Customers using one of the few methods they have to make themselves heard.
Review bombing is what happens when developers have demonstrated they just don't care and players feel like they have to hit somewhere for companies to feel it.
And yet neither a 5mil+ petition, nor actual protesting on the streets, helped against Article 13.https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47665929
Brexit: Petition to revoke Article 50 passes 5.7m signatures
Case in point.
I feel like the one thing that will clearly show the issue is if as soon as the game releases on Steam the sales increase dramatically, showing exactly what percentage of players the game left behind by not releasing on Steam.Review bombing games that aren't even the one under scrutiny is bad and dumb, zerg rushing developers' social media is obviously bad and basically harassment, sending customer support e-mails seems like they'd just get chucked in the bin, simply not buying a game is an incredibly ambiguous signal that doesn't tell developers what's the actual problem that made you not buy it, petitions are wank. If there's a good option for a large group to voice their displeasure in a case like this, I'd love to hear it.
Oh please..."make petitions"
Good one lol.
"make yourself heard the least possible"
This is why I cant take this industry seriously. There's like a collective stockholm syndrome where the big companies with billions of dollar of power are the victim.
Review bombing never made reviews useless because review bombing is so rare that it doesn't impact the whole system. It does make noise because it impacts big games.
It's funny how people dont want people to use reviews as a way to complete yet want to supress every way to communicate.
I know, the perfect way would be that the industry could only communicate through one way that would be a PR way.
To the detriment of the real reason for the review feature to exist and for customers to make informed decisions.
You guys are making it painfully obvious that your only reasoning for truly caring about having a review system or not, is so that you can actively do this when a publisher/developer doesn't do what you want them to, and not about providing accurate information regarding the game in question.
If you actually cared about the integrity of user Reviews, you would find another avenue. Claiming there's no other ways for your voices to be heard.. on the internet.. is ridiculous. The thing is... Steam is also affected by this. Review bomb good past games as a new game in a series comes out... and you're actively reducing the money Steam will make from those games.
There are lots of professional reviews you can turn to for this, especially because these days you can't count on professional outlets to fight for consumer interests.Oh please...
Review bombing DOES make those overall reviews worthless. You say it's so rare.. but now that people have weaponized it against company actions, it will become more prevalent in the future, for sure.
I want reviews to accurately reflect the quality of the product, not the fact that some people got mad because a company did something with an unrelated game that they don't like.
Just read the reviews. It's such a non-issue I honestly cant take you seriouslyOh please...
Review bombing DOES make those overall reviews worthless. You say it's so rare.. but now that people have weaponized it against company actions, it will become more prevalent in the future, for sure.
I want reviews to accurately reflect user opinion of the quality of the product, not the fact that some people got mad because a company did something with an unrelated game that they don't like.
Can't say I'm surprised by the people I'm seeing in here stanning for review bombing.
Oh please...
Review bombing DOES make those overall reviews worthless. You say it's so rare.. but now that people have weaponized it against company actions, it will become more prevalent in the future, for sure.
I want reviews to accurately reflect user opinion of the quality of the product, not the fact that some people got mad because a company did something with an unrelated game that they don't like.
I think there's a way where players can have that avenue, but also not affect the integrity of reviews for an unrelated product.There are lots of professional reviews you can turn to for this, especially because these days you can't count on professional outlets to fight for consumer interests.
I hate the idea of taking away one of the few avenues players have to complain in a way companies have to pay attention to.
I think there's a way where players can have that avenue, but also not affect the integrity of reviews for an unrelated product.
If you haven't figured it out by now... my point is that more people DON'T read the reviews... they look at the "overall opinion".. which is why review bombing is effective.Just read the reviews. It's such a non-issue I honestly cant take you seriously
So read them if you're so worried about it. Again, complete non-issueIf you haven't figured it out by now... my point is that more people DON'T read the reviews... they look at the "overall opinion".. which is why review bombing is effective.
I think there's a way where players can have that avenue, but also not affect the integrity of reviews for an unrelated product.
At this point in time, there really isn't. If you truly care so much about the integrity of user reviews, you can just read the actual content of the reviews and ignore the ones for the supposed non issue. Alternatively, as I suggested, you can keep to the professional outlets that won't let such things into reviews they write. The fact is there are plenty of places you can still find feedback unclouded by this influence but not a lot of places consumers can send a meaningful message to publishers and devs. The idea that user reviews were ever even a sanctuary of reason and objectivity in the first place is laughable anyway, so I don't know what you're trying to preserve here.I think there's a way where players can have that avenue, but also not affect the integrity of reviews for an unrelated product.
If you haven't figured it out by now... my point is that more people DON'T read the reviews... they look at the "overall opinion".. which is why review bombing is effective.
Give developers a score based on how well they support the customers. Much like game reviews, allow people to review the pub/dev separately which brings to light issues that customers are having with them, from games, to service, to support.
Review bombing is what happens when developers have demonstrated they just don't care and players feel like they have to hit somewhere for companies to feel it.
Yep. It's the reason why the whole "playing the victim" thing is so idiotic. "We only took a paycheck to take the game away from your preferred platform in favor of a much worse one and wanted to make you pay us more and possibly not be able to buy the game at all, how dare you mildly inconvenience us in return!"I saw some idiot referring to it as a debate, as though EGS vs Steam is even remotely equal and not simply "obviously bad" vs "obviously better".
Effective yes... but also fucks up reviews for good unrelated games.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47665929
Brexit: Petition to revoke Article 50 passes 5.7m signatures
Case in point.
If you haven't figured it out by now... my point is that more people DON'T read the reviews... they look at the "overall opinion".. which is why review bombing is effective.
EA gets voted worst company on a regular basis, and none of this effected them as much as targeted backlash against specific titles. A "dev score" divorced from the games they're trying to sell seems like a really limp measure, unless we're going to put that score alongside the score of every game they try to sell.Give developers a score based on how well they support the customers. Much like game reviews, allow people to review the pub/dev separately which brings to light issues that customers are having with them, from games, to service, to support.
I wonder if Steam can add a new class of review - a "customer complaint system" of sorts. Reviews are used to judge the quality of a game, complaints would be a permanently visible (but temporarily active, say for a month or three) negative feedback system that would fulfill the need to have a way for customers to voice their displeasure at company-level decisions, without affecting the actual review score on a fully permanent basis. I.e. you'd still have them drop the overall review score, but only for a time, and they would exist in a class of their own similar to the current classification of "off-topic review bombs", but without the (effectively) censorship.
And yet neither a 5mil+ petition, nor actual protesting on the streets, helped against Article 13.
These things, they come and go - especially when it concerns things on the internet.
Not sure this is the best example. Article 50 still hasn't been revoked?
I do think Randy's comments were a little rash, would you really abstain from one of the biggest game marketplaces available? That said I can't stand it when people are so beholden to the monopoly of Steam that they perceive any competition as 'the enemy'. It certain joy doesn't seem like Valve are doing anything to inspire undying loyalty from game devs.
Give developers a score based on how well they support the customers. Much like game reviews, allow people to review the pub/dev separately which brings to light issues that customers are having with them, from games, to service, to support.
I don't think think they are unrelated though, you can and millions have, buy all but 1 Borderlands game on Steam, people making a stink because they are being told to wait longer if they want to buy the next entry on their preferred platform because that other platform paid us to do it, isn't really surprising.I think there's a way where players can have that avenue, but also not affect the integrity of reviews for an unrelated product.
Well they already don't agree with user review bombing....But you just said that publishers and developers would never agree to that.
Review bombing is a shame and need to stopWithout the disgusting exclusivity there wouldn't be a review bombing
If you haven't figured it out by now... my point is that more people DON'T read the reviews... they look at the "overall opinion".. which is why review bombing is effective.
???
Lmao. It's funny because Randy is KD.
It's a great first step. Sad that they have to implement it at all though. I don't think good games should be bombed because people don't agree that a developer changed stores for their new game. Sorry, but none of this justifies that for me. It just actively hurts the games that WERE released on the platform of choice.If that's your concern then it has been addressed by Valve already.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/va...stem-to-combat-off-topic-review-bombs.105566/
Would those be considered review bombing if those reviews were actual issues with a game? I thought review bombing was referred as things that aren't an issue with the game itself. I think there's a difference between, say, alot of people giving Monster Hunter World a bad review because it was legitimately broken, vs review bombing Total War for adding more women.
Reviews are meant to be an effective way of judging the quality of the game in question, and whether or not that game is for you.
gamers are unable to vote with their wallets sadly..if they were,we wouldn't have reached this point in the industryJust don't buy the game, because we all know the best way to make sure your voice is heard is to say nothing at all.
I don't even think they do, they probably only have a problem with it being visible on the game page, like we pretty much never see a publishers react to Metacritic user reviews getting review bombed, despite them clearly caring about the MC critic score.
Ah. :)