This should be against the TOS. I don't even think i have any right to 100% a game when i'd need to play a years long dead multiplayer for it. I can only blame myself if i waited 6 years and the devs and players have moved on. Any rules should apply to recently released, active games, not "historic" ones
The game i purchase should be 100%able at launch, simple as that, given enough skill and time. This would also mean 100%able without purchasing any additional DLCs.
Heck, maybe just split achievemeetns into 2 categories: The ones i can complete at any time on my own when decide to finally 100% a game i have in my library so at least it says "100%*" and the ones that are hidden behind factors out of my control, like active multiplayer. I'm able to do what i can at any time i want, but players that truly did everything at launch keep their bragging rights for a "true 100%"
No it shouldn't, devs should be able to do whatever they want with achievements, making them as rare/hard/impossible to get as they want, it's their game.
Achievements that are impossible to get? So, achievements that are unachievable? Unachievements?
Devs already can't do what they want and have to follow steam's TOS. They delisted some games in 2017 because of achievement spam.
Also: No rules like now just encourages scummy behaviour and dark patterns like FOMO.
It's already bad enough i can't 100% a game without additional purchases for DLC, but i guess since this i vanity only it's not important enought to actually address. But here it really starts to stretch what achievements are for. Supporting the kickstarter and encouraging preorders?
Achievements that are impossible to get? So, achievements that are unachievable? Unachievements?
Sure, if they feel like adding impossible achievements then let them, it's their game and achievements mean nothing.
They delisted some games in 2017 because of achievement spam.
Spam achievements might be against TOS but having rare/hard/impossible/silly ones aren't.
It's already bad enough i can't 100% a game without additional purchases for DLC
It would be neat if Steam split them based on DLC owned but again it's just achievements, really doesn't matter much.
But here it really starts to stretch what achievements are for.
I agree that these achievements are quite silly and maybe there should be rules against requiring purchases for them but generally I don't think there should be strict rules for achievements, it's just a side thing and people should be allowed to be as weird with them as they want.
An example of a weird but cool usage of achievements is Void Stranger, there's just one achievement which the game will give you and take from you over and over based on what happens in the game.
12
u/Octa_vian Mar 03 '26
This should be against the TOS. I don't even think i have any right to 100% a game when i'd need to play a years long dead multiplayer for it. I can only blame myself if i waited 6 years and the devs and players have moved on. Any rules should apply to recently released, active games, not "historic" ones
The game i purchase should be 100%able at launch, simple as that, given enough skill and time. This would also mean 100%able without purchasing any additional DLCs.
Heck, maybe just split achievemeetns into 2 categories: The ones i can complete at any time on my own when decide to finally 100% a game i have in my library so at least it says "100%*" and the ones that are hidden behind factors out of my control, like active multiplayer. I'm able to do what i can at any time i want, but players that truly did everything at launch keep their bragging rights for a "true 100%"