Care to rescind that comment? It'd be pretty silly if this was already a policy, and nothing had changed. I know it's pedantic...but when so many people are slobbering over Valve as if it had done good it's important to understand if anything actually changed.
Tom's Link
I'll wait...but you should look at the following quote.
"..., illuminating its anti-advertising-on-Steam stance—
GamingOnLinux proceeded to report on this as a new policy. Still, this was just a
dedicated page for an existing policy, as noted by
SteamDB and later GamingOnLinux when it realized its error...."
"...A limited degree of
advertising is still allowed on Steam and listed as "Supported." Still, these all describe your more typical product placements, cross-promotions, and paid ads for games available on Steam outside of Steam. Of course, advertising is a part of any publisher or developer's toolkit—
it's just unacceptable as a core tenet of gameplay, as Valve has now made it extra clear by setting aside a dedicated page on the matter."
I'd also like to state that Valve does not ban advertisements. Period. If you think that's happening then check some Valve games. Team Fortress 2 and Counterstrike come to mind. They clarify that all of this micro-transactions and advertising is fine...in their own words. "...Developers
should not utilize paid advertising as a business model in their game,
such as requiring players to watch or otherwise engage with advertising in order to play,..." So...it's cool to force in microtransactions and banners. It's not your responsibility for downloading a game for free and expecting to pay by being advertised at. I mean...you couldn't possibly just not install free games, or immediately quit and delete games that did this....right?
If you still believe any of this was good for gamers...then I'm out. You want it to be true, and therefore cannot be persuaded by facts. As such, there's nothing more to talk about. It was fun seeing them have to drop their arbitration policy because someone found a way to bury them under arbitrations (and thus we can now sue Valve in a class-action), and this being sold as a win for gamers. It was also great noting that Valve made a stance against NFTs...while releasing endorsement for the RNG gambling system built into their own loot boxes. Seriously, name the last time Valve did anything for the consumers which wasn't either because they were forced to or because it was a side-effect of doing what was right for the business?
That, being blunt, is not a bad thing. It's just a reminder that Valve's money printing machine is not some benefit to gamers. It's a competent business which does the thing that will earn them the most money...and their competence is in opposition to so many companies who forget their core audience and start selling to audiences they want to cater to. I...will say that the moment that the Force was female, rather than for everybody, Lucasfilms demonstrated that they did the opposite of Valve. That was also not inherently good or evil...just a company whose decisions weren't aligned with the audience. Yes, I view Valve and Lucasfilms as equivalent, and their financial success is not about good or evil. It's about who does what is best to make money...and that is not something to be celebrated (or reviled).
You...don't get it. You think I want to justify advertisements in games...and that's bull. I have the ability to acknowledge that what I want isn't what everyone wants...and if people are willing to pay for games by watching advertisements they should be allowed to. I stand for the freedom of having things I hate, because freedom is about tolerating what you despise so you can reward things you love. I do not do Angry Birds, but I believe they should have the right to exist if they are honest about their games not being truly free...
Next, read. You want to pretend Valve did something. If you read the actual policy, they did nothing. They moved the FAQ question text to the terms, only to provide context for existing policy. What's the definition of nothing having changed? I know this is late in the discussion, but after both of you claiming I don't get that Valve did something "good" for me it's refreshing to see all of the hype was just badly researched journalism.
Finally, you want to say they did good. I want to say they did a thing devoid of good (as a motivation for the consumer). Your implication that Valve did anything good is what sticks in my craw, and why I think your points are idiotic. Beyond the simple fact that you assumed they did something because of poor journalism, you assigned them some impetus that was good. That's fundamentally backwards. They did a thing that benefitted their business, which changed nothing, and if we're positive hasn't slowed the sludge pipe.
As a moment of clarity...how many Free games have been released in the last 4 weeks?
Steam - Free to Play search
Holy mother. Sony decided to clean up their store of the clutter...and Valve is happy to embrace garbage like "Pure Fucking Rage." Yes, that is a game. Yes, it looks like a basic asset flip for a "baby's first shooter" clone. No, I don't believe Valve is activating quality control or protecting consumers, because how could anyone think that when this is acceptable on their platform, but Angry Birds is not...because of where their advertisements are rather than their inclusion of them. If rage hasn't consumer you, then check out "Poop Rocket." Sometimes...I just can't understand why people want to defend something...whenever it's obvious that what they do otherwise is terrible. Yep, that mass murderer deserves a pat on the back for switching from a battery operated chainsaw from a two stroke version...because it's more environmentally friendly.
