Are you concerned about Steam reviews?

[Just Caused 423]

Are you concerned about Steam reviews? I mean, look at Store page. Most of them are negative and troll comments. Most of negative ones are people who are mislead and disinformed about any kind of DayZ development. People still talk about random noises appearing in background, bad optimisation and etc. Those people are just so late with development that they follow hate-hypes of other people so they start hating DayZ even though they have no idea about it. Also trolls... Oh God... 

It just gives game bad reputation. I know few people who didn't want to buy this game even though I personally recommended it, but still though, they stuck with 'mixed' reviews and they didn't want to buy game to join me. And also whenever moderators try to flag their posts, they just go full rage. What's your opinion about this? I'm affraid that this game will get very bad reputation by the end when it's fully finished. Even though I was pretty angry about few things about development, I'd still give it 'recommend' rating on Steam just because I enjoyed it so much and have 1000+ hours in game.

[[Gen]Adzic 241]

Think about it, preferably unbiased(ly).. Would they leave negative/troll reviews if they enjoyed the experience? when they are playing/played a broken, unfinished game (for X amount of time) how many people do you logically expect to leave positive reviews?

Will they harm the game, should they (BI) be concerned, absolutely, bad rep is bad rep.. but this is the path they chose to take the game in. Perhaps if they could disable the steam review system until the game is complete it would be a different story, but who can say? 

Even though Early Access is a few years old now, it's still gonna be a relatively new experience for a lot of gamers, personally I don't think it's a good way to release games, to much of a risk.

[Just Caused 423]

44 minutes ago, [Gen]Adzic said:

-snip-

Well, if you like something, you'd definetly recommend it to other people, right? And I see Steam reviews just for that. Even though that there are many trolls and haters that probably didn't even play the game, I take them kinda seriously. Also, just because of so many recent negative reviews, few of my buddies didn't want to buy the game to play with me because they saw it as a risk. With all those bad reviews devs are losing money.

[[Gen]Adzic 241]

I've been straight up and honest to people I've spoken to about DayZ, I've said the game is being developed and that they should wait until the game is finished before they buy it.. why? because I'd hate for them to spend their money on something they wouldn't like, which would not only give the game a bad name but in all likelihood since I suggested it.. also me!

I fell into the Early Access trap since I played the mod and I loved it, it's honestly one of the best games I've ever played and not only that I got the game relatively cheap since I bought it way back then.. I've not left any review for DayZ SA as I think it's wrong to judge an unfinished book by it's cover, but if I was asked to leave one right here right now, it wouldn't be good one.. given the current state of the game and how long it's been since I got the game. Maybe I'm impatient in the eyes of others, maybe I don't even fully understand what early access is and I'm the wrong sort of person to impulse buy a game like DayZ SA, but I have it and I've certainly had my say. I now look forward to the day it's deemed finished (whenever that is) so I can enjoy the game once more, I'm also not a fool.. I'll never get the mod feels back, I know that but as long as the game ends up being good, then I'll be sure and more than willing to give it a good review.

People have different feelings and as such take different actions. We have no power over what other people think and ultimately go ahead and do.. unfortunately lol.

[Espa 711]

Well, this is definitely disconcerting, but I'm sure that as things pick up and more and more is added, the rating will flip back to a positive.

But players do need to realize what kind of game they're playing and the state of it's progress so far. 

[scriptfactory 620]

All of these players purchased the game and are voicing their opinion. Opinions are subjective. The fault lies not with the players but the development studio. The longer this game stays in early access (it isn't in alpha...) the worse the reviews will get.

[mithrawndo 166]

1 hour ago, scriptfactory said:

All of these players purchased the game and are voicing their opinion. Opinions are subjective.

This is true.

 

Quote

The fault lies not with the players but the development studio. The longer this game stays in early access (it isn't in alpha...) the worse the reviews will get.

This is not true.

[scriptfactory 620]

35 minutes ago, mithrawndo said:

This is not true.

Why is it not true? If the devs want better reviews then they should communicate with the community better, release more updates, etc. People are quick to blame AAA studios for poor development practices but not indie studios, somehow.

[OliverPlotTwist 458]

This game is in it's Alpha stage of development. If people thought the game was perfect as it is now, I would be worried.

 

People can hate if they wish. The reviews of early access do not mean anything. It's like reviewing a cake when it's not cooked.

[Red_Ensign 990]

16 hours ago, Just Caused said:

Are you concerned about Steam reviews? I mean, look at Store page. Most of them are negative and troll comments. Most of negative ones are people who are mislead and disinformed about any kind of DayZ development. People still talk about random noises appearing in background, bad optimisation and etc. Those people are just so late with development that they follow hate-hypes of other people so they start hating DayZ even though they have no idea about it. Also trolls... Oh God... 

It just gives game bad reputation. I know few people who didn't want to buy this game even though I personally recommended it, but still though, they stuck with 'mixed' reviews and they didn't want to buy game to join me. And also whenever moderators try to flag their posts, they just go full rage. What's your opinion about this? I'm affraid that this game will get very bad reputation by the end when it's fully finished. Even though I was pretty angry about few things about development, I'd still give it 'recommend' rating on Steam just because I enjoyed it so much and have 1000+ hours in game.

I don't look at reviews at all.  I usually just go watch some live gameplay on twitch to get an idea what a game's like.

[IMT 3190]

At the review itself it says "reviewed during early access" or something like that so people can actually see that it was placed during EA and not when the game was finished.

5 hours ago, scriptfactory said:

Why is it not true? If the devs want better reviews then they should communicate with the community better, release more updates, etc. People are quick to blame AAA studios for poor development practices but not indie studios, somehow.

Clearly you have not been following the latest development at all. The developers are communicating with the community more and more lately. They also increased the amount of updates. On Experimental there is almost a new patch EVERY day.

True, major patches can take a while but that's to be expected with the current position of development.

[scriptfactory 620]

28 minutes ago, IMT said:

Clearly you have not been following the latest development at all. The developers are communicating with the community more and more lately. They also increased the amount of updates. On Experimental there is almost a new patch EVERY day.

True, major patches can take a while but that's to be expected with the current position of development.

The fault for the bad reviews are NOT on the players but the development studio. The players voice their opinion and the developers/producers must counter it since they are the ones profiting from the product. The ultimate responsibility for making sure reviews are positive lies with the developer and (to a lesser extent) the producer, NOT the consumer. That is all I was saying.

Edited January 8, 2017 by scriptfactory

[mithrawndo 166]

8 hours ago, scriptfactory said:

Why is it not true? If the devs want better reviews then they should communicate with the community better, release more updates, etc. People are quick to blame AAA studios for poor development practices but not indie studios, somehow.

This isn't true: If you read the bad reviews you'll see that the vast majority of them do blame this indie studio for their alleged poor development practices (despite having no knowledge of development practice themselves). I've criticised the DayZ team for their communication and the speed at which updates are released into the wild in the past (particularly 2015!) as I felt it wasn't fitting with a game in early access, but that's not a criticism I can level anymore as the guys and gals are doing a good job of communicating these days and there are reasonably frequent updates to the experimental branch at least. Anyway...

 

Quote

The fault lies not with the players but the development studio. The longer this game stays in early access (it isn't in alpha...) the worse the reviews will get.

The game is in alpha and the reviews won't get worse, they'll just get more numerous. Those writing the reviews are often the ones at fault too, as the reason for their review is frequently disingenuous.

I'm not absolving the team of all blame but I really don't think at this point in time they need us armchair developers pointing out where they've gone wrong.

[goateswyn 109]

Something has changed in the game: Some like it. Some not.

I like it, i play the game.

If i wouldnt like the changes i woud stop playing and write down somewhere my experiences where the devs can read it. Here for example. Not shure if the Devs read Steam-Discussions.

Sometimes i write good experience too, but not that often. Sadly noone ever say only thank you, or good done.

Want to say, that the view of things could be somehow wrong in this way.

Maybe they should bling less, but more finished updates. Changes bring conflicts!

Anyway: I´m also watching this Threats on steam. I had a strange picture of DayZ, bevore i played the game. And even more strange, how that changed in the meanwhile.

!!! I like changes !!!

[Coheed_IV 381]

2 hours ago, scriptfactory said:

The fault for the bad reviews are NOT on the players but the development studio. 

This would be true if the game was finished or in a state to be reviewed.  But it is not, DayZ is in alpha, even if it's completely atypical of any alpha that has ever been done. This is a very unique situation. On top of major engine alterations they are rewriting the language, it's definetly not in a state to write a review.  

Strange part is, it's bordered on semi-playable for so long.  This is the root, most people should have or would avoided this early access.  BI failed at perceiving the market way back at launch, in retrospect they could have gone in a cave for a couple years and launched EA with more of Enfusion done.

Also, term "finished" or in a state to be reviewed has been blurred by many new dev models.  When should the game receive fair criticism for what it is, not how it is made? 

[scriptfactory 620]

20 minutes ago, Coheed_IV said:

When should the game receive fair criticism for what it is, not how it is made? 

As soon as the developers charge for it.

[boneboys 7988]

22 hours ago, Just Caused said:

Most of them are negative and troll comments. Most of negative ones are people who are mislead and disinformed about any kind of DayZ development.

+ at this time most of the "reviews" on top (most helpful / week) are by players with low play time. I take no notice of bad reviews such as that posted by Al Jaheed csgobig...

Not everyones cup°T I suppose.

[emuthreat 2837]

The phrase "caveat emptor" comes to mind in this situation.  I hate that I always comes back to claims of alpha and The Disclaimer, because that's just begging the question of why an alpha can take just so damn long?

I don't think the engine change was part of the initial vision before EA, and it's taken much longer than anticipated.  I jumped in at .51 because I foolishly thought that to mean half done. : )  But it's really just the new engine being built and integrated on the fly that is taking so long and frustrating people with content vacillations, and broken features.
People Don't Understand.  Many of those same people then generate massive amounts of shitpost, which contributes to informing new players, and we get a feedback cycle of misunderstanding and frustration.  It just takes what it takes, is all.  In this case it's taken much longer, but is still nearing completion.

I don't think much will change in the steam reviews until well into beta.  I wonder what beta will then be called when BI continues to add content and make engine tweaks for years after 1.0?

[Coheed_IV 381]

9 hours ago, scriptfactory said:

As soon as the developers charge for it.

I don't know. What happens in the EA reviews are more about speed of development, than the game. Gamers can't perceive anything about foundational engine work, and this is how DayZ differs. The plan to develop the engine along side while assets and content where slowly implemented didn't line up at all, at least a year off. 

I still love the EA model though. I used to buy shitty games for the same prices 36 years ago! People can cry all they want, they have no idea how good games are now. I look at it like supporting genres more than the studio, screw publishers. 

Edited January 9, 2017 by Coheed_IV

[scriptfactory 620]

3 hours ago, Coheed_IV said:

I don't know. What happens in the EA reviews are more about speed of development, than the game. Gamers can't perceive anything about foundational engine work, and this is how DayZ differs. The plan to develop the engine along side while assets and content where slowly implemented didn't line up at all, at least a year off. 

I still love the EA model though. I used to buy shitty games for the same prices 36 years ago! People can cry all they want, they have no idea how good games are now. I look at it like supporting genres more than the studio, screw publishers. 

I totally agree with you to a certain extent. People who purchase games have no idea how they are developed. This leads them to criticize a development process that may be standard in the industry.

The same principle applies to all software development. When I put a piece of generic software on the market my customers don't care if I am having problems improving the foundation of my app. They care that I provide them what I promised in a timely manner. If I am charging people money their complaints about the development process are valid. If you don't want complaints then don't accept money.

None of us thought it would take over 4 years for DayZ to get to this state in its development. There were three (?) stable releases in 2016. The yearly roadmap goals were, yet again, missed by a mile. The complaints are, in my shitty opinion, valid. And it is BIS' job to placate the masses.

[mithrawndo 166]

A child riding in the back seat of a car asking "are we nearly there yet?" is really complaining about the length of the journey, because they're not in control and unable to fully comprehend the situation. It doesn't render their complaint invalid, but it's certainly misplaced.

[Gobbokirk 546]

Steam reviews gives me concern about the future of the human race... But in the end that system is completely flawed in my eyes.

The score is one thing, can give you an idea of a game, but calling most of what's posted there actual reviews is just laughable.
If it was up to me I would just delete and re-do the whole system, maybe keep some score system of some sort, but the comments.. Nah.

[svisketyggeren 662]

I think a game like Dayz in alpha should have been under a NDA, not a open alpha. Game is too exposed like it is now. To many retards that only make "reviews" to vent their frustrations.

Me personally, I look at steam reviews for small/indie games and decide whether to try or not based on the reviews. AAA titles will have to much subjective reviews.

[mithrawndo 166]

15 minutes ago, svisketyggeren said:

I think a game like Dayz in alpha should have been under a NDA, not a open alpha. Game is too exposed like it is now. To many retards that only make "reviews" to vent their frustrations.

Me personally, I look at steam reviews for small/indie games and decide whether to try or not based on the reviews. AAA titles will have to much subjective reviews.

This is a really interesting idea - we agree to terms and conditions when we install any software and, arguments of their legality aside, is it really a big stretch to have these terms and conditions include a non disclosure agreement? It certainly seems fitting in an early access environment!
 

[sneakydude 480]

3 hours ago, svisketyggeren said:

I think a game like Dayz in alpha should have been under a NDA, not a open alpha. Game is too exposed like it is now. To many retards that only make "reviews" to vent their frustrations.

Me personally, I look at steam reviews for small/indie games and decide whether to try or not based on the reviews. AAA titles will have to much subjective reviews.

You and me both, and many others saying the same things. Although the backing has been done, so that's a good thing.. now to move forward i guess.

But who would guess BI changed the whole thing on the dayz dev team probably 10 times over. It happens, its hard to justify, but in the end i have good hope that it will still be a fun and popular game.

Reviews are just that reviews, most are changed after someone sees the game for 100+ hours gets bored sees a slow progress and complains. Well wtf ever, i too get Crocketty <--- is that a word?

But i would rather have Dayz character controller, then Arma 3 controller... if anyone should go back to development it should be arma 3, character controller. Dayz feels much more realistically then arma 3.

Still i agree NDA should have been done to the alpha servers, unstable and stable could have been open.