About KSP2 on Steam (split from another thread)

[para 9]

lol never mind. i was just writing to the user registry like any competent coder would. 

Edited January 7 by para 9
lol nm

[Skorj]

I guess we'll see what the new owners do with the store page.  The roadmap on the KSP2 store page violates Steam EA rules, but since Steam doesn't enforce those rules ... well, we'll see.

I believe the majority of Steam EA games are abandoned before 1.0.  Usually this is more forgivable, as it's often a 1-dev project where the dev lost interest or hit a technical wall.  It's frustrating to see a major publisher do the same, but what can you do?  Still, perhaps the new owners will make it eligible for deep discounts on Steam sales.  I'm sure the work of the modding community has made it worth $5 by now, maybe even $10.

 

[Lisias]

I just finished report I was working on:

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/226503-about-ksp2-on-steam-split-from-another-thread/?do=findComment&comment=4434152

Reproducing it here for convenience:

• 4 were due Legal Reasons:
  • https://delistedgames.com/abstractism/
  • https://delistedgames.com/bolsomito/
  • https://delistedgames.com/demons-age/
  • https://delistedgames.com/the-outbound-ghost/
• 2 were delisted by "abusing the ToS or the Store terms", but were relisted back (perhaps a mistake?):
  • https://delistedgames.com/aery/
  • https://delistedgames.com/dagestan-technology-titles/
• 4 by "creating numerous accounts and rigging reviews" (it's qualified fraud nowadays, but it wasn't at that time):
  • https://delistedgames.com/art-of-stealth/
  • https://delistedgames.com/cold-dreams/
  • https://delistedgames.com/platformica/
  • https://delistedgames.com/sharf/
• 2 by "By malpractice of steam resources", meaning using Steam to attack a person or protected minority.
  • https://delistedgames.com/corporate-lifestyle-simulator/
  • https://delistedgames.com/domina/
• 3 by "abuse of Steamworks tools or Steam’s terms of use":
  • https://delistedgames.com/death-gasp/
  • https://delistedgames.com/retro-tanks/
  • https://delistedgames.com/siberian-digital-titles/
• 2 entire Studios were blanket banned also by "abuse of Steamworks tools or Steam’s terms of use":
  • https://delistedgames.com/digital-mistake-titles/
  • https://delistedgames.com/drunken-ape-titles/
• 1 removed apparently due Censorship, but unknown if by VALVe or the Publisher:
  • https://delistedgames.com/the-wall/
• 1 removed by unknown reasons, and it's not known by whom. Apparently the Studio got a good deal with Oculus Rift, but it's spectulation:
  • https://delistedgames.com/silicon-rising/
• 1 removed by VALVe *for sure* due external Censorship
  • https://delistedgames.com/devotion/
• 1 removed bv VALVe *for sure* after a death treat against Gabe
  • https://delistedgames.com/paranautical-activity/
• 1 removed by VALVe *for sure* after the publisher tried a subpoena against 100 Steam users:
  • https://delistedgames.com/digital-homicide-studios/
• 1 removed by VALVe *for sure* due privacy reasons. It's the only one really arbitrary, IMHO.
  • https://delistedgames.com/tax-heaven-3000/

Edited January 13 by Lisias
(sigh) Moar tyops...

[Fizzlebop Smith]

While it is a far cry from returning to their roots of "indie friendly" distribution platform, steam HAS made some recent changes to the way it handles Early Access in general.

 

This is likely a feature of automation and has little to do with actual oversight... It think the warning is a good step.

 

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/steam-now-warns-you-if-an-early-access-game-hasnt-been-updated-in-a-long-time-but-outside-obvious-abandonware-its-not-clear-what-actually-counts-as-an-update/

 

I wonder if this is a result of recent complaints and vocal minority complaining about various aspects of EA.

 

 

[Skorj]

1 hour ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

I wonder if this is a result of recent complaints and vocal minority complaining about various aspects of EA.

I think it's more Steam taking notice that many reviews talk about how often a game updates, and many forum posts ask whether a game is still being updated.  This is a pattern across indie games in general, but especially EA games.  Clearly this is information that customers care about, and that wasn't presented to them on the store page. 

Hopefully this will also increase the signal-to-noise ratio of reviews and forums by removing the need for so many reviews that just say "dead game" or forum posts that just ask "dead game?"  Steam does take steps every year or two to keep up the usefulness of user reviews.

[Lisias]

23 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

While it is a far cry from returning to their roots of "indie friendly" distribution platform, steam HAS made some recent changes to the way it handles Early Access in general.

This is likely a feature of automation and has little to do with actual oversight... It think the warning is a good step.

Yep, but now they are friendly firing good developers. I game I'm following had its beta updated a few weeks ago, but the warning about the game not being updated fro 23 months are still there.

This will promote crappy public releases just to clear the flag - wasting VALVe's time, storage and bandwidth.

Right now, they are working against their own interests - they are still liquiding off indie developers with a longer development cycle (essentially most of the better ones, as these guys have Day Jobs© and Real Life™ to cope with!), and doing nothing concrete to protect the users against ill intended developers (in fact, only the lazy ill intended developers are being affected somehow).

It's a good step, I agree. But into the wrong direction.

 

23 hours ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

I wonder if this is a result of recent complaints and vocal minority complaining about various aspects of EA.

Given the lack of better judgment I'm seeing on the measure, I'm pretty sure it was something done in a hurry for some reason (Steam are usually more careful about these matters - they surely take their time to shoot, but once they pull the trigger, it's usually a clean shot).

 

21 hours ago, Skorj said:

Hopefully this will also increase the signal-to-noise ratio of reviews and forums by removing the need for so many reviews that just say "dead game" or forum posts that just ask "dead game?"  Steam does take steps every year or two to keep up the usefulness of user reviews.

IMHO they are only moving the noise to another level - into crappy updates intended to merely avoid the flag.

As I said above, it's a good step - but on the wrong direction.

[PDCWolf]

On 2/5/2025 at 3:41 PM, Fizzlebop Smith said:

This is likely a feature of automation and has little to do with actual oversight... It think the warning is a good step.

This is most of steam, only support and report handling are fully human.

Things like discussions/review moderation and such have huge layers of automation before a human even touches the thing.

On 2/5/2025 at 5:47 PM, Skorj said:

Hopefully this will also increase the signal-to-noise ratio of reviews and forums by removing the need for so many reviews that just say "dead game" or forum posts that just ask "dead game?"  Steam does take steps every year or two to keep up the usefulness of user reviews.

Have to agree with @Lisias here:

6 hours ago, Lisias said:

into crappy updates intended to merely avoid the flag.

Reviews are now gonna be: "This developer updated a text file to reset Steam's last update counter, the last real update was XX time ago".

However I'll disagree with this:

6 hours ago, Lisias said:

As I said above, it's a good step - but on the wrong direction.

I think the direction is right: The consumer needs to know how long it takes a developer to update their game. However the concept of "an update" is stupidly vague. For some KSP2 players the devs adding 3 engines and grid fins was a super meaningful update, for others it was meaningless fluff to farm some engagement until they managed to produce something. I personally wouldn't consider the 3 engines and grid fins as an update worthy of resetting the counter, only science would be. Meaning by December 2023 this counter for me should've been at "10 months since last update." Still, more information for the consumer is -always- the correct direction, and the consumer should be smart enough (and be able to gather enough information) to make a choice based on their limits.

Sadly there's no standard for anything regarding EA, as you say some people are just throwing concepts at the wind in exchange for buy-in testers, others actually acquire ideas and vision from EA, and others like KSP2 are just exploiting the system as an excuse to release an unfinished product.

I still believe there needs to be more heavy-handed regulation on the dev/publisher side. Projects like KSP2 (and many others) actively undermine the concept, functionality and purpose of E.A. You should NOT be able to show a roadmap and then soft cancel without your account going instantly into the red from automated refunds.

Edited 3 hours ago by PDCWolf

[Lisias]

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

However I'll disagree with this:

I think the direction is right: The consumer needs to know how long it takes a developer to update their game.

It's absolutely entertaining (on the most positive way!) how different people have different understandings about different metaphors!

Talking with people is a learning experience. I should try to do that more times, before ki**... Uh... Never mind.

 

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

The consumer needs to know how long it takes a developer to update their game. However the concept of "an update" is stupidly vague. For some KSP2 players the devs adding 3 engines and grid fins was a super meaningful update, for others it was meaningless fluff to farm some engagement until they managed to produce something. I personally wouldn't consider the 3 engines and grid fins as an update worthy of resetting the counter, only science would be. Meaning by December 2023 this counter for me should've been at "10 months since last update." Still, more information for the consumer is -always- the correct direction, and the consumer should be smart enough (and be able to gather enough information) to make a choice based on their limits.

That's what I understood as a "good" step, better communication with the Users. The wrong direction, in my mind, is communicating irrelevant and/or incomplete data - such communication can be easily (and even automatically) worked around by crappy releases, and would really hinder only the ones that really need EA as a chance to score a shoot on this market.

Bad players, the one scamming people, would have the money to automate the process rendering the effort meaningless.

 

2 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

 You should NOT be able to show a roadmap and then soft cancel without your account going instantly into the red from automated refunds.

THIS is what I consider the "right direction" - making the stunt unprofitable or, at very least, way less appealing. Widening the refund window for such games is the way to go IMHO.

Indie developers that take months (sometime years) to update the game will not be hindered - they are not making money from the game anyway (otherwise they would be working on it full time!), they are not expecting to get their profits from the EA. And if the game is good, the refunding will barely scratch their (essentially nonexistent) income.

But developers aiming to use EA for profit, these ones will be the ones getting screwed by a refunding policy that would hinder profitability for stalled projects (I flatly refuse to call these "abandoned" - this term is historically taken, not to mention that "abandoned" things don't generate incoming).

--------

** Old joke. Check my Twitter profile for it.