Why does Steam Features Require Additional Purchase

[Mr Maison]

We must run our copy of Cities Skylines on Steam right? So why is it we have to make additional purchases just to be able to do things like make comments? I'm about to begin uploading some content and I have to spend $5 on something I have no interest in so I will be able to interact with the community there. It may seem like a little bit of money but still... Why not have a deal with Steam where all we need to do is show proof of purchase? I feel like I'm about to pay my way into an account where I already paid for the game. I just think this is not fair. Not saying it's your fault CO, just maybe you can do something about this for future players who buy the game straight from Paradox like I did.

*end of rant*

 

[KnightHawkTFC]

Good rant.
This was recently implemented by Valve for the Steam platform to help prevent SPAM, comment spam and messaging\friend request spaming, which was getting out of control. I'm not convinced it's was the right call by Valve but it should in theory at least help the problems that were developing on the platform in this regard. In any case I wanted to let you know it's not CO\Paradox requirement (seems you know that but I mention it for the benefit of maybe those that don't) it's a recent change by Valve for the whole platform and it applys to new accounts, as I recall accounts made prior to like a month ago are grandfathered in. It does suck there is no way around it at the moment for new signups that relate to non-valve processed transactions, it would be nice if valve adjusted this to at least include\enable anyone with a steam auth'd game\key in their library.

 

[Siegs]

I would kindly like to add my rant to this (and any other related thread I might find) because THIS IS STUPID!
As the Steam workshop is such an integral part of this game's experience one can say it's a mandatory feature and any limitation of access is a serious limitation to the enjoyment of this game!

I was bummed enough when Steam stated that in order to get full access I needed to complete a transaction on the Steam platform. It stated that ANY transaction would suffice, even as small as an ingame microtransaction.
I did not get furious until (after two days of contemplating the ridiculousness of this) I actually did spend a whopping 20 cents in the Steam store only to find that the message that previously stated the microtransaction had changed to demanding a 5 dollar purchase!

Since I waived my right to a refund I am now stuck with one of the worst rated indie games in history...

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPAM PREVENTION!!
It is merely a way to force game buyers towards the Steam store and an abuse of power in an attempt to wipe out lawful competition within the retail gaming market.

While a validation process to reduce spam accounts is in itself not a bad thing (at all) there is no technical reason for this to cost anything.
Paypall for instance also requires validation through a bank account, if I remember correctly it asked a 3 cent payment and later verified some more by transferring money INTO my account twice. Leaving me a few cents in the black.

Bottom line is, while account verification through cross referencing with a bank account is a valid process, the amount requested will not make a difference in fencing off spammers.
Assuming a 30% cost per sale (which is quite reasonable in modern day online marketing) the account needs to spam its way into a mere 15 bucks of sales to become viable.
The strength of this process comes from being able to detect the same bank account being used for many Steam accounts, which will red flag the bank account and subsequently reduce spam.
I am however not assuming to find the reasonable $0.01 account verification button anytime soon...

Thank you for bearing with me in this rant...

Ps: I would like to have posted this on the Steam forums but then I can't actually access those now can I?!

 

[Siegs]

I would like to add that I do believe addressing this to CO and Paradox is reasonable as they have made the decision to use the Steam platform as such an integral part of this game and upon making my purchase I bound myself to an agreement with Paradox assuming full enjoyment of the game and all its features in return for my monetary transaction.

It would be praiseworthy if Paradox would take this discrimination of it's customers up with Valve in an effort to correct this wrong.

 

[Mr Maison]

I ended up putting $5 in my Steam wallet because it was taking me too long to decide on a purchase (was never interested in another game) and I wanted to upload my content already. So $5 will just be sitting there. Hopefully one day I will see something worth buying but it's still feels a bit heavy handed that we have to do this. Besides, my time is so invested in Cities Skylines these days. Why should they cause our attention away to look at another game purchase?

 

[Siegs]

Strange that the limitations don't seem uniform.
I for instance have never had a problem uploading files to the workshop. I cannot however invite friends (whilst I can accept someones invitation) or leave any messages in the workshop fora or comments.

I have not and will not drop more money into Steam (unless perhaps if they have a good deal when CS2 comes out..) so at some point I will likely get fed up not being able to participate in the community and stop playing this game.

Ps: I remember having to waive my right to a refund when buying my 20 cent game, because after downloading it's kinda hard for Steam to verify you deleted the game when asking for a refund.
In this case however you haven't actually downloaded anything yet so shouldn't you be able to get a refund for the 5 bucks? Since the transaction is stated to only be for verification purposes (which is now done) it would be quite hard for them to defend taking those rights away again. Unless they openly admit that the sole purpose was to drain more money from you in the first place...

 

[ARES IV]

I would not spent a single cent for such an ability. If most people would follow that stance, I assure you, it is gone within a month.

 

[vinolik]

There is of course a reason to why these restrictions exist in the first place. Frauds, fake accounts etc...

 

[KnightHawkTFC]

...
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SPAM PREVENTION!!
It is merely a way to force game buyers towards the Steam store and an abuse of power in an attempt to wipe out lawful competition within the retail gaming market.
...

There is of course a reason to why these restrictions exist in the first place. Frauds, fake accounts etc...

I can say that the daily spamming of friend\chat requests (which by the time I would even get around too looking up the person their account was removed\disabled) stopped within days of Valve making the change. I never had such ever happen in the all years I've had a steam account, till around January of this year and then I was getting them pretty much daily if not multiple time a day. So while I'm a not fan of Valve's choice in exactly how they responded to this problem I have to say it seems to have helped the spamming issue quite a bit. So to those that say it has absolutely nothing to do with preventing some wide spread abuse that was happening, I disagree and do believe it was at least part of their reasoning for the change.

 

[Siegs]

I would not spent a single cent for such an ability. If most people would follow that stance, I assure you, it is gone within a month.

I doubt that, as most people will gladly pay up (who can disagree with spam prevention, right?!). And the few of us not playing along will barely be heard since we can't even discuss it on the Steam forum..

There is of course a reason to why these restrictions exist in the first place. Frauds, fake accounts etc...

So give us a $0.01 account verification button and all shall be well...

So to those that say it has absolutely nothing to do with preventing some wide spread abuse that was happening, I disagree and do believe it was at least part of their reasoning for the change.

Now that the anger has made way for a more general disappointment in humanity, let me rephrase myself:
Although this change of course has it's roots in spam prevention, the way Valve decided to implement it (demanding a non refundable 5 dollar payment) makes this actually two changes.
The first being adding bank verification to prevent spamming and the second being demanding every user to give 'm money in order to use the Steam platform.

While it might be argued that both are rightful decisions for Valve to make* it's the fact they implemented both whilst only mentioning spam prevention that upsets me.

Because of this any discussion about these changes will be coloured and your (and mosts for that matter) stance in this is exactly what I mean. "As it solved the spam issues we're going to be cool with it"


* I actually doubt this but as my transaction was with Paradox I can legally only address myself to them which will probably lead to voiding our agreement (for not providing the satisfaction I could have expected when buying the game) and a refund (which I don't want to do) after which they can demand their damages (the refund) to be paid by Valve (which they won't do). So I guess I'm stuck...


Ps: Funnily enough, after playing over 200 hours of CS, Steam did actually ask me to write a review yesterday (to be posted on Steam(?!). Although on the one hand I'm still considered a Chinese spamming bot I'm actually a much appreciated gamer on the other. As I might have gone a tiny little bit of track in my review I'm not assuming to see it being accepted...

Pps: I'd like to add that as personalised direct marketing (like what Valve does when spamming(!) me with "great deals" based on their profound knowledge of my gaming habits) has a real world value, it could be argued that I already paid 'm.

Ppps: On a completely irrelevant side note; don't they make enough already? (Estimated revenue over 2010 was already close to a billion and even back then they were projecting a 200% year-over-year growth..)

 

[kyroskoh]

Too many manual checks if there's no automated fraud checking with these. There's pros and cons.

 

[KnightHawkTFC]

"As it solved the spam issues we're going to be cool with it"

At no point have I said I was cool with it, quite opposite if anything.

 

[Hiramas]

While I certainly understand your problems, the simple fact is that people who buy games off-steam and therefore have not made any purchases on the platform are very few in number.
It sucks, yes. My best recommendation would be to wait for the next steam sale, you get a big heap of good games for around 5$ to 10$ and at some point Paradox will release a paid-for DLC you can buy over steam.
Claiming Valve now takes money to use Steam is in my opinion not valid, because, again, it affects few people and after all Steam is a Sales platform, so it is quite reasonable for Valve to expect people to spend money there. Valve does make mistakes, no question. The payed mod situation was a HUGE disaster and they moved back on it quickly. The 5$ situation could have been handled more elegantly, maybe. No idea how, though.

 

[Mr Maison]

While I certainly understand your problems, the simple fact is that people who buy games off-steam and therefore have not made any purchases on the platform are very few in number.
It sucks, yes. My best recommendation would be to wait for the next steam sale, you get a big heap of good games for around 5$ to 10$ and at some point Paradox will release a paid-for DLC you can buy over steam.
Claiming Valve now takes money to use Steam is in my opinion not valid, because, again, it affects few people and after all Steam is a Sales platform, so it is quite reasonable for Valve to expect people to spend money there. Valve does make mistakes, no question. The payed mod situation was a HUGE disaster and they moved back on it quickly. The 5$ situation could have been handled more elegantly, maybe. No idea how, though.

If I made a purchase of a game that REQUIRES steam to run it, then I imagine Steam is already getting some kind of revenue for that. I could be wrong as I know nothing about how CO and Paradox interact with Steam monetarily. But the fact is that I made a Steam involved purchase when I bought C:S. Whether it be a few or many does not matter to the individual who have no interest in making another Steam purchase. I have no interest in buying another game or any software. I have enough. So why force us to give up $5 to fully enjoy our C:S purchase? What's wrong with proof of purchase via our serial and order numbers? So yes, Steam made me spend $5 to fully use their services for a game that cannot run without it. To say because few people are affected is not a good argument.

 

[Siegs]

Too many manual checks if there's no automated fraud checking with these. There's pros and cons.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Which "these" are you talking about that require manual checking?

At no point have I said I was cool with it, quite opposite if anything.

You're right. My ill choice of words overly simplified your stance and pulled my reply out of perspective, sorry about that.

The point I'm trying to make is about the fact that I see many people take a stance in this based on the two changes being a single one (quite logically, as it is presented as such by Valve).
Ie. while the amount might be excessive it has spam prevention at it's core (and succeeded at this) so it is defendable.
This, I believe, is diluting the actual debate.
If Valve would have implemented the one dollar cent bank verification one month and the five dollar entry fee the next I believe the reactions would have been quite different..
Quite frankly, this way of doing things reminds me of politics.


@Hiramas @Mr Maison

Mr Maison could not have said it better.
I would like to add that Steam is ALSO a sales platform. As far as I'm concerned they are a distributor, a community host and a DLC provider with their workshop.
I don't believe (all steam deals are under NDA's so I'm assuming here) there is any money being paid for accommodating non Steam buyers on the platform. But then there's no need for that as by this method of binding users to the sales platform by forcing access to the community side they have already become the largest game retailer on the planet*.
Chances are that I will end up making a purchase on Steam as by becoming a Steam user I have placed myself within ample reach of the Valve marketing department.

*I would not be surprised if this is technically already breaching international and US competition laws.

 

[Zed68]

Upping this subject because Mr Maison told me it existed.

Well... Valve says they've done this to prevent spam... You don't seem to remember that before that "$5 rule" they had set a "Buy something rule" and many people have already spent a few dollars or cents to buy some super cheap crappy game they'll never even open, just to be able to comment in the workshop.

I was in that case, when I heard about the 5 dollars rule I was furious ! Did bots suddenly have credits cards... but limited to 2 dollars so they had to up the stakes ??

"Oh yeah $1.5 was not enough, let's force them to spend more" What's next ?? $20 ??

This is just unacceptable. If we're using steam we HAVE certified we are not bots.

 

[Zed68]

I just realized that not only am I unable to comment in the workshop... but also that I can't upload there anymore !!!

Well I can but what I upload can't be public.

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/cant-set-visibility-on-steam-workshop.863807/

Saying that I'm enraged right now is an understatement... I am damn angry!

 

[Stuaz]

I brought my game via Steam so I guess that's why its not a problem for me. I think it is something to discuss with Steam though if people feel quite strong about it.

 

[Brazilian Joe]

Well, I usually buy up stuff on steam. I occasionally pick up Humble Bundles though.

Bots are not a problem... until they find you. Then you'll start getting a torrent of friend request of bot accounts.

It's really, really annoying. I doubt the limit will be raised beyond $5 thoguh, since it's a pretty high toll to pay for a fake account which is knowingly in breach of the EULA and is about to be suspended at any time. Bot accounts are expendable stuff, if they cost $5 each the business suddenly becomes expensive and the business is not profitable anymore.

You may have been angered by it, but as someone who spent day after day reporting bot phisher accounts - I was targeted really hard - I can say it's a necessary deterrent to withhold people who want to abuse the community.

We have a saying in Brazil which goes like "people don't appreciate padlocks in the gates until they are robbed the first time".

$5 is not a huge amount of money though. You might find at least ONE cheap game you might want in the store, and you can even buy it as a gift to give someone if you already have it, and get the problem solved.

But as said above, it's fruitless to discuss it here, since it's a Steam policy, CO/PDX can do nothing about it. Steam forums would be teh way to go.

 

[Zed68]

$5 is not a huge amount of money though. You might find at least ONE cheap game you might want in the store, and you can even buy it as a gift to give someone if you already have it, and get the problem solved.

I don't want to, and why should I do it ? It's a forced sale.

It is not aceptable AT ALL that steam cuts us from parts of a game that we paid... and that we should pay something more to regain access.

Imagine for a second that you buy a car. it's a very nice car, it comes with a stereo.
After a few weeks, the car stereo maker comes to you and says "now I need you to pay me something or you won't be able to listen to music anymore".
Is that ok ?

We want to publish on the workshop using a game that's not a free one, so it seems pretty obvious we are not spammers... they could have made a system for this, games that were bought from somewhere else with a cd key should count as a buy.

It's either extremely lazy on their part or it's simply a good occasion they saw to steal a bit of money from us.