> I hope they make the entrance price high [..] Perhaps if a developer has to put down a chunk of change, he/she will think twice about publishing the 37th zombie-tower-defense erotic (but PG!) visual novel.
Please not, the 37th is the best of all!
Seriously, you are arguing that developers should be hindered from making software so that you don't have to make a selection from so many titles.
Alternative solution for your problem: Replace the generic ratings with ratings calculated only from my friends' and my ratings (or with people matched via ratings of games I played and rated as well).
I like alternative solutions to this problem, but I don't think yours solves all cases of the problem. What if someone keeps a tightly knit group of friends? Your solution relies on having a substantially sized community of friends that play a wide variety of games, of which, they write reviews for. I feel this is a really tight use case, and one Steam might need to retrain a community for. Do you still think it would work?
There's also the argument that other providers are out there, too itch.io. This compels me to think that the problem isn't really that these software engineers/game developers aren't really hindered in terms of how they're exposed.
Which app store 'gets it right' and how close to do you feel it's use case is to Steam's?
> 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.
Reading 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.
Please not, the 37th is the best of all!
Seriously, you are arguing that developers should be hindered from making software so that you don't have to make a selection from so many titles.
Alternative solution for your problem: Replace the generic ratings with ratings calculated only from my friends' and my ratings (or with people matched via ratings of games I played and rated as well).