play it is best to avoid ro2 as the skills don't transfer over at all and all servers have realism enabled.

 

[Konjad]

Meh. I'm now looking at a Red Orchestra 2 gameplay video. Looks really good. I'm liking the realism and vastness of the environments. Are there any good games like this? The guy in the video mentioned something about Arma and Iron Front (?).

Looks can be deceiving, if you are into the cod game play it is best to avoid ro2 as the skills don't transfer over at all and all servers have realism enabled.

both are fast paced shooters which is what he is looking for and from his previous post i take he never played CoD and just asks whether it's worth purchasing. RO2 is somewhat realistic, but it's a very fast game with respawns, whereas CoD is not realistic at all, plays more like counter-strike with quake speed.

Answering his questions further, ArmA series (ArmA2 and add ons being the best, ArmA3 being the worst) takes realism quite far and is also very fun, but in a different way. I definitely recommend getting ArmA2 + expansions, but it's probably not what you're looking for right now.

Get Red Orchestra 2 + RisingStorm (add on), ignore CoDs.

 

[murloc_gypsy]

I don't know for sure if it's about realism or fast-paced shoot-everything-that-moves. All I know is that I like shooters that offer a chance to do stuff differently. Like, you could kill a dude with a sniper from a tower in the distance, or go full-stealth through the ruined buildings of the battlefield and fuck him up with a knife from behind. Or just grab the biggest gun there is and blow up some tanks. Also, I like big maps with mixed environments. I can't think of a game that covers all of these, but some shooters I've joined are: UT, UT2004, CSGO, Doom, Battlefield 2, (some of the) Tom Clancy games. Prolly a few others, but I can't remember atm. Arma2 looks quite good actually. I think I'm gonna try that.

 

[Surf Solar]

You can try out battlefield 4 for free at the moment. Game has all of this. Alternatively if you want slower, more realistic and awesome gunfights, go for RO2 or Arma indeed.

 

[Dr Tomo]

Meh. I'm now looking at a Red Orchestra 2 gameplay video. Looks really good. I'm liking the realism and vastness of the environments. Are there any good games like this? The guy in the video mentioned something about Arma and Iron Front (?).

Looks can be deceiving, if you are into the cod game play it is best to avoid ro2 as the skills don't transfer over at all and all servers have realism enabled.

both are fast paced shooters which is what he is looking for and from his previous post i take he never played CoD and just asks whether it's worth purchasing. RO2 is somewhat realistic, but it's a very fast game with respawns, whereas CoD is not realistic at all, plays more like counter-strike with quake speed.

Answering his questions further, ArmA series (ArmA2 and add ons being the best, ArmA3 being the worst) takes realism quite far and is also very fun, but in a different way. I definitely recommend getting ArmA2 + expansions, but it's probably not what you're looking for right now.

Get Red Orchestra 2 + RisingStorm (add on), ignore CoDs.

That is what cod players coming into ro2 thinks when they join and find out that they get only 1 kill and 20 deaths aka the game is slow paced. The game isn't realistic, (please don't use that IGN reporters perception) basically 2-3 shots will kill and the game play is different as most players first learn to camp aka play defensively and eventually if they keep at it they learn how to be just as effective offensively which comes from map memorization. Another thing is that classes are locked and so people who played cod or BF is going to be very disappointed when they are stuck with the Karbiner 98k.

but some shooters I've joined are: UT, UT2004, CSGO, Doom, Battlefield 2, (some of the) Tom Clancy games

Also not insulting the poster as this is the games that was played and I played most of them and can say they are nothing like ro2. If you do pick up ro2 just save your money and don't buy the pacific expansion as it blows and if you don't believe me look at the server list as most people plays the Stalingrad version. You still can play as a rifle men in the pacific version, but you won't miss much as the game has plenty of issues that had people go back.

There is a some what cod game I remember playing, but didn't pick up that might interest this poster which was Insurgency which plays in a mix of cod/counter strike which I had a blast with.

 

[omega21]

Isn't Red Orchestra 2 still buggy as heck? I could only finish half my matches when the Jap expansion first came out, and after this continued for a few months I gave up on it entirely, although I enjoyed the game.

 

[Destroid]

All the RO2 servers I played on had all the weapons unlocked.

 

[Dr Tomo]

Isn't Red Orchestra 2 still buggy as heck? I could only finish half my matches when the Jap expansion first came out, and after this continued for a few months I gave up on it entirely, although I enjoyed the game.

Not sure if it is still buggy, but I can tell you that the majority of the people now plays RO 2 over the Jap expansion which the recent expansion is buggy.

All the RO2 servers I played on had all the weapons unlocked.

Never heard of weapon locks in RO franchise since they have class locks to prevent BF effect of having 15 out of your 30 players being snipers.

 

[Destroid]

Each class has a regular and elite weapon if I remember correctly? Been a long time since I played, and I didn't put that many hours in.

 

[Morgoth]

Speculation time!

http://paymentweek.com/2014-8-27-amazon-buys-twitch-is-valve-next-5449/

Amazon wants to buy Valve?