Indeed.Yikes! Yeah can't imagine having to deal with that, especially in a game that's likely to be not so short, considering it's a JRPG. Was the port's budget a bag of chips? How can a main combat mechanic cause black screen/ big graphical glitches?
glad these sold well enough for a third, they’re pretty charming
The latter two arguments are very uninteresting to me, as it's just the usual cry about curation but made to look more "philosophical" when it's really just sophism. These points apply to any system that attempts to solve discoverability, short of just having a list of games and nothing else.Had thoughts on this blog post. Yes, it is another developer discussing discoverability on Steam.
Steam and Discoverability
This is not about advice for getting your game discovered! This is a philosophical argument against the way the platform works right now.johnnemann.medium.com
I will keep my text contained below, since it is huge blurb. No pressure to read it haha.
Quick disclaimers: I think developers are completely within their right to discuss discoverability and would never want to appear as though I think such discussion is bad per se! Also, I am not a developer, which would likely lead to justifiable groans from those very same developers.
The dev lists three arguments which I summarized to (1) The algorithm will always miss games since it focuses on the numerical data and leaves out subjective experience (2) The discoverability rewards some types of games and punishes other types of games (3) The rewards and punishments given to types of games has a negative impact on the medium as a whole.
To start, anytime the topic of discoverability is discussed. I think the problem statement is rarely clearly stated. What does the developer want the platform to solve by making changes to discoverability? Is the problem visibility or is it sales or both and/or something else? One can imagine a scenario where one game is shown to 100 people and 40 people buy the game, another game is shown to 500 people and 25 people buy the game, another game is shown to 10 and no one buys the game, etc. In the first there was less visibility and more sales, the second more visibility and less sales, the third less visibility and less sales, etc. These scenarios could be played out a lot of different ways, but the point I am arguing is visibility can be separated from sales.
I would agree that, in general, if a game is shown to fewer customers, then it will sale less compared to if it was shown to more customers. However, I think this may not apply to specific games (e.g. a game may be so bad/good that this assumption would not hold true). Consequently, I think using this as an argument at least carries some asterisks that it may not apply in every case. Which interestingly enough, these discussions tend to leave out any specific examples of games that could be solved by addressing the problem statement and are usually vague (e.g. genre X would benefit, instead of game Y would benefit). I argue folks tend to be less than clear about what they want solved and yet it is absolutely critical to determining how you can solve it AND provide a point of measure to the success of the solution.
Based on what this developer has written, they are arguing (Steam) discoverability needs to solve visibility AND sales AND address its role in impacting what games are made. Though I think they are conflating visibility AND sales in their actual argument and I think there is good reason to look at it separate, more below.
Anyway, on to their points:
(1) The algorithm relies on numerical data, such as time played, and consequently misses the more subjective experiences in our overall experiences with games when it comes to recommending
This handwaves so many of the discoverability features on Steam. I would argue systems like curators, groups, friend lists, community reviews, activity feeds, etc. are a part of the overall systems Steam has in place and are important to supplement all of its systems. These are the ways to factor the subjective experience. Like visual novels? Join a VN group. Like immersive sims? Find a curator who reviews immersive sims. It can be easy to think that Steam deserves no credit for them since they do not require you interact with these systems, but they are additional avenues for discoverability that allow for more subjectivity.
Even still, the actual argument is Steam recommendations should factor more than numerical data and include subjective experiences. This is not necessarily a bad suggestion, but a risky one. I argue there is a balance to how a platform can provide recommendations AND still have folks engaging with those recommendations. Going back to the general assumption that showing more people a game means more sales. Remember, it is an assumption that could hold the opposite. If every time you go into a store and are constantly recommended items you are not interested in, would you be more or less likely to use that store (or at least more or less likely to listen to those recommendations)? Most stores, physical or digital, will arrange items strategically to keep you engaged and tailor their recommendations in a way that may benefit the largest common denominator, but also ensures folks keep coming in the door. Some folks want a game about a travelling mime in Belarus post-USSR, others, not so much (though sign me up). How many times could you recommend and get it wrong before there are impacts?
Subjectivity is tricky to narrow down as it can differ wildly from person to person and is potentially unmeasurable. Does that mean subjective factors are better/worse than objective factors, not at all, but it also creates a risk for the platform to try to benefit each and every unique individual rather than a more collective approach. Really it comes down to those "safer" recommendations get folks in the door and maybe they look around a little more and find the "risker" recommendations. This is more of a utilitarian counterargument, but it can be summed as the current method ensures the largest number of folks are engaged with the store and leads to more sales.
(2) The discoverability rewards some types of games and punishes other types of games AND (3) The rewards and punishments given to types of games has a negative impact on the medium as a whole.
This has taken me awhile to write, so I will not spend too much time with these two points and I think they are very similar. Though I will say the focus here by the dev is GAaS/multiplayer/etc. as winning and narrative/singleplayer as losing. For the record, I dislike GAaS. However, I think GAsS are quickly becoming the reality TV of the gaming world in more ways than one (I could write a whole article on this comparison alone haha). Industry folks and critics would deride the fact that the general public would becoming so enthralled with trash TV, ignoring critical points of why realty TV became so popular (perfect water cooler convo talk, escapism, dynamic/less scripted feel, etc.). What's more is it never killed off scripted shows like it was feared.
In a similar way, I think it is interesting to see the contempt to GAaS, particular from folks close to the industry. Too often implying they are less than narrative games. Again, I say this as someone who dislikes GAaS in their current form, I think it is too quick to ignore why they are popular and focus only on why a platform like Steam would recommend them over a narrative game (e.g. this past year in particular with Covid meant lots of folks looking for elements that GAaS provide).
Anyway I could rant for another 5000 words, but I will stop there. I just read this article earlier and saw a few indie devs comment. Felt like I wanted to respond to it.
TL;DR I am just having a bit of a rant, feel free to ignore haha
I first thought it was a blog post by Simon Carless. Maybe it is the layout, or the title of the post, but I was mislead. It is actually written by a developer called Johnnemann Nordhagen (Gone Home in 2013, Where the Water Tastes like Wine in 2018). The first game is a very short single-player walking experience, which was well-known (17k Steam reviews). The second is an experimental single-player walking game, which was not successful at all (less than 1k Steam reviews).Had thoughts on this blog post. Yes, it is another developer discussing discoverability on Steam.
Steam and Discoverability
This is not about advice for getting your game discovered! This is a philosophical argument against the way the platform works right now.
I will keep my text contained below, since it is huge blurb. No pressure to read it haha.
I believe this is correct.
And this is not correct in my opinion.
Interesting link and post, thanks for taking the time to write it. I agree that a system based on algorithms is bound to have a few blind spots. One could argue that the best solution would be a combination of both AI and human recommendation, the algorithm pushes popular games while humans handpick niche titles for promotion. The issue is that as soon as you introduce the human element you put Valve in the same place that it moved away from, the arbiter of which games are worthy of being promoted and which aren't. Not to mention that a human can have just as many gaming blind spots as AI. Ultimately, while there is no perfect system, the algorithm and recommendation systems seem to be relatively competent in pairing customers with games they want to play. In theory a customer like the one the dev describes (someone who likes short experimental narrative games) should be getting recommendations of such games.Had thoughts on this blog post. Yes, it is another developer discussing discoverability on Steam.
Steam and Discoverability
This is not about advice for getting your game discovered! This is a philosophical argument against the way the platform works right now.
I will keep my text contained below, since it is huge blurb. No pressure to read it haha.
Quick disclaimers: I think developers are completely within their right to discuss discoverability and would never want to appear as though I think such discussion is bad per se! Also, I am not a developer, which would likely lead to justifiable groans from those very same developers.
The dev lists three arguments which I summarized to (1) The algorithm will always miss games since it focuses on the numerical data and leaves out subjective experience (2) The discoverability rewards some types of games and punishes other types of games (3) The rewards and punishments given to types of games has a negative impact on the medium as a whole.
To start, anytime the topic of discoverability is discussed. I think the problem statement is rarely clearly stated. What does the developer want the platform to solve by making changes to discoverability? Is the problem visibility or is it sales or both and/or something else? One can imagine a scenario where one game is shown to 100 people and 40 people buy the game, another game is shown to 500 people and 25 people buy the game, another game is shown to 10 and no one buys the game, etc. In the first there was less visibility and more sales, the second more visibility and less sales, the third less visibility and less sales, etc. These scenarios could be played out a lot of different ways, but the point I am arguing is visibility can be separated from sales.
I would agree that, in general, if a game is shown to fewer customers, then it will sale less compared to if it was shown to more customers. However, I think this may not apply to specific games (e.g. a game may be so bad/good that this assumption would not hold true). Consequently, I think using this as an argument at least carries some asterisks that it may not apply in every case. Which interestingly enough, these discussions tend to leave out any specific examples of games that could be solved by addressing the problem statement and are usually vague (e.g. genre X would benefit, instead of game Y would benefit). I argue folks tend to be less than clear about what they want solved and yet it is absolutely critical to determining how you can solve it AND provide a point of measure to the success of the solution.
Based on what this developer has written, they are arguing (Steam) discoverability needs to solve visibility AND sales AND address its role in impacting what games are made. Though I think they are conflating visibility AND sales in their actual argument and I think there is good reason to look at it separate, more below.
Anyway, on to their points:
(1) The algorithm relies on numerical data, such as time played, and consequently misses the more subjective experiences in our overall experiences with games when it comes to recommending
This handwaves so many of the discoverability features on Steam. I would argue systems like curators, groups, friend lists, community reviews, activity feeds, etc. are a part of the overall systems Steam has in place and are important to supplement all of its systems. These are the ways to factor the subjective experience. Like visual novels? Join a VN group. Like immersive sims? Find a curator who reviews immersive sims. It can be easy to think that Steam deserves no credit for them since they do not require you interact with these systems, but they are additional avenues for discoverability that allow for more subjectivity.
Even still, the actual argument is Steam recommendations should factor more than numerical data and include subjective experiences. This is not necessarily a bad suggestion, but a risky one. I argue there is a balance to how a platform can provide recommendations AND still have folks engaging with those recommendations. Going back to the general assumption that showing more people a game means more sales. Remember, it is an assumption that could hold the opposite. If every time you go into a store and are constantly recommended items you are not interested in, would you be more or less likely to use that store (or at least more or less likely to listen to those recommendations)? Most stores, physical or digital, will arrange items strategically to keep you engaged and tailor their recommendations in a way that may benefit the largest common denominator, but also ensures folks keep coming in the door. Some folks want a game about a travelling mime in Belarus post-USSR, others, not so much (though sign me up). How many times could you recommend and get it wrong before there are impacts?
Subjectivity is tricky to narrow down as it can differ wildly from person to person and is potentially unmeasurable. Does that mean subjective factors are better/worse than objective factors, not at all, but it also creates a risk for the platform to try to benefit each and every unique individual rather than a more collective approach. Really it comes down to those "safer" recommendations get folks in the door and maybe they look around a little more and find the "risker" recommendations. This is more of a utilitarian counterargument, but it can be summed as the current method ensures the largest number of folks are engaged with the store and leads to more sales.
(2) The discoverability rewards some types of games and punishes other types of games AND (3) The rewards and punishments given to types of games has a negative impact on the medium as a whole.
This has taken me awhile to write, so I will not spend too much time with these two points and I think they are very similar. Though I will say the focus here by the dev is GAaS/multiplayer/etc. as winning and narrative/singleplayer as losing. For the record, I dislike GAaS. However, I think GAsS are quickly becoming the reality TV of the gaming world in more ways than one (I could write a whole article on this comparison alone haha). Industry folks and critics would deride the fact that the general public would becoming so enthralled with trash TV, ignoring critical points of why realty TV became so popular (perfect water cooler convo talk, escapism, dynamic/less scripted feel, etc.). What's more is it never killed off scripted shows like it was feared.
In a similar way, I think it is interesting to see the contempt to GAaS, particular from folks close to the industry. Too often implying they are less than narrative games. Again, I say this as someone who dislikes GAaS in their current form, I think it is too quick to ignore why they are popular and focus only on why a platform like Steam would recommend them over a narrative game (e.g. this past year in particular with Covid meant lots of folks looking for elements that GAaS provide).
Anyway I could rant for another 5000 words, but I will stop there. I just read this article earlier and saw a few indie devs comment. Felt like I wanted to respond to it.
TL;DR I am just having a bit of a rant, feel free to ignore haha
True. This is why I don't use the discovery queue anymore.
I imagine it happens because Steam is literally the only avenue these devs have to make money. It does feel strange though to so strongly criticize the only platform that actually wants you there.
Also Volvo is chill af and doesn't retalliate unless you, dunno, threaten their employees with violence.
There is time for them to change their mind XD Many studios made things that other didn't and then they were either closed or changed how they operated. Sony Japan is obvious example, Sony Santa Monica indie initiative, hell even Guerilla went from FPS to TPS even though most of their output is TPS.
If you are implying that developers have any rights at all to mods of their games, then I'd like to hear an argument why this should be the case. I fundamentally disagree with that idea, and also see no legal basis for it. (Of course, this does not include cases in which the mod distributes anything at all for which the mod author doesn't have the copyright)Nexusmods "takes away" the mod authors ability to delete their own mods:
Some mod authors: HEY! those are MY RIGHTS you are infringing on!!!!!1111"
The actual developer of the game:
No, the Developer doesn't have any rights on the mod. But the developer has the rights on all game files that can be modded. And either they gave permission to mod the game or modding falls under fair use.
That's a shame. I played through the game without any game-breaking issues. While it's not amazing and took me 2 tries to warm up to it, I had a good time in the end.Fuck, I just learnt that some achievements of Ray Gigant are glitched. And I don't want to use Steam Achievement Manager to unlock them. My will to continue playing immediately drops to zero.
Edit: It seems that there is another game breaking bug that may prevent people from finishing the game. What the hell. I am dropping this.
www.kotaku.com.au
Yeah, I am the type of person who tries to get as much from a game as possible, so achievement is part of the fun. Glitch achievement really annoys meThat's a shame. I played through the game without any game-breaking issues. While it's not amazing and took me 2 tries to warm up to it, I had a good time in the end.
Though I also don't care much about achievements. Case in point: I wouldn't even have realized that I'm missing some achievements I should obviously have after just a quick look over the list if you hadn't said anything - and I finished the game 2 years ago
Absolutely, but mod authors (at least legitimate ones I'm talking about) aren't distributing ("copying", that is) any of those files. So I'm not sure why the developer's copyright should ever factor into the distribution of such mods (and I'd argue the majority of mods are like that).
Because it is hypocritical. Criticizing what happens with their files after they upload it to a website (that has a "we can do with your files whatever we want" policy for years) when their work is reliant on the work and goodwill of the original developers.
Very interesting article. This part in particular:Why User Reviews Are The Best Tool We Have
User reviews can be messy, weaponised and memed to death -- but as some developers argue, they're the best marketing tools indie studios have.
I guess the gaming media dogpiling on Sony past few days help show that user reviews aren't quite as evil originally believed.
I have said it more times than I can count but it's unbelievable just how much disdain the gaming industry has for its audience. Also:
If only.
It's been three week since I got mine and I haven't driven for 6 years. White knuckle moments at the wheel for a while haha.
I remember when I went to test drive the car that I was very nervous and was scared about what would happen if I crashed or something. Especially seeing how the reason that I didn't have a car any more was because of a car accident that I was in. I was nervous and then the dealer guy was telling me how the gas was low and that we should get gas and that meant I would have to get on the freeway..... Oh no.
First of all, thanks for the interesting read. I don't have a lot to add to what people already wrote, because I don't think there is a good solution for everyone right now. I really like short story heavy single games, but since I also play a lot of open world games in the "brains-off" mode, even among my own tastes is hard to weight them properly. But solutions introducing qualitative/human elements gets on the curation territory with it's own problems and probably a worse situation overall.Had thoughts on this blog post. Yes, it is another developer discussing discoverability on Steam.
Steam and Discoverability
This is not about advice for getting your game discovered! This is a philosophical argument against the way the platform works right now.
I will keep my text contained below, since it is huge blurb. No pressure to read it haha.
I really don't understand how you can actually use the Steam (and others platforms) to actually buy games and not see the value of the users reviews. Yes, the shitty examples of people abusing it makes the headlines, but every single time I'm going to buy a game I check them out. They are not the single factor in the final decision, but are so useful in pointing out "red flags" about a game.
Wow. I would never even dare drive this in my current state hahaha. Vroom indeed.I remember when I went to test drive the car that I was very nervous and was scared about what would happen if I crashed or something. Especially seeing how the reason that I didn't have a car any more was because of a car accident that I was in. I was nervous and then the dealer guy was telling me how the gas was low and that we should get gas and that meant I would have to get on the freeway..... Oh no.
Here is a picture of the car
metacouncil.com
Now imagine this on PSVRProbably my best Half-Life Alyx screenshot i ever made
It's almost like art in capitalist system of production and consumption will never make both sides happy
This might be all I need to see to play Half-Life Alyx again soon.Probably my best Half-Life Alyx screenshot i ever made
Thanks for the mention! I've been so busy the last couple days and completely missed that trailer.
you're welcomeThanks for the mention! I've been so busy the last couple days and completely missed that trailer.
metacouncil.com
I definitely found the timing funny as well! The fact that this week we were having conversations about how Sony is making it hard for indies to even put their game on sale, let alone be discovered and purchased. To complain how Steam may be recommending games like Apex Legends over indies seems like an issue that is far less damaging or unexpected to the medium.
Lots of really interesting information! I had no idea SteamDB tested surfacing hidden gems and proved it was unpopular! That really highlights the risks involved with trying to surface niche games and risk losing engagement with the platform as a whole.However, I remember a time when SteamDB tested ranking algorithms. Method 2 was about surfacing hidden gems. It was not popular.
From Valve's perspective, [TOOLTIP="Most people won't purchase more than 50 games on Steam in their lifetime."][UWSL][UWSL][UWSL][UWSL][UWSL][UWSL]the majority of customers are new[/UWSL][/UWSL][/UWSL][/UWSL][/UWSL][/UWSL] [1][/TOOLTIP] and consume a few games per year, so it makes sense to recommend popular games.
) that I like to see those less popular games. Even then, like you said, going through the discovery queue is...misses more than hits that I prefer sticking to what I see in my recommended carousel unless I am feeling extra spicy that day or Valve rewards me with a trading card.This is the billion dollar question and a really interesting one for discussion. I think as long as time and money are a factor, the answer may be less than ideal, but it is something I would love to see discussion on. I like the idea of the "show me something completely different" button/system. I feel like the bones of the interactive recommender could support something like this, but I think the interactive recommender still needs some tweaks to bring it more into the Steam store. It technically has integration in the "Players like you love" section if I recall correctly, maybe adding something optional more along the lines of "Players different from you love" or something haha.
Exactly! For example, I am likely to recommend more popular titles before actually recommending anything niche to folks. This logic would be the easiest and most reasonable for a human reviewer to carry out short of having an extended conversation with the person browsing the store, but this sort of curation would run into the exact issues with surfacing only popular titles over everything else.
I would never, ever click on something like this, and that's speaking as someone who's more of a game enthusiast than the average person. I've always found this idea that a store should advertise for its products to be weird. It's nice, I guess, if it works, because the products and the store make money, and maybe customers found something interesting. But really, I learn about products and services from others, word of mouth, ads, articles, and FOMO. Not from going to a store, whether it's Steam, Amazon, or an IRL store like Target. It just all comes back to there are more games than available time and attention in the world.
