Epic's Tim Sweeney : Review-Bombing is Bad

What do you think SW , is that anti-consumer ?

========

https://www.pcgamer.com/epics-tim-sweeney-reveals-how-the-company-lands-exclusives-for-the-epic-store/

========

Sweeney, responding to a user that said the Epic Store was "anti-consumer", argued that the store encouraged "healthy competition", and that the lower revenue cut that Epic takes from store sales compared to what Valve takes from sales on Steam—12% vs 30%—allows developers to make more games, which is ultimately good for consumers. "That’s an 18% difference, and most devs make WAY less than an 18% profit margin—so this can be the difference between being able to fund a new game and going bankrupt!"

He admitted that having to use more launchers was "annoying", but that it was worth it in the long run. "I get that it’s yet another launcher and if you have Steam installed you’d prefer to just use it. But if you want way better games to be built in the future, then please recognize what good this store can do."

He also confirmed on Twitter that Epic was working on on a review system for its store that would display user ratings on a game, providing the developer had opted in.

Considering the gaming media actively hate gamers, Publishers actively want to **** gamers, shouting "VERY LOUDLY", in a way that will effect sales, the only thing they give a shit about, is one of the few routes gamers can take, as no other fucker is on their side.

Everything about Epics shitty Steam attempt seems to wholly favor developers at the expense of the consumer.

Opt in basically means "remove stuff that makes us look bad", defying the entire point in the first place.

Did he say healthy competition? Just a few years ago he was against locking down content and such anti-consumer practices.

User reviews are totally useless when 99% of the reviewers are trolls looking for attention. I know we are supposed to be outraged by everything Sweeney says, but I'm with him on this one. And gamers only have themselves to blame...

Steam lets you filter reviews. And brings up a filter if review bombing is happening.

The difference in philosophy, Steam gives the consumer options and customizability.

-

When it comes to review bombing itself, people can take a peep and discern within seconds if it's legitimate complaints or nonsense. Unless they have completely lost their wits.

There are quite a few cases where it has been acceptable imo. Paradox exploiting the Steam summer sale to raise prices from the base just prior, Bethesda introducing paid mods. Capcom introducing in-game advertising etc..

They are happily being scumbags themselves so absolutely no reason not to return the favour. It's about the only time they will get any accountability.

User reviews have become a joke, the gaming community has simply become too toxic. It’s very unfortunate but it’s why we can’t have nice things anymore.

@uninspiredcup: Oh make no mistake I think that there are very legitimate criticisms to be made against developers and publishers but I’m not going to turn a blind eye to the ever increasing toxicity that is starting to permeate the gaming community.

Eh I think it's pretty easy to think for yourself.

You can usually figure out in the first few sentences whether a review should be taken seriously. It's also really easy to tell if a game is getting review-bombed because it's trendy (Denuvo, recent dev or publisher action/recent DLC/whatever thing has angered the masses).

I think user reviews can still be some of the most helpful if you, you know... read them.

If anything they could just not display the percentage good/bad. Ultimately it's pretty useless anyway.

Review bombing is one of the limited amount of ways that gamers can quickly impact publishers anti consumer decisions. The whole "don't like it don't buy it" lingo only works if everybody does it, but usually the uninformed majority just go out and buy it.

YouTube has helped on this front to spread gaming news to more casual audiences, but I think user reviews are very important. You can get a very good overall picture of the game by looking at the consensus.

Just a reminder, in case you've forgotten: "Super Meat Boy" is now free on the Epic Store.

I don't see this as a major problem. Since the developer or publisher decides, gamers can also determine whether or not to purchase based off of this. Besides, it's not like there is a shortage of game reviews.

Review bombing is bad. Gamers not even playing the game and they bombard it with bad reviews to hurt the company.

It's juvenile and should be stopped.

User reviews are fine but should not be used as weapons. When it's just an angry horde hell bent on hurting a game and its publisher that's bad.

This I agree. And remember, a reviewer is still of an opinion. Nothing more/less.

Game reviews are to review the product.

Not to complain about policies you don't like. It's important t separate the policy from the game. Assassins Creed Odyssey has MT's but they don't keep people from enjoying the game. Do you review bomb them for MT's despite the game being fine regardless?

Policies are part of the product. DRM, all that stuff. Gamers do care about it. It's relevant. The thing about games now as well, it's not like the pre-internet days where you just bought it, and that was that.

Now developers can augment a product as they see fit. Two Worlds II, retroactively adding microtransactions. Capcom, retroactively changing the amount of currency earned in game. Skyrim, changing something once a norm as now essentially, paid for dlc.

I've generally found the basic "overwhelming", "Very Positive", "Negative" etc... to be a really useful and quick indicator, more so than metacritic or professional gaming media. It's a culmination effect of a hive-mind telling me if something is shit.

I've made some extremely high quality reviews myself, definitely better than Polygon.

@Bread_or_Decide: I agree that it isn't a "fair" way of voicing dissent. It isn't a good solution, but it seems to be the only solution that works. Review bombing gets them to fix the issue fast rather than ignore the problem or take their time.

I have to side on Epic with this one. For every legitimate review bombing where there is some actual problematic anti-consumer BS going on, there are 10 instances of games being review bombed for idiotic reasons that wont matter to the vast majority of people.

the tendency of any negative sentiment towards a game or publisher drowning out any reasonable discussion makes user reviews pretty useless these days imo.

I think professional reviews/opinions from trusted sources to determine if a game is any good, then relying on people like Jim Sterling to point out industry BS, is the best way to go, but even then, I really can't know if i'll enjoy a game these days until I try it myself.

I wouldn't be so quick to say this actually fixes or changes anything.

Correlation is not causation. If anything it villanizes the gamers and puts more attention on their review bombing than the problem itself.

I don't think it filters paid shills to do glowing reviews even if the game sucks.

Perhaps an "update" review feature would solve this problem. To differentiate between review of the game when released and review of changes made throughout the years.

Such as?

The only time I've seen it as not worth it, is generally gamergate "I hate woman", trash. Which are almost non-existent.

The rest, such as raising prices before a Steam sale? Changing earning rate after launch for the worst? Adding paid options in at a later date? Paid for mods? Adding in game advertisements?

Seems legit enough to post your thoughts. Send a message.

-

As mentioned, Valve allows filters. Don't want to see it? Literally 1 click. As opposed to allowing developers only allowing reviews they like, which defy s the point and is completely anti-consumer. Valve's options (as with practically all Valve's decisions) involve empowering the consumer first and foremost.

Starting? LMAO I am all for criticizing when I feel like it. But gamers are the most self entitled wussies out there. Case in Point: Listening to a podcast recently and one panel member said he didn't like the controls in a game. The host tells him go into options and remap the controls to your liking. Panel member responds that is not the point. A devs job is to make good controls LOL -So they should cater to this guys preferences of what is "good" rather than give the player the option to cater to themselves. Fvckin crybaby.

If it's someone trying to hide it, what can you do other than track them down for solid evidence? Which Valve has done.

https://kotaku.com/developer-kicked-off-steam-for-posting-fake-reviews-1825939184

-

Aside from the masses of reviews, where it's very difficult to lie, you can always follow friends you trust and respect. Or professional curators such as Angry Joe, the savour of gaming.

@Bread_or_Decide: I don't have any definitive proof that it's the sole cause of change so I can only note the correlative trend which I agree is limited to draw a conclusion from. However, I don't think it should be ignored either because the conclusion is within reason (and there is plenty of correlative evidence).

It's at the very least a factor and I'd rather not have power taken away from the consumer. Yes you'll have the toxic community but I think that's better than stifling players voices. In another example, there are many negative aspects of a "free" internet but it's still better than the alternative (controlled/regulated internet).

You can do that. It tracks the most recent reviews as well.

Well yeah, no shit lol. That's why places like Metacritic should be taken with a pinch of salt.

off the top of my head, CoH2 got review bombed because Russian people didn't like the depiction of Soviet's role in WW2, PUBG got bombed because of issues specific to the Chinese version of the game, and almost every game from EA, Activision or Ubisoft gets bombed just because people don't like them (sometimes for legit reasons, other times for nonsense reasons like BFV).

Steam does it as well as they could, and the filters are great, but I would bet the types of people who aren't already aware of a games issues who would actually benefit from useful user reviews, aren't the types of people who would fiddle around with filters to coerce reviews to filter out ones that wouldn't effect their personal experience. I have friends who are more casual gamers who will tell me they were going to buy some game on steam but got scared away by the reviews even though I know the reason for the reviews wouldn't matter to them.

there are just too many stupid, angry people on the internet for me to take user reviews seriously. They can be useful but mostly these days they just a source of confusion. There are better more reliable ways to get the same information.

The only one of the three listed there I see as being legit is Coh2. PUBG was rife with problems, including specifically the Chinese, opting to sell DLC and ignore the issues. Ubisoft example seems very vague, but it's Ubisoft. There are many, many legit reasons they could be review bombed lol... How many Assasins Creed games have launched an unfinished piece of shit? How many games riddled with bad optimization? How many games arguably copy pastes of others? The hate list for Ubisoft is so numerous I would be amazed if they weren't getting negative reviews.

When they make an objectively great game, it gets good reviews, for being a great game, with no issues.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/242550/Rayman_Legends/

But Rayman is a jewl in a sea of shit.

-

Again, you can filter reviews. It seems to be something a few folk are having trouble grasping.

You don't need to see it, as an option, than a requirement.

Thus far, almost every action Epic has taken has been anti-consumer. Unlike something like GOG, which is arguably better than Steam in some regards, but lacks many of it's features.

This is the attitude I have.

Is it perfect? No. Will it ever be? No.

Is shutting consumers down to give developers/Publishers free reign better?

**** no. You might as well bend over and spread your cheeks.

We're already given options, fairly well implemented relying on a consumers ability at rational thought.

Epics desperate for developers, they're fully willing shit all over that.

That's really what it's about. Those nasty-wasty gamers giving our shitty games, shitty reviews. We can stop that!

No thanks, bro.

I would be wary of any game developer that opted out of having their product reviewed. I get not wanting to be review bombed, but if your product is genuinely good and you aren't employing any shady policies, you've nothing to worry about.

i dont care, there are hundreds of websites that will post reviews, just dont be a bum and type it into google if you want some reviews, epic doesn't need to supply you with a forum to bitch and complain there are tons of places to do that. Steam reviews are for the most part people making stupid jokes, its alright sometimes but not necessary and to be honest gamers are very toxic and will review a 10 dollar game in early access and review bomb it because its not a full fledged AAA title, i wouldn't care if it was there or not, go to metacritic and read reviews, why does epic need it on their platform, i don't think they are trying to be a complaint forum they are trying to sell games. The fact that its still an available option to the developer is good enough.

I just don't think a bunch of people yelling about business practices and issues that are peripheral to the actual game is useful to the average consumer. There is just too much noise. They make things confusing for the average consumer who just wants to know if a game is good or not - and many people will make that determination in a split second by looking at that positive/negative review percentage, without bothering to dive into why the percentage is what it is.

As flawed as they are, I still think traditional reviews are more useful for those types of people.

also I should clarify that I'm not suggesting Steam get rid of their user reviews, just that I can understand why Epic are making this decision, and might do the same thing if I were in their shoes.

I completely agree. I thoroughly read reviews and you can easily tell a real review from a troll review. Real reviews have actual effort put into them and they vividly describe the subject matter. Troll reviews usually aren't even a legitimate paragraph lol

Don't release a half finished shit game and you won't get review bombed. simple

I find it funny they make a half-assed online store and now they're complaining about review bombing.

Maybe they should have put a little more thought into it before A.) thinking they can take on the more numerous, far better retailers and B.) making certain games exclusive to only them.

Reap what you sow.

As for the original quote:

1. He is belittling consumer opinions about the Epic store, admitting to a petty inconvenience as "annoying", when there have been far more issues than that.

2. "Healthy" competition is debatable. I would argue that healthy competition is created naturally, not manifested by paying for an unfair advantage (i.e. store exclusives).

3. Developers need to become more fiscally responsible, not less. Budgets for games, especially of the AAA or near-AAA quality, are way too large, wasteful, and overblown as it is. While I understand that an 18% difference is significant, wouldn't the truly pro-developer and pro-consumer thing to do is allow the game to be sold elsewhere, in addition to the Epic Store? I feel gamers would naturally gravitate towards whatever is better for the community, or developers would champion the Epic store on their grounds instead of contractually.

4. Tencent (which owns iirc 49% of Epic) and Epic are publicly-traded companies. Whenever I hear a company talking about how good they are for people, how good they are for creators of content, I am immediately suspicious. And so should everyone else.

I understand a lot of people don't like Valve, often for petty reasons (i.e. "they are the most popular, therefore I hate them") and to be honest, that's fine, but they are still a pro-consumer and pro-developer platform, with a lot of other advantages. Furthermore, they are a privately-owned company, so they answer to no one but themselves and the public. They've proven time and time again that they are generally unwilling to tamper, excessively censor, and otherwise mess around with how we get our games and what we do with them.

I am willing to give the Epic Store a chance, but my god, they are off to a shitty start. Already on the defensive, already stealing games from other stores, already regretting their actions. It just feels wrong.

Fallout 76 deserved to be review bombed. That game is so fucking bad.

"Making devs more money per unit sold is pro-consumer."

Yeah no, **** off Tim.

Can't even tackle simple criticism without bending yourself into a pretzel.

I approve this message.

It wasn't on Steam, funnily enough.

Odd that, almost like... they saw it coming. Along with a whole bunch of refunds.

I'm actually a huge fan of steam reviews. It basically takes me a couple of clicks and I can get some very valuable info on a game.

They aren't religion for me neither, because there are plenty of games I like on steam that have mixed (Mafia III, Wolfenstein II) or even negative reviews that I enjoy tremendously.

User reviews are to me about the same, but slightly above professional reviews. They are a handy place to get information about a game, but I would not live my life by them.

And judging by the success of PUBG, neither do other people.

Though I can certainly get behind the points @with_teeth26 brought up in this thread, I still think that review bombing is not really a huge concern.

Best thing they can do is that only people who played the game can review it. And they have had to play it for _____ amount of hours , completed a % of the achievements, beat the game...whatever.

Do that and you will destroy most of the troll reviews.

To each their own but that's how the free market works. If the market accepts it, then tough dung. So other people aren't as worked up about something means you gotta be a child about it? That's stupid. User reviews are a joke. Rarely do they have the writing ability to actually break down aspects of a game. Most of them are simply "blah blah blah bad game/good game blah blah blah" and numerical score to either extreme. Here's a 0/10 for RDR2 by a Metacritic user LOL

Dec 27, 2018

"0 What an absolute piece of rubbish. I played this for a day and the control system is a waste of time, input lag and arbitrary contextual controls make the game literally unplayable. I will never buy another Rockstar game again. Why are reviewers giving this a 10? I spent half an hour riding my horse somewhere to kill a bear and then when it charged me I couldn't draw any weapons. It killed me and when I spawned it had gone. On the way back there was a woman trapped under a horse, I pressed the button to interact with her and shot her in the head. On the same journey I was jumped my the opposing outlaw family and yet again couldn't draw or fire any weapons. The control system is the problem the actual gameplay could be at best described as serviceable. There was an opportunity to elevate this artform to match that of the very best cinema of literature, but the fundamental component of what makes it what it is fell short. God of War will (or at least, should) mop up the GOTY awards because it's an actual game."

This is exactly what Sweeney means. Its a fanboy upset that this game outscored his favorite console's game.

@goldenelementxl: Agreed. Review bombing has killed the whole point of user ratings.

He's not wrong. Even simple rating bombings are bad.