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?
-Some indie developers are natural salesman. That video they put out gets people interested in their game because they instinctively know how to sell people on a game, regardless of quality. It's not about the quality of the game, it's about that video. That video, or description, is what makes or breaks the game making it to Steam through Greenlight, not the game itself. You can only have a demo once the games already been accepted onto Steam. That's ridiculous. You should only be allowed to have a game on Greenlight if you have a demo. That way, votes will be decided on the quality of the game rather than the quality of the salesman.
-It was never about the quality of the games. That's not why the fee exists. The fee largely does not change the quality of the games being submitted. The fee exists to stop the troll "games," which were things like people posting things like 'I'm making Half Life 3' or pictures of cats or other memes. It is definitely not in direct correlation to the quality of the actual games that get submitted. The games worth submitting are not the only games being submitted now; the only games being submitted are are the games with money behind them, whether they're worth submitting or not. The games worth submitting that don't have money behind them are not being submitted because Valve overreacted.
Also, the previous method may technically still exist, but in reality it no longer exists. Unless you're a big budget title, Valve no longer even gives you a passing glance. Straight the bin your submission. 'Go put it on greenlight," is the closest you get to a response. Remember the very reason Greenlight exists is so that Valve can effectively ignore the indie submissions and appease those who want indie games. So no, in reality, the old method does not exist in any meaningful capacity.
-Do I need to elaborate? Expendables 2? Transformers? London 2012? Check vs Mate? American Mensa Academy? Roller Coaster Rampage? Cash grab knockoff/licensed garbage.