Talk:Steam (service)/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Tone of the article tending toward advert

At ferret 's request bringing this issue up here instead of using one of those darned tags!:

I've addressed a couple of places where superlatives and marketing terms have crept in, but believe there are a few more. There are a couple of other points which might be a stretch of npov.. the statements of number of users is referenced to valve for example, the market share is only an estimate by a competitor. The way these are stated in the lead overstates their verifiability and led me to add the 'advert tag'. Not knocking the article as a whole - there's enough content and several points of view to form a rounded article ... just don't think it's quite there yet. If you'd like more input or maybe further copyediting from myself please say Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:07, June 16, 2010

Honestly, I think the text you added doesn't help it. Content like "Currently accounts cannot be merged or deleted by their creators." skews this more towards being a how-to, which is not what we want. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe - it is a counterpoise to the stated number of accounts - if they cannot be deleted then the total quoted in the lead may not be accurate for live accounts - ( I have an account myself which has no attached products for years and hasn't been automatically deactivated). I also think it's an important fact that one cannot cancel one's account once it is created - I can't think of many areas where this would be acceptable. The placement was probably lazy - I was looking for a suitable section describing accounts but couldn't find one - I do not know enough about steam to write a section as an overview of accounts and this would probably require a rearrangement of the current structure...

As for the how-to, you might be right, but there is already a heavy leaning in this direction , e.g. 'To play, users typically launch the game from the client's built-in list of currently installed games' and 'Mods appear in a user's list of installed games with the icons, developer links and other such details' The Howto issue on WP doesn't bother me in general. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me that you can't follow the advert policy without considering the how-to policy as well, given that the latter can lead to the former. As to the rest, well, I'll wait to see what others say. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

After sleeping on it - I can see the logic of not deleting/merging accounts - deleting this could make the registered products available, merging - this would allow transference of keys. I understand to get some interesting technical snippets in, sometimes a little of the process needs to included for context and I'm quite happy for capabilities and limitations to be listed .. the step by step 'how to achieve this' is catered for elsewhere than WP. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to read through and find things that are a little too "Now more awesome than ever!" type statements. I simply didn't want the tag up without a discussion, because then I feel if I disagree and remove the tag (In general as well, not just this case), someone's going to come back and be mad I removed it because I didn't take the action they wanted but never really stated. I'm a light editor, I touch random articles here and there, and I get really annoyed when I see tags (Especially OLD tags) that say NPOV, or any of the other usual ones, and they say "See talk page for discussion", and I find the tagger didn't make a section and none of the articles normal editors did either, and the tags there but just being ignored. It makes me want to remove the tag outright, and I try to resist doing that to avoid conflicts. Sorry for the rant :P ferret (talk) 00:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries - was a good, civil rant! As from above there's a few possibly unnecessary 'users can easily ..' type how-tos to look out for as well. If you would like I could do a quick skim myself. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much progress in this regard, the tone of the article still tends toward advert . overemphasized, weasel words etc... I've just made one edit as an example ... Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I just revised the Client Functionality section to try to make it sound less like an advert. Below are a list of notable changes and the explanation for them:

", ensuring that as many users as possible will have the latest software"

Not really relevant, and sounds like product hype.

"The servers are organized into geographic cells to help clients choose intelligently which to connect to."

Not really necessary to mention, as this is kind of how the whole internet works. Plus, the reference link is now broken.

"This is in contrast with most games that offer no built-in launch utility at all."

Advertising. Pure and simple.

"This was debuted with two new levels for The Maw."

Not really necessary, and just feels like wink at The Maw.

Removed the Payment section

The migration from the embedded wizard to the web-based basket/checkout system happened a while ago now, and the transition itself isn't really that relevant. I added a sentence to the Localization section about the checkout system before the accepted currencies, but if anyone thinks it doesn't belong there, feel free to find a place for it.

I will go back and try to do the rest of the article later on, but if someone else wants to get started on them, that would be great. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

---

List of changes worth explaining for the Promotions section:

Users who already owned either Half-Life 2 or Half-Life 2: Episode One and who purchased The Orange Box are eligible to give full copies of these games to friends. These "Gifts" do not expire. Valve does not allow these gifts to be bought, sold or traded because doing so violates the Steam Subscriber Agreement, and Valve may disable the Steam accounts of users who are believed by Valve to have done that.

Unnecessary detail, and feels like a promotion.

In December 2009, an extended Year-End version of this deal was offered, with different games sold at significant discounts each day until January 3, 2010.

Deal has passed long ago, not worth documenting.

I also want to bring up discussion for a couple of sections. I already removed the sentence that details the payment options for the cyber cafes, but I feel that the whole section doesn't really need to be there. The connection with Steam and Valve's business practices with cyber cafes has more to do with the cyber cafes themselves, and as such is not relevant to Steam.

I also feel that the "Hardware promotions" section doesn't need to be there either, since there is already a "Statistics collection" section, and the whole paragraph just seems like unnecessary detail about promotions Valve cuts with ATi and nVIDIA.

These latter two points are up for discussion, though. If anyone feels my judgement is in error regarding those two sections, please say so; otherwise, if there are no objections, I will remove them. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cosmopolitan, they are the sort of changes needed. I think the cyber cafe account type should be mentioned somewhere, but not the 'only legal way bit' .. maybe we're missing an 'accounts' section somewhere which could make things clearer. You're right about the hardware section - the games listed are more for the card articles themselves and should really just say 'some games' rather than list them anyway. A small addition to the statistics section would enable removal of this section. Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 13:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I never got around to this :( I've read all the changes and see no issues at all, if my opinion matters. Good job. ferret (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think an 'Accounts' section could be useful, we can then use it to state some of the relevant facts without making it sound like an ad 202.53.199.23 (talk) 05:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure to start with.. wikipedia is moving away from criticism sections, but one other issue is the Server outage issue. it is a very stale criticism. There are several references in the section but only one of them outright criticizes Steam and it's 6 years old, even it frames the criticism in the "the issues were in the past and much better now". The last cited outage there was 4 years ago. This has got an issue of relevance and dated commentary. It isn't really a criticism against the service as it is now, just when it started and was in it's infancy. As such I don't really think it's relevant. The other two sections should be integrated into the rest of the text for better flow.--Crossmr (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I just removed the last paragraph of the "System failures" section for the reasons listed above. Having that stuff in there is like if I went to the Microsoft Windows article and added to the Criticism section (if it had one) that it blue-screened all the time and cited articles from 1996. I also think the section needs to be renamed, since most of it was about the lack of a guaranteed contingency plan even before the removal. If someone can think of a title, please change it.

As for the last section, the whole thing is just a bunch of news gossip. This article really doesn't need to note that Randy Pitchfork went on a rant about Steam. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Vaypertrail, the "Steamworks integration" section has already been heavily discussed months ago, so if you want to add it back, you can read through that discussion and raise any counter points here. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So what about the resale restrictions of boxed software imposed by Steam(works) ? That's been discussed in the archive yet is not currently listed under criticisms. Was it removed- if so, why? 63.241.31.130 (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

When it was in the criticisms section, none of the sources CRITICIZED it or even mentioned it, except for one that falsely stated that re-sale was in fact possible. As no source existed as criticism, the content was removed. Language within the functionality section refers to this, such as "Once purchased, software is permanently attached to the user's Steam account." ferret (talk) 11:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It looked fine as a source so it should be put back along with auto updates.If I buy another boxed game in a shop can I sell it?Yes. Can I do that with a game that needs Steam?No. Pleasetry (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One point of criticism has been left out. The censorship that Steam endorses. Left 4 Dead censorship, but also the incorrect censorship of borderlands come to mind. Eonfge (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a function of Steam but a requirement of the country were the censorship is enforced. Most games (Such as L4D) mention the censorship in their articles, and that's all that's necessary. The boxed retailed versions of those games are also censored. The fact that Steam conforms to local law isn't a criticism, they don't "endorse" it simply because they obey the law. ferret (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a feature of steam and should be added into the regional restrictions subsection. Pleasetry (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that someone from Valve said if Australia decided to have an R18 rating then they would actually go and release the uncensored version of L4D2 in Australia and give current owners the option of changing their censored games to the uncensored ones.202.53.199.23 (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is more criticism of Steam related to users buying a product to use on their computer, then being forced to use Steam, even though that was not on the retail box for the games purchased. Further criticism involves the fact that you have to have an active internet connection to play games you bought in a retail store that are single-player games. Other criticism includes the fact that in order to play any game you purchased that use Steam, you must fist wait for Steam to update all of your games before you can play something you bought on your own computer. This has the potential to have a huge impact on privacy, software agreements and other legal issues, so it is not a small issue restricted to a few disgruntled customers. Unfortunately, many gamers communicate that message poorly. It does not detract from the serious threat to privacy and your rights in regards to all software purchases. I added one paragraph about this and it was deleted. Seeking answers as to why. chrismcelroy —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

I've answered this in the other talk section you created. -- ferret (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please add this article to Steam (Disambugation)

I had some trouble finding this article. It's not on the Steam Disambugation page, I finally managed to link to it via Valve's article, but only because I knew Steam was n Valve product.

It is on the Steam disambiguation page, listed as "Steam (content delivery), a system for online gaming by Valve Corporation". You probably just overlooked it. WakiMiko (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would make the links myself, but I've never edited wikipedia and have no idea how. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.182.1.181 (talk) 09:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It's on there, it's the second one. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Steam Translation

The Steam Translation system is going public soon, I think it should be added to the page as one of Steam's features. It allows the community to translate Steam and games made by Valve, so that languages where a translation wouldn't be worth it (due to a limited user base) also get a fully translated version of Steam and all the games.

That's the URL to the Steam Translations website, currently you have to be a beta participant to join. http://translation.steampowered.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.138.57.171 (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Article move

I'm not sure why the article was moved. While the new name is certainly fitting, the old name was not wrong either and has been in place for over 6 years, to my knowledge. There's a large number of articles (and the disambiguation page of Steam) that are now pointed at a redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferret99gt (talk • contribs) 14:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Steam is more than content delivery nowadays (see Steam Community, for example). Furthermore, most software articles I have ever seen are disambigued with (software) postfix. As for the redirects, I will try to correct them asap. Artem Karimov (talk | edits) 17:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Logo B/W reversed?

Shouldn't the logo be white on black rather than black on white? It appears that way on the store page, and, more importantly, as its desktop icon. Faceless Enemy (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Eh, the logo is the logo. Wikipedia has a white background, so I'm not sure how you would use the white logo anyway. The black-on-white logo works best for this page, but if you could find a tasteful way to use the white logo, then I wouldn't be opposed, but there's not really anything wrong with the one that's in use now. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Validation Clarification

It is necessary to validate every Steam game online, whether purchased via Steam itself or installed via a retail disc, the first time it is played,[88] although an offline mode is available.

This seems a little ambiguous in that it seems to suggest that offline mode somehow gets around (initial) validation, which AFAIK isn't the case. Wjousts (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is the size right?

I noticed that the infobox claims a size of 41.5 megabytes (Windows) and 153.5 megabytes (Mac). However when compared to the download size of 1.5 megabytes (Windows download) and 2.7 megabytes (Mac download), either there is some extra-heavy-duty compression or the sizes are wrong (Especially with the mac version; I don't think it's physically possible to cram 153.3 megabytes into 2.7!) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It's referring to the total size the program takes on disk after a clean install. The installers don't store everything; they download the actual program files and put them wherever they are supposed to go. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/compliments? Complaints and constructive criticism? 05:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sales estimates

Case in point: http://fadellc.com/press_14.html. Here is what I see when reading it:

"Forecast estimated Estimated estimated estimated estimated estimated, painting a very healthy market for developers and publishers, with more room for growth in the future."

Valve don't release sales figures. Without any knowledge of how this group (or others) gather their data, we can only take such "forecasts" to be pure guesswork. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The 70% figure, before it is pointed out, is from Stardock. They both know their own figures and can talk to other distributors. (A percentage is also far less specific.) --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"we would presumably disable authentication"

Despite this, Gabe Newell, CEO of Valve, said in a post on the Steam User Forums that "Unless there was some situation I don't understand, we would presumably disable authentication before any event that would preclude the authentication servers from being available." He added, "We've tested disabling authentication, and it works."

The above was just removed as unsourced. It's a fair point...except that it was a reliable source in the past. Gabe made the post using his own forum account (i.e. a member of the admin group, and verifiably not a passer-by who registered the name), but since the forums are regularly pruned of old posts it has since been lost. How do people fool about this? --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're right, it's been a long time since that source was broken, and it really needs the source to stay there permanently. I think it should be in the article purely for balance, but I've looked for another source myself, and was unable to find one. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

steam guard

Hi, the article states that steam guard uses intel identity protection technology (as was widely reported at the time and as per the cited article from gamersutra), however according to the faq on the steam website the current version of steam guard does not use the intel identity protection technology. https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=8232-WSGZ-8021#iptbeta

I propose to edit the section to reflect the FAQ? IKARACOLT (talk) 22:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Statistics collection

Under Statistics collection it talks about the date July 15, however it doesn't say which year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.31.160.200 (talk) 17:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looks like some 14 year old has taken out his/her frustrations out on this page. I am a novice when it comes to wikipedia, but I will attempt to edit it.

• • ahh looks like someone beat me to it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.0.128 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed: Steam is a piece of shit game engine filled with glitches, bugs, and constant errors. Downloading a game on Steam itself is near impossible, as there are constant errors stating that "the servers are to busy". Even upon downloading the simplest game, one can still expect these errors. Downloads are often slow and off and on. Downloads are constantly pausing and resuming at random points.

Sales

Should we mention the periodic sales that are hosted? (Christmas, summer, etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoodLunaLove (talk • contribs) 20:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Christmas, summer, spring, fall, winter, monthly, biweekly, weekly, halfweekly, daily, weekendly... They are more like a discount store. Is there any article someone wrote or some interview etc. about this, or is it just accepted graciously? Not that I don't like it. Ddegirmenci (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The only regular sales that happen every year now appear to be the summer sale and the holiday sale. Others, such as around Thanksgiving, may or may not happen. Chris TC01 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I forgot, of course the daily, midweek and weekend deals have also become a standard. Chris TC01 (talk) 11:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Steam Wallet

This article needs a small section dedicated to explaining how Steam Wallet works. It only mentions it briefly once in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.124.71 (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Steam Edit involving criticism

There was already a criticism section on the page. I added other criticisms based on the sheer quantity of users who are annoyed at being forced to use Steam. Those are criticisms. I did not link to all of the references because some users use profanity and other reasons. I would like to know why the paragraph I added was removed. Did it violate a rule? Is it because I did not link to the critical pages? Did someone think it was wrong that there are criticisms of Steam other than those mentioned in the article previously? Did I make a mistake? It was deleted with no notice as to why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrismcelroy (talk • contribs) 20:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it was deleted with a clear reason why. Read the edit notes. It's OR (original research) and unsourced, and the article already makes clear that Steam has these restrictions. Because the product has a restriction doesn't make it a criticism per say. The fact that some people use the service without understanding the restrictions is irrelevant. User blogs and forum posts are generally considered unreliable and cannot be used to source the article. The article already covers the fact that a connection is required and that some games require Steam even if purchased in a store. -- ferret (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition, rereading your removed paragraph, there are some inaccuracies in it anyways. For example, all automatic updates for a game CAN be disabled, and Steam does not force all games to update before launching another. In fact, Steam will automatically pause all other downloads and updates when you chose to launch a game. -- ferret (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

This sentence makes zero sense to me: "Installation and use of Steam was mandatory for Counter-Strike 1.6 beta testers, but Steam remained an optional component." (Steam_(software)#Beginnings) Does anyone know what it's supposed to mean? 67.164.37.33 (talk) 01:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe the intent was to state that the CS 1.6 Beta required Steam, but the public release of CS 1.5 still did not. -- ferret (talk) 12:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Steam Linux Client

My edit was reverted since my source was 'not considered reliable'

I understand that Valve has yet to officially announce Steam and Source games for Linux, but it's pretty evident that they are working towards this. This is the source I used:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=valve_steam_announcement&num=1
However, there are many more articles that give great evidence that Steam for Linux is being developed. Namely evidence in the Mac client <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=steam_linux_script&num=1>. I can list many more articles:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODE3MQ
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODE3NA (native Linux client (not Mac client) was actually hosted by Valve until they pulled it)
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODE4Mw
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODIwNQ
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODIyOQ

Please note that this isn't some .exe file being run under WINE or the MAC client being hacked up -- this is the actual, unreleased Steam linux client being run natively in Linux. I understand that valve has not officially acknowledged the Steam Linux client, but there is undeniable proof that it will eventually happen. Thus, I think Linux should be added to the platforms, with a (TBA) next to it (since it, quite literally, has not been announced yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.154.222 (talk • contribs) 21:16, September 27, 2010

This has come up several times here, and the basic answer is that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Without reliable sources to verify the facts, we cannot report on things that have not happened yet. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been over this multiple times. The only source available is still just Phoronix. Consensus is to wait for an official announcement from Valve. For all we know, Valve decided to scrap the idea after doing basic legwork, hence why the early files that were found were pulled. We simply don't know if it will EVER actually happen, until Valve decides to comment. ferret (talk) 12:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, cross-referencing is vital for validating information that isn't necessarily reliable. Wait for an official source is the best idea --Topperfalkon (talk) 12:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being captain obvious here - Valve DID release a linux client, OSX /is/ Linux, albeit the b*stard child, it is still all linux under there.

This is why they needed a "linux developer to port games" and this is why an earlier version minus all the OSX specific window manager version was found "floating around" on the valve ftp.

Also the fact that OSX is linux, and now runs on an intel platform, and can be made to run on any PC now with a few minor tweaks; means to be totally accurate, the OSX client is a linux client in every sense of the word. - 203.123.90.144 (talk)

OSX is not Linux, it's Unix. A subtle, but important, distinction. OS X is not the bastard child of Linux, Linux is the bastard child of Unix. :) -- ferret (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

True point Ferret, tho only difference between linux or unix for a particular client package (ie steam) is which system you compiled on :o) (ok being simplistic there - OSX and XWIN have differences) In any event, early proof of concept development would have been done on readily available and cheaper linux station then moved to OSX(Unix) for final QA and release. Which still explains the "proof" of linux client development. IMO The difference between Linux and Unix today as they are both x86; is just the IP laws (or lack of) attached to it. I consider OSX just another *nix, your average Valve HR guy writing a job ad can make the same error, or was deliberately misdirecting their intentions with OSX. A linux coder just as easily codes unix. Has anyone tried ASKING Valve if the leaked linux material simply related to early OSX concept work, or was everyone avoiding the subject. If anyone asks them and gets the answer on public record, it should put this topic to rest as far as the main article is concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.123.90.144 (talk) 06:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot more difference between them that you think. They're completely different kernels that happen to run similar command shells, due to the GNU project borrowing most of their syntax and commands from Unix decades ago. Yes, they're both Unix variants, but they are not the same. Most of your statements are original research and assumption, such as speculating that Valve would work on "cheap linux workstations" then buy OS X just for testing... Everyone also seems to forget that Valve has long had Linux support for various dedicated servers (A component of the games), and hires Linux programmers for things other than Steam itself. Until a reliable source states "Valve announces Linux support.", then it hasn't happened, no matter how many times Phoronix wants to post about it. -- ferret (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

looks like steam for linux is on the way http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=valve_linux_dampfnudeln&num=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.167.155.3 (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Phoronix is not a reliable source, and while I've seen major gaming sites repeat that news, there's no reliability into it. As such, until something more direct from Valve or a reliable source appears, we have to act that there is no linux version coming.--MASEM (t) 13:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Phoronix has been judged reliable by all of the main sources we use to provide citations. That means it deserves inclusion. We don't get to dismiss a well-cited source just because of personal dislike. (Additionally, the idea that Phoronix would actively lie about visiting Valve's offices and attribute fictional quotes to Gabe Newell is ridiculous.) --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Where is the suggestion of personal dislike coming from? I also don't see any suggestions that they have fabricated or lied... "Unreliable" sources are not "fabricated" sources, and no one made such a claim. -- ferret (talk) 18:37, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to be dragged into semantics. Do you have anything to say about the first two sentences of my last comment? --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't put into your argument what amounts to attacks on other editor's motivations and not expect a comment. A reliable source covering rumors, leaks, or other sites does not necessarily cause an inheritance of reliability to the source in question. Phoronix is self published and doesn't appear to have any information on it's editing policies, and the owner/creator is the editor in chief as well as the one posting these articles. Up until this point, Phoronix coverage of Linux Steam has always been viewed as unreliable, even though it has been picked up by other RS's in the past as well. As for the "ridiculous" idea that Phonorix would lie, Wiki is about verifibility, not truth. I completely agree that Phoronix has not lied. It's still not reliable. Valve may have very well decided to scrap the entire thing the next day. Without announcements from Valve covered by reliable sources, it shouldn't be included, the same as in the past. Phoronix remains unreliable. We can certainly head over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources to gather concensus on Phoronix's reliability though. -- ferret (talk) 22:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I upset you. I generally dislike Phoronix for the exact reasons you just gave, so it didn't seem like a controversial statement.

I'm not interested in turning Phoronix into a reliable source. I am interested in reflecting the consensus of the many reliable sources who, like you and me, believe this particular story to be genuine. This is policy: see WP:USEBYOTHERS. --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I felt your original statement was directed rather than personal statement, i.e. "our" dislike. I see you meant your own as well, so apologies on that count. I see how the USEBYOTHERS could apply. I'm ok with some form of inclusion (With RS's covering Phoronix, rather than Phoronix directly), but I believe it needs to be carefully tailored that Valve is researching and developing, with no clear announcement of release plans. I.e., it could all still go away tomorrow. It still feels very crystal ballish to me. -- ferret (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a step to reorder the linux section so that the mention of the latest from Phoronix (via a very reliable source, Time magazine) can be added while still keeping the section free of excess rumoring. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So right now Phoronix is showing an actual email claiming to be written by Gabe. I think it is fair enough to assume that Gabe would have said if the email was not genuine by now, given the level of coverage it has gotten. So I consider that email as official confirmation. Thue | talk 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Phoronix is not a very reliable source, emails can be faked. --MASEM (t) 17:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gabe is not going to reply about every rumor or claim. Again you said it yourself, "claiming to be written by Gabe." Until a reliable source carries an official announcement from Gabe or Valve on the subject, it remains rumor with only/solely Phoronix pushing the information. -- ferret (talk) 17:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not just a rumor, this is claimed to be an actual email by Gabe. That is a significant different. And this has been widely enough reported that it is not "every rumor or claim". Thue | talk 19:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Claimed"... do you see the issue with that? Also, if it's widely reported, then you should have some reliable sources stating that Valve is officially going to release a Linux client that don't involve Phoronix... Every single article I can find is coverage of Phoronix's own article. That is to say, Valve has made no official announcements to any reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course I would prefer a more official announcement on Valve's website. But the fact that we have a named source, who is no less than the managing director of Valve (and has not issued a denial), takes it beyond rumor for me. Thue | talk 00:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)s

No, what we have is a screen shot posted on a site considered unreliable who has been claiming that a Linux client would be released "soon" for over 3 years. If I post a screen shot tomorrow that claims to be from Gabe stating that Half-Life 3 is being released Tuesday, that doesn't make it fact, nor is Gabe going to post a denial. It remains rumor until Valve actually announces something. -- ferret (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

E-mail correspondence can't be considered as source according to WP:VER. Like Ferret wrote - unless it is officially published on reliable sites by Valve, we can't put such information on Wikipedia. Sir Lothar (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izoGqxYy9bs It is in the works, from what I can tell. Umma Kynes 08:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A native Steam client for Linux is officially announced as being in the works, and Left For Dead 2 will be the first game ported with the rest of the Source games to follow shortly after.

• Their official blog for it: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/steamd-penguins/
• Gabe Newell makes a short reference to Linux support: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izoGqxYy9bs
• Ars Technica report on official announcement: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/valve-announces-ubuntu-port-of-steam-source-engine-and-left-4-dead-2/

Umma Kynes 04:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove this section again. It is not irrelevant just because time has moved forward and an announcement has been made. Much of what is discussed in this section may be relevant to making further changes to the article and discussing the history of Linux development for Steam. The normal archiving process will handle this section at an appropriate time interval. -- ferret (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Steam for linux - 2012

Is there any confirmation from valve itself? 190.51.157.130 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, still no official confirmation. See Talk:Steam (software)#Steam Linux Client above though. -- ferret (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Linux client in the works, confirmed. But lets keep to good quality sources on updates. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Xbox 360 "currently" has no Steam support.

What would you find acceptable here? I'm not sure what an appropriate "as of" would be, as the console (Xbox) has never had the feature, there's no beginning date. The section revolves around Valve's potential future plans to bring such capability. -- ferret (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not particularly fond of statements regarding what things are not. The first sentence implies that the X360 should have Steam support, but WP is not a place for such judgements. So I wouldn't mind if the sentence, or even the whole section, were to disappear. Perhaps the fact that Steam is missing from the X360 has been noted in reliable sources. Then the "as of" could have the reference's date. At the very minimum we could just make it "as of June 2012", which is still better than "currently". Nczempin (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Just removing the "currently" is not a solution; this information is just as time sensitive. If the article is untouched for 10 years, and in the meantime Steam supports the X360, the article will be wrong. That is the essence of avoiding time sensitive information and the "as of" template: Clearly marking such information so it can be updated regularly. The problem remains that we are mentioning something that is not the case. My toaster also has no Steam support, why are we not mentioning that? Obviously the difference is that the fact that the Xbox doesn't have it is much more significant, and this fact should be supported by reliable sources. Can't be that hard, can it? Nczempin (talk) 22:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

And talking about "potential future plans" is also known as speculation, which has no place in WP. If Valve has publicly declared that they are not working on a version, that is all the article can support. Nczempin (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

If it was the case that nary a blip of potential 360 Steam support was ever mentioned, we wouldn't need to include the information. However, given that we have sourced information (reliable source) that Valve would like to have Steam support on the 360 (and attempted to with CS:GO but fell through), it should be mentioned that there is no Steam support "currently", with the clarifying statements that this was part of Valve's plans. Yes, the information is time sensitive, but WP is not static, and can be changed when something changes. --MASEM (t) 23:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

...which is exactly what the "as of" template is for. Nczempin (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Media Functionality of Steam Software

I originally added some information regarding the steam software media functionality. This addition was reverted MINUTES later because one user found it irrelevant. However, it IS a functionality that should be listed and the additional information I appended was accrued through first hand digging after extensive web and forum searches did not provide the necessary information. I spent the better part of two hours trying to find the information, and if I can save someone else that amount of time when they have the same difficulty I did, then that's a few minutes well spent on editing the wiki page.

This is not a minor function of steam (although it is not widely used, it obviously required a non-negligible amount of work to implement) and it has been included in many versions of the software. It is also poorly indexed and noted in the world wide web, so I believe wikipedia should at least have some elaboration of this feature on the Steam page.

It is also likely in the future that the media functionality may be expanded by Valve (depending on shifts in their business model) so I believe it is a feature to watch. The difference between the in-steam video player on windows PCs and the external link referrer on OS X is also important from a power user's viewpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.153.245 (talk) 03:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Before you add significant sections to Wikipedia articles, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. I posted a few starting points on your talk page. Please pay particular attention to what Wikipedia is not. You will find most of the arguments you have just given listed on that page. "I added some information..." is not a particularly helpful edit summary, because _what_ you did is obvious. It needs to be notable, though, and this needs to be supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is also not a crystal ball (and "it is also likely that in the future ... may be expanded" is not a particularly convincing reason to include anything). You also did not sign your talk comment. So, to save yourself from more possibly wasted effort (BTW how much time you spent collecting the information is, unfortunately for you in this particular case, also irrelevant to the question whether the information should be included in a Wikipedia article or not), do become more familiar with how things work here, and I'm sure you'll then come to a) the conclusion that the info you added really doesn't need to be in the article, or b) you find better ways to argue for their inclusion than the ones you've given so far. Nczempin (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

That Criticism Section (again!)

I was pondering on this once more, as it's an often talk page topic. We have three remaining Criticisms-that-aren't-quite-criticisms:

Up first, because I think it's the easiest to address: The section concerning Availability should be merged in somewhere else. The section has two sources... First is the subscriber agreement itself (Which hardly criticizes itself), and second a reply by Gabe to a user asking about the subscriber agreement. This doesn't really establish "criticism" though the data is pertinent to the article. It can probably be merged into the Authentication section.

Up second: Regional Pricing and Restrictions... Parts of this section restate restrictions that are already discussed in the Software delivery and maintenance section. The first two paragraph discuss region locking, a function of the DRM. The final paragraph seems to contain the possible legitment gripes, but the source is shakey to me, and the sheer out-of-dateness may not be applicable. Need more thought and comments here.

Up last: Distribution policies. This section can possibly be merged under History as a distribution conflict between EA and Valve, if it's even notable enough to remain (Many of these games have since returned to Steam). A conflict between two conflicts on how DLC is distributed is a business consideration, and not really a function of the service/client itself.

My goal here is not to remove negatives of Steam, but to present them in a neutral manner. Often, simple facts are cast are criticism when no specific criticism actually exists: It simply is. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than add another potentially controversial section to it and get into an edit war, I'd like to propose a new section be added to Criticisms: Their policies on "bundle packs" whereby if you already have a game they will charge you the full bundle price but fail to deliver the full bundle. Instead of providing a second licence or discount they simply give you a notice when checking out. In some areas they operate (like Canada) this is considered theft and/or fraud, despite their notice that this will occur. Thoughts? JMJimmy (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Only the usual thoughts: Do you have reliable sources that actually criticise the packages/bundles? If not, then it shouldn't be included. This would never be considered theft and/or fraud, since you are informed up front of the limitation. At that point you have the option of buying games separately or not at all, nothing forces you to continue. -- ferret (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless someone has further comment today, I'll begin working on these changes, as this section has been up for 9 days now which seems long enough notice. -- ferret (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In the end, I looked at each sections individually again before removing. Ultimately, I just removed everything. I didn't see much that was worth merging anywhere else. Feel free to work details into other areas of the article if you see a good spot for it. -- ferret (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Absence of criticism

It strikes me as completely inappropriate that the criticism section has been completely removed from the article. In addition, the recent (1 Aug 2012) controversial change in terms of service entailing the restriction on class action lawsuits is not mentioned in any form. I will try to reflect this matter in a neutral style in a separate section. Help and comments are greatly appreciated! Cirno999 (talk) 07:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Because most of this criticism is only from users from forums and blogs, and not from professional sources. EG when Steam introduced the class action lawsuit restriction to its TOS, I know professional sources noted it but didn't comment beyond that except that it was following the trend of most other online services to add that to their TOS. Sure, users complained, but we can't include user complaints if they are coming from forums and the like. There are probably some inter-business criticisms we can pull from such as EA's or Ubisoft's take on Steam, and there are certainly a lot of positive reception about the software itself, but the negatives that people want to add are only from the users and thus not appropriate to add without reliable sourcing. --MASEM (t) 08:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Steam as a social network

A user has tried to remove (several times, over 3RR, but now warned) that Steam does not precisely fit a "social network", however, I would argue that as numerous reliable sources call the software a social network and Valve itself considers it a "a groundbreaking social entertainment platform" [1] that the label fits. I'm at 2RR so I can't re-revert but I'd appreciate input to confirm that this article should remain as a social network. --MASEM (t) 03:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Beforehand, I never really considered Steam to be a social network until this point. To some, Steam is just a distributor of games, simple as that. But Steam has really evolved over the years to be more social (With various groups, profiles, and networks of friends). Presently, there are means of posting photos and "statuses," not unlike Facebook statuses, really. I speak from basic experience as a normal Steam user and a gaming community administrator, and actually I can see elements of a social network in Steam as it is today. It would appear that the editor who's been deliberately reverting your edits (And he appears to be newly-registered) disagrees on the basis that because Valve doesn't say it's a social network outright, then it isn't a social network. But Steam has very much evolved, and it doesn't have to take an explicit statement by Valve to indicate as such. That's just my two cents, anyway. Maybe some would say it isn't a social network because it isn't "primarily" intended to be social-based like Facebook, Twitter, etc. But not all social networks have to be just social websites. GabeIglesia (talk) 06:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I reverted it. I don't think anything more than WP:V is needed here... the RS's have labelled it as a social network and Valve labels it as "Social entertainment platform", which shows that the social aspect is a focus for them. -- ferret (talk) 16:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

It certainly needs to be looked at, as finding sources for it isn't the problem.--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Overly detailed and no structure

This article is a bit overly detailed and lacks structure. For example, there are way too many sections that contain one or two sentences.--Vaypertrail (talk)

appropriate, and the level of details we give here is actually rather high-level. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Lead seems to be pretty bad right now...

It is used to distribute games and related media online, from small independent developers to larger software houses; in October 2012,is this date/turning point so important it needs to be in the lead? Valve expanded the service to include non-gaming software.

Steam provides the user with installation and automatic management of software across multiple computers, community features such as friends lists and groups, cloud saving, and in-game voice and chat functionality. Wikilinks to social network/instant messaging?

The software provides a freely available application programming interface, Steamworks, that developers can take advantage of to integrate many of Steam's functions within their software products, including copy protection, networking and matchmaking, in-game achievements and micro-transactions, and support for user-created content through Steam Workshop.Seems overly detailed for something that only applies to developers and not the users.

Though initially developed for use on Microsoft Windows, the client has expanded to include a Mac OS X version and a pending port to Linux, and clients with limited functionality on the PlayStation 3 console and for both iOS and Android mobile devices. In addition to be a central hub for gaming software, Valve has created a version of Steam with altered functionality to be used in schools for educational software, including a modified version of Portal 2 for teaching science and critical thinking lessons. Overly detailed again, including historical discussion.

As of November 2012, there are over 1800 games available through Steam,[5] and 54 million active user accounts.[6] The concurrent users peak was 6 million on November 25, 2012.[7] Although Valve never releases sales figures, Stardock, former owner of competing platform Impulse, estimated in 2009 that Steam had a 70% share of the digital distribution market for video games.[8] From the sources we already have in the article, we can update this with estimated 50-80% market share, instead of using the single Stardock source.

I haven't made any changes, as I know I will just get reverted.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

What you are calling overly detailed is not. Steam is a piece of software for users and developers (via Steamworks), so we have to discuss it in that light. Thus what functions it provides is perfectly in line for an article on software, as well as the platforms that it supports. The OCt'12 date can likely go but the fact that STeam includes non-gaming apps is something of note within the lead. Other changes seems ok. --MASEM (t) 15:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:LEAD does not permit us to discuss the details at length there.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

But its not discussing details - it is a high level overview of the features that it offers, which are later covered in some detail within the text. Given that 50% of this article is roughly devoted to the features of Steam (an appropriate amount given this is a software product), we need to briefly summarize those in the lead, which is being done right now. --MASEM (t) 16:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggest creating a chapter "security issues" that comprises current chapters "2011 Hack" and "vulnerabilities"

Hi, I am new to editing Wikipedia, so please forgive if I may seem poorly informed on the mechanics. I agree that the article seems unstructured, so as a first comment, how about combining the 2011 Hack and the possible security risk into one chapter "security issues"? Best regards, Philo Bloodworth (talk) 09:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The excellent Steam article on the German Wikipedia website has a paragraph that describes Steam practices which I believe are essential to be included. Germany has some of the strictes data privacy laws and is therefore a market that closely observes practices of companies in this area. My translation as follows:

START TRANSLATION:

The permanent internet connection during the use of Steam is utilized by the program to send various, partially anonymized data to Valve. A detailed list of the transmitted data does not exist; by making use of the Steam platform, the user implicitly agrees to Valves data privacy policy [44]. Through publication in Steam Update News, Interviews and Valve-web pages some of the data collections and their results are announced. The only instance in which the user is asked for permission to transfer data on software and hardware data from his PC to Valve is the Steam Hardware Survey, which has been launched in larger time intervals.[45] The survey includes retrieving information about installed software, with a particular focus on Mozilla Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Windows Firewall and ZoneAlarm. [46] However, even if a Steam user does not participate in the survey, Valve collects data about the respective computer: E.g. Valve stated to have colleced data about harddisk fragmentation in order to research a problem with long game-level loading times. [47] Furthermore, data about crashes are automatically transferred and may be analyzed with specific programs. [48] Statistics thus generated on hardware and the operating systems are publically viewable and give an overview about the hardware used in gamers' cirlces, which differs from the distribution within the overall market.

44: ↑ Privacy Policy. Valve Corporation, accessed 27. Juli 2012.

   http://store.steampowered.com/privacy_agreement/english/

45: ↑ a b Steam Hardware & Software Survey. Valve Corporation, accessed 27. Juli 2012.

   (link outdated).

46: ↑ Hardware Survey 7: “Installed Packages”. In: The Steam Review. 15. November 2007, accessed 27. Juli 2012.

   http://steamreview.org/posts/surveypackages/

47: ↑ Steam client update released. Valve Corporation, 31. Mai 2006, accessed 27. Juli 2012.

   http://www.steampowered.com/Steam/Marketing/message/639/

48: ↑ Development Tools. Valve Corporation, abgerufen am 27. Juli 2012.

   http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/developmenttools.php

END TRANSLATION

Do you agree that this is worthwhile taking up? Thank you for commenting. Philo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philo Bloodworth (talk • contribs) 11:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not replying to your text above, specifically, but to your most recent edit. At the end of your paragraph, you state that Valve has made no response and no Steam updates related to the issue were made. However, that's not true, as there was an update in November that had a change note of correcting issues with malformed Steam URLs. I'll attempt to have the release notes in a bit. In regards to your text here, this article does mention that Valve collects statistics, though without as much verbose description. -- ferret (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick comment Ferret. If you believe you found mention of a fix for the security issue, it would certainly need to go into the paragraph, but it would be nice to have that verified. I have searched yesterday, 02 Jan 2013, and seen no Valve-originating statement of any sort anywhere which refers to the ReVuln paper or even a (serious) vulnerability.

Their published Client updates list exactly two changes with reference to URLs since mid-October

"- Improved steam:// URL validation in some cases" and "- Fixed URLs in the Web Browser showing the end, not the start, of the current URL" , which do not sound like a targeted security issue fix and are certainly not announced as such.

I had adapted the paragraph to say "no Steam updates expressly related to the issue were made". I would hope that this finds your approval.

As for the statistics collection, I am sure that the point I find relevant can be shortened. Sensitive issues such as external parties searching private computers and storing information in a non-anonymized fashion without the user's knowledge are worthwhile to include here - even if the current purpose of this were okay. I always advocate an "opt-in" approach, and here there is not even a clean "opt-out" option. Valve forces a blanket agreed-by-signup ToU that states identifiable data is being used "to develop, deliver and improve our products, content and services".

I find this relevant because users of many games nowadays have no choice but succumb to the Steam ToU if they want to play a specific game (even if they purchased a retail DVD). Other issues that might be relevant for an overarching section on privacy are the facebook links - Steam will continue to store your facebook friends with steam accounts, even if you opt out of the Steam-Facebook link at a later point in time (there are user-friendly reasons mentioned for this, but still).

Philo Bloodworth (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Steam url validation update was the one I had in mind. Validation in this case would be related to validating the input of the URL, which is by it's very nature a security targeted fix, as the security issue in question involved malformed URLs. I doubt Valve will ever make a specific response on the subject, unless a in-the-wild attack is made. Since there is no specific in-the-wild attack to list the change as resolving, this very likely was in response to the Revuln report. The second change note is related to the embedded Webkit browser and is a security-oriented update, but unrelated to the Steam URL issue. The goal of this change is to show you the start of the URL so you can see the hostname, which helps against efforts to spoof URLs. Finally, one must remember that Revuln sells exploits. They have a vested interest in generating publicity about vulnerabilities regardless of the actual risk of attack involved. This warrants a careful effort to avoid undue weight. Many articles I read at the time Revuln announced their exploit noted that ANY program that provides URL handlers is susceptible to similar attack vectors. Steam itself was not exploited, but a specific game was exploited through the launcher parameters provided through the Steam URL.

In regards to statistic collection, it is mentioned in the article currently at the end of the "Steam Community and Matchmaking" section, with a decently lengthy paragraph that includes most of the points brought up in the German translation.

That said! I have just noticed that Facebook isn't mentioned ANYWHERE in the article currently. The account/friend intergration should be added, probably in same section, "Steam Community and Matchmaking". -- ferret (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot

Screenshot should be a unedited windows one with the default Steam setup, could someone create a spare steam account and upload one?--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

concurrent users peak

Not sure how the concurrent users peak is so important it needs to be the lead section. Isn't this figure just the amount of computers with Steam running in the background? If so, seeing as Steam runs on startup by default, it doesn't mean someone is actively using it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is an estimate of install base, barring any figure directly towards that. --MASEM (t) 23:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

BBB rating.

The BBB rating belongs to Valve as a company as a whole. While it can easily being OR'd or inferred that Steam generates most of the complaints, that's ... well.. OR. I could make further arguments about the rating, or the baseless nature of many of the complaints, but those would also be OR. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So what other notable products have Valve made that wouldn't require getting support through Steam. It should be noted that you don't need a source to prove that the sky is WP:BLUE - although I'd have thought a quick glance through their website would satisfy the requirement for a citation that they have no other notable products. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been reverted by User:Ferret over an addition to point out Valves extremely poor record of customer service. I am very puzzled by this reversion, as currently there is no mention of this issue anywhere on the page. I don't really see how a business can possibly manage to get an F grade from the BBB without actually having dire customer service across the board, and given that I don't see how not covering their support issues on the relevant pages possibly meets WP:NPOV (which let us not forget is a WP:PILLAR).

One could argue that the rating applies to Valve as a whole, but given that all of Valve's products work through Steam and there is no mention of any other support options on their website. I don't see why we can't include it here as well. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a further reply but have decided I'm just not that invested in the discussion. The rating appears to stem almost purely from "We had 55 complaints and Valve didn't reply to us" rather than any true gauge of Valve's customer service record. It's a gauge of Valve's responsiveness to an organization they are not required to response to. I would much rather you find a source that directly discussed customer support. As well, if you plan to add the information again, it should be specifically worded as "BBB rating" rather than "poor customer service". That is where OR and commentary is occurring. -- ferret (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If Valve doesn't reply to letters from the BBB then they have poor customer care. I really don't see how it works any other way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If Valve doesn't reply to letters from the BBB, then Valve has a poor record with the BBB, and hence a low BBB grade. To call it anything other than "Low BBB rating" is misleading. -- ferret (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How could they possibly have good customer care if they ignore support requests to senior management (which the letters from the BBB will be) and leave them unresolved? If you let support requests to senior management go unresolved, then you risk being in material breach of contracts you've made with other companies - which is very serious.

Its not as if the letters from the BBB will come from support requests that have been resolved at a lower support level. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're misunderstanding here. Valve has received an F from the BBB. If you want the information included, then it should be stated plainly in that nature, the core statement supported by your source, which is that the BBB has given Valve an F. Anything further is original research, plain and simple. You wish to introduce a statement of "poor customer service" (The word poor never appearing on BBB) from 73 complaints with a third party organization from an established user base of over 20 million. Stick to the facts: "The BBB has given an F rating to Valve." If you wish to get more details, you could include the specific reasons the BBB lists, such as "due to failure to respond to BBB complaints."

And what are you talking about being in breach of contracts with other companies? This is pure OR and speculation now... Just stick to the facts and be done. -- ferret (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

How exactly is it possible that Valve offers good support on Steam and receive an failing grade for their customer service from the BBB for completely ignoring high level complaints about customer service? How is describing the service as poor not reasonable? Is there any evidence that their customer service is actually good?

If there's evidence from somewhere else that their customer service is good, or at least average, then lets include that evidence as well.

With regards to further detail, that is a good idea - I'll add some more content along those lines outside the lead. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

PS I agree that the comment about contracts is OR, it was merely supposed to be an example and that wasn't clear at all - sorry. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. No company is under ANY OBLIGATION AT ALL to respond to the BBB. Zero obligation. They have a failing grade with the BBB for not responding to the BBB. If you are someone who puts a lot of stock in the BBB, that is a meaningful thing. If you don't, then.... If you want to use this reference, it needs to cover what the reference actually supports: That the BBB has given Valve an F grade. I really don't understand what you're looking for, as I've basically supported the inclusion of the BBB rating, as long as it's specific that it is the BBB rating. You wish to infer things or add extra undue weight to the BBB rating. Steam has over 54 million active users. 54,000,000. The BBB has 55 complaints that they haven't gotten responses on. -- ferret (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

We would need a reliable secondary source that would associate Valve's poor BBB rating as an indicator that they don't run Steam well (or whatever factor); any other attempt to link these is original research. --MASEM (t) 22:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree entirely with ferret's position on this. We should not be getting into discussions with questions like "How exactly is it possible that Valve offers good support on Steam and receive an failing grade for their customer service from the BBB for completely ignoring high level complaints about customer service?" because we are not supposed to interpret facts. We are only supposed to report them accurately based on sources. As Masem said, if there are reliable secondary sources stating that Valve gives "poor customer service" then we can add that. Otherwise, we can only say that the BBB gave them an F. Anything beyond that is original research. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, lets do that then. I was having a think about it and coming round to that point of view anyhow. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not, since you put in the "poor customer service" OR anyways. I fixed it however. -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I still feel the inclusion of this is undue weight, as I cannot find any other reliable sources that cover this fact or overly poor customer service from Valve, and we've currently settled on giving it prominence in the lead paragraphs at this time. -- ferret (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see a clear reason to include it in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article's most important facts, without anything in the body. I'd say either find more substantial information to expand on it in the body, or move that single bit down into the body somewhere and leave it out of the lead. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If it should be kept, moved towards the end of the Storefront section is probably the best place. The final paragraph touches on policy topics such as refund, etc. -- ferret (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Usually in a dispute like this, rather than debating about inferences from the source, I find it's better to collect multiple sources and compare them. Here's something interesting, a quick Google search could not find any reliable third party sources reporting on this rating. As far as I can tell, not even reports in gaming magazines. Just a bunch of fanboys outraged in forums. I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me with links to some good sources. But if I'm not, the implication is that no one really cares about this except for us. And if that's the case, I'm inclined to think that WP:UNDUE would suggest it be omitted entirely. Thoughts? PraetorianFury (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That is essentially my thoughts as well. Yes, they have a BBB grade of F. No, no one else appears to have covered it or given it notice or notability. -- ferret (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Omitting it works for me. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What other organisations other than BBB deal with complaints and consumer rights? Pleasetry (talk) 03:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

probably few others in the US, but just because they're the only one necessary mean we have to include complaints filed through them or their grade reporting. --MASEM (t) 03:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)