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 Friday at 12:33 AM 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.

[PDCWolf]

19 hours ago, Lisias said:

The wrong direction, in my mind, is communicating irrelevant and/or incomplete data

Still wouldn't make this a bad step in my eyes, or the wrong direction. If anything it's a lukewarm, short step, but correct, and it is born from the absolute lack of any sort of standardization of the E.A. process: it's great that customers can know how active a game's development is and decide from there if they're down for the slow or fast ride. However... this has opened the doors for developers to update a text file, post a news article to Steam saying "typo fixed" and resetting the counter, faking their activity with meaningless bluff.

I don't think we can't ask more from steam without poking a bunch of other people, mostly developers/publishers, and even lawmakers, to step in and take the thing seriously. Sadly, E.A. has become a tool for them, and not so much for consumers, so Developers and Publishers are not gonna be on our side (heck, they aren't onboard with something as simple as allowing games to function after they decide they don't want to host online services anymore).

[Skorj]

On 2/6/2025 at 12:17 PM, Lisias said:

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.

Despite the antics of AAA publishers, it is possible to be too cynical about modern gaming.  There are over 50 games a day being released on Steam, and approximately 0 per day are from exploitive AAA publishers trying to scam players.  The big overhyped games from huge studios that are just excuses for cash shops may represent 99% of advertising, but they're maybe 0.1% of actual game releases.

Most of the games in Steam's EA program are just tiny studios trying to figure out how to make a game, or amateur efforts from people passionate about some subject.  Abandoned EA games are super common simply because the sole developer lost interest, or simply no one showed up to buy the game.  Or the one that really annoys me: the developer just abandons the game to start over from scratch making the same game under a different title.

AAA studios will be as scammy as legally possible, and then some, but IIRC the median game on Steam has 0 current players and a 1 player 24hr peak.  Sure, there are dozens of AAA games where they'd do anything to scam the players, but there are around 100,000 games on steam.

Edited Saturday at 03:45 PM by Skorj

[Lisias]

11 hours ago, Skorj said:

Despite the antics of AAA publishers, it is possible to be too cynical about modern gaming.

Being the reason sometimes I flirt with the idea that this movement have a hidden agenda.

Do you follow the Steam Discussions?

[Fizzlebop Smith]

On 2/7/2025 at 3:49 PM, PDCWolf said:

Still wouldn't make this a bad step in my eyes, or the wrong direction. If anything it's a lukewarm, short step, but correct, and it is born from the absolute lack of any sort of standardization of the E.A. process: it's great that customers can know how active a game's development is and decide from there if they're down for the slow or fast ride. However... this has opened the doors for developers to update a text file, post a news article to Steam saying "typo fixed" and resetting the counter, faking their activity with meaningless bluff.

I don't think we can't ask more from steam without poking a bunch of other people, mostly developers/publishers, and even lawmakers, to step in and take the thing seriously. Sadly, E.A. has become a tool for them, and not so much for consumers, so Developers and Publishers are not gonna be on our side (heck, they aren't onboard with something as simple as allowing games to function after they decide they don't want to host online services anymore).

This is where i have to fundamentally agree.
At this point any step toward the end goal of making Steam a better platform for gamers and developers is a good thing. 
Going from the current status quo to somethings as @Lisias suggests is akin to getting Zelnick to admit to shuttering a studio. Not going to happen. 

I also cannot see this change having "nothing" to do with KSP2 as it mightily adds to the metrics of the "noise" being generated regarding steam practices. It could absolutely be something to do with my algorithm , but i cannot recall another EA game getting as much attention for "silence and lack of updates" Sure other have gotten the headlines for poor reception, mismanagement  and some terrible public relations.

There are a TON of other games with similar steam threads where the majority of reviews and new posts are related "is game cancelled?"  or "when next update?"  and it's been that way.... for years. 
From the perspective of Risk / Return .

This has no risk. Any anger from the developer / publisher can be waived away while an immediate attempt to appease the consumer can be claimed.
Extend a refund window or allow unilateral refunds based on too "liberal" criteria and there is absolutely backlash.

 

Edited Sunday at 03:21 PM by Fizzlebop Smith
Lets Keep Being Vocal

[Fizzlebop Smith]

23 hours ago, Skorj said:

Despite the antics of AAA publishers, it is possible to be too cynical about modern gaming.  There are over 50 games a day being released on Steam, and approximately 0 per day are from exploitive AAA publishers trying to scam players.  The big overhyped games from huge studios that are just excuses for cash shops may represent 99% of advertising, but they're maybe 0.1% of actual game releases.

Most of the games in Steam's EA program are just tiny studios trying to figure out how to make a game, or amateur efforts from people passionate about some subject.  Abandoned EA games are super common simply because the sole developer lost interest, or simply no one showed up to buy the game.  Or the one that really annoys me: the developer just abandons the game to start over from scratch making the same game under a different title.

AAA studios will be as scammy as legally possible, and then some, but IIRC the median game on Steam has 0 current players and a 1 player 24hr peak.  Sure, there are dozens of AAA games where they'd do anything to scam the players, but there are around 100,000 games on steam.

Scam is rather harsh word when it is more like "willfully seeking exploitable means to over monetize."
This is an ethical requirement that often supersedes other moral considerations.

This is why there needs to be a huge reliance on automation. There are some interesting articles that pop up from time to time about the practices of AAA gaming on platforms like steam, and how some of those practices contribute to the number of failed games.

Even something as simple as dropping 100 remakes / remasters of the command and conquer series at rock bottom pricing contributes to the difficulty developers have breaking out into the Early Access space. Provisions to make it more indie friendly are a good thing. While I highly doubt there will ever be a strictly indie space for Early Access (easy to make an underfunded subsidiary) I welcome the steps to make it so. 

Just because a small percentage of the population actively seeks to harm others, does not mean steps should not be taken to make the act of harming other more difficult... or in this case less profitable for the risk.
 

[PDCWolf]

12 hours ago, Lisias said:

hidden agenda.

I don't think it's hidden at all... unless you're doing conspiracy on conspiracy. Sadly at the speed bigger organizations work to enact change + the speed at which games are developed, we've still got at least two full years of slop and record # or almost record # layoffs as games released under the "current zeitgeist" continue to flop one over the other (probably MHWilds, then Avowed, so on and so forth) . Sadly a lot of the responsible people are failing upwards, finding positions in Microsoft, Obsidian and so on.

11 minutes ago, Fizzlebop Smith said:

I also cannot see this change having "nothing" to do with KSP2 as it mightily adds to the metrics of the "noise" being generated regarding steam practices.

I think KSP2 is another couple drops of water on an already very full glass. Thankfully I stopped dabbling on E.A. long ago when I grew out of zombie survival + 4horsemen type games, and KSP2 was an exception for me, but if you dive back in... ton's of outright scams, with another ton of dubious projects and tons of people treating E.A. as github with pay-in (or sometimes f2p) testers.

The original vision of "have the community shape the game" has been long lost. Heck, even our current title here had zero intention of listening to community feedback. Even non game-shaping feedback like the goshdang unreadable font that's STILL THERE.

23 hours ago, Skorj said:

Most of the games in Steam's EA program are just tiny studios trying to figure out how to make a game, or amateur efforts from people passionate about some subject.  Abandoned EA games are super common simply because the sole developer lost interest, or simply no one showed up to buy the game.  Or the one that really annoys me: the developer just abandons the game to start over from scratch making the same game under a different title.

I think once a game is out in the public and money has exchanged hands, none of those scenarios should be an excuse for a dev to walk out on a game, save maybe declared bankrupcy, which should still trigger automatic refunds. Abandonment should just not be an option, period.

[Lisias]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

I don't think it's hidden at all... unless you're doing conspiracy on conspiracy. Sadly at the speed bigger organizations work to enact change + the speed at which games are developed, we've still got at least two full years of slop and record # or almost record # layoffs as games released under the "current zeitgeist" continue to flop one over the other (probably MHWilds, then Avowed, so on and so forth) . Sadly a lot of the responsible people are failing upwards, finding positions in Microsoft, Obsidian and so on.

Multiple channels pushing the same narrative concurrently rarely, really really rarely, aims to promote exactly what described in the narrative.

The wave of layoffs will flood the market with seasoned (or, at very least, minimally skilled) professionals on gaming. These guys are not going to sit in their armchairs eating junkfood and drinking beer until the money ends - they will pursue ways of making money at any costs the way they can.

Whatever can be done to make EA games less viable to any indie developer will be less competition for these AAA stand-up guys - as you said yourself, these very stand-up guys are failing upwards, what means that this is way the cookie will crumble from now on.

I suggest a quick research on the commercial practices engaged by Microsoft on the 90s and early 2000. I don't expect less from this point.

 

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

Abandonment should just not be an option, period.

Abandonment means that no one is looking for the asset, what means that no one is making money from the asset.

If no one is making money from the asset, it's not a problem because there will be no one filing complains about copyrights - it's a grey area of the Law, but it works exactly this way.

If the author/owner is making money from the asset, and if you risk getting sued by redistributing the game without authorization, then the asset is not abandoned and I highly recommend people to avoid using this term. This narrative will only play havoc on the really abandoned games (as we have them on homeoftheunderdogs), whats - how interesting - it's also something that would help the new status quo by associating really abandoned games to games "falsely" tagged abandoned and that people can get sued by redistributing without authorization.

---- POST EDIT ----

It's about money. IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT MONEY.

The incompetent sociopaths also have to eat. It's up to us to decide if we are going to feed them or not.

Apparently, most people is willing to do such.

Edited Sunday at 04:56 PM by Lisias
POST EDIT

[AVaughan]

21 hours ago, PDCWolf said:

I think once a game is out in the public and money has exchanged hands, none of those scenarios should be an excuse for a dev to walk out on a game, save maybe declared bankrupcy, which should still trigger automatic refunds. Abandonment should just not be an option, period.

Seriously, I just don't get the "automatic refunds" bit.  How do you think that would work?  Do you expect Valve to assume that sort of financial risk?  The only way Valve would willing offer time unlimited automatic refunds for all unfinished EA titles is if they were certain they could recoup that money from developers.  If Valve tried to recoup money that developers had already received, that would lead to too many developers either marking games as finished (even if they aren't), or draining the companies bank account, and winding up the company/declaring bankruptcy before Valve could recover any money.   

In practice, the only way that sort of strategy would work, would be for Valve (or someone else) to hold developer's EA money in escrow, until the game was out of early access, which again would just mean that if a dev wanted to abandon a game, they would just mark it as finished, when it is not.  (Now that might work for a large publisher that wants to test out an idea in early access, but absolutely would not work for a developer that is trying to work on a game full time, and is relying on early access sales to pay the bills).

And if you are going to argue that a dev shouldn't be able to mark an unfinished game as finished, how are you going to enforce that?  Lots of expensive court cases?  With Valve (or someone), having to pay legal fees, and probably being unable to recover any funds even when they won, because an expensive court case would just push many small devs into bankruptcy anyway?

I'm sorry, I just don't see ideas like that working in practice, and I don't see anyone convincing Valve to do that.  If the US or the EU, or any other region tried, then I think Valve is more likely to simply stop offering EA games in those regions.  They certainly would not willingly accept the financial risk of automatic refunds every time an early access game is abandoned by its developer.  

Quote

Early Access Game

Get instant access and start playing; get involved with this game as it develops.

Note: Games in Early Access are not complete and may or may not change further. If you are not excited to play this game in its current state, then you should wait to see if the game progresses further in development. Learn more

Isn't the current Early Access disclaimer on Steam clear that there is a real risk that the title may not receive any further updates, and that you should only buy if you want to play it in its current state?   And if people ignore that and buy anyway?  Well they have access to refunds for a limited time after purchase.  (Also has the entire concept of caveat emptor been forgotten?) 

Edited Monday at 12:35 PM by AVaughan

[Lisias]

1 minute ago, AVaughan said:

Seriously, I just don't get the "automatic refunds" bit.  How do you think that would work?  Do you expect Valve to assume that sort of financial risk?

Of course, they are a Store, right? This is exactly the reason we buy things from stores! Store Guarantee someone?

Stores with better guarantees usually sell better, my GoG's Inventory is FOUR TIMES the size of my Steam one for a reason.

Why bother buying from a Store if not by added value? Otherwise it's better to buy directly from the developer and save 30% of the fee...

[AVaughan]

3 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Of course, they are a Store, right? This is exactly the reason we buy things from stores! Store Guarantee someone?

Why bother buying from a Store if not by added value? Otherwise it's better to buy directly from the developer and save 30% of the fee...

I do not see any realistic way they can guarantee that early access games will be finished.  The only realistic way I can see for them to offer refunds for all abandoned early access games is to keep the developers funds in escrow until the title is released.

18 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Why bother buying from a Store if not by added value? Otherwise it's better to buy directly from the developer and save 30% of the fee...

In practise, any time I have attempted to do that, all I would achieve is giving the developer the extra 30%.  (Which is fine, but publishers and developers do go out of business, and unless they offer a Steam key or a similar arrangement with a store I already use, I would prefer to use Steam rather than run the risk of not being able to download the game at some future time). 

Often, buying from Steam is cheaper than buying direct from the developer, once you consider Steam's regional pricing, and that developer storefronts typically don't price games in my local currency.

12 minutes ago, Lisias said:

Stores with better guarantees usually sell better, my GoG's Inventory is FOUR TIMES the size of my Steam one for a reason.

Convenience also sells, and having most of my games on Steam is just more convenient than buying from multiple stores.  (Yes GoG Galaxy might offer the same convenience as the Steam client, but I was already invested in the Steam ecosystem before GoG launched).

 

[PDCWolf]

1 hour ago, AVaughan said:

Seriously, I just don't get the "automatic refunds" bit.  How do you think that would work?  Do you expect Valve to assume that sort of financial risk?

Not at all, they can (and do, already) direct the debit of the refunded money directly to the publisher/dev's account when you do a normal refund. Whoever owns the account that publishes the game sees a nice "-$50" on their monthly resume.

1 hour ago, Lisias said:

Why bother buying from a Store if not by added value? Otherwise it's better to buy directly from the developer and save 30% of the fee...

Not at all, if anything Steam is so powerful and widely used because it greases the wheels between customers and publishers/devs, not because it's a middleman that offers shady warranties. Plus, with the way they manage finances for people publishing on it, they really do not need to get a cent out of their pockets.

Of course let's not forget the -ridiculous- amount of features Steam throws on top with your game purchase, both for customers as well as for people publishing their games on it. Steamworks, drop-in DRM, drop-in P2P and even drop-in dedicated server hosting, drop-in matchmaking, as well as a free forum, reviews, delta patching, options for internal (and now private too) dev and testing branches, social features like a friend list with the ability to compare which games you own, an entire social-media type side, a marketplace for items to be sold, off-market trading, the whole inventory system for said marketable and tradable items, VAC, global and friends-only leaderboards, global achievements, the capacity for devs to generate and sell steam keys anywhere so long as a small set of rules are respected, automated sale inclusion and discount-limit setting, cross platform connection with other accounts, support for DRM free titles, the whole wallet system and giftable games/wallet cards, the workshop, refunds, publicly traceable player data, screenshots, now recording of clips too, lan streaming, linux compatibility, family sharing, wishlists, capacity to roll back versions of products, the whole steaminput system, Big Picture, VR support, regional pricing, and so on.

Other storefronts have no hope of competing other than by spamming money schemes like deals under the table for storefront exclusivity, 'better cuts' (in exchange for no features), engine gerrymandering, forceful inclusion of spyware, disinformation campaigns and even lawsuits.

1 hour ago, AVaughan said:

Isn't the current Early Access disclaimer on Steam clear that there is a real risk that the title may not receive any further updates, and that you should only buy if you want to play it in its current state?   And if people ignore that and buy anyway?  Well they have access to refunds for a limited time after purchase.  (Also has the entire concept of caveat emptor been forgotten?) 

The disclaimer is there, doesn't make the practice any less shady and scummy. The refund window for E.A. games should be all the way until 1.0, and I'll insist the refunds should be automatic as soon as the game is abandoned, a metric which clearly, thanks to KSP2, should not be left at the publisher/dev's whim to decide because they'll gladly exploit that.

[Lisias]

12 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

Not at all, if anything Steam is so powerful and widely used because it greases the wheels between customers and publishers/devs, not because it's a middleman that offers shady warranties.

Steam is powerful exactly because they succeeded in being a middleman. Don't ever forget that, they ARE a middleman and this is the source of their power.

That said, this doesn't mean necessarily they are a evil middleman. Please note that on the statement that yourself quoted I said "added value", being a extended store guarantee one of them.

That it's very important to me because, as I had said, my GoG's Inventory is four times the size of my Steam's one.

But, still, I still have some games on Steam - and not always because GoG doesn't have them (most of the time don't, but...), but because for some games, Workshop and Steam Deck seamless integration talk louder than an extended guarantee - as a matter of fact, it's not usual I ended up buying the game again on Steam (on a discount, of course) due the Workshop and easily Steam Deck integration. Again, added value.

[AVaughan]

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

Not at all, they can (and do, already) direct the debit of the refunded money directly to the publisher/dev's account when you do a normal refund. Whoever owns the account that publishes the game sees a nice "-$50" on their monthly resume.

Is that the devs/publishers (internal to Valve) account with Valve/Steam or the devs/publishers actual (external to Valve) bank account.  How would that work if Valve attempted to direct $50,000 worth of refunds to an external bank account with only $100 left in it.  (Lets assume the dev expected this was coming eventually, and basically closed the company, and moved as many assets as possible to another company in preparation).  

I still think that there is no way Valve will willing assume liability to pay for mass refunds, unless they expect they can collect the cost of those refunds from the publisher/dev.  (Valve might be fine just offsetting refunds against payments owed for sales in the current accounting period.  Valve might even be willing to tolerate the occasional case of a dev deciding to discontinue development of a game triggering more refunds than can be covered by current and expected future sales.  But automatic refunds for all abandoned early access games will mean a lot of games will suddenly generate large amounts of refunds that will not be able to offset against current or future sales. 

I can't see Valve willing assuming that financial burden without expecting to be able to recover the money from publishers/devs.  And I expect that many small devs that abandon games just won't have the money to cover the cost of mass refunds.  So at the very least attempting to force Valve to do mass refunds for abandoned early access games would force Valve to be careful which companies they allowed to run (paid) early access programs. 

In some ways that might be good, but it would most likely mean that (paid) early access is only available to companies/publishers which Valve is confident they can recover costs in the event of a mass refund, and to other companies if they agree to some sort of escrow service.  (Valve could also allow other devs to run free early access/demo/unpaid beta type programs, which in some ways would be better for consumers than early access, but that won't allow devs to support themselves with early access).

1 hour ago, PDCWolf said:

The refund window for E.A. games should be all the way until 1.0

If I'm reading https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds correctly, then the Steam refund window for early access games extends to 14 days after 1.0, provided you have played less than 2 hours.  (There are also plenty of reports on the internet of Steam processing refunds for people who have played more than 2 hours).

Edited Monday at 03:30 PM by AVaughan

[PDCWolf]

49 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

Is that the devs/publishers (internal to Valve) account with Valve/Steam or the devs/publishers actual (external to Valve) bank account.  How would that work if Valve attempted to direct $50,000 worth of refunds to an external bank account with only $100 left in it.  (Lets assume the dev expected this was coming eventually, and basically closed the company, and moved as many assets as possible to another company in preparation). 

Imagine it as their "steam wallet".  And yes, devs could do that... and face a ban from ever publishing again (which has already happened IIRC).

49 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

I can't see Valve willing assuming that financial burden without expecting to be able to recover the money from publishers/devs.  And I expect that many small devs that abandon games just won't have the money to cover the cost of mass refunds.  So at the very least attempting to force Valve to do mass refunds for abandoned early access games would force Valve to be careful which companies they allowed to run (paid) early access programs.

You say that as if it was a negative. E.A. needs to be culled of scammers, tricksters and people trying to tiptoe those lines as they actively ruin the model for anyone else. If you publish a game, you will make a game, and if you cancel it, the money is given back. At this point I'm pretty sure such a statement should sound like common sense for anyone save for people actively trying to game the system and EA gamblers trying to somehow land good games for cheap (and price increases as versions move forward is almost completely phased out by now as a model).

As for the financial cost to Valve... this new warning is probably a good way of exposing the fact that the opportunity cost of hosting these scams is starting to hurt the bottom line of E.A. and the viability of other projects in it. E.A. exists because people are willing to accept some risk, but if everyone wants to game the system like IG/T2/PD, then there's less and less people willing to accept what's no longer a risk but almost a certainty of getting scammed, specially when a tech demo costs $50.

49 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

If I'm reading https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds correctly, then the Steam refund window for early access games extends to 14 days after 1.0, provided you have played less than 2 hours.  (There are also plenty of reports on the internet of Steam processing refunds for people who have played more than 2 hours).

14 days since the moment you purchase the game, E.A. or not. The only exception is preorders, which you can freely refund anywhere from the moment of purchase up to 14 days after release.

Anyone getting a refund past 14 days and 2 hours playtime on an E.A. title is a manually handled exception.

Edited Monday at 04:13 PM by PDCWolf

[AVaughan]

54 minutes ago, PDCWolf said:

14 days since the moment you purchase the game, E.A. or not. The only exception is preorders, which you can freely refund anywhere from the moment of purchase up to 14 days after release.

Quoting https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds

Quote

Refunds on Titles Purchased Prior to Release Date

When you purchase a title on Steam prior to the release date, the two-hour playtime limit for refunds will apply (except for beta testing), but the 14-day period for refunds will not start until the release date. For example, if you purchase a game that is in Early Access or Advanced Access, any playtime will count against the two-hour refund limit. If you pre-purchase a title which is not playable prior to the release date, you can request a refund at any time prior to release of that title, and the standard 14-day/two-hour refund period will apply starting on the game’s release date.

I read that as saying that for an early access title, the 14 days does not start until  the release date.  

[PDCWolf]

10 minutes ago, AVaughan said:

I read that as saying that for an early access title, the 14 days does not start until  the release date.  

Common misconception and a trick exploited by lots of early access (and some people in this forum defending them!) . Release date is when you allow the public to purchase and play, not 1.0

KSP2 released Feb 24 2023.

Edited Monday at 05:25 PM by PDCWolf
remembered some people's posts

[AVaughan]

Then their use of release date varies from game to game.  Eg see https://store.steampowered.com/app/427520/Factorio/  (On that page they use the 1.0 release date, but Factorio was in steam early access before that.

 

Using the same term to mean different things is definitely bad, and I'm not sure that a judge wouldn't agree with my interpretation of the section I quoted.  Do you have any source that says that an early access game is available for purchase through steam prior to early access release? 

ie is it possible to buy an early access game though steam before the early access release date?  If it isn't, then the only way that paragraph I quoted makes sense (at least to me) is if the release date it mentions is the 1.0 release date.   (And if Steam/Valve did not intend it to be read that way, then they should not have mentioned early access under the heading of titles purchased prior to the release date).