Developers Mixed on Greenlight's $100 Submission Fee

#251 Posted by Brackynews (3966 posts) -

“If there was a fee for the standard submission process, where Valve team reviewed each game, Greenlight would not be needed at all..."

This sums up my befuddlement. Have I got this right? 1) Valve couldn't keep up with submissions. 2) Decided not to charge a fee. 3) Went to the trouble of making a user "pre-screen" process. 4) Decided to charge a fee to pre-filter the pre-screens?

Huh?

#252 Posted by bybeach (4602 posts) -

@Konig2540 said:

@StarFoxA said:

I'm going to be honest... if a game developer isn't willing to bet $100 on their game's success, then it doesn't belong on Steam.

This.

Yeah it's that gawdawful uncool thing, money. Nice little filter though, and for a few reasons it says what you think of your game. Walmart might think you are being a dick, but that is because the money is going to charity, not for occupying space on aisle 5. Where is the profit in that when you are bouncing off the bottom..and scheming for the top,... figuratively speaking.?

Sorry money has to be the filter though..I guess that is just realism. I wish there was another gate.

#253 Posted by Bombzinski (205 posts) -

"Requiring devs to pay 100$ is absurd, there is a ton of other options that would be much more fair and efficient, such as."

- Michael O'Reily, the "I wanna be the guy" guy.

#254 Posted by dvorak (1495 posts) -

It works for the Something Awful forums to keep shitheads and 12-year-olds out. If it's your lifelong dream to develop commercially sold games, then you can afford the $100. If you're just bullshitting around, then maybe you think twice. It's just a speed bump to keep idiots and people who would be cluttering up the service. A very small barrier to entry when you consider the potential returns if your game is any good.

#255 Posted by Incapability (193 posts) -

I've been looking on Greenlight, and man, there's... there's some garbage in there as it is now. If you want me to sort through your games, you'd best have paid to ensure my time is going to be well spent.

"HEART POUNDING ACTION WITH BATS DRAWN IN MS PAINT. PICK UP THE GOLD BARSSSSSSS. CAN YOU HANDLE THIS POORLY DESIGNED PIECE OF JUNK GAME?"

#256 Posted by Xeiphyer (5589 posts) -

Honestly, $100 isn't that much money. If you spend months of your time developing a game, you can probably afford to front the extremely reasonable price to get access to Steam.

Hell, I bet you could get donations from people looking to play the game and cover the cost that way. And if you can't find 20 people to pitch in $5 each, your game probably isn't going to get on Steam anyways.

Yes Indie devs are naturally poor, but no, $100 is not a lot of money.

#257 Posted by mewarmo990 (821 posts) -

@Brackynews said:

“If there was a fee for the standard submission process, where Valve team reviewed each game, Greenlight would not be needed at all..."

This sums up my befuddlement. Have I got this right? 1) Valve couldn't keep up with submissions. 2) Decided not to charge a fee. 3) Went to the trouble of making a user "pre-screen" process. 4) Decided to charge a fee to pre-filter the pre-screens?

Huh?

Wait, I didn't know the traditional submission process was free? Either way, irrelevant. More like:

1) Valve can't keep up with the volume of submissions. 2) Decides to "crowdsource" product evaluation to save on manpower (money). 3) In addition to games, garbage and internet trolling fill Greenlight. 4) Fee implemented to dis-incentivize non-serious submissions.

Emphasis on number 4. It doesn't necessarily stop low quality games from being submitted to Steam - Greenlight is supposed to sort that out. It only dissuades people from submitting stuff that never should have been there in the first place. The difference is the crowd-screening - without that, you would basically have the Xbox Live Indie Games marketplace which is filled with stuff that passed submission requirements, but is poor quality in the vast majority of cases.

#258 Posted by mewarmo990 (821 posts) -

@jakob187 said:

Greenlight is meant to curb an increasing problem for Steam. The company cannot realistically judge every game that’s submitted for consideration.

Bullshit.

We are talking about a company that runs the #1 way for people to play games on PC in the 21st century, the developers of nothing but successful franchises that sells millions of copies worldwide, and have recently been rumored to be working on hardware...which Gabe Newell all but saying "yeah, we basically are".

Valve can't hire enough people to test the games for approval? Bullshit.

Strawman. It's not that they can't hire people. It's more that it isn't cost-effective to do so.

For Valve and digital distribution, the line here blurs between traditional classifications of game publisher (decide whether to pick up and fund/distribute a game, for a return) and platform owner (enforce certification reqs and take their own cut/fees).

Assuming they are treating Steam as the primary avenue of distribution, what these indies want is for Steam (Valve) to publish and distribute their game. Historically, Valve has only published their own games and acted as a middleman for third-party content. You're talking about a different level of resource investment that they probably don't want to get into at this point. There's also the risk of competing too much with publishers (see EA) who only let their competitor Valve do what it does because Steam is so damn popular.

#259 Posted by Erk_Forever (157 posts) -

What people should really be complaining about are the douche-bags who caused this sort of thing to be necessary.

#260 Posted by leebmx (1856 posts) -

@Bartz said:

I don't see why they couldn't just make the $100 a deposit of some sort instead of a fee.

Great Idea.

#261 Posted by Slydotcom (84 posts) -

This is simply to keep the non serious dudes away..

#262 Posted by Terjay (791 posts) -

@Xeiphyer said:

Honestly, $100 isn't that much money. If you spend months of your time developing a game, you can probably afford to front the extremely reasonable price to get access to Steam.

This. And if this seems like some insanely impossible sum, one might probably think about doing something different for a living.

#263 Posted by Sunjammer (881 posts) -

If you can't afford to spend a hundred bucks on your game, get the fuck out of the business.

#264 Posted by MeruFM (22 posts) -

To have the skills to make a worthwhile game also means having the skills to make 100 bucks in half a day's work.

Freelance out your graphic/programming/audio production talents. If no one on your team has those type of skills, how are you making a game at all?

#265 Edited by lokilaufey (237 posts) -

I've seen suggestions of halving the fee, or making it a deposit. I could get on board with that.

That said, and not to sound unsympathetic (this comes from someone who is hard off and still donates money), if people are THAT hard up for $100 either: Getting a game on Steam shouldn't be their priority right now, or they've learned how to scrape together spare cash by this point. I used to supplement my income by cleaning tubs and toilets for elderly people who couldn't physically do it themselves. It wasn't glorious but it was money.

I actually find it a little insulting how much people have been selling short both indie devs and people who aren't privileged with an abundance of income. That said, I would happily contribute money out of my measly salary to help indies foot the Greenlight cost. I donate yearly to Child's Play anyway, so it's two birds with one stone.

#266 Posted by Amafi (429 posts) -

I don't see the issue.

Steam is not supposed to be a place where someone reading a book on XNA puts up their silly little experiments, it's the de facto standard in digital distribution of PC games. It's not like getting your janky ass breakout clone you spent all weekend on on steam is some kind of entitlement owed to you.

Make that shit $1000, and really clean it up, get rid of some of the stuff that has no place on the service, and keep the devs who are actually professionals and have the proper levels of talent and dedication to belong there.

The ones who don't can always find some other way of getting their dreck out there, Desura will take ANYTHING.

#267 Posted by Amafi (429 posts) -

.@dvorak said:

It works for the Something Awful forums to keep shitheads and 12-year-olds out. If it's your lifelong dream to develop commercially sold games, then you can afford the $100. If you're just bullshitting around, then maybe you think twice. It's just a speed bump to keep idiots and people who would be cluttering up the service. A very small barrier to entry when you consider the potential returns if your game is any good.

I have literally 50+ awful, awful projects on various disks around the house. Breakout clones, endless runners, match 3 and memory games, 3rd person action game thing with no actual gameplay mechanics I did in unity, etc.

Some of it is of the same quality as shit I've seen on Greenlight recently and I just can't understand what kind of person thinks submitting something of such poor quality is a good idea. Gotta be some kind of mental illness.

#268 Posted by jasondesante (586 posts) -

so 2 developers had something negative to say and the others all made total sense. Is this a misleading title? I dunno maybe. But I know for sure the $100 fee is no big deal at all. If you can't get fans excited enough about your game to give you $100, then you probably will never get accepted on Steam anyways. So all these people are complaining about nothing.

#269 Posted by drag (1223 posts) -

pretty shitty comments in here ...

poor people couldn't possibly create anything of any value

#270 Posted by Amafi (429 posts) -

@drag said:

pretty shitty comments in here ...

poor people couldn't possibly create anything of any value

Sure they could. And poor people with the skills to make a worthwhile computer game also have a myriad ways of getting a hold of $100 if they really want it. If they don't want it that badly, there are PLENTY of other ways to get people to see your game. Just indie-gogo or kickstarter the $100. Steal the money from your family and friends. Dedicated people will find a way.

Someone just fucking around in ms paint and unity won't, and the service will be better for it.

#271 Posted by mabber36 (128 posts) -

I don't believe in charity, so I would never pay this fee to get on steam

#272 Posted by valrog (3671 posts) -

Greenlight is terrible and will not solve anything. Also, the amount of votes required is too damn high. What Valve should have done is put a fee on their old submission process, and everyone would've won.

Valve made Greenlight because they couldn't handle thousands of entries. A submission fee would've reduced that number drastically. Those who were serious and actually had something of value would just invest that money and almost certainly get on Steam. Success on both sides. What Greenlight does is basically the same, but with one huge flaw. None of the games will reach the ridiculous number of votes required and thus not get even a look from Valve and thus being denied its presence on Steam. Loss for everyone involved.

#273 Posted by Amafi (429 posts) -

@valrog said:

Greenlight is terrible and will not solve anything. Also, the amount of votes required is too damn high. What Valve should have done is put a fee on their old submission process, and everyone would've won.

Valve made Greenlight because they couldn't handle thousands of entries. A submission fee would've reduced that number drastically. Those who were serious and actually had something of value would just invest that money and almost certainly get on Steam. Success on both sides. What Greenlight does is basically the same, but with one huge flaw. None of the games will reach the ridiculous number of votes required and thus not get even a look from Valve and thus being denied its presence on Steam. Loss for everyone involved.

If that really is how this turns out, they'll either change how they do things, or some other service will come around and steal their indie business. I'm pretty sure the old review process is still around in some way, shape or form, I don't think they'd want to crowdsource the platform completely.

What is completely clear is that the internet is not responsible enough to just be able to do whatever they please on any service. The people from reddit/SA/4chan will find a way to ruin absolutely ANYTHING even remotely worthwhile if there's no moderation.

#274 Edited by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

Let's all sing the praises of Valve, even though they perpetually act foolish and irrational ever since Steam became popular (see: this, essentially banning any developer who wants to sell DLC directly to fans, anything gabe newell says about consoles, etc.). You know, cuz just charging prospective developers an applicant fee was through the old system was too confusing for Valve, right? Point is, maybe a handful of games from SteamGreenlight will ever make it on to Steam. The number of votes necessary seems outrageous. And the $100 fee for the illusion of a chance of making it onto Steam is equally outrageous. Sure $100 will stop almost every single fake game from entering submission, but guess what? $20 or $25 would've done the exact same thing. And those two or three that would've been entered at $20 would have been so rare that most people would never know they existed, and those that did see it would have villified the submissions and buried them from every seeing the light of day. The entire culture of Steam Greenlight would have taken care of those two or three submissions because it would have been taken seriously. Obviously the culture Steam Greenlight was introduced in couldn't do this because Valve isn't all that bright and amazingly forgot how reality works in regards to the internet. $20 or $25, even if it was per submission, is much more sane and rational than what Valve did, which was pure idiocy (again).

Honestly, what does it say about Valve when XBox Live Indie Games submission system is much more fair to both parties than Steam Greenlight? Isn't that just sad?

#275 Posted by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

@dvorak said:

It works for the Something Awful forums to keep shitheads and 12-year-olds out. If it's your lifelong dream to develop commercially sold games, then you can afford the $100. If you're just bullshitting around, then maybe you think twice. It's just a speed bump to keep idiots and people who would be cluttering up the service. A very small barrier to entry when you consider the potential returns if your game is any good.

You're not paying $100 to get your commercially sold game out there; that's the problem. Your paying $100 for the illusion that you can make it on Steam. It's a total farce and unless your game is an XBL calibur and budget-title, you're never gonna make it on into Steam through Greenlight, and those games with those budgets would've made it to Steam through Valve for free anyway.

Motoki from Steam's forums makes a good point:

The other thing I find kind of amusing is how so much is judged on screenshots and there's always a lot of negative commentary on games that don't look like some top notch AAA FPS.

If Super Meat Boy, Minecraft and Terraria were completely unheard of put up on Greenlight I'd bet anything they'd get a lot of 'this sucks!' 'needs better grafx!' 'downvoted' comments.
#276 Edited by Amafi (429 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff said:

@dvorak said:

It works for the Something Awful forums to keep shitheads and 12-year-olds out. If it's your lifelong dream to develop commercially sold games, then you can afford the $100. If you're just bullshitting around, then maybe you think twice. It's just a speed bump to keep idiots and people who would be cluttering up the service. A very small barrier to entry when you consider the potential returns if your game is any good.

You're not paying $100 to get your commercially sold game out there; that's the problem. Your paying $100 for the illusion that you can make it on Steam. It's a total farce and unless your game is an XBL calibur and budget-title, you're never gonna make it on into Steam through Greenlight, and those games with those budgets would've made it to Steam through Valve for free anyway.

Motoki from Steam's forums makes a good point:

The other thing I find kind of amusing is how so much is judged on screenshots and there's always a lot of negative commentary on games that don't look like some top notch AAA FPS.

If Super Meat Boy, Minecraft and Terraria were completely unheard of put up on Greenlight I'd bet anything they'd get a lot of 'this sucks!' 'needs better grafx!' 'downvoted' comments.

Super Meat Boy, Minecraft and Terraria all did very well outside of steam. SMB had a fair bit of word of mouth because of the meat boy flash game, Minecraft has never been on steam and terraria wasn't on there from the start either.

Which kind of invalidates the whole concern that not getting on steam dooms a project to failure. If this Greenlight process is too hard to get through, it'll either change or indie devs will go to another service that is easier to work with, and the kind of people who want amateurish sidescrolling physics based puzzlers will follow the games.

I guess my big thing is I don't know if this will be effective, or if the service will be any good for surfacing good indie games, but who gives a shit? That's not what Steam has been, and it does not need to be it either for indie games to thrive. Just look at stuff like Minecraft. That guy was a millionaire several times over before his game hit any kind of distribution service.

#277 Posted by Icaria (91 posts) -

People spend $99 in TF2 all the time to send dumb jokes via in-game 'system messages', I somehow doubt $1 more is going to deter a lot of stupidity.

#278 Edited by King9999 (604 posts) -

“Valve got disillusioned quickly and got reminded what the internet is.”

This quote right here. Never mind the $100 fee...what about the people who actually vote on these games? They could troll and keep votes down just because they can. As a developer myself, I want to be sure that people who are voting on my game is sincere. The $100 is made more unattractive by that scenario. There should be some sort of screening process so that people aren't downvoting for kicks. It's like voters in an election; not just anyone can or should be able to vote without proper ID. By the way, saying it should cost $1000 or more is pretty ignorant, and is a true sign that you're not a struggling game dev. And if you are, then you pay $1000.

#279 Posted by valrog (3671 posts) -

@King9999 said:

“Valve got disillusioned quickly and got reminded what the internet is.”

This quote right here. Never mind the $100 fee...what about the people who actually vote on these games? They could troll and keep votes down just because they can. As a developer myself, I want to be sure that people who are voting on my game is sincere. There should be some sort of screening process so that people aren't downvoting for kicks. It's like voters in an election; not just anyone can or should be able to vote without proper ID.

It is said that downvotes do not negate the upvotes.

#280 Edited by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

@Amafi said:

Super Meat Boy, Minecraft and Terraria all did very well outside of steam. SMB had a fair bit of word of mouth because of the meat boy flash game, Minecraft has never been on steam and terraria wasn't on there from the start either.

Which kind of invalidates the whole concern that not getting on steam dooms a project to failure. If this Greenlight process is too hard to get through, it'll either change or indie devs will go to another service that is easier to work with, and the kind of people who want amateurish sidescrolling physics based puzzlers will follow the games.

I guess my big thing is I don't know if this will be effective, or if the service will be any good for surfacing good indie games, but who gives a shit? That's not what Steam has been, and it does not need to be it either for indie games to thrive. Just look at stuff like Minecraft. That guy was a millionaire several times over before his game hit any kind of distribution service.

The debate has never been about whether indie games could thrive with or without Steam. The debate is about how stupid Valve has handled this entire issue for both sides, and the answer is remarkably horrible. Valve dropped a giant deuce in the punch bowl that was Greenlight. It's pathetic really. But the worst part of it, as I stated above, is that basically this $100 admittance fee is basically pissing money away as virtually no game will reach enough votes to make it onto Steam, making this whole thing fraudulent at best. And for no reason whatsoever. Valve could have done the exact same barrier of entry at $20-25, where at least the illusion of making it to Steam is worth it, and removed just as many trolls at $100.

BTW, the notoriety of Minecraft making it big proves the point that there is a lack of a viable avenue for most indie devs. The fact that there is only less than a handful of actual indie games that are successes when there should be dozens basically proves that the opposite of what you just said.

In short: The fee is way too high. The requirements are way too high. Valve fucked up. This is not debatable by rational human beings.

#281 Posted by Amafi (429 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Amafi said:

Super Meat Boy, Minecraft and Terraria all did very well outside of steam. SMB had a fair bit of word of mouth because of the meat boy flash game, Minecraft has never been on steam and terraria wasn't on there from the start either.

Which kind of invalidates the whole concern that not getting on steam dooms a project to failure. If this Greenlight process is too hard to get through, it'll either change or indie devs will go to another service that is easier to work with, and the kind of people who want amateurish sidescrolling physics based puzzlers will follow the games.

I guess my big thing is I don't know if this will be effective, or if the service will be any good for surfacing good indie games, but who gives a shit? That's not what Steam has been, and it does not need to be it either for indie games to thrive. Just look at stuff like Minecraft. That guy was a millionaire several times over before his game hit any kind of distribution service.

The debate has never been about whether indie games could thrive with or without Steam. The debate is about how stupid Valve has handled this entire issue for both sides, and the answer is remarkably horrible. Valve dropped a giant deuce in the punch bowl that was Greenlight. It's pathetic really. But the worst part of it, as I stated above, is that basically this $100 admittance fee is basically pissing money away as virtually no game will reach enough votes to make it onto Steam, making this whole thing fraudulent at best. And for no reason whatsoever. Valve could have done the exact same barrier of entry at $20-25, where at least the illusion of making it to Steam is worth it, and removed just as many trolls at $100.

BTW, the notoriety of Minecraft making it big proves the point that there is a lack of a viable avenue for most indie devs. The fact that there is only less than a handful of actual indie games that are successes when there should be dozens basically proves that the opposite of what you just said.

In short: The fee is way too high. The requirements are way too high. Valve fucked up. This is not debatable by rational human beings.

They started Greenlight. That service did not exist a few days ago. Then the internet as a whole shit all over the service, because the average internet user is about as funny as dick cancer. Then they changed the terms of the service to reduce the clutter and unfunny joke submissions. And already people are bitching about this like it has completely ruined a service THAT WAS NOT EVEN WORKING YET. That's the part that bugs me. That, and the "but indie devs are useless loners, they'll never be able to make $100!" bullshit.

I wouldn't have had a problem if they made it $1000. Make the devs work for it, and raise the overall quality of products on the platform. Someone unable to get that kind of backing for their project probably does not have a product that is worth playing.

#282 Posted by ShadowKirby (21 posts) -

Is this a gaming forum or some kind of libertarian/Ayn Rand fan convention? "Come on poor people (a.k.a. parasites) pick yourself up and work a bit harder (because that ALWAYS means making more money) so that maybe one day a bunch of people may judge your art based on a few screenshot so that maybe the great and generous curator at Valve may judge it too and allow you to be on their great service. I mean come one, making games is all about running that great American capitalist machine you guys!" -xXxAynRandFan420xXx

#283 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Why is everybody acting like $100 is some astronomically high number?

#284 Posted by Amafi (429 posts) -

@ShadowKirby said:

Is this a gaming forum or some kind of libertarian/Ayn Rand fan convention? "Come on poor people (a.k.a. parasites) pick yourself up and work a bit harder (because that ALWAYS means making more money) so that maybe one day a bunch of people may judge your art based on a few screenshot so that maybe the great and generous curator at Valve may judge it too and allow you to be on their great service. I mean come one, making games is all about running that great American capitalist machine you guys!" -xXxAynRandFan420xXx

What the fuck are you on about?

$100 is not a big post in the development of any game worth putting on steam, even a game made by a single dude. That's a FACT. They are giving the money to motherfucking CHARITY, so I don't see the same thing you do, I guess.

Also, if a game is not on steam, that does not mean that game can not reach a large number of people and sell well. So it's not like anyone's saying people who can't get $100 together can't make games. Getting $100 together doesn't mean work harder, it means don't buy other people's games for a year. Don't get a new pair of shoes, shit like that. If your dream is to get your game out there and on steam, and you've spent as much money and time as it takes to make a game that's worth trying to sell to people outside of wiiware and the itunes appstore, saving up for a few more months isn't going to be that big a deal. Besides, it's more time to get word of mouth going so you can actually stand a chance of getting enough votes when you do get on there.

#285 Edited by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

@Amafi said:

They started Greenlight. That service did not exist a few days ago. Then the internet as a whole shit all over the service, because the average internet user is about as funny as dick cancer. Then they changed the terms of the service to reduce the clutter and unfunny joke submissions. And already people are bitching about this like it has completely ruined a service THAT WAS NOT EVEN WORKING YET. That's the part that bugs me. That, and the "but indie devs are useless loners, they'll never be able to make $100!" bullshit.

Yeah, they started it with zero foresight or basic logic and common sense. The internet reacted to Valve's idiocy with their own idiocy. Valve then self destructs the service to laughably moronic levels. Valve created and ruined their own service in less than a week all because they're not smart enough to understand how to handle the submissions they were getting from indie developers. And it would be fine if $100 got your game automatically on to Steam (obviously as long as it doesn't infringe on anything), but it doesn't. As a matter of fact, it's practically impossible to get your game on Steam.

@Amafi said:

I wouldn't have had a problem if they made it $1000. Make the devs work for it, and raise the overall quality of products on the platform. Someone unable to get that kind of backing for their project probably does not have a product that is worth playing.

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard in my life.

No, you're right, indie devs should just kill themseves. *rolls eyes*

Have fun playing nothing but shitty CoD clones because those are the only games that can get any funding and then bitching because every game is the same, not even realizing this is exactly what you wanted.

#286 Posted by insanejedi (650 posts) -

@CL60 said:

Why is everybody acting like $100 is some astronomically high number?

Because it's a bad deal when your comparing it to the android/ios/even Xbox Indie game store where you can have your game published, bought and played gauranteed rather than paying $100 for the CHANCE of having several hundreds of misinformed players voting on whether or not your game is going to go on the store page?

#287 Edited by Amafi (429 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Amafi said:

They started Greenlight. That service did not exist a few days ago. Then the internet as a whole shit all over the service, because the average internet user is about as funny as dick cancer. Then they changed the terms of the service to reduce the clutter and unfunny joke submissions. And already people are bitching about this like it has completely ruined a service THAT WAS NOT EVEN WORKING YET. That's the part that bugs me. That, and the "but indie devs are useless loners, they'll never be able to make $100!" bullshit.

Yeah, they started it with zero foresight or basic logic and common sense. The internet reacted to Valve's idiocy with their own idiocy. Valve then self destructs the service to laughably moronic levels. Valve created and ruined their own service in less than a week all because they're not smart enough to understand how to handle the submissions they were getting from indie developers. And it would be fine if $100 got your game automatically on to Steam (obviously as long as it doesn't infringe on anything), but it doesn't. As a matter of fact, it's practically impossible to get your game on Steam.

@Amafi said:

I wouldn't have had a problem if they made it $1000. Make the devs work for it, and raise the overall quality of products on the platform. Someone unable to get that kind of backing for their project probably does not have a product that is worth playing.

That's the biggest load of bullshit I've ever heard in my life.

No, you're right, indie devs should just kill themseves. *rolls eyes*

Have fun playing nothing but shitty CoD clones because those are the only games that can get any funding and then bitching because every game is the same, not even realizing this is exactly what you wanted.

So, you really want Steam to just be for any game made by someone who can cough up $100? I've got probably 15 things here that can charitably be called "games" that do not infringe and will compile and run without crashing all that much, but each and every one of them would lower the average quality of the Steam catalog, and I don't see how Steam would be a better service if I could just put them all up for sale. I want them to stop people like me from putting shit up.

Also funny thing about the CoD thing, I'm the only person I know with even a passing interest in gaming that has not played any CoD game since the first one came out on PC. So you can at least not blame me for that shit.

I just don't care if I buy my indie games directly from the developer (like I did with minecraft, Overgrowth and Cobalt) or from desura or gog or steam.If steam wants to have fewer titles that might move more numbers, that's fine. If one service fucks up, another will show up to fill the hole. And Steam was never about being the ultimate indie distribution point, and I don't see how them accepting anything anyone submits without any quality control beyond "it runs and it does not rip off Disney" would make it a better service for users or developers. The more shit you have to wade through to find the good stuff, the less people are inclined to look at all. Just look at indie live games, I'm sure there are one or two titles on there that are pretty damn good, but no one will ever play them unless they get on another service, because anybody with XNA, $99 a year and some halfassed game idea can clog up the service with their shit.

#288 Edited by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

@Amafi: If the price is going to be insane, might as well make the standards so low that a dev can justify it. That's exactly why $20-25 fee is exactly the right cost with Greenlights current requirements as I've said all along across mltiple threads. You've yet to refute this point. Valve wins, community wins, and developers don't lose as badly to what is essentially a shitty popularity contest that's is based on everything except the quality of the gameplay.

At least XBIG is honest about what it is; Greenlight in its current state is a fucking scam.

#289 Posted by Erk_Forever (157 posts) -

I get pissed off when I have to pay for advertising as well.

#290 Posted by TheTravis (39 posts) -

I know a lot of people have been calling this fee exclusionary and saying that it's keeping people without a lot of money from making games, but I don't see it at all. This fee isn't keeping anyone who can't afford it from making a game, it just means that they might not be able to get it on Steam immediately.

I look at it this way. A band I play in put out an album earlier this year, and putting it on iTunes and other major stores cost money. That doesn't mean that we couldn't have put it out if we couldn't have afforded that, it just means that we would've had to wait and sell it by other means until we could. I know it's not quite the same thing because Greenlight isn't a sure thing, but I think the basic principle still stands.

#291 Posted by Amafi (429 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Amafi: If the price is going to be insane, might as well make the standards so low that a dev can justify it. That's exactly why $20-25 fee is exactly the right cost with Greenlights current requirements as I've said all along across mltiple threads. You've yet to refute this point. Valve wins, community wins, and developers don't lose as badly to what is essentially a shitty popularity contest that's is based on everything except the quality of the gameplay.

At least XBIG is honest about what it is; Greenlight in its current state is a fucking scam.

So it's not a question of principles, just the dollar amount? Excluding people who can't afford $100 is heinous, but excluding people who can't afford $20 is fine, because fuck those guys?

And I don't see how it's misleading at all, they've been very clear that this is not some guaranteed way of ending up in the Steam store. As far as I can tell you get exactly what it says on the tin, and I don't really see how you can call that a scam.

#292 Edited by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

@Amafi said:

@TPoppaPuff said:

@Amafi: If the price is going to be insane, might as well make the standards so low that a dev can justify it. That's exactly why $20-25 fee is exactly the right cost with Greenlights current requirements as I've said all along across mltiple threads. You've yet to refute this point. Valve wins, community wins, and developers don't lose as badly to what is essentially a shitty popularity contest that's is based on everything except the quality of the gameplay.

At least XBIG is honest about what it is; Greenlight in its current state is a fucking scam.

So it's not a question of principles, just the dollar amount? Excluding people who can't afford $100 is heinous, but excluding people who can't afford $20 is fine, because fuck those guys?

And I don't see how it's misleading at all, they've been very clear that this is not some guaranteed way of ending up in the Steam store. As far as I can tell you get exactly what it says on the tin, and I don't really see how you can call that a scam.

Yes. Exactly. It's perfectly reasonable to not be able to spend $100, an amount that for adults who live on their own, make car payments, loans, etc. can't justify spending because they know that spending such an amount is extremely irresponsible, given that in many cases that is more than someones monthly allowance on entertainment or even two month's of discretionary spending. Twenty dollars, however, can be justified by rational adults because it does not break the bank on a 1-2% at best chance of making it onto Steam. And if you have less than $20 in discretionary funds (which includes fast food, btw), then you seriously do need to prioritize your time and should not even think about Greenlight, because if you can't afford $20, the odds are you're living beyond your means anyways and need to get that life issue addressed first and foremost. They are probably living in the red, and therefore should probably cut out their internet to save money so that they can eat, making that argument completely null.

And you're right, it's not a scam, but it is morally depraved. Valve is like Robin Hood in this situation, but instead of stealing from the rich, they are stealing from the hopeful and almost as poor. Considering justifying a $100 fee is exponentially harder than justifying a $20 fee, is it smarter for them to charge ten people $100, making just $1000 and ten potential games, maybe one of which comes out, or is it smarter for them to charge 100 people $20, making $2000 and 100 potential games, maybe ten of which come out? In what situation does anybody win in the former compared to the latter? You tell me.

#293 Posted by CircleNine (380 posts) -

Steam is still looking through the games that get posted to see what they like and think is good. They're going to be accepting games that don't get whatever the magical number of votes is to reach 100%. Even reaching 100% doesn't guarantee you a spot on the store. Apple and Microsoft both charge similar fees to develop for iOS/XBLIG, and with iOS its a recurring yearly fee. The reason why people are willing to pay this fee is because Steam remains to be a pretty exclusive platform to be released on. If you don't think that you can get enough people excited about your game to even start a kickstarter or something similar to raise that $100 if you aren't able to afford it yourself, your game probably isn't worth putting up onto Steam in the first place.

@TPoppaPuff: Valve isn't making money from requiring people to pay a one time $100 fee to be able to upload things to greenlight, it's being given to charity. It isn't about them making money from the fee, its about them getting rid of/severely limiting shitty joke and spam submissions. And the dozens of people who daily posted greenlight projects about how cool it would be to see Minecraft on Steam.

And I win, because I want Steam to remain the place of (relatively) high quality games, rather than it just becoming a dumping ground for the low effort low quality cash grab shit that you see dumped onto XBLIG.

#294 Edited by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

@CircleNine said:

Steam is still looking through the games that get posted to see what they like and think is good. They're going to be accepting games that don't get whatever the magical number of votes is to reach 100%. Even reaching 100% doesn't guarantee you a spot on the store. Apple and Microsoft both charge similar fees to develop for iOS/XBLIG, and with iOS its a recurring yearly fee. The reason why people are willing to pay this fee is because Steam remains to be a pretty exclusive platform to be released on. If you don't think that you can get enough people excited about your game to even start a kickstarter or something similar to raise that $100 if you aren't able to afford it yourself, your game probably isn't worth putting up onto Steam in the first place.

@TPoppaPuff: Valve isn't making money from requiring people to pay a one time $100 fee to be able to upload things to greenlight, it's being given to charity. It isn't about them making money from the fee, its about them getting rid of/severely limiting shitty joke and spam submissions. And the dozens of people who daily posted greenlight projects about how cool it would be to see Minecraft on Steam.

And I win, because I want Steam to remain the place of (relatively) high quality games, rather than it just becoming a dumping ground for the low effort low quality cash grab shit that you see dumped onto XBLIG.

That is the shittiest argument anyone can ever make. I'm sick of hearing that. You can literally make the best game ever that everyone would love if they actually played it, but if you can't sell it to other people based on hype alone then suddenly the best game ever "probably isn't worth putting up on Steam in the first place?" That's bullshit. Getting a handful of people to take a chance on playing your game then having word of mouth propel the game is how indie games gain traction, not how much you spend on trailers. That's a big difference between indie games and big budget titles, and considering Greenlight is about indie titles and not big budget titles, that means very clearly that they are going about it all wrong and have created a system that is fundamently flawed and counterintuitive to it's own purpose, unless that purpose actually only was, "We're Valve, leave us the fuck alone, go annoy Greenlight instead."

I will say it again: $20 gets rid of virtually just as many shitty joke and spam submissions as $100. Nowconsidering justifying a $100 fee is exponentially harder than justifying a $20 fee, is it smarter for them to charge ten people $100, making just $1000 and ten potential games, maybe one of which comes out, or is it smarter for them to charge 100 people $20, making $2000 and 100 potential games, maybe ten of which come out? In what situation does anybody win in the former compared to the latter? You tell me. You lose.

And a lot of Steam is comprised of low quality cash grab shit made with bigger budgets but just as boring. XBLIG is filled with shovelware, but at least their shovelware admits to being shovelware, whereas Steam has tons of shovelware with licenses behind them. Now which is a bigger cash grab? The shitty game made by one guy because he wanted to make his game, poor as it may be, or the shitty game that was only created to sell the license, a game in which afterwards the develoopers admit it was a low quality cash grab?

#295 Edited by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

@CircleNine said:

If you don't think that you can get enough people excited about your game to even start a kickstarter or something similar to raise that $100 if you aren't able to afford it yourself, your game probably isn't worth putting up onto Steam in the first place.

That's why PR positions exists in the games industry right? Because developers make great advertisers? If we've learned anything the past couple years, most recently from the Tomb Raider developers, it's that developers are the WORST at creating positive buzz for their products. Arguably they are consistently the worst salesman of their own products than any manufacturer of any other product.

#296 Posted by JukeBoxJosh (30 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff said:

That's why PR positions exists in the games industry right? Because developers make great advertisers? If we've learned anything the past couple years, most recently from the Tomb Raider developers, it's that developers are the WORST at creating positive buzz for their products. Arguably they are consistently the worst salesman of their own products than any manufacturer of any other product.

What about all the indie games that get their buzz by releasing videos basically saying "Here's my game, here's what makes it neat."

I will say it again: $20 gets rid of virtually just as many shitty joke and spam submissions as $100. Nowconsidering justifying a $100 fee is exponentially harder than justifying a $20 fee, is it smarter for them to charge ten people $100, making just $1000 and ten potential games, maybe one of which comes out, or is it smarter for them to charge 100 people $20, making $2000 and 100 potential games, maybe ten of which come out? In what situation does anybody win in the former compared to the latter? You tell me. You lose.

What about Google Play? I bet you could make a pretty good argument that at $25 there's still tons of awful apps, and that's more expensive than your plan. Also, if I understand correctly, the previous method to submit to Steam is still there, this just serves a different purpose.

And a lot of Steam is comprised of low quality cash grab shit made with bigger budgets but just as boring. XBLIG is filled with shovelware, but at least their shovelware admits to being shovelware, whereas Steam has tons of shovelware with licenses behind them. Now which is a bigger cash grab? The shitty game made by one guy because he wanted to make his game, poor as it may be, or the shitty game that was only created to sell the license, a game in which afterwards the develoopers admit it was a low quality cash grab?

I don't understand what you mean by this. I've seen you post this numerous times, but you don't give examples. Could you please elaborate?

#297 Posted by JoeyRavn (4886 posts) -

Black Mesa Source just got Greenlit. It will be interesting to know how many votes it got.

#298 Posted by Nerolus (241 posts) -

@Bartz: I think by sending it straight to charity they hope to squelch any people screaming about a conspiracy for valve to collect more money even though they already make tons per hour every day.

#299 Posted by capthavic (156 posts) -

@TheTravis: That's pretty much how I feel. There are other ways to get your indie game out to gamers that are free or much cheaper. While services like Steam and iTunes do offer a much larger consumer base it's not like you have to go through them or not release it at all. And so long as Valve keeps their promise to give the money to charity then I see the benefits far outweigh the negatives. If someone is serious enough to make a good game then coming up with $100 shouldn't be too hard, and if they get approved then they should make it back and then some in no time.

Could they improve the system? Sure. But at least for now I think it's a decent way to cut back on the crap.

#300 Posted by TPoppaPuff (236 posts) -

@Alexandru: Should be twenty.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.