Let's all help flush out old steam reviews

Currently there are too many reviews from November and September that are obsolete and twisting the actual quality of the game right now. They should be deleted, but that is not possible, so we can help.

If everyone would just take a few minutes or even a few seconds to downvote the reviews from <= November (and upvote the ones from January and February), i think it will be enough to flush out the super old reviews and bring up the most recent ones.

One person might not do much but if 300 people view this thread and do this, it will be enough to get that mess out of there.

I already did my part.

link
http://store.steampowered.com/app/233250

I just went on the most helpful of all time and downvoted all reviews older than december, including the positive ones. Hope that helps.

I looked at them. Most of the negative reviews are still very valid. Can't help support this sorry.

It's not about negative or positive reviews, it's about removing the 4-5 month old reviews that are now obsolete.

Many of the "most helpful of all time" reviews I have read talk about large amount of bugs, lack of dev support, or missing features that are now in the game. The positive reviews aren't inaccurate like many of the negative ones, but they're still out of date. Speaking of which, I need to update my review, even if it's not rated "most helpful" or anywhere near that

Complaining about unit cannon, offline mode, dev transparancy, etc... All invalid.

Keyword most. If 5 of the 6 points are still valid but one isn't "offline mode" I'd still view the majority of that review valid.

But there's no way for someone reading it to know. Why leave that review there, when a more recent review would have 6/6 points valid?

Also, seriously:

Let's all just make things up and attribute them to rumours!
That's one of those so-called "most helpful" reviews.

To be fair uber did some pretty contraversal things like originally sell the game for $100. Something I think is pretty wrong and showcases a pretty greedy company.

I think you got that wrong. Those were Kickstarter levels (and Early Access on Steam). You could choose to give that much. Some even payed $1000 or more. That was for contributing to the initial capital to get the project on the road.

This. No-one who kickstarted the game and just wanted to play it had to pay more than $20. Once out of kickstarter, no-one ever had to pay more than $40.

But that's beside the point. Controversial or not, outdated reviews that contain factually false information have little place amongst the "most helpful" reviews, when there are newer reviews (that may well say the same negative things) that aren't misleading. The important difference is that they are either current or indicate when they are talking about past events.

Is star citizen being greedy for doing the same thing?

The game was put on steam for 90$ originally because that's what the alpha kickstarter tier was, 90$ for alpha and a couple other additions, not to mention it meant the only people playing alpha were people actually mature enough to deal with the bugs and work along side the devs to improve the game. The game dropped to 60 by beta, and 40 - 30 or so aroind initial release.

And during that entire time, the base game was available for $40 from the Uber store.
Meanwhile, star citizen is selling a single ship for over $100:
https://robertsspaceindustries.com/pledge

Star Citizen is still gathering funds.

Which is totally acceptable.

And yet you can get access to the finished game for as little as $30, and access now for $45. People who have way more money than they know what to do with are free to spend more, so that everyone benefits from a better game. It really annoys me when people attack Star Citizen for this

I went through and downvoted anything from December '14 and earlier, regardless of content, while upvoting Jan+. Though there's over 1000 reviews.... I only had the attention span to look through the top 100 or so.

Oh, I get that. It's the same thing with PA (though I'd argue the relative value of add-on is completely disproportionate). My point was, if you complain about PA's model, you have to also complain about SC's.

Ah of course. A valid point. Actually, if I had more money, I'd buy a whole bunch of commanders to give Uber more money...

Yes, it's misleading to customers. Early access supporters shouldn't have to pay more than the base game price unless they want to. IE a tier system that you can upgrade (like Path of Exile does) or a link to contribute more via kickstarter if you want to. Not you pay more than everyone else (almost triple the amount) for early access but get the same benefits in a few months. I think that is a pretty messed up model and comes off pretty greedy in my opinion.

Also at the time, no where on PA steam page did it say "the price will drop to $35 dollars in a few months". I remember having to hunt around on forums to get the low down because the steam info was pretty vague (I.E. misleading). I remember reading reviews from a handful of people who were pretty pissed about this, and how greedy uber came off.