well people are never happy you know, they complain about every change to everything ever for a month or so before they get used to it, nice post though :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam made Greenlight. People started giving free keys in return of a "vote".
Steam gave us Early Access Programs. Most of them are fails.
Now, steam gave us Curators, and (discussion deleted - was a random curator asking for followers in a giveaway) is what is wrong with it.
Providing us with a new feature is okay, but causing a disruption with it and not allowing it to be optional for others is bad. I research before buying a game too, but that doesn't mean I require the help of a "curator". I can just watch the user reviews down and the videos on YouTube, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
A very valid point you have. People seem to corrupt all of these things making them worse than they should be. Greenlight was really unbalanced from people using free games for votes, but it did bring a lot of really great indie games like Cook, Serve, Delicious. Early Access released a slew of crapware that people bought and the games never got finished, but it did help make great games like Starbound popular. I would never subscribe to a curator that did that. I plan on subbing to TB, PC Gamer, and RPS, and that is it.
I'd say use your best judgement. Just because others are using it for "evil" doesn't mean it's a bad feature in itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, you won't subscribe to a curator that did that. But there are millions who would easily fall for stuff like this. Also, who knows companies might start paying curators to advertise a game.
If you like an adventure game, doesn't mean you would like all the adventure games. A curator states his opinions, but, there are MANY people who hate Borderlands 2 or Saints Row IV. A curator is likely to recommend these. So if he recommends it and you don't like it, you must again start researching for good games that match your taste, which brings us back to the question, "What is the use of curators?"
Comment has been collapsed.
I am also sure that some companies will bribe curators that have huge following to recommend their games.
I don't even understand the point. If a new game comes out, you should do your research on it and then decide is it worth buying and not. Instead of just buying it because some curator recommends it. Doesn't really make much sense to me, but what can you do... some people are just stupid.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everywhere I look I see HERESY!
The corruption is worse than I expected! Quickly! We must PURGE this infestation!
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam gave us Early Access Programs. Most of them are fails.
Total bullshit and fake statement, everybody who talk like this better should check the REAL situation first, EA is nothing like this, it's solid way to release games and if some crappy survival games for children under 10 are fails or scam is just a little, VERY little, insignificantly little part of all things. Actually, if one say "most EA is fail" he say "I'm an idiot who don't give a f*** about real statistics of EA, I just want to talk bullshit, kill me please", MOST games from EA (and when I say most i don't say about "zombie-minecraft-survival wit thousands of features", I talk about normal games that went through EA and became really good, there many of them and even more will be there soon. But these zombie-minecraft-survivals never turns good, everey thinking man would guess it'll never work, so why do you judge EA by them? Early access is ok, but it's blind haters are not.
Comment has been collapsed.
Holy shit. Calm down.
When a person buys an EA game, he might think - "Oh, it's EA, but the game looks good so let's buy it" and when he plays it and doesn't like the game, he's probably like "Wow this game sucks, I am gonna write a bad review." because, let's face it, most of the people just want a good game (again, I am talking about the masses). When they find a really bad game, they forget it's EA and is supposed to be bad. This however, gives a bad impression about the game, forever. Also, not to mention, some companies start slacking off when they've made enough moolah.
Of course, exceptions to same games will always exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
For those who choose not to use the curator feature, it just takes extra space on the front page, which is why people want to hide it.
I said the following in another thread: I would never follow TB as a curator despite watching his videos simply because he doesn't like the genres I like. Unless you are able to find someone with the exact same taste in games, you're only going to get recommendations for games that don't interest you with the occasional interesting game, which might already be on your wishlist. Therefore I see it as a completely useless feature and I'm not going to follow anyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is exactly it. I know I have very similar taste to TB. I bought Transistor, Bastion, and Brother on his word and loved those game immensely. I might sub to Co-Optimus because I am always looking for a game to play with my wife. I wouldn't sub to Boogie because I don't like his taste in games, his opinions, or his videos. You still have a choice.
Comment has been collapsed.
^ This.
Having the option to use it = great!
Having to use it along the 'queue' = Steam tries to get you to pay for full price AAA titles because they get paid for it. Yep, it's that simple and the whole curator deal is just one side of a coin and the other side reeks... badly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam Curators is nothing more than a totally useless tool for you to use or not use. It is supposed to prevent people buying crappy games. Curators are not paid but they do the "curator" s**t to promote their websites and earn revenues from there.
FTFY OP
Comment has been collapsed.
I couldn't agree more with you, this was a necessary change. I think it's great that we can shape the storefront the way we want it by following different kinds of curators, not to mention the option to filter out Early Access games or those that I already own, and yet a lot of people seems to think that's somehow a bad thing (especially in this community). But people always complain no matter what you do, and they'll continue to do so until something else rustles their jimmies.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't sub to anyone, but see all these people I don't know and don't care about.
Also, I'm supposed to try some heavy strategy game because I want Rocket Knight. What.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, there is way too much clutter now. Steam used to be a simple interface, now it has all these doodads that I'll never use.
It would be much better if all of the widgets weren't on the front page.
Comment has been collapsed.
Curators are HERESY! They are like daemons and such are the ways of daemons, to lie and mislead us! Destroying them is the only way to be rid of their influence!
Comment has been collapsed.
Some of these curators are downright terrible and in no way does it help me reach a decision whether or not I should buy the game. Example. I wish there was an option to hide/block certain curators. Or at least down vote. This way, there's at least some quality control.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just a thought, but maybe, just maybe, the people complaining about Steam's previous system being "clunky and outdated" and the people who don't like the new system they implemented are in fact different groups of people! Individuals having individual wants and preferences? It's like people are different or something!
Valve only had to do one thing: place all that new stuff they added, the Queue, the curators, the recommendations, BELOW the release and sales windows. Then it would simply be the original layout with new stuff added lower on the page that I can ignore by not scrolling further down. The way they have it now, it all just gets in the way of what's important.
Comment has been collapsed.
as with all things, it needs polishing and quality control, but it's a way to get the word out from some groups about things.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dlc enabling/disabling is pretty nice for certain games(eu3 for example), a few like better library management or sharing library are in the 'useful' category and there are off course the bug fixes.
Aside from those the steam changes are in the 'I don't care' category which interestingly enough almost matches with the 'shit people are up in arms about'.
That said the shift from black to blue is odd, I rather like blue so it is decent enough but I kinda got used to steam = black so even now using steam almost every day it still seems something is wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can I get a way to ignore curators too ? I'm not particularly interested in seeing some fuckwit recommending everything on the grounds that it's not Postal or other trolls spouting bullshit.
Comment has been collapsed.
What exactly is the curator feature? Do they basically give games their stamp of approval so you know what RPS for instance considers quality and what has caught their eye?
Comment has been collapsed.
15 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by MSPachina
349 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by gr4yw4rd3n
2,038 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by LordDarkness
6 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by anditsung
551 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by Warriot
104 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by hbouma
3,110 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by Peiperissimus
200 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by Fallador
5,694 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Oppenh4imer
443 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by lav29
863 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by LegendaryEagleKnight
7,919 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Masafor
1,161 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Pyrocious
139 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by ConanOLion
I am writing this because I am tired of seeing complaints about every new feature Steam comes out with. A few months ago people were complaining that Steam felt outdated and clunky compared to other digital distribution platforms, in terms of the layout and graphics. They updated the UI in order to make Steam appear more modern and almost right away people were asking how to change it back, how to skin it, who they could complain to and so on and so forth. Now I am seeing almost as backlash against Steam Curators, a feature that in my own opinion, was strongly needed.
In 2013, Steam introduced its Greenlight and Early Access Programs. Previously in order to get on Steam you had to be a major publisher or get a sizable amount of recognition for your indie game to ever get noticed and put on Steam. Effectively Steam was already curating it's entire platform: showcasing popular new releases, advertising large updates and DLC, and highlighting what you saw on it's front page. With the advent of Greenlight, games that would have never gotten the visibility that Steam offers were able to make their way on to the platform. There has been a problem with quality control in the past year however because of the now low barrier to entry to get a game listed on Steam. So they started giving us tools.
Community tagging, community reviews, and now Steam Curators are all there to help you make the decision to purchase a game. In my own personal case, I always do research before buying a game. Usually I wait for a review from TotalBiscuit or read an article on Rock, Paper, Shotgun, now both of those things are built into Steam. Curators do not get paid (directly, but they may see increased views to their YouTube videos or websites indirectly). It is merely a tool for you to use. It isn't social media bs, they aren't going to show you what your friend Greg thinks of the game from his Google+ post, you pick whose opinion you care about.
tl;dr Steam Curators is nothing more than a tool for you to use or not use. It is needed to prevent people buying crappy games. Curators are not paid
Comment has been collapsed.