Let's all help flush out old steam reviews

And it is the responsibility of the reviewer to delete.

Nice idea @KillerKiwiJuice - downvoted the crap (dear god, Steam Reviews are a frightening place!), upvoted the well thought out stuff, and wrote my own review too.

Some of the reviews are clearly just silly kids. One of them was just 'nah'. That's not a review! It's barely even a coherent statement.

These reviews are not helpful, positive or negative. They're old and outdated, the idea Is to mark everything factually false as not helpful. We don't discriminate based on score As many people abusing the system do to punish Uber without any regards for the system.

And if the existing reviews are skewed by the passage of time? Does a manufacturing flaw in the Xbox 360 years ago still affect the current model even after its been clearly fixed? The release may not have been years ago, but it's the same thing just in a shorter period of time.

I've updated my review and that's pretty much all I'll do. I don't have the patience to read some of these reviews. Especially the one spouting slander about Uber.

I'd actually argue yes in your analogy with the xbox. It shows a quality control issue with manufacturing and a new Xbox may still have similar issues.

Same goes for out of date reviews. it helps as a time line to see how fast devolopers are at fixing issues and how good they are at listening to the community. For example, there are many reviews on steam form 9 months ago with many issues that still haven't been adressed. That shows me that the devoloper has a poorly community relationship or is out of touch.

I will have check outdated reviews with features in the game and cross reference what's been added. I still think they have realvence. People can read the date the review was posted.

It's a thing called patchnotes, they exist.

All well and good if the reviewers actually bothered too. Doesn't work like that in reality though, especially since the people posting negative reviews are more likely to not come back to the game, and I most certainly wouldn't think "hmm I wonder if that review I posted 6 months ago for a game I no longer play is still accurate, I should go delete my old review".

All good and well buddy, except patchnotes tell you what's been fixed with the game, not what's wrong and hasn't been adressed.

I was specifically referencing your argument about how out-of-date reviews allow you to see how things have changed... Up-to-date reviews should still show unfixed issues...

Does a potential buyer read through EVERY SINGLE patchnote. There are tonnes of patchnotes for planetary annihilation, and reading a review is a much faster process than reading patchnotes. Unless the buyer is super enthusiastic for the game, it is unlikely that they would read through EVERY SINGLE patchnote. To make it even worse, patchnotes are hard to find, as most of the times the specific patchnote isn't on steam, and potential buyers might not know the existence of a PA forum and a thread that lists the patchnotes.

Well said, exactly why I didn't like uber selling PA for $90 on steam. Many people wouldn't think to go check PA forums to see it was only early access only.

Right, but crossreferencing multiple out-of-date online reviews across multiple sites is MUCH more tedious than reading patchnotes easily availible on the launcher, forums, and even in-game, or on the steam page and website.

Something that I DO is a lot different then the general public. I didn't buy the game for $90 dollars, but I sure as hell read reviews and sometimes even patch notes before I buy a game. My point being that I think it was a messed up approach to screwing over the general public.

I am sure there are a handful of people that do what I do when it comes to reviews, so I think it's still useful to some. Plus, are you guys all terrified that consumers can't read a review date on the side or something? It's pretty obvious if it's a dated review.

How so? It was clearly documented, and I think is totally fair.

I wasn't though, at least It wasn't on steam when it came out. You had to go hunting for it pretty hard.

If it was, this wouldn't be a problem. But I fail to see how a potential buyer is able to verify a review without doing their own research. If they need to do that, then isn't it better that we just make sure the ones marked "most helpful" are correct in the first place? And again I stress that being correct, accurate and up-to-date does not mean it can't reference past events or be negative.

We have almost 10,000 reviews to pick from. I don't think it's too much to find just 20 that accurately reflect the game, without compromising on reviews that are only mostly correct.

There are dates on the posted reviews man... the top 10 reviews are pretty recent and still very valid imo. I still don't really see the issue.

The date does not in any way indicate whether the content of the review is still relevant or not though. And I'm not saying old reviews are automatically invalid. But the top 10 are not all valid. Take the third one, which is just conspiracy level fearmongering, with the words Fraud and Stolen bandied about and all sorts of things just made up (they literally cite "by leaked rumours" as their source). Another one is "Not even close to a finished product. I support this game, but it shouldn't be out of early access.". That's literally the entire review, devoid of any and all actual substance. Is that really one of the most helpful reviews on steam about this game? And number 10: "I still call bogus on the offline mode. If you can't start a game and play it without internet connection, then there's no offline mode." False, but of course there's no way for a reader to know this (but the rest of that review is alright, barring a mention on balance which has changed a lot since then).

It never ends. Can you guys please stop crying?


PS. The one review you can never change: http://steamcharts.com/search/?q=Planetary Annihilation

I thought steam store pages have early access games marked as "Early Access"?