I decided to ask Valve business development authority Erik Johnson what was going on behind the scenes. He replied that Valve doesn't really consider the Better Business Bureau a priority, but that users have the right of it: Valve needs to toss its busted customer service program in the incinerator and start over.
"The BBB is a far less useful proxy for customer issues than Reddit," Johnson began. "We don't use them for much. They don't provide us as useful of data as customers emailing us, posting on Reddit, posting on Twitter, and so on."
"The more important thing is that we don't feel like our customer service support is where it needs to be right now," he said. "We think customers are right. When they say our support's bad, our initial reaction isn't to say, 'No, it's actually good. Look at all of this.' It's to say that, no, they're probably right, because they usually are when it comes to this kind of thing. We hear those complaints, and that's gonna be a big focus for us throughout the year. We have a lot of work to do there. We have to do better."
When an issue's got roots this deep, though, how do you even begin to untangle it? Valve, Johnson explained, is looking at a complete overhaul.
"We need to do a variety of things," he said. "We need to build customer support directly into Steam. We need to understand what's the most efficient way to solve customer problems. Right now we're in a state where we're doing a bunch of technical work on thinking through how does a support issue get raised, who has to see it, how do refunds get issued within Steam—we've done a poor job on all of that up to this date. We think it's something we really need to focus on."
so, steam gets f for people going "you most make an update" to products they don't really have control over (other than displaying it or not)?
whatever happened to making informed purchases?
Steam is a store, not a distributor. How many stores, brick and mortar or digital, do you find selling incomplete or broken products? They are responsible for the products they stock.
QuoteSteam is a store, not a distributor. How many stores, brick and mortar or digital, do you find selling incomplete or broken products? They are responsible for the products they stock.
There's a key difference between a store, and steam. Store's *buy* the product they sell, and are thus responsible for making sure things bought from them are in one piece and not shoddy
Steam *does not* buy the products they display but rather are paid royalty to *distribute them* from the developer
So no, they are not a store by any means
That, and by incomplete/broken products, are you referring to Early Access?
So are you claiming that Steam is misrepresenting itself? The URL is store.steampowered.com. The link on the page is "STORE". It's described as a "marketplace".
There's a difference between burden and responsibility.
A brick and mortar store is not "responsible" for buying good products, it's simply in their best interests. They have limited shelf space so they buy the products that will sell. If a product is defective, they often have a legal obligation to replace it and a product which is not good and which does not sell affects their bottom line because it both takes up valuable shelf space and maybe be sold at a loss, thus the burden.
When it comes to legal obligations, they dodge those by creating agreements in which the consumer is required to waive their rights in order to either continue using the store or to use their product.
519 of 722 complaints about Valve to the BBB are related to "Problems with Product/Service".
Whether these are early access or other products, who knows.
QuoteSo are you claiming that Steam is misrepresenting itself? The URL is store.steampowered.com. The link on the page is "STORE". It's described as a "marketplace".
Go go power of the technicalities
When it comes to legal obligations, they dodge those by creating agreements in which the consumer is required to waive their rights in order to either continue using the store or to use their product.
They're not dodging anything. It's written on paper, and clearly states what you're getting into. What you're downloading is a distribution platform that is an .exe you put on your computer, not some store you walk into. Hence, distribution platform that looks like a storefront. To use this program (which presents you products you can buy), you need to agree to the TOS of the .exe (something that's present with a great deal of programs you download and use). From that, it is significantly different from walking into a store, or going onto a website to buy something
Quote519 of 722 complaints about Valve to the BBB are related to "Problems with Product/Service".
Whether these are early access or other products, who knows.
Is there any way to see what the complaints are?
The thing is, it is about who is doing the advertising, according to Steam, it is the Developer, according to the Customer, it is on Steam, and both are correct.
1. Any company selling products or services has legal obligations to the consumer.
2. When the law talks about product liability for unsafe products, the law often doesn't seem to differentiate between manufacturer, distributor or storefront.
"On June 25, 2013, BBB recognized a pattern of complaints from consumers regarding product, service and customer service issues. Consumers allege the games they purchase from Valve Corporation or Steam malfunction, do not work or have an invalid CD key. Consumers also claim the company blocks users from accessing their library of games. Consumers further allege they attempt to contact the company for assistance, but Valve Corporation fails to correct the gaming issues,does not correct credit card charges or issue a refund, or does not respond at all.
In these cases, the manufacturer would be liable for their negligence in shipping a defective product - because presumably, it would have had to pass the factory's internal QC test; but not necessarily the store selling it - you don't expect them to open up each box of underwear that the manufacturer ships them and test every single one to make sure they don't have chemical on it; you can see how this is impractical. Bottom line here is that there is a distinction, mostly based on the capacity of each of the parties, their proximity with the product, in what are reasonable steps for them in discharging their legal obligations towards consumers.
So what you should ask is: Is Valve equipped to test and make sure that every single game they allow to be sold through their distribution service work flawlessly on every imaginable system that could possibly install their client? Is that even something realistic to expect them to do - is that even a workable business model? Or is that onus better placed on the individual game developers themselves who built the damn games and know how they've been coded, what resources the games use, and hold them to make their minimum requirements accurate?
Clearly, Valve should be responsible for making sure the client itself works on all systems that meet the minimum requirements, and that the client isn't causative of any of the issues experienced, but outside of that, I'm of the persuasion that Valve/Steam should have no responsibility over the quality of the games being sold over it. If it's not working, but it's not because of the Steam client, it's has nothing to do with Valve/Steam and everything to do with the publisher/developer.
With respect to issues not causally related in this way, however, I find that as a matter of policy, as a distributor/store/marketplace, they don't have to act as a second-round of testing for the game publisher/developers. If you expect the store to do that testing, then that just completely disincentivizes game developers from running meaningful beta tests and bughunts since well, the store is going to act as your "beta testers" for you.
Furthermore, Valve/Steam isn't in a good position to address these issues even. They're not in a position to rectify the underlying problems. The developer has the source code - they're the ones that can put out a patch and fix things. You could argue that they could simply refund you the product, but you've already put on the underwear. Why do people have this feeling that they're entitled to returns/refunds? Stores offer such services out of courtesy. There is no requirement for them to do it. There are plenty of stores, online or offline, which do not accept returns or refunds under any circumstances, often for good reason. Some stores might just give you your money back out of courtesy, but I'd hardly expect them to as a default seeing as they've done nothing wrong (the manufacturer did, not the store), and the other 5 pairs in the box are fine anyway.
Yet in government defined webpages, the responsbilities of all three branches are often lumped into a single heading, such as:
https://www.gov.uk/product-liability-and-safety-law
The main responsibility falls on the manufacturer, but the stores and distributors have responsibility as well.
That's a ridiculous question, because rather than ask should Valve have quality assurance, you ask should Valve have perfect omniscient quality assurance.Well where do you draw the line then? Somewhere between "none" and "perfect", clearly. How much exactly do they have to test each game on a variety of different systems for quality assurance?
A company doesn't get an F grade by having imperfect customer relations, they get an F grade by having **** poor customer relations.Logically, yes, but here I'm discussing if that F grade was deserved in the first place.
Remember that Electronic Arts was voted worst company in america, two years in a row, yet despite that its grade from the Better Business Bureau is an A+. What does that say?
So if someone creates a game that is in fact a crypto virus which encrypts people's computers and holds their data hostage and Valve sells it through Steam are they responsible? Because you're basically waiving all responsibility whatsoever and I fundamentally disagree with that.No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that they have no responsibility over the quality of the game. It's not waiving all responsibility. If it's not actually a game at all and something malicious, then clearly they shouldn't be hosting it for sale in the first place and should take it down.
...
You know what would legitimately make companies ensure their product is relatively bug free and stable? Denying sale on the storefront.
Valve testing a game would disincentivize people from running beta tests? - You have heard of Early access, have you not? They have instituted a system which both disincentivizes beta testing and also rakes in the cash as well.Early access is beta testing...which you are paying them to do for them. This is what people buying into it should understand, no?
You know what would legitimately make companies ensure their product is relatively bug free and stable? Denying sale on the storefront.
https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees/repair-replace-refund#what-is-a-major-problem-
When you have a major problem with a product, you have the right to ask for your choice of a replacement or refund.
Fine. Two can play at this game.
It is kind of strange, in a way, when I was young computer games were the first products ever that you couldn't return if you had opened the packaging unless there was physical damage to the disc, and could only get a replacement, not a refund. This was done in the name of anti-piracy, and despite the fact that Steam is, in and of itself, an anti-piracy measure, it's funny how that concept has managed to get itself ingrained into our psyche in just a single generation.
Remember that Electronic Arts was voted worst company in america, two years in a row, yet despite that its grade from the Better Business Bureau is an A+. What does that say?That people love jumping on the EA hate bandwagon no matter how unfounded that hate might be?
That people love jumping on the EA hate bandwagon no matter how unfounded that hate might be?You are not seriously saying that hating on EA is unfounded... right?
Two things I will say:
1: Steam's return policy is ****awful and I think Origin is a superior service based on that alone.
2: If you buy an early access game that makes it very clear it's early access and you're pissed off that it's incomplete, you have only yourself to blame.
That people love jumping on the EA hate bandwagon no matter how unfounded that hate might be?You are not seriously saying that hating on EA is unfounded... right?
Two things I will say:
1: Steam's return policy is ****awful and I think Origin is a superior service based on that alone.
2: If you buy an early access game that makes it very clear it's early access and you're pissed off that it's incomplete, you have only yourself to blame.
Right, just checking.That people love jumping on the EA hate bandwagon no matter how unfounded that hate might be?You are not seriously saying that hating on EA is unfounded... right?
Two things I will say:
1: Steam's return policy is ****awful and I think Origin is a superior service based on that alone.
2: If you buy an early access game that makes it very clear it's early access and you're pissed off that it's incomplete, you have only yourself to blame.
No he is saying that EA is actually observing consumer rights at that point which steam is refusing to do even when the legal jurisdiction for the region they are distributing to tell them they need to observe their obligations.... which is very 90's/early 2000's Microsoft
Problem is people don't think for themselves. Many gamers are young and are influenced by media, you tubers or other peoples opinions. Loud mouths like jim sterling for example or total biscuit. And even though I linked a tb video he is sometimes an opinionated and elitist ahole.
For all games companies I simply consider the content they produce. The games I've played from EA have been enjoyable so don't have a problem. dead space, mirrors edge, battlefield etcetera
Steam *does not* buy the products they display but rather are paid royalty to *distribute them* from the developer
So no, they are not a store by any means
Not surprised by this. Valve is well known to have poor customer service if a problem does arise. As for the platform itself, I think Steam is definitely worse than Origin. Origin has its issues but doesn't force game updates on you and allows you to choose install folders without any restrictions (and without messing with NTFS junction points). I have a lot of Steam games, but they are mostly from Humble Bundle deals. To be honest, I buy most games long after release and pay little enough for them that I think of them as throwaway purchases anyway, so the DRM doesn't really bother me like it used to.
It is kind of strange, in a way, when I was young computer games were the first products ever that you couldn't return if you had opened the packaging unless there was physical damage to the disc, and could only get a replacement, not a refund. This was done in the name of anti-piracy, and despite the fact that Steam is, in and of itself, an anti-piracy measure, it's funny how that concept has managed to get itself ingrained into our psyche in just a single generation.
Problem is people don't think for themselves. Many gamers are young and are influenced by media, you tubers or other peoples opinions. Loud mouths like jim sterling for example or total biscuit. And even though I linked a tb video he is sometimes an opinionated and elitist ahole.
For all games companies I simply consider the content they produce. The games I've played from EA have been enjoyable so don't have a problem. dead space, mirrors edge, battlefield etcetera
Another practice that Steam has recently changed is that they've removed a feature of Humble Bundle. Rather than get your game by simply clicking a button, now you'll need to update a code. They added the functionality, and then removed it again. Why? It makes my infringes on my gamer experience. If I get 10 games in a bundle, now I need to enter in 10 codes to unlock them instead of just clicking a button for each one? I'm not 100% sure about this as I haven't actually renewed the last star wars bundle I picked it up, but that is the change as I understand it.
If I buy a cutting edge new game and try to play it on a six year old laptop, when it doesn't work it's my own damn fault. Steam shouldn't be held accountable to that.
If I buy a cutting edge new game and try to play it on a brand new desktop, when it doesn't work because of a particularly component or driver in use, that's something Steam should be accountable for.
OS: Windows XP SP2 or greater
Overall though yes, I do agree that there are people who don't really read what they're getting (see shoddy consumer reviews on Steam, prime example being the Payday 2 Complete Overkill Pack, not to be confused with Overkill Pack, or any Early access games). But again, the only person to blame is the consumer unless there was intentionally misleading things posted such as "This game has these features" vs "This game will eventually have these features, but are subject to change and may be scrapped or not even implemented"
Whether or not you're influenced by "x" does not mean you have an out in terms of being aware of what you're buying. Young, old, no matter who you are, it is your job as a consumer to be entirely aware of what you're buying... and if you're not sure, don't get it until you are
Not saying you aren't within your purview to be annoyed by having to redeem physical codes each time, but it's not really all that big of a deal so it's hard for me to understand how it infringes on your gamer experience all that much.
As for Steam automatic updates, how's that different from firmware updates on the PS3 or game updates on consoles? They only update if you're connected to the internet, much like steam, but you're forced to update the games to the next version in order to play them online
Typically though, most people have their automatic updates on as you launch steam, so any game that would need to be updated in order to play has already downloaded the update while you were off doing something else on your computer. Typically, this is a non-issue, but I'm presuming you're the type that disables the automatics and only updates when you launch the game. Easy fix here being, turn automatic on *only* for the games you play a lot of
Lots of simple fixes to simple problems
Another example is that a few weeks back I was playing Crysis from a CD/DVD I bought years ago. And while playing it, I got dropped out of the game to be shown an XP window saying that my computer would automatically restart in 15 minutes as a part of an automatic update. That feature is the single most idiotic update function ever devised by man; forcing a restart in the middle of anything. Did no one at Microsoft consider that you know, someone might be ****ing busy and in the middle of something when that window popped up? And rather than restart I told it to get lost, and continued to tell it to get lost every couple minutes as I continued to play the game for another 2 hours or so.You know you can tell it to put it off for 4 hours instead? It's right there in the popup. Myself, I went and disabled this "feature", so that even if it tells me it's going to restart itself, it won't, because I denied it permission to do so.
Another example is that a few weeks back I was playing Crysis from a CD/DVD I bought years ago. And while playing it, I got dropped out of the game to be shown an XP window saying that my computer would automatically restart in 15 minutes as a part of an automatic update. That feature is the single most idiotic update function ever devised by man; forcing a restart in the middle of anything. Did no one at Microsoft consider that you know, someone might be ****ing busy and in the middle of something when that window popped up? And rather than restart I told it to get lost, and continued to tell it to get lost every couple minutes as I continued to play the game for another 2 hours or so.You know you can tell it to put it off for 4 hours instead? It's right there in the popup. Myself, I went and disabled this "feature", so that even if it tells me it's going to restart itself, it won't, because I denied it permission to do so.
I've never seen any delay for four hours option. I'm still using XP. Looks like this except the button isn't grayed out.That's what you get for using an outdated system. :) They got that point some time ago (undoubtedly it wasn't just you who hated this 20 minute delay). The long delay option was in Vista already, I'm using Win7. I don't know if you can turn it off on XP. Some of the stupidity in one version does get fixed a version later.
(http://bzupages.net/attachments/7608d1239752329-windows-xp-automatic-restart.gif)
By later it means about "20 minutes" later
Forcing any restart is stupid anyway. Many people will turn off their computers and thus "restart" naturally.
Why doesn't Steam have the capability to filter out games that wont run on the user's current system? Or at the very least to give warnings if the compatibility is in doubt. THAT would be convenient but it would also mean they'd get less money by ignorant consumers buying **** they can't play. So what impetus is there to implement it?
When I launch my game I want to see my game loading. I don't want to see steam or any other client loading. And I don't want steam to be loading every time I turn on my computer either.
I don't equate console loading times or updates to Steam either... ...At the extreme I might have had to wait 10-15 minutes for some major game update but then again I often play games well after their release so I get all the updates in a single dose.
QuoteWhy doesn't Steam have the capability to filter out games that wont run on the user's current system? Or at the very least to give warnings if the compatibility is in doubt. THAT would be convenient but it would also mean they'd get less money by ignorant consumers buying **** they can't play. So what impetus is there to implement it?
Perhaps it's just me an my general notion that anyone who owns their computer or plays a lot of games on it are supposed to be aware of their specs. I'll concede on that if it isn't a generally expected thing for someone buying games to know that they can run it on their system.
Though, to be fair on the other hand, sometimes games exceed even recommended specs...
QuoteWhen I launch my game I want to see my game loading. I don't want to see steam or any other client loading. And I don't want steam to be loading every time I turn on my computer either.
Generally speaking, the less one fights Steam and its doings, the less problems you have. Course, personal preferences considered, it's no wonder there's as many problems as there are in regards to the two of you. That's okay though, desiring more control over how things run on your computer is a fine thing to want and yes, Steam sort of takes some of that control away. Can't argue that
But, this is also the inherent property of the gaming industry as it evolves. Digital distribution is easiest when you get someone else to do it for you, and you typically reach a broader audience. Steam managed to create something that was the most useful thing at the time and others are just now catching up
QuoteI don't equate console loading times or updates to Steam either... ...At the extreme I might have had to wait 10-15 minutes for some major game update but then again I often play games well after their release so I get all the updates in a single dose.
Uh... so you say the two don't really compare... but what you just described is *exactly* the same for Steam...
Major difference being is that PC games typically get more updates than consoles, but the two parallel.
Thing is. People are expected to know their specs but this is an elitist mentality.
But Steam games? Whenever I launch the game, steam launches. Something I could certainl do without.
Sure, perhaps you don't want Steam running on your computer...
...but that's the requirement it tells you about when you initially get Steam. If you're annoyed about this... and were aware of this (something they say often, although some games you don't need steam connected at all and can just launch via their .exe directly)... but still got Steam... well...
An other episode of Akalabeth going "I hate Steam and so should you!" ?Suprise Suprise
Did anyone actually get Steam voluntarily? Did you?
QuoteDid anyone actually get Steam voluntarily? Did you?
Yes
QuoteDid anyone actually get Steam voluntarily? Did you?
Yes
In order to play what? A game that was available apart from Steam?
QuoteDid anyone actually get Steam voluntarily? Did you?
Yes
In order to play what? A game that was available apart from Steam?
Please state the relevancy of your question so that I may see the point you're going to convey regardless of answer
You are in all likelihood fully aware of the point I'm making which is why you have evaded answering the question.
If the game you first installed Steam to play was not available on any other platform you had access to then the choice was not voluntary. It was obligatory.
If you're railing against online distrbution, always-on or partial connectivity, or DRM measures in modern games, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that ship has sailed. If I have to pick an evil, I'll take the one with the massive established user base, high-value sales, best ongoing interface development, and largest catalogue. GOG is wonderful, but it is a niche service. Origin is still crap - just less of it now - but is only relevant for a small number of titles. The other platforms are so irrelevant that I'd have to Google the correct names for them these days. Like it or not, Steam is here to stay. As consumers, we're better off advocating vigorously for better customer service in it that *****ing and moaning about its services.
Another example is that a few weeks back I was playing Crysis from a CD/DVD I bought years ago. And while playing it, I got dropped out of the game to be shown an XP window saying that my computer would automatically restart in 15 minutes as a part of an automatic update. That feature is the single most idiotic update function ever devised by man; forcing a restart in the middle of anything. Did no one at Microsoft consider that you know, someone might be ****ing busy and in the middle of something when that window popped up? And rather than restart I told it to get lost, and continued to tell it to get lost every couple minutes as I continued to play the game for another 2 hours or so.
Technically yes, you are obligated to install Steam in order to play the game. However, if you were aware of that fact and got it anyways... that makes it "voluntary"
Secondly: "done or given because you want to and not because you are forced to : done or given by choice"
To explain my point of posting the definition of "voluntarily" here, note the key words "done because you want to". Yes, you're obligated (or "forced") to install Steam on your computer to play the game, but if the consumer knew that and went ahead with it... they did so voluntarily
But in spirit of actually answering your question, technically speaking I didn't get Steam to play a game. I got Steam to redeem a two coupons I got for free, one via Valve themselves, and another from an Unreal Engine Level Design textbook
Portal and UT3
At the time, I already owned Portal for PS3 on Orange Box and my computer couldn't run either games regardless
(The Valve Portal code being part of a promotion they did which I went sure, why not. I knew I needed to download Steam, but went ahead anyways because I made a voluntary choice to get it)
As I said, Voluntarily means you actually have choice.
I can voluntarily buy and play Halo 3.
I cannot voluntarily play Halo 3 on the Xbox 360. Because the 360 was only platform it was available for, I was obligated to buy one in order to play Halo 3.
#1 Do you feel that you could be a gamer on PC without using Steam?
Another example is that a few weeks back I was playing Crysis from a CD/DVD I bought years ago. And while playing it, I got dropped out of the game to be shown an XP window saying that my computer would automatically restart in 15 minutes as a part of an automatic update. That feature is the single most idiotic update function ever devised by man; forcing a restart in the middle of anything. Did no one at Microsoft consider that you know, someone might be ****ing busy and in the middle of something when that window popped up? And rather than restart I told it to get lost, and continued to tell it to get lost every couple minutes as I continued to play the game for another 2 hours or so.You know you can tell it to put it off for 4 hours instead? It's right there in the popup. Myself, I went and disabled this "feature", so that even if it tells me it's going to restart itself, it won't, because I denied it permission to do so.
I've never seen any delay for four hours option. I'm still using XP. Looks like this except the button isn't grayed out.
(http://bzupages.net/attachments/7608d1239752329-windows-xp-automatic-restart.gif)
By later it means about "20 minutes" later
Forcing any restart is stupid anyway. Many people will turn off their computers and thus "restart" naturally.
It is always recommended to have a good backup of Windows registry before dealing with it. To know more about backing up Windows registry, visit:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?kbid=322756
Go to registry editor and navigate to the following registry key:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE \Software\Policies \Microsoft\Windows \WindowsUpdate\AU
Change the "NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers" DWord value to the required number.
0 = False (Allow auto-reboot)
1 = True (Disallow auto-reboot)
Save and restart Windows Operating system.
Article ID: 555444 - Last Review: August 30, 2005 - Revision: 1.0
APPLIES TO
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition
Microsoft Windows XP Professional
Microsoft Windows XP Media Center Edition 2002
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1
Keywords:
kbpubmvp kbpubtypecca kbhowto KB555444
You can always choose not to buy or play any games.
That alone makes it voluntary.#1 Do you feel that you could be a gamer on PC without using Steam?
The answer to this is Yes.
There are plenty of PC games not tied to Steam, some which are very very popular, and are all some people play.
Steam does not have anything remotely close to a monopoly on the PC gaming market. They're just quite a convenient place to get them.
But I can see the point you're trying to convey, which is that all games should be available anywhere anytime without restriction because you disagree with the concept of exclusives. To make an exclusive is to take away your choice of platform and creating an "obligation" you don't want
75% of all PC games sold online are sold through Steam.
I don't disagree with exclusives
Nothing is more frightening than having the sum of both PC/Mac/Linux and console gaming all tied to a single client.
I don't believe any company should have that amount of power.
Quote75% of all PC games sold online are sold through Steam.
Citation required
QuoteI don't disagree with exclusives
Then don't use an exclusive as an example. It gives the wrong impression
QuoteNothing is more frightening than having the sum of both PC/Mac/Linux and console gaming all tied to a single client.
How is this frightening? That and technically speaking, I can already use my laptop and Steam to game away in the living room (effectively replacing my PS3) through HDMI connections. Steam Box just makes it a little easier
I will then presume you don't really like monopolies in general
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-11-04/valve-lines-up-console-partners-in-challenge-to-microsoft-sony
Estimated they generated 1.1 billion in 2012
I didn't. I used an exclusive in an analogy.
Because I don't trust corporations. They're out to make money, and the only thing keeping them comparatively honest is competition.
Who does? Power corrupts.
And generally when someone abuses their power, people come up and do something about it. If you feel Steam is abusing that power, immediately stop using it, create a movement protesting against it, and see if it catches on
However, I haven't seen them abuse that power and are simply trying to gain more profits, something most companies try to do.
The whole thread