In an interesting blog post written up today, Valve's Erik Johnson has said how Valve will be relaxing their rules for what will be acceptable on Steam.
You might have seen the discussion recently about how Valve sent word to a few developers, giving them notice that their games are going to be removed from Steam. Even we picked up on this, as it didn't really feel right.
There were people suggesting that payment processors were to blame, or outside groups like we had linked in our previous article's comments. Valve said this is not the case at all. It's also not an automated process, Johnson said they have "groups of people looking at the contents of every controversial title submitted to us".
Now, Valve will allow pretty much anything "except for things that we decide are illegal, or straight up trolling". The blog post read as a surprisingly personal insight into how Valve operate, something Valve has been starting to do a little more often lately (which is great to see).
This bit got me:
So what does this mean? It means that the Steam Store is going to contain something that you hate, and don't think should exist. Unless you don't have any opinions, that's guaranteed to happen. But you're also going to see something on the Store that you believe should be there, and some other people will hate it and want it not to exist.
Naturally, Johnson made it clear that being allowed on Steam doesn't mean Valve agree with the content themselves. However, it now means a human at Valve can no longer just send out warnings of a game being removed from Steam. The fact that they're making this step, this real progress towards being more open is a good thing for developers and for gamers.
They continue to be my favourite store and I'm personally happy they will so openly admit when they're wrong and they didn't have a good handle on the situation. Their previous rules seemed to be okay for some, not okay for others—just too vague. Let's just hope the words turn into a reality.
Additionally though, a valid complaint will be that with even less curation finding games you want to see could end up being a bigger problem, one they will need to solve. Obviously this is where the likes of us come in, to let you know about good games, but an improved way to filter the Steam store itself will help. No matter what though, someone won't be happy.
Post updated after publishing.
Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Jun 7, 2018
I am not a fan of violence though :-).
Quoting: tuubiI don't think fraud attempts, hate mongering and racism need a legitimate platform, and neither does extremism of any sort.
Your extremism is somebody elses mainstream. And "not giving extremism a platform" is thus nothing else but an extremist position in itself.
Quoting: noxOut of curiosity, what happens when you report the ones with a linux-icon and no executable to valve?I now added my post by a list of them.
Would that be "Fraud" or "Broken"?
But I guess I should wait some, in order for them to be able to fix the problem. In the end, I'm most interested in having Linux games, not in enraging the publishers/developers.
Quoting: ArdjeCan we turn around the filter to say that I only want games with a sexual content?Of course ;):
I am not a fan of violence though :-).
https://store.steampowered.com/tags/en/Sexual%20Content/
Last edited by Seegras on 7 June 2018 at 10:42 am UTC
Quoting: ArdjeCan we turn around the filter to say that I only want games with a sexual content?https://store.steampowered.com/search/?sort_by=Released_DESC&tags=12095&os=linux
I am not a fan of violence though :-).
:D
Last edited by nox on 7 June 2018 at 10:42 am UTC
Quoting: ArdjeCan we turn around the filter to say that I only want games with a sexual content?Whaaaaaat?!
I am not a fan of violence though :-).
But then you will miss out on Rapelay! What a loss ;)
Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 7 June 2018 at 11:16 am UTC
Quoting: SeegrasYour extremism is somebody elses mainstream. And "not giving extremism a platform" is thus nothing else but an extremist position in itself.
Really?
Karl Popper about the problem ( "paradox of tolerance" ):
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
Last edited by Eike on 7 June 2018 at 12:13 pm UTC
Quoting: SeegrasExtremism isn't the same as having an unpopular opinion and it should never be allowed to be mainstream. You can be a staunch supporter of anarchist ideology for example. That's perfectly fine, regardless of how you feel about their opinions, and they should be allowed to argue their stance. Or you can be an extremist advocating violent protests or let's say terror attacks on state infrastructure. The latter does not deserve a platform nor should it be tolerated.Quoting: tuubiI don't think fraud attempts, hate mongering and racism need a legitimate platform, and neither does extremism of any sort.
Your extremism is somebody elses mainstream. And "not giving extremism a platform" is thus nothing else but an extremist position in itself.
Last edited by tuubi on 7 June 2018 at 12:25 pm UTC
Quoting: tuubiQuoting: SeegrasExtremism isn't the same as having an unpopular opinion and it should never be allowed to be mainstream. You can be a staunch supporter of anarchist ideology for example. That's perfectly fine, regardless of how you feel about their opinions, and they should be allow to argue their stance. Or you can be an extremist advocating violent protests or let's say terror attacks on state infrastructure. The latter does not deserve a platform nor should it be tolerated.Quoting: tuubiI don't think fraud attempts, hate mongering and racism need a legitimate platform, and neither does extremism of any sort.
Your extremism is somebody elses mainstream. And "not giving extremism a platform" is thus nothing else but an extremist position in itself.
I might be misunderstanding here, but "Advocating terror attacks" would very likely end up in the "illegal" part of the blog post.
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me