I think the explanation given by Paradox above is that the intent was to flag as "off-topic" but whoever did it accidentally flagged it as "abusive". I can see the reasoning behind off-topic.
Paradox censoring negative reviews
- Thread starter Boogeyman
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I think the explanation given by Paradox above is that the intent was to flag as "off-topic" but whoever did it accidentally flagged it as "abusive". I can see the reasoning behind off-topic.
I noticed that a moment later, and edited per above. Off-topic is a less ridiculous flag, but it's still out of bounds. When patches remove access to things that you can then get stronger versions of via DLC, while older patches are unsupported, evaluating DLC as part of the base game might not be necessary but it is definitely reasonable.
@DPX
Honestly, you guys shouldn't be flagging reviews no matter how far off topic.
There are enough people out there to do it for you if it's truly egregious, and you don't look like scumbags...cause right now you look like speech stiffing scumbags for flagging it at all. Just stay the hell away from that button.
Honestly, you guys shouldn't be flagging reviews no matter how far off topic.
There are enough people out there to do it for you if it's truly egregious, and you don't look like scumbags...cause right now you look like speech stiffing scumbags for flagging it at all. Just stay the hell away from that button.
Its just as off-topic as the "positive" reviews stating how much time a player spends playing the game "3,000 hours played. nuff said".
Paradox should avoid touching anything unless it really breaks Steam ToS. Their explanation is already too subjective, which proves they shouldn't be touching it in the first place.
Price is totally an attribute of the product. While quality of a product is important, it is important to note the price of the product as well. As a customer, my main concern is whether I am getting a value for my money.
If a game is priced at $1, I may give it a completely different rating than I would if the same game is priced at $ 100 as my expectations from the game would change depending on what it's price is.
At the moment, EU4 costs upwards of $ 400. While I may find the game itself enjoyable, I may not feel I am getting enough value for the amount I paid for it. This can lead me to give a negative review for the game, which does not necessarily talk about the quality of the product per say but the whole value proposition of the product taken in toto.
Considering this, I don't see how a review talking about the pricing of a product can be off topic.
If a game is priced at $1, I may give it a completely different rating than I would if the same game is priced at $ 100 as my expectations from the game would change depending on what it's price is.
At the moment, EU4 costs upwards of $ 400. While I may find the game itself enjoyable, I may not feel I am getting enough value for the amount I paid for it. This can lead me to give a negative review for the game, which does not necessarily talk about the quality of the product per say but the whole value proposition of the product taken in toto.
Considering this, I don't see how a review talking about the pricing of a product can be off topic.
Saying "3,000 hours. nuff said" is actually rating the game though. Flagging something off topic would be like the example Escher posted where the reviewer is not actually talking about the game.
And Paradox are entirely entitled to their opinion. They can flag something, it does nothing unless Steam moderators, a subjective force, decide it violates the rules. Flagging it isn't a suppression of any sort of free speech.
The price, quality or quantity of DLC is not an attribute of the base game. If people were complaining that the EU4 game was too expensive, fair enough, but complaining about the "Third Rome" DLC anywhere other than the DLC page is very much off topic.
The store page for EU4 lists a "Europa Universalis 4 Collection Bundle" which costs several hundreds of dollars (depending on your country) and includes several DLCs in it. Since this product is being sold on EU4 store page (and since this bundle does not have a separate product page of its own which can be reviewed), it is perfectly valid to talk about DLC pricing on the EU4 product page since you can buy these DLCs without going on the store pages of these individual DLCs from the store page of base game itself.
If EU4 DLCs weren't being sold on EU4 store page at all then I would agree with the view that DLCs should not be discussed in the store page for main game.
If EU4 DLCs weren't being sold on EU4 store page at all then I would agree with the view that DLCs should not be discussed in the store page for main game.
While I think this whole flagging thing is a dead horse beaten, I will say that perception can be a far more dangerous animal than truth.
This justified outcry is not about a single DLC. You are misguided in thinking that at all. "Third Rome" is but a catalyst to a long simmering displeasure with the DLC model/pricing. And I believe absolutely that the DLC taken as a whole is very much relevant to the base game.
This. Flagging reviews will just give you a bad reputation and trigger a Streisand Effect. Don't flag reviews.
recommending somebody in a review not to drink high alcohol expensive beer types over low price lager does NOT mean the expensive high alcohol beer is BAD quality, and doesn't mean everybody should think it is overpriced just because it got a bad review because of aformentioned high price.
no matter what you say, it is a biased review of the beer. Customers got to decide for themselves if a product is worth the money; the price shouldn't be only varable in the rating of the product in the review.
i got give other examples involving apples and oranges too, if you like
Got to love comparing those.
because the DLC policy facebook/forum group is intent of converting us all, and trying to incite us to revolt versus our oppressive greedy overlord.
excuse the sarcasm.
i kind of agree, but I wouldn't have worded it that way.
this is about the only post in the thread that made me smile.
well done
somebody had to oppose, and vent another opinion.
I just plain refuse to let all hate posters make it "look" like their opinion is the main opinion of the entire community.
there are folks enough who AGREE with me, but they just don't read the forums, because well... threads like this.
its comparable to tabloid journalism.
unobjective, unrational, borderline childish behaviour, all for the "good" cause of converting paradox to make free content forever.
if they want to believe anything will change, they can believe whatever they want to believe.
Paradox will never change their DLC policy, as it has prove to be one of the most succesful DLC stories of the last decade.
Try and list other games that still receive free content and patches 4 years after release.
stop this already, Europa Universalis IV costs 9.99 euro at the moment on steam in Europe, with -75% reduction.
You do NOT need the eu4 dlc to play and enjoy this game.
and I will keep posting this until all you haters stop spreading this lie.
proof: http://store.steampowered.com/app/236850/Europa_Universalis_IV/
Well, let's put things into perspective here. It's 400$ in 4 years of development. So, 100$ per year. It's the price of two-three restaurant meals in a western country. In a whole year. I fully understand and support Brazilian and Russian people getting upset over the price. But westerners are just being ridiculously entitled.
How does one decide what their own money is worth? And how do they choose to reflect that?
I live in the USA, and my currency is the US Dollar. I find that I'm happy if I get one hour of enjoyment per one US dollar. It varies, but it's a good rule of thumb. Sporting events and Hookers can be a little more pricey, but it's worth it
EU4 has cost me about $100 altogether. I have all the DLC but the newest, and it doesn't look I'll be buying it.
I have close to 1300 hours. This game has paid for its self so many times over it's not even funny. I should add that I got the base game super cheap and played 300 hours. The game paid for it'self by my metric before I even got a single DLC.
Most of the people that claim to have changed their review(That I saw anyway) also have huge amounts of time involved.
Again, how does one decide what their own money is worth? And how do they choose to reflect that?
Look at Call of Duty. Every year a new $60 game is released. It will eventually have Maps added that cost yet more. I know from experience that playing without the maps is a lag fest, and playing older titles is even worse (Until it hits a certain stasis, but then the servers get taken down). The strong competitive fanbase that has worthwhile internet moves on...and you do too if you want to have fun.
That's about $100 a year to constantly get a premium MP experience which is what the game is selling. That's one of the strongest selling titles in the industry. In the 4 year life of EU4 it has asked players to shell out so much more money. Are the people who buy it stupid? Are they throwing their money out the window? Kinda. Are people on this forum exaggerating the cost/returns ratio. F*** yeah they are. Hardcore.
If EU4 isn't worth the $156.33(That price is from steam, right now, with everything including the worthless fluff garbage they charge for), then what does that say about how gamers everywhere spend their money?
Edit:$166.32 with the base game, My B.
I live in the USA, and my currency is the US Dollar. I find that I'm happy if I get one hour of enjoyment per one US dollar. It varies, but it's a good rule of thumb. Sporting events and Hookers can be a little more pricey, but it's worth it
EU4 has cost me about $100 altogether. I have all the DLC but the newest, and it doesn't look I'll be buying it.
I have close to 1300 hours. This game has paid for its self so many times over it's not even funny. I should add that I got the base game super cheap and played 300 hours. The game paid for it'self by my metric before I even got a single DLC.
Most of the people that claim to have changed their review(That I saw anyway) also have huge amounts of time involved.
Again, how does one decide what their own money is worth? And how do they choose to reflect that?
Look at Call of Duty. Every year a new $60 game is released. It will eventually have Maps added that cost yet more. I know from experience that playing without the maps is a lag fest, and playing older titles is even worse (Until it hits a certain stasis, but then the servers get taken down). The strong competitive fanbase that has worthwhile internet moves on...and you do too if you want to have fun.
That's about $100 a year to constantly get a premium MP experience which is what the game is selling. That's one of the strongest selling titles in the industry. In the 4 year life of EU4 it has asked players to shell out so much more money. Are the people who buy it stupid? Are they throwing their money out the window? Kinda. Are people on this forum exaggerating the cost/returns ratio. F*** yeah they are. Hardcore.
If EU4 isn't worth the $156.33(That price is from steam, right now, with everything including the worthless fluff garbage they charge for), then what does that say about how gamers everywhere spend their money?
Edit:$166.32 with the base game, My B.
Check out the price of EU4 Collection Bundle on the same page.
Since the Bundle is being sold on the same page, reviewing the bundle - and its contents - is perfectly valid.
And the product is not perpetually on a discount. It is quite likely reviewers have reviewed considering the non discounted price.
A customer is concerned with one thing and one thing alone: Value for money.
The amount of input resources are quite irrelevant from a customers point of view. He will judge based on the final output and the price he has paid for the output.
Last edited:
.png){kind=avatar}
How does one decide what their own money is worth? And how do they choose to reflect that?
I live in the USA, and my currency is the US Dollar. I find that I'm happy if I get one hour of enjoyment per one US dollar. It varies, but it's a good rule of thumb. Sporting events and Hookers can be a little more pricey, but it's worth it
EU4 has cost me about $100 altogether. I have all the DLC but the newest, and it doesn't look I'll be buying it.
I have close to 1300 hours. This game has paid for its self so many times over it's not even funny. I should add that I got the base game super cheap and played 300 hours. The game paid for it'self by my metric before I even got a single DLC.
Most of the people that claim to have changed their review(That I saw anyway) also have huge amounts of time involved.
Again, how does one decide what their own money is worth? And how do they choose to reflect that?
Look at Call of Duty. Every year a new $60 game is released. It will eventually have Maps added that cost yet more. I know from experience that playing without the maps is a lag fest, and playing older titles is even worse (Until it hits a certain stasis, but then the servers get taken down). The strong competitive fanbase that has worthwhile internet moves on...and you do too if you want to have fun.
That's about $100 a year to constantly get a premium MP experience which is what the game is selling. That's one of the strongest selling titles in the industry. In the 4 year life of EU4 it has asked players to shell out so much more money. Are the people who buy it stupid? Are they throwing their money out the window? Kinda. Are people on this forum exaggerating the cost/returns ratio. F*** yeah they are. Hardcore.
If EU4 isn't worth the $156.33(That price is from steam, right now, with everything including the worthless fluff garbage they charge for), then what does that say about how gamers everywhere spend their money?
Edit:$166.32 with the base game, My B.
I think the major problem is about entry fee. For most other games, the entry fee is no more then $60. So I can recommend others games to my friend easily. But for EU4, DLCs are "required" (the game experience is totally different with or without DLCs).
We all want more new guys in our community, but Paradox's DLC policy scared a lot of potential players away.
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:
All you've achieved with this is tell people that they need to make a short throwaway comment about the game before posting their rants and such.
Flagging reviews for any reason is not a good look. Users curate these reviews themselves by rating them useful/not useful. Your interference is not needed at all.
You are super wrong about this. A review sections has a purpose, which is to give prospective buyers of a product knowledge on it, so that they may make a more informed decision. Reviews that do not provide that kind of knowledge are counter-productive, and the more of them there are the more pointless the review section is. Paradox should absolutely flag reviews that harm the review section, and as such everyone else's reviews, as a whole.
The system is user curated. They themselves decide which contribution is useful or not. This is not a genuine concern.
Which is why you should stick to stuff such as watching the game on youtube if it is something you are looking for.
If I leave a review that's just "fart" that's not useful to anyone mate. If someone leaves a review that's just a meme about how paradox is made up of money vampires that's not useful to anyone. If I leave a review saying the product in question is overpriced and underdelivers that *is* useful.
Someone deciding that my review containing nothing but the word "fart" is useful to them does not actually mean that is a reasonable thing that should be respected by valve.
Indeed. In the era of inexhaustible published gameplay, reviews are kinda superfluous.
You do not convince. If the users decide that a - from your point of view - useless review is indeed of use to them, then it is. The users decide what's up top.
And as I said previously, all this is sidestepped easily enough by merely using the introductory phrase "Good/bad game, but:".
This interference looks petty and that's pretty much its only effect.
- Status