True, but crowdsourcing would make that a moot point.
Game Bashing On Steam
- Thread starter shogun195333
- Start date
Dude, crowd sourcing would require a CROWD of people who didn't like the game... and Bob's your uncle.
Wouldn't solve the payment issue. Unless you go out of the way with some shaddy network.
The more you keep going down the hole, the more it gets illogical and unlikely.
Meanwhile, the "most player didn't like it" solution is still as obvious as it was when we started.
Funny you should bring that up, just been looking at the recent reviews of Odyssey and I can't help but think that there's one dude awarding the majority of positive reviews the 'funny' award, and how pitiful it would be if that were the case. Also interesting to see that no matter how inane the negative review, 9/10 times it got a decent amount of 'helpful' clicks.
Initially to a degree. I don't think the word 'need' is applicable in this context, why would anyone 'need' to review bomb something in the first place?
I mean, you can look at it like that and I get what you're saying, but none of the crowd has to have skin in the game to participate.
People get keys from this and keep their accounts in good enough standing to skate by with it. This is a real thing. Steam's mechanisms make it kind of visible when it happens, though. It's not all the way in either direction. It's not a one-account-per-review thing, but it also might not be that person's main account. It's more like an alt account. Though I think for some it could be their main account.
Usually for a statement.
-Political in nature and I can't speak much of it due to forum rules. Like putting a flag for a country an authoritarian neighbouring country claim it's part of his territory (not one related to the current world situation). Or other reasons, like portrayal of a country, some hidden message/picture, etc....
-Some debatable decision. Like when some 6 years old solo only videogame decided to introduce microtransaction. And disabling console command so you didn't "cheat" the paid items.
-Lack of support for important issues (https://www.pcgamer.com/nier-automa...mbed-on-steam-by-players-who-want-it-patched/)
It still doesn't qualify for a 'need' though, does it? It's always a decision based on a want.
Sure, but they need some kind of motive.
Some people just want to see EDO burn?
I don't buy it.
YMMV
Ah yes, review bombing famously is done by people who don't care.
Indeed. An evil army of people who don't care investing time to discredit a product they have no negative views on.
Sure.
If you left a negative review on Steam you did though. It's all semantics and as I've said before, I think there's reasons to suspect activity of that nature on Steam, is it a full on organized review-bomb? To a degree, if you consider this organized enough:
A Small Act of Protest We Can Do - Tag the DLC as Early Access
Sure, it was pointed to get it tagged as early access, but effectively it's just another form of negatively impacting the game. There's posts that I've highlighted in the console thread that I would say reach the standard of organized. How effective they were, I can't say, as has been pointed out and I agree, Odyssey's poor launch did a great job in aiding/covering any attempts to do so. We will never likely know.
It's not want vs need though anyway. If a course of action is unnecessary because the desired result is already occurring then it is not needed regardless of want.
"I 'wanted' to review bomb Odyssey, but there was no 'need' as reviews were tanking anyway"
Dude, pretty much everyone agrees it is released as an EA title and FD acknowledged they'd need months and months of patching to get it in a decent state. How the heck is that tag 'review bombing', it is literally nothing but describing factual reality.
If anything blame FD for not releasing it as an EA title as they should.
You took a specific thing I said and generalized it, but that's my fault, I guess. Some like to sit back and watch it burn for the spectacle and may be in a position to add a few logs to the fire, so do so. Is that better?
Ever heard of mob mentality? If the cost of entry is effectively zero, why not just go ahead with that want? It's an arbitrary barrier you just constructed to suit your argument. It can't be argued that what you said is incorrect given any situation, but it also works conversely in the same way, effectively making your point moot.
Huh... we are talking videogames, which is as far as "need" as could be.
Then we are talking about reviews, on a privately owned storefront.
I mean, where is the "need" in everything that surround all that ? Oh yeah, nowhere, because it's a videogame review on steam.
Solution 1:
Odyssey was review bombed by a mob of people who used multiple account and shady payment system and were able to cleverly avoid Steam anti review bombing safeties, in a coordinated attack. For reasons unknown.
Solution 2:
Most players didn't like the DLC.
I wonder which one is more likely !
No, I took your specific example and explained it doesn't support your opinion, at all. Anyway, it seems to be article of faith for you that there is some anti-EDO conspiracy. I am not interested in more shifting goalposts, so I am out.
I'm somewhat surprised to see you take this position. As I said before, someone who's going to that trouble is likely someone who will also take the time to leave the negative review. And need I say that I consider a proportion of negative reviews legitimate? I'm not discussing boiling water vs ice here, but more about enough to bring a slowly simmering pot to a full boil.
Exactly, which makes me recall all the heartbroken pearl clutching and abuse thrown at Frontier employees on social media. But it still happened, yet what I'm saying is crazy conspiracy talk?
Once again, the situation is positioned as a binary choice.
What has likely got to do with it? Lots of things that are unlikely happen in reality.