Valve cannot implement arbitrary and useless update guidelines for games, because game development doesn't work like that. The best they've been able to do, for Early Access games at least, is put a notice on the store page for how long it's been since the last update, so long as the last update was 12 months or more ago.

They may de-list games that are no longer being actively developed, but also not finished.

Yes, because alienating the devs who provide the product you sell is the smartest business decision.

引用自 datCookie：

Valve cannot implement arbitrary and useless update guidelines for games, because game development doesn't work like that. The best they've been able to do, for Early Access games at least, is put a notice on the store page for how long it's been since the last update, so long as the last update was 12 months or more ago.

They may de-list games that are no longer being actively developed, but also not finished.

they could easily provide an update, small price to pay to keep your game listed.

Your criteria for what defines vaporware needs some tweaking.

引用自 Punished Rusty Shackleford：

they could easily provide an update, small price to pay to keep your game listed.

Game development is not a linear process. There are so many factors at play that can affect how fast or slow updates release for a game, from dev team size and capabilities, to the scope of the game, what they're wanting to implement, issues they run into along the way and any changes they decide to make beforehand.

The best solution I think Valve can do is de-list a game from sale (but keep it on the store) if it has received no updates for 2 years. This can and should only apply to Early Access titles.

引用自 datCookie：

引用自 Punished Rusty Shackleford：

they could easily provide an update, small price to pay to keep your game listed.

Game development is not a linear process. There are so many factors at play that can affect how fast or slow updates release for a game, from dev team size and capabilities, to the scope of the game, what they're wanting to implement, issues they run into along the way and any changes they decide to make beforehand.

The best solution I think Valve can do is de-list a game from sale (but keep it on the store) if it has received no updates for 2 years. This can and should only apply to Early Access titles.

"hey fanbase: here is the situation with our game. nothing new etc. etc. etc."

if they have it in them to do that for 10+ years to keep their game on the storefront, more power to them, but it will weed out the teams that have completely abandoned the product.

引用自 Punished Rusty Shackleford：

"hey fanbase: here is the situation with our game. nothing new etc. etc. etc."

if they have it in them to do that for 10+ years to keep their game on the storefront, more power to them, but it will weed out the teams that have completely abandoned the product.

That's not an actual update, though. That's just communication. Valve specifically marks EA games on the store front that haven't received a game-based update after what I believe is 12 months. I don't believe it unreasonable for them to remove the "buy" button from the store page of EA games that have not received an update in at least 2 years.

Or they could leave them there, and you could do what you already do, not buy them. Who are you to decide what is available for someone else to buy?

引用自 datCookie：

引用自 Punished Rusty Shackleford：

"hey fanbase: here is the situation with our game. nothing new etc. etc. etc."

if they have it in them to do that for 10+ years to keep their game on the storefront, more power to them, but it will weed out the teams that have completely abandoned the product.

That's not an actual update, though. That's just communication. Valve specifically marks EA games on the store front that haven't received a game-based update after what I believe is 12 months. I don't believe it unreasonable for them to remove the "buy" button from the store page of EA games that have not received an update in at least 2 years.

I'm mainly talking about games that have been in "Coming Soon" for 2+ years. But hey, any communication or news is needed.

引用自 Punished Rusty Shackleford：

I'm mainly talking about games that have been in "Coming Soon" for 2+ years

There's nothing to be done about them. You're not losing any money by it having not released. That's purely the devs problem.

Lmao thats even funnier. You are salty about games that havent even been released yet. They paid for their store page. Valve ain't going to refund them just because they never released

引用自 fluxtorrent：

Or they could leave them there, and you could do what you already do, not buy them. Who are you to decide what is available for someone else to buy?

They absolutely could, I see no issue with doing that. I was merely offering a suggestion to the OP who was asking for one.

引用自 datCookie：

引用自 fluxtorrent：

Or they could leave them there, and you could do what you already do, not buy them. Who are you to decide what is available for someone else to buy?

They absolutely could, I see no issue with doing that. I was merely offering a suggestion to the OP who was asking for one.

Sure. They "could". But it is neither worth their time or their money to do so.

引用自 fluxtorrent：

引用自 datCookie：

They absolutely could, I see no issue with doing that. I was merely offering a suggestion to the OP who was asking for one.

Sure. They "could". But it is neither worth their time or their money to do so.

I meant "they could" to agree with what you said about leaving them on the store page.

引用自 datCookie：

引用自 Punished Rusty Shackleford：

I'm mainly talking about games that have been in "Coming Soon" for 2+ years

There's nothing to be done about them. You're not losing any money by it having not released. That's purely the devs problem.

but they really should. i know the meme is valve does nothing and they win, it's just becomes a graveyard for dead projects.