Valve's platform full of shovelware is due to (perceived) consumer demand, not because of size or cost reasons. Steam used to be very selective in who gets in, and people complained that a lot of small developers were left out. So Valve added the greenlight system to let the community find the gems that Valve should let in. People still complained that too few games got in. So instead valve made major changes to improve recommendations and reviews and to establish a community of curators, and then opened the floodgates.

Over 40% of the titles on Steam have been added in the past year alone.

The floodgates need to close, now. As someone who has voted on hundreds of Greenlight titles, Greenlight is an abject failure IMO. It's flooded with garbage, the first few waves of approvals gave us some great titles that otherwise would have never seen the platform, but now it's a nightmare. There are no more approval lists. What's worse, it's the only way onto Steam. Your indie gem is just as likely to be lost in the shovelware noise as the latest idle game ported from mobile.

Anyone with $100 can post games there. Anyone with more than $100 can purchase a service which votes their pre-purchased unchanged asset pack "game" through Greenlight. It's ridiculous.

Tags and abandoned curator lists are not a solution to hundreds of shovelware titles clogging up the new releases section IMO.

Unfortunately, nothing will change until something comes along to replace the current system entirely. Valve will act when they are forced to act, not before.

> The floodgates need to close, now.

Why? The internet itself is an open, uncurated platform.

The basic ability to publish things and finding good content are two separate problems. Don't try to solve one by restricting the other.

Steam != The internet. No one is preventing people from marketing their crappy games on their own. I have to dig through a mountain of shit in hopes of _possibly_ finding something worth playing. It's bad for users.

But why should it be different from the rest of the internet? You also have to dig through mountains of shit to find, let's say HN.

...because we strive to make things better?

in my mind you're not making it better, you're just making a different tradeoff between openness and discoverability of high-quality content.

my point is that you should maintain openness while making it easier to discover good content.

>my point is that you should maintain openness while making it easier to discover good content.

Well, figure that one out and I'm sure you'll make a lot of money. Until that happens though, I'll take a semi-closed Steam ecosystem instead of the alternative.

So you're saying I should publish on the open/free Internet, and use a custom app to find good content?

I'm not proposing solutions. I'm saying that "restrict publication" does not follow from "I'm seeing low quality content".

Don't restrict other people for your own benefit. Instead a solution that lets them do their thing while you get the content you want is much more equitable.

Steam doesn't restrict anyone from either supplying or consuming any kind of content.

One person's shovel of shit is another's gem in the rough; and Valve wins because it accepts this.

I have paid for, and not returned, numerous bizarre or niche indie games that are slayed in their reviews; whereas I've returned more than a few Overwhelmingly Positives heaping shovelfulls of mainstream schlock.

It's part of growing your userbase; you lose its initial narrow focus of taste.

You don't use steam to find gems. Steam is just where you go to buy them.

The user review system for games is the best I know of and arguably more useful in deciding what to buy than critic reviews.

Steam is also constantly promoting new games to you and making suggestions based on what you currently play. There is also the social aspect in that you can see who is playing what, leading to new discoveries.

Why does it seem like every review I read is basically a joke by someone with 1500 hours in a game saying simply "it's pretty good" or conversely someone with 2 hours in a game that writes an entire novel about how let down they were when they barely scratched the surface?

I will admit that at least having the verifiable length of time a reviewer played a game helps, but I don't find the reviews themselves to be all that worthwhile for most games.

Why does there even need to be a full review when someone has spent 1500 hours of their life playing it?

If it was worth 1500 hours of the reviewer's time then it's probably worth 10-50 of a potential buyer's.

Inversely, I don't need to play a bad game for 1500 hours to decide that it's bad. I played 60 minutes of No Man's Sky and you'd have to pay me to play a single one more. Does that mean I should be discredited from voicing my opinion?

I realized I was starting to rant about NMS, so instead I want to try to be more constructive about the problem-space and avoid that game as a topic.

The return system and the achievement system should probably be integrated. Likely there should be some sort of achievement related to 'escaping the tutorial'. They might even call it "Almost bought the farm" or something.

Playing to that point should give a player a good idea what kind of game it is, and what sort of plot (if any) is happening in the game.

From /that/ point they should have maybe 30-60 min of 'game runtime' to return the game or not.

Functionally this would be an in-product demo.

I actually miss demos, it's a shame they're a thing of the past, because they let you actually try the game before paying.

Steam could easily implement this, letting you try purchased games for up to two hours.

It's be trivial for them to implement some anti-abuse system (like "must have purchased N games before using demos, etc).

Once you've played a ton of video games you can easily judge most games by their game play aspects within 2 hours.

The exception would be with highly competitive multiplayer games, and even then you can quickly get a very good idea.

Someone said this on another forum and I disagree with them as I disagree with you. I've found plenty of games through Steam that I wouldn't have known about otherwise.

I also find games through Steam, but I do wish I found games through a different avenue. I've also had to promise myself that I'd strongly vet any early-access games I was buying. I've just been burned too many times.

This. Discovery is a rather unique activity that has a wholly different set of details / constraints / etc. Way more social and content driven. Every store & platform out there does its best to accommodate discovery (and sometimes succeeds), but this is secondary to things like maintenance/updates/cust svc, providing relevant product information, and managing transactions.

Steam isn't bad at discovery, but because they're not creating much original content and their UI is janky, they're also not that good at it.

Source: created comprehensive database of education technology products [1], and while we made best attempt at discovery, we learned pretty quickly it was secondary in importance to having comprehensive info.

[1] https://www.edsurge.com/product-reviews/

Why don't they let people offer curated lists, right in Steam?

They do - http://store.steampowered.com/curators/recommendedcurators/

They do, you just need to be the owner of a Steam Group. http://store.steampowered.com/curators/

>the same shortcomings as google: practically zero customer support

As someone who pays for AdWords, I have no problem getting someone on the phone to help when I need it.

I imagine that most people don't realize they are not Google customers. If you have paid Google money, then you are a customer. People using Google's 'free' services are not. Only customers will get good support.

>If you have paid Google money

If you've paid Google enough money. I have to keep paying $6AUD/month unless I want to lose $300+ of Android apps forever (Google Apps for Work). No chance of transferring them to another account (I'd pay $100+ for this)

That is a curious situation. Have you really paid for $300 of apps for yourself?

That doesn't seem so unusual to me. I've been using Android for about 6 years now, and I'd estimate I spend $2-5 a month on apps - the occasional $10 utility, some $1 games, etc.

6 years * 12 months/year * $3/month = 216 USD = 289 AUD.

Yet if your Google account gets suspended for some reason, you'd better have a contact at Google or you're in a world of pain.

They said customer support.

This is so true especially for valve.

They have a gem game called Counterstrike Global Offensive which is their 2nd biggest game after dota2(which is free), and up to a half a year ago that I was playing, we all thought (me and reddit) that they had 0 devs working on it.

Bugs were all over the place, noone was taking action into fixing them, releases were every once in a blue moon including just new skins that were content created by players etc.

Now of course the game has evolved and there are some new developers trying to do something with it but its funny to think that a game of that calibre that returns prolly billions in revenue has pathetic support.

The only gaming company I've seen keeping up with what they make is Blizzard.

Are you kidding me about Google customer support? They're the only company that ever solved my problem with a Linux question, and later helped me when I purchased a movie on YouTube on an account I didn't intend to purchase on. They might not provide great customer support to some market segments, but when it comes to the end-consumer, they go above and beyond.

I'm kind of astounded to hear anyone speaking positively of Google support, and certainly my experience trying to get support and even pre-sales on Google Apps has been miserable - a lot of filling out forms (often slightly broken ones) and never hearing back. Most notably, someone once started spamming an organization I worked for from Gmail by just pasting hundreds of addresses into the To:. Over a year of multiple abuse reports from multiple people and they were still going, and the abuse report form had broken validation so that having the headers too long (because of the over 300 recipient addresses) resulted in a message that the headers field was empty. This is where oddly typical of my experiences with them.

This makes me think that it's rather particular to the product. YouTube was acquired and now has a significant focus towards consumer sales via movies and Red, perhaps these two factors have lead to a significantly different culture surrounding support?

If the op was talking about AdWords, he is wildly correct

"In my opinion, Valve also has the same shortcomings as google: practically zero customer support..."

This strikes me as something you can afford because you are in a factual monopoly ("You are not OK with our service ? Find an alternative... whooops :)"), rather than just having a lot of money.

Steam benefits from the fact that even people not completely happy with it (personally I have no complaints, but I use it exclusively as a store/launcher) are already invested in the platform, and do not want the hassle of dealing with two or more similar services, so they are wary of any alternative that might surface (see Windows store or proprietary stores like Origin).

The store letting more games in now is intentional. From a Valve employee himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGCyfEYfLks#t=5m40s