...apparently due to false advertising from the developer. Full refunds will be issued through May 19th.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663)
Steam should probably enforce this policy a little more frequently. I'm sure there are several other early access games that would meet the criteria for removal. I think more transparency and honesty with respect to early access titles would be beneficial to not only steam, but to most honest developers, as well.
I remember I started reading a lot of controversial topics over the game's forum, and how the devs were even accused of plagiarizing material.
It's funny to actually see Steam for once take a stand against the developers though.
This video talks about the affair:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9075-Salt-Of-The-Earth-A-Steam-Fail-Story (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9075-Salt-Of-The-Earth-A-Steam-Fail-Story)
Quote from: WallysWorld on May 07, 2014, 12:02:52 PM
This video talks about the affair:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9075-Salt-Of-The-Earth-A-Steam-Fail-Story (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9075-Salt-Of-The-Earth-A-Steam-Fail-Story)
Buyer beware, huh? ;D
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 11:20:11 AM
...apparently due to false advertising from the developer. Full refunds will be issued through May 19th.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663)
Steam should probably enforce this policy a little more frequently. I'm sure there are several other early access games that would meet the criteria for removal. I think more transparency and honesty with respect to early access titles would be beneficial to not only steam, but to most honest developers, as well.
What would that look like? I mean, when you say more transparency and honesty, what is the information you are looking for? Sales? Vetted bios/resumes of stakeholders? Frequency of updates over a given time period? Developers must respond to X% of the posts on Steam forum?
I don't disagree that honesty and transparency are a good thing. I'm just not sure what that looks like in terms of games and game development.
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 07, 2014, 07:24:42 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 11:20:11 AM
...apparently due to false advertising from the developer. Full refunds will be issued through May 19th.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663)
Steam should probably enforce this policy a little more frequently. I'm sure there are several other early access games that would meet the criteria for removal. I think more transparency and honesty with respect to early access titles would be beneficial to not only steam, but to most honest developers, as well.
What would that look like? I mean, when you say more transparency and honesty, what is the information you are looking for? Sales? Vetted bios/resumes of stakeholders? Frequency of updates over a given time period? Developers must respond to X% of the posts on Steam forum?
I don't disagree that honesty and transparency are a good thing. I'm just not sure what that looks like in terms of games and game development.
I think it looks like not making false claims about what your game is, what features it presently includes, not deleting or locking all user comments who want to post accurate feedback, not using friends to post positive comments, and not stealing other people's works, for starters.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 07:49:13 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 07, 2014, 07:24:42 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 11:20:11 AM
...apparently due to false advertising from the developer. Full refunds will be issued through May 19th.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663)
Steam should probably enforce this policy a little more frequently. I'm sure there are several other early access games that would meet the criteria for removal. I think more transparency and honesty with respect to early access titles would be beneficial to not only steam, but to most honest developers, as well.
What would that look like? I mean, when you say more transparency and honesty, what is the information you are looking for? Sales? Vetted bios/resumes of stakeholders? Frequency of updates over a given time period? Developers must respond to X% of the posts on Steam forum?
I don't disagree that honesty and transparency are a good thing. I'm just not sure what that looks like in terms of games and game development.
I think it looks like not making false claims about what your game is, what features it presently includes, not deleting or locking all user comments who want to post accurate feedback, not using friends to post positive comments, and not steeling other people's works, for starters.
So, in other words, the information you want has nothing to with Steam or transparency, and everything to with the developer. We're in agreement there.
Yes, personal honesty is a good place to start. In game development, dinner development, potty development, and pre-thread posting development. Very few places, groups, people, or things that can't benefit from individuals honesty. Well, maybe The Blarney Stone and tourists.
I am still not sure how steam (or kickstarter) is supposed to provide better transparency to you to prevent false claims. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide more transparency on who is locking a thread, regardless of what quality you assign to the deleted posts to confirm your bias. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide transparency to identify which friends' opinions are valid and which friends' opinions are pandering. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide better transparency so you can determine if something is stolen.
Things that steam could do to fix the personal honesty problems you are offended by include no locking of threads -- I'm a supporter of this, but given the high ratio of utter fucktards to human beings on the internet, I'm not sure I can reasonably expect a website to not ban folks. What if Wodin starts posting on your steam early access forum? Things steam could do include adding friendship metatagging so that a list of everyone you know on a forum or thread is listed under your name. I suppose they could add staff so that every post could be rated as honest, accurate, pandering, or not. I'm sure that will work as well as their customer service.
Or, we could use the transparency already provided to us, and not invest in an early access game where there is a suspiciously high volume of developer abuse on the forum. I wasn't aware of 2066 before this happened, but if the above ALONE isn't enough to anyone to pause in their purchase, then additional information probably isn't going to help them, in anything.
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 07, 2014, 09:04:47 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 07:49:13 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 07, 2014, 07:24:42 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 11:20:11 AM
...apparently due to false advertising from the developer. Full refunds will be issued through May 19th.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663)
Steam should probably enforce this policy a little more frequently. I'm sure there are several other early access games that would meet the criteria for removal. I think more transparency and honesty with respect to early access titles would be beneficial to not only steam, but to most honest developers, as well.
What would that look like? I mean, when you say more transparency and honesty, what is the information you are looking for? Sales? Vetted bios/resumes of stakeholders? Frequency of updates over a given time period? Developers must respond to X% of the posts on Steam forum?
I don't disagree that honesty and transparency are a good thing. I'm just not sure what that looks like in terms of games and game development.
I think it looks like not making false claims about what your game is, what features it presently includes, not deleting or locking all user comments who want to post accurate feedback, not using friends to post positive comments, and not steeling other people's works, for starters.
So, in other words, the information you want has nothing to with Steam or transparency, and everything to with the developer. We're in agreement there.
Yes, personal honesty is a good place to start. In game development, dinner development, potty development, and pre-thread posting development. Very few places, groups, people, or things that can't benefit from individuals honesty. Well, maybe The Blarney Stone and tourists.
I am still not sure how steam (or kickstarter) is supposed to provide better transparency to you to prevent false claims. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide more transparency on who is locking a thread, regardless of what quality you assign to the deleted posts to confirm your bias. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide transparency to identify which friends' opinions are valid and which friends' opinions are pandering. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide better transparency so you can determine if something is stolen.
Things that steam could do to fix the personal honesty problems you are offended by include no locking of threads -- I'm a supporter of this, but given the high ratio of utter fucktards to human beings on the internet, I'm not sure I can reasonably expect a website to not ban folks. What if Wodin starts posting on your steam early access forum? Things steam could do include adding friendship metatagging so that a list of everyone you know on a forum or thread is listed under your name. I suppose they could add staff so that every post could be rated as honest, accurate, pandering, or not. I'm sure that will work as well as their customer service.
Or, we could use the transparency already provided to us, and not invest in an early access game where there is a suspiciously high volume of developer abuse on the forum. I wasn't aware of 2066 before this happened, but if the above ALONE isn't enough to anyone to pause in their purchase, then additional information probably isn't going to help them, in anything.
I'm really not sure why you're choosing to argue on this point. You seem totally hung up on the word "transparency." All I'm suggesting is that Steam play a larger role in quality control before they decide to distribute a product. All Steam has to do to investigate the claims made by a developer is simply have someone play the damn game and do some fact checking. Not sure why you think this would be difficult, or why it shouldn't be the responsibility of steam, who is the retailer, who publishes advertisements ostensibly prepared by the developer and who ultimately places the product in the stream of commerce. Its not a far cry from long standing principles in truth in advertising.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 09:38:49 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 07, 2014, 09:04:47 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 07:49:13 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 07, 2014, 07:24:42 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 11:20:11 AM
...apparently due to false advertising from the developer. Full refunds will be issued through May 19th.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663)
Steam should probably enforce this policy a little more frequently. I'm sure there are several other early access games that would meet the criteria for removal. I think more transparency and honesty with respect to early access titles would be beneficial to not only steam, but to most honest developers, as well.
What would that look like? I mean, when you say more transparency and honesty, what is the information you are looking for? Sales? Vetted bios/resumes of stakeholders? Frequency of updates over a given time period? Developers must respond to X% of the posts on Steam forum?
I don't disagree that honesty and transparency are a good thing. I'm just not sure what that looks like in terms of games and game development.
I think it looks like not making false claims about what your game is, what features it presently includes, not deleting or locking all user comments who want to post accurate feedback, not using friends to post positive comments, and not steeling other people's works, for starters.
So, in other words, the information you want has nothing to with Steam or transparency, and everything to with the developer. We're in agreement there.
Yes, personal honesty is a good place to start. In game development, dinner development, potty development, and pre-thread posting development. Very few places, groups, people, or things that can't benefit from individuals honesty. Well, maybe The Blarney Stone and tourists.
I am still not sure how steam (or kickstarter) is supposed to provide better transparency to you to prevent false claims. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide more transparency on who is locking a thread, regardless of what quality you assign to the deleted posts to confirm your bias. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide transparency to identify which friends' opinions are valid and which friends' opinions are pandering. I am still not sure how steam is supposed to provide better transparency so you can determine if something is stolen.
Things that steam could do to fix the personal honesty problems you are offended by include no locking of threads -- I'm a supporter of this, but given the high ratio of utter fucktards to human beings on the internet, I'm not sure I can reasonably expect a website to not ban folks. What if Wodin starts posting on your steam early access forum? Things steam could do include adding friendship metatagging so that a list of everyone you know on a forum or thread is listed under your name. I suppose they could add staff so that every post could be rated as honest, accurate, pandering, or not. I'm sure that will work as well as their customer service.
Or, we could use the transparency already provided to us, and not invest in an early access game where there is a suspiciously high volume of developer abuse on the forum. I wasn't aware of 2066 before this happened, but if the above ALONE isn't enough to anyone to pause in their purchase, then additional information probably isn't going to help them, in anything.
I'm really not sure why you're choosing to argue on this point. You seem totally hung up on the word "transparency." All I'm suggesting is that Steam play a larger role in quality control before they decide to distribute a product. All Steam has to do to investigate the claims made by a developer is simply have someone play the damn game and do some fact checking. Not sure why you think this would be difficult, or why it shouldn't be the responsibility of steam, who is the retailer, who publishes advertisements ostensibly prepared by the developer and who ultimately places the product in the stream of commerce. Its not a far cry from long standing principles in truth in advertising.
I used transparency and honesty that because that's what you suggested that Steam do. After two attempts of not being able to produce anything remotely transparent Steam can do and a handful examples of the dangers of deceptive business practices, you then reveal that all you are suggesting is steam play a larger role in quality control before they decided to distribute a product, and suddenly get very defensive about your original transparency and honesty claim. Not sure why you find it so difficult to choose your words more accurately.
By the way, what are the false advertising claims Steam either failed to catch or promulgated themselves prior to distributing 2066, or any other early access game? Because if you are going to claim that all you are suggesting is that Steam play a larger role in quality control before they decide to distribute a product and don't have any facts, all you are a really doing is
fellating yourself posting to confirm your own bias.
I'm not choosing to argue on transparency. I'm just giving you credit for using words for their actual meaning. You've pointed out the futility of that, but I still wonder.
Why is it so difficult for you to admit that you misspoke?
I don't see any value in arguing over semantics here.
"Transparency and honesty" perhaps meaning, transparency in what the developer has told Steam in order for Steam to put the product up for purchase (at which point it sounds like the developer has relatively free-reign to promote as desired, and honesty in dialogue between customers and other customers, customers and the developer, and Steam and the developer through forums.
While I would agree that Steam forums have an unusual proportion of low life forms, you CAN get a sense of a game's trend by the tone of the forums. Really good games don't typically have multiple consecutive pages of "this game blows!" posts.
Skeptical...you're being obtuse and rude. I do not need a lecture from you on the proper use of words. You're simply trying to pick a fight and I have no idea why. I'm not being defensive, you're just simply being an asshole. I'm not going to continue arguing with you over a point that is extremely simple and hardly debatable.
Seriously, I'm shocked at the tone of your responses in this thread. Makes me wonder...
There's nothing wrong with the idea that Steam should vent their Early Access Titles before hosting them. They should probably check in on them occasionally too.
This could easily be filed under Steam QA or CS, however, and judging from how they prioritize the latter it just won't happen. They've been dumping a lot of crap titles out there lately so it's obviously a quantity over quality mindset that's been on the rise.
At least they eventually responded to all the problems in this example by pulling it and issuing refunds.. which is like moving mountains, alone. I shudder to think just how many CS reports had to be filed before they bothered caring, however.
I am happy with my decision to stay away from "early access", betas, alphas and kickstarter.
it took me a while but ive stopped reading the kick starter stuff - a game sounds great and then you realise its 3 years away, simply stopped reading them, if it comes out it comes out
early access, i did ignore until Endless Legend but thats only because of the dev - i know itll make it to market and be supported
This thread highlights the peculiar place Steam has found themselves in.
They're in a balancing act between being a publisher (which they're not) and a web portal/marketplace for content regardless of quality (which they're customers don't want them to be). Their revenues (and more importantly, their profits) only scale if they can make more money with each new release than they did with a prior release, so they'd love to just be a web portal. But if the quality of their offerings slips too far, their clients will start to move to other platforms.
Given some of the stories I've heard about their customer service, I'd prefer they focus on that area first, rather than allocating scarce resources to vetting Early Access games in advance of release. Since Early Access as a label really just means "Not Finished Yet", I don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who pay for Early Access titles and then are disappointed at what they get.
While there are lots of shades of gray here, the "Early Access" label signals to me that any content a developer claims to have may or may not actually work and should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
This discussion does raise an interesting question though: Should Steam focus its resources on quality control (or even truth in advertising) for the games it sells, or just let the developers and free marketplace dynamics handle that and put a bigger caveat emptor sign on their front door?
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on May 08, 2014, 08:54:44 AM
This thread highlights the peculiar place Steam has found themselves in.
They're in a balancing act between being a publisher (which they're not) and a web portal/marketplace for content regardless of quality (which they're customers don't want them to be). Their revenues (and more importantly, their profits) only scale if they can make more money with each new release than they did with a prior release, so they'd love to just be a web portal. But if the quality of their offerings slips too far, their clients will start to move to other platforms.
Given some of the stories I've heard about their customer service, I'd prefer they focus on that area first, rather than allocating scarce resources to vetting Early Access games in advance of release. Since Early Access as a label really just means "Not Finished Yet", I don't have a lot of sympathy for folks who pay for Early Access titles and then are disappointed at what they get.
While there are lots of shades of gray here, the "Early Access" label signals to me that any content a developer claims to have may or may not actually work and should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
This discussion does raise an interesting question though: Should Steam focus its resources on quality control (or even truth in advertising) for the games it sells, or just let the developers and free marketplace dynamics handle that and put a bigger caveat emptor sign on their front door?
I don't think Steam has a choice. Advertisements, whether on the Internet, radio or television, or anywhere else, must comply with the law which provides that an ad must be truthful, and not misleading. If steam is posting misleading ads, whether they prepared the ad or not, I think they are open to liability, and that could be much more expensive then screening the content they make available for sale on their website.
Let me make an analogy that might help Jarhead and some others on Steam's responsibility as a distributor/sales platform.
My local Safeway carries Jif peanut butter, and sometimes features it in their weekly ad. Yes, if it should come to light that Jif is actually made from 99% rat droppings and 1% sugar, they should, and probably would, pull it off the shelf. But it's not their responsibility to conduct a survey to see if 9 out of 10 choosy mothers actually DO choose Jif, and then pull the product from the shelves or the ad if it turns out it's only 4 out of 10. Are you saying I have the right to sue Safeway if the number of choosy mothers preferring Jif is less than 9 out of 10?
Steam is the Safeway of games. No more, no less. The only difference other than the product selection is how that product gets into your home.
Quote from: tgb on May 08, 2014, 10:58:00 AM
Let me make an analogy that might help Jarhead and some others on Steam's responsibility as a distributor/sales platform.
My local Safeway carries Jif peanut butter, and sometimes features it in their weekly ad. Yes, if it should come to light that Jif is actually made from 99% rat droppings and 1% sugar, they should, and probably would, pull it off the shelf. But it's not their responsibility to conduct a survey to see if 9 out of 10 choosy mothers actually DO choose Jif, and then pull the product from the shelves or the ad if it turns out it's only 4 out of 10. Are you saying I have the right to sue Safeway if the number of choosy mothers preferring Jif is less than 9 out of 10?
Steam is the Safeway of games. No more, no less. The only difference other than the product selection is how that product gets into your home.
With all due respect, I do not need your help on Steam's responsibility. I am a lawyer and am very familiar with the law in this area. A retailer can be exposed to liability from consumers and competitors for misleading advertisements, regardless of the fact that the ad is prepared by the product manufacturer. Do you need me to prepare a legal brief on the issue, or will you just take my word? :P
So yes, Safeway can be exposed to liability from choosy mothers, regulatory agencies and even competitors, such as King Kullen or Shopright.
If that's respect I'd hate to see condescension. Sorry I didn't check the bar directory for every state looking for a lawyer named Jarhead prior to posting. I'll be more diligent in the future.
Quote from: tgb on May 08, 2014, 11:22:58 AM
If that's respect I'd hate to see condescension. Sorry I didn't check the bar directory for every state looking for a lawyer named Jarhead prior to posting. I'll be more diligent in the future.
Not necessary, and your apology is accepted. Try to do some research next time before making stuff up though.
...and seriously, I was just busting your balls. Didn't you see my little smiley face? That means I can treat you as harshly as I want and then say I didn't mean it after the fact. Don't be so butt hurt, bro...afterall, you learned something today! 8)
Forgotten. I missed the smiley, and I was just coming here to apologize for being so hot-headed. :)
But you still didn't answer my main point, which is, other than the products they carry and the method of distribution, what really is the difference between Steam and the local supermarket? If I am/should be able to sue Steam over false claims made by the manufacturer of a product they carry, why can't I sue Walmart or Sears or Target or any b&m retailer on the same basis?
And if you say I can, then Woo Hoo! Here comes the gravy train! Will you represent me (on a percentage basis, of course)? :-*
It's probably comparing apples and oranges, but I've always wondered why snake-oil products, such as Extenze and however many weight-loss pills/potions you care to name, are all over tv and radio advertising with no apparent liability towards the cable/broadcast/radio stations. I imagine there is a free-speech angle here, but using the Extenze folks as an example, they wouldn't have made millions selling a fake product without the help of advertisers eager to take their money. Same goes for every miracle weight loss pill and the numerous mortgage scams that saturated Phoenix airwaves just a few years ago.
I get that there is a difference between a retailer and an advertiser, but still.....it Steams me that advertisers get away with this.
Early Access Title Removed From Steam - Does this mean Steam now has a money back guaranty for early release?
The following article points out of the need of some clear standards for early games because, right now you can't tell the difference between honest developers with a real game vs some one with a half-finished/half-baked version that may never be completed. Sometimes even honest developers can't finish a project due to illness, family issues, money problems, etc.
http://www.strategyinformer.com/editorials/28069/early-access-on-steam-paying-the-price-for-unfinished-games
The only early access titles I buy now are from developers whose previous work I liked, or a title that actually has a release date announced and is getting good feedback. So the last two I purchased are Xenonauts and Endless Legends. I've been on the fence regarding Plague Inc:Evolved because there already seems to be a lot of content to it,but I still want to see what the finished product looks like.
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 08, 2014, 11:55:42 AM
It's probably comparing apples and oranges, but I've always wondered why snake-oil products, such as Extenze and however many weight-loss pills/potions you care to name, are all over tv and radio advertising with no apparent liability towards the cable/broadcast/radio stations. I imagine there is a free-speech angle here, but using the Extenze folks as an example, they wouldn't have made millions selling a fake product without the help of advertisers eager to take their money. Same goes for every miracle weight loss pill and the numerous mortgage scams that saturated Phoenix airwaves just a few years ago.
I get that there is a difference between a retailer and an advertiser, but still.....it Steams me that advertisers get away with this.
This is an easy one, it's because products such as weight loss products are unregulated, unless they start to kill people the FDA doesn't approve/dis-approve them.
Right now the Software Industry is the most unregulated industry in the world! Create a billion dollar health care website that doesn't work, that's ok, it's not our fault, no one even get's sued!
Software bugs that crash or sell/buy a wrong million dollar stock order, are treated like an act of God!
Quote from: tgb on May 08, 2014, 11:34:58 AM
Forgotten. I missed the smiley, and I was just coming here to apologize for being so hot-headed. :)
But you still didn't answer my main point, which is, other than the products they carry and the method of distribution, what really is the difference between Steam and the local supermarket? If I am/should be able to sue Steam over false claims made by the manufacturer of a product they carry, why can't I sue Walmart or Sears or Target or any b&m retailer on the same basis?
And if you say I can, then Woo Hoo! Here comes the gravy train! Will you represent me (on a percentage basis, of course)? :-*
Well, I think that is pretty much my point. Theoretically, there really is no difference between Steam and a local supermarket. It is a brave new digital world and the law is only just beginning to catch up with our technological reality. If Steam is smart, they will see the writing on the wall and start to cover their ass. They do not necessarily need to address the problem of developer dishonesty by expending their own assets/time/money. They could shift these costs onto the developers by requiring any third-party placing ads on steam to defend and indemnify steam in the event steam is sued due to a false or misleading advertising claim. Steam definitely has options, they just need a good lawyer...hmmmm...wonder if they are hiring?
Before you can get a game up on Early Access, there is a set of questions you get from Valve that should help you decide if it is the right path for your game. You don't send them answers, it's more for you, the developer. I can't see going on Early Access without a real plan for finishing your game and thinking it is going to end well. People will remember this failure and it's doubtful these guys are walking away with any money. Just an unfinished game and a damaged reputation. Barring some catastrophic circumstance (key team member dying or something) that would explain the failure, their name is mud.
For those wary of participating in Early Access, I can totally understand that. Like any other product it is "buyer beware" and you should always look at who's making the product and their reputation. We laid out a very clear path for our development plan right there on our Steam page, and we've kept to that schedule. We expect more people to buy TGW between now and release as they watch the development and see the progress.
Chris--
Chris--
Quote from: MuzzyDev on May 08, 2014, 02:19:56 PM
Before you can get a game up on Early Access, there is a set of questions you get from Valve that should help you decide if it is the right path for your game. You don't send them answers, it's more for you, the developer. I can't see going on Early Access without a real plan for finishing your game and thinking it is going to end well. People will remember this failure and it's doubtful these guys are walking away with any money. Just an unfinished game and a damaged reputation. Barring some catastrophic circumstance (key team member dying or something) that would explain the failure, their name is mud.
One thing about the developer of this specific game that was pulled (there have been others!) is that the guy had previously ran a Kickstarter campaign for a different prototype game that was either bogus or was never gonna to actually be finished. Sounds like that was another big black mark against this specific one.. a history of poor intentions.
Quote
For those wary of participating in Early Access, I can totally understand that. Like any other product it is "buyer beware" and you should always look at who's making the product and their reputation. We laid out a very clear path for our development plan right there on our Steam page, and we've kept to that schedule. We expect more people to buy TGW between now and release as they watch the development and see the progress.
Chris--
Chris--
Ultimately it's up to the customer to decide whether they want to drop money on something that may never be finished, or may not deliver on all it's promises.
The most notable problem in this example was the utterly childish behavior of the programmer after the inevitable criticism. Last big nail in the coffin.
So how does the law, steam, or the community determine what is false advertising or a false claim, particularly in a game that is currently being developed? At what point was the 2066 game falsely advertised by either it's developers or Steam?
Are there legal precedents that might suggest what a court is going to look at in existing computer games? For example, has anyone sued a developer or distributor for a completed game because of false advertising? What criteria is a court or steam supposed to use to determine what is false advertising, and what is an unrefutable claim that your dishes will be left virtually spotless?
Quote from: Steelgrave on May 08, 2014, 11:55:42 AM
It's probably comparing apples and oranges, but I've always wondered why snake-oil products, such as Extenze and however many weight-loss pills/potions you care to name, are all over tv and radio advertising with no apparent liability towards the cable/broadcast/radio stations. I imagine there is a free-speech angle here, but using the Extenze folks as an example, they wouldn't have made millions selling a fake product without the help of advertisers eager to take their money. Same goes for every miracle weight loss pill and the numerous mortgage scams that saturated Phoenix airwaves just a few years ago.
I get that there is a difference between a retailer and an advertiser, but still.....it Steams me that advertisers get away with this.
Or the Village Voice to profit by allowing a venue for pimps to exploit minors for sexual services. And the advertisers who pay the Village Voice for the privilege of reaching an audience that willingly pays for a venue for pimps to exploit minors for sexual services.
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 09, 2014, 04:35:40 AM
So how does the law, steam, or the community determine what is false advertising or a false claim, particularly in a game that is currently being developed? At what point was the 2066 game falsely advertised by either it's developers or Steam?
Are there legal precedents that might suggest what a court is going to look at in existing computer games? For example, has anyone sued a developer or distributor for a completed game because of false advertising? What criteria is a court or steam supposed to use to determine what is false advertising, and what is an unrefutable claim that your dishes will be left virtually spotless?
Although your battery of questions implies incredulity, its actually quite simple. Its basically a matter of judicial discretion. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et seq. (also known as the Lanham Act), contains the Federal laws that govern truth in advertising. Of course, in the US, most States have their own laws and regulations, as well.
Under the Lanham Act, false advertising arises when "a representation is untrue as a result of the failure to disclose a material fact." Thus, false advertising can come from both misstatements and partially correct statements that are misleading because they do not disclose something the consumer should know. The Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, left creation of the line between sufficient and insufficient disclosure to the discretion of the courts.
Although, digital publishing and distribution raises several unique legal issues, I don't think "early access" changes the general rule that has existed since at least 1946. Advertising is fine for Early Access, or unfinished software, so long as there are disclosures and so long as there are no misleading statements made as to the actual state of the game, its present characteristics and features, etc. It may, however, get a little more tricky if claims are made as to future features and characteristics that the developer plans on implementing, or hopes to implement. However, I'm sure the courts will someday manage this on a case by case basis.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 09, 2014, 06:22:36 AM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 09, 2014, 04:35:40 AM
So how does the law, steam, or the community determine what is false advertising or a false claim, particularly in a game that is currently being developed? At what point was the 2066 game falsely advertised by either it's developers or Steam?
Are there legal precedents that might suggest what a court is going to look at in existing computer games? For example, has anyone sued a developer or distributor for a completed game because of false advertising? What criteria is a court or steam supposed to use to determine what is false advertising, and what is an unrefutable claim that your dishes will be left virtually spotless?
Although your battery of questions implies incredulity, its actually quite simple. Its basically a matter of judicial discretion. 15 U.S.C.A. § 1051 et seq. (also known as the Lanham Act), contains the Federal laws that govern truth in advertising. Of course, in the US, most States have their own laws and regulations, as well.
Under the Lanham Act, false advertising arises when "a representation is untrue as a result of the failure to disclose a material fact." Thus, false advertising can come from both misstatements and partially correct statements that are misleading because they do not disclose something the consumer should know. The Trademark Law Revision Act of 1988, left creation of the line between sufficient and insufficient disclosure to the discretion of the courts.
Although, digital publishing and distribution raises several unique legal issues, I don't think "early access" changes the general rule that has existed since at least 1946. Advertising is fine for Early Access, or unfinished software, so long as there are disclosures and so long as there are no misleading statements made as to the actual state of the game, its present characteristics and features, etc. It may, however, get a little more tricky if claims are made as to future features and characteristics that the developer plans on implementing, or hopes to implement. However, I'm sure the courts will someday manage this on a case by case basis.
My great skepticism is certainly not meant to implied, but rather explicit. However, it's not skepticism that the legal system hasn't, can't, or won't be able to establish clear criteria. My question about the legal system was to learn of court cases involving a computer game (but it occurs to me that it's probably as informative at least to me if it were any game), as I'd like to see what the courts consider a material fact for a computer game. I mean, for example, is "runs on Windows XP" a material fact? What are the material facts for 2066 that were misrepresented?
My great skepticism comes from the simultaneous existence of these laws, and the obvious presence of products on the market that flaunt at least the spirit of these laws, and a billion products every day that use all kinds of weaselly language to avoid misrepresenting a material fact. And I look at fucktards like the folks behind 2066, and wonder if they aren't going to find language exactly like the fucktards behind extenze or leaving dishes virtually spotless. And so I have some skepticism if the legal system will avail us of what triggered this debate in the first place -- stopping 2066 from existing in the first place,
Jarhead, or other lawyers -- based on what you know of court activity regarding false advertising in games or entertainment, is there enough precedent or information out there for Steam lawyers to apply some of the court's criteria for false advertising, if Steam wanted to? Does this question even make sense?
I'm also curious about the legal implications, if any, for Steam over the copyright infringement for 2066. I think someone showed they had stolen some art from somebody? If that's true, is there greater responsibility for Steam and therefore greater liability? Doesn't the WSJ, for example, have greater liability for copyright infringement on their site than liability for false advertising?
The only court case I remember hearing about was some sort of class-action suit over the ending of Mass Effect 3, and I'm not even sure that went anywhere.
It's just a bad business practice to sell unfinished goods, software isn't like unfinished furniture. Even if Steam develops new rules & standards for developers, not all developers have the same standards, one developers Beta release is another's Alpha release. Even good developers with every intention of completing their project may not be able too!
Sure anyone can sue Steam but, just the cost of letter from the Lawyer will exceed the cost of almost anything you buy on Steam.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 07:49:13 PM
Quote from: skeptical.platypus on May 07, 2014, 07:24:42 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on May 07, 2014, 11:20:11 AM
...apparently due to false advertising from the developer. Full refunds will be issued through May 19th.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663 (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/05/07/earth-year-2066-removed-from-steam/#more-205663)
Steam should probably enforce this policy a little more frequently. I'm sure there are several other early access games that would meet the criteria for removal. I think more transparency and honesty with respect to early access titles would be beneficial to not only steam, but to most honest developers, as well.
What would that look like? I mean, when you say more transparency and honesty, what is the information you are looking for? Sales? Vetted bios/resumes of stakeholders? Frequency of updates over a given time period? Developers must respond to X% of the posts on Steam forum?
I don't disagree that honesty and transparency are a good thing. I'm just not sure what that looks like in terms of games and game development.
I think it looks like not making false claims about what your game is, what features it presently includes, not deleting or locking all user comments who want to post accurate feedback, not using friends to post positive comments, and not stealing other people's works, for starters.
+1 I totally agree. That covers the basics of integrity in good business. :)