Steam Blog - Who Gets To Be On The Steam Store?

SapientWolf · Jun 6, 2018

Femsynth said:
I bet they discussed internally about the potential costs. I'm sure it's a lot more expensive to hire a team to do the bare minimum of curating than deal with any potential PR issues. It's way cheaper to simply ignore it and let gullible consumers do the curation for them for free. Plus they can portray how open their ecosystem is while ranking in that sweet cash. Customers eat that shit up.

They already have a team in place to review the games being submitted to the platform, and they already have (an opaque) process to review flagged games as well. And presumably they still have to review games for illegal content at a bare minimum. So we can't automatically assume it's a cost saving measure unless people are being laid off. It seems like some kind of philosophical decision.

Nanashrew · Jun 6, 2018

Deplatforming dangerous ideologies like racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia etc., is inclusiveness. The "no responsibility" approach many companies take are not at all helpful to many, many people as it becomes a breeding ground for hatred. Look at places like Reddit, some Chan boards, YouTube, or the hellsite that is Twitter. The "no responsibility" approach is siding with the loudest and most dangerous people and giving them tons of room to roam and harass. Their ideology, speeches, and media they produce is violence and dehumanization towards other races, women, LGBTQ+, etc.

Insert Game · Jun 6, 2018

Ketkat · Jun 6, 2018

Dr Wily said:
A grotesque misrepresentation of what I said.
People are entitled to their own opinions, no matter how shitty they may be.
They're not necessarily free to act on those opinions.

You can't change someones opinion by saying certain subjects are taboo.
Most people are reasonable and can and will be enlightened through discussion, because most hate speech is based on ignorance.
The fact that there are unreasonable people who will never listen to reason doesn't mean being reasonable is a pointless action.

I know nothing about that game or that developer, but is it a product of genuine belief, or a shitty attempt at some 'cheap heat' via infamy?

The reason that was called victim blaming from someone is because you literally blamed the rise of extremism on people who wouldn't stand up and challenge those views. We all know what groups really end up having to go in there and challenge them, and its the people who are most affected by them. You're blaming the victims by saying its their fault that they didn't stand up to these people, so that's why they're being targeted more now by these extremist groups.

asmith906 · Jun 6, 2018

I really hate shopping on steam because the store is such hot garbage with finding anything new that is actually good. Most games I seem to get these days come from indie bundles.

r3n4ud · Jun 6, 2018

asmith906 said:
I really hate shopping on steam because the store is such hot garbage with finding anything new that is actually good. Most games I seem to get these days come from indie bundles.

Check out this thread https://www.resetera.com/threads/indie-games-may-2018-masters-of-monster-melancholy.14783/#footer

Those guys do an amazing job at finding great games on Steam.

Dr. Caroll · Jun 6, 2018

This is a dispute that will never find resolution. These guidelines from Nintendo would have, for instance, prohibited a game like Wolfenstein II from appearing on the N64.

I would like to point out that the second bullet point is more ore less identical to the Haye's Code, and was used (successfully) by German representatives to argue that late 1930s-early 1940s films depicting the holocaust denigrated the Nazis as a political group leading to them being censored and/or banned. Wolfenstein would also fail Nintendo's guidelines because it features political and/or ethnic stereotypes (ie, Germans as evil -- also, Set Roth being Jewish and being part of a Jewish mystical society behind all modern technology would probably fail the test because it could be interpreted as implying that Jews control the world or something. Then there's all the sex and swearing which would be a massive no-no.) You can laugh, but that is how the damn cookie crumbled. Drawing up guidelines is an ugly job that someone has to do on same basic level, but it is an insane rabbit hole. People glibly say things like, "All Valve has to do is ban games with unequivocal hate speech!" So... Mafia III? And then there's the other rabbit hole which is: Should Steam ban a game globally if it is illegal in one country? Few instance, if Australia persists in banning We Happy Few, should the game be removed everywhere? Why not? What set of rules -- what standards of illegality should Valve comply with as a company dealing with an international audience? Particularly when it comes to games being banned for the promotion of illegal or immoral behavior? (This is honestly an issue they have to face even with their "anything goes except illegal stuff" policy.)

Trufflesguy Law · Jun 6, 2018

Dr Wily said:
You can't change someones opinion by saying certain subjects are taboo.
Most people are reasonable and can and will be enlightened through discussion, because most hate speech is based on ignorance.
The fact that there are unreasonable people who will never listen to reason doesn't mean being reasonable is a pointless action.

The developers and cliental for these games have demonstrated through their actions that they are not reasonable people. They've been show the facts and the emotional appeals about human rights have been made. The internet, as a community and cultural force, has made sure of that. They don't care. No reasonable person subscribes to the doctrine of vitriolic hate that these people do. Hate speech has no place in a discussion based in logic, reason, or emotion because it is inherently illogical, unreasonable, and amoral. The single most powerful way to put an end to hate speech is to not even give it a platform to spread its doctrine. 'Deplatforming'.

I know nothing about that game or that developer, but is it a product of genuine belief, or a shitty attempt at some 'cheap heat' via infamy?

What does it matter? It is a product that exists and it normalizes the idea that LGBTQ people are a threat to straight people. Authorial intent is absolutely meaningless in this situation. Who the fuck cares if the dev 'genuinely' believes something when it emboldens your average /pol/ user.

And for what it's worth, there is no discernible difference between 'cheap hate' or 'genuine belief'. No one willing to normalize and perpetuate hate speech for publicity, profit, etc. can make the claim that they are not prejudiced. They are contributing to the problem.

Baleoce · Jun 6, 2018

okay said:
Right now a video games journalist somewhere is starting an editorial with the title Valve's curation polices are 'laissez' but are they 'faire'?

Underrated comment

Deleted member 5167 · Jun 6, 2018

Femsynth said:
That's a ridiculous amount of pressure to place on the victims who already have to deal with so much. Instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to assholes, maybe you should be more empathetic to those who have to deal with ignorant people and hate groups. Ignorant people should do better on their own and that isn't the responsibility of the victims. As someone has dealt with "ignorant" or hate groups just to have the same rights as everyone else, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Why do you assume I don't have to deal with ignorance and hate groups, and never have?
Because I still believe in the concept of free speech, even where there are people using it as cover that couldn't give a shit about it?
I don't even believe in unfettered free speech, because there are many occasions where it is reasonable to disallow it.
Gaming subject matter - outside of the existing guidelines for illegality, promoting hatred is not one of those places, just as other forms of entertainment and escapism are not.

I mean... if people really want to play some shitty tacky edgelord that shares their shitty worldview, the jokes on them, because theres plenty of games actually worth playing out there.

Ketkat said:
The reason that was called victim blaming from someone is because you literally blamed the rise of extremism on people who wouldn't stand up and challenge those views. We all know what groups really end up having to go in there and challenge them, and its the people who are most affected by them. You're blaming the victims by saying its their fault that they didn't stand up to these people, so that's why they're being targeted more now by these extremist groups.

Yes, it is the fault of people not challenging those beliefs.
Because the onus of standing up for a principle shouldn't only be on those directly affected by whatever principle is being challenged.
That's literally the point of the famous Martin Niemöller quote.

And again; we're talking about a storefront.
Its not Valves job to fix a broken society. Or even pretend that they are capable of doing so.

Durante · Jun 6, 2018

OmniBaneSolid said:
In reality, people tend to double down on their shitty opinions even when reasonable people give them the time of day. People like that know they are unreasonable and don't care.

This is a very defeatist stance to take. I can certainly understand the frustration, and I agree that it's often true. It's also not a new thing - this was written in 1944:

Jean-Paul Sartre said:
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play.

They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

Nonetheless, I still believe that taking it as a universal fact that anyone susceptible to these thoughts is completely lost to reason and making policy decision based on it is more dangerous in the long run.

I also agree with Dr Wily that "deplatforming" is newspeak for censorship. That said, I feel like the US-centric political view of censorship is really schizophrenic. When a state does it, then it's a harbinger of the apocalypse, but it's fine to demand it from companies. Given the relative power of some companies over what media is consumed and ideas are spread compared to states, that seems like a spurious distinction to me. In all cases, you are expressing a preference for preventing a thought from entering someone's mind over needing to challenge it. And that is fine, and the merits of it can be discussed. Maybe some ideologies are too dangerous to allow the free expression of. But let's be honest about what we are proposing, and if we decide to enact such policies, please don't let any random company be the arbiter.

Ketkat · Jun 6, 2018

Dr Wily said:
Yes, it is the fault of people not challenging those beliefs.
Because the onus of standing up for a principle shouldn't only be on those directly affected by whatever principle is being challenged.
That's literally the point of the famous Martin Niemöller quote.

And again; we're talking about a storefront.
Its not Valves job to fix a broken society. Or even pretend that they are capable of doing so.

But you do realize that it almost always does fall on those directly affected right? Those of us who experience that level of ignorance and hate are very aware of how rare a good ally who will actually stand up and challenge those views for you is. Like, ideally there would be more people out there to speak up, and be more willing, but that's just not how it is right now. That's why that comes off as victim blaming, because you're essentially pushing the responsibility for fixing and stopping those extremist groups onto the victims.

And the handwaving of "It's not valve's job to do this" right after "Shouldn't only be those directly affected" is kind of interesting as well. I feel like companies have a bit more of an obligation to speak out on this kind of thing because they have a much wider reach than any single person can.

Deleted member 5167 · Jun 6, 2018

Ketkat said:
And the handwaving of "It's not valve's job to do this" right after "Shouldn't only be those directly affected" is kind of interesting as well. I feel like companies have a bit more of an obligation to speak out on this kind of thing because they have a much wider reach than any single person can.

Its not handwaving. Its that you are talking about your dissatisfaction with larger societal issues in the context of a videogame shop.
Whatever policy that videogame shop has is a drop in the ocean of actual causes of societal dysfunction.

Its like getting pissy at Toys R Us about gun violence because they sold toy guns.
Your ire is directed in entirely the wrong places.

JCG · Jun 6, 2018

MrSaturn99 said:
Great posts. Deplatforming works, and that so many corporations refuse to take any serious action is infuriating.

Does it really?

This takes us away from gaming, but I am seeing several people who have been "deplatformed" gaining a growing following elsewhere and using the very fact they were punished, "censored" or shouted down as a key part of their discourse and in support of their arguments. I don't agree with these people, obviously, but it seems to me that "deplatforming" isn't producing the desired effect. In fact, such an effort is apparently capable of feeding the phenomenon it supposedly seeks to combat.

Zips · Jun 6, 2018

Naw Valve, it's cool. You do you. Who needs things like proper curation? Just leave it up to the consumer. Consumers are all level-headed creatures of proper moral upbringing.

That said, I'm sure this AIDS Simulator game will be a quality fit for the Steam platform.

MrSaturn99 · Jun 6, 2018

JCG said:
Does it really?

This takes us away from gaming, but I am seeing several people who have been "deplatformed" gaining a growing following elsewhere and using the very fact they were punished, "censored" or shouted down as a key part of their discourse and in support of their arguments. I don't agree with these people, obviously, but it seems to me that "deplatforming" isn't producing the desired effect. In fact, such an effort is apparently capable of feeding the phenomenon it supposedly seeks to combat.

When considering the research I've done (most notably, the elimination ofhate subredditsandRichard Spencer's recent struggles), I'd argue so, although I'm curious regarding your counter-examples.

Not calling you out for this specifically, but I also had no idea deplatforming was such a controversial term until today. At the very least, I wouldn't call it censorship when considering the presence of TOS violations and whatnot.

PLASTICA-MAN · Jun 6, 2018

What about censorship? Will games like Agony and others be allwoed to be uncensored and not forced to remove adult content?

Yukinari · Jun 6, 2018

I saw the /v/ threads about this before this thread and im kinda of glad but also upset with Valve.

Steam needs trimming but at the same time uncensored games like Agony SHOULD be allowed to exist on the platform.

JCG · Jun 6, 2018

MrSaturn99 said:
When considering the research I've done (most notably, the elimination ofhate subredditsandRichard Spencer's recent struggles), I'd argue so, although I'm curious regarding your counter-examples.

Not calling you out for this specifically, but I also had no idea deplatforming was such a controversial term until today. At the very least, I wouldn't call it censorship when considering the presence of TOS violations and whatnot.

I was thinking of various individuals who are often less openly extreme than them. Folks who hold very questionable beliefs and are regularly affected by protests or deplatforming attempts that don't seem to detract from their popularity. Like some members of the vaguely defined "intellectual dark web" for example. Many people who fall under that label are painting themselves, rightfully or wrongfully, as marginalized and persecuted. Which is now part of their appeal rather than a handicap.

Deleted member 2171 · Jun 6, 2018

Durante said:
I also agree with Dr Wily that "deplatforming" is newspeak for censorship. That said, I feel like the US-centric political view of censorship is really schizophrenic. When a state does it, then it's a harbinger of the apocalypse, but it's fine to demand it from companies. Given the relative power of some companies over what media is consumed and ideas are spread compared to states, that seems like a spurious distinction to me. In all cases, you are expressing a preference for preventing a thought from entering someone's mind over needing to challenge it. And that is fine, and the merits of it can be discussed. Maybe some ideologies are too dangerous to allow the free expression of. But let's be honest about what we are proposing, and if we decide to enact such policies, please don't let any random company be the arbiter.

There is zero merit to racist, LGBTphobic, and sexuality-decrying content. The people that wish to peddle it already have a giant platform to broadcast their garbage on, hence the use of the word de-platforming. We are pushing them off from gaining more platforms than they already have.. And it's proven to work, especially agains the neo-nazi movement in the US. Know what's defeatist? Saying it's too hard to reject hateful content and going "well, since you're complaining about it, I'll just let them attack you, because debate is great m i rite? Don't trouble me"

If you fear Valve will then have too much control over what games can get published, then the actual issue is Valve has too much power in the first place. You're also incorrectly assuming the world and society is as some great neutral happy point and decisions made by those with platforms that megaphone those allowed onto it are going to alter some happily neutral order. All you're doing is copy pasting the systemic racism, abuse, and advantages the racists and bigots already have.

I've always been annoyed that my fellow programmers constantly get stuck in a trap of thinking they have to keep all the data and can just algorithms be neutral arbiters of the data. If you want to be honest, and you have faith in an algorithm burying the content, why not just block the content in the first place?

The entire reason this very forum exists is because of de-platforming!

MrSaturn99 · Jun 6, 2018

JCG said:
I was thinking of various individuals who are often less openly extreme than them. Folks who hold very questionable beliefs and are regularly affected by protests or deplatforming attempts that don't seem to detract from their popularity. Like some members of the vaguely defined "intellectual dark web" for example. Many people who fall under that label are painting themselves, rightfully or wrongfully, as marginalized and persecuted. Which is now part of their appeal rather than a handicap.

I know about Jordan Peterson and his nonsense but not so much that term, so I'll have to do some more research on that front. Regardless, Vox writes good shit, so I'll be giving that a read.

BlastProcessing · Jun 6, 2018

Dr. Caroll said:
This is a dispute that will never find resolution. These guidelines from Nintendo would have, for instance, prohibited a game like Wolfenstein II from appearing on the N64.

I would like to point out that the second bullet point is more ore less identical to the Haye's Code, and was used (successfully) by German representatives to argue that late 1930s-early 1940s films depicting the holocaust denigrated the Nazis as a political group leading to them being censored and/or banned. Wolfenstein would also fail Nintendo's guidelines because it features political and/or ethnic stereotypes (ie, Germans as evil -- also, Set Roth being Jewish and being part of a Jewish mystical society behind all modern technology would probably fail the test because it could be interpreted as implying that Jews control the world or something. Then there's all the sex and swearing which would be a massive no-no.) You can laugh, but that is how the damn cookie crumbled. Drawing up guidelines is an ugly job that someone has to do on same basic level, but it is an insane rabbit hole. People glibly say things like, "All Valve has to do is ban games with unequivocal hate speech!" So... Mafia III? And then there's the other rabbit hole which is: Should Steam ban a game globally if it is illegal in one country? Few instance, if Australia persists in banning We Happy Few, should the game be removed everywhere? Why not? What set of rules -- what standards of illegality should Valve comply with as a company dealing with an international audience? Particularly when it comes to games being banned for the promotion of illegal or immoral behavior? (This is honestly an issue they have to face even with their "anything goes except illegal stuff" policy.)

It's a dispute that shouldn't ever find resolution. It is something that should constantly be thought about. Society changes and humans are fallible so we need to constantly debate and refresh this topic. The concept of what is and is not socially acceptable isn't something you just solve for once.

Valve is burying it's head in the sand here; instead of engaging in any meaningful way, they are just completely abdicating their place at the table. It's equal parts shortsighted and cowardly.

ShinySunny · Jun 6, 2018

What is illegal anyway?

This is so vague.
Nudity isn't illegal, but they can still ban them?
I can understand the trolling part much more than the illegal part.

aliengmr · Jun 6, 2018

Zips said:
Naw Valve, it's cool. You do you. Who needs things like proper curation? Just leave it up to the consumer. Consumers are all level-headed creatures of proper moral upbringing.

That said, I'm sure this AIDS Simulator game will be a quality fit for the Steam platform.

Well that would fall under obvious troll game, since that is exactly what it says it is.

Catshade · Jun 6, 2018

If Steam allow racist games to be sold on their store, I hope for consistency's sake they'll also now allow racist groups to be (re)created in their community section. After all they shouldn't be the one to choose what you can or can't read in their discussion forum, am I right?

Edit: Snarkiness aside, I'm just afraid that this policy will make it easier for my country's government to find an excuse to ban Steam wholesale. :(

Deleted member 15440 · Jun 6, 2018

this is about the sum total of my thoughts on this

Zips · Jun 6, 2018

aliengmr said:
Well that would fall under obvious troll game, since that is exactly what it says it is.

And yet under a system that is actually curated, it would have never even been permitted to show up on the storefront and yet there it is. It's been there for some hours now.

EDIT:

Just to really hammer home the idea that Valve's approach is pathetic, at best, here are the rest of the games from the AIDS Simulator devs: https://store.steampowered.com/search/?developer=BunchOD00dz

Including such hits as: ISIS Simulator, Suicide Simulator, Asset Flip Simulator, Triggering Simulator, Blackscreen Simulator.

Games that have been released on Steam. Games that are still available for purchase on Steam. And games that have been avaialble since mid to late 2017.

Valve doesn't give a damn.

aliengmr · Jun 6, 2018

Zips said:
And yet under a system that is actually curated, it would have never even been permitted to show up on the storefront and yet there it is. It's been there for some hours now.

That will be curated. The alternative is a months long waiting list to get on Steam for serious devs. As far as my storefront is concerned the game doesn't exist. So I don't get what is so concerning about an obvious troll that is only putting that game on there because they dislike Valve's curation method. Because let's be crystal fucking clear, the person who put that game up, agrees with you.

Diver27 · Jun 6, 2018

Surprised so many people here endorse speech censorship. As long as the speech isn't attacking someone personally, it's still legal I think?
Many people here in China believe "human rights" is a vicious western lies, an attempt to "brainwash" ordinary Chinese and distablize "great Chinese harmony", so denfinitely hate speech towards China. Would you be happy if a game with such narrative also gets removed on Steam, in China? Because most people here definitely would.
People just want some more echo chambers don't they.

Opto · Jun 6, 2018

Oh boy, the kids on CS:GO calling a gay n-word will curate the store. Thanks Gaben

cosmicblizzard · Jun 6, 2018

ShinySunny said:
What is illegal anyway?

This is so vague.
Nudity isn't illegal, but they can still ban them?
I can understand the trolling part much more than the illegal part.

Illegal could be something that violates copyright law. So like a dev using stolen assets or something.

In terms of non-copyright content, that completely depends on the country. In America, there's no hard answer to this because it's a total grey area and in some cases varies from state to state. Thing is it pretty much has to be something porn-related, so it already wouldn't be allowed on the platform.

Zips · Jun 6, 2018

aliengmr said:
That will be curated. The alternative is a months long waiting list to get on Steam for serious devs. As far as my storefront is concerned the game doesn't exist. So I don't get what is so concerning about an obvious troll that is only putting that game on there because they dislike Valve's curation method. Because let's be crystal fucking clear, the person who put that game up, agrees with you.

And. Yet. The. Games. Remain.

That's the point I'm making here. Sure, they could be putting them up to be an obvious troll but why the fuck are they still up? Why are those games up still after MONTHS of being sold on Steam? That's the point here. Valve hasn't given a shit about curation for a long while now. Their approach has been and will continue to be pathetic and very rightfully open to ridicule.

The fact that they're outright admitting that they are washing their hands of curating their own storefront is pathetic. And then who there is going to determine what is "illegal?" Their phrasing is again vague. What constitutes a troll game? Again, vague. This whole idea that the consumers will regulate it themselves has failed time and time again and this can easily be seen in places like Twitter, YouTube comments, Reddit, etc.

Nanashrew · Jun 6, 2018

Zips said:
And. Yet. The. Games. Remain.

That's the point I'm making here. Sure, they could be putting them up to be an obvious troll but why the fuck are they still up? Why are those games up still after MONTHS of being sold on Steam? That's the point here. Valve hasn't given a shit about curation for a long while now. Their approach has been and will continue to be pathetic and very rightfully open to ridicule.

The fact that they're outright admitting that they are washing their hands of curating their own storefront is pathetic. And then who there is going to determine what is "illegal?" Their phrasing is again vague. What constitutes a troll game? Again, vague. This whole idea that the consumers will regulate it themselves has failed time and time again and this can easily be seen in places like Twitter, YouTube comments, Reddit, etc.

This is something I was trying to talk about. How these rules and guidelines for companies like Valve, Twitter, Amazon, YouTube and the like are just for show. It's there to get them out of hot water when controversy strikes. Only then do they take action, and very often, it's the bare minimum action.

Zips · Jun 6, 2018

Nanashrew said:
This is something I was trying to talk about. How these rules and guidelines for companies like Valve, Twitter, Amazon, YouTube and the like are just for show. It's there to get them out of hot water when controversy strikes. Only then do they take action, and very often, it's the bare minimum action.

Exactly.

They don't do anything unless a big enough stink is made that forces them to do something they should have had the common sense and decency to do weeks or even months prior without outside influence.

Dinobot · Jun 6, 2018

You're move, App Store.

It's a race to the bottom of the dumpster.

PepsimanVsJoe · Jun 6, 2018

I'm starting to think that maybe there needs to be a website or group that can raise up a stink every time Valve approves shit like Active Shooter.

RedSwirl · Jun 7, 2018

So, Valve isn't actually changing anything from what is currently in-place. They just re-iterated their current stance but a probably unnecessarily verbose way because Valve probably hasn't hired any communications or humanities people.

Suzushiiro · Jun 7, 2018

I'd imagine this was brought on by the recent issue where some VNs/anime tiddy games were given takedown threats by someone mass-reporting in bad faith (or a staffer going rogue maybe?)

I think that if Valve has no intention of becoming significantly *more* strict with what they allow on Steam then it makes sense to have an explicit policy of "fuck it, basically anything goes as long as it's not straight-up illegal." That's an upgrade over a policy of "well it LOOKS like anything goes but if someone gets a wild hair up their ass you could maybe get kicked off."

Pablo Mesa · Jun 7, 2018

I like the approach, let everyone in, BUT, give user end tools to improve their search experience, you dont like shovelware or anime tiddies? Valve should give and option to block those from being shown featured in your searches or frontage.
Ubermoderation of Content cause you have kinda of a Monopoly is what pushed away many devs from Nintendo during Iron Claw era, and many still sour about it. So from an business PoV and users end, this is the best way to tackle it

Deleted member 25721 · Jun 7, 2018

Good for valve. This is keeping the free market free.

Mars People · Jun 7, 2018

So does this mean the sexually explicit games can stay then?

Good I'm glad. The double standards were ridiculous.

Twig · Jun 7, 2018

It is actually legitimately bumming me out, the amount people in this thread ignorantly proclaiming this to be a good thing.

His Majesty · Jun 7, 2018

Great, now I will have to browse through thousands of shitty visual novels and anime trash before encountering something half decent.

dude · Jun 7, 2018

Twig said:
It is actually legitimately bumming me out, the amount people in this thread ignorantly proclaiming this to be a good thing.

I feel just the opposite - I can't believe the amount of people who ignorantly think this is a bad thing. Both in this thread and on Twitter.

Master Alucard · Jun 7, 2018

His Majesty said:
Great, now I will have to browse through thousands of shitty visual novels and anime trash before encountering something half decent.

literally says this for you

We are going to enable you to override our recommendation algorithms and hide games containing the topics you're not interested in. So if you don't want to see anime games on your Store, you'll be able to make that choice.

His Majesty · Jun 7, 2018

Master Alucard said:
literally says this for you

holy shit

Hope they figure out a decent tag system by then.

Catshade · Jun 7, 2018

You know the 'trolls' will just tag everything as anime. But hey, the easiest way to change a ruling you don't like is to abuse the hell out of it.

Pleiades · Jun 7, 2018

Personally prefer having as many games as possible to choose from for everyone so I support this.

I think it's much better to have the store offer almost everything under the sun and then have online communities like twitch, resetera or specific subreddits etc. do the curation and discovery for those specific communities organically. That should lead to more and better tailored content for everyone instead of missing out on games due to trying to deal with a one size fits all curation coming from the top. We also already have a bunch of highly curated closed off storefronts to choose from so I don't see why Steam should also be the same. Options are good. Difference is good. Choice is good.

Of course there will be some growing pains and nothing is perfect but this policy coupled with robust customization and filtering tools for individual users imho is the best option.

KrangBakesaTurtle · Jun 7, 2018

Danzflor said:
Ah man, Jim Sterling is gonna have a field day with this one.

It's still his opinion and not always right, they do let you refund a game when it isn't good. But for what someone may hate, see as a copy or a terrible game another person may love it to death.

I do not agree with Jim's attitude or ideas as it's just way too cocky for me.

EkStatiC · Jun 7, 2018

Lol!!!!

Are you all mad because a private company has the right to choose or allow their partners in a way it finds is the best financially for them?

Steam Blog - Who Gets To Be On The Steam Store?

User requested account closure

Dark Souls Man

User requested account closure

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

Comics Council 2020