Valve making steps to address 'off-topic review bombs' on Steam

I actually quite like this idea, it gives people the option to opt-out of the system if they want. What I'd like to see is, since Valve has someone manually review user ratings, instead of just flagging them as off-topic they should categorize them and give users more settings to customize what topics they care about.
For instance there could be general categories like DRM, EULA changes, joke-reviews or maybe in case of that taiwanese game which had easter-eggs making fun of the chinese government, politically motivated review bombs.
Then people can set what they care about and leave out topics that they do not want to influence scores.

So, Valve is fighting with anti-consumer Epic Games Store by ... getting more anti-consumer?

In this category Epic wins! Not only does it market user data unlike Steam. I found it rather amusing to see that Epic Steamspy seems to be unable to stop spying on Steam and its users.

https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-doesnt-sound-too-happy-about-the-epic-store-copying-steam-data/


Last edited by Nevertheless on 17 March 2019 at 10:36 am UTC

Another example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release.

Price and value of the game is definitely part of my ratings and reviews. This is IMO deserved, they should have not cut price so soon after release ....

Hmm, but every one looking at the game a few month after release, will see a negative rating. And this does not help these customers. They want to know if the game is good if it is fun to play. They do not care, if someone thinks, the game was lowered in price to early.
So it is a point of view. If I want to inform me, if the game is fun to play - what does the reviews help me, that rate the game down, just because it was going cheap to early (and this is just a feeling of the ones, who bought it at a higher price).

The act of lowering prematurely is still present. People who bought it early were paying for a service they didn't get (exclusivity in exchange for money, they lack money and exclusivity, theft?). This is not some subjective metric, you can compare all AAA games in last several years and look at how long it should remain at the top price. Weren't last Battlefield and Fallout just weeks after release hugely discounted? Right there, that is anti-consumer and in my opinion should reflect rating of a game, because if they pulled such scam once, people should expect to pull it again and this (rating and reviews) can warn new customers against scummy practices.

I am for everything being on-topic, because seeing how Valve is incompetent - saying DRM and EULA are OFF-TOPIC and not part of a game (WTF? DRM is literally part of a game and EULA must be accepted before playing, so, in my view, part as well). I don't trust them to not **** up, because they have several times already.

I wonder if they could use some "AI" to extract the reason of the review bombing and add this information to the store page, like at the place where you see "similar to games you played", "played by friend" etc:
* Review bombed for going to sale
* Review bombed for leaving Steam
* Review bombed for featuring pronouns
* Review bombed for DRM
etc pp

Good thing it's optional

But by default enabled, toggle hidden behind like 5 screens and I believe it is only a matter of time when they disallow disabling it entirely (won't probably matter, majority of people will see manipulated reviews and ratings so publishers will have free hand at screwing customers).

I am limiting my spending on Steam, probably won't buy anything beyond the new Grimdawn dlc (only because I already have game and a DLC on Steam). Maybe use GoG and Nintendo store a bit, mostly waiting for a free-speech supporting game store where all legal games are allowed and reviews and ratings are not manipulated in any way. I wouldn't even care if games would be 10-20% more expensive, because I don't like supporting authoritative censorious companies.

I wonder if they could use some "AI" to extract the reason of the review bombing and add this information to the store page, like at the place where you see "similar to games you played", "played by friend" etc:
* Review bombed for going to sale
* Review bombed for leaving Steam
* Review bombed for featuring pronouns
* Review bombed for DRM
etc pp

Probably could, but easier is to identify "review bombing" by AI and a person would add a tag. But snowflake developers and greedy publishers would eat Valve alive, because this shows Valve could detect "review bombing" and yet Valve would not be doing anything with it - e.g. deleting reviews and ratings from the time of "review bombing".

I am using "review bombing" in quotation marks, because I don't believe what Valve is targeting is an organized effort (campaign), I think it will be in most cases organic. Valve is just silencing unhappy customers. Quite good video about the topic - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56Rhua9WcZs

A sad day for consumers.

Huh? Why?

That shouldn't even be explained. When someone decides for you what you are entitled to express your opinion on, that someone is free to shit on you.

Like:

You're not entitled to have an opinion on a game getting a new DRM (and one day you find out you can't play your product anymore).
You're not entitled to have an opinion on a developer moving his game form one platform to another (and you planned to play with friends but now if he buys he'll be on a separated platform).
Your're not entitled to have an opinion on a game getting a change in price policy (again maybe you planned to play with friends, but with the new pricing they're cut out)
You're not entitled to to have an opinion on a dev promising something and then not delivering (you bought because you trusted the devs, but they took money, showed you middle finger and you can't even manifest disappointment)
You're not entitled to to have an opinion on a publisher enforcing a new EULA that kills streams and videos (maybe you like to imitate pros on twitch when you buy game or you like to stream/youtube yourself)


And so on. Those are just examples of -in my humble opinion ofc- legit opinions that covers aspects of the product that do influence your experience but that the average authoritarian redditor would dismiss review bombing. Unless he's one in the minority being damaged ofc. In the end the real issue of this age is lack of empathy on the Internet.

Then I'm all for better review system, more clear, that allow you differentiate score between aspect of the product. I'm also open to discuss when a review tool is indeed abused, like when the mob punishes a dev for his legit ideas and opinions rather that for actual actions that had an observable effect on customer fruition of the product.

But in 2019 claiming that software is just a bunch of binaries and that everything around it from support, publisher policies, associated media, distribution platforms, pricing, DRMs, EULA and so on are totally unrelated to the product, have 0 effect on customer experience and thus must not be subject to end user review... frankly speaking: it's bullshit.

That shouldn't even be explained. When someone decides for you what you are entitled to express your opinion on, that someone is free to shit on you.

Like:

You're not entitled to have an opinion on a game getting a new DRM (and one day you find out you can't play your product anymore).

You really should take your time for reading and understanding stuff before commenting on it.

First things first, you can always feel "entitled" to your opinion. Nobody can take away your opinion on anything anyway.

Second, you can still put your opinion on anything however unrelated to the actual game in your review and it will not be deleted:

the reviews themselves will still be left up for all to read

Third, users caring for masses voting down a game for reasons related or not related to the game can still have these reviews counted in the overall score:

and users on Steam can actually opt out of this removal system to continue seeing a review bomb as normal.

Fear Thou Not.

Another example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release.

Price and value of the game is definitely part of my ratings and reviews. This is IMO deserved, they should have not cut price so soon after release ....

Hmm, but every one looking at the game a few month after release, will see a negative rating. And this does not help these customers. They want to know if the game is good if it is fun to play. They do not care, if someone thinks, the game was lowered in price to early.
So it is a point of view. If I want to inform me, if the game is fun to play - what does the reviews help me, that rate the game down, just because it was going cheap to early (and this is just a feeling of the ones, who bought it at a higher price).

The act of lowering prematurely is still present. People who bought it early were paying for a service they didn't get (exclusivity in exchange for money, they lack money and exclusivity, theft?). This is not some subjective metric, you can compare all AAA games in last several years and look at how long it should remain at the top price. Weren't last Battlefield and Fallout just weeks after release hugely discounted? Right there, that is anti-consumer and in my opinion should reflect rating of a game, because if they pulled such scam once, people should expect to pull it again and this (rating and reviews) can warn new customers against scummy practices.

I am for everything being on-topic, because seeing how Valve is incompetent - saying DRM and EULA are OFF-TOPIC and not part of a game (WTF? DRM is literally part of a game and EULA must be accepted before playing, so, in my view, part as well). I don't trust them to not **** up, because they have several times already.

This strikes me as a massive overreaction. You sound like the game publishers were conspiring with the later buyers against the initial buyers like some kind of backwards pump-and-dump stock scheme, which seems kind of unlikely since both groups are random assortments of individuals, and if there were people they really wanted to have the game cheap, they could just give those people keys individually. The game publishers have no reason to prefer any one group of random individuals over another group. Presumably they dropped the price because it seemed like they weren't selling enough at the original price.
Also, precisely because it's a matter of one group getting a lower price than another group, it can hardly be considered "anti-consumer" in general. It favours one group of consumers over another. But there are inevitably going to be sales and price drops in the end, and the people who buy for cheap inevitably get a better deal than people who buy at full price. Sales starting soon after release just mean fewer people had to pay full price. But those few early buyers would still have paid full price if the sales started a year later--they just would have had more company. So essentially, they're complaining not because they got a bad deal, but because someone else is getting a good deal.
Given all that, I don't see why consumers coming along later to decide whether they should take the good deal, should want to be influenced by people who specifically would prefer they be getting a worse deal. Really, how persuasive is "I want you to have to pay more for this game, so don't buy it cheap!" What's my incentive to want those people's reviews included in the game's score?


Last edited by Purple Library Guy on 17 March 2019 at 6:17 pm UTC

I think it's a step in the right direction. Maybe there's better mechanics to differentiate between product quality and issues with licence, dev behaviour, pricing or whatever there is to have an opinion about, but please remember a review bomb is quite destructive, and who guarantees the bombers are right every time?
On the other hand, does anyone of you believe your voice, with your special weighed out mix of opinions will be recognised from within the blunt force of a review bomb?

I wonder if they could use some "AI" to extract the reason of the review bombing and add this information to the store page, like at the place where you see "similar to games you played", "played by friend" etc:
* Review bombed for going to sale
* Review bombed for leaving Steam
* Review bombed for featuring pronouns
* Review bombed for DRM
etc pp

so use AI to turn it into youtube. suuuuure x3

Well, before just putting out pitchforks, we should remain objective. There are instances with games being review bombed and these reviews having nothing to to with the quality of the game. For example Metro series because Metro Exodus is an Epic store exclusive. This has nothing to to with the quality of the game and should not be taken into consideration for the rating in the store. Another example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release. Some other games because of some Youtuber.
Because of that, this feature might be not necessarily anti-consumer, but actually pro-consumer. So, if anyone has info which games' ratings were purged, it would be nice to know. Because then we can see if this system is used in a sensible way.

While I agree, the case of Metro:Exodus had nothing to do at all about the quality of the game. (although the Denuvo DRM part does screw up player experience and lower the quality.)

It was review bombed because of the Epic Game Store exclusivity agreement. However, as we all know, exclusivity agreements are anti-consumer.

Other than a you-tuber not getting his/her narcissistic fantasies fulfilled, I would argue that review bombs are generally pro-consumer as they notify the public to anti-consumer behavior, whether that is DRM, micro-transactions in paid games, broken or horribly programmed garbage, or exclusivity agreements.

Well, before just putting out pitchforks, we should remain objective. There are instances with games being review bombed and these reviews having nothing to to with the quality of the game. For example Metro series because Metro Exodus is an Epic store exclusive. This has nothing to to with the quality of the game and should not be taken into consideration for the rating in the store. Another example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release. Some other games because of some Youtuber.
Because of that, this feature might be not necessarily anti-consumer, but actually pro-consumer. So, if anyone has info which games' ratings were purged, it would be nice to know. Because then we can see if this system is used in a sensible way.

While I agree, the case of Metro:Exodus had nothing to do at all about the quality of the game. (although the Denuvo DRM part does screw up player experience and lower the quality.)

It was review bombed because of the Epic Game Store exclusivity agreement. However, as we all know, exclusivity agreements are anti-consumer.

Other than a you-tuber not getting his/her narcissistic fantasies fulfilled, I would argue that review bombs are generally pro-consumer as they notify the public to anti-consumer behavior, whether that is DRM, micro-transactions in paid games, broken or horribly programmed garbage, or exclusivity agreements.

I would argue they are a matter of force, not of quality and diversity of arguments.

I wonder if they could use some "AI" to extract the reason of the review bombing and add this information to the store page, like at the place where you see "similar to games you played", "played by friend" etc:
* Review bombed for going to sale
* Review bombed for leaving Steam
* Review bombed for featuring pronouns
* Review bombed for DRM
etc pp

so use AI to turn it into youtube. suuuuure x3

I don't understand what you want to tell me.
If I wasn't clear enough:
I don't want review bombs to contaminate overall rating,
but I do want to know if a game has been review bombed and why.

Another example being Shadow of the Tomb Raider because it got a sale soon after release.

Price and value of the game is definitely part of my ratings and reviews. This is IMO deserved, they should have not cut price so soon after release ....

Hmm, but every one looking at the game a few month after release, will see a negative rating. And this does not help these customers. They want to know if the game is good if it is fun to play. They do not care, if someone thinks, the game was lowered in price to early.
So it is a point of view. If I want to inform me, if the game is fun to play - what does the reviews help me, that rate the game down, just because it was going cheap to early (and this is just a feeling of the ones, who bought it at a higher price).

The act of lowering prematurely is still present. People who bought it early were paying for a service they didn't get (exclusivity in exchange for money, they lack money and exclusivity, theft?). This is not some subjective metric, you can compare all AAA games in last several years and look at how long it should remain at the top price. Weren't last Battlefield and Fallout just weeks after release hugely discounted? Right there, that is anti-consumer and in my opinion should reflect rating of a game, because if they pulled such scam once, people should expect to pull it again and this (rating and reviews) can warn new customers against scummy practices.

I am for everything being on-topic, because seeing how Valve is incompetent - saying DRM and EULA are OFF-TOPIC and not part of a game (WTF? DRM is literally part of a game and EULA must be accepted before playing, so, in my view, part as well). I don't trust them to not **** up, because they have several times already.

This strikes me as a massive overreaction. You sound like the game publishers were conspiring with the later buyers against the initial buyers like some kind of backwards pump-and-dump stock scheme, which seems kind of unlikely since both groups are random assortments of individuals, and if there were people they really wanted to have the game cheap, they could just give those people keys individually. The game publishers have no reason to prefer any one group of random individuals over another group. Presumably they dropped the price because it seemed like they weren't selling enough at the original price.
Also, precisely because it's a matter of one group getting a lower price than another group, it can hardly be considered "anti-consumer" in general. It favours one group of consumers over another. But there are inevitably going to be sales and price drops in the end, and the people who buy for cheap inevitably get a better deal than people who buy at full price. Sales starting soon after release just mean fewer people had to pay full price. But those few early buyers would still have paid full price if the sales started a year later--they just would have had more company. So essentially, they're complaining not because they got a bad deal, but because someone else is getting a good deal.
Given all that, I don't see why consumers coming along later to decide whether they should take the good deal, should want to be influenced by people who specifically would prefer they be getting a worse deal. Really, how persuasive is "I want you to have to pay more for this game, so don't buy it cheap!" What's my incentive to want those people's reviews included in the game's score?

I am simply stating that buyers after release are paying for time-limited exclusivity, for a new game to experience it first and for some time. It is reasonable to expect for like a month or more to price not to drop, that is the service they are paying for. So yes, it is anti-consumer if publisher halves price after a week. I, honestly, don't see it that much pro-consumer even from the perspective of later buyers. When the price drops so heavily so quickly, it usually means the product has major flaws and later buyers are now buying it knowing the risks, essentially gambling. But definitely knowing risks more than the initial release buyers.

So yes, IMO a game should have worse score and reviews if its price was halved in first week and customers weren't compensated (e.g. returned portion of money or some points for cash shop). Remember, this can happen multiple times, not just once. It can happen for its DLCs and sequels as well.

PS: No, I didn't mean publisher is conspiring with later buyers, just screwing early buyers by not providing expected service.

So yes, IMO a game should have worse score and reviews if its price was halved in first week and customers weren't compensated (e.g. returned portion of money or some points for cash shop).

The review score is meant to represent the quality of the game.
Not how nice the publisher is.
Not how nice the developer is.
Not how some random dev tweeted something that offended a few people.
Not for how fitting the price policy is (except if a game is overpriced, of course).

Nothing of that says anything about the game.
And nothing of that should be part of the review score.

Yes, I know it is the only "channel" that some users WRONGLY think to have. Well, though shit, it's still the wrong place.

If at all, introduce a second review score, one that actually is focused on the developer (and/or publisher).


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 18 March 2019 at 8:25 am UTC

Finally some action against those fake reviews. Or those reviewers that have 0.5 hours on record... Why are they even allowed to review...
Since it is now up to the viewers, I want to have a filter that can filter out minimal playtime for instance. Or more statistics, like how many down and ups per week, so we can easily see if there was a shitstorm of people blindly echoing eachother not really knowing why they are doing it, just to be herding.
But personally, if a game has a negative score, I usually ignore it, and try to determine myself if I would like a game.
I have never regretted buying a game that has a bad score.

For being a Linux site this is really full of corporate drones, which are like, "ohh my God, those poor devs".
Review bombing works both ways, it was used on GTA V when Take Two decided to shut down the modding scene of the game by sending a C&D letter to Open GTA developers and also worked (in a positive way) when ASW (maybe most of you arent aware of this) a fighting games developer was doing their first port for PC, which were awful but everyone was happy to see the company developing for PC and everyone was like, "port is awful but ASW is trying".

This is just another move Valve is doing to please AAA developers, the ones who hates customers to have a voice and since Devs can ban anyone who dares to say anything negative in their hubs, this is another way for sweeping things under the rug. Too bad for Valve, so afraid of AAA devs moving to Epic Fail Store.

IMO review bombing is the best tool for consumers to recommend games but also recommend companies which behavior can be controlled thanks to these tools, now they can go back to being the bunch of 4ssh0l3s they really are.

Also we stopped paid mods thanks to review bombing, but it seems being a pro-corporate anti-consumer guy is the trend these days. Funny thing all of you are consumers...


Last edited by orochi_kyo on 18 March 2019 at 3:20 am UTC

Finally some action against those fake reviews. Or those reviewers that have 0.5 hours on record... Why are they even allowed to review...
Since it is now up to the viewers, I want to have a filter that can filter out minimal playtime for instance. Or more statistics, like how many down and ups per week, so we can easily see if there was a shitstorm of people blindly echoing eachother not really knowing why they are doing it, just to be herding.
But personally, if a game has a negative score, I usually ignore it, and try to determine myself if I would like a game.
I have never regretted buying a game that has a bad score.

It seems you didnt get it, those reviews will be still there!! If I wrote "Game is bad, hurr durr" that review will be still there and it will be part of the score.
Valve is talking about reviews which are being motivated by things outside of the game itself, the port and the gameplay.

Its pretty dumb to pretend that someone who had 0.5 hours in game just wrote a "fake review" when maybe he cant even launch the game. But if you want to buy a game that crashes at launch be my guest.

For being a Linux site this is really full of corporate drones, which are like, "ohh my God, those poor devs".
Review bombing works both ways, it was used on GTA V when Take Two decided to shut down the modding scene of the game by sending a C&D letter to Open GTA developers and also worked (in a positive way) when ASW (maybe most of you arent aware of this) a fighting games developer was doing their first port for PC, which were awful but everyone was happy to see the company developing for PC and everyone was like, "port is awful but ASW is trying".

Oh, great, two "positive" examples in the face of probably dozens or more negative ones... Well, the latter isn't even positive as a shitty port is a shitty port. "Is trying" is irrelevant. Game reviews are not the place for charity.

This is just another move Valve is doing to please AAA developers, the ones who hates customers to have a voice and since Devs can ban anyone who dares to say anything negative in their hubs, this is another way for sweeping things under the rug. Too bad for Valve, so afraid of AAA devs moving to Epic Fail Store.

Nope, this has nothing to do with AAA, as games across the spectrum have been hit by it.
You also still have a voice without spamming something that is meant be about the quality of the game with irrelevant clutter: Don't buy the game, talk about it on forums, social media, etc.
It's not like suddenly you are silenced, you just cannot (well, you can, but it will be ignored by most) misuse the review system for a game for unrelated critique of the developer/publisher.
With that taken out, a bit more effort might be required - and that is a good thing, because low-effort crap like review-bombing was never useful.

Also we stopped paid mods thanks to review bombing, but it seems being a pro-corporate anti-consumer guy is the trend these days. Funny thing all of you are consumers...

Don't fool yourself. Paid mods were stopped because of the buzz it generated, of which angry review bombs were a negligible part. Which is the same for all other cases in which review-bombs were just a symptom of a big outrage. And such outrage will continue to happen and generate buzz - just except for the review section for a game, because it has no place there.


Last edited by TheSHEEEP on 18 March 2019 at 8:24 am UTC