It should be a lower price, yeah. They're still tweaking certain things, and i think they should try Greenlight by 50$. If it still gets a lot of shitty games, go up to 100$ again.

@talkingtoast said:

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.

Listing the number of things you did not factor in is not condescending or patronizing. The only word that I used that showed any subjectivity was when I said "your phone bill even?" Everything else were a compiled, factual list of possible factors you did not account for, most of which adults have a financial responsibility to fulfill that seventeen year olds do not. It sounds like I piled it on because they are all valid expenses you did not consider or acknowledge in your post. it's simply a matter that you did not factor in a large number ofd factors.

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...

One man developer...

Talk to your community of people that've been following your game...

What community? I'm not on Greenlight, therefore no one knows about the game...

Work, I don't know, one overtime shift...

Salary job...

@TPoppaPuff: Your entire second paragraph was patronizing.

And hey, guess what-- I'm not about to spend my money, or give an 'upvote' to a developer who couldn't care enough to pony up one hundred dollars to get their game in front of the 50 million users Steam currently has. If $100 is such an impossible number to accomplish on your own, as it apparently is, whip up a kick starter to get your game on greenlight. If you don't care enough, then don't put your game on greenlight. It's not your 'god given right', stop acting so entitled.

I still have no interest in these games as they are five minute fodder for when your waiting for something better to download.

@talkingtoast said:

@TPoppaPuff: Your entire second paragraph was patronizing.

No argument there, but I still got my point acrossed.

And hey, guess what-- I'm not about to spend my money, or give an 'upvote' to a developer who couldn't care enough to pony up one hundred dollars to get their game in front of the 50 million users Steam currently has. If $100 is such an impossible number to accomplish on your own, as it apparently is, whip up a kick starter to get your game on greenlight. If you don't care enough, then don't put your game on greenlight. It's not your 'god given right', stop acting so entitled.

Right, because caring = money, right? By your logic, the hardest working people on the planet are billionaires. Isn't it pathetic that Greenlight was so piss poorly handled that now in order to get put on grteenlight you have to make a kickstarter? Doesn't that alone irrefutably point out how botched and fucked this entire fiasco has been handled by Valve?

Nobody said it was a 'god given right'. You're the only person saying that. I'm saying Valve should be reasonable and intelligent about this and set it at $20 per game submission. What do you honestly have against that? Is the logic too sound? Does it make too much sense for you? What do you have against Valve making good decisions? I've already pointed out how much more beneficial for Valve, charity, developers and customers if it was done at $20 a pop because it brings in more developers, more money, and more games to all involved. But no, you're right, the wrong way is the better move.

Irony of ironies is saying I'm the one who is entitled. It's silly kids like you that sit there and say, "$100 is nothing. Make it a thousand. My time is too valuable to judge more games with a once over." Then proceed to bitch about a lack of number of games out there, bitch about the graphics from the indie titles not being AAA budget quality, bitch that all the big budget games all looking the same, bitch about the innovative games not being perfect or feeling odd, then bitch about all the games being CoD clones. "$100 is the least they should pay. Consider themselves lucky." Then once a game does come out at a measley $10 be too fucking cheap to buy the game because it's only like a few-several hours of entertainment and then wait til it goes on a 75% off Steam sale or miss the Steam sale and then just pirate it. Basically people of your ilk believe your $1 is worth than my $10. And you're the one calling me entitled!

If you're going to make an argument about something, think through it first.

Oh, and don't say something is objective when you are arguing from a perspective where you aren't taking into account those things we like to call facts.

I think you guys are thinking way too hard about this. Yeah, there are plenty of "base-ment" developers out there, but if they cannot find a way to come up with $100 for Steam Green light, than maybe they just aren't dedicated enough. Just because someone chose to quit their job and pursue gaming development as a career does not entitle them to some sort of special treatment. Just like in any industry, you have to spend money to make money.

A side-effect to this will also be helping Steam stop the influx of crap-ware as much as it possibly can without snubbing out indie developers completely. XBLIG is filled with shit, and even has a licensing fee, but I feel that there could be a lot more than what is currently sitting.

@TPoppaPuff: Jesus christ. Your entire third paragraph is some bullshit generalization based off of basically nothing. Sounds like you have some problems with Steam that are a bit deeper than the $100. Don't vent this way, it's gross. I'm done talking with you.

And for the record, I fucking love steam sales.

@Palmlykta said:

You gotta pay the troll toll to get in.

If you want the boy's hole, you must pay the troll toll.

How can those games on the Xbox Live Indie store afford $100 a month? If they stop paying are the games removed? I'm just wondering, because I don't see how games like "Don't be nervous talking to girls" can make enough revenue to even cover half of the cost.

If you're worried about $100 and you're trying to publish a game, then I don't think the $100 fee is the thing you should be worried about.

Also, your initial post makes the incorrect assumption that different == bad. Case in point: you, for the most part, went and copied and pasted parts of each of the store's descriptions (creating similarity and unity between the various stores), and then felt free to write paragraph upon paragraph of information on Steam's Greenlight service.

If your post was as objective as you claim it to be, then:

1. Why do you feel the need to tell us, multiple times, that you're being objective?
2. Why isn't each store discussed in the same amount of detail regarding policies and practices? (for the record, you wrote 2391 characters about steam, and 2046 characters about every other store)
3. If your claims are so objective and fact based, then why not back it up with sources? I don't know where you got any of your information from, or if any of it is true.

Publishing your opinion about something is not wrong, but trying to pass something off as objective when you've done little to substantiate that claim is.

@talkingtoast said: It's based off what you said, you just don't realize how damned ungrateful and spoiled you really are. And frankly, it's sad when self-righteous tweeners like you are the ones who defend Valve no matter what. Quit being an apologist.