Valve acts to address 'Review Bombing' concerns

[Ttaskmaster]

*Has stroke*

Please go do that sort of thing in private... this is a family forum, here, you know!!

[jim]

I'm a bit wary of this.

On the one hand, if a game publisher having a spat results in a shedload of negative reviews, then I can see Valve wanting to prevent that. It's not supposed to be a complaint mechanism.

However, most of the recent examples have been related to the game itself. For instance, when third-party modding was prevented on GTA:V and when Bethesda released paid mods. In both cases, the game itself was affected, and I left reviews for both as a consequence - because the situation was such that I would no longer recommend the game to others.

If the latter scenario results in Valve 'masking' the negative reviews then it starts to feel like a cover-up between storefront and manufacturer, which to my mind is wrong.

[Output]

I'm a bit wary of this.

On the one hand, if a game publisher having a spat results in a shedload of negative reviews, then I can see Valve wanting to prevent that. It's not supposed to be a complaint mechanism.

However, most of the recent examples have been related to the game itself. For instance, when third-party modding was prevented on GTA:V and when Bethesda released paid mods. In both cases, the game itself was affected, and I left reviews for both as a consequence - because the situation was such that I would no longer recommend the game to others.

If the latter scenario results in Valve 'masking' the negative reviews then it starts to feel like a cover-up between storefront and manufacturer, which to my mind is wrong.

I'd like to think that in theory, the intention is that it should make potential purchases see that a spike has occurred in a particularly short amount of time, and thus prompt them to investigate further to find out what the actual reason was to see if it's something that should truly affect their decision to purchase or not.

It's better than people simply stopping as soon as they seeing the game review opinions as "highly negative" and walking away immediately. It obviously depends upon how clear the reason for the negativity becomes in their investigation though, or if the potential purchaser can even be bothered to investigate further.

[spacein_vader]

I'm a bit wary of this.

On the one hand, if a game publisher having a spat results in a shedload of negative reviews, then I can see Valve wanting to prevent that. It's not supposed to be a complaint mechanism.

However, most of the recent examples have been related to the game itself. For instance, when third-party modding was prevented on GTA:V and when Bethesda released paid mods. In both cases, the game itself was affected, and I left reviews for both as a consequence - because the situation was such that I would no longer recommend the game to others.

If the latter scenario results in Valve 'masking' the negative reviews then it starts to feel like a cover-up between storefront and manufacturer, which to my mind is wrong.

It doesn't mask anything though, all the reviews and the averages they create are still there. It simply states that a lot of reviews have been posted in a very short period of time, flagging up that you may wish to look more closely.

[jim]

It doesn't mask anything though, all the reviews and the averages they create are still there. It simply states that a lot of reviews have been posted in a very short period of time, flagging up that you may wish to look more closely.

That's the present implementation - yes - but it may not be the ultimate position.

It's not a stretch to think that the default might become excluding the spike.

[Output]

I'm not sure when it specifically got applied, but as it's the first time I've noticed it I thought I'd point out that it seems we now have this currently showing in the Customer Reviews section for DayZ.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/221100/

[Spreadie]

*Has stroke*

*can't reach*