They mark unusual bumps in reviews as "suspicious", which puts an asterisk next to the score telling you some reviews have been excluded. You can then go to some settings page and manually choose to include all reviews in your score if you want. Furthermore they don't hand pick what reviews to exclude, instead they just exclude the whole date range.
They've had this system for a while (couple of years at least) and honestly I think it's fine. The point of the score is to give the end customer accurate information about the game, which I think this does decently well.
Honestly, that system is fairly good. But it should have exceptions for reviews after the developer pushes an update to the title.
It's intended to prevent review bombing, but reactions to a patch are obviously not off-site coordinated bombing but instead a reaction to something the developers did. If Skyrim was patched to disable all mods, for example, there would be a ton of immediate bad reviews that are 100% justified.
That's exactly what happened with GTA 5, where single-player mods were targeted by Take-Two, so the game got review-bombed, which directly affects the gameplay.
I think review-bombing is absolutely necessary and I hate the new system (well it's quite old now) because if I see a game has been review bombed I want to know why. I don't need a corporation to exclude viewpoints or opinions it feels customers shouldn't see organically.
If a corporation is engaging in promoting globohomo content I would rather see the review bombs up front and make an informed decision based on that.
Not everyone is a braindead coonsumer who simply cares about controls/graphics/story and would support a developer even if they trafficked the player's entire family into third-world hard labor.
This kind of CCP-style censorship is basically used to muzzle the only option customers have to fight back against politically oriented corporate BS.
Peer to peer social media and open source social media hubs that anyone can host are a real threat to big-tech run social media giants like facebook and reddit.
It will be next to impossible for them to control the narrative if Joe from down the road can host his own hub for discussions about whatever Joe wants to discuss. Rather than have one social media marketing team embedded on a site like facebook , they will have to prowl the net trying to cover hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of independent nodes of a network, and it will simply not be viable for them to bribe the admins of each of these nodes or buy a stake in them (like tencent did for reddit, the CCP has a $150m stake in reddit/future publishing) like they do for major social media companies.
Is this a first? I've never heard of Steam tampering with reviews.
They mark unusual bumps in reviews as "suspicious", which puts an asterisk next to the score telling you some reviews have been excluded. You can then go to some settings page and manually choose to include all reviews in your score if you want. Furthermore they don't hand pick what reviews to exclude, instead they just exclude the whole date range.
They've had this system for a while (couple of years at least) and honestly I think it's fine. The point of the score is to give the end customer accurate information about the game, which I think this does decently well.
Honestly, that system is fairly good. But it should have exceptions for reviews after the developer pushes an update to the title.
It's intended to prevent review bombing, but reactions to a patch are obviously not off-site coordinated bombing but instead a reaction to something the developers did. If Skyrim was patched to disable all mods, for example, there would be a ton of immediate bad reviews that are 100% justified.
That's exactly what happened with GTA 5, where single-player mods were targeted by Take-Two, so the game got review-bombed, which directly affects the gameplay.
I think review-bombing is absolutely necessary and I hate the new system (well it's quite old now) because if I see a game has been review bombed I want to know why. I don't need a corporation to exclude viewpoints or opinions it feels customers shouldn't see organically.
If a corporation is engaging in promoting globohomo content I would rather see the review bombs up front and make an informed decision based on that.
Not everyone is a braindead coonsumer who simply cares about controls/graphics/story and would support a developer even if they trafficked the player's entire family into third-world hard labor.
This kind of CCP-style censorship is basically used to muzzle the only option customers have to fight back against politically oriented corporate BS.
It comes down to whether or not you trust a company, any company, to decide what you see. Why would anyone?
The world should use gab’s dissenter more - negative reviews should be separate from the website likely to censor them…
Peer to peer social media and open source social media hubs that anyone can host are a real threat to big-tech run social media giants like facebook and reddit.
It will be next to impossible for them to control the narrative if Joe from down the road can host his own hub for discussions about whatever Joe wants to discuss. Rather than have one social media marketing team embedded on a site like facebook , they will have to prowl the net trying to cover hundreds of thousands or perhaps millions of independent nodes of a network, and it will simply not be viable for them to bribe the admins of each of these nodes or buy a stake in them (like tencent did for reddit, the CCP has a $150m stake in reddit/future publishing) like they do for major social media companies.