• 78 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by JoeyRavn (4964 posts) -


#2 Edited by SomeDeliCook (2288 posts) -

It sucks if your game doesn't end up getting greenlit and you wasted 100 bucks, but then again if you don't get a game greenlit it means your project is boring to other people and you wouldn't have made that many sales anyway.

*edit* also, all of the money goes to charity. Hard to be mad at that

#3 Edited by JoeyRavn (4964 posts) -

After reading an article on PC Gamer about the recent introduction of a $100 fee for getting your game into Steam Greenlight, I'm wondering what you guys think about it. Most of the developeres interviewed by PC Gamer agree that it is a good way to prevent the service from being flooded with fake games and scams, though some of them think that the price may be a bit too high as it is. As users and maybe future buyers of these games, what's your view on the matter? Do you think it's a positive measure, or that it harms and limits the potential of the platform?

If there's anyone who has had any experience with Greenlight as a developer, it would be great to hear your opinion!

@SomeDeliCook: You ninja'd me, dude :( I wish there was a way to post a poll and a message at the same time without having to right the post beforehand. Right, ? ;)

#4 Posted by TyCobb (1966 posts) -

It's only $100. Probably the cheapest thing the developer had to pay while making the game.

#5 Posted by doobie (605 posts) -

it used to be all about the indy games and now its just about the $100

#6 Posted by Slax (908 posts) -

And it goes to charity, so that's alright too.

#7 Edited by Ghost_Cat (1424 posts) -

I think the price is fair. $100 isn't a steep fee, but if a developer has to think twice about it, then their game isn't good enough to confidently accept that deal.

#8 Posted by dcgc (878 posts) -

It's only 100$?! Developers don't even know if their game is going to be on Steam. I agree to have a fee because it keeps the assholes who kept posting fakes from flooding the service, but 100$ for a game that some developers might even want to release for free. It's too much.

#9 Posted by wewantsthering (1564 posts) -

I'm all for it personally, but it would stink if someone was completely broke.

I just thought of something interesting. I'm not sure how this would work or if it's even a good idea, but what if there was a special area for people who can't afford the fee that's in a separate section. If people really thought the game looked really interesting, people could Kickstarter style donate until people donated a total of $100 (still going to Child's Play). Once they hit this marker, it would be dumped into the main Greenlight area. I'm not sure the donatees should get anything. Maybe it's just a neat way to donate to Child's Play. This way there would still be a possibility for people who may have a financial hardship.

#10 Edited by phrosen (144 posts) -

It's not the fee that I have a problem with, it's with the dirtbags who abused Steam's open system and thus forced them to do something about it. And $100 isn't really all that much money considering.

#11 Posted by Happenstance (462 posts) -

$100 seems like it might be a bit much but something did need to be done to weed out the people messing around.

Now if only there was something they could do about people downvoting games for petty reasons it would be great.

#12 Posted by HellBrendy (994 posts) -

I have no problem with the fee, but 100 dollars sounds a bit much just to scare off some trolls.

#13 Posted by 49th (2726 posts) -

Just introduce Steam Amberlight so users can vote on which games get to be on Steam Greenlight.

#14 Posted by Sploder (917 posts) -

I don't think it's good, what if they're the type of indie dev that's super broke and can't afford the fee because it's money that could go towards their game, or eating? Because those exist. I see it as separating people who can afford the price and those who can't.

#15 Posted by JoeyRavn (4964 posts) -

@doobie said:

it used to be all about the indy games and now its just about the $100

It's worth mentioning that those $100 go to Child's Play. Steam is not making any more money by doing by implementing this fee.

#16 Edited by Maginnovision (487 posts) -

100$ is not alot of money, if you can't afford a 100$ submission fee you probably can't make a game worth paying for.

#17 Posted by Phatmac (5725 posts) -

If you don't have 100 bucks to spare then you probably shouldn't be making games as it only goes down from there. This is a good move to keep all the trolls away. It should have been like this in the first place.

#18 Posted by Vexxan (4618 posts) -

It's a fair price and it all goes to charity...even if you're an indie developer you can probably afford that fee.

#19 Posted by Mirado (993 posts) -

Same as the App Store's annual fee, I believe.

Easiest and most direct way to cut down on spam.

#20 Posted by wordfalling (193 posts) -

An absolutely necessary barrier of entry, the internet is full of trolls and most indie devs can swing $100 if it gives them the potential to earn that back many times over.

#21 Posted by TyCobb (1966 posts) -

@wewantsthering said:

I'm all for it personally, but it would stink if someone was completely broke.

I just thought of something interesting. I'm not sure how this would work or if it's even a good idea, but what if there was a special area for people who can't afford the fee that's in a separate section. If people really thought the game looked really interesting, people could Kickstarter style donate until people donated a total of $100 (still going to Child's Play). Once they hit this marker, it would be dumped into the main Greenlight area. I'm not sure the donatees should get anything. Maybe it's just a neat way to donate to Child's Play. This way there would still be a possibility for people who may have a financial hardship.

We are talking about Developers here. People who have the brains and ability to make a full video game from scratch. I would think they would be able to easily come up with the $100 without having to pander on Kickstarter.

I am not saying some developers don't have a financial hardship, but I think they would still be able to handle the $100 fee. It also can help them to polish their game up even more since there is now a risk that their game may not be accepted. And since there is a financial hardship they may be rushing to get their game out there so they can make money which just screws themselves and the user.

#22 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7615 posts) -

Does this mean less iPhone level shovelware? If so, it's positive.

#23 Posted by zolloz89 (252 posts) -

its totally fine. i like how it, combined with the voting, weeds out games that aren't worth it. it's just high enough that any serious developer can get a chance, but keep out people putting up garbage like most of what's in the xbox indie game catalog

#24 Posted by Dagbiker (6964 posts) -

I don't have a problem with a fee. I have a problem with the amount. I agree that developer verification is a good idea. But 100$ is b.s..

#25 Edited by wewantsthering (1564 posts) -

@TyCobb said:

@wewantsthering said:

I'm all for it personally, but it would stink if someone was completely broke.

I just thought of something interesting. I'm not sure how this would work or if it's even a good idea, but what if there was a special area for people who can't afford the fee that's in a separate section. If people really thought the game looked really interesting, people could Kickstarter style donate until people donated a total of $100 (still going to Child's Play). Once they hit this marker, it would be dumped into the main Greenlight area. I'm not sure the donatees should get anything. Maybe it's just a neat way to donate to Child's Play. This way there would still be a possibility for people who may have a financial hardship.

We are talking about Developers here. People who have the brains and ability to make a full video game from scratch. I would think they would be able to easily come up with the $100 without having to pander on Kickstarter.

I am not saying some developers don't have a financial hardship, but I think they would still be able to handle the $100 fee. It also can help them to polish their game up even more since there is now a risk that their game may not be accepted. And since there is a financial hardship they may be rushing to get their game out there so they can make money which just screws themselves and the user.

I see what you're saying. I wasn't saying go on Kickstarter. I was saying have a section on Greenlight for people who can't afford it where people can donate to get them into regular Greenlight. I'm sick of Kickstarter...

@Dagbiker: You don't think they can afford 1.67x the price of a single video game ($60)? I would think a dev could simply not buy BL2 this month and focus on making their game.

#26 Posted by TyCobb (1966 posts) -

@wewantsthering said:

@TyCobb said:

@wewantsthering said:

I'm all for it personally, but it would stink if someone was completely broke.

I just thought of something interesting. I'm not sure how this would work or if it's even a good idea, but what if there was a special area for people who can't afford the fee that's in a separate section. If people really thought the game looked really interesting, people could Kickstarter style donate until people donated a total of $100 (still going to Child's Play). Once they hit this marker, it would be dumped into the main Greenlight area. I'm not sure the donatees should get anything. Maybe it's just a neat way to donate to Child's Play. This way there would still be a possibility for people who may have a financial hardship.

We are talking about Developers here. People who have the brains and ability to make a full video game from scratch. I would think they would be able to easily come up with the $100 without having to pander on Kickstarter.

I am not saying some developers don't have a financial hardship, but I think they would still be able to handle the $100 fee. It also can help them to polish their game up even more since there is now a risk that their game may not be accepted. And since there is a financial hardship they may be rushing to get their game out there so they can make money which just screws themselves and the user.

I see what you're saying. I wasn't saying go on Kickstarter. I was saying have a section on Greenlight for people who can't afford it where people can donate to get them into regular Greenlight. I'm sick of Kickstarter...

Okay. Sorry, I misread. This would be like Greenlight for Greenlight?

#27 Posted by CornBREDX (5094 posts) -

It's important. Without it they were getting fake games and nonsense posted. This will reduce that. The 100$ is just to ensure they are posting a real game they intend to profit off of. 
Maybe a bit harsh, but I don't know any other way to keep the trolls from being stupid. A real Dev, indie or not, will pay the 100$. A troll however will not pay 100$ to continue posting racist, stupid, fake, nonsense. 
 
It makes sense to me.

#28 Posted by laserbolts (5317 posts) -

100 is too much even if it's 20 the amount of trolls would decrease to the point that it is barely an issue. Worse case scenario a few idiots pay to troll and it apparently goes to charity. Valve can do no wrong so forget about it right guys?

#29 Edited by Kidavenger (3530 posts) -

I think it's great, $100 is a pittance and more than most will pay for a laugh.

The amount of pure shit on greenlight already is staggering, and makes it really hard to find the worthy games in there.

If your game isn't more 95% done, it shouldn't be on there, this isn't kickstarter.

#30 Posted by BabyChooChoo (4386 posts) -

@wordfalling said:

An absolutely necessary barrier of entry, the internet is full of trolls and most indie devs can swing $100 if it gives them the potential to earn that back many times over.

Agreed. High enough to keep out keep out the idiots, but low enough that any serious developer shouldn't have a problem with it.

#31 Posted by NlGHTCRAWLER (1215 posts) -

If it goes to charity then what the hell is the point of the fee? If people wanted to donate their hard earned money to charity they would just do it.

#32 Posted by thedj93 (1237 posts) -

if an indie video game developer can't afford 100 dollars for publishing they should re-assess their priorities. or at least stack up the cake, it's not an exhorbitant amount....

#33 Posted by psylah (2170 posts) -

It's fine.

$100 is nothing compared to the time and effort it takes to develop a game, a mere pittance.

If you can't afford the $100 dollars, but are spending time making games, you should seriously rethink your priorities.

#34 Posted by Lukeweizer (2644 posts) -

It costs time and money to run Greenlight. A fee is just business.

#35 Posted by wewantsthering (1564 posts) -

@TyCobb said:

@wewantsthering said:

@TyCobb said:

@wewantsthering said:

I'm all for it personally, but it would stink if someone was completely broke.

I just thought of something interesting. I'm not sure how this would work or if it's even a good idea, but what if there was a special area for people who can't afford the fee that's in a separate section. If people really thought the game looked really interesting, people could Kickstarter style donate until people donated a total of $100 (still going to Child's Play). Once they hit this marker, it would be dumped into the main Greenlight area. I'm not sure the donatees should get anything. Maybe it's just a neat way to donate to Child's Play. This way there would still be a possibility for people who may have a financial hardship.

We are talking about Developers here. People who have the brains and ability to make a full video game from scratch. I would think they would be able to easily come up with the $100 without having to pander on Kickstarter.

I am not saying some developers don't have a financial hardship, but I think they would still be able to handle the $100 fee. It also can help them to polish their game up even more since there is now a risk that their game may not be accepted. And since there is a financial hardship they may be rushing to get their game out there so they can make money which just screws themselves and the user.

I see what you're saying. I wasn't saying go on Kickstarter. I was saying have a section on Greenlight for people who can't afford it where people can donate to get them into regular Greenlight. I'm sick of Kickstarter...

Okay. Sorry, I misread. This would be like Greenlight for Greenlight?

Lol. Basically... that's why I qualified saying it may not be a good idea. :-d

#36 Posted by BBAlpert (1438 posts) -

@Kidavenger said:

I think it's great, $100 is a pittance and more than most will pay for a laugh.

The amount of pure shit on greenlight already is staggering, and makes it really hard to find the worthy games in there.

If your game isn't more 95% done, it shouldn't be on there, this isn't kickstarter.

Additionally, if you are not the person that made the game, you shouldn't put up a listing for a game. I've seen several "i didn't make this game, but i played it once and it was really cool and i think it should be on steam" listings... A few even for games that are already being sold on Steam. That has got to stop.

Online
#37 Posted by Dagbiker (6964 posts) -
@BBAlpert

@Kidavenger said:

I think it's great, $100 is a pittance and more than most will pay for a laugh.

The amount of pure shit on greenlight already is staggering, and makes it really hard to find the worthy games in there.

If your game isn't more 95% done, it shouldn't be on there, this isn't kickstarter.

Additionally, if you are not the person that made the game, you shouldn't put up a listing for a game. I've seen several "i didn't make this game, but i played it once and it was really cool and i think it should be on steam" listings... A few even for games that are already being sold on Steam. That has got to stop.

The first part is not true. Green light-shirts Faq clearly states that all games in any stage of development are allowed on steam Greenlight.
#38 Posted by Dixavd (1343 posts) -

I picked 'Other'. While I think some kind of barrier is needed for this, the system itself is what I have a problem with. Putting the release of games to the service via a popularity service is questionable enough, but the fact that it is a lot less predictable than the previous system (sending in an application and having at least a bull-park figure of when they would respond) then I think it is harmful for developers who have to spur on people constantly to vote for them (so they can't get away from the project and start focusing on something else - it will always be stuck at the front of their mind to continue to remind people) but they also have no real understanding of how long they will have to keep it up. This going to be mildly disruptive to normal indie developers, but it is going be very annoying for those who also want to release a title on other platforms as well and want to synchronise them. A developer might have the plans to release a game a game just after they show it at a show (like PAX) but might have to decide "well I can release it on PSN but I can't release it on PC at the same time" meaning their release is diluted a bit a less people can check the game out during the whole that's-new-better-check-it-out phase is going on.

I am not solely against it, but I do think the service is a direction that I don't think Valve should push further into.

#39 Posted by beepmachine (618 posts) -

I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this. It weeds out trolls (unless they are affluent trolls, perish the though) and it's not a very large sum. Just get your gramma to lend it to you if you don't have the hundred. It's just like a college application fee.

#40 Posted by Dagbiker (6964 posts) -

Sucking phone

#41 Posted by fox01313 (5069 posts) -

Hopefully they also add in that the game needs to be in beta or mostly done to be up on greenlight. I was going through there & saw many that were pre-alpha which is a horrible way to find out if people are interested in your game idea. Make the game however it is you want to then put it up there & other sites. So much can change in a game from pre-alpha to release that it's a horrible way to try to sell a game on a popularity poll of greenlight. Also personally I'd expect with the number of people using steam & greenlight's voting, that if a game gets voted for steam that the game is pretty much done & will be up on steam in a year or less, with games being in an alpha state going up on greenlight, it could take years for small indie games to get done & by then most of everyone interested will have forgotten about the game (or not recognize it when it does come out).

#42 Posted by Ravenlight (8040 posts) -

Why are some people saying that 100 clams is too expensive? If you've got a solid game you want to get on Steam, I can't imagine $100 would be the one thing that absolutely holds you back.

#43 Posted by kitsunezeta (84 posts) -

I'm surprised nobody mentioned it's just a $100 fee for the ability to submit things to greenlight, not a $100 fee per submission, which is a bit of a difference. Abuse of it also gets that access revoked and a steam community ban.

#45 Posted by NordicGamer (14 posts) -

@WinterSnowblind said:

Does this mean less iPhone level shovelware? If so, it's positive.

No, there will still be plenty iPhone level shovelware will be submitted to Greenlight. Just not be insane amounts of sub-iPhone level shovelware.

100$ a year is the price of being in the apple developer program, same thing with the XNA Creators Club, so 100$ is basically the minimum price of entry across the board. The big difference here is that the fee is per game(which is smart) and for charity(which is great).

#46 Posted by zyn (2591 posts) -

I think it should have been, the developer pays Valve the $100 as a deposit. When the developer officially releases the game on Steam, they get the $100 back. If the developer doesn't release the game, Valve will donate the money to charity.

#47 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

It seems reasonable, especially when someone wants a company to even consider selling their product.

#48 Posted by Dagbiker (6964 posts) -

It's not 100$ to get on steam it's 100$ for a 1 in >700 chance to get in steam

#49 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

$100 is only expensive to people who have never had a job.

#50 Posted by Kidavenger (3530 posts) -

@Dagbiker said:

@BBAlpert

@Kidavenger said:

I think it's great, $100 is a pittance and more than most will pay for a laugh.

The amount of pure shit on greenlight already is staggering, and makes it really hard to find the worthy games in there.

If your game isn't more 95% done, it shouldn't be on there, this isn't kickstarter.

Additionally, if you are not the person that made the game, you shouldn't put up a listing for a game. I've seen several "i didn't make this game, but i played it once and it was really cool and i think it should be on steam" listings... A few even for games that are already being sold on Steam. That has got to stop.

The first part is not true. Green light-shirts Faq clearly states that all games in any stage of development are allowed on steam Greenlight.

Whether steam allows it isn't the point, if you put concept art up with nothing to back it up, nobody is going to vote it up, you are just wasting everyone's time and drastically reducing your chances of actually getting accepted.

Any game that doesn't look done or close to it gets a down vote from me.