3 ms·
> I like alternative solutions to this problem, but I don't think yours solves all cases of the problem. If I cared enough about solving "all cases of the prob
by jlg23 10y ago
> I like alternative solutions to this problem, but I don't think yours solves all cases of the problem.
If I cared enough about solving "all cases of the problem" I'd probably not post my solution here but patent it and live off royalty fees for the remainder of my life ;)
Honestly, my solution collides with the aim of any game provider: I want recommendations based on trust, games providers want to sell games. If steam implemented my solution, it might work out, but it also might lead to a decline in sales (because I suspect most people to buy stuff based on some arbitrary "rating").
> Which app store 'gets it right' and how close to do you feel it's use case is to Steam's?
None, because the store's and my goals are mutually exclusive (at least as far as "app stores" work for now): I want stuff I like, the store wants my money. There is no incentive to implement my solution because, as of now, there is no evidence that the store makes more money by not pushing unwanted apps into my face.
PS: Thanks for your feedback, it forced me to reflect upon and spell out things I usually take for granted because I live in my own filter bubble.
- ecnahc515 10y agoReading this made me realize how common this is among modern "free" to use communities. Steam doesn't directly charge us any money to use Steam, only for games. Thus, there is no direct fiscal consequence for showing lower quality games. As long as they have games people want that you can't get elsewhere or have some quality overall, people will use it. It reminds me of when Facebook was testing a redesign of the site. Users reported how much they liked it, and Facebook found that users had an easier time navigating around. But this also reduced the amount of time users stayed on Facebook, by quite a lot, so they never went forward with the new design.