Early Access Title Removed From Steam

[Jarhead0331]

...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

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.

[Tpek]

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.

[WallysWorld]

This video talks about the affair: 
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9075-Salt-Of-The-Earth-A-Steam-Fail-Story

[Nefaro]

This video talks about the affair: 
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9075-Salt-Of-The-Earth-A-Steam-Fail-Story

Buyer beware, huh?   ;D

[skeptical.platypus]

...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

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. 

[Jarhead0331]

...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

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.

[skeptical.platypus]

...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

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.

[Jarhead0331]

...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

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.

[skeptical.platypus]

...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

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?

[Toonces]

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.

[Jarhead0331]

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...

[Nefaro]

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. 

[ArizonaTank]

I am happy with my decision to stay away from "early access", betas, alphas and kickstarter.

[undercovergeek]

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

[FarAway Sooner]

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?