Why Steam Greenlight is objectively a bad deal for $100

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by insanejedi (655 posts) -

Now before you go onto "Defend Valve, everything they do turns into gold and can't be wrong!" mode. Let's do an objective compare and contrast between Steam Greenlight and other avenues of selling your game on competing stores.

IOS

Fee: $100 a Year for a license fee

Conditions for sale: Have an app in fully functioning order that passes Apple certification.

+ So long as your game functions technically, does not crash, and does not contain objectionable content such as porn, fart apps ect. You are allowed on the store regardless of subjective quality and usefulness of application. (The vast majority of applications get certified)

+ Allowed to launch free apps on the store for promotion and demo.

Apple Mac Store:

Fee: $100 a Year for a license fee

Conditions for sale: Have an app in fully functioning order that passes Apple certification.

+ So long as your game functions technically, does not crash, and does not contain objectionable content such as porn, fart apps ect. You are allowed on the store regardless of subjective quality and usefulness of application. (The vast majority of applications get certified)

+ Allowed to launch free apps on the store for promotion and demo.

Google Play Store:

Fee: One Time $25

Conditions for sale: Have an app in fully functioning order that passes Google certification.

+ So long as your game functions technically, does not crash, and does not contain objectionable content such as porn. You are allowed on the store regardless of subjective quality and usefulness of application. (The vast majority of applications get certified)

+ Allowed to launch free apps on the store for promotion and demo.

Xbox Indie Game Store (Yes Really)

Fee: $100 a Year

Conditions of Sale: Game must be peer reviewed by other indie developers, only tested for instability and objectionable content. Game is not evaluated on subjective enjoyment and quality of product.

+So long as your game functions technically, does not crash, and does not contain objectionable content such as porn. You are allowed on the store regardless of subjective quality and usefulness of application. (The vast majority of applications get certified).

+Developers must have an 8 minute demo

+Developers games must cost something at least $1

Steam Greenlight

Fee: $100 one time

Conditions of Sale: Game must have a seemingly unknown number of votes that they would purchase this game from other players. Games are not allowed to have demos launched on steam and must present themselves using text and video only.

+ No official number has been released but browsing around and supporting a personal friend's game on Greenlight. We have more than a 100 comments almost all positive, and assuming that everyone and more has voted to buy this game, we have yet to reach a single percent of the 100 to get on the store. So assuming that, we must have more than 10 000 people to approve of this game using only text and video presentation to sell this game. Seeing other games with comments of more than 5000 of mostly overwhelmingly positive and only getting 31% of required this seems consistent that the number is very high.

+ It maybe that a "no thanks not interested" will cancel out a "I would purchase this game" Not entirely sure, and Valve has not publicly set out what this button actually does. If it doesn't, why does it exist? And if it does, why should someone say "I wouldn't buy this" matter? enough to cancel out a "would buy the game?"

+ Not allowed a playable demo on steam until release

+ Did I mention you have to get an estimate of more than 15 000 people to vote on your game before you are even considered on the store?

So yeah, $100 isn't a lot, but Steam Greenlight is simply not competitive in the store market. It simply doesn't make any sense to spend $100 for the CHANCE to get on a store, and the requirement that you must convince more than 15 000 people to buy your game. Game's that would actually pass that metric are games that would be allowed on Steam through the regular channels like Braid, Minecraft, and Bastion. A game with already enough user interest that it wouldn't need something like this.

P.S: If any of you are arguing that this $100 would prevent hoodlums from turning it into the Xbox Indie Game store with full of garbage. The Xbox Indie Game Store has a higher cost of entry into the market and stuff like "Don't be nervous talking to Girls" Still gets on the store. So what makes you think a 1 time $100 fee is going to have less hoodlums than the Xbox Indie Game Store that has $100 a year, and requires that your game be actually functioning and compile to be on the store.

#1 Posted by insanejedi (655 posts) -

Now before you go onto "Defend Valve, everything they do turns into gold and can't be wrong!" mode. Let's do an objective compare and contrast between Steam Greenlight and other avenues of selling your game on competing stores.

IOS

Fee: $100 a Year for a license fee

Conditions for sale: Have an app in fully functioning order that passes Apple certification.

+ So long as your game functions technically, does not crash, and does not contain objectionable content such as porn, fart apps ect. You are allowed on the store regardless of subjective quality and usefulness of application. (The vast majority of applications get certified)

+ Allowed to launch free apps on the store for promotion and demo.

Apple Mac Store:

Fee: $100 a Year for a license fee

Conditions for sale: Have an app in fully functioning order that passes Apple certification.

+ So long as your game functions technically, does not crash, and does not contain objectionable content such as porn, fart apps ect. You are allowed on the store regardless of subjective quality and usefulness of application. (The vast majority of applications get certified)

+ Allowed to launch free apps on the store for promotion and demo.

Google Play Store:

Fee: One Time $25

Conditions for sale: Have an app in fully functioning order that passes Google certification.

+ So long as your game functions technically, does not crash, and does not contain objectionable content such as porn. You are allowed on the store regardless of subjective quality and usefulness of application. (The vast majority of applications get certified)

+ Allowed to launch free apps on the store for promotion and demo.

Xbox Indie Game Store (Yes Really)

Fee: $100 a Year

Conditions of Sale: Game must be peer reviewed by other indie developers, only tested for instability and objectionable content. Game is not evaluated on subjective enjoyment and quality of product.

+So long as your game functions technically, does not crash, and does not contain objectionable content such as porn. You are allowed on the store regardless of subjective quality and usefulness of application. (The vast majority of applications get certified).

+Developers must have an 8 minute demo

+Developers games must cost something at least $1

Steam Greenlight

Fee: $100 one time

Conditions of Sale: Game must have a seemingly unknown number of votes that they would purchase this game from other players. Games are not allowed to have demos launched on steam and must present themselves using text and video only.

+ No official number has been released but browsing around and supporting a personal friend's game on Greenlight. We have more than a 100 comments almost all positive, and assuming that everyone and more has voted to buy this game, we have yet to reach a single percent of the 100 to get on the store. So assuming that, we must have more than 10 000 people to approve of this game using only text and video presentation to sell this game. Seeing other games with comments of more than 5000 of mostly overwhelmingly positive and only getting 31% of required this seems consistent that the number is very high.

+ It maybe that a "no thanks not interested" will cancel out a "I would purchase this game" Not entirely sure, and Valve has not publicly set out what this button actually does. If it doesn't, why does it exist? And if it does, why should someone say "I wouldn't buy this" matter? enough to cancel out a "would buy the game?"

+ Not allowed a playable demo on steam until release

+ Did I mention you have to get an estimate of more than 15 000 people to vote on your game before you are even considered on the store?

So yeah, $100 isn't a lot, but Steam Greenlight is simply not competitive in the store market. It simply doesn't make any sense to spend $100 for the CHANCE to get on a store, and the requirement that you must convince more than 15 000 people to buy your game. Game's that would actually pass that metric are games that would be allowed on Steam through the regular channels like Braid, Minecraft, and Bastion. A game with already enough user interest that it wouldn't need something like this.

P.S: If any of you are arguing that this $100 would prevent hoodlums from turning it into the Xbox Indie Game store with full of garbage. The Xbox Indie Game Store has a higher cost of entry into the market and stuff like "Don't be nervous talking to Girls" Still gets on the store. So what makes you think a 1 time $100 fee is going to have less hoodlums than the Xbox Indie Game Store that has $100 a year, and requires that your game be actually functioning and compile to be on the store.

#2 Posted by Kidavenger (3546 posts) -

Every other "store" you listed is packed full of crapware, is that really what anyone wants Steam to become?

Greenlight isn't the only way to get on Steam, it's just a new way for niche games that have been overlooked, if you make a good game that gets media attention, it's very likely that you are getting on Steam, and you can be sure those guys are paying alot more than $100 to get noticed in the first place.

#3 Posted by Fawkes (244 posts) -

Hi.

So, the $100 fee seems mainly to prevent stuff like completely fake or non-game submissions people were putting up that were stuff like "halo 4" or "boobs" or whatever. What keeps garbage like "Don't be nervous talking to Girls" out of the actual store is the ridiculous amount of votes we have to give things. Perhaps it's something they may need to adjust, but if they make it too easy then people will try to exploit it. If it were up to me I'd make older steam accounts with lots of games be worth more votes than brand new accounts to help prevent that.

#4 Posted by LordAndrew (14426 posts) -

Demos are fine on Greenlight. They just won't go on the Steam store unless the game also makes it to store. Unless the game happens to be Trash TV.

#5 Posted by skyline7284 (506 posts) -

For claiming to be an "Objective" look your post doesn't seem very objective. You seem pretty heavily biased.

#6 Posted by Cameron (599 posts) -

I don't think Greenlight is really for developers who are small enough to worry about $100. Steam might not make that clear, but it seems as though they are looking to get games like Fez or Super Meat Boy rather than 1000000 or Tiny Wings. It's a way for interesting indie games to be discovered, but Valve likely doesn't want Steam flooded with a bunch of tiny cheap games. There's nothing wrong with Tiny Wings, but I don't want to play games like that on my PC. While paying $100 for a shot on Steam might seem like a bad deal if you are making an iOS sized game, it's not a bad deal if you are making a more complex game that just happens to be made by a small team. If I were making the next Fez or Braid, I'd much rather pay Valve $100 for a chance to be on Steam than pay Microsoft $100 so I can get lost in the mountain of crap that is Xbox Indie Games.

#7 Posted by jerseyscum (875 posts) -

It's a good way to weed out crapware and shitty porn games.

#8 Posted by Bass (692 posts) -

The fact that you site ios, mac app store, android, and xbox indie exemplifies the exact reason that I want Valve, as a consumer, to be more choosy about what makes it onto steam. Every one of those software stores have more useless/awful applications/games than they have quality ones (by a large measure). I personally don't want to see steam turn into a wasteland of bad games and (eventually) crapware.

So, as a developer (making your opinion quite biased) you may not like the greenlight system, but I appreciate it as a consumer.

Also, I'm sure Valve is still ironing out the system in general. Certain threshold values for the "100%" mark will almost certainly be adjusted over time as greenlight is used by more/less of the consumer market.

#9 Posted by Ley_Lines (252 posts) -
@jerseyscum said:

It's a good way to weed out crapware and shitty porn games.

Yeah, we only want the good porn games!
#10 Posted by aceofspudz (938 posts) -

The 'No Thanks I'm Not Interested' button doesn't counteract positive votes. The tally clearly says 'percent of positive votes needed'. The purpose of the 'Not Interested' button is so that user can effectively vote without having to sort through games they've already rated. When you vote on something it's removed from your voting queue.

#11 Edited by CornBREDX (5261 posts) -

I still disagree and your arguments feel more like you're reaching. "Don't be nervous talking to girls" may be stupid and have little to no game play, but it's not racist, fake or not owned by the people that make money off of it. 
 
Whether or not it's worth getting is subjective (although, really it's pretty dumb) and meaningless. It was still coded by the people that released it despite it's actual value. 
 
Your other arguments are just because green light is new. They'll get that stuff taken care of as they figure out how much it's all used. The FAQ clearly states the % is not that big of a deal: 
 

How many votes does a game need to get selected?

It's going to change during the first few days/weeks since we don't know what kind of traffic to expect. Part of the drive for this system is the need for customers to help us prioritize which games they want to see made available on Steam. So the specific number of votes doesn't matter as much as relative interest in a game compared with other games in Steam Greenlight.

We're going to be reaching out to developers as we see their games getting traction regardless of whether they have achieved a specific number of votes or are sitting 1st or 2nd place at any given time. We are most interested in finding the games that people want, not requiring them to always hit a specific number of votes.



Lastly, I've said it before but 100$ isn't that much to ask. If your game isn't worth being available to around 5 million people that will see it and potentially buy it or whatever- then don't spend 100$. It has nothing to do with Valve or how good or bad they are. It's just life. If I had a game, and I felt it was worth other peoples time to play it, I'd pay 100$ to put it up- wouldn't really matter if I couldn't eat that month. I think that's worth it.
#12 Posted by Demoskinos (14823 posts) -

The fee keeps the riff raff out and the money goes to charity. How can you be against that?

#13 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

The problem is that most of those fees are a yearly re-occuring fee. You don't pay $100 once and always benefit. For one. For another, it's $100. It's not you paying for the right to be on, it's just like showing your ID at a gun range. They don't want some piece of shit on the service ruining the chances of worthwhile projects. Only the Google Play thing is cheaper, the rest are much more expensive. You completely ignored the "once a year" part. You don't sell things for a single year and then stop selling it, you keep it up as long as you can and keep paying the $100.

@CornBREDX said:

How many votes does a game need to get selected?

It's going to change during the first few days/weeks since we don't know what kind of traffic to expect. Part of the drive for this system is the need for customers to help us prioritize which games they want to see made available on Steam. So the specific number of votes doesn't matter as much as relative interest in a game compared with other games in Steam Greenlight.

We're going to be reaching out to developers as we see their games getting traction regardless of whether they have achieved a specific number of votes or are sitting 1st or 2nd place at any given time. We are most interested in finding the games that people want, not requiring them to always hit a specific number of votes.

Also this.

#14 Edited by Etnos (245 posts) -

Dude.. if you can put a $100 for a videogame distribution certification process... jeeez people is so entitled this days, Wondering were all this "indie" where? back when you need to certify with Sony for a PS2 release.

Man the fuck up!, and pay your god damn fees!

#15 Posted by insanejedi (655 posts) -

@MordeaniisChaos said:

The problem is that most of those fees are a yearly re-occuring fee. You don't pay $100 once and always benefit. For one. For another, it's $100. It's not you paying for the right to be on, it's just like showing your ID at a gun range. They don't want some piece of shit on the service ruining the chances of worthwhile projects. Only the Google Play thing is cheaper, the rest are much more expensive. You completely ignored the "once a year" part. You don't sell things for a single year and then stop selling it, you keep it up as long as you can and keep paying the $100.

@CornBREDX said:

How many votes does a game need to get selected?

It's going to change during the first few days/weeks since we don't know what kind of traffic to expect. Part of the drive for this system is the need for customers to help us prioritize which games they want to see made available on Steam. So the specific number of votes doesn't matter as much as relative interest in a game compared with other games in Steam Greenlight.

We're going to be reaching out to developers as we see their games getting traction regardless of whether they have achieved a specific number of votes or are sitting 1st or 2nd place at any given time. We are most interested in finding the games that people want, not requiring them to always hit a specific number of votes.

Also this.

You clearly don't understand the posts. Developers are not wanting to pay for a service that gives you the chance for currently ATM 15 000 people to vote on it to be on a store. As a value proposition, if you put your game in IOS and Google Play you are at very least gauranteed so long as the game is functional to be on the store and sell product. Value is more than the price itself. It's far worse of a deal to go on a system where you have a slim chance of selling anything for your $100 than to go on a store where you are gauranted to at least be on it.

Oh and that $100 fee will be totally ineffective in filtering out crap. Why?

P.S: If any of you are arguing that this $100 would prevent hoodlums from turning it into the Xbox Indie Game store with full of garbage. The Xbox Indie Game Store has a higher cost of entry into the market and stuff like "Don't be nervous talking to Girls" Still gets on the store. So what makes you think a 1 time $100 fee is going to have less hoodlums than the Xbox Indie Game Store that has $100 a year, and requires that your game be actually functioning and compile to be on the store.

For claiming to be an "Objective" look your post doesn't seem very objective. You seem pretty heavily biased.

Is pointing out that your game can be placed on IOS/Android store so long as it works, vs having 15 000 vote on your game not objective? That's reality at the moment. One has a very high chance of you getting on the store, the other has a very low chance of you getting on the store.

Dude.. if you can put a $100 for a videogame distribution certification process... jeeez people is so entitled this days, Wondering were all this "indie" where? back when you need to certify with Sony for a PS2 release.

Man the fuck up!, and pay your god damn fees!

That's not the fucking point. The point is that paying $100 and then needing to convince over 15 000 people to play your game with no reviews, and no demo is minimal to getting on steam is nuckingfuts compared to any other avenue of publishing a game.

#16 Posted by TheHumanDove (2523 posts) -

OP is wrong. And that's all I'm going to contribute. PREPARE TO BE MAD

#17 Posted by talkingtoast (85 posts) -

It's a paltry sum of money that

A) Goes to charity.

B) Is a paltry sum. (I'm 17 and work minimum wage. I just did an 8 hour shift on labour day and made double that.

C) Keeps the riff raff out-- look at all of the stores you mentioned. Full of crap.

Nothing wrong with it, really. You know, objectively.

#18 Posted by Totoni (41 posts) -

Well Steam Grenlight differs from the other examples in that it is the user who decides. Which tells you how many people are interested in the game. And that you have to get at least 15 000 votes seem to me a fine number. It sorts out the bad and poorly thought out games from the good games. Along with telling you that at least 15 000 people would play the game And while you may be true in that the other stores requires the same fee or less, but allows you in at that point as long as your game/app works, well as people have pointed out in this thread and in others concerning Steam Greenlight's fee, it's not that much, but with Steam Greenlight's voting system, we, the developers and Steam knows people want to play the game. And it won't drown Steam in bad games, I mean take a look at an app store. For every good app there are twice as many bad apps, who relies on people making a bad call.

#19 Posted by Bio2hazard (144 posts) -

I think the OP is right in that you pay $100 for a maybe - and that's just now how business should work. You don't put down money to "maybe" buy something.

In my opinion, they should allow sales, downloads, achievements and demos on greenlight, essentially turning it into a steam with less quality control, but keep everything greenlight away from regular steam - so you are not exposed to "crappy" greenlight games unless you want to. That way you can still sell your game and get some exposure - you actually get something for the $100 that you plunk down, and if your game does exceedingly well, Steam can still opt to transfer it over to their main platform.

#20 Posted by TPoppaPuff (252 posts) -

@Kidavenger: Yeah, because the Expendables 2 is such a shining beacon of gaming quality and integrity... As terrible as XBox Indies are, there is at least some legitimate merit someone wanting it to be there. Those games, as poor as they may be, were made by someone for reasons other than getting paid. Can you say that about half the crap on Steam that launches at $10-20? Most of that is licensed/cash grabs made purely for the reason of getting paid. Both are equally terrible; at least Xbox Indie games aren't twenty dollars. And truth be told, not even considering price, my interest in playing either options is pretty equal.

Average XBLIG: a turd.

Average Steam title (that's not also a retail product): A polished, expensive turd. Yeah, it's shinier, and it cost you about four times as much, but it's still a turd all the same.

#21 Posted by Dezztroy (794 posts) -
@insanejedi said:

Oh and that $100 fee will be totally ineffective in filtering out crap. Why?

P.S: If any of you are arguing that this $100 would prevent hoodlums from turning it into the Xbox Indie Game store with full of garbage. The Xbox Indie Game Store has a higher cost of entry into the market and stuff like "Don't be nervous talking to Girls" Still gets on the store. So what makes you think a 1 time $100 fee is going to have less hoodlums than the Xbox Indie Game Store that has $100 a year, and requires that your game be actually functioning and compile to be on the store.

For claiming to be an "Objective" look your post doesn't seem very objective. You seem pretty heavily biased.

The 100$ fee along with the voting process is what keeps the crap out. While someone may spend 100$+ to be guaranteed a spot on the XBL Indie store where they very well may get that money back, I doubt many are going to spend 100$ when they know there is no chance their game will get the positive votes needed.
 
So yeah, OP, I disagree with your post.
#22 Edited by Totoni (41 posts) -

@Bio2hazard said:

I think the OP is right in that you pay $100 for a maybe - and that's just now how business should work. You don't put down money to "maybe" buy something.

In my opinion, they should allow sales, downloads, achievements and demos on greenlight, essentially turning it into a steam with less quality control, but keep everything greenlight away from regular steam - so you are not exposed to "crappy" greenlight games unless you want to. That way you can still sell your game and get some exposure - you actually get something for the $100 that you plunk down, and if your game does exceedingly well, Steam can still opt to transfer it over to their main platform.

Well no, you don't put down money to "maybe" buy something. I don't think you meant to say that. The developers are laying down $100 for a maybe, yes. But that's called an investment, they give $100 to have a chance of getting it out on Steam. If the game is any good, their $100 will pay off and they will get a lot more in return.

And in regards to demos and such, they'll probably come out when they have reached 80% or so.

#23 Posted by TPoppaPuff (252 posts) -

@talkingtoast said:

It's a paltry sum of money that

A) Goes to charity.

B) Is a paltry sum. (I'm 17 and work minimum wage. I just did an 8 hour shift on labour day and made double that.

C) Keeps the riff raff out-- look at all of the stores you mentioned. Full of crap.

Nothing wrong with it, really. You know, objectively.

Do you pay rent? Do you buy all your own food? Do you own/pay for maintenance on a car? Do you make payments on a car? Do you pay for college classes? Do you pay loans for college classes? Do you pay the electric? Heat? Water? Internet? Cable? Do you support a family? Do you pay child support? Do you pay your medical bills? Insurance? Housekeeping supplies? Appliances? Furniture? Gas for your car or your phone bill even? It's amazing how "paltry" $100 is when you have virtually no responsibilities and 100% of your income is discretionary funds.

Listen to me carefully: You are seventeen. You are a child. No matter how much your naive mind may think you've got things in perspective, you have NO IDEA. Your opinion is essentially null until you have real world experience. You do not live in the real world. Unless you are living on your own and paying for everything yourself, EVERYTHING, your opinion has no value whatsoever. I know it sounds like I'm being a prick, but that just goes to show how sheltered your life really is. Come back nine years from now living on minimum wage and then make that argument. I have a prediction that you won't.

$20 a pop for each submission keeps just as many troll submissions out as $100 applicant fee. $100 applicant fee is exponentially harder to justify than $20 for a submission that has a 1% chance in hell. Is it smarter for them to charge ten people $100, making just $1000 and ten potential games, maybe one of which comes out to Steam and is of quality, or is it smarter for them to charge 100 people $20, making $2000 and 100 potential games, with maybe ten quality games come out? In what situation does anybody win in the former compared to the latter? Objectively speaking; $100 is absurd, stupid, and wildly inappropriate for what it pays for. $20, even if it's $20 per submission, is smarter.

#24 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

If any of you are arguing that this $100 would prevent hoodlums from turning it into the Xbox Indie Game store with full of garbage. The Xbox Indie Game Store has a higher cost of entry into the market and stuff like "Don't be nervous talking to Girls" Still gets on the store. So what makes you think a 1 time $100 fee is going to have less hoodlums than the Xbox Indie Game Store that has $100 a year, and requires that your game be actually functioning and compile to be on the store.

I'm shaking my head so hard right now. Even if crapware developers have the money to register for Steam Greenlight, they still need 15,000 people to vote. So, yes, games like "Don't be Nervous Talking to Girls" have a harder time getting accepted on Stem compared to Xbox. It comes down to the votes by gamers who want more than that garbage on Xbox Live.

#25 Posted by eskimo (477 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff: Hi.

I'm an adult, I earn a shit ton more than I did when I was 17, and $100 means a hell of a lot less to me now than it did then.

If you are still in the same job you had when you were 17 you might actually have a point.

#26 Posted by pornstorestiffi (4914 posts) -

I think the fee is fine. If it can keep out all the games that almost no one wants to play in the first place, i say great.

#27 Posted by Gruff182 (856 posts) -

Don't submit your game to Steam. There easy.

#28 Edited by TMBaker (230 posts) -

If you can't fork over $100 for the possibility to be on the biggest video game digital distribution platform in the world, then maybe you're in the wrong business.

#29 Posted by Alexandru (301 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff: its a hundread fucking dollars.

#30 Edited by zaglis (910 posts) -

So what you are saying is that you don't support charities and rather see any sort of money go to billion dollar corporations?

#31 Posted by Fearbeard (830 posts) -

$100 for a chance to get your game onto the premier PC game market sounds like a good deal to me.

Plus if you don't get your game to pass the crowd voting test, then you still gave $100 to charity and you have to be an ass if you feel bad about that.

#32 Posted by l4wd0g (1952 posts) -

The $100 fee is certainly going to limit the number of topless girls covers, Half-Life 3 posts and other gaming jokes. I guess it's good for the developer.

#33 Edited by Tennmuerti (8099 posts) -

Ah yes no negative points for the competing services, reiterating a Steam negative twice. This oozes objectivity.

Personal emotional investment makes it even more objective.

#34 Posted by Bio2hazard (144 posts) -

@Totoni: Sorry, I worded it pretty poorly. I am a developer and I am currently working on a game, so for me, I would spend $100 for a maybe. I have no guarantee that anything will come from it, neither will I get a refund if it doesn't. It's a risky proposition. I don't feel it's adequate to call it a investment at all.

Wikipedia has the following to say about investments ( and I know that wikipedia can be edited and yadda yadda, but I still feel it makes a good point. )

Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security for the principal amount, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is gambling. Putting money into something with an expectation of gain with thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation.

So, according to Wikipedias definition of a financial investment, steams greenlight is gambling - and I agree with that. It's impossible to analyze anything as it's workings are a mystery, there is no security of guarantee of anything. It's entirely a "put money in, hope for the best".

#35 Posted by zels (207 posts) -

@insanejedi: Your argument is invalid and here's why - the stores that you've chosen to compare are all in different markets, they're not Steam's competitors (Apple Mac Store is the only one that operates in the same space as a portion of Steam). Look up what it takes to put your game up on Desura, GOG or Gamersgate come back and make an argument that is actually valid.

#36 Posted by Totoni (41 posts) -

@Bio2hazard: Yeah, it does appear I was wrong about it being an investment. Sorry about that. And perhaps $100 is a bit much, but the reason they did it was because people misused the project. I think they could have set the entree price lower.

But still, your idea to turn Steam Greenlight into a worse quality version of regular Steam doesn't seem like a good idea. Yes, there may be some good games that would not be able to get into Greenlight by paying $100, but they would drown in fake half-life 3 and shovelware. And while it seems you are right about Greenlight being more gambling than investment, it still seems like a small price to pay, considering your chances of getting in with a good game can be big. But if you are unsure, then maybe you should wait until someone's game on Greenlight has succeeded and how it went for them.

In the meantime go for something like Desura. If you already have any games there, then please tell me, I'd love to see what you can bring to the table.

#37 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1785 posts) -

I'm glad, as a consumer, that Valve is taking this step to keep crap off of Steam.

If you think your project might be so crap that you don't want to risk $100, then you're probably making a game that I don't want to see on Steam. Harsh, but true.

#38 Posted by JoeyRavn (4973 posts) -

@insanejedi said:

Now before you go onto "Defend Valve, everything they do turns into gold and can't be wrong!" mode.

If your first sentence trolls your audience, sorry, but I will have to assume that your post is not worth a fuck.

#39 Edited by Bio2hazard (144 posts) -

@Totoni: The problem is that whether a game is good or not is very objective, and also that Steam is incredibly selective with what games it accepts when it comes to indie developers. I've read multiple articles from high-profile indie developers that had attempted to get their game on Steam, but got declined merely by the reason of "We don't want more games in that genre". Only after the game has made waves and garnered some positive articles from big name websites, Steam contacted them saying that they reconsidered their initial assesment. This is all well and good, but the annoying part is that publishers get to skip that process and release horrendously broken PC games and flat out bad games with no quality control whatsoever.

I guess my beef with the whole system is that it doesn't assure quality across the board - only from a specific crowd. Would anyone here truly call Postal 3 a good game ? Legends of Pegasus, which barely runs ? Or Ducati world championship? It's only independent games that have to go through this crowd-voting gate, after paying $100 - and they are not even able of providing their voters with a playable demo that could actively give their voters a better idea of how their game works or anything.

Again, I understand that fake Half Life 3 games and such are a problem, and I understand that steps need to be taken to prevent games like that from making it into Steam, but I think it's wrong to punish everyone in the indie game category simply because a few people have to be idiots about it.

To expand on my point, I think a lower charge of $10 or $25 is sufficient and far easier to stomach than $100. In addition, since the decision making process is made by a crowd, how about a crowd reporting system ? Simply have a "report" button on each project and if the amount of reports reaches a certain treshhold, a valve employee will take a look and make a call on whether or not the project should be removed. Almost every single service that allows users to post content has some form of report system that can be used to report content that violates some ToS.

Finally, people here have a vastly different opinion on how much $100 is worth. Some disregard it as "peanuts", other realize that it is, actually, quite a substancial amount of money. To try and put it into perspective with a hypothetical scenario: Young programmer, quit their job to work full-time on their independent game. Has maybe $5000 saved up, uses up $400 a month in food and rent sharing a small apartment with roommates. Spends $1000 on a artist to provide art for their game. Left with $4000. For this person, $100 means 1 whole week of additional development time. It's easy to underrestimate it, but a lot can be accomplished in a week if you put your mind to it. Different people are in different situations and $100 CAN make a difference depending on how well-off the person in question is.

@Paul_Is_Drunk: The $100 charge has absolutely no bearing on what you as a consumer see on regular Steam. That process is decided by the crowd, not the payment.

#40 Posted by BionicRadd (617 posts) -

It's a one time fee. While you're waiting to get rejected by the Steam community, put your fart app on IOS and Android and let the piles of money you will apparently make there tide you over. It sounds like a lot of people were hoping Valve was just going to open the flood gates and let any ole indie garbage game through. As a dedicated Steam consumer, I am really glad that's not the case. Steam is not and should not ever be the App Store.

If the other avenues offer less resistance, publish there, first and get some cache for your game. Seemed to work out ok for Cthluhu Saves The World. What's that? Steam is a better store and offers a better chance at success? I agree, it is a better store. Limiting the garbage will make sure it stays that way.

#41 Posted by Erk_Forever (157 posts) -

@insanejedi:

Not much objective info here. Although you presents factual comparisons, whether those models are superior is pure subjection. With that being settled, I disagree with your conclusions based on my own opinions.

#42 Posted by Totoni (41 posts) -

@Bio2hazard: I guess I can agree with you that the price could be set lower, and I see where you're coming from. So, yeah, I can also agree with you that Greenlight may have a few kinks. But then, the admission price was fixing one problem, while maybe creating another. So perhaps Steam will set the price down.

#43 Posted by Palmlykta (224 posts) -

You gotta pay the troll toll to get in.

#44 Posted by insanejedi (655 posts) -

@BraveToaster said:

If any of you are arguing that this $100 would prevent hoodlums from turning it into the Xbox Indie Game store with full of garbage. The Xbox Indie Game Store has a higher cost of entry into the market and stuff like "Don't be nervous talking to Girls" Still gets on the store. So what makes you think a 1 time $100 fee is going to have less hoodlums than the Xbox Indie Game Store that has $100 a year, and requires that your game be actually functioning and compile to be on the store.

I'm shaking my head so hard right now. Even if crapware developers have the money to register for Steam Greenlight, they still need 15,000 people to vote. So, yes, games like "Don't be Nervous Talking to Girls" have a harder time getting accepted on Stem compared to Xbox. It comes down to the votes by gamers who want more than that garbage on Xbox Live.

That's not going to stop crapware from flooding the steam greenlight and drowning out any legitimate developers from promoting their game. It's already happened. The store has too much stuff, it takes too much time to go through, and the average user has and will give up looking on greenlight as they have on 360 Indie games. Thus totally nullifing the point of Greenlight unless your game is a hit sensation that would most likely already get accepted through the normal channels like Minecraft.

#45 Posted by BraveToaster (12590 posts) -

@insanejedi said:

@BraveToaster said:

If any of you are arguing that this $100 would prevent hoodlums from turning it into the Xbox Indie Game store with full of garbage. The Xbox Indie Game Store has a higher cost of entry into the market and stuff like "Don't be nervous talking to Girls" Still gets on the store. So what makes you think a 1 time $100 fee is going to have less hoodlums than the Xbox Indie Game Store that has $100 a year, and requires that your game be actually functioning and compile to be on the store.

I'm shaking my head so hard right now. Even if crapware developers have the money to register for Steam Greenlight, they still need 15,000 people to vote. So, yes, games like "Don't be Nervous Talking to Girls" have a harder time getting accepted on Stem compared to Xbox. It comes down to the votes by gamers who want more than that garbage on Xbox Live.

That's not going to stop crapware from flooding the steam greenlight and drowning out any legitimate developers from promoting their game. It's already happened. The store has too much stuff, it takes too much time to go through, and the average user has and will give up looking on greenlight as they have on 360 Indie games. Thus totally nullifing the point of Greenlight unless your game is a hit sensation that would most likely already get accepted through the normal channels like Minecraft.

I wouldn't say that it totally nullifies it. Of course it's flooded with crapware, it just started, things like this happen all the time when new services are introduced. People will realize that they're not going to get votes for their shitty games. I also noticed that you never responded to someone's comment regarding the fact that you list no negatives in the section of Greenlight's competitors. Shall we also debate the true meaning of the word objective, or will you just ignore that as well?

#46 Posted by TPoppaPuff (252 posts) -

@eskimo: So you have the same financial responsibilities now as you did when you were 17? Even accounting for a full time job at a higher wage it still holds true. What do you do exactly?

#47 Posted by talkingtoast (85 posts) -

@TPoppaPuff said:

I know it sounds like I'm being a prick, but that just goes to show how sheltered your life really is.

You sound like a prick because you're being one. There are countless ways you could've made the point you just did, but instead of any of those routes, you chose to be condescending/patronizing.

Back to the point. If you have a game that has a chance of getting the monumental amount of votes from the community that is required to 'win' greenlight, then coming across 100 dollars shouldn't really be an issue. Collect 25 dollars from each of your 4 man development team, talk to your community of people that've been following your game. Work, I don't know, one overtime shift.

#48 Posted by The_Nubster (2130 posts) -

@Bio2hazard: The entry fee for Greenlight is neither an investment nor a gamble; it's an entry fee. You pay it once and you're allowed in. You're not paying for a chance to win it back like casino game, and you're not putting it down to pick it up when it becomes worth more. You're paying to get in.

#49 Posted by JasonR86 (9697 posts) -

Eh. Developers don't have to use Steam. If they wish to they have to follow Valve's rules. That's just sort of the way it is. Fair or not.

#50 Posted by Akrid (1356 posts) -

You're portraying it's biggest strength as it's biggest failure. The exclusivity of making it on to Steam is very important to uphold. It keeps games reasonably profitable for the developers by not having ridiculous competitive practices and over-crowding, and weeds out the weaker games that would simply obscure the good. It's a premium service.

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.