Talk:Steam (software)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Steam (software) has been listed as one of the Video games good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
November 4, 2013 Peer review Reviewed
January 1, 2014 Good article nominee Listed
June 4, 2014 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Computing / Software (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Video games (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Valve task force.

Missing Reception Section[edit]

According to the Wikipeda policy of WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT articles should be well balanced and represent the full spectrum of public response on a topic. This seems to be not the case for this article anymore (but existed before). While some aspects of public reception are represented (commercial one), major aspects (especially the controversial aspects) are missing. I will start to re-integrate missing & well backed aspects into a dedicated reception chapter (formed from marketshare and impact). Thoughts? Shaddim (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's difficulties in the criticism as much only comes from user blogs which aren't appropriate SPS. We can't use things like user complaints, the BBB rating, etc. to support that section. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm well aware of that & would use only accepted secondary sources as base. Shaddim (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Starting right now a material collection (feel free to comment or add):

(so, infact, I'm surprised how many good secondary sources exist... so a reception chapter is no problem at all)

But what do you want to glean from those sources? Some of them cover more-or-less unimportant one time events. Some are commentary on Steam's market power. Some are about VAC, which isn't, strictly speaking, Steam. Some are really about EA's competing Origin service (Battlefield 3). Lots are about individual games, including some events I know are covered in the articles for those games (Where it belongs). I could go on.... It's certain that sources talking about Steam exist, the question is, what is trivial and what is notable enough to include here? -- ferret (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
As I told, reception of Steam by the industry, public, users, journalist, law etc. The material above provids a big amount of notable references for relevant aspects as legality, privacy, safety/security, dominance of market, user rights etc. Shaddim (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
But those details already exist in the article? -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Only partly interwoven, many relevant aspects are missing. Overall, an important, industry changing service as Steam with enourmous impact on technology and society (seeable be the sheer amoutn of reception) deserves a significant reception chapter on wikipedia. That this is mostly missing is a serious problem for an article of this relevance. Shaddim (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I do follow Steam and Valve to a good degree in the media, and the problem is that the type of reception (and particularly criticism) is just not there in RS. Plenty of user blogs, left and right, and there are spot negative pieces around, but nothing at the scale you are suggesting. Arguably you would think there should be numerous states about the effective monopoly Valve has on PC gaming, but this isn't a subject of many critiques. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
To me, this just feels like we're rebuilding the Criticism section, which was appropriately merged into the rest of the article, except this time we'll call it "Reception".... But everything being brought up seems to relate to negative bias. Are you trying to add reception or "criticism"? If any of these sources discuss pertinent reliable information, they should be added to the existing sections as appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Masem: "nd the problem is that the type of reception (and particularly criticism) is just not there in RS." I disagree. The presented sources are RS according WP:VGRS, found via Reliable Sources for Video Games . @Ferret: I plan a reception chapter. Due to the nature of human reception, there might be a good chunk of criticism involved. I will try to keep it balanced according to NPOV. cheers Shaddim (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shaddim, I changed your sources to a numbered list numbered and hidden them for readability. Your best way forward would be to propose draft the content you want to add here or your own user space.--Vaypertrail (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for formating, Vaypertrail. I will prepare a draft. Shaddim (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I keep seeing you add new sources to this list, but looking at them, they don't even belong with this list. The last couple for example would belong to the VAC article, not the Steam article. Others are one-off complaints about various games that should be in the articles for those games. -- ferret (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. My primary concern here is with synthesizing a reception based on a variety of disparate and barely related events, rather than from a set of comprehensive reviews of the service as a whole. —Torchiest talkedits 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will note there is has been criticsm of the Steam Early Access (Which is covered at Early Access since there's other programs that offer that too now), and Steam Greenlight has been long-discussed in a critical nature, of which I've been tempted to write a separate article for. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A belated side comment: are Stallman's FSF comments really worth having in the "impact" section? It's good in the sense that he's talking about Steam as a whole, but it's bad in the sense that he is very fringe and not really talking about Steam, but his usual harp on free / unfree software - it'd apply equally to *any* unfree-but-popular software on Linux (something which, in the linked article, he already notes/whines that many Linux distros include!). Also the impression from the article is largely negative, but Stallman says in the linked article that he thinks that the overall effect might be positive (moving users from Evil Windows to the One True GNU) anyway. The point is that anything involving Stallman really is more about Stallman's philosophies than the topic under discussion; it'd be like citing Noam Chomsky's views on something in politics. SnowFire (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

On the paid mod issue[edit]

We shouldn't be making a big deal out of this, now that Valve has removed it for the time being. It was a short term issue and the complains and Valve's pulling should be documented but to go into excessive detail on the complaints is unnecessary at this time. This is similar to many many past issues people have had with Steam which we do not document at all because they are short term issues that are quickly resolved. Thing to the long-game here, not the short term news reporting, which we are not. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't even be mentioned. Can be mentioned in Mod (video gaming) if anywhere.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
No, a brief mention here as a feature that was added and then pulled is important, but the larger details of mods being paid-for efforts should be at the Mod article. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Well fix it then instead of reverting my solution. You also reverted my copyedit.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
As I noted in the change summary, we need to note that the new ban system is something enforced at the Steam level. And there's nothing to fix here. The mention is sufficiently brief. There's a whole bunch of detailed discussion on the paid mods stuff that can be sourced for the Mod article, but the limited context we give here is appropriate to understand why the feature was pulled for the time being. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to create a 2015 paid mods controversy to give it more depth? I feel this is a notable topic. --09:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchyte (talkcontribs)
I don't think so. While it's notable within the PC gaming scene on forums and reddit, coverage from reliable sources wasn't that comprehensive. The majority of gaming websites didn't even give their opinion on the matter, they just noted that the community was pissed off about it and all posted pretty much similar articles on the matter. So I'm not sure there is enough information to make a good article out of it. For now I think that a section within Mod (video gaming) covering paid mods and reaction to it would be more appropriate. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
For example, [1] is a good editorial article that gets into the issues of paying modders; this would be fine at the mod article, but is far too detailed for this article (as all Steam did was enable this and not really a fault of the software itself), but we do need to at least summarized it was tried and pulled. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I have added a section to the Mod article. --Anarchyte (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So news about a specific category of goods for sale for a specific game, in this case mods for Skyrim, (no change in the Steam software itself) which didn't even last 2 weeks, and Gabe's commentary is relevant? No wonder this article is an over-sized mess. Looks like gamers being caught up in one off dramas then blogging writing about it here. And bans at "Steam level" doesn't actually mean anything to anyone compared to being denied access to a game.

What is wrong with, "Paid for mods were introduced to the store in April, but removed by the end month after negative feedback."?--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that the Mod article has discussion of it, I trimmed out the details of the negative feedback with a link to that section on Mod. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Steam Family Options (Is it undue?)[edit]

So I have happened to notice that there is not a brief passage of one thing which talks about Steam's "Family View" and its main functionality. I would love to contribute to this page by adding that information, and I even have a reference ready*, but about what I am worried is the WP:NPOV. I am worried about as to whether it would be undue if I were to add it. What are your opinions about it? Thanks for your help.

Nope it would not be undue, and I have added a bit for this just now (one sentence all that needed). --MASEM (t) 03:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Steam refund "controversy"[edit]

It's not yet so much a controversy but there's certainly been a bit of talk about the pros and cons of Steam Refunds as seen through the eyes of game developers; there's also the reported issues that some publishers purposes raised prices and/or bundled content with games in advance of the Summer Sale as to have the discounted price end up the same while denying the ability to refund these titles (based on the bundling) [2]. I don't think we're yet at a point to have this included per UNDUE but it is a topic to watch for. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That said, Kotaku has refuted much of the claims regarding refunds and the latest sale, but the refund approach was still a subject of debate before and I see Gamasutra's trying to get a idea of how to write an article w/ dev input. Something to watch at the meantime. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Epic security fail[edit]

Being able to reset the password of any account, might deserve more than a single sentence. Let's see if it develops any further.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really, given that users with steam guard enabled were not affected. Plus it was also caught quickly and Valve is working to restore said accounts. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The wave of sources reporting (and still publishing as I type) on this trumps your downplaying of it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Of course it's being covered as it people should be aware of it, but the fact they fixed it quickly and are working to restore those affected by it may not make it as significant as it first seems. It's a vunerablility, but it doesn't appear as massive as other security holes. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)