Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

302 Comments

Developers Mixed on Greenlight's $100 Submission Fee

Some of the developers behind McPixel, Super Meat Boy, I Wanna Be the Guy, Antichamber, Proteus, and AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA discuss Valve's controversial decision, and what it means for the future of the service.

No Caption Provided

Not everything Valve touches turns to gold, so proveth the rocky launch for Steam Greenlight, and the ensuing response to the big changes Valve has made to its independent-focused service just a few days after launching.

The change that’s caused the most discussion and raised exasperation is a new requirement for submission: pay $100 for the potential opportunity to become part of the Steam marketplace. It’s a chance, not a guarantee, and Valve’s tried to block some criticism by promising to send every payment to Penny Arcade’s Child’s Play charity.

The requirement was prompted by a slew of junk submissions, including fake version of Half-Life 3.

Greenlight is a new Steam initiative to ostensibly help games from falling through the cracks.
Greenlight is a new Steam initiative to ostensibly help games from falling through the cracks.

“Two things we’ve noticed so far,” said Valve in a blog post. “First, there are a ton of legitimate submissions that people want to see. Second, there is unfortunately a significant amount of noise and clutter being submitted, either as a joke or by fans not fully understanding the purpose of Greenlight.”

Greenlight is meant to curb an increasing problem for Steam. The company cannot realistically judge every game that’s submitted for consideration, and decided to enlist the community for help to ensure games deserving of a spot don't slip through the cracks. I’ve heard from frustrated developers over the years upset at receiving little to no feedback from Steam after being rejected, and Greenlight is (in theory) meant to keep those examples to a minimum. Or, at the least, reduce it.

The change does not impact games already been submitted, and is required once per developer, not per game.

Developers I’ve spoken to since the change occurred have expressed decidedly porlaized opinions.

“It's good they are doing this, it keeps the flow of games down to people who are serious about their work,” said Super Meat Boy and Binding of Isaac co-creator Edmund McMillen. “It's $100 to enter into the IGF [Independent Games Festival], I did this for years [and] only made it in 30% of the time. You should only put your stuff on Greenlight if you believe you have a realistic chance of getting those votes, the 100$ charge makes that a very clear barrier of entry. Same goes for the IGF.”

Michael “Kayin” O’Reilly, better known as the creator of the sadistic I Wanna Be the Guy, is working on a game for submission into Greenlight. He’s not so sure Valve’s quick decision to charge $100 for a Greenlight listing was the best way to solve its problems.

“If we're talking about a service that's meant to try and manage small indie games, is the best way to try and charge money from a group of traditionally poor people?” said O’Reilly. “It is -a- limiting measure, but is it the best one? [...] if Valve was pocketing the 100 dollars, I think we'd have to accept that this is a part of business, but clearly this is a situation where there are a lot more possible solutions that can possibly benefit Steam more in the long run.”

I Wanna Be the Guy's creator is still considering Greenlight, despite the issues he has with it.
I Wanna Be the Guy's creator is still considering Greenlight, despite the issues he has with it.

O’Reilly said Valve should have implemented less drastic measures to tweak the service to avoid this reaction, and would be “exceptionally surprised” if the $100 requirement sticks around. That Valve didn't introduce the $100 fee with other substantive changes struck him as odd and reactionary.

“The 100 dollar fee isn't meant to necessarily stop games that may or may not succeed, it's meant to stop junk entries or REALLY low quality entries,” he said. “So it's tough. Greenlight was supposed to reduce a lot of the risk and frustration of dealing with Steam, so it's really sorta hurting itself by making it seem less inviting. I think alternative ways of getting on the services is it's best bet. A bigger budget game will probably just drop the 100 bucks, while smaller games might use other methods.”

McPixel designer Sos Sosowski was part of Greenlight’s beta, and sympathized with Valve’s plight. It did, however, prompt mixed feelings about the difference between going through Steam’s regular submission process and rolling the dice with an active community of users on Greenlight.

“It struck me that anyone can submit a game just like that in the very beginning, but I was sure that it's going to be well managed and under control,” said Sosowki. “Valve got disillusioned quickly and got reminded what the internet is.”

“I think that the fee made the Greenlight service redundant as soon as it was introduced,” he continued. “If there was a fee for the standard submission process, where Valve team reviewed each game, Greenlight would not be needed at all. So now that the fee is introduced, and only people that are serious about it and want to invest this much are allowed in, Valve could easily manage to look over all the submissions as they appear and make their picks. I don't agree that paying for ‘maybe’ getting onto Steam service is wrong. I'm saying paying to get onto Greenlight makes it redundant.”

It’s been less than a week since Greenlight launched, though, and the $100 requirement is a rather huge change in philosophy after a few days of content submissions. Proteus designer Ed Key is puzzled at the move.

Key proposed a two-step renovation. There would be a pre-Greenlight listing phase, in which the community would help filter out the crap, and avoid having the front page overrun. It would create another layer between what the general public sees on Greenlight and power users. Given the fiery reaction to the $100 requirement, Key suggested Valve start offering free Greenlight listings to nominees and finalists in the big festivals. I wouldn’t mind seeing popular Ludum Dare entries given the opportunity to submit sans requirement, either. Outreach could be key.

“I'm a bit worried the $100 will further skew the balance towards safe commercial games rather than games that could find an audience once on a major platform,” said Key. “[...] Big kudos to Valve for updating the system and being so agile, but charging a fee just seems like the 'nuclear option' at this early stage.”

Here's how Greenlight look on my Steam client, as Valve tries to push the good stuff to the top.
Here's how Greenlight look on my Steam client, as Valve tries to push the good stuff to the top.

Alexander Bruce is the pink-suited designer of the hopefully-almost-done puzzler Antichamber, and cautioned against developers anxious over Greenlight’s changes, and to consider all available options.

“Several people have pointed out that there are talented people out there who live day to day who would not be able to afford the $100 fee,” said Bruce. “I don't understand this argument, because even without the fee in place, there's no guarantees that those developers would get their game on Steam in the first place. So they're either relying on their game being on Steam to support themselves, which Greenlight isn't offering in the first place, or they are able to support themselves independently and should be able to find a time somewhere when paying the fee would be reasonable.”

Bruce suggested developers stressing over the $100 should stop thinking Steam as the center of the universe. Maybe put Steam on the sideline, and focus on launching the game elsewhere. Games like QUBE and Offspring Fling have used pre-Steam launches to build word-of-mouth. With enough buzz, it may even be possible to avoid the Greenlight process entirely, and even if that’s not possible, the outside reaction should help your cause on Greenlight itself.

“If by going through these methods you're unable to find an audience to give you $100 for a Greenlight submission,” said Bruce, “I’m not sure what makes you think that your situation is going to be any different once you actually have your game on Greenlight and then need to drum up enough support to get it noticed by Valve.”

The developers of AaaAaaaAa are avoiding taking a stance, while also sorta taking a stance.
The developers of AaaAaaaAa are avoiding taking a stance, while also sorta taking a stance.

If the $100 requirement does remain a permanent fixture of Greenlight, some will help shoulder the burden. AaaaaAAaaaAAAaaAAAAaAAAAA developer Dejobaan Games is running a contest of sorts to loan $100 to a creator. Nicalis, responsible for helping bring Cave Story, La-Mulana and NightSky to places outside Japan, is also offering up $100 to three developers.

Both Dejobaan and Nicalis said the idea isn’t about whether the fee is a good or bad idea.

“I don't have the foresight to see how all of this will play out,” said Dejobaan president and co-founder Ichiro Lambe. “Will it help highlight new and wonderful games? Will it keep potentially great titles out? I think we'll find out over time. Who gives two rat's asses about my stance on this?”

“The folks I've met from Valve genuinely want the industry to be a better place for small developers, so I'd like to see more of 'em on that platform," he said. "If I can help a ramen-eating dev team submit a great game--and encourage other successful indie devs to do the same--then we're indies at our best. If it means that that great game gets a chance to sell on Steam, fantastic. And you know what? The worst that comes out of this is that my $100 goes to a charity that uses video games help kids cope with illness.”

[Photo courtesy of Stephan Geyer.]

Patrick Klepek on Google+

302 Comments

Avatar image for shivoa
Shivoa

1602

Forum Posts

334

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shivoa

I'm glad to see so many rich people talking about how little $100 means to them. I'm sure that they speak having lived on the typical wages in many areas of the world far from their current decadent existence and so are able to be so authoritative on how small change that value is for everyone.

As posted in the responses: if this removes all but the games that should be seriously considered then why have Greenlight at all, use the fee to limit and help pay for curation/approval/dev relations; if you just want to limit to serious people with bank accounts then why not $10 or a signed and posted contract; wasn't the point of user sifting that the good items float to the surface in the first place and so this was just early day lack of down-voters to quickly cull the joke entries?

Avatar image for doctorwelch
DoctorWelch

2817

Forum Posts

1310

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By DoctorWelch

At first I thought this is kind of stupid, but if I'm reading this right, it's like the fee to get on Greenlight is actually more than getting Valve to look at it themselves (being that there's actually a fee)?

If that's the case, then I guess it does make the whole thing sort of redundant, but, like everyone else is saying, the $100 shouldn't be a problem for the developers.

Avatar image for re_player1
RE_Player1

8074

Forum Posts

1047

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By RE_Player1
@rebgav

It's $100. If you're not willing to gamble such a small amount of money against the quality of your product then you probably shouldn't be submitting it to Steam in the first place.

Word. I'm not trying to sound like Mr. Moneybags here, I do have a shitty job and have to pay for school, but if you can't afford $100 for the opportunity to publish your game on a platform like Steam than you have to get your finances in check.
Avatar image for mordi
mordi

590

Forum Posts

22

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By mordi

It's an effective way to stop "spammers", but couldn't the price be a little lower? I think setting it at 25, or even just 10 would do the trick. Maybe not as effective against junk, but surely the amount of awesome developers who wouldn't risk spending 100 dollars would make up for it?

Avatar image for verysexypotato
verysexypotato

298

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By verysexypotato

I refuse to believe people are upset about this...

Avatar image for dagbiker
Dagbiker

7057

Forum Posts

1019

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

Edited By Dagbiker

I just want to play games, If I have to shift through a pile of crap to find one gem, thats fine with me.

Avatar image for mr_skeleton
Mr_Skeleton

5195

Forum Posts

7918

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 15

Edited By Mr_Skeleton

Sadly money is really the best way of getting the trolls and the low quality games from the service, I wish there was a better way but I can't think of it.

Avatar image for audiosnow
audiosnow

3926

Forum Posts

729

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By audiosnow

@HappyCheeze said:

Heres a suggestion to Valve. If the indie game puts down 100 bucks, but doesn't make it into the system, valve refunds them. If the indie game company makes it into the system and sell enough to make 100 dollars, valve gives them 200 as a bonus and a "Thank you" message for choosing steam.

Valve doesn't need indie developers, the developers need Steam. Most independent game developers are looking for some way to get their one-in-six-trillion website noticed, and their opportunities are XLBA, PSN, Steam, and word-of-mouth from conventions. At least with an existing platform, and one with as indie-friendly a community as Steam, they've a decent shot at making a splash.

A refunded entrance fee on failure would just allow the jokers to continue pushing imbecilic fake games knowing they won't be "greenlit." XBLI's startup cost is $100 for an Xbox Live Developers Membership, and one glance at the selection there says that Greenlight's price of admission will not restrict anyone. If a thirteen year-old in Minnesota can spend ninety-nine annually to release a massage game, any serious indie developer worth his salt can invest $100 once.

Avatar image for topfloor
TopFloor

47

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TopFloor

@ThePickle said:

The fee makes sense. They got to keep the riff-raff out somehow.

X( That's exactly what I don't want. I thought the point of Greenlight was for the community to decide what were the good games, not to have a entry fee determine it for us.

Avatar image for nathanstack
NathanStack

717

Forum Posts

3506

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By NathanStack

When you take into consideration how much money these games can take in, I don't feel that a $100 fee is all that unreasonable.

For example, Edmund McMillen has made somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.5 million off of The Binding of Isaac alone.

Avatar image for dwgill
dwgill

199

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By dwgill

@mlarrabee said:

@HappyCheeze said:

Heres a suggestion to Valve. If the indie game puts down 100 bucks, but doesn't make it into the system, valve refunds them. If the indie game company makes it into the system and sell enough to make 100 dollars, valve gives them 200 as a bonus and a "Thank you" message for choosing steam.

Valve doesn't need indie developers, the developers need Steam.

I agree with the overall point of your message but it's at least worth noting here that Valve does care about indie developers to some extent, else they wouldn't have made Greenlight in the first place. Barring some exceptions (the officially licensed Dr. Who game springs to mind) Greenlight very much does seem made to specifically cater to indie developers and their would-be fans.

Avatar image for meteora
meteora

5844

Forum Posts

17

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

Edited By meteora

I think the small fee is necessary, though the chance of it not being on the marketplace does slightly bug me, but I can understand where Valve is coming from.

Avatar image for evikull
Evikull

66

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Evikull

I agree that a fee makes sense. It might not be the best way to keep out the junk, but it's a simple way.

But $100 was still enough to make me do a double take. I'm willing to bet that they'll at least lower it. After all, this isn't a guarantee that your game is going to get on steam. This simply means that you'll be able to put your game up for vote, at which point either no one will see it or people will ignore it.

Avatar image for furiousjodo
furiousjodo

206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By furiousjodo

I don't see a problem with this, if $100 is barring you from trying to get your game out into the world then you aren't very serious about getting your product out there. The project that gets Greenlit is going to potentially be making a good amount of money from the exposure that it receives from Steam, and Steam isn't even taking the money themselves.

Avatar image for nill
Nill

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Nill

Valve's solution to a broken, clogged up rating process is to add "micro-transactions"?

So who gets to write off the charitable donation? I'm guessing it's not the struggling indie developer.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f8ac39b52e76
deactivated-5f8ac39b52e76

2590

Forum Posts

1360

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

First of all, excellent write-up. 
 
I feel that Sosowski might have point regarding the redundancy. As for the "traditionally poor people" remark by O’Reilly -- I don't know. Whatever equipment and Software these guys use to make their games has got to be far more expensive than 100 bucks. Claiming that you can't afford that on-time investment seems canting. I find myself in full agreement with Mr. Bruce.

Avatar image for dwgill
dwgill

199

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By dwgill

@TopFloor said:

@ThePickle said:

The fee makes sense. They got to keep the riff-raff out somehow.

X( That's exactly what I don't want. I thought the point of Greenlight was for the community to decide what were the good games, not to have a entry fee determine it for us.

If a developer lets such a fee stop him then he is deciding the matter more than anyone else. There do not exist any particularly good games that did not have some sort of substantial financial or temporal investment. Given the amount of investment most every indie developer will have already given to insure his game is good, what is $100 to him?

Avatar image for alwaysbeclothing
alwaysbeclothing

2078

Forum Posts

6765

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

Edited By alwaysbeclothing

Considering I saw submissions like Turok PC and a little known indie game called Team Fortress 2 to the service, I think some kind of gateway for trolls is warranted. Still, when I voted for a serious entry like McPixel it only had 2% of the votes it needed. So I wonder if greenlight is a service that is even filling a need that has been created by regular Steam submission.

Avatar image for dagbiker
Dagbiker

7057

Forum Posts

1019

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

Edited By Dagbiker

@mlarrabee said:

@HappyCheeze said:

Heres a suggestion to Valve. If the indie game puts down 100 bucks, but doesn't make it into the system, valve refunds them. If the indie game company makes it into the system and sell enough to make 100 dollars, valve gives them 200 as a bonus and a "Thank you" message for choosing steam.

Valve doesn't need indie developers, the developers need Steam. Most independent game developers are looking for some way to get their one-in-six-trillion website noticed, and their opportunities are XLBA, PSN, Steam, and word-of-mouth from conventions. At least with an existing platform, and one with as indie-friendly a community as Steam, they've a decent shot at making a splash.

A refunded entrance fee on failure would just allow the jokers to continue pushing imbecilic fake games knowing they won't be "greenlit." XBLI's startup cost is $100 for an Xbox Live Developers Membership, and one glance at the selection there says that Greenlight's price of admission will not restrict anyone. If a thirteen year-old in Minnesota can spend ninety-nine annually to release a massage game, any serious indie developer worth his salt can invest $100 once.

Except Steam dose need Indy devs. The last "AAA" game released on steam was released on the 23rd it is now the 5th, that would be 13 days without a reason to load up the Steam store.

Avatar image for dwgill
dwgill

199

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By dwgill

@Nill said:

Valve's solution to a broken, clogged up rating process is to add "micro-transactions"?

That term doesn't accurately describe anything in this context. It's a one time fee for each individual developer. Even with this, the bar-to-entry to get on Steam remains drastically lower than with every other notable digital distribution platform this side of Desura and the Ubuntu Software Center.

Avatar image for chiablo
chiablo

1052

Forum Posts

41

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By chiablo

If you are an indie game developer and you have a problem with a paltry $100 submission fee, your game is probably not good enough to be considered.

Avatar image for valrog
valrog

3741

Forum Posts

1973

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By valrog

@Fireburst said:

There has to be SOME barrier to entry. Valve is great for thinking the community can moderate itself, but the unfortunate truth is that it almost never can, especially in as big an environment as Steam. $100 does not sound like too much, especially if you're in the business of trying to make a successful game.

Honestly, if anyone plays TF2 regularly, you'd know that Valve released a $100 item in the shop that trolls consistently buy just because it relays a (often annoying) message to anyone playing TF2. $100 will help keep most trolls off of the service, but it won't stop dedicated ones, and it may hurt some indie devs.

There probably is no perfect answer for the necessary barrier but at least this is an attempt, and they didn't just leave the service go to crap.

Are you telling me that... Those people aren't actually getting engaged via TF2?

To stay on topic, I do agree that the entry fee was much needed, but now that the amount of fake submissions will greatly decrease (Hopefully), I think that the barrier for getting the game approved should be lowered.

Avatar image for oi_blimey
Oi_Blimey

132

Forum Posts

21

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 15

Edited By Oi_Blimey

@Shivoa said:

I'm glad to see so many rich people talking about how little $100 means to them. I'm sure that they speak having lived on the typical wages in many areas of the world far from their current decadent existence and so are able to be so authoritative on how small change that value is for everyone.

If you're not "rich" enough to get $100, then you probably don't have the equipment/facilities to help you in making a pc game. If people in your part of the world can afford a pc or laptop to make their game, $100 is not too much to ask.

And in the case of the argument that they borrowed the pc for making the game... well borrow the $100... if the game is not going to make the $100 back, then it really is a waste of time for everyone involved.

Avatar image for hameyadea
Hameyadea

394

Forum Posts

32

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Hameyadea

Is the fee the best option? Absolutely not. Is the fee a good and reasonable option? Definitely. Even though most of the Alpha builds (and pre-Alphas) are total garbage, they have the --potential-- to become good (or, at least, better) whilst spammers and other hooligans are being blocked by the fee (either become they can't troll for free, lost the interest or unter 18 and thought it "would be awesome to appear on Steam). And hey... no 5 digit fee for an update, imma right? *looking at Fez*

Avatar image for cancerdancer
cancerdancer

333

Forum Posts

795

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

Edited By cancerdancer

"including fake version of Half-Life 3."

Good thing this website is a workshop class. At least include the words DRAFT on the title please. This isn't some damning mistake but you make them all the time dude.

Avatar image for dagbiker
Dagbiker

7057

Forum Posts

1019

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 16

Edited By Dagbiker

I love all these assumptions being thrown around about peoples passions equaling the amount of money they have.

Avatar image for deusoma
Deusoma

3224

Forum Posts

128695

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 4

Edited By Deusoma
@Oi_Blimey said:

@Shivoa said:

I'm glad to see so many rich people talking about how little $100 means to them. I'm sure that they speak having lived on the typical wages in many areas of the world far from their current decadent existence and so are able to be so authoritative on how small change that value is for everyone.

If you're not "rich" enough to get $100, then you probably don't have the equipment/facilities to help you in making a pc game. If people in your part of the world can afford a pc or laptop to make their game, $100 is not too much to ask.

And in the case of the argument that they borrowed the pc for making the game... well borrow the $100... if the game is not going to make the $100 back, then it really is a waste of time for everyone involved.

And what if it's a high-quality game that the creator wishes to give away for free, hmmm? There are plenty of free-to-play games on Steam. Charging money to give a game away seems an altogether different proposition.
Avatar image for joey_ravn
JoeyRavn

5290

Forum Posts

792

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By JoeyRavn

@Shivoa said:

I'm glad to see so many rich people talking about how little $100 means to them. I'm sure that they speak having lived on the typical wages in many areas of the world far from their current decadent existence and so are able to be so authoritative on how small change that value is for everyone.

As posted in the responses: if this removes all but the games that should be seriously considered then why have Greenlight at all, use the fee to limit and help pay for curation/approval/dev relations; if you just want to limit to serious people with bank accounts then why not $10 or a signed and posted contract; wasn't the point of user sifting that the good items float to the surface in the first place and so this was just early day lack of down-voters to quickly cull the joke entries?

No better way to start an argument than with an Ad Hominem fallacy, right?

"People with bank accounts"? Seriously? "The man" has nothing to do here. You need to put this in the perspective of a developer who wants to put his game on Steam. If you are serious about your project and commited to its development, you need to invest in your game. You need to buy software licences, you need to buy hardware, you need to buy a domain for your game... You need to put down some money if you want to make more money later on. $100 is not a lot of money in this context, no matter how you look at it (and no matter how much you try to demonize anyone who thinks that way). I understand that $100 may be a lot for a college student who is coding a game all by himself, but it's by no means an insurmountable amount obstacle. Greenlight is by no means the only venue for indie devs to showcase their games. If you have anything that even resembles a playable game, start selling it and raise money for Greenlight. Ask for donations, put out a beta, sell pre-orders, make a Kickstarter. Ask your friends and family if you need to resort to that. If you're not able to come up with the $100 needed for the entry fee, are you sure you are at the right stage of the development of your game to submit it to to Steam Greenlight? Get a job or save up for a month or so and then you submit it when you have the money.

I agree that this entry fee may not be the best solution, but it's far from illogical. Maybe Steam can create a sort of "showcase" for indie devs to promote their games and help raise the $100 they need to enter Greenlight proper. But, come on, community moderation doesn't work if the system is flooded with crap.

Avatar image for 2headedninja
2HeadedNinja

2357

Forum Posts

85

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By 2HeadedNinja

adding a fee is perfectly resonable imho ... and 100$ is not the world if you are serious about your game. That it goes to charity is just a neat bonus.

Avatar image for seanfoster
SeanFoster

989

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By SeanFoster

$100 seems like a bargain to me.

Avatar image for mordeaniischaos
MordeaniisChaos

5904

Forum Posts

-1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 5

Edited By MordeaniisChaos

People need to stop bitching. It makes sense, it's better for the consumers, which this should always be in service of. This shouldn't be a free ride for those making the content, it should be a way to please the consumer. It's how business works, and this business wouldn't work if it was filled with the bullshit that ends up on XBL Indie. $100 is not much even for a SINGE person. How many games up there are being made by a single dude? If you aren't invested enough in the game to put $100 into it, you aren't invested enough to put out a complete package. This keeps the spam away, and keeps the service focused on real projects with dedicated teams behind them, not some silly thing a guy was working on for a month and decided to through up, or worse yet scams and attempts at market confusion.

Avatar image for winternet
Winternet

8454

Forum Posts

2255

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By Winternet

I'm actually baffled that this turned into a matter of controversy. Duders, it's 100 bucks. I know nothing about videogame production, but certainly that 100 bucks is peanuts. I mean, it's 100 bucks.

Avatar image for shivoa
Shivoa

1602

Forum Posts

334

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shivoa

@atomic_dumpling: GCC or Clang, Visual Studio Express editions, Eclipse, GIMP, Blender, OpenGL & DirectX SDKs, Unity free edition, Unreal Development Kit, GLFW or SDL, XNA, and on and on and on.

So many different tools, engines, compilers, and so on and they all have one thing in common: they cost $0.00 for the developer. A hand-me-down computer from 8 years ago can build a game, you can see amazing things built on old hardware (with every penny on the software in that case and an 8500GT as the GPU) and due to the democratisation of the tool chain then the software can be free (as a reasonable alternative to piracy of software that costs more than someone's annual salary).

Western European/American/etc wealth levels are not universal but technology skills are not lagging so far behind. Computers are everywhere so you can't just look around you and see what $100 means and how much things cost and the hardware people own. Interesting things can come out of a next-to-free PC with no paid software designed and built by a dedicated developer with talent and a different perspective to someone who has always had money. I don't think we should be looking at $100 and shrugging (in fact that's why dozens of indies took up the call and got behind the idea of loans and helping other indies with finding this fee). Are we saying the only people allowed to troll are those who will spend $100 to do it and that asking $10 wouldn't have the same effect? Surely $10 would be enough and rather than divert it to charity then pay for someone to help sift and remove the trolls that make it through or help guide the people who haven't clearly understood the process.

This fee is a solution, the general chatter about it from the development communities is if this is a fair solution and if it is the best solution.

Avatar image for binman88
Binman88

3700

Forum Posts

49

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By Binman88

@Deusoma said:

@Oi_Blimey said:

@Shivoa said:

I'm glad to see so many rich people talking about how little $100 means to them. I'm sure that they speak having lived on the typical wages in many areas of the world far from their current decadent existence and so are able to be so authoritative on how small change that value is for everyone.

If you're not "rich" enough to get $100, then you probably don't have the equipment/facilities to help you in making a pc game. If people in your part of the world can afford a pc or laptop to make their game, $100 is not too much to ask.

And in the case of the argument that they borrowed the pc for making the game... well borrow the $100... if the game is not going to make the $100 back, then it really is a waste of time for everyone involved.

And what if it's a high-quality game that the creator wishes to give away for free, hmmm? There are plenty of free-to-play games on Steam. Charging money to give a game away seems an altogether different proposition.

Are there really that many people who wish to give away their games for free and get nothing in return? If they make money through micropayments, then the $100 is not an issue. If they make zero money, then they don't really need the marketing push of Steam, because what use is widening your audience for a product that makes no money? If it's to get their name out there with a completely free product to showcase their skills, then the $100 fee seems like a very small price to pay for that exposure.

I don't see the problem.

Avatar image for thepickle
ThePickle

4704

Forum Posts

14415

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

Edited By ThePickle

@TopFloor said:

@ThePickle said:

The fee makes sense. They got to keep the riff-raff out somehow.

X( That's exactly what I don't want. I thought the point of Greenlight was for the community to decide what were the good games, not to have a entry fee determine it for us.

By riff raff, I meant stuff like this:

No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided
No Caption Provided

This kind of stuff clogs up the system and potentially overshadows legitimate games.

Avatar image for bhhawks78
bhhawks78

1348

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By bhhawks78

If you can't spend 100$ to get your game in front of millions of steam users? You shouldn't be making your game for steam.

Without this 100$ charity fee 90% of greenlight was spam/trolls/mspaint flash game bullshit.

Now? Might actually be able to find the diamonds in the rough.

Avatar image for valrog
valrog

3741

Forum Posts

1973

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By valrog

@JoeyRavn: Well written. I'd also like to point out that not every game has only one man behind it. I'm not sure where people got that idea. You're all acting as if Steam wants a 100 euros from each and everyone working on the game.

Even if the size of the team only counts 3 people then that's 33 euros per person. You can earn that kind of money in a week.

Avatar image for shawndc
shawndc

53

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By shawndc

Valve wants $100 while Slenderman only wants $20.

Who is the REAL faceless monster?!

Avatar image for zombie2011
zombie2011

5628

Forum Posts

8742

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By zombie2011

I don't think $100 is that much.

However, i have a feeling that if anyone else like EA or MS had something similar and were charging $100 submission fees people would go nuts, but because this is Valve nobody cares.

Avatar image for reelife
reelife

451

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited By reelife

wait hold on, I submitted my game on steam when greenlight was launched... It didn't say anything about a payment... Are they going to take money from me now or what?

Avatar image for deactivated-5f8ac39b52e76
deactivated-5f8ac39b52e76

2590

Forum Posts

1360

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

@Dagbiker said:

I love all these assumptions being thrown around about peoples passions equaling the amount of money they have.

So, here is this dude who found a crummy yet somehow working PC on the scrapyard and programmed a nifty game using pirated software and Open Source tools. Even though he is absolutely broke, his soul burns with passion for his creation. 
 
Yeah, a real hero that one.
Avatar image for bocam
Bocam

4099

Forum Posts

3868

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Bocam

A hundred bucks isn't really that much money. It's also going to charity.

Avatar image for valrog
valrog

3741

Forum Posts

1973

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By valrog

@reelife said:

wait hold on, I submitted my game on steam when greenlight was launched... It didn't say anything about a payment... Are they going to take money from me now or what?

No.

Note: Anyone who has already posted a submission to Greenlight will not have to retroactively pay for any existing submissions, but will need to do so for any future submissions.
Avatar image for warlockengineermoredakka
WarlockEngineerMoreDakka

452

Forum Posts

8308

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 4

@atomic_dumpling said:

@Dagbiker said:

I love all these assumptions being thrown around about peoples passions equaling the amount of money they have.

So, here is this dude who found a crummy yet somehow working PC on the scrapyard and programmed a nifty game using pirated software and Open Source tools. Even though he is absolutely broke, his soul burns with passion for his creation. Yeah, a real hero that one.

Anything's possible. :P

$100 might not mean a whole lot to us- but it might mean a bunch to Indies who don't have any other employment and somehow can't secure any. :O

Avatar image for earlessshrimp
EarlessShrimp

1853

Forum Posts

2735

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 10

Edited By EarlessShrimp

at least it'll keep some of the riff-raff out, making half-life 3 shits and etc.

Avatar image for reelife
reelife

451

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 1

Edited By reelife

@valrog: freaked out, sorry, I didn't see that.

Avatar image for cikame
cikame

4473

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By cikame

I have to imagine the people who can't cough up $100 are the not serious ones... which is the point.

Avatar image for sin4profit
Sin4profit

3505

Forum Posts

1621

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 37

User Lists: 2

Edited By Sin4profit

I've found a lot of games on greenlight that you can go, from the description, straight to the developer's website and play for free...if you can't pay $100 for what is no more then higher marketing then ya can get fucked ya entitled piece'a shit.

As far as an off-site filtration system as Ed Key is suggesting, the $100 fee takes care of that already, it's called a "fund raiser".

What's the minimum payment to buy the tools you need to even make video games? Are these people coding their games at the library? I love the innovation that can come from indie games but i feel "the scene" is painting the "starving artist" image a little too thick.

Avatar image for beepmachine
beepmachine

631

Forum Posts

280

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By beepmachine

In what world is a 100$ submission fee a "drastic measure." And saying that the decision is "controversial" and then not quoting anyone who is out and out railing against the fee is misleading. Also, Ed Key's plan would just result in the community having to filter the crap again, which is why the fee is there in the first place.

Avatar image for shivoa
Shivoa

1602

Forum Posts

334

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shivoa

@atomic_dumpling: Yes, I'm glad you looked at my long list of free software and assumed it was all 'dat dar Open Source thingy'. I'm glad you've got money, I hope you pay all the taxes you're meant to so at least some of it goes to helping people who don't. $100 isn't small change for a not insignificant portion of people, especially people working in an industry with really lousy job security who have to get though periods on unemployment.

Some of us are well off, thinking this is a universal (or that anyone with a keyboard and a 10 year old PC not worth anything but scrap metal value now other than it still works and it can run everything you need to make a decent game is automatically not poor) is pretty blinkered.