Talk:Steam (service)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Missing Reception Section

According to the Wikipeda policy of WP:NPOV and WP:CRIT articles should be well balanced and represent the full spectrum of public response on a topic. This seems to be not the case for this article anymore (but existed before). While some aspects of public reception are represented (commercial one), major aspects (especially the controversial aspects) are missing. I will start to re-integrate missing & well backed aspects into a dedicated reception chapter (formed from marketshare and impact). Thoughts? Shaddim (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There's difficulties in the criticism as much only comes from user blogs which aren't appropriate SPS. We can't use things like user complaints, the BBB rating, etc. to support that section. --MASEM (t) 23:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that & would use only accepted secondary sources as base. Shaddim (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC) Starting right now a material collection (feel free to comment or add):

(so, infact, I'm surprised how many good secondary sources exist... so a reception chapter is no problem at all)

But what do you want to glean from those sources? Some of them cover more-or-less unimportant one time events. Some are commentary on Steam's market power. Some are about VAC, which isn't, strictly speaking, Steam. Some are really about EA's competing Origin service (Battlefield 3). Lots are about individual games, including some events I know are covered in the articles for those games (Where it belongs). I could go on.... It's certain that sources talking about Steam exist, the question is, what is trivial and what is notable enough to include here? -- ferret (talk) 12:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I told, reception of Steam by the industry, public, users, journalist, law etc. The material above provids a big amount of notable references for relevant aspects as legality, privacy, safety/security, dominance of market, user rights etc. Shaddim (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

But those details already exist in the article? -- ferret (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Only partly interwoven, many relevant aspects are missing. Overall, an important, industry changing service as Steam with enourmous impact on technology and society (seeable be the sheer amoutn of reception) deserves a significant reception chapter on wikipedia. That this is mostly missing is a serious problem for an article of this relevance. Shaddim (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I do follow Steam and Valve to a good degree in the media, and the problem is that the type of reception (and particularly criticism) is just not there in RS. Plenty of user blogs, left and right, and there are spot negative pieces around, but nothing at the scale you are suggesting. Arguably you would think there should be numerous states about the effective monopoly Valve has on PC gaming, but this isn't a subject of many critiques. --MASEM (t) 16:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

To me, this just feels like we're rebuilding the Criticism section, which was appropriately merged into the rest of the article, except this time we'll call it "Reception".... But everything being brought up seems to relate to negative bias. Are you trying to add reception or "criticism"? If any of these sources discuss pertinent reliable information, they should be added to the existing sections as appropriate. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: "nd the problem is that the type of reception (and particularly criticism) is just not there in RS." I disagree. The presented sources are RS according WP:VGRS, found via Reliable Sources for Video Games . @Ferret: I plan a reception chapter. Due to the nature of human reception, there might be a good chunk of criticism involved. I will try to keep it balanced according to NPOV. cheers Shaddim (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Shaddim, I changed your sources to a numbered list numbered and hidden them for readability. Your best way forward would be to propose draft the content you want to add here or your own user space.--Vaypertrail (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for formating, Vaypertrail. I will prepare a draft. Shaddim (talk) 10:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I keep seeing you add new sources to this list, but looking at them, they don't even belong with this list. The last couple for example would belong to the VAC article, not the Steam article. Others are one-off complaints about various games that should be in the articles for those games. -- ferret (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. My primary concern here is with synthesizing a reception based on a variety of disparate and barely related events, rather than from a set of comprehensive reviews of the service as a whole. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will note there is has been criticsm of the Steam Early Access (Which is covered at Early Access since there's other programs that offer that too now), and Steam Greenlight has been long-discussed in a critical nature, of which I've been tempted to write a separate article for. --MASEM (t) 13:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

A belated side comment: are Stallman's FSF comments really worth having in the "impact" section? It's good in the sense that he's talking about Steam as a whole, but it's bad in the sense that he is very fringe and not really talking about Steam, but his usual harp on free / unfree software - it'd apply equally to *any* unfree-but-popular software on Linux (something which, in the linked article, he already notes/whines that many Linux distros include!). Also the impression from the article is largely negative, but Stallman says in the linked article that he thinks that the overall effect might be positive (moving users from Evil Windows to the One True GNU) anyway. The point is that anything involving Stallman really is more about Stallman's philosophies than the topic under discussion; it'd be like citing Noam Chomsky's views on something in politics. SnowFire (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

On the paid mod issue

We shouldn't be making a big deal out of this, now that Valve has removed it for the time being. It was a short term issue and the complains and Valve's pulling should be documented but to go into excessive detail on the complaints is unnecessary at this time. This is similar to many many past issues people have had with Steam which we do not document at all because they are short term issues that are quickly resolved. Thing to the long-game here, not the short term news reporting, which we are not. --MASEM (t) 05:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't even be mentioned. Can be mentioned in Mod (video gaming) if anywhere.--Vaypertrail (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No, a brief mention here as a feature that was added and then pulled is important, but the larger details of mods being paid-for efforts should be at the Mod article. --MASEM (t) 22:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well fix it then instead of reverting my solution. You also reverted my copyedit.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the change summary, we need to note that the new ban system is something enforced at the Steam level. And there's nothing to fix here. The mention is sufficiently brief. There's a whole bunch of detailed discussion on the paid mods stuff that can be sourced for the Mod article, but the limited context we give here is appropriate to understand why the feature was pulled for the time being. --MASEM (t) 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a 2015 paid mods controversy to give it more depth? I feel this is a notable topic. --09:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchyte (talk • contribs)

I don't think so. While it's notable within the PC gaming scene on forums and reddit, coverage from reliable sources wasn't that comprehensive. The majority of gaming websites didn't even give their opinion on the matter, they just noted that the community was pissed off about it and all posted pretty much similar articles on the matter. So I'm not sure there is enough information to make a good article out of it. For now I think that a section within Mod (video gaming) covering paid mods and reaction to it would be more appropriate. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

For example, [1] is a good editorial article that gets into the issues of paying modders; this would be fine at the mod article, but is far too detailed for this article (as all Steam did was enable this and not really a fault of the software itself), but we do need to at least summarized it was tried and pulled. --MASEM (t) 20:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I have added a section to the Mod article. --Anarchyte (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So news about a specific category of goods for sale for a specific game, in this case mods for Skyrim, (no change in the Steam software itself) which didn't even last 2 weeks, and Gabe's commentary is relevant? No wonder this article is an over-sized mess. Looks like gamers being caught up in one off dramas then blogging writing about it here. And bans at "Steam level" doesn't actually mean anything to anyone compared to being denied access to a game.

What is wrong with, "Paid for mods were introduced to the store in April, but removed by the end month after negative feedback."?--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Now that the Mod article has discussion of it, I trimmed out the details of the negative feedback with a link to that section on Mod. --MASEM (t) 14:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Steam Family Options (Is it undue?)

So I have happened to notice that there is not a brief passage of one thing which talks about Steam's "Family View" and its main functionality. I would love to contribute to this page by adding that information, and I even have a reference ready*, but about what I am worried is the WP:NPOV. I am worried about as to whether it would be undue if I were to add it. What are your opinions about it? Thanks for your help.

• http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/09/steam-family-options-now-out-of-beta Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope it would not be undue, and I have added a bit for this just now (one sentence all that needed). --MASEM (t) 03:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Steam refund "controversy"

It's not yet so much a controversy but there's certainly been a bit of talk about the pros and cons of Steam Refunds as seen through the eyes of game developers; there's also the reported issues that some publishers purposes raised prices and/or bundled content with games in advance of the Summer Sale as to have the discounted price end up the same while denying the ability to refund these titles (based on the bundling) [2]. I don't think we're yet at a point to have this included per UNDUE but it is a topic to watch for. --MASEM (t) 17:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That said, Kotaku has refuted much of the claims regarding refunds and the latest sale, but the refund approach was still a subject of debate before and I see Gamasutra's trying to get a idea of how to write an article w/ dev input. Something to watch at the meantime. --MASEM (t) 21:50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Epic security fail

Being able to reset the password of any account, might deserve more than a single sentence. Let's see if it develops any further.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really, given that users with steam guard enabled were not affected. Plus it was also caught quickly and Valve is working to restore said accounts. --MASEM (t) 19:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The wave of sources reporting (and still publishing as I type) on this trumps your downplaying of it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Of course it's being covered as it people should be aware of it, but the fact they fixed it quickly and are working to restore those affected by it may not make it as significant as it first seems. It's a vunerablility, but it doesn't appear as massive as other security holes. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

December 2015 page cache issue

I agree with Masem that this shouldn't be added so quickly, per recentism. These brief issues very rarely result in long term importance, and Wikipedia is not news. -- ferret (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And until we know if it was any significant damage or harm beyond revealing a few personal details (but little that can be directly done with that info) it is an accidental mistake and seems far too minor compare to other major security breaches. We are not required to report on every such outage or security mishap. --MASEM (t) 00:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Its significance is not related to harm done or intentionality but reputation. As such it is information which is thoroughly encyclopedic and justified a short para as various editors have added. I would have no objection, if there are a number of such breaches, for them to be blobbed up into one. In the meantime, whilst under discussion, it should be restored as we should not reward 3RR breaches and such consensus as there is is for having it in. Springnuts (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I would propose looking through the various additions and finding one that is concise and cited. I believe that my own fits this, but I am loath to restore this by only my own judgement. As one of the revision messages said: If it turns out that nothing happens as a result of this, then it can be removed. If it turns out that there are lawsuits/legal consequences, then those should be added. Iamoctopus (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The fact that four different editors have added it shows that there is interest in adding it. According to WP:3RR, this should not have been reverted the fourth time. I personally believe it should be added, because it does count as a major leak of personal details. I agree that not everything warrants an edit (today's downtime for example), but this is more significant than that. This could result in legal action, and possibly the revocation of Steam's PCI certification. I also believe that this warrants inclusion, as this is the section on Security, and allowing people to see other customer's data is most certainly a security breach. The event has also received major media coverage:

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2015/12/25/steam-is-randomly-logging-users-into-other-peoples-accounts-and-exposing-their-information/
• http://kotaku.com/steam-goes-nuts-offers-access-to-other-peoples-account-1749718979
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/25/steam_snafu/
• http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/25/10665814/valve-steam-holiday-sale-security-problems

Iamoctopus (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It must be added considering its a security breach. Its a clear fact that it received widespread panic among the userbase like what iamoctopus said. Pretty much everything that I wanted to state has been stated clearly with given proof.Sultanified (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware that WP:3RR applies to individual editors. It does not mean "This addition can't be reverted more than 3 times". The fact that Masem reverted 3 (4) times does not mean another editor cannot revert it, so let's stop claiming 3RR means it should stay. Second, from a WP:BRD point of view, once it was reverted the first time, that's when the talk page should have been used, without re-adding it until a consensus was established. Thirdly, the fact that "multiple editors added it" and that shows "interest" doesn't establish anything. Many editors don't even look at the history and see that it was removed previously or why it was removed. The first editor is a long dormant one with less than 20 edits, and the second was a SPA who signed up only for that.

All that aside, I keep reading "If it results in legal action." .... Has it? No. That is crystal balling. What we have a spate of news coverage about a single incident, with no evidence of long term impact or lasting coverage. This is basically recentism and "not news" in a nutshell. If next week or next month, we find that it's still being reported on, or that someone has filed a lawsuit, we can add it then. There's no deadline. In short, this is being argued backwards. It's not "if nothing else happens, it can be removed." It's "if something else happens, it can be added." -- ferret (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

"The first editor is a long dormant one with less than 20 edits" Having a new account doesn't mean you are new to editing stuffs in Wiki. Putting that aside, the breach should just be part of the security tab instead of a new subsection if it were to be added. Elsewise, this breach should be completely 'ignored'. --Sultanified (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Given that Valve has just issued another more in-depth response to this topic ([3]), I think it warrants inclusion. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Reading the reply, no not really. DOS attack (which had been warned about earlier) forced them to change cache settings, there was an accidental situation with the setup, they shut down, reviewed and put in the proper caching in place, and then redeployed, while working both to prevent that happening in future and making sure affected users are given alerts and offers to help correct anything. It was not a long-standing security issue as the other ones noted here have had but a mistake resulting from trying to route around a DDOS on that day. Interesting, but very much falling presently into WP:NOT#NEWS unless we hear of serious privacy breeches that result, which doesn't sound like will be happening. --MASEM (t) 19:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Masem, if 34,000 users having their details leaked wasn't a "serious privacy breech", then you won't have any problems filling out the following form:

• Steam Account name:
• paypal email address:
• Name and billing address:
• Phone number:
• last 4 digits of your bank card and type:
• Funds in Steam Wallet:
• Purchase History:

Thanks.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Which of course, isn't the same information that was actually exposed in the caching issue, nor were all 34,000 exposed, as other non-sensitive pages were also part of the effected count. -- ferret (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If that information was stored on the account, it was exposed, please fill out the form too. Thanks.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a poor argument, because again, while some of this is private information, there's not much that directly can be done with those things in hand. Further Valve is working with those affected, which is better than much more severe security breaches from major banks and the like. Further, these details in full were not revealed for each user affected. Further, consider that each month there are about 77,000 accounts hijacked, and this further makes this a drop in the bucket. --MASEM (t) 17:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

The large sum of sources and Valve disagree with you. If it wasn't a big deal, Valve wouldn't be contacting those affected. It belongs in the article, but no more than a single sentence.--Vaypertrail (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a "deal", but it's not a significant issue, and there's no indication that it is a long-term security flaw (which is important). If we hear more of this within a week or so, then it might be appropriate to include. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

First of all might I start by thanking everyone commenting here for the civility and courtesy shown in expressing their views, and for correctly focusing on content. I do think we have explored the issue thoroughly. Equally it seems clear that there is something of a head of steam (to coin a phrase) for at least some mention on the basis of the current sources, without requiring more sources. Unless there are any new arguments to raise, might we start moving the process forward? Might I ask MASEM (t) if they are willing to concede some addition of the material at this stage, and if so, to suggest what they think a consensus position on this proposed edit might look like? If their view is that no mention of the issues is acceptable, then we might go to the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, but (IMHO) this would seem to be to make a mountain out of a molehill. Springnuts (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Two editors have argued from a point of policy (WP:NOTNEWS) not to include until such time that there's reason to believe this is an event of lasting importance. Since this talk section has opened, no such developments have occurred. No one has sued, no one has reported being compromised by it, and reliable sources have made no real further coverage of it. Since nothing has really changed, on exactly what basis do you argue for inclusion at this time? As far as I can see, WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:RECENTISM still apply. There's still no deadline to include it later if something changes. -- ferret (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ferret are you saying that in your view no consensus is possible? Springnuts (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm saying that two editors, including myself, have argued that it should not be included for policy-based reasons. You've said unless there are new arguments to raise that you want to start moving the process forward. However, you have not refuted any of the policy based reasons for leaving out the content, so I asked you if something has changed in the last week since this was initially discussed that shows that the policy in question is no longer relevant. If you have information that shows something has changed and lasting importance is demonstrated, please, let me know. I do not know if that means that there is no chance of a consensus, because I can't speak for others (For example, yourself. Perhaps later tonight you read WP:NOTNEWS and decide that it's correctly being applied here). Feel free to ping WT:VG for other views, or to approach various other avenues such as an RfC. -- ferret (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

In the hope that we might get some more views I have asked a few uninvolved editors (who have previously edited the article) to comment if they feel they would like to. Springnuts (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Pinging a handful of experienced WP:VG editors that may be able to offer additional insight: @Sergecross73, Salvidrim!, Czar, PresN, GamerPro64, Sam Walton, Dissident93, Hellknowz, and Izno. -- ferret (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Due weight. It was widely covered, but there is little info. Add a single sentence to either the history or security section from the most reliable source. I recommend a mainstream newspaper: The Independent or The Verge  czar 21:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I don't see why we shouldn't put this info in here. Steam is notorious for being hacked. But this was an incident that might have been the final straw for some people. Seeing it firsthand I can definitely say its noteworthy. And it seems certain websites agree with that sentiment. GamerPro64 21:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm also of the mindset that while a whole paragraph in a section titled "Controversy" would be a big UNDUE issue, a mere sentence or two in an already existing section would be fine, as long as it's brief and strictly to the source. I also agree that we should shy away from Forbes Contributors articles as sources, (they've made some massive mistakes in their articles before, especially in articles about controversies) instead relying on something more like "The Verge". Sergecross73 msg me 21:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, that can be seen here. The Forbes and Kotaku articles claim that Steam let people log in as other people, which never happened. They simply saw incorrect cached pages. -- ferret (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• It definitely was a notable event, so I think it should be added, but only with a sentence or two like Serge said. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
• I'll go with WP:DUE being strong enough here. I support a single sentence or two added to the existing security section, backed by a very solid source like Verge. I would however prefer if we could find a secondary source that covers Valve's "what happened" announcement rather than primary sourcing. This should do. -- ferret (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with this emerging consensus for a sentence or two. Springnuts (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agreed with one sentence, preferably with a single citation. It's common for flash in the pan incidents like this, even ones notable enough for a mention, to suddenly get a full paragraph using 20 citations that are all copies of each other, only for the article to looks really dumb a month later. Lets just skip that annoying step, and not pretend it takes 10 sources to verify an obvious event, and not pretend that a small website error is the most important thing to ever happen in the history of Steam. --PresN 01:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
• "On December 25, 2015, Valve, as a result of reconfiguring its caching scheme due to an ongoing denial of service attack on Steam's servers, inadvertently allowed partial personal details of about 35,000 Steam users to be randomly visible to all users, and Valve worked to address issues with those affected." --MASEM (t) 03:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• I believe this sentence should be connected to the last sentence in the Security (In July 2015, a bug in the software allowed anyone to reset the password to any account by using the "forgot password" function of the client. High profile professional gamers and streamers lost access to their accounts) because they are both talking about bugs in the system. As for a reference for this, something like this Ars Technica post or this VentureBeat post. Anarchyte 06:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• It wasn't a bug though. They misconfigured a cache that they were implementing that day to stop the DOS attack, and then fixed it by fixing the cache configuration change. --MASEM (t) 07:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• While very likely unintended, the public disclosure of private information of a number of users makes this event notable enough for one or two sentences. Lklundin (talk) 08:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, with the exception of Masem, everyone agree's it should be mentioned. The sentence should not include technical info. My draft - On December 2015, Steam's content delivery network was misconfigured in response to a DDoS attack, causing 34,000 users' personal information to be exposed.--Vaypertrail (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like to see ""to be potentially exposed." The cache issue affected 34,000 users, but the exact pages exposed are unknown and not all 34,000 necessarily resulted in sensitive pages being shown. -- ferret (talk) 14:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of the word 'potentially' would require another source than the above from the Verge which says: 'Valve estimates that roughly 34,000 users saw data exposed by the breach'. The potential for damage from such an exposure is an entirely different matter, since it can take a long time for such damage from the exposure to materialize. Lklundin (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

To quote the original primary source announcement, formatting mine: Between 11:50 PST and 13:20 PST store page requests for about 34k users, which contained sensitive personal information, may have been returned and seen by other users. -- ferret (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds not quite right. Data from 34k users in parts were shown to any user of Steam at the time. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

What about this version: it's a bit clunky but may cover it - On December 2015, Steam's content delivery network was misconfigured in response to a DDoS attack: 34,000 users saw at least some personal information relating to other users. Springnuts (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a bit backwards. It was not 34,000 users who saw information related to other users, it was 34,000 users who may have been seen. I am going to just add Vaypertrail's, and we can tweak from there. -- ferret (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks ferret (talk) - Springnuts (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Steam before 2002

If nobody could prove that Valve had been developing Steam before 2002, then, the content must be corrected, which was already done by me. I have sourced the unverified content with Kotaku, claiming that it was under development since 2002. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I"m working to find a "before 2002" source, because development obviously began before 2002, as the beta began before March 2002 when it was revealed (in a usable form) at GDC 2002. Counter-strike 1.4 beta was released publicly on the Steam beta as early as March 06, 2002. It's absurd to claim that development of Steam only began 2 months before. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, best of luck for you. I never could find a valid source, claiming that it had been under development, and the Kotaku source seems to be contrary to the original statement. Would it be better to leave the statement as what it was based upon our inductive reasoning (meaning "making assumptions") that Steam's development had been before 2002, or do we need to have the statement verified with that source and therefore form a deductive reasoning (meaning "forming uncontroversial conclusions based upon facts") that Steam really had gone under development in 2002? In the meantime, I will pray that someone of us will find such a valid source. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The whole section needs work because it claims Steam was first made available to public in 2003. That's not quite true as Counter-strike 1.4 beta used it and was publicly available (or at least available to sign up for) in early March 2002, even before the GDG announcement. I'm going to have to spend some time on it later. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

In trying to help source that, one thing I've noticed is that the way this overall article is structured is that we have the initial history, and then from there just jump into features, listing dates when certain features were added. It makes the history aspect seem odd. I don't know if we can resolve it easily; it might just be as simple as refocusing what that initial history section is, or might require a full rewrite. --MASEM (t) 15:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There are 2,000 games for Linux

Someone should add this article as reference: https://www.gamingonlinux.com/articles/linux-now-has-2000-games-on-steam-big-milestone.6933 Swiftpaw (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion (with absolutely no offense intended for the original poster), no, someone must not add the reference to the article, and here is why:

• I politely presume that @Swiftpaw: did not take his or her time to determine the website's reliability, and my reason for doing so is here:

  A little bit of information on who GamingOnLinux are, we are just a small group of passionate Linux fans who wish to bring you nothing but the best in Linux gaming news. Started by liamdawe on his own in 2009 on a .info address, we later switched to using a .com domain name.

  — https://www.gamingonlinux.com/about-us/

Nowhere in that statement does it reassure us the website's overall quality; rather, it indicates that the website is in fact a hobbyist website.

• On the mobile version of Gaming on Linux, I cannot seem to find editorial/credential/ethics policy pages (which are required for all writers of high-quality websites), and that is a big error.
• The website's authors' profiles do not exactly tell me everything which I need to know (such as their real names), and I doubt that, on the "About Us" page, they really know how to write high-quality articles. At the same time, the website also appears to be a blog site, which without editorial quality can result in possibly false information.

So, after what I have said, the conclusion is that Gaming on Linux fails WP:RS and WP:BLOG. It would also be good for either of us to add to the list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, which one can use to know exactly which sources to use. Now that the topic is resolved, at least, we can continue to make more progress on Wikipedia. Happy editing! Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Active users include abandoned accounts

The lead has misleading information, 125 million "active" includes accounts that bought a game for $3 10 years ago, and hasn't logged in since is considered active. That user could be dead or binned the account details and will never use the account again. And all those abandoned VAC banned accounts. We are also assuming Valve's definition of 'active' is the same as it was described in 2013. This ambiguity has also been questioned by sources.[4][5]. It is also less accurate to describe them as "users" instead of "accounts" as obviously people have more than one account.[6] User:Lordtobi reverted my fix.--Vaypertrail (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Steam user growth by year

• 2003, 0.5 million http://web.archive.org/web/20061112161050/http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=news&archive=yes&id=185&cc=--
• 2004, >2 million http://web.archive.org/web/20041121052411/http://steampowered.com/status/status.html (per month)
• 2005, >2.5 million http://web.archive.org/web/20051229041602/http://www.steampowered.com/status/status.html (per month)
• 2006, >2.9 million http://web.archive.org/web/20061206220121/http://www.steampowered.com/v/index.php?area=stats (per month)
• 2007, 13 million http://store.steampowered.com/news/1050/
• or 15 million http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf
• 2008, 20 million http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf
• 2009, 25 million http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf
• 2010, 30 million http://store.steampowered.com/news/4502/
• 2011, 40 million http://gamingbolt.com/valve-releases-pr-steam-userbase-doubles-in-2011-big-picture-mode-coming-soon
• 2012, 50 million http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-11-22-steam-still-at-50-million-users-500-000-use-big-picture
• 2013, 65 million http://www.gamespot.com/articles/steam-hits-65-million-users/1100-6415866/
• 2014, 75 million http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2014-01-15-steam-currently-has-75-million-active-users
• 2015, 125 million http://kotaku.com/there-are-over-125-million-steam-accounts-1687820875

2004-2006 still needed.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Remaining ambiguity on platform issue

This is a very long article and I confess up front that I did not carefully read the entire thing, just the sections I thought might have an answer I sought.

I came here to find out if I could purchase a game on Steam for a Mac and then play it on a pc without a second purchase. I am looking for this information here because the Steam site itself seems more geared to selling licenses then informing customers of restrictions and qualifications. I did find in the section on OS X platform the information that previously owned Windows games would be available on Macs for no additional charge. This implies that any future games would have to be purchased twice to play on both platforms. But this should not be left as an implication. It should be stated clearly. I am leaving the Wiki site to try to find the information elsewhere, because the question is not definitively answered here in either the Platforms section or the Software Delivery and Maintenance section.

I want to add that part of the reason I did not carefully read the entire article is the tone. The length certainly put me off, but I would have been willing to read through a long article had I felt it was very informative. In this case, I felt the tone and organization make it seem like one big advertisement, with no criticisms and little objective evaluation. I don't doubt the veracity of the information included, but the conspicuous omission of clear statements on the restrictions and qualifications of the service adds to this feeling. Baon (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

What you are looking for is SteamPlay, which means that you buy a game and receive it for all three platforms (if available on those). There are a few select games that did not get the principle of SteamPlay and set up packages for every platform, only acquireable and playable on these. Therefore, what out for packages called "... Mac" (or platform equivalent), such as GTA: San Andreas has. Lordtobi (✉) 16:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, article has really gone to shit with commentary. I developed most of the Steam_(software)#Market_share_and_impact section, but would be ashamed to say so now. I delete two sentences of trivia, by next week another 10 have been added, a common problem with gaming articles with fans writing it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Looking for any developer comments/concerns towards Steam

Today, with the change in how review scores are calculated (dismissing any from users that redeemed the game via a key rather than purchased by the Steam Store), there's a handful of articles from indie and other devs expressing issue. While the change in scores I've added, I'm hesitant to add the indie dev response without more context. Which I got to thinking of what other issues developers specifically have had with Steam that would make inclusion of general issues appropriate to include. I think the Greenlight issue can be included but I can't immediately recall any other broad complaints developers have had about Steam or Valve's policies and searching isn't helping. Can anyone recall any other such issues? --MASEM (t) 19:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing information

There are some big isseus with Steam which are not adressed. It happens that Valve sells softare which doesn't run. If this happens then Valve doesn't give a refund, neither does it give any support to run the game. Placing a negative review on Steam isn't possible if the game won't run because Valve doesn't let you place a review if you haven't played the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.132.75.218 (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that discusses this issue? (Can't be forums or the like). --MASEM (t) 14:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Steam is a platform ?

I have some problems with claim "platform" in the first sentence: "Steam is a digital distribution platform " It should be properly sourced and later in detail explained how it is what in which way to what a platform. Better removed as it is from the technical perspective (yet) not really a platform in the sense described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_platform. Also it is to vague to help the non-technical audience at all. It could be argued it is (also) an "economical platform" but there is also the better term "market" without confusing ambiguity. Thoughts?Shaddim (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Waiting to expand on this

Valve now requires gift purchased to be gifted immediately, which appears to be helping to combat grey market sales, but I need to see how this plays out in sources before added, so mostly a note to myself until we can figure out how this is being taken. --MASEM (t) 13:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article is over-sized, we should look at cutting down:

• Quotes that don't actually provide any information
• Information already covered in their own article, or can be moved such as Steam Machine (hardware platform) and Valve Anti-Cheat
• Legal conflicts moved to Valve Corporation

Not going to name anyone, but some users just see a news article and put it in the article without much thought.--Vaypertrail (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Things that have their own article don't need as much, but they still need summary on this page (eg you can't leave Steam Machine section blank). And there are some legal issues specific to Steam, like the rebates issue, so we can't remove those either. --MASEM (t) 19:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Trying to find collaborating number of active users

Over the Thanksgiving weekend, Steam hit a record 17.5M concurrent players [7]. While easily added to the body, I'm looking at the lede where we have, for the end of 2015, that Steam had 125M active accounts and 8.somethingM concurrent. I would love to update that if I could find the current number of estimated active accounts but am not having any luck. Even Steam Spy does not have that number that I can see. Any help here would be great. (I'm also going to find a way to include #s from this vale presentation in April 2017 [8]) --MASEM (t) 20:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind. I looked at that Geekwire data, and Valve specifically states "27 M new active accounts since Jan 2016". Since we have 125M at Dec 2017 from Valve, and this from Valve, it is allowed calculation to cite more than 150M active accounts. --MASEM (t) 20:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

history section

I think he history section is in need of some reorganization and cleanup. i'd like to roll together the subsections and simply focus more on concept and development history. anybody got any ideas or better ways? -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 21:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the current history section seems fine (eg basically up to the point where the service started offering third party games and thus became a storefront rather that just a matchmaking client). I'm not sure what you might be suggesting otherwise. --MASEM (t) 22:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

well, it just seems strange to have a small subsection that's just a few lines like that. my plan was to combine the two subsections. but i see your point too. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 22:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that I agree with. I've gone ahead and nixed those subsection headings. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Steam (software). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100517122844/http://epicgames.com/press_releases/steamworks.html to http://epicgames.com/press_releases/steamworks.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Issues with sexually-explicit games

[9] Several games being threatened of being pulled, but we do not yet have a response from Valve. I don't think we should add this until we get a statement from Valve about this, but I wanted to keep this as an issue to watch for over next few days. --Masem (t) 16:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• But no apparent issue with Conan Exiles, which has full body nudity creation? Or with The Witcher or GTA? This has to be a mistake or something, so yeah, this should be held off unless/until Valve makes a public statement. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Again, still waiting on a Valve response, but this might help depending. [10] includes some discussion with Valve when they were launching Direct on pornographic games. --Masem (t) 21:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
    • So Valve has backed off and apologized for this mess. [11] I don't know if this is an issue to put into the article yet, but we can write a complete description at this point. --Masem (t) 02:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I think its worth noting now, with any followup to it just being added later. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

only manga style content is targeted, it seems almost racist to me. Norschweden (talk) 21:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Criticism

How would we feel about having a general Criticism section in this artlcle? There's some criticism already here but it's spread around all over the place. There's recently been developer criticism aimed at user reviews, a overly automated curation process, poor communication from Valve on how the storefront curation actually works, and how Steam automates regional pricing. References for this can be found here:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2018/03/13/what-developers-think-of-steam-reviews/ https://www.polygon.com/2018/10/19/17959138/steam-valve-developer-support-pricing-reviews https://www.pcgamer.com/the-biggest-issues-with-steam-in-2017-according-to-230-developers/

I was going to add a line about this in the article, but all of these topics are spread out all over the page. Would be nice to put everything in one section. --Indiestation (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

We've repeatedly had to axe criticism sections as this article as people use it to pile in every trivial negative thing that ever happened over the last 15 years. See Wikipedia:Criticism#"Criticism"_section as well. Generally, things should be merged throughout the article as appropriate, not in a dedicated undue weight section. -- ferret (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

In addition to that, we already include much of this sort of information in the article, it's just not centralized under a single section. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

After reading the lead, I find it very unsatisfactory

Hours ago, I read the brief summary for the Steam software, and was left unsatisfied when I compare the summary to the rest of the article (though size is not even a problem). Just minutes ago as of this post, I read the lead section again, and the results are the same: that the lead is unsatisfactory. The lead is essentially composed of, "Steam is an online distribution service that can do this. It can also do this and allows that. It is also the largest online video game platform for desktops, and is compatible on other operating systems." All of this in my opinion is necessary, but what about a brief history of Steam? What was the background before Steam? Why did Valve develop it? What did Steam originally do, and when did it transform into an online social network service that also distributes third-party titles?

The questions here primarily deal with Steam's history, as I could not think of anything else relevant for the section. A summary of its history would give readers an insight into Valve's background and better understand the subject. Otherwise, they would be left with reading, "Steam is the largest online distribution platform for video games that can do this and also allows that." That really says a lot about the subject. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 06:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph of "History" has exactly that information. For the lede section, including this gives that too much weight given everything else in the article. --Masem (t) 13:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe you are right. Perhaps a very brief description of what Steam used to be would do, from a platform for automatically downloading updates for first-party titles to being a distribution service for third-party developers. I see it is already added. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ 15:02, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean they just basically began including non-Valve products for the same service. I'm not sure if this is important enough to be mentioned in the lead unless you can generalize the entire thing as a single sentence. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Steam's launch year

I know this stemmed from a comment at the Valve page, so when I dug into things this morning, the best I could figure out by sourcing:

• Steam was released in Beta form in late-ish 2003 as an optional way to play CS 1.6.
• Early in 2004 Steam shut down the WON servers and required all CS 1.6 players to use Steam
• On Half-Life 2's release, Valve required Steam to be used even for retail results - at this point, it didn't seem to be considered a beta anymore.

However, my google-fu is failing on any incidental steps, and my own memory was that everyone in PC gaming was just "huh, Steam, okay...." so it didn't gain a lot of news attraction until the HL2 release. I'd love to be able to connect dots better here. --Masem (t) 23:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• So from what I can gather, it might have never had an "official" release out of beta, although the shutdown of the WON servers could be considered the closest as it then became a requirement for some games past that point? In any case, where does the "The Steam client was first made available for public beta testing in January 2003 during the beta period for Counter-Strike 1.6, for which it was mandatory to install and use." claim come from then? Is 2003 is just a typo? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• To add, note that this article (ref#13) says "When Steam officially launches this summer (80,000 gamers are already enjoying its public beta test).......". So, given that the article was published on Apr 16, 2002, "this summer" here obviously means the summer of 2002, and basically that means Steam was initially planned to be released out of beta in the summer of 2002, which complicates things even further. And, in contrast, this article (ref#15) which was published on Monday Sep 08 2003 EST, says "The beta, which consisted of some 300,000 players, will come to a close Tuesday"; if that was the case, that means Steam did come out of beta, but around September 10/11, 2003, not in 2004 or the summer of 2002 -- ChamithN (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• Interesting, and also doesn't conflict with the Kotaku article (although I would prefer a less opinionated article to replace it with if possible). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Just searching around, I came onto this [12] (2004, but dealing with a lawsuit that involved Steam). Trying to see if I can find court docs for it. --Masem (t) 04:37, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Working from that, [13] gives Steam Beta 2.0 starting in January 2003. Then I found this [14] dated Sept. 10, 2003, which based on browsing archive.org snapshots of "steampowered.com" look about right too. Also this [15] (though not an RS), but that makes the beta question weird. In any case, I'm confident that we can say September 2003 as the "out of beta" period. --Masem (t) 04:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Regarding the beta release, it was live at least on March 21, 2002 (earliest Wayback archive). The Salon source from ChamithN above could be used to explain that? Lordtobi (✉) 07:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Which coincides with the "It was first revealed to the public on March 22, 2002, at the Game Developers Conference, where it was presented purely as a distribution network" claim. So I'm guessing that if the dates are correct, it was actually available as a beta on the same day it was announced. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Backup: The release announcement came on September 12, officially and directly on Steam itself.[16] Lordtobi (✉) 09:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Beta client

@Dissident93: I'm not the most proficient in English, but something feels wrong with this sentence.

Between 80,000 and 300,000 players participated a beta client before its official release on September 12, 2003.

The players that used it did not participate in the client, rather in a beta version/period of the client. This wording might have been carried over from game betas, where people are given a beta client to participate in the beta of a game, though in this case the beta concerns the software directly. The back-part of the sentence also sounds like September 12, 2003, marked the official release of the beta client, not of the full, out-of-beta client (and for some reason people had already used it). As for the additional sentence with the delay, I added it because it removed some of the source clutter, and becuase is another example of Valve Time, though in a smaller fashion. If you feel like this is completely irrelevant, we can leave it out, of course. Lordtobi (✉) 14:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Lordtobi: Well, the fact of a beta client of the software existing was already mentioned above, so the wording should probably follow that readers are aware of it (the wording matters in that context). Note that I've already made adjustments to it in the time you wrote this, so hopefully it's fine now. As for the delay, the only real source that mentioned it (unless I missed it) was the IGN one, which had implied it would be released on September 11. Now that we know it was actually September 12, I removed that and thus the delay info from the paragraph. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The DSLReport source also says that it was supposed to be released "Wednesday" (September 10). In this Steam news article dated Sep 10, Valve says that they planned to release the client on the following day, apologizing for the delay. Then on Sep 12 they announced the plan to release later that day (which they did per above link). The delay was there, it just depends on how relevant it is. Lordtobi (✉) 15:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. However, I still don't think a two day delay is really all that notable, but maybe I'm just being picky. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)