Fake Games

[clyde]

"no"  what?

[Twig]

You've listed a bunch of games which don't even remotely fit the category of games in question. The closest is RPG Maker games, because many of them use default assets that come with the engine. Many of those are utter garbage (I should know), but even they don't fit the category because they have actual writing that is unique to that game (to the extent that any cookie-cutter game can be unique).

 

So, no. You're wrong.

[clyde]

19 minutes ago, Twig said:

You've listed a bunch of games which don't even remotely fit the category of games in question. The closest is RPG Maker games, because many of them use default assets that come with the engine. Many of those are utter garbage (I should know), but even they don't fit the category because they have actual writing that is unique to that game (to the extent that any cookie-cutter game can be unique).

 

So, no. You're wrong.

 

But historically, attempts to remove some of these games and games like these used the same arguments. I think you are looking at this problem retrospectively and as if the standards of quality are objective. When another game comes out that is in the position to do what Mountain or Five Nights At Freddy's or Gone Home did comes out in the future and defies the expectations gamers have about what is allowed to be sold as a game, I don't want these fake-game hunters to have the ability to protect the public from them. I think that 50 Short games and Magic Wand are particularly good examples. I know that thecatamites was putting Magic Wand up on Greenlight at some point and the sensibility of that game is something that would likely be targeted by the complaints of the game-police. Even if it got through Greenlight because of an established fandom, all those fans would be accused of being sock-puppet accounts because the game-police are so convinced that what they define as a game worthy of being on Steam is the only possible definition.

[Twig]

Well, one, Greenlight is going away. Two, you're still wrong. These might be the types of games targeted by your strawmen, but they do not have the power to remove the games themselves. Besides, in your hypothetical chaotic world, literally any game will be a target. Which is, to be frank, a laughable idea.

[Gormongous]

I think you're conflating the issue of fake games with that of gatekeeping in the indie and punk scenes of game design, clyde. In any system that's intended to screen fake games from the corpus on sale on Steam, how on earth would Depression Quest be accused as trying to swindle people out of their money? It's being given away for free! You're literally assuming about fake games what Trump assumes about fake news: that fake means "bad" and not "a slapdash or copycat product intended to deceive an audience, primarily for financial gain." It's hard to talk with someone intent on setting up those kinds of strawmen, especially when they're using hyperbolic and alarmist language like "game police" and "the purge." You sound like a GamerGater who's worried about the censors taking away his precious baby-killing games.

 

As for the rest, if you're saying a system put into place to prevent customers from being scammed might be subject to abuse by people labeling nontraditional products as scams out of a sense of ideological or discriminatory conviction, that's fair, but it's not an argument to have no system preventing scams whatsoever. It's an argument to look beyond our own experience and definitions to identify a more robust system for sorting good-faith and bad-faith attempts to make money on Steam.

[clyde]

29 minutes ago, Gormongous said:

I think you're conflating the issue of fake games with that of gatekeeping in the indie and punk scenes of game design, clyde. In any system that's intended to screen fake games from the corpus on sale on Steam, how on earth would Depression Quest be accused as trying to swindle people out of their money? It's being given away for free! You're literally assuming about fake games what Trump assumes about fake news: that fake means "bad" and not "a slapdash or copycat product intended to deceive an audience, primarily for financial gain." It's hard to talk with someone intent on setting up those kinds of strawmen, especially when they're using hyperbolic and alarmist language like "game police" and "the purge." You sound like a GamerGater who's worried about the censors taking away his precious baby-killing games.

 

As for the rest, if you're saying a system put into place to prevent customers from being scammed might be subject to abuse by people labeling nontraditional products as scams out of a sense of ideological or discriminatory conviction, that's fair, but it's not an argument to have no system preventing scams whatsoever. It's an argument to look beyond our own experience and definitions to identify a more robust system for sorting good-faith and bad-faith attempts to make money on Steam.

 

I don't think I'm using strawmen. Valve is getting advice from Jim Sterling on this issue. Jim Sterling did a performance that was based on the the idea that it is ridiculous to have a Digital Homicide game on Steam. So it seems like Valve is considering enforcing the types of standards that Jim Sterling has for games. If we are just talking about the game and not the actions of consumers and the developer in this conflict I know little about, there is no reason for Devil's Share to not be on Steam. It's not fraudulent in any way. I enjoyed it. It's not a swindle. Jim Sterling thought that games like this are unworthy of Steam as a platform.

I just made a Let's Play of Devil's Share. I'll probably publish it tonight.

 

Also what about my other examples like Magic Wand or Mountain. You think that Jim Sterling or his fans would have the aesthetic flexibility to see the value of it being on Steam? I don't have that much faith in them.

[Cordeos]

7 minutes ago, clyde said:

 

I don't think I'm using strawmen. Valve is getting advice from Jim Sterling on this issue. Jim Sterling did a performance that was based on the the idea that it is ridiculous to have a Digital Homicide game on Steam. So it seems like Valve is considering enforcing the types of standards that Jim Sterling has for games. If we are just talking about the game and not the actions of consumers and the developer in this conflict I know little about, there is no reason for Devil's Share to not be on Steam. It's not fraudulent in any way. I enjoyed it. It's not a swindle. Jim Sterling thought that games like this are unworthy of Steam as a platform.

I just made a Let's Play of Devil's Share. I'll probably publish it tonight.

 

Also what about my other examples like Magic Wand or Mountain. You think that Jim Sterling would have the aesthetic flexibility to see the value of it being on Steam? I don't have that much faith in him.

My understanding is that steam wasn't going to remove games from the platform, simply bury bad seeming ones with algorithms unless it started getting some positive attention.

[Gormongous]

36 minutes ago, clyde said:

 

I don't think I'm using strawmen. Valve is getting advice from Jim Sterling on this issue. Jim Sterling did a performance that was based on the the idea that it is ridiculous to have a Digital Homicide game on Steam. So it seems like Valve is considering enforcing the types of standards that Jim Sterling has for games. If we are just talking about the game and not the actions of consumers and the developer in this conflict I know little about, there is no reason for Devil's Share to not be on Steam. It's not fraudulent in any way. I enjoyed it. It's not a swindle. Jim Sterling thought that games like this are unworthy of Steam as a platform.

I just made a Let's Play of Devil's Share. I'll probably publish it tonight.

 

Also what about my other examples like Magic Wand or Mountain. You think that Jim Sterling would have the aesthetic flexibility to see the value of it being on Steam? I don't have that much faith in him.

 

Maybe you should educate yourself, then, rather than basing your entire argument on a snap judgment of Jim Sterling and Digital Homicide and doubling down on the assumption that Sterling is a bad man who wants to take all your weird games away? Sterling regularly plays random games on Steam and gives reviews of them, both positive and negative. He gave a negative review of The Slaughtering Grounds, by Digital Homicide, because its assets were stolen or recycled, the gameplay was repetitive and boring, and the game was extremely pricey for the length and quality of the experience. Later, he found out that Galactic Hitman and Devil’s Share, two more games that he reviewed negatively, were also made by Digital Homicide under a different name, that of ECC Games, which is very suspicious on its own. Digital Homicide tried to get his reviews taken down with DMCA complaints about using in-game footage, which didn't work, and then they sued him for libel, slander, and assault with ten million dollars in damages, because he reviewed their game negatively and lost them revenue from among his fans. Digital Homicide even tried to crowdfund the lawsuit, again unsuccessfully, before it was dismissed with prejudice in court. The naked intent of the lawsuit was to silence Sterling in the short term and to hurt him in the long term for saying that The Slaughtering Grounds is less a game than a scam. He's not alone. Patricia Hernandez played Devil's Share and noted that the game had gotten over four hundred negative reviews in five days. If professionals and amateurs agree that the game is terrible, boring, and unfun, it sounds like something that maybe shouldn't be sold on Steam? There should at least be a conversation about it.

 

I have to admit, I've been a little disappointed by how you've conducted your side of this conversation, clyde. It doesn't seem like you're open to the possibility of better curation being a net positive for customers and developers of games, under any circumstances, and now you're calling Sterling's review a "performance" so that it doesn't sound like you're criticizing him for writing a negative review. Why exactly don't you have any faith in Sterling? Because of his weird shtick, which I admit is off-putting? Because Valve invited him and Total Biscuit to consult, which incriminates him by association? Because his venue is YouTube and there's no serious criticism going on there? I don't always agree with Jim Sterling, but he has been a vocal and tireless advocate of social justice and human decency in games. He doesn't deserve the degree of disdain that you've been pouring on him for disliking a bad game and telling people so.

[clyde]

I'm in a weird spot because if I don't respond then it will look like I'm ignoring you and if I do it will provide you with more evidence of my manipulative rhetorical tactics.

If I just say the above then it'll probably seem like I'm accusing you of something so I'll just go ahead and attempt to clarify my positions on your points:
 

I don't think Sterling is a bad man. I do think that he is using fascist imagery while saying things like "A 15 million dollar lawsuit should never have happened. Multiple copyright strikes against dozens of YouTube channels shouldn't happen. Stalking, threats, invasive behavior, this string of not just unprofessional but recklessly unhinged little animals thinking that they run the show, it should never have gotten so far and so out of hand. For years, I thought the problem was the games, the shitty games  flooding Steam. James remind taught me different. Threats to kill me through continued harassment taught me different. Accusations of trademark violation and developers who think their ass-pool(?) users beat Valve's rules taught me different. Shitty games are a symptom, shitty people are the disease and the thought of disinfecting them for good fills me with a near perverse level of pleasure; the work continues." probably helps to encourage the behavior he is supposedly condemning. I linked this article earlier. I'm not suggesting that the developer didn't also harass folks, but I think it is worth considering that this developer has received harassment from the fans of Sterling who again is dressed like and presents himself like a fascist. I'm happy that he is a proponent of social justice, but that doesn't change how I'm seeing this particular campaign and his role in it.

I read the Hernandez review. Similar to how I view the Jim Sterling stuff, it seems performative to me. When someone goes in to review a game that has racked up 454 mostly negative reviews in five days and is selling for 24cents for a publication or their YouTube channel, I tend to assume that it is going to be a hit job for laughs. I don't entirely dismiss their observations because of that motive, but I do see it as performative rather than some sort of good-faith desire to enjoy a game. That's fine with me if they want to do comedic hit-jobs, people love that stuff but it is a performance in both cases.

 

If professionals and amateurs agree that the game is terrible, boring, and unfun, it sounds like something that maybe shouldn't be sold on Steam? There should at least be a conversation about it.

 

I'm okay with this conversation happening, I just think that I'm right and Twig is wrong. I still want to hear y'alls opinions and express mine, but I'm not expecting in to result in us agreeing. I still find value in it.

 

I am open to the possibility of better curation being a net positive for customers and developers of games. I don't think that removing games from the store because of status-quo standards is better curation. I still think that the folks who find these games to play are looking for them. Maybe they want to do a comedic hit-job. Maybe they want to be obstinate about fake-games. The point is that I don't see these games served to uneducated consumers in an exploitative manner. Better curation in my view would be allowing folks to do things like search by publisher, be able to subscribe to the recommendations of others, and be able to filter by user review scores. I think they have done all that, but that is the type of thing that I think leads to better curation. Not removing something from sale on a digital store.

I think you are overstating my disdain for Sterling. If there is a particular thing I said you want me to address I can.

So my Let's Play is up.
 

 

[Gormongous]

48 minutes ago, clyde said:

I don't think Sterling is a bad man. I do think that he is using fascist imagery while saying things like "A 15 million dollar lawsuit should never have happened. Multiple copyright strikes against dozens of YouTube channels shouldn't happen. Stalking, threats, invasive behavior, this string of not just unprofessional but recklessly unhinged little animals thinking that they run the show, it should never have gotten so far and so out of hand. For years, I thought the problem was the games, the shitty games  flooding Steam. James remind taught me different. Threats to kill me through continued harassment taught me different. Accusations of trademark violation and developers who think their ass-pool(?) users beat Valve's rules taught me different. Shitty games are a symptom, shitty people are the disease and the thought of disinfecting them for good fills me with a near perverse level of pleasure; the work continues." probably helps to encourage the behavior he is supposedly condemning. I linked this article earlier. I'm not suggesting that the developer didn't also harass folks, but I think it is worth considering that this developer has received harassment from the fans of Sterling who again is dressed like and presents himself like a fascist. I'm happy that he is a proponent of social justice, but that doesn't change how I'm seeing this particular campaign and his role in it.

I read the Hernandez review. Similar to how I view the Jim Sterling stuff, it seems performative to me. When someone goes in to review a game that has racked up 454 mostly negative reviews in five days and is selling for 24cents for a publication or their YouTube channel, I tend to assume that it is going to be a hit job for laughs. I don't entirely dismiss their observations because of that motive, but I do see it as performative rather than some sort of good-faith desire to enjoy a game. That's fine with me if they want to do comedic hit-jobs, people love that stuff but it is a performance in both cases.

 

I am open to the possibility of better curation being a net positive for customers and developers of games. I don't think that removing games from the store because of status-quo standards is better curation. I still think that the folks who find these games to play are looking for them. Maybe they want to do a comedic hit-job. Maybe they want to be obstinate about fake-games. The point is that I don't see these games served to uneducated consumers in an exploitative manner. Better curation in my view would be allowing folks to do things like search by publisher, be able to subscribe to the recommendations of others, and be able to filter by user review scores. I think they have done all that, but that is the type of thing that I think leads to better curation. Not removing something from sale on a digital store.

 

I think you are overstating my disdain for Sterling. If there is a particular thing I said you want me to address I can.

 

I guess, to sum up my issues with your argument, I think there are a lot of problems with your twin assumptions that Digital Homicide are making their game in good faith, not just trying to net a quick buck with a slapdash product, but that Hernandez and Sterling aren't reviewing that game in good faith, because you don't think they're trying hard enough to enjoy it. It also feels like you're being very restrictive in your implicit definition of "good faith" in reviews: if a reviewer is too irreverent or shows too much glee in denigrating a game that they think is bad, it's "performative" and therefore somehow less valid than a more po-faced approach that presumably reaches more directly for authorial intent. Overall, I am uncomfortable existing in a conversation where you are willing to discount Sterling for his hyperbolic speech and mock-fascist imagery while blasting demons with shotguns in a game called Devil's Share that's made by a company called Digital Homicide, let alone one where the phrase "hit job" is thrown around to describe the work of writers I respect just because they're not sufficiently in awe of a $0.24 game that seemed fairly tedious to play, as I watch your video.

 

I've felt very weird here, having to come down so strongly on the side of Valve's right to curate its own storefront as actively as it sees fit, but I'm just trying to think of a system that benefits all people who want to play games, not just those of us with lots of information and specific tastes. If it's possible for someone on Steam to get Action Alien when they're looking for Serious Sam because they don't know the name, that's a bad thing, in my opinion. If outsider and alternative games like Mountain or thecatamites' work disappear from Steam, in the extremely unlikely scenario that the "game police" start pruning actual games to which people are giving good reviews and not just games that are criticized for being broken or having stolen assets, their fans (and people who want to become their fans) will know to find them on itch.io or wherever. If Steam continues to be flooded with semi-playable and unplayable cruft, what are the people who just want to buy and play a popular game that works going to do? Do we just tell them that they're lucky to have the chance to play a game that hundreds of people have already decided is bad and not worth their time? Again, being able to find worth or enjoyment in something does not make it enjoyable or worthwhile, especially in the eyes of others. It's better to ask why something should be on Steam, rather than why it shouldn't.

[Twig]

46 minutes ago, clyde said:

I just think that I'm right and Twig is wrong.

lol oh

[Problem Machine]

I think the main issue is that right now Steam is both a distribution service and a marketing platform. Should every game that wants to be get on the Steam distribution service? Yes. Should every game that wants to be get on the Steam marketing platform? No.

[Cordeos]

The new Steam program isn't about removal of games, its about doing a better job sorting games so crappy asset flips that are marginally functional don't appear with anything like the frequency that well made games from respected devs do. Digital Homicides games were only removed after the Dev started attacking people, which is very different from fans doing it.

[Gormongous]

Just now, Problem Machine said:

I think the main issue is that right now Steam is both a distribution service and a marketing platform. Should every game that wants to be get on the Steam distribution service? Yes. Should every game that wants to be get on the Steam marketing platform? No.

 

That's an excellent point and one that didn't occur to me.

[Twig]

That is entirely their purported end goal. At least, it's Gabe's end goal. Valve as a whole seems to keep working against it. (Though, the Explorers could semi-feasibly be expanded in the future to separate storefronts for specific curators?? Maybe???)

 

Also, what Cordeos said.

[davidsgallant]

Hey folks. This is my first post on the Idle Forums, so please forgive me if I mess up some conventions for this space.

 

The fact that Valve refers to any games internally as "fake games" is pretty chilling. Valve already has very limited categorizations for games (notice how they foisted improving categories onto their users, just as they plan to do with the Explorers program). Asset Flips are not "fake games". They may not be well-produced games, they may be cynical cash-ins designed to get cheap trading card producers into people's Steam libraries, they may be a solo developer's first project, a game made by students, etc. They're still games; the quality of their production never renders them "fake" in any regard. Not to Valve, though, who have a very limited idea of what a game should be.

 

Remember, this is the Valve who believes a game should be longer than at least two hours (lest your customers finish it in less time and get a refund on it). This is the Valve who intends to charge developers at least $100 (at most $5000!!!) for each release, a fee that won't be recoupable by inexpensive or outright free products. This is the Valve that has no backend method of allowing devs to categorize a release as "experimental" or "narrative", other than to put it in the genre "indie" (yeah, "indie" is a genre on Steam).

 

The list of games clyde provided as examples that might be declared "fake games" by Steam Explorers - some of their devs are already afraid that might happen. Depression Quest was made primarily by a woman who is still the target of a hate mob. Dominique Pamplemousse 2, which is already out, won't be seeking a Steam release thanks to the proposed implementations of Steam Direct and Steam Explorers.

 

The only feedback Valve has sought on this new program are from two white cis males in positions of privilege. Both have experience with being the targets of online hate, but their privilege still protects them from what more marginalized devs already experience being on Steam.

 

So, yeah. "Fake games" is bullshit. Valve continues to make Steam a hostile place for smaller developers. Buy your games from itch.io instead.

[Twig]

Quote

Not to Valve, though, who have a very limited idea of what a game should be.

 

It's interesting that you purport to know what Valve thinks games are. If you were right, those games on clyde's list would never have been allowed in the first place. (Ignoring the fact that, for the most part, they are, actually, widely accepted as games.) And, yet, there they are. Hmmm. Wonder how that happened.

 

It's also interesting that the defense of the libertarian dream for the free market is also, here, conflated with social justice. Despite history not providing evidence of the libertarian ideal actually working in that way.

Do you know why Steam actually sucks? It's because capitalism doesn't allow for the success and well-being of artists who don't manage to achieve the necessary amount (of varying degrees, depending on scale of project) attention from the masses.

 

Until capitalism is abolished forever, I'll always argue in favor of regulating the market, as a regulated market is a necessity. Those games you so dearly love are overcrowded by ugly lazy bullshit that distracts.

 

And, yeah, go to itch.io! It's a good source of neat little games! 

 

(Here's a secret, though: if itch.io ever met the same success as Valve's Steam, they'd have to find solutions to this very same problem that Valve is struggling with.)

 

PS, TB is widely recognized as an asshole. He's said some shitty things, especially around GG's heyday. Meanwhile, Jim Sterling actively fights for the very things you act like he's against.

[hellojed]

I only make fake games

[davidsgallant]

I blogged about what Valve thinks games should be back in 2015: http://itwasnevermspaint.tumblr.com/post/122735206503/on-what-valve-thinks-a-game-should-be

 

Of course Valve doesn't deny such games to be on their service. Their policies and infrastructures don't recognize them easily as games and makes it harder for them to thrive.

[itsamoose]

To be fair, doesn't valve have the right to determine what they think is a game?  Just because you have a storefront, doesn't mean you have to sell everyone's products in it.  What is so wrong with Valve determining what a product they are willing to sell should be, and make their rules accordingly?  While it might seem like valve is intentionally silencing people, what they are proposing really is a watered down version of what every other storefront requires--and a more democratic one at that.  While there exist a demonstrable strain of abuse in it's execution, Valve's system might be the most open of all the major platforms.  Apple regularly prevents games from being sold on their platform due to it's subject matter, and developers sometimes have their games pulled off the marketplace without warning for any reason up to and including Apple just felt like it.  I won't claim to know their intentions, but Valve's system seems to be a distinct and exacting response to this, where the users are able to have some say in the market's function.  I know this is a pretty unpopular idea around here, but there is a lot of good that comes out of that system.  We tend to focus on the bad, mostly because it's particularly appalling, but for every Zoe Quinn or Briana Wu there are a dozen or more developers who can run their businesses and feed their families due to this exact direction, and they are worth considering too.

 

Maybe valve's changes will lead to certain games not being sold on steam, but in the long run this sounds like a wonderful thing to me.  Not every TV channel needs to show the same types of content, and not every online marketplace needs to sell all the same things.  After watching Sterling and Bain's videos, it's clear to me that when valve says "fake games' what they are referring to specifically, are more akin to art forgeries.  Not games made with store bought assets or simplistic mechanics, but those that are primarily born of another's work without credit.  Most games made with Unity today use the same plugins and technical features, but it doesn't sound to me like this is what causes valve to consider them "fake games".

 

Also on the point about their influence, let's remember that valve is staffed by some of the most intelligent people in the industry who spend all day thinking about these issues.  I very much doubt Sterling and Bain told Valve anything they didn't already know, and their influence is likely far less than their egos would lead them to believe.

[Mawd]

I kinda agree that the discovery system could be used to 'game' games into obscurity that don't deserve it. At the same time I don't agree that nothing should be done. I liked using steam as a platform to find interesting games -way back in 2013.

I think one of the problems of asset flip games is that the flood of crappy low effort cons makes me farrr more wary of lowfi games in general. It's harder to tell if it's an aesthetic a dev is working with out of necessity or style rather than because it's some new shovelware. As more games end up embracing the look of 90's 3d games or older source games I suspect it'll become harder to tell. Still it does seem to come back to Caveat Emptor at the end of the day.

 

Basically what Beasteh, jennegatron, Twig, and TychoCelchuu said.

 

I don't buy the idea that because Valve has a lot of smart computer people that they're warranted to be smart about all areas of their business. They might consider every angle but it wouldn't be that hard for them to come from a cultural/business bias that sees them placing a smaller concern on issues we find are larger. Speculation but for all the talk about how heartening it is to be listened to I doubt they place a lot of confidence in their influence either.

 

Also talking about what an asset flip is I think the poster child for this is a bunch of the games that used some Unity package for a blocky, minecraft like game which involved shooting a lot of zombies in some framework buildings. It's not that the artstyle is similar to minecraft or that the game is built using premade assets - many successful games surely are; when I play ARK: Survival Evolved and look at other UE4 games I see many similar rocks, plants, and ground terrain but I don't hold that against them. The problem was that people bought one asset pack, found a bare bones demo included in the pack, and re-sold that by itself on Steam with sometimes no other change at all beyond the Menu UI. Also I think in some cases people are actually just.. Pirating the Unity packs?

 

p.s yes I am a Sterling fanboy but the dude was a review editor at Destructoid for a number of years. Everyone knows of him as a youtuber now but he has worked professionally before he went indie. Also the fascist persona/iconography comes largely from the bad dude from Killzone and he's more like the Paul Verhoven version of Starship Troopers than the stonefaced serious book version. His persona is an outraged obnoxious shitstirrer most of the time and he doesn't seem like most people's idea of a social justice skeleton but he is in a bunch of ways. Just ask the gators, they're more than happy to call him a ------- ----.

 

 

[clyde]

7 hours ago, itsamoose said:

To be fair, doesn't valve have the right to determine what they think is a game?  Just because you have a storefront, doesn't mean you have to sell everyone's products in it.  What is so wrong with Valve determining what a product they are willing to sell should be, and make their rules accordingly?  

 

Don't they have the right to allow something on their store that a certain group of its consumers consider a scam or just noise?

[davidsgallant]

Someone care to explain to me what criteria makes one game "deserve" visibility over another?

[Gormongous]

29 minutes ago, davidsgallant said:

Someone care to explain to me what criteria makes one game "deserve" visibility over another?

 

Interesting idea, respected or promising developer, ethical business practices, popular series, organic interest by users, major updates changing design, discounted and on sale... I could go on. I'm more confused about your argument. Are you saying that Valve should promote all games equally, regardless of their circumstances or content, or that it's impossible for such criteria to be fair and therefore no promotion should happen at all? I read your Tumblr post and you also seem to be against the idea of broad genre categorizations, so what is your ideal presentation for the Steam storefront? A randomized list (because an alphabetized list would give unfair visibility to games beginning with A, B, and C) of almost ten thousand works of gaming, art, and software? How does either Valve or the customer benefit from even less curation than already exists?

 

It feels like a lot of people against more aggressive curation in this thread, whether automated curation by an algorithm or curation by a dedicated staff, seem to be fine with letting Steam become an unnavigable ocean of titles to the average customer, rather than permit the chance of any bias entering the storefront's presentation. That feels like a very privileged position to me.

[clyde]

37 minutes ago, Gormongous said:

 

 

It feels like a lot of people against more aggressive curation in this thread, whether automated curation by an algorithm or curation by a dedicated staff, seem to be fine with letting Steam become an unnavigable ocean of titles to the average customer, rather than permit the chance of any bias entering the storefront's presentation. That feels like a very privileged position to me.

 

I assume that this isn't an attempt to represent my position, but I'm still curious which priviledges you are referring to.