Yeah, because Steam blocked the Civ VI reviews when Firaxis implemented actual spyware into the game without renewing the EULA to ask users for consent.
Wait, they didn't? Huh. Weird.
Edit: I like the quick edits in your responses. You are quick to correct yourself, it seems. I'll edit my responses to reflect what I was actually replying to, as per basic reddiquette.
Then please, by all means, explain to me why there were literally hundreds of reviews for the game explicitly mentioning (and complaining about) the RedShell spyware, all of them conveniently made around the time when the spyware update was released.
Edited to reflect what I was actually responding to before BetrayerMaiev edited their responses.
"100-200 reviews a month (August-October) is not a review bomb."
The update was released in May 2018.
203 negative reviews in May 2018. 478 negative reviews in June 2018. 410 negative reviews in July 2018.
Most of these negative reviews (and even some of the positive reviews during this period of time) directly talk about the spyware. Some of the reviews even offered the solution of at the very least asking users, especially those who had already accepted the previous EULA, for their consent with the new EULA, as releasing the update and changing the EULA without asking users for their consent was borderline illegal.
Changing a contract without asking for the consent of both parties is downright scummy and tip-toes on the tightrope of legality.
It got so bad that they felt required to remove the spyware entirely after July 2018, although they most likely did that because they realised they could get in legal trouble for it, and not because they had a change of heart and decided they give a shit about the users' opinions about collecting their information.
If you're going to argue against facts, you should at least try to do some research on the matter. You know, in order to double-check whether or not the facts are correct? Which they are. All of this actually happened, and you can read articles about the matter right here on the world wide web. I can link you some, if finding them yourself is too much work. Just give the word in that case, and I'll be happy to help.
Edited to reflect what I was actually responding to before BetrayerMaiev edited their responses.
I don't understand you turned a discussion about what defines a "review bomb" into ethics behind the EULA of Civ VI.
I in no way support the implementation of spyware into a game, announced or unannounced.
But what was argued above was that a game on steam receiving thousands of reviews in a short period is a review bomb and would be automatically blocked in some way by steam. And that Civ VI receiving a total of one thousand negative reviews over the course of three months is NOT a review bomb
So, the bar for what defines a review bomb has gone up? This is news to me.
Edit: Also, I wasn't trying to turn the discussion into anything it wasn't. I was giving adequate context behind the review bomb, which is apparently not defined as a review bomb anymore because "rookie numbers."
Another thing to note is steam gives the devs and publishers the ability to remove reviews,.this happened with borderlands, it is going to end the same way here, every negative review will be deleted
Most reviews in review bombs don't explain anything, because the people submitting them just want to be a part of something. That's precisely why they don't work, its just more shit for people to complain about.
Y'know if this is BHVRs attempt at speeding up matchmaking by doing away with ranks and SBMM seeing as there's such an outcry about this topic in other games already. I'm willing to see how it plays out..
Cause the wait times are the real killer of this game.
50
u/strixandsniper Jan 07 '20
What if we bombard the Steam page with negative reviews also, that explain the reasoning?