TPoppaPuff

@peritus: Just look at all the forums and read them on any of those subjects. The majority, just like the majority here that have an opinion one way or another are exactly as I stated them. The majority here that have posted on those subjects say a $100 fee is fine, if you can't afford $100 your game isn't that good anyway, and that it's Microsoft's fault Phil Fish won't patch his game. You don't even have to go very far; look at any of the posts on these subjects on GB.

@peritus: You disagree with the facts or you disagree it's sad and pathetic?

@peritus said:

I think you assume too much, this is all based on the negative post you see on The Internet.

This to me seems like its just being blown way out of proportion.

It's not an assumption; this is exactly what the majority of the people on the internet think. Are they stupid? yes. I'm not arguing that. And these are simple statements that can not be blown out of proportion. The majority of the gaming community who actively use the internet believes that $100 is perfectly fine if not too cheap, think anybody who can't afford it is a piece of shit, and thinks Phil Fish, who actually has the money needed to fix his shoddy product, can do no wrong, even though he broke people's saves. These are facts. If you put up a poll right now or collected all posts on these subjects over fifty percent would agree. That's what's sad and pathetic.

@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.

@peritus: Everything Valve, forum posters, and developers have said about Steam summer sales. "$10 is too much for this game of hours of entertainment, but at $2.50 I guess I can buy it." For some damn reason the majority of people on the internet think that:

1. A $100 fee is a gift from Valve to have a 1% of making it on to Steam through no means other than a shitty popularity contest that frankly is hardly based on quality of the game itself.
2. If you don't have $100 to piss away your game is garbage anyway.
3. These same people also defend Phil Fish who refused to pay a relatively paltry $40,000 (or less, as MS said they tried to make a deal with him) to patch his game so it didn't break for many of his paying customers. This is a man who already got all his money, had his financial backers, already earned his fame well before his game was released and subsequent movie money that came from that. This man couldn't do right by his customers who already showed their full support by paying for his game.

@takua108 said:

The $100 thing is a super dumb thing to get mad over. It's $100, it goes to charity, and it's not "$100 for a 'maybe'," if anything, it's $100 for unlimited "maybes." It makes your account able to submit games forever.

The requirements to make it are too extreme at $100. It's not "$100 for a 'maybe';" it's $100 for unlimited "when pigs fly"s.

Can somebody please explain to me why $20-25 doesn't create the same barrier for entry that $100 creates? $20 creates virtually the same barrier no troll is going to get over that $100 fee creates, and is not an absurd amount of money for such a paltry chance in hell of any game ending up on Steam (no matter how great the game is, quality in popularity contests like this is practically irrelevent to the chance of winning).

The people who claim $100 is nothing for an applicant fee for a game on Greenlight are the same pricks who only buy games when they're about $2.49 during the Steam summer sale cause they're 75% off. It's disgusting how entitled and full of shit gamers act.

You want a direct comparison? How many of you if looking for a new job would pay a $100 applicant fee which, because of the way Greenlight is setup, only has about a 2% chance 6-12 months from now of being hired? And if you don't? We'll then for all intents and purposes you are completely self employed (self-distribution/non-Steam distribution services).

It's pathetic when XBox Live Indie Games is a better distribution service than Greenlight. Congrats, Valve.

@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.

@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.

@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.