Steam Is Now Asking Users To Re-Review Games After Playing Them Some More

There are plenty of reasons to distrust any given individual Steam review. It might be obsessively hyper-focused on a relatively slight issue or, god forbid, a game taking a political stance. It might be part of a review bomb. It might be a meme. Now, though, Valve has taken aim at one of its system’s more fixable problems: reviews that are out of date.

These days, people play some games for hundreds or even thousands of hours. Those games evolve over time thanks to updates and community interactions. It stands to reason that somebody’s take on a game might be a little different at hour 567 than at hour five. So now, if you put substantial additional time into a game you’ve reviewed, Steam will ask you to “revise your review.”

After users discovered the feature late last week, Steam designer Alden Kroll acknowledged it yesterday on Twitter.

“In response to dev feedback, this is now a thing!” he said. “Devs have been asking us for this for a while, but we first needed to build the new library before it made sense (technically) to add it.”

Kotaku reached out to Valve to find out how many additional hours you have to put into a game for Steam to start asking you to dish out more of your spicy takes, but had not heard back as of this publishing.

It will be interesting to see what kind of effect this has on reviews, which despite their flaws, are a key metric on Steam and one determining factor—though far from the main one—in how the Steam algorithm decides to display games. Largely, this seems like a change for the better, though in the past I’ve seen developers lament the trend of players who’ve spent hundreds of hours with a game flipping their thumbs-up to a thumbs-down largely because, after so many hours, they’re fed up and burnt out—not because the game is necessarily bad. That hurts smaller games whose main source of reviews is a diehard player base, whose score might get tanked by just a handful of those sorts of reviews. Will this new system bring more of those sorts of players out of the woodwork? Hopefully not.


Comments

    Bleh, the only time I look at Steam reviews is if I want to have a laugh. I can't imagine any users that write a review after 2 hours will bother to change their review on it after 20 (unless a change has gone against their morals, but Valve doesn't need a prompt to get them to do that)

    There are plenty of reasons to distrust any given individual Steam review.This applies to any review. Steam is actually a better place to get a read on a game because you have such a concentrated morass of juxtaposed reviews.
    ...I’ve seen developers lament the trend of players who’ve spent hundreds of hours with a game flipping their thumbs-up to a thumbs-down largely because, after so many hours, they’re fed up and burnt out—not because the game is necessarily bad...The opposite holds true too though. I've seen a number of people only review the game after an hour or two and give it a thumbs up only for others to come along and say that it gets bad after that. Which is what this is supposed to combat I guess.

      Totally agree with you on that. The first few hours can be frustrating and difficult as you get used to complex systems and come to grips with the controls. The game only coming to life as you get more experienced. Heck, in a lot of games the first few hours are often tutorial type levels.

      Conversely, they can also be fun and exciting initially, but after a day or two you realise the game play is repetitive and dull.

        Dangit, hit reply before I'd finished. I really like the idea of seeing reviews from the same person after both a short and long time with the game. I think that'll give a more balanced idea of the game, is it a slow burner that you need to invest time in, or is it a flash in the pan that you'll soon get tired of? Does it have extended potential - like classics like Doom, Counterstrike, C&C etc where maps and mods continued to breathe life into the game months, even years later?

    "god forbid, a game taking a political stance"

    It's only conservatives who are against this, they're such fragile snowflakes that they can't handle any kind of challenge to their stupidity and ignorance. Because deep down, they know they're wrong but they don't want to have to feel bad about it. If they're even capable of that.

      It's an easy throwaway, and I suspect that you and I actually agree, but conservatives actually have no problem with games taking a political stance just so long as it agrees with their own world view. Take Mordhau's white, male only political stance, for example, despite there being plenty of evidence that there were both fighting women (Joan of Arc) and black people ('Moors') in the middle ages.

        "but conservatives actually have no problem with games taking a political stance just so long as it agrees with their own world view. "

        I could say the same about the woke crowd. They love games if they preach wokeness. But hate anything that goes against their political views.

        You only need to look at any game that has pissed off Resetera as an example of that.

          Recognising that there is a political reading to the content of a game and agreeing with those politics are kind of orthogonal though.

            There is a difference between something having political Tones,

            And a game trying to be political, Trying to lecture you on what you should think is good and bad.

            The latest Batwoman is an example of that. This show is not trying to present political views and allow you to come to your own conclusions. Its making clear statements. A recent episode with a new character that essentially boiled down to "Orange mad bad" made that clear.

            An example of doing it right is Spec Ops: The line. The game doesn't not lecture you. It doesn't imply that unless you agree to something you are a bad person. It presents you with something and allows you to form your own opinion.

            Both sides of the political spectrum lash out at content that disagrees with them Politically.

            Trump voters and CNN
            Liberals and Fox news

            I do it myself. I regularly criticize Both Fox news for its blatant partisan politics and the retardation that occurs daily on ResetEra. My point is more that accusing one side of being something and then acting like the other doesn't is disingenuous at best.

            Its the equivalent of a toddler arguing "BUT HE HIT ME FIRST!"

            People like Ody and Angora fish love to point the finger at the other side. But rarely if ever look towards their own backyard.

        Historians have pointed out that Joan of Arc herself said bluntly that she did NOT fight: during the fourth session of her trial (27 February 1431) she said “during assaults I carried the banner, so as to stay out of any killing; and I have never killed anyone.” This is also corroborated by the many eyewitness accounts. So she's not a good example. On the other issue: yes, there were some black people in medieval Europe, but the Moors were only in southern Spain, and almost all of the others were in or near southern port cities like Venice and Genoa, or neighboring areas like Lombardy. Other areas were likely 99% white. I don't think Mordhau is supposed to take place in any specific region.

      I assume the article referred to political stances in the context of the reviews themselves. If the review just says "Hate the game because it's racist" that's not entirely helpful. Especially when the developers may take action to rectify the issue. If the game is no longer racist then the review is no longer valid and should be updated.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now