Paradox censoring negative reviews

[Zephyrum]

1) How the hell do they know? They haven't even tried them.
2) It's obfuscating and lying about EUIV quality.

1) Pretty much every 100+ hours guy reviewing was someone keeping up with some amount of DLC who either gave up or still buys with a grain of salt everytime. They know, and pretty darn well.
2) It's not lying, let's face it, DLC-less EU4's quality, replayability and entertainment value is somewhere around Castle Crashers' "everything is the same" and "virtually no difference between characters", except a good 8 times the price. I can back that up, anyway - base EU4 kept me entertained for little over five hours, in constrast to the earlier example's 108. El Dorado's CN designer is what saved it for me.

 

[qer]

If I'm dissatisfied with a product and I want to make the developers notice, the most effective way is too hurt their public image. Reviews can or cannot be objective (by the way, objective is usually a way to enforce subjective experiences. The only thing close to objectivity is science) but if there is no restriction, I can write the hell I want into them as long as I have an objective. Heck, even this "useless" reviews may be more helpful that the "objective" ones, as they move the company away from practices that hurts their standing with their buyers. Also notice that the initial review was constructive, in the sense that the user who posted it wanted to revert some current trends he ( and others including me ) find worrisome

 

[Denkt]

Constructive criticism is good but non constructive criticism is bad because it may block the path for constructive criticism and thus risk an even worse game.

If you want the game to be improved you need to actually tell what is wrong.

Ironically negative reviews are generally much better for a game than positive reviews because negative reviews actually often tell what the game should improve while positive once generally don't tell anything at all of value then it comes to game improvement. Positive may be good in that it tell what is working but that is less valuable than knowing what is not working.

Even people who are in general satisfied should talk about the weak parts of the game. I mean how much do you here about criticism about the national idea group system which I find to be terrible or the unit system which could be much better done, I mean even the working parts can be terrible but that is much less talked about.

 

[Pugman]

First, it was a really bad move for Paradox to abuse the abuse flag (and ironic). That said, I don't really understand where all the negativity is coming from. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy this DLC. Why complain about it? If you don't want it don't buy it.

 

[darth254]

First, it was a really bad move for Paradox to abuse the abuse flag (and ironic). That said, I don't really understand where all the negativity is coming from. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy this DLC. Why complain about it? If you don't want it don't buy it.

isn't that kind of the point of reviews? To get a feel for whether you'd want it or not? Censoring reviews can impact sales. % recommended is definitely a metric a lot of people use in their decision making process.

 

[Pugman]

BAD DLC policy biased Steam review writers on EU4 are NOT to be trusted, as they don't rate the GAME itself, only company policy on DLC.

That is like rating world of warcraft base game as BAD, just because monthly fee for it is too high.

Price should play a role in a review, but NOT be the main variable being looked at when reveiwing a game/DLC.

It is NOT objective.

If said reviews would be about DLC, you STILL got to consider cost/return value. Rating a good content "overpriced" dlc as 30% just because you *think* it's overpriced, is trolling in my book, or at least writing a biased review.

Example: viking traders went all the way to BAGDAD to trade, and the only UNBIASED non christian info you will ever find on vikings comes from sources that far away, just because they weren't thinking of vikings as vile aggressive raiding backwater heathens needing conversion, as many historians around King Magnus were back in those days.

Point being, all those bad steam reviewed are horribly biased and written by people that aren't trustworthy to rate the game as badly. Its common sense in science; if your source is biased, its untrustworthy source.

If you want to change DLC policy of Paradox, the idea would be to make everybody NOT buy the game. Which is exactly what writers of these bad reviews want to accomplish. The reason they write biased reviews might be a valid one, but it contaminates the review.

And what will it yield in the end?

Paradox giving up on making DLC, and making eu4 abandonware. I'm sure we can agree nobody on this forum wants that.

Hope you can understand my point here.

Conclusion:

Do NOT post bad reviews on steam, as it hurts ENTIRE current community, and FUTURE playerbase.

if you don't like paradox DLC policy, then don't buy DLC at full price.

don't ruin the free updates to the game by scaring unbiased potential buyers away with bad steam reviews.

you will achieve exact opposite of what you want; risking making this game abandonware with NO DLC and no free updates.

Paradox is right to censor this review, but they could have reacted to it with humor also.

"Harsh treatment of rebels is good for our absolutism" they could have posted as explanation for their censorship.

You're exactly correct, despite all the "disagrees" you got on your post. Seems to me all this complaining about DLCs is from a bunch of freeloaders who want Paradox to work for them for nothing. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy the DLC. It is entirely optional and does not prevent you from playing the game you purchased.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Note; the guy saying he's a "professional book and game reviewer" somehow reminds of the South Park episode about Yelp.

What's exactly your problem with it? It's a job like any other. "Professional" meaning I get paid for it, as opposite of doing it as a hobby.

 

[Pugman]

isn't that kind of the point of reviews? To get a feel for whether you'd want it or not? Censoring reviews can impact sales. % recommended is definitely a metric a lot of people use in their decision making process.

A bad review on the DLC itself because it's of poor quality is of course perfectly reasonable. A bad review just because you don't like Paradox putting out DLCs and asking for money for them is *not* ok, in my opinion.

 

[Escher]

Hi all!

I just wanted to shed some more light on how Steam user reviews work, and what our policy at Paradox is as far as our interactions with them.

The first and most important bit of information for you all to know is this:

Paradox (or any Developer using Steam for that matter) can NOT take down nor hide reviews. A flagged review is ALWAYS visible to the community.

As TheletterZ already mentioned, we would never try to censor reviews that we do not agree with. We love you guys and we always appreciate your feedback, even when it's negative.

The Steam platform is very much Valve’s backyard. Developers and players alike are “guests” on their platform. Paradox cannot ever remove nor hide reviews, we CAN however flag a review to bring it to Valve’s attention; they then either clear the flag, or take down the review as they see fit.

So how does the system work?

We as Developers have three options when it comes to flagging a review for investigation by Valve.

1. Flag as Abusive
   
   
2. Flag as Off-topic
   
   
3. Flag for breaching Steam community guidelines

(Note: What appears to have happened in the case of the EUIV review that’s been brought up is that perhaps via a miss-click (it’s just a simple scroll-down menu where you choose the category) “Abusive” was chosen over “Off-topic”.)

At this point the review is then locked from being edited. Valve then decides if the review has or has not breached their guidelines.

The final step is that the review is then unflagged, or removed.

Why do you flag reviews though?

Abusive-flagged reviews I would hope should be self-explanatory. I don’t think anyone honestly expects an expletive-fueled rant is going to be left alone.

Off-topic is perhaps the more grey area. Again, this is Valve’s platform we are talking about, so they ultimately decide what is/is not off-topic, but I’d like to elaborate how we decide whether to flag for investigation or not.

As far as we are concerned we highly value the ability of Steam user reviews to give easily-shareable, direct, user-to-user critique of a game. That is something we embrace, for good or bad, and want to foster as best we can.

So, if we see a review that has nothing to do with the game, it’ll likely be flagged for Valve to take a look at. They’ll then decide if the review is in line with what they hope the review system to be used for or not.

Some examples of “good” or “bad” reviews?

Something we would likely flag:

Why? This has pretty much no relevance to the game it’s been posted to at all. Steams guidance “alert” when making us confirm we choose to flag it pops up the following “it has practically nothing to do with the product being reviewed. I’d say in this case, yes that criteria was fulfilled.

Please come to any of the various discussion areas though, like our forum for example, we won't punish you for making your feelings known (basic rules of civility etc aside of course)!

Something we would NOT flag:

Although of course we’d likely disagree, and be sad to see the customer feel that way, our feelings don’t get to influence reviews. The player has posted a negative review which directly references the game itself, he likes the game, but feels that the DLC is a little expensive for his personal situation. Technically, this may or may not even be considered O.T. by Valve, as it references overall DLC policy, not the product that the review is on, but we are happy to let it stand as it specifically references the game itself.

Sorry for the massive wall of text, I felt you all deserved a proper in-depth explanation of how things work.

In general though to sign out with - the overarching policy from us when flagging reviews for investigation is that if we are unsure, we leave well alone.

Thanks for bearing with me through this long post, please do keep reviewing, be it positive or negative, we are really touched that you care so much!



/Escher and the Community Team

 

[kitemasaki]

I mean even the working parts can be terrible but that is much less talked about.

Uh no. The vast majority of threads are about mechanics.
The pricing/DLC focus has increased only recently. It has never been this vocal especially in regards to reviews, which will hurt sales over the summer when players are looking for games to buy. While I don't mind the DLC model, I do understand the frustrations, especially for new players. Paradox needs to do bundle packs of the 'real' DLCs, not the filler that they pass off to prospective gamers.

 

[SPAMbuca]

What's exactly your problem with it? It's a job like any other. "Professional" meaning I get paid for it, as opposite of doing it as a hobby.

I didn't say I have a problem with it. It just reminded me of the episode.

But deep down, I feel people overestimate how much their opinion matters. If people cared less, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be as much of a huge deal in the first place.

In general, people can write what they want by the way, as long as it isn't racist etc. which has been literally confirmed by Paradox. So, why go snarky on people for writing what they want?

@Escher: I understand your point, but I don't think you're helping yourself or the company here. I recommend you just ignore such reviews and be the bigger person. Keeping a single "review" around like that won't change anything, so might as well not burn yourself on it.

 

[Manic Eskimo]

First, it was a really bad move for Paradox to abuse the abuse flag (and ironic). That said, I don't really understand where all the negativity is coming from. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy this DLC. Why complain about it? If you don't want it don't buy it.

I think the problem is people do want to buy the DLC's but for a more reasonable amount. I would love to play the last couple of releases. But I'm not paying that much for them when I've already paid so much into this game. At some point you have to stop and think how much this is costing you and is it really worth it. So no I won't be buying any more DLC's or future Paradox games unless something changes. I've seen a lot of other people say the same thing. People are generally complaining about price, although quality is a side issue.

 

[Pugman]

I think the problem is people do want to buy the DLC's but for a more reasonable amount. I would love to play the last couple of releases. But I'm not paying that much for them when I've already paid so much into this game. At some point you have to stop and think how much this is costing you and is it really worth it. So no I won't be buying any more DLC's or future Paradox games unless something changes. I've seen a lot of other people say the same thing. People are generally complaining about price, although quality is a side issue.

Yes, I understand that. I'm not buying this DLC either. And I wasn't really clear before - there's nothing wrong with posting a bad review of a DLC you have purchased and didn't like. That's a service to the community in fact. What I'm referring to is people complaining about the DLC policy as opposed to the DLC itself.

 

[TheAtreides84]

I didn't say I have a problem with it. It just reminded me of the episode.

But deep down, I feel people overestimate how much their opinion matters. If people cared less, I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be as much of a huge deal in the first place.

In general, people can write what they want by the way, as long as it isn't racist etc. which has been literally confirmed by Paradox. So, why go snarky on people for writing what they want?

I'll tell you why, mate. As a long time Warhammer fan, I quite like CA's recent Warhammer game, and even if it has some flaws I've enjoyed it a lot ad look forward to see it expanded. Back then, when the Wood Elves DLC was announced, I was checking Steam forums and saw a thread titled something like "another DLC??? This is insane". Mind you, the DLC wasn't out yet. Still, this guy was going on a rant because according to him there were too much DLCs. Some people agreed with this sentiment, both in the thread and in the reviews. I then noticed that a good deal of people leaving bad reviews were satisfied with the game, but objected to the whole DLC concept. You can read the reviews for yourselves.

Now, you don't want to buy DLCs? Mighty fine. You buy them, don't like them and leave a bad review on their page? Also fine. But if you purchase the base game, you play the hell out of it, you find it good, and then leave a bad review trying to force developer to stop producing content for the whole community? Then you're an entitled, obnoxious kid and you should get off my lawn immediately. People may find Third Rome overpriced or bad, but there are other people who enjoy it, and review bombers have no right to try denying them their fun. That's why I can't stand the anti-DLC crowd. Not because I'm a Paradox fanboy or against free speech.

 

[SPAMbuca]

I'll tell you why, mate. As a long time Warhammer fan, I quite like CA's recent Warhammer game, and even if it has some flaws I've enjoyed it a lot ad look forward to see it expanded. Back then, when the Wood Elves DLC was announced, I was checking Steam forums and saw a thread titled something like "another DLC??? This is insane". Mind you, the DLC wasn't out yet. Still, this guy was going on a rant because according to him there were too much DLCs. Some people agreed with this sentiment, both in the thread and in the reviews. I then noticed that a good deal of people leaving bad reviews were satisfied with the game, but objected to the whole DLC concept. You can read the reviews for yourselves.

Now, you don't want to buy DLCs? Mighty fine. You buy them, don't like them and leave a bad review on their page? Also fine. But if you purchase the base game, you play the hell out of it, you find it good, and then leave a bad review trying to force developer to stop producing content for the whole community? Then you're an entitled, obnoxious kid and you should get off my lawn immediately. People may find Third Rome overpriced or bad, but there are other people who enjoy it, and review bombers have no right to try denying them content they enjoy. That's why I can't stand the anti-DLC crowd. Not because I'm a Paradox fanboy or against free speech.

You still put too much weight on it. It's just a guy writing down his opinion. As far as I'm concerned, a single steam review has as much importance as a piece of graffiti or a note stuck to a tree. If anything, the guy that wrote such a flawed review and would just be out to hurt Paradox, would have a field day if he saw how much commotion his little review got.

 

[TheAtreides84]

You still put too much weight on it. It's just a guy writing down his opinion. As far as I'm concerned, a single steam review has as much importance as a piece of graffiti or a note stuck to a tree. If anything, the guy that wrote such a flawed review and would just be out to hurt Paradox, would have a field day if he saw how much commotion his little review got.

I put much weight on it *in the context of gaming*. It's not like playing games is the most important thing in my life or I'll get emotionally hurt if I get less DLCs. I care as much as I care about any other hobby of mine. But as we are on a gaming forum, talking about games, then it seems appropriate to say how much of an asshole can some people be.

 

[SPAMbuca]

I put much weight on it *in the context of gaming*. It's not like playing games is the most important thing in my life or I'll get emotionally hurt if I get less DLCs. I care as much as I care about any other hobby of mine. But as we are on a gaming forum, talking about games, then it seems appropriate to say how much of an asshole can some people be.

People, on the internet in specific, ARE assholes. I doubt that requires much discussion. So far, I have seen no positive results of pushing back against a singular review like that. Above all, you're not going to convince people that their ways are wrong. You just look like a fool if you try.

 

[Liquidstuff]

I agree that the DLC are clearly overpriced. Like, remember when someone posted a huge thread about Korea and how to improve it. Well, guess what, Paradox basically copy-pasted it and boom, +4€ into the final price of the DLC.

 

[kitemasaki]

I agree that the DLC are clearly overpriced. Like, remember when someone posted a huge thread about Korea and how to improve it. Well, guess what, Paradox basically copy-pasted it and boom, +4€ into the final price of the DLC.

This is what irks me about the 'immersive' dlc pack idea. Instead of spending time on working towards a real expansion, they do this and charge almost the same price of a mid size expansion or half of a large expansion. How is Third Rome worth half the price of a large expansion? At most, this is worth $5.

This was just an experiment to see how much they can get for as little work as possible.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Or maybe, that one was flagged because abusive... but, of course, doing it to one abusive review is censorship, when they didn't do it to the dozens and more other negative reviews made.

That is not a reasonable stance. The picture from OP is not reasonably construed as "offensive content", and definitely not as "spam" (unless one person put like 10 of these up or something?). Even if one feels the joke is in bad taste, it is still just a basic price-complaint negative review, no personal insults/threats/whatever being hurled in that one.

Compare it to a generic "DLC costs too much for what it delivers, do not recommend". How is it inherently more offensive or spam than that? If it does not meet the standards of being worse than those types of reviews, then flagging it that way is uneven moderation by the devs. One review being flagged while others doing equal or worse are ignored is nothing in which to take pride.

Or if that does meet the standards of "offensive content", why AREN'T all review of similar standards flagged, and what about the actual in-game comet event and similar ones, which would probably meet whatever standard pdox could use to claim this review is "offensive"?

If this was just flagged for spam because he posted it like 5x it's another matter of course.

Edit: Off-topic is more debatable. I feel it's out of bounds to flag DLC complaints as off-topic to reviews of the base game at this point, given what patches have done to the game.

If you want to use originally available mechanics in newer patches, you must have purchased DLC. If you don't use newer patches, you're going to eat some pretty game-altering bugs that most have forgotten by this point (IE stuff like AI not converting religion for the entire play session until you restart because it got 1 province sieged somewhere). Too many patch/design changes depend on DLC to function, plus the game's decision framework is so disparate with/without DLC that DLC is reasonably considered in reviews about the base game.