I think it's a little disingenuous to assume they haven't put any consideration into this, given that it affects their reputation (and ultimately bottom line). Especially since they HAVE been trying measures to curate things and remove problematic stuff they're aware of (with... debatable success, perhaps).Daemian Lucifer wrote:Which at the same time gives them the most money to deal with it.But even ignoring that,its their own fault.They chose to let everyone put anything on there,without any forethought about what to do if someone puts something there that doesnt work,or is stolen,or uses copyrighted stuff,or is a scam,...
And haven't we already learned that just throwing money at a problem doesn't necessarily make it go away?
They were pressured to allow more games onto Steam because it's the biggest marketplace - indie devs wanted an easier road onto it because it was one of the best ways to get your game noticed/sold (less so nowadays). So things like Greenlight were an attempt to allow this easier, to give more devs (particularly indies) the ability to have games on Steam without running into a huge barrier to entry. The results are arguable (I personally would call Greenlight an okay stepping stone, but not a wholly successful solution), but I really think that allowing easier access to developers is what causes more cases of broken/stolen/etc games than anything else. Valve can try to tamp down what they can as best they can (you can argue how well they are or aren't doing on this), but the fact remains that the more open the store gets the more likely this stuff will get through. I mean... how do you police this much content, have someone play every game to completion? There's thousands of them, with more coming in every day.
Should they go back to the old walled garden? I don't know if that's any better, since it leaves a lot of good games out in the cold. Not to mention the cat's already out of the bag.
Again, I'm not saying Valve is doing it right here, necessarily (I believe they have plenty of room for improvement, to put it mildly), but I disagree with the notion that they haven't even considered solving these problems. That seems very presumptive to me.