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 itbestefyo
ItBeStefYo

1096

Forum Posts

1638

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By ItBeStefYo

This was the only way to stop the chancers who uploaded games that they didn't have the right to

Avatar image for lassieme
LassieME

261

Forum Posts

586

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By LassieME

In what world do we live in that a 100 $ is to much to ask upfront for a chance to be on the front page of steam?

Avatar image for benu302000
benu302000

221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By benu302000

Thank god Valve is doing this. Unless you want to steam to become the next Xbox Indie Games, I think they need to be at least this stringent, and probably more so.

Avatar image for sweetz
sweetz

1286

Forum Posts

32

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By sweetz

@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.

Oh please. If you live in any area of the world developed enough that spending your time developing video games is a viable pursuit, you can afford $100 if you're serious about your game.

However, that's entirely moot anyway, because without Steam you'd be paying a hell of a lot more to establish your own website and distribute the game yourself, which is what an indie dev would have had to do before Steam. $100 is lowering the barrier of entry for an indie dev many, many times over. It's actually giving very small devs at least a chance to sell their game where they previously would have had none, because they would be paying several thousand to get their game out there, not a $100. So yeah when rationally considered, $100 is not a lot, regardless of where you live because if you can't afford it, you would have no chance of selling your game anyway.

Avatar image for deactivated-5f8ac39b52e76
deactivated-5f8ac39b52e76

2590

Forum Posts

1360

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 3

@WarlockEngineerMoreDakka said:

$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

    
Also all their relatives have been killed by raccoons and they don't have any friends. They live in utter solitary. All they have is their little 8-Bit retro puzzle game.
Avatar image for mewarmo990
mewarmo990

862

Forum Posts

1131

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By mewarmo990

There are, conceivably, basement developers living hand-to-mouth for whom a $100 fee might seem difficult. However, that line of argument leads nowhere. If you want to get a video game published normally, the overall process involves much more money than that. $100 to get a publisher (or Steam users) to look at your game is more than free, yes, but in the grand scheme of things it's an insignificant cost to get a chance at publication when the other primary barrier of entry is community feedback.

Coming from someone who does work in game publication and frequently evaluates pitches by small developers, if you are serious about investing in your game, $100 is NOTHING if all you need to do after that is please the gaming public in order to get published and start making money. Working via a "proper" lengthy development milestone process with publishers, even small ones, costs a LOT more money than that because a game publisher wants their investment back, whether the game succeeds or fails financially.

Finally, if you look at the arguments by actual game developers against the fee, most are opposing it on the principle that it negatively impacts the purpose or environment of Greenlight, not the $100 amount itself. They know the same thing I just said.

Avatar image for cornbredx
cornbredx

7484

Forum Posts

2699

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 15

Edited By cornbredx

I said this in the forums earlier, but I don't have a problem with the submission fee. Especially since its a one time fee to basically say your serious about this and not posting junk. 
 
The people who are complaining don't have a leg to stand on. 100$ is not expensive in any part of the world. I make shit and I can afford to pay 100$. Ya I'd eat less, but if I had a game I wanted to get on steam and make a living that way, fuck ya I'd do it. I can eat ramen for a month or more if I had to. 
 
I don't find it unreasonable at all. The only argument I've seen that I can see is the ones releasing big mods (such as Black Mesa) which are free to play and wont be for profit at all. Making them pay to be on there is a tad sucky and i think it's a great place to put stuff like that. To counter though, they can just use the workshop for that I think. It doesn't have to be on green light- but I don't know either how that works. 
 
Anywho, I don't see it as a problem.

Avatar image for erobb
erobb

175

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 6

Edited By erobb

Submission fees are normal for just about any artistic entry competition/venue. And by donating it, Valve is proving it's not for profit, it's just to prove there's a person behind each entry who is serious.

Avatar image for hunter5024
Hunter5024

6708

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By Hunter5024

You gotta spend money to make money.

Avatar image for shivoa
Shivoa

1602

Forum Posts

334

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shivoa

@benu302000 said:

Thank god Valve is doing this. Unless you want to steam to become the next Xbox Indie Games, I think they need to be at least this stringent, and probably more so.

You do realise this fee is for getting onto Greenlight, not getting onto Steam? You pay the money to get on a voting system where if you manage to get enough votes for you then valve will look at your game and decide if they want it on the service. So the 4 points of failure are: not paying $100; not getting voted for enough by Steam users; not being selected by Valve after a look to be added to their service; not having those votes translate to actual sales once you hit Steam.

Steam can't turn into XBLIG because of step 3 (and to some extent step 2, but who knows what the community might vote up). The fee is to stop trolls and jokers, the community voting and steam approval process it the gate to make sure only good games (and Bad Rats, bad joke stolen from here) / genuine products without malware reach customers. Surely $10 and a postal submission of a signed contract is just as effective a wall for trolls to pass (Hell even $1 means the card details are on file and it takes a really dedicated troll to keep getting new credit cards to generate new fake accounts, as some have argued).

I may have way more than $100 spare, so will everyone else on this thread by the likes of it but not every dev has spare pennies, certainly not 10,000 of them to throw at a public vote and then actual approval process (either of which could easily falter). This fee will cut down on trolls, but couldn't a $10 fee be basically just as effective at doing that? Isn't this just the first weeks of a new thing for all the internet trolls to focus on before getting bored? SilverDollar pay their $100/year for XBLIG and so do the massage apps up there so it seems that this fee is not effective on it's own and so only in conjunction with the later failure stages so maybe the fee is much higher than it need to be to detract trolls and games you don't think worthy of the Steam storefront (but obviously excusing the XBLIG that are already on Steam and made it through that process before all of this).

Avatar image for ds8k
ds8k

433

Forum Posts

10

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By ds8k

Not to be rude, but while we're at it:

does not impact games already been submitted

expressed decidedly porlaized opinions.

getting on the services is it's best bet.

Avatar image for tehchich
TehChich

176

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By TehChich

Edited: It seems people like to crush the dreams of the next generation of developers. Whee.

Avatar image for oddy4000
Oddy4000

114

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Oddy4000

Although I agree with most everyone else here that a $100 FEE would be reasonable and unremarkable, the fact that it's a DONATION to Child's Play is brilliant. They've taken a product intended to do good for their developer community, and turned it into an opportunity to do something good for sick kids as well. Good on ya, Valve.

Avatar image for mikkaq
MikkaQ

10296

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By MikkaQ

It seems to me that's a good stopgap control measure to prevent it from becoming full of exploitative garbage like the App Store. 100$ isn't much, even if you're a poor indie dev.

I think there should be better solutions being thought up, but for now it kinda makes sense.

Avatar image for patrick
patrick

583

Forum Posts

1136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 1

Edited By patrick

@TehChich: Greenlight is a system for games aspiring to be on Steam, nothing to do with learning about development.

Avatar image for fobwashed
fobwashed

2818

Forum Posts

388

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 16

Edited By fobwashed

@patrickklepek: I think it's worth mentioning that XBLIG also requires a $99 annual membership to be allowed to submit or peer review/test any games on the service. Even with a block in place to insure that all games that appear on XBL fulfill a pretty huge list of requirements, the service is so full of crap that nobody really uses it except to find a specific game by title. If they didn't have the annual fee, I can only imagine the loads of crap that would be entered into the peer review system. This barrier to entry is a necessary thing because if it's open to the general public, it can only be disastrous to everyone involved.

I'll take this a step further and say anyone allowed to vote for a game should also fit a prerequisite such as having spent a minimum amount on steam games to prevent anyone from "gaming" the system as well. I just recently found out that I've spent well over 1k on Steam over the years and was totally surprised. Maybe a barrier of $100 spent would be enough to prevent people from making dummy accounts to promote their own games.

Avatar image for draxyle
Draxyle

2021

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Draxyle

@ThePickle said:

By riff raff, I meant stuff like this:

-

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

Jeebus. That selection of "games" is a good argument in favor of the fee.

Avatar image for g0rd0nfr33m4n
G0rd0nFr33m4n

826

Forum Posts

2263

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 18

Edited By G0rd0nFr33m4n

100 dollars is nothing.

Avatar image for benspyda
benspyda

2128

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

Edited By benspyda

A one time fee of $100 sounds fine to stop some of the crap. Hell, Apple charges you $100 a year just to develop for their platform.

Avatar image for triple07
triple07

1268

Forum Posts

208

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By triple07

Steam Greenlight already has enough bullshit on it with a fee. I can't imagine what would happen if they didn't have a fee. I mean I saw a greenlight for Halo CE on greenlight. Not put there by Microsoft or anyone who would be able to actually be able to put it on Steam but by some guy who either paid $100 for a joke or someone who misunderstood how the whole thing worked.

Avatar image for thepickle
ThePickle

4704

Forum Posts

14415

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

Edited By ThePickle

@zombie2011 said:

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.

Valve is donating all this money to charity. It's purely something to ensure that only people who really want their games looked at get in and the service doesn't get bogged down with nonsense.

Avatar image for minipato
MiniPato

3030

Forum Posts

3

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By MiniPato

A hundred dollars is not a lot, really. If you really want to make a game, then you'd pay the fee. If you are that person looking to make a gamble on a shitty game with no effort put into it and hoping people buy it anyways, then you're more hesitant about submitting it.

Avatar image for clonedzero
Clonedzero

4206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Clonedzero

holy shit! 100 bucks!

Avatar image for shivoa
Shivoa

1602

Forum Posts

334

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shivoa

@MikkaQ said:

It seems to me that's a good stopgap control measure to prevent it from becoming full of exploitative garbage like the App Store. 100$ isn't much, even if you're a poor indie dev.

I think there should be better solutions being thought up, but for now it kinda makes sense.

You're right, this $100 fee will certainly block out people using the free PC SDKs from doing what App Store devs do with their $100/year subscription iOS SDK. Clearly $100 to Child's Play is so much more expense than $100/year to Apple and so will be more effective at reducing the number of 'exploitative garbage like the App Store' type products pushed into the Greenlight system.

Or maybe that entire pool of iOS apps is designed to make money vs the initial risk of fees/development/paying for upvotes/paying for reviews/getting lucky with popularity and so this will do nothing but create a demand for paid votes on Greenlight (bet that'll lead to a lot of $1 Humble purchases to farm Steam accounts so not all bad) to ensure their commercial viability so the only people this will effectively stop are trolls who don't think $100 is a good spend to troll (but would be happy paying $10 to do it?) and poor devs who don't have spare money but could have found an audience though the Greenlight process and then a market and been able to get out of that bottom rung of 'keeping going'.

Avatar image for maginnovision
maginnovision

819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By maginnovision

@snide said:

As someone who builds submission queues for a living I can tell you this is likely defined by spam protection more than anything else. Anyone who thinks that raw manpower alone can view thousands and thousands of submissions is delusional of the costs and talent required to engineer the perfect form box.

Exactly. This is the reason greenlight came about, so that they didn't have to view every single entry and then decide. Now it's all on the community, but they don't want legitimate submissions getting lost in the fold.

Avatar image for abendlaender
abendlaender

3100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By abendlaender

I think Bruce is completely right. If you honestly can't afford 100$ then just release your game elsewhere. If it is good and people like it you probably earn 100$ or maybe don't need Greenlight after all to get it onto steam. Or kickstart it.

Fact is: Valve had to do something, cause the internet is full of idiots who will use whatever is available to annoy other people and paying money is the only thing I can think of that will stop that.

Avatar image for shotaro
shotaro

814

Forum Posts

58

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By shotaro

I think that the fee was inevitable, for something like Greenlight you need a gate or other form of barrier to entry. I think a better system would be to make the $100 refundable if Steam publishes the game. (I would assume though that there were inherent costs in getting a game published to the service anyway. I doubt anyone would have been able to release a game and put it on steam for free.)

As much as I can understand the notion that some basement developers are living hand to mouth, to raise enough money to get the game on Steam would likely make for a trivial Kickstarter project. Even more so if the game was finished or almost finished, a few youtube videos and a decently set out pitch would easily accumulate $1000 or whatever the minumum goal is for Kickstarter.

Avatar image for patrickklepek
patrickklepek

6835

Forum Posts

1300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By patrickklepek

@benu302000 said:

Thank god Valve is doing this. Unless you want to steam to become the next Xbox Indie Games, I think they need to be at least this stringent, and probably more so.

Spoiler: it costs money to be part of the Xbox Live Indie Games ecosystem, too. IIRC, it's about $100, too

Avatar image for nicked
Nicked

259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Nicked

I agree with the sentiment that in the grand scheme of developing a game $100 is paltry, but one could argue the 40 cents is a paltry amount of money too. It's not about the amount of money, it's about the principle of the thing.

There are better ways to handle spam than a pay-wall. I think that this submission fee is an arbitrary charge and that surely the minds at Valve could have come up with a better solution.

Also, because Greenlight only just launched, of course there are loads of idiots trying to get attention with "funny" fake games.

Avatar image for mikkaq
MikkaQ

10296

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By MikkaQ

@Shivoa: There's a difference between paying Apple 100 bucks a year and pumping a shitty app out every month and hoping for the best, and having to pay 100$ per submission.

Avatar image for saturdaynightspecials
SaturdayNightSpecials

2593

Forum Posts

92938

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 26

At first I thought it was a little steep, but this way I feel like it motivates the serious teams just as much as it keeps out the trash.

With $100 invested up front, it gives you an extra incentive to keep working and not just abandon the project for months/years at a time like so many teams do.

Avatar image for shivoa
Shivoa

1602

Forum Posts

334

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shivoa

@MikkaQ: The Greenlight fee isn't per submission is my understanding. You pay and are then Gold for submitting your game(s) to Greenlight.

Avatar image for shivoa
Shivoa

1602

Forum Posts

334

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 6

Edited By Shivoa

@SaturdayNightSpecials said:

At first I thought it was a little steep, but this way I feel like it motivates the serious teams just as much as it keeps out the trash.

With $100 invested up front, it gives you an extra incentive to keep working and not just abandon the project for months/years at a time like so many teams do.

Yes, what people who have given hundreds/thousands of hours of their unpaid (spare) time into a project really need is (a) $100 (raffle ticket to the court of public voting) on the line to keep them motivated. That's the key!

Avatar image for mikkaq
MikkaQ

10296

Forum Posts

52

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By MikkaQ

@Shivoa said:

@MikkaQ: The Greenlight fee isn't per submission is my understanding. You pay and are then Gold for submitting your game(s) to Greenlight.

Ah well if that's the case yeah it's completely pointless. Any asshole can find 100 bucks. Hell I've found that on the street once.

@patrickklepek said:

@benu302000 said:

Thank god Valve is doing this. Unless you want to steam to become the next Xbox Indie Games, I think they need to be at least this stringent, and probably more so.

Spoiler: it costs money to be part of the Xbox Live Indie Games ecosystem, too. IIRC, it's about $100, too

I knew this was true, but I've always found it hard to imagine these controller massage and seasonal fireplace games (apps?) were made by someone who cared enough to pay $100.

Avatar image for nill
Nill

27

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Nill

@theManUnknown said:

@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.

It was a joke. I thought asking what hat they got with their payment would have been too much.

Defending the barrier to entry as low misses the point. Only the most no-effort submissions would be affected and the current rating system still sees completed & popular games buried and struggling with less than 10% of the needed "Likes" to pass the popularity contest. If the $100 fee at least bought the eyes of an intern long enough to sort submissions between finished titles and barely alpha concepts it might be a different story.

Avatar image for kn00tcn
kn00tcn

162

Forum Posts

1511

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By kn00tcn

@patrickklepek: why is the ludum dare link going to alexander bruce?

Avatar image for mercury228
mercury228

54

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By mercury228

They cannot afford $100? Come on now. 

Avatar image for 5enintendan
5eNintendan

68

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By 5eNintendan

You need to spend money to make money. If you can't sell your game some other place without steam to make the $100. You sure as hell not gonna get the 100k (? was this, not sure if it is anymore) up votes needed to get your game passed.

Many people have already tried and upload games they do not own, or games that are shareware. With the $100 fee, it will stop people from trying to upload games they don't own, in fear they'll lose that money.

Avatar image for lokiale
Lokiale

17

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By Lokiale

@ThatPrimeGuy: $100 is a very reasonable low hurdle to leap over.

Avatar image for jdownes
jdownes

34

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By jdownes

This does seem like a kneejerk reaction from valve. They should have waited and given the community a little more time to settle down, rather than penalize legitimate submissions. That said, if you can't afford $100 for something that could potentially net you thousands or millions, you prob should rethink what you are doing.

Avatar image for ajamafalous
ajamafalous

13992

Forum Posts

905

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By ajamafalous

I think you're fishing for controversy where there isn't any, Patrick. As a majority of the comments on this article have stated, nobody in their right mind would think this is a bad idea or "controversial." If a developer thinks their game is good enough to be on Steam then a $100 investment toward that should be a trivial issue.

Avatar image for lordandrew
LordAndrew

14609

Forum Posts

98305

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 36

Edited By LordAndrew

@benspyda said:

A one time fee of $100 sounds fine to stop some of the crap. Hell, Apple charges you $100 a year just to develop for their platform.

$100 to distribute. The development tools are free, if you have a Mac. If you don't have a Mac, you will need a Mac.

I looked into that one time because I've been developing for Android and was interested in iOS. From what I saw I'm not ready to go down that path yet.

As an Android developer, I paid $25 to get on the Play Store. If you already have some manner of computer, that's the only required payment. And I've found it to be pretty effective. There are some who aren't hindered by the fee, but I imagine that's because of the ad revenue they've earned from idiots who actually downloaded those apps while I waited for Google to respnd to the reports. Valve responds much quicker.

What I'm saying is that I think $25 would have been just as effective as the $100 fee while being more developer-friendly.

Avatar image for blastprocessing
BlastProcessing

970

Forum Posts

431

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By BlastProcessing

I'm happy the $100 fee has beeen implemented, at least now Greenlight can look slightly respectable, and not full of Slender remakes, and Russian's submitting Fifa games! Also, money going to charity is OK.

Avatar image for angeln7
AngelN7

3001

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By AngelN7

How do you know you speleed AAAaaAAaaaa Whatever name right? or know when to stop saying Aaa what a silly name for a game... but I'm more for caring about it.

Avatar image for bunny_fire
Bunny_Fire

390

Forum Posts

7

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Bunny_Fire

well i was under the impression that the greenlight service was for users like me to filter out the crap for valve for free and then they would have a look at the ones that made it though.

Now I don't get paid for going though all these submissions and i really don't think valve should charge for the trouble i go though to look at all these games.

Avatar image for warlockengineermoredakka
WarlockEngineerMoreDakka

452

Forum Posts

8308

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 4

@atomic_dumpling said:

@WarlockEngineerMoreDakka said:

$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

Also all their relatives have been killed by raccoons and they don't have any friends. They live in utter solitary. All they have is their little 8-Bit retro puzzle game.

Killer Raccoons? :O

He probably considers them his new family- as they serve as the inspiration for his game no doubt. :D

:P

@ajamafalous said:

I think you're fishing for controversy where there isn't any, Patrick. As a majority of the comments on this article have stated, nobody in their right mind would think this is a bad idea or "controversial." If a developer thinks their game is good enough to be on Steam then a $100 investment toward that should be a trivial issue.

I would agree with you to an extent definitely- except Patrick isn't the one fishing for controversy on this: One or two Other Indie Devs have already gone out to cry 'Class Warfare!' essentially doing the fishing themselves. :\

Avatar image for tourgen
tourgen

4568

Forum Posts

645

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 11

Edited By tourgen

$100 seems perfectly reasonable. Given the time and effort to produce something worth listing, $100 means very little. It will filter mass junk spam though. Great move.

Avatar image for mroldboy
MrOldboy

1048

Forum Posts

2078

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By MrOldboy

I'm all in favor of having some barrier to entry. I only want serious people submitting their games. Not 20,000 kids and their flash games. Why I have such a problem with kickstarter, they act like they vet, but c'mon really. If it is technically a project they will let it on since they get a cut of the money. At least Valve is trying.

I think the better solution is an initial vetting process, but that would take so much time and money if the service was free to submit. Hell I could submit my half-assed baseball RPG I made for a game dev class. It technically functions and has no game breaking bugs, but nobody would buy it because it looks and plays like ass. So I would never pay $100 to submit it. If it was free, why not, what do I have to lose. Nothing! Therefore here take my piece of shit game and clutter greenlight with it, mask other potentially worthy games.

Avatar image for ajamafalous
ajamafalous

13992

Forum Posts

905

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By ajamafalous
@WarlockEngineerMoreDakka said:

@ajamafalous said:

I think you're fishing for controversy where there isn't any, Patrick. As a majority of the comments on this article have stated, nobody in their right mind would think this is a bad idea or "controversial." If a developer thinks their game is good enough to be on Steam then a $100 investment toward that should be a trivial issue.

I would agree with you to an extent definitely- except Patrick isn't the one fishing for controversy on this: One or two Other Indie Devs have already gone out to cry 'Class Warfare!' essentially doing the fishing themselves. :\

The general tone of the article says as much, and he even wrote "Valve's controversial decision" in the subhead.