Talk:Steam (service)/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Readability of the timeline

Hi,

I've just fixed the timeline in the "Beginnings" section so the last two entries do no longer overlap. However, I still find the text in the image to not be very readable - the text is very thin, some letters (like "Cl" in "Cloud") do not have any spacing between them and so on. I do not know how to fix this, so if any wikigician could fix that, I (and probably other readers of this text) would very much appreciate it.

Mineo (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

100 Linux Games

Not sure if it's noteworthy and I'm unaware of any reliable sources at this point, but this week the number of Linux-compatible games available via Steam reached 100. On the main Linux page it says 170+, but if you actually go to the Linux "Games" page, you'll see there are 100 (or 101, depending on how you sort, for some reason) with the last two added this week. Their initial game offering when Steam went out of beta mid-February consisted of approx. 60 games. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's covered in a reliable source, or several reliable sources, it might be. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yea, it's basically trainspotting if no one else considers this a milestone. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

New lead

Steam is a cross-platform, digital rights management, multiplayer and communications platform developed by Valve Corporation. It is used to distribute games and applications. Steam allows the user to download, install and organize their games. It includes social media features such as friends lists, groups, instant messaging, and in-game voice functionality. Though initially developed for use on Microsoft Windows, it is also available on Mac OS X, and clients with limited functionality on the PlayStation 3, iOS and Android systems. Valve also distributes a Steam client with altered functionality to schools with a modified version of Portal 2.

As of November 2012^[update], there are over 1800 games available through Steam,^[1] and 54 million active user accounts.^[2] Steam has an estimated 50-80% share of the digital distribution market for video games.^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vayportrail (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 December 2012‎ (UTC)

SteamOS should be its own article

Whoever just redirected the SteamOS page to the Steam (Software) page, I think SteamOS should be its own article. Steam OS could be compared to Chrome OS, which is based on the Google Chrome web browser. But Chrome OS, like SteamOS, and any other Linux OS gets its own page.-Lester 07:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Chrome OS is very clearly independently notable of the web browser. SteamOS isn't yet independently notable of Steam, as it's only just been announced. And not all Linux distributions get articles - in fact, many non-notable ones get deleted or redirected. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Heads up - Valve's pending announcement about this. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There is no question, by the time Steam OS is released, we will have a standalone article for it. Presently, the problem is lack of information on it short of the feature page that was up Monday. As we have no idea when it will be released (though implied "soon") and thus when more information is forthcoming, it is better to leave it here. This is only temporary, however, until that information comes down the line. --MASEM (t) 15:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism?

I vaguely remember that I read some criticism of Steam in the past (not on Wikipedia). I wanted to look what an objective source like Wikipedia has to say on that topic. However here in the current version there is little criticism, hard to find, sprinkled here and there. Only after looking in the German version of this article I could confirm that there actually exists quite a lot of criticism of Steam. To name a few: things like the closure of WON (and e.g. the establishment of WON2), being forced to be always online, regional restrictions, technical problems, and interest conflicts between Valve as a game developer and Valve as a online-publisher ("market distortion"). I have neither the time (nor unfortunately the interest in video games) to add this properly, but wanted to encourage people to add this information, as I consider it an important addition to this article. Tony Mach (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

We need reliable sources, not user or forums posts. Most of the complaints about steam come from there. There are probably some reliable critiques of Steam but they aren't as plenty out there. --MASEM (t) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to suggest adding a Criticism section to this article, similar to how Google has a Google#Criticism section. Two or three things that are already being mentioned in the article could be moved there. Firstly, "Valve carries out regular sales periods on Steam, during [...] These large discount sales have been criticized by [...]". Secondly, the Vulnerabilities (and possibly November 2011 hack) subsection(s) of the History section. Not yet mentioned in the article (I think) and something I would like to add to a Criticism section is that Steam users can't resell games. Valve is being sued over this by a German consumer group.[1] Criticism section, bad idea, good idea? --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, the conflict of interest has several sources too.[2][3][4] --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as "being forced to be always online", GenGAME has a piece about that, which may be usable.[5] --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Notch decided against using Steam because of its dominance and the percentage Valve takes from sales.[6] Other articles go into game ownership[7] and other issues.[8] --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

And as far as "things like the closure of WON (and e.g. the establishment of WON2)" goes, this UGO page could be reliable enough. It says, among other things: "Some fans, accustomed to WON and disappointed with Steam, developed workarounds to play Half-Life and Counter Strike." --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The last six years or so, every now and then, this article has had a criticism section. Time and time again, this section is being removed, even though at least some of the content was properly sourced and used reliable sources. You can see for yourself by reading through the article's edit history, or by checking the archived Talk pages (examples of related sections: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]) It almost reeks of censorship. There most certainly is criticism of Steam, there are more than enough reliable sources, and even Valve takes it serious enough to comment on it (see for example this and this). --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of criticism is quite dated though. I don't know if it should be mentioned in a Criticism section. (Maybe in a History section instead. Or nowhere?) For example, a January 2005 article at The Inquirer here mentions problems/complaints, but January 2005 is 'forever ago' in computer terms. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Historical criticism is fine, if we can find sources to support it. Since half this article is the history of the software, explaining various faults during that time would be appropriate. Of course, how well that can be sourced is a question. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all of the above would be valid to use. The comment about Notch, for example, would be unnecessary: it's a business decision, not a criticism. It's literally the same as selling a car via a dealer, or privately. You've presented no evidence of the sales being criticized by anyone (and that also would be irrelevant; only if the sales were DFS (British retailer)-style, and didn't end, may there be any real complaints about sales). Rockpapershotgun doesn't look like a RS, nor does GenGAME, and the UGO source isn't really useful for the criticism you listed - it mentions a typical decision, one that pleased some and disappointed others, without any major "campaign" or whatever, but it did mention server overload issues. That said, you do still have some usable reliable sources, and a criticism section should be put in place. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a comment on this, Rock, Paper, Shotgun is a Reliable Source. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the comment issues I'm seeing with most of the sources provided, when they do come from an RS, is that they are basically "one person's views on this particular feature". If there were multiple persons of appropriate notability all criticizing the same general point, that could be something, but if only one person says "I don't like X", it's not really appropriate to include that single viewpoint per WP:UNDUE. Of course, this doesn't necessarily multiple sources; a single source may outline several POVs from various individuals of note on the same point and that would be fine, but as I read these sources, they all seems "here's what this single person had to say". Notch, for example, may be important, but his opinion is but one person. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe the talk page articles will show that quite a bit of thought went into either removing some of the details of the criticism sections, or integrating them into the main articles. Many of the sources were poor or nonexistent, or discussed a plain fact of the service without actually criticizing it (Or being RS'd, but the RS mentioned no criticism). So far you haven't said anything that hasn't been discussed before, or countered anything previously brought up. Also, take a gander at this, which explains that in most cases criticism sections should be intergrated into the rest of the article if possible. Much of the content in prior criticism sections have been integrated in this manner. -- ferret (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with this then: the criticism that does exist, should it be in a Criticism section as with, for example, Google#Criticism, Yahoo!#Criticism, Microsoft#Criticism, Java (software platform)#Criticism, and so on, or should it be integrated into the rest of the article? I think it should be in a separate section, since even taking into account some of the comments about criticism examples I've mention in this thread, there is enough content to warrant a separate section. What GOG.com said about Steam's sales periods (already in the article; would need to be moved), content from the Vulnerabilities section (already in the article), the German consumer group that is suing Valve over Steam[17], Gearbox Software (its chief executive officer, Randy Pitchford) calling Steam a "conflict of interest"[18][19], Valves responses to Steam sales criticism[20] and the 'conflict of interest'[21], various criticisms are mentioned in the Enquirer article[22] including complaints about poor service and games being unplayable during downtime. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 16:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

International Business Times (the fourth-most visited site among business newspapers, according to Alexa[23]) is also reporting: "The Federation of Germany Consumer Organisations (VZVB) has challenged the developer's managing of a game's digital rights to prohibit re-selling by registered users. [...] The case revolves around games linked to and played on the Steam platform [...]"[24] "A European court ruled last summer that content creators can't prohibit post-purchase redistribution of work, no matter what end-user license agreement says."[25] A summary of the ruling itself is here, the full text here. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's interesting. I note that there's a separate user agreement for people in the EU, but if there is a way to transfer ownership of keys/games, I have not spotted it. Lovingboth (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, WON2#Creation is without references but, as far as I can tell, WON2 exists solely because former WON users were unhappy with Steam. By the way, Steam's off-line mode, was it introduced by Valve after complaints about the requirement to always be on-line? --82.170.113.123 (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, Steam off-line mode has always existed, at least since official release, not sure about the original beta period. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Now that I'm thinking about it, another frequently expressed criticism is that Steam is a DRM tool. A combination of the following three sources should be reliable enough: 1. INDICARE published an article about it ("But although there are mostly massive complaints about Valve's rigid usage control system, [...] It is alarming to see how little consumers have reacted to this practice and that it has not negatively affected sales of the game.")[26] 2. Richard Stallman, mentioned as a notable DRM critic at Digital Rights Management#Opposition to DRM, called DRM'd Steam for Linux games "unethical".[27] 3. Defective by Design says Steam's DRM violates users' freedom.[28] --82.170.113.123 (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That would appear to be more a criticism of DRM than Steam itself. Other than "Steam has DRM." ... which the article covers. Considering the sources you're quoting, such as Stallman, it's completely expected. They are opponents of DRM in any form. It seems like you're digging for negatives to include. Most of these facts are already covered in the article. Defective by Design is tightly associated with Stallman, so together those only really represent a single view point. -- ferret (talk) 18:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article already covers that "Steam has DRM." However, the article doesn't mention any criticism of Steam's DRM usage. That wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for a lot of other criticism that's also being left out the article for various reasons. I've summarized some of it in the paragraph "Okay, let's [...] during downtime." that, so far, nobody has replied to. It makes sense to me that Tony Mach started this thread, wondering why almost nothing about criticism of Steam is being mentioned in this article. There is criticism, not just from a handful of people. I am digging for negatives to include, because every time I bring something up the source isn't CNN or it's just one CEO that complains, or it's to be expected that someone complains, and so on. Although Lukeno94 did write "a criticism section should be put in place", so I'm still trying to find out what we can and cannot include there. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

For myself, I'm not trying to stall an attempt to add a criticism section. The problem is that the bulk of the "well known" criticism is from the player base and that's a tainted source by default, and the piecemeal bits we get from other sources really don't cut it. I'm certain that there is something that can be added but we have to be careful by its approach, otherwise we're just looking like we're struggling to include such a section. --MASEM (t) 20:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

There are more than just "piecemeal bits" from other sources. The German consumer group that is suing Valve over Steam, you can downplay that all you want, but there's a reason lots of reliable sources are reporting on it. If the CEO of Gearbox, a game development company with 180+ employees calls Steam a conflict of interest, that's being reported on by many reliable sources for a reason. GameSpot, 1UP and other websites reporting about Valve's response to criticism, that's not because the criticism isn't worthy of Valve's and these websites' attention. Already in the article are GOG criticism of Steam's sales periods and what a paper said about potential Steam browser protocol vulnerabilities. You state the bulk of the criticism is from the player base, but what else do you expect, these are the people using Steam. I wouldn't call them "a tainted source by default". If there is criticism from the players, specifically about certain - what you call "well known" - issues, and, for example, The Inquirer decides it's noteworthy enough to report on, it too may very well be noteworthy enough to be included in this article. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

First, lawsuits should be taken differently than criticism. Criticism are statements "you are doing something completely within your rights but it makes me upset" (eg using DRM, offering massive sales, etc.) Lawsuits are legal matters, though can eventually stem from criticism, but unless that's proven to start with, doesn't belong in that. Similarly, issues with vunerabilities aren't criticisms, they're cautions, though criticism can arise if the company doesn't respond fast enough to fix these. Using Randy Pitchford's person opinion, despite being the major player behind a big stupid, is UNDUE - however, on the other hand, statements from direct competitors, like GOG or EA, would be reasonable as that's standard practice in the industry is to identify your competitors' weaknesses. If there are articles that summarize the criticism from players that appears in a reliable source, then we can use them, but we can't take what is otherwise well-known but undocumented lore that players have certain attitudes to Steam and use that. --MASEM (t) 13:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lawsuits are different from criticism, but criticism are not exclusively statements that "you are doing something completely within your rights but [...]" (emphesis mine). This particular lawsuit is a legal matter that clearly stems from criticism, namely criticism of Steam: it's impossible to resell purchased games. Anyway, this is my last comment on the matter. People interested in reading about criticism of Steam can check other websites. It's not necessary to include any of it in this article. I'm a Steam user myself and I don't think I've ever criticized it myself. I hope the Steam Box will be a success. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong logo

An ignoramus uploaded their own reproduction of the Steam logo[29], making the real one get deleted shortly after. The bezzles are completely different, and the font size is far too large in comparison to logo size, and is the wrong font.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on this edits and several others you just made, I think you should probably head over to WP:Civil..... -- ferret (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

As ferret says, you should definitely check WP:Civil and WP:No personal attacks. There's no reason to call me an 'ignoramus' for making a mistake. I apologize for the mistake and if you'd like to fix it feel free to do so. Nicereddy (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I also wasn't a big fan of you calling me a "major needle dick", or calling Dandv an idiot. DarthBotto_talk•cont 03:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Available games count

I believe the Wired article is including DLC items, which in that case, is correct. However, if you search Steam for Games alone, the count that comes back (last week) is 2299. We should decide how particular we want this number to be, whether it should include DLC or not. -- ferret (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer using a reliable source (Wired) that reports the number in a "fixed" medium, instead of something that is dynamic like using Steam's search engine. If there is concern this number (3000+) is high, then it makes sense that we can add ("including DLC") to that statement to be clear. --MASEM (t) 18:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Steam (software)/GA1

Change of timeline

Timeline has become unmanageable, I propose we delete it and convert it to something more meaningful like what is used at Gangnam_style#Viral_spread, instead of views, use active steam users, and make it much smaller.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

If we cut down the events (I think, limiting it to the major points of introduction on various platforms, so maybe 5-6 points? ) it would be more useful, but yes, alternatively tying those same limited points to the steam userbase size would be good too. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Privacy hole

More criticism

Not a significant security hole (some privacy, but nothing like CC details or the like), and since it was fixed within days, it has no long-standing issue, thus not needed compared to the larger more threatening issues. --MASEM (t) 18:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but the amount of sources that covered this, and the way the describe it, clearly that is not the case. Have some more sources...

Reliable sources (most of which the above are) trump your opinion. If it's not as bad as the other security issues, then we can always break if off to another article, say Steam security issues, Criticism of Steam or Steam Controversy which covers it all in more detail.--Vaypertrail (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the issue didn't linger. It was fixed, and as Ars pointed out "Given the obscurity of the issue and the relatively small proportion of Steam users that use Private profiles, it's unlikely anyone's data was seriously compromised by the oversight". Bug issues that open privacy holes in software happen all the time - the only time they become notable is when direct personal details like SSN and CC are notable and even then, as an encyclopedia, we don't cover every little one. --MASEM (t) 19:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's your opinion. It also describes it as a "major potential privacy issue". Multiple reliable sources > your opinion on everything. So do you have any other reason except 'in my opinion, it's not a big deal'?--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest the flood of articles (All within the same 2-3 days) followed by no further coverage or commentary, would indicate a case of WP:Recentism. My "opinion" would be to exclude it as an unimportant event in the history of the software. -- ferret (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

So what is the difference between this and all the other content with no further coverage or commentary? Such as steam for schools, non-gaming downloads, f2p games, steam coupons, subscription-based game support, webmoney, and so on. You have detailed information about this stuff, yet don't allow a sentence and a half about security risk covered by multiple sources.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Because those features still exist, and in most cases are documented by third-party sources. The privacy hole - though it may be been around for some time, was only known for a period of 2-3 days between discovery and fixing. Now, if Steam had a history of repeated privacy holes - even if they all were fixed in a similar amount of time, that might be reason to mention "Steam has also had a number of privacy issues, but they have been fixed in ..." as a regular problem with the system. A one-time occuranced, fixed quickly and silently even on a matter that these sources considered low-risk, is not a major point. --MASEM (t) 20:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Steam Sales

At risk of being marketing for Steam, would it make sense to mention the major Steam Sales and Steam's general pricing discounts? Historic sale dates would be something to list as well, although probably not sale items. http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2130715 70.71.142.30 (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We mention they have sales periods, but the specifics of the sales are far too detailed for inclusion here. --MASEM (t) 14:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it may be useful to create a page called "List of Major Steam Sales" or something similar? We could list the major Summer, Winter, Spring, and Fall sales for each year, as well as Publisher weekends/weeks, perhaps? Along with dates, of course. --Nicereddy (talk) 19:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTCATALOG this information is not encyclopedic. --SubSeven (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ars Tech software usage estimates

[30] just came out today, with Ars Tech using various estimates of ownership and playtime to determine the most popular titles by various metrics. I am not sure if any of this reasonable fits, perhaps mentioning how popular the most popular game is based on this study and date. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

well, I suppose we can do that. if anyone at FAC has an issue with it, we can always remove it later. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

don't quote any actual figures from it, as they are way off[31], also steam community pages are not all activated, only 10 of the 25 million accounts back in Jan 2010 had pages[32], that's less than half. So I imagine the statistics are skewed towards social/multiplayer pages. So unless something sticks out like a sore thumb, such as Dota and TF2 being the most popular games, I cannot support it's usage.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

ready for FAC?

well, it looks like an article worthy of FAC, my only concern is perhaps that it may need some copyediting for cohesion and flow. what do you guys think? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 13:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely would suggest a copyedit, but I'm also trying to evaluate if there's any major Steam changes in the near-term pipeline that might be good waiting on their inclusion/status that might cause issues on stability here. --MASEM (t) 15:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

no updates i'm aware of. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 15:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I put up a request at WP:GOCE, but it looks like it'll take a while, there's a pretty good backlog. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 20:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No, not even close. There's unresolved issues at the GAR, the Change of timeline substantial improvement above. Glancing at the article there's still glaring problems, no mention of the Half-Life 2 Steam outage, one of Steam's 'make or break' moments. The lead has no mention of the social networking side (steamcommunity), excessive news report-like details everywhere. There is information about Steam Guard, but no information on the prevalance of viruses and scams which ultimately caused its implementation.[33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. See Category:FA-Class software articles for the type of quality FA requires.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If the HL2 Steam outage was a make-or-break moment, where's the source? And scams that result from people mistrustring sources believing them to be valve but nothing to do directly with Valve's implementation of Steam Guard is not something that is Valve's fault - that's what phishing does and not appropriate here. The "major" security holes have been discussed, these all seem trivially minor. --MASEM (t) 22:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And the steam community features is mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead. --MASEM (t) 22:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

vayper, I've been through the FAC process before, this article is pretty close. if the timeline changes were going to be implemented, they would have already. you suggested them almost 3 months ago. as far an phishing goes, that's something that every online service is vulnerable to; unless you have sources that claim steam is unusually vulnerable, phishing simply isn't notable. you brought up the same crap in the GA review, and if it were as big a problem as you claim, it would have been addressed before it was passed. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors should be willing to work hard to make it FA standard, I don't see that. I have shown how the growth of the Steam user base can be shown in a graph, yet nobody has taken it up. Gabe Newell: "Account phishing and hijacking are our #1 support issues", CEO of Valve says it, pretty much every source says it when talking about Steam Guard, yet you exclude it. The articles goes into explicit details about minor things, yet lacks any information that may put the software in negative light, that has more sources and is more relevant. So the following is more important than mentioning why steam guard was implemented or the steam privacy issue above, feature x was first used with game y and z, adding non-Steam games, minecraft, Xbox 360. I'll get back to you with the HL2 sources.--Vaypertrail (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

of course Steam Guard discussions talk about phishing and hijacking, it's what Steam Guard is designed to prevent. if you can come up with more recent Reliable sources that support your claims, then we can add it to the article. as far as the graph goes, you can always be bold and implement it. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 23:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Steam Guard backdoor found.[40][41][42][43]--Vaypertrail (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a backdoor; it's a phishing scheme that convinces the user to do something they shouldn't do in the first place (uploading that steam file). Nothing Valve can do about that, that's just preying on innocent users. So no, not important to add. --MASEM (t) 18:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible area of criticism - lack of curation

There is possibility a section to consider in complaints about curation that Steam does in channels like Greenlight and Early Access; this bit from Jim Sterling on Earth Year 2066 [44] made the rounds this week, and I think a simplier comments could be made about titles like DayZ. But I'd like to see more about this and how to work it in before adding it. --MASEM (t) 22:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Another point: how a more-open platform that Steam's heading towards might become. --MASEM (t) 16:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Early Access Section/Mention?

Would it be appropriate to include a section on the Early Access program on Steam? Given that games on the service that are being developed, but can be purchased I think it would probably be appropriate to mention it. --John Wukong (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's already in there under "developer tools" and more discussion about early access in general is at Early access. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it can be discussed more at the Early access, and provide a link to it. Looks like they're trying to kill Steam greenlight.[45]--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Brand?

Steam is becoming a type of brand? Software for all platforms, website, social media site, video games console, operating system, all called Steam. Need to consider revamping templates, and where new article splits, redirects or merges are needed.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Steam Machines and Steam OS, the two biggest offshoots, have their own articles. And I really haven't seen RS' that call Steam a "brand", though if it becomes one, the first place to address that is at the Valve's article to start. --MASEM (t) 06:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Steam Store.png

File:Steam Store.png needs updating with another Steam stock image, it's from December 2012. Also need one with a visible username or a reasonable photoshop of it removed.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

i can do that... give me a few. i won't publicize my username, however. privacy reasons. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

actually, nothing has really changed. i see no reason to upload a new one, the current one is censored to protect the uploader's privacy, and I kinda doubt you'll get anyone else to upload one that isn't censored. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:36, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, unless the user wants their name shown, we always will need to scrub the name from any screenshot. And I do agree, there's so little changed on the interface to demand a new screenshot now. --MASEM (t) 06:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

the only image that really needs work would likely be the logo. I think it should be on a dark backgrounds, as it is difficult to see against the white background of wikipedia -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Another area to be added - Steam sales / opinions about them / gamification

Particularly in light of the issues around the gamification of the summer sale, I think we do need to add a section about the various sales (daily and weeklies in addition to the major events), and how these sales are seen by the community , not only the "praise" they get but how they are sometimes considered poor, etc. I know I've seen a few references but this is definitely a area to be addressed here. --MASEM (t) 02:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Every retail website has summer/day/hot etc sales so this isn't notable on it's own. EA said the sales were a bad idea[46][47] which I think was removed from the article. Propose some sources.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Steam's summer/holiday sales are very notable compared to any other digital storefront's, if not for the jokes/memes about how no one's wallets are safe. And the manipulation done during the last sale's gamification brought attention. --MASEM (t) 06:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Another example [48] and they meant about how Steam Sales might cause the indie bubble to burst. I agree that we only need passing mention of the daily/weekly, but it's the big block sales that is the point of interest over any other storefront (if not having other storefronts follow suit). --MASEM (t) 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Conflicting info

Infobox: Initial release Windows: September 12, 2003[1]
Steam_(software)#Initial_release: The Steam client was first made available for download in January 2003...

Which is it?--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I read that as "Beta" vs "Release" versions per the sources. The public non-beta release - what we use in the infobox, is the Sept 2003 date. --MASEM (t) 22:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Text needs changing to make this more clear...--Vaypertrail (talk) 23:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

My Picture

Hi, I updated the picture showing Steam (Click here for the revision I made) It was changed to the old one by someone claiming it didn't need to be updated. Can I change the picture back to the one I made it to? - Emil Sayahi (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Who the....

I uploaded a user profile image and it just got replaced in half a minute! Why did this happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LexDragon (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 October 2014‎ (UTC)

I reverted it because it's not appropriate for this article. An editor's personal profile page is not a good representative of Steam, especially with a link prominently displayed to Youtube for how to do your theme. -- ferret (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Auctions, weeklong deals, and community features

I wanted to add

In December 2014, a series of online auctions allowed Steam users to convert inventory items into "gems", a virtual currency that could be used for bidding on about 2,000 separate game titles.^[4]

References

^ "Steam Search". Valve Corporation. Retrieved 2012-01-20.

^ "40 Million Active Gamers on Steam Mark". Gaming Bolt. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.

^ Graft, Kris (November 19, 2009). "Stardock Reveals Impulse, Steam Market Share Estimates". Gamasutra. Retrieved November 21, 2009.

^ Murphy, David (12 December 2014). "Valve Holiday Auction Back Online, Exploits Fixed". PC Magazine. Retrieved 15 December 2014.

but there's not really a suitable section for this. I also noticed that there's nothing about the reoccurring weeklong deals in the article. Hm, then I clicked the "community features" link in the lead and it's not going anywhere because there no longer is a Steam Community section. The latter seems to have become a part of the User interface section. What to do with all this? --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The gems thing appears wholly temporary as a prelude to the holiday sale, so it really doesn't have lasting permanence. Withe the weeklong sales, that's nothing surprising given that this is a storefront. We'll have to fix something for the community part. --MASEM (t) 20:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Steam's New Products

I believe some mention should be made of Steam's new products coming in the next several months. (http://store.steampowered.com/universe/) Please examine each "branch" of the page listed in this post, as it does contain new information, whether or not it seems like it. (An example is where it says "Steam", which is not new. They do mention new services, like TV shows, coming to Steam.) I do realize that some of these products may not fall under this specific page's jurisdiction. Could someone make a section or more on the upcoming products? I feel I am not qualified to add something like this to a Wikipedia article. I've only majorly edited on one other less strictly-regulated (though still very professional) wiki, http://LotRO-Wiki.com, and edited minor typos and phrasing here on Wikipedia. --Super3588 (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

We already have separate articles for these (or at least where appropriate). --MASEM (t) 03:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I felt that they deserved some sort of mention here, especially the upcoming updates to Steam. I also felt that specifically the new products should receive some sort of mention here, especially if they don't have enough released information yet to have their own page. I've noticed that many other articles will take a specific topic and put it in the broader topic it falls under if there isn't enough information for another Wikipedia page.

These could also be used as references: http://store.steampowered.com/news/16010/, http://store.steampowered.com/news/16000/. --Super3588 (talk) 03:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

See the section "Steam Machines" which is where these mostly break out. --MASEM (t) 04:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I still believe Steam Link and SteamVR deserve a mention somewhere in this article. There's also the matter of the updates to the actual Steam Client that they're planning (see: http://store.steampowered.com/universe/steam/). If these don't currently deserve a place in this article, please just outright tell me, but give me a good reason, too. --Super3588 (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the features on that page are already included here. And remember that Steam is a software unit - most of the rest is Valve-based hardware, linked to steam via Steam Machines. So, for example the Steam Link box is already part of Steam on this page by virtual of in-home streaming. --MASEM (t) 04:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Even though I don't agree with you that the Steam Machine and Steam Link are the same (one is a console, and the other just streams the games you already have on your computer), I do see where your coming from. Also, it would probably be better to add the stuff having to do specifically and only with the Steam Client when more details are available. Besides, I don't see any specific section on Future Updates, or anything. --Super3588 (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There may actually be a merit to rearranging how Steam related hardware is included in this article now, as the Steam store now officially has a "Hardware" selection, including listings for the Steam Controller, Steam Link and a range of Steam Machines. One of many available sources: http://www.pcworld.com/article/2893605/valve-adds-new-steam-machine-stuffed-hardware-section-to-steam-store.html -- ferret (talk) 02:07, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added a line that hardware sales are now available in the store, as this is a novel facet. --MASEM (t) 20:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree, this article is about the software, not hardware, Steam Machine (hardware platform) would be more suitable.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not talking about the hardware, but the ability of the software to now include hardware sales, which is different. --MASEM (t) 21:16, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's accurate to place Steam Controller and Steam Link under Steam Machine. All three are part of Valve's hardware initiatives, but the Controller and Link are not "under" Steam Machine and have no direct reliance on Steam Machines. And all of them are under Steam as a content delivery network. It may soon be appropriate to make a distinction between "Steam, the software client" and "Steam, the gaming service" (edit conflict) In particular, the Steam Link itself is useless without a running instance of Steam to stream from, while the Controller and Steam Machines can be potentially used independently from Steam client.-- ferret (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Masem: Wrong, it is a new feature on the website, not the software, according to the source.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not currently make a distinction between the Steam store and the Steam client. This actually relates to the article rename a few years ago from "Steam (content delivery)" to "Steam (software)"... The old name was perhaps more useful and more accurate. -- ferret (talk) 21:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hardware requirements ?

It would be good with some information on the hardware requirements.

Not only for the steam client itself but also at least some games, that will not start on a platform that has the steam client installed and running. Lklundin (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Outside of operating systems, we do not include hardware requirements unless the issues with hardward requirements are noted by secondary sources. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia has a clear preference for secondary sources. Secondary sources on my above mentioned hardware requirements would be an improvement to the article. Lklundin (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

So... do you know of any reliable secondary sources we could include? -- ferret (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

The thing is I am not a gamer, so if I google 'steam hardware requirements' I have no idea which of the secondary sources would be reliable. (I think it could be interesting to see which if any difference there would be in the hardware requirements for the difference platforms supported by the Steam client and games played via it, but I am not really interested in playing. In fact, the only computer game I play is Wikipedia :-). Lklundin (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Steam itself has very low requirements hardware-wise, so it's really not notable at all. The hardware requirements of individual games sold/hosted by Steam is irrelevant to this article. System requires are also viewed as WP:Gamecruft except where there were practically notable, such as was the case at the time when Crysis was released many moons ago. -- ferret (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the explanations. Lklundin (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Rename to Steam (Platform)

Steam is certainly a piece of software, but in 2015, I think of it more as a platform than just a piece of software. It also has a fully featured website for its store and community, mobile apps, and Steamworks. I think that Platform would be much better suited than Software. Keavon (talk) 05:18, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's still a piece a software. The hardware platforms are covered elsewhere. --MASEM (t) 05:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not referring to hardware platforms. I am talking about Steam in its entirety as a service. The Steam client is a piece of software, yes, but all of Steam is better described as a service or platform. Steam has expanded from just being the Steam client to much, much more, from a website to a distribution platform to an online community and as of more recently, as you mentioned, also hardware. When someone says Steam, I don't think of the Steam client. I think of all of these features in one big jumble. That's what I would call a platform (or service, but I feel platform is more fitting). Unless there is to be a separate Wikipedia page entirely dedicated to the Steam client, it's much more fitting to call Steam a platform or service.Keavon (talk) 06:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree. The article was originally ~~(platform)~~ but was renamed to (software) a few years ago. -- ferret (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Valve calls Steam a game platform on their home page. I think I'd favor that as well. We could go all the way to (game platform) even, but either would work for me. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:48, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, I must amended my original statement. Faulty memory. The original article title was Steam (content delivery). But I believe (platform) or (service) is now more accurate than (software). (game platform) would be too far since Steam has a music component now and briefly explored video distribution. -- ferret (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd recommend (software platform) or (content platform) than just (platform). --MASEM (t) 15:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards (content platform) or maybe (media platform), since it's games, applications, and music now. And that would future-proof us against them adding more later, such as audiobooks and movies. Never say never. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a need to disamb beyond (platform)? It doesn't conflict with another article. (software platform) ignores the hardware components, which are becoming a bigger facet of the service. I feel (media platform) has the same issue as (game platform), although it is more broad. (content platform) would be ... acceptable, to me, but feels unnecessarily tight. Side note, I think it's interesting that the hatnote at Steam already uses the "platform" phrasing. -- ferret (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Can we have first some external relevant secondary sources who consider Steam more platform than a digital distributor? The self-perception of Steam is not a good argument. While there is clearly a movment in direction to become a platform (pushing of SteamWorkes), I consider the weight of Steam still more on the distributon side than platform side. Shaddim (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sources tend to say "digital distribution platform" and "gaming platform", i.e. they refer to it as a platform constantly, and sometime specifically typed as "digital distribution" and "gaming". There's no question at all that it's viewed as a "platform". Only if we need to disambiguate beyond "platform" will we really need to dig at what sources are using. -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no question at all that it's viewed as a "platform" well, exactly this is currently questioned. Currently, Steam looks more like a distribution service with additional social benefits which adresses the platforms Windows, Mac, Linux. Shaddim (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Steamworks API backend. If you took that out, then, yes, Steam is clearly just a distro service with socials. The Steamworks API with the client-side features (overlay, etc.) make it a platform for software to be build around. --MASEM (t) 22:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

As I already had mentioned, I'm well aware of the technical existence of the API. We need proof of the relevance, which goes way beyond the relevance of the distribution marketplace Steam. E.g. by games who are not called anymore released on PC/Mac/Linux but Steam. Shaddim (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You're missing the point, I think. PC/Mac/Linux are "platforms", yes, but platform does not mean OS. The word has wider meaning than that. Steam is a platform for a range of services, including distribution, social, APIs, hardware, and even an operating system. Similarily, being a "digital distributor" does not make something not a "platform"... the terms aren't mutually exclusive. If you use WP:VG/RS's reliable source search, you'll see dozens of sources refer to Steam as a platform. The sources exists. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Platform means, the relevant IT entity where a software can run on, either HW (interfaces/standards) or OS/runtime environment(API/API), whatever... currently accepted software platforms are: PC, Mac, Windows, Linux, Java, etc. Now, is Steam already a software platform (beyond social platform and distribution platform) on its own? Please, proof this point of view with relevant refs. Shaddim (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not vested enough in this to care about arguing the definitions of words with you. I'll just leave some links to reliable sources from the WP:VG/RS custom search for you where the word "platform" is used to describe Steam: [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] ..... and that's just the first page of results. Besides that, due to Steamworks, YES, Steam is a necessary API for a range of games to run on. Plus, this article's lead has called it a "platform" for years. It's ALREADY established that Steam is a platform. -- ferret (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not vested enough in this to care about arguing the definitions of words with you." -> but you should as you want a change of definition of what Steam is. Regarding your refs, in the order (#5 not reachable) : "distribution platform", "sales platform", "PC game platform ", "game distribution service [...]platform for purchasing and downloading PC games", "gaming platform" -> I see a broad range of varying and conflicting definitions and not a consensus or agreement of understanding which would support the notation that Steam is general "platform" in the strength PC or whatever. Currently, "digital distribution software" or" digital distribution service" seems best fitting for the services Steam provides. Shaddim (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason why the article should be moved to the proposed location. Perhaps it should be moved to "digital distribution software", a la Origin (digital distribution software), but none of the other names suggested here make sense. "Game platform" is not an accurate description (sells far more than just games), for starters. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The major motivation of the move is due to Steam (As an service/platform) expanding to include sells of hardware, an operating system, and official hardware such as the controller and link. -- ferret (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind - we have the OS at a different article SteamOS which is designed to run Steam easily in a linux enviornment. Steam doesn't change because of the OS, necessarily. Not that moving to Platform doesn't make sense for other reasons. --MASEM (t) 23:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, just illustrating the range Valve has expanded to with related Steam components. -- ferret (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

But those things are all beyond the scope of this article, Ferret, which is about the software. Perhaps a new article on the platform may be valid. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I can sorta see where this is going, but what Valve's longer term plans are for this, no one really knows, particularly as Valve/Steam is rather an open system and there's not as tight integration between all these pieces. As such, within the Valve's main article I can certainly support a section about the Steam "brand" which includes this software piece, the Steam Machines, SteamOS, etc, but not yet an article until that facet becomes more clear. --MASEM (t) 23:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2015

This edit request to Steam (software) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I would like to request an update of the default picture of the Steam Store page at the top of an article so that it does not feature a game in the main box and provide a more up to date picture. I have provided a picture here featuring the Steam Controller. Thank you. Jamestavendale (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done Current image is fine, it was updated last month. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

[1] "Steam Search". Valve Corporation. Retrieved 2012-01-20.

[2] "40 Million Active Gamers on Steam Mark". Gaming Bolt. 6 January 2012. Retrieved 7 January 2012.

[Graft-3] Graft, Kris (November 19, 2009). "Stardock Reveals Impulse, Steam Market Share Estimates". Gamasutra. Retrieved November 21, 2009.

[PC_Magazine_2014-12-12-4] Murphy, David (12 December 2014). "Valve Holiday Auction Back Online, Exploits Fixed". PC Magazine. Retrieved 15 December 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]