Nothing contradictory there between Dev, Customer and Support.
Is this still about Valheim?

Devs can't remove reviews. Only Steam support can.

Originally posted by Mad Scientist:

Nothing contradictory there between Dev, Customer and Support.
Is this still about Valheim?

Remind devs that Early Access is meant to gather feedback.
Encourage customers to leave feedback.
Give devs full control over their hub.
Customers leave feedback.
Devs remove or ban.

Does it matter if it's about Valheim? If users have to feel like they're walking on eggshells, or if they're not even allowed to question a moderator's decision (i.e. they only go after certain users while others get a free pass to throw insults), then this isn't really a good "early access experience" is it?

I'm not usually one to leave feedback to begin with because I'm not going to write a half-**** suggestion. Valheim is probably the only game I've actually left feedback on. And it has definitely soured the experience.

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Devs can't remove reviews. Only Steam support can.

I don't think reviews are meant to be a place to exchange feedback. That's what the community hub is for. In fact, there was even a specific "Rants/Suggestions" area that was eventually removed. Most likely because there were more rants than suggestions. However, it just meant that many suggestions were treated as rants. And insults against the people who made any suggestion piled up quick.

Originally posted by Faded:

Remind devs that Early Access is meant to gather feedback.

Feedback can be gathered in many ways

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by Faded:

Remind devs that Early Access is meant to gather feedback.

Feedback can be gathered in many ways

Get involved and have fun! - Part of what makes Early Access so engaging is the collaboration between players and the development team. Give feedback, participate in discussions

Contextually, it is encouraging players to discuss feedback. It doesn't say that "your gameplay will be recorded and used as a form of feedback". It doesn't say "leave your feedback with reviews". I quite literally connects the idea of feedback with active discussion. Hence the word collaboration.

Originally posted by Faded:

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Feedback can be gathered in many ways

Get involved and have fun! - Part of what makes Early Access so engaging is the collaboration between players and the development team. Give feedback, participate in discussions

Contextually, it is encouraging players to discuss feedback. It doesn't say that "your gameplay will be recorded and used as a form of feedback". It doesn't say "leave your feedback with reviews". I quite literally connects the idea of feedback with active discussion. Hence the word collaboration.

Which they are allowed to choose the feedback they get.

Steam recommends the best practice, it isn't a rule though.

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Originally posted by Faded:

Get involved and have fun! - Part of what makes Early Access so engaging is the collaboration between players and the development team. Give feedback, participate in discussions

Contextually, it is encouraging players to discuss feedback. It doesn't say that "your gameplay will be recorded and used as a form of feedback". It doesn't say "leave your feedback with reviews". I quite literally connects the idea of feedback with active discussion. Hence the word collaboration.

Which they are allowed to choose the feedback they get.

Steam recommends the best practice, it isn't a rule though.

Which... defeats the purpose of encouraging users to actively discuss feedback with the devs. Do you not see the inherent contradiction?

Steam says "hey, early access is great for devs because it's a great way to gather feedback and a fun thing for customers because collaboration and feedback.

So let's say Bobby is on board and says "I think X is great so far, but here are the issues I'm noticing and if possible, a few suggestions.". Well, you can be banned for that. Which defeats the alleged core incentive of early access games.

Early Access is not a pre-purchase
Early Access is not meant to be a form of pre-purchase, but a tool to get your game in front of Steam users and gather feedback while finishing your game.

It isn't a rule because it isn't enforced even though it should be. Though the nature of Valve's relationship and reliance on devs to make a cut of profit makes this somewhat inevitable.

Originally posted by Faded:

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Which they are allowed to choose the feedback they get.

Steam recommends the best practice, it isn't a rule though.

Which... defeats the purpose of encouraging users to actively discuss feedback with the devs. Do you not see the inherent contradiction?

Steam says "hey, early access is great for devs because it's a great way to gather feedback and a fun thing for customers because collaboration and feedback.

So let's say Bobby is on board and says "I think X is great so far, but here are the issues I'm noticing and if possible, a few suggestions.". Well, you can be banned for that. Which defeats the alleged core incentive of early access games.

Early Access is not a pre-purchase
Early Access is not meant to be a form of pre-purchase, but a tool to get your game in front of Steam users and gather feedback while finishing your game.

It isn't a rule because it isn't enforced even though it should be. Though the nature of Valve's relationship and reliance on devs to make a cut of profit makes this somewhat inevitable.

If a developer wants to create that type of reputation, they are free to do so. It will only hurt them.

Also, someone's ban-worthy ranting/insults/whatever in the forum =/= "feedback".

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

If a developer wants to create that type of reputation, they are free to do so. It will only hurt them.

Agreed. Though it doesn't change the fact that the rules or guidelines are misleading.

Originally posted by wesnef:

Also, someone's ban-worthy ranting/insults/whatever in the forum =/= "feedback".

I guess you missed the part where I said that there were indeed many more rants than suggestions, but in turn, suggestions were treated as rants.

There seems to be a common psychological profile of people who enjoy telling others "they deserved whatever they got", with a history of 1000 pages of comments establishing the same pattern. I get it. Owning someone feels "good". Just be careful you don't become the troll yourself.

Originally posted by Faded:

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

If a developer wants to create that type of reputation, they are free to do so. It will only hurt them.

Agreed. Though it doesn't change the fact that the rules or guidelines are misleading.

Originally posted by wesnef:

Also, someone's ban-worthy ranting/insults/whatever in the forum =/= "feedback".

I guess you missed the part where I said that there were indeed many more rants than suggestions, but in turn, suggestions were treated as rants.

There seems to be a common psychological profile of people who enjoy telling others "they deserved whatever they got", with a history of 1000 pages of comments establishing the same pattern. I get it. Owning someone feels "good". Just be careful you don't become the troll yourself.

They aren't misleading.

Originally posted by Boblin the Goblin:

Originally posted by Faded:

Agreed. Though it doesn't change the fact that the rules or guidelines are misleading.




I guess you missed the part where I said that there were indeed many more rants than suggestions, but in turn, suggestions were treated as rants.

There seems to be a common psychological profile of people who enjoy telling others "they deserved whatever they got", with a history of 1000 pages of comments establishing the same pattern. I get it. Owning someone feels "good". Just be careful you don't become the troll yourself.

They aren't misleading.

Alright. I've explained more than enough to support my end of the argument. Instead of arguing like we're in elementary school, why don't you do a little more than "no, you're wrong". Show me where it isn't misleading. Explain how encouraging users to leave feedback through discussion while then giving devs the ability to remove any comment for any reason isn't antithetical.

Had the rules stated "Players can leave feedback but may be banned as a result since devs are given full control over the presentation of their product outside of reviews" then that would be transparent and actually accurate.

Originally posted by Faded:

Get involved and have fun! - Part of what makes Early Access so engaging is the collaboration between players and the development team. Give feedback, participate in discussions

Contextually, it is encouraging players to discuss feedback. It doesn't say that "your gameplay will be recorded and used as a form of feedback". It doesn't say "leave your feedback with reviews". I quite literally connects the idea of feedback with active discussion. Hence the word collaboration.

There's this misconception that many people have that makes them believe given feedback must be listened.

"Oh I'm giving feedback, Why isn't the dev acknowledging it?" Well they don't have to.
And that doesn't invalidate a generic statement. Which is what the guidelines are.

Originally posted by Faded:

I guess you missed the part where I said that there were indeed many more rants than suggestions, but in turn, suggestions were treated as rants.

Too many people posting rants think they're actually posting suggestions.

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

There's this misconception that many people have that makes them believe given feedback must be listened.

"Oh I'm giving feedback, Why isn't the dev acknowledging it?" Well they don't have to.
And that doesn't invalidate a generic statement. Which is what the guidelines are.

Nowhere did I say that feedback must be responded to. It just shouldn't be removed for inane or absent reasons.

Too many people posting rants think they're actually posting suggestions.

"Guilty until proven innocent". It goes both ways. Too many people think they're being "helpful" when all they're really doing is wasting thousands of hours acting as an unsolicited moderator. Not too far off from trolling, really.

My personal issue with EA titles is that they get this "unofficial marketing" in the form of reviews which allows them to "crowdfund" but it usually doesn't affect the development.

On top of that "feedback" implies "test and report bugs for us" cause the company doesn't want to spend money on QA.