Anti consumer indeed.

Originally posted by Ryuu:

if something can be corrupted and exploited — it will.

The same is true and worse for an uncurated store. I judge curators by how they rate games. If a curator has opinions I disagree with, I ignore them.

Originally posted by Ryuu:

Don't forget that Valve also develops/releases games themselves, so they have an interest in that too.

I think generally they balance quite well between two fires.

Point taken, but still, Valve has gained a lot of good will *because* of things like the curator system. Empowering curators is a no brainer.

Originally posted by Kimchi Tea:

Originally posted by MUTANT OVERLORD:

Thats why I wish refunding a game was removing a review. At least from %.

Eh, I've refunded at least one game after I reviewed it because the specs on the store page were incorrect and the game didn't run properly. In cases like that, where it's a choice between leaving a negative review or getting your money back, I think most people would choose money back, and that biases the review score in the favor of bad developers.

In the case brought up in this thread, huge amounts of refunds + positive reviews + probable sock puppet accounts should bring up enough red flags on their own, without having to change how the system deals with review + refund situations in general.

I think the obvious next step is to show the refund rate for the game.

This can obviously still get abused, but the only way to abuse it would be to buy your all your competitors' games and refund those instead. Which would be far more expensive.

The problem, for consumers, is that Valve is doing everything they can to stop consumer boycotts.

Either because they are pushing a "Gamers are Dead"angle and other political nonsense. Or because of aggressive DRM and plain rootkits. There is plenty of reasons for users to boycott a developer. Valve gets pressure from the big studios to suppress anything that can be used to facilitate boycotts. Against their user's interests.

I think Steam is large enough that they shouldn't need to cave in to such pressures, but of course with more and more alternative stores popping up, Valve has legitimate reasons to want to avoid a developer exodus.

This will be counter-productive.

The rise of alternative software stores is inevitable. Valve cannot rely on monopoly power alone for much longer. They need earn their users love and trust by continuing to champion consumer interests first and that will involve things like an "Ignore creator" option.

The Valve realizes this the better for everyone.