I don't know how to quote multiple people here so I'm gonna manage as best I can lol. I mean I think Valve would be the obvious choice as to who is the curator, they can most definitely afford it, and you already 'trust' them to run everything else that invloves giving them money at the end so why don't they have a team that can check if a game isn't hate speech first and foremost (they've been good reacting to those games in the past but it would only take 5 seconds to blow t****y Gladiator out of oblivion before it gets anywhere near Steam).
Why don't you give us an idea of this baseline they should be aiming for? Just because I "trust" them with my money doesn't mean I "trust" their opinions on what I should and shouldn't play. Would you trust Amazon to tell you what you should buy? That's not even remotely the same thing or how things work.
Additionally "blowing through a game" doesn't mean completing it. It means checking every facet of that game for devious errors and bugs, some of which won't just occur on a singular runthrough. Even slaughtering grounds could take hours to see all the bullshit. With some RPGs and other games reaching dozens of hours and time, that means each game (because you wouldn't want a biased curator to just accept big and middleware games without checking them, right) would have to wait to be accepted. Meaning PC owners would have to take more time waiting while console owners get to play. When the best solution is to just let the market decide.
Enforce some standards of QC, tell developers that getting published on Steam means upping your game and should be something to be proud of a quite prestigious, not a place where the 10 games above you in the new releases end in 'Simulator' and the 10 below you are asset flips. Obviously hyperbole but you get the point.
Just a tip: if you know you are employing hyperbole, just don't do it.
What standards? Why would a developer be happy about his hard work not getting in because it doesn't reach every checkmark? And what you've said about ten games above and below don't always happen because
people can curate the search list with a few options themselves. You are placing an inconvenience on every party involved and I still don't see the benefits beyond the fact that you yourself are not seeing games you don't like. In which case, you could just do the simple research to avoid said games, much of which is presented on the store page.
Heck there's been games that haven't even been able to be launched some 'devs' are that lazy/untalented/not bothered. I just think having a team filtering the absolute garbage in unquestionably a good thing? Let's start from that most basic of places.
It's not basic. There's time and money involved, and you'd need a big ass team to do that. And you need a bar of standards, which has tons of implications in terms of what is allowed and what isn't. It's so basic, but people here can't even come up with something that would be fair and work for all parties involved.
