Green For Greenlight: Valve Now Charging $100 Fee

By Nathan Grayson on September 5th, 2012 at 1:00 pm.

Well, that was quick. Steam Greenlight launched last week, and a horde of jokers and spammers took that to mean “open the floodgates on vaporware and oh-so-original cracks about the fact that Half-Life 3′s not out yet.” But now, without missing a beat, Valve’s moved to put a stop to all the shenanigans. In short, submitting a game to Greenlight requires an initial $100 fee – with all of the proceeds going straight to the Child’s Play charity. So it’s about “cutting down the noise in the system,” not creating the most hilariously diabolical money-making scheme the gaming world’s ever seen. But will it work? And does it alienate the folks who need Greenlight the most? I discussed Valve’s rather sudden decision with a few especially smart (and attractive) developers to get a clearer view of the situation.

First, let’s start with the easy knee-jerk reactions. By and large, we’re looking at two camps: either 1) “Pfft, only $100? That’s nothing. It’ll keep out the riff-raff, but leave the door wide open for legitimate projects” or 2) “$100?! And that’s only for the slight chance that my game might eventually appear on Steam’s storefront? I have bills to pay and 17 cats to provide for. No deal.” As per usual with these things, however, the reality of the matter falls somewhere in the middle.

“$100 is a lot for me right now, because I’ve released all of my games [thus far] for free, and I’m supporting myself on freelance work and contracts till I get my first ‘real’ game done,” said Dames Making Games founder and It’s Not Okay, Cupid developer Zoe Quinn. “That’s eating for a month.”

But, on the flipside, Steam Greenlight’s hardly the only option for smaller independent developers. And amidst cries that Valve’s hammering nails into the coffins of game dev dreams the world over, it’s important to keep things in perspective. ”I don’t think Steam would probably publish things that can’t make $100 on their own,” Quinn noted, referring to overall quality and ability to attract players. Dungeons of Dredmor executive producer and Breadbros Games developer Ben McGraw agreed.

“I know many [who live from paycheck-to-paycheck] in the indie community,” he explained. “However, I’ve never seen a living-on-the-edge team who couldn’t scrounge up the $100 or so for an iOS license or the Xbox Live Indie Games license, etc.”

Antichamber creator Alexander Bruce, meanwhile, took it one step further: this, he noted, might actually be better for small-time developers in the long run.

“Release the game on something other than Steam – your website or any other distribution service – make $100 in sales, then submit to Greenlight. There is nothing that says that you need to launch on Steam. Releasing on other platforms can also be a good way to drive people to your Greenlight page, as they already enjoy the game and want to help see it succeed.

“If the $100 is going to seriously fuck you over, you’re basically saying that without Steam, you’re dead. That seems like a terrible plan in the first place.”

That said, it’s certainly not all sunshine, roses, and firm, approving handshakes from Gabe Newell that tell you, yes, everything really is going to be alright. Greenlight’s got problems, and $100 submission fees are just the beginning.

“I think 100 bucks is a bit much, personally,” said Quinn. “$20 -$50 would probably keep out the people who seem to be the ‘this is why we can’t have nice things’ horde. And I think the move was a little bit hasty considering it was the first thing Valve tried. I think a good step would be for Steam to be clearer about what its standards are and what they’re looking for.”

Steam Greenlight, after all, isn’t a golden ticket into Valve’s magical videogame factory. It’s an opportunity to have a game curated – and maybe even turned down – by Valve. Steam’s still not as open as, say, Desura – nor, in all likelihood, will it ever be. That’s not the point. Is it fair to charge $100 for that? The jury’s still out. But, for better or worse, developers shouldn’t go in expecting something entirely different.

“The thing about Greenlight versus, like, iOS is that it’s not a ‘Pay this, then you’re direct to sale and just need to make the money back’ type of setup,” said Bruce. “It’s ‘Pay this to have your game looked at, where it’s still probable that it won’t get selected. They’re quite different scenarios, because in one instance you’re just fooling the public [with a bad game], and in another, Valve are going to look at your thing and go ‘This doesn’t fit our audience’ if you submit something shit.”

“It really just seems like an error in communication,” Quinn added. “Which, again, is one of the reasons I didn’t make a page for It’s Not Okay, Cupid yet. It’s clearly not Steam quality at this point [in development]. And if I don’t have a gameplay demo or video that shows that it should be up there, I don’t know why I’d put it on Greenlight.”

Granted, the presences of, say, Rogue Warrior, FlatOut 3, and Bad Rats on Steam proper lend credence to the idea that even Valve’s selection process is far from perfect. Further, even beyond basic communication. Valve’s actions also aren’t doing the greatest job of bringing Greenlight’s main purpose into, well, light.

“I would’ve liked to see them trying closer moderation and searchable filters before charging so much,” said Quinn. “Or at least requiring a playable demo. Maybe Steam should stop accepting stuff in the probably-vaporware stages and require a prototype. That seems like a more on-point way of dealing with it. And if that doesn’t work,then start charging more than the iOS App Store and the Google store.”

So Greenlight’s a bit of a mess at the moment. But this is largely uncharted territory, and Valve seems pretty open to both tweaking (today’s update, for instance, also brought a new user-specific window full of popular and new Greenlight games) and radically revamping its process. Developers, meanwhile, are coping in their own ways. For instance, many are following the example of this Dejobaan post, wherein the developer promised to loan $100 to promising indies (on the condition that they eventually return it) and encouraged others to do the same.

It is, in other words, a brave new world. Is it what Valve or developers expected? Certainly not. Will it ultimately succeed? Who knows. But the wheels are definitely in motion. Here’s hoping that, in this case, green really does mean “go.”

, , , .

273 Comments »

  1. Stuart Walton says:

    One thing to consider while regarding this fee is how it compares to the cost to a developer trying to get Valve to seriously consider their game under the old submission process. The materials and documentation they have to provide all takes time to produce. It’s a lot of effort and resources directed at one target and is probably valued at more than that $100.

    if you also consider a Greenlight listing as a marketing tool, it’s easily worth the cost. That’s before you consider the feedback and potential of Valve adding your game to Steam. Greenlight does need work though. Better search tools for a start, I have resisted browsing the list because there will be stuff I don’t care for.

  2. Dominic White says:

    What really needs to be driven home here is that Steam is not the iOS app store. Yes, you pay to get on Apple’s store, and once you’re past the approval process (which is a couple of weeks, and may require re-submission, but isn’t a major hurdle), you’re on sale.

    And then unless you market the hell out of your game, nobody will ever known about it, and it won’t sell at all. It’s a complete free-for-all, and there have been no shortage of stories of iOS developers struggling to break even or be competitive in the slightest.

    Steam is a heavily curated, exclusive distribution platform and storefront which can and will actively promote your game and ensure it gets involved in regular sales-boosting discount events. It has a reputation for making even small indie games sell huge. Why? Because that’s what Valve have built it as. They’ve hand-picked the games, chosen what goes on sale and when, and encourage price-points for the developers.

    I’ve seen people suggesting that Valve should just set up a system where you pay $1-5k and get put straight on Steam. You know what would happen then? The value of the store would disappear almost overnight. Indie devs would get lost in the crush, and there would be 40-50 items added daily, rather than one or two.

    The reason Steam is so valuable to both mainstream and indie developers alike is specifically because it’s a curated, managed, closed system. If you open it up too much, bad things will happen.

    • Artist says:

      “If you open up ebay too much bad things will happen….” Really?
      Think again, my friend. Your logic is flawed.

      • Dominic White says:

        How is that reasoning flawed? Countless hundreds, if not thousands of games get released on iOS only to sell about three copies and are never heard of again.

        Getting on Steam is considered the holy grail of digital distribution because it ensures that you will get solid sales for a very long time. This is specifically because it’s a very tightly managed and regulated storefront.

        Countless things are lost and forgotten on eBay, too. There’s a reason why real-life auction houses only sell a certain range of things, and specifically pick what items are sold each day, and in which order.

    • jonfitt says:

      Right. Long term what they’re doing is putting a system in place that would allow them to offer a lot more indie games that people actually want. Inspecting each one becomes untenable as the number of submissions rises, and you’re bound to see lots of “Why is X on the store when Y is clearly a better indie game”.

      Ultimately the market will decide if your game is a hit, but this allows them to focus on just publishing things that stand a better chance of being a hit. It keeps the quality of the Steam library high.

      To derail the conversation slightly, I think the same method would hurt iOS, the App Store needs to offer almost everything because it’s the only way to get software. What you then need though is a curated store(s) that sit on top of the App Store and only allow quality submissions. Several Apps have tried to be this, but nothing has become the defacto quality portal to iOS Apps.

    • Deano2099 says:

      Sorry Dominic. It was a heavily curated store. Now they just put up the thing with the most votes. That Greenlight exists, that they’re just putting up the most popular stuff (see high store shops for where that leads) means the battle for Steam as a carefully curated store is over. Sure, money won’t get you on, but a big fanbase will (which you can easily build with marketing money).

      The extra fee is just a kick in the teeth.

      • Dominic White says:

        You are aware that Greenlight itself doesn’t DO anything, right? It doesn’t automatically put games onto the store. Valve still pick and choose what goes on sale. They just have a publically chosen shortlist to pick from when it comes to indie games.

    • subshell001 says:

      That is simply not true. Good games always rise to the top. 10000000 had no advertising, no suggestions for reviews sent to blogs – NOTHING. It was thrown up with no fanfare. Yet it has done quite well for the one guy who made it. See: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-09/04/luca-redwood

  3. belgand says:

    Call me a heartless monster, but I’m actually quite critical about the choice of charity. In general Child’s Play has become problematically the default gamer charity. The issue is that when it was small it might have made some sense. It was people just trying to do something nice. But now that it’s become quite large and is raking in a lot of money I can’t help but wonder if that money couldn’t be spent better. Millions of dollars could benefit research a lot more than it would just buying video games. If your goal is to help sick children wouldn’t it make the most sense to try and see to it that there are fewer sick children to begin with?

    • Splynter says:

      A choice of charity would be nice. I also can’t really get behind forced charitable donations on principle, as that goes against the whole spirit of giving.

    • gunny1993 says:

      I would rather them charge 50 dollars and use all that money to fund moderators.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      Gotta agree. There’s nothing wrong with giving videogames to sick kids who are already being treated in good hospitals, it’s a great thing to do, but dollar for dollar it’s gotta be one of the least efficient ways of alleviating misery.

      I would be much more comfortable with a $100 donation to MSF, for example.

    • Premium User Badge

      9of9 says:

      I wanted to say pretty much exactly this, but you got there ahead of me. But yeah, this. Absolutely.

      Child’s Play has always seemed frivolous to me and entirely too America-centric (yes, they do provide for hospitals in other countries, but it certainly seems like the vast majority of donations contribute to hospitals in the states). If nothing else, I can’t help but feel that giving that same amount of money to those same hospitals for medical equipment would be such a far, far more productive goal in terms of making life better for these kids, speaking nothing of the conceit in focusing mostly on developed countries.

      In the end, Child’s Play seems to get a free pass just because it’s the only really viable game-related charity, aimed more at making gamers feel good about themselves and their hobby than actually effecting any significant change, which really irritates the hell out of me. Besides, there’s so much scope for game-related tie-ins from so many other charities that could work out beautifully (like Splinter Cell: Blacklist partnering with Amnesty International… er, or maybe not).

      On a positive note, one of the things that got my respect for the Humble Bundle organisers is both the choice of multiple charities and the ability to choose how much you contribute to each. Here’s hoping that Valve open up the selection a bit.

  4. Splynter says:

    I think it’s unfortunate that a similar brand of crowd-sourcing works wonderfully for something like Wikipedia yet falls flat on its face here. I’d like to think that given some time, the novelty of posting HL3 LOL HAHAHA NEVER COMING OUT!!! would fade and a decent self-moderating community would have emerged.

    • caddyB says:

      Wikipedia isn’t crowd sourced by adolescent troll wannabes unlike the vast majority of the gaming community.

  5. Ultra-Humanite says:

    If you can’t come up with $100 you need to get a real job.

  6. Zarunil says:

    $100 is completely reasonable. Especially when it all goes to charity, and is a one-time fee for allowing your company access to Greenlight.

    If a dev has problems coming up with $100, then maybe consider getting a job for a short while, or raise the funds through other sites. It isn’t mandatory to launch on Greenlight, and in fact could benefit the dev if he has a following ready to vote up as soon as his game is on Greenlight.

  7. k37chup says:

    Money go to charity & developers advertise there game on the steam. Sounds fair to me.

  8. D3xter says:

    I saw the discussion on the Greenlight Hub about requiring money to enter and thought it would be a good idea since it would prevent Spam etc. but the talk was about a $5 entry fee, somewhere between $20-50 would likely be the sweet spot though.

    I also wouldn’t personally trust Child’s Play since I don’t trust Penny Arcade or the way they are going about doing business with their charity, the Mass Effect thing where they didn’t permit people to put any more money into the charity, presumably since they had deals with EA/Bioware put a final nail in that coffin.
    All of my charity money in Indie Bundles and the same usually goes to the EFF, since I find that a more worthwhile endeavour and actually trust them with any sorts of money.

  9. Bob says:

    Couldn’t Valve afford to employ moderators to get rid of the dicks and their comments AND put together some kind of developer relations panel to sort out the genuine games from the crap 15 minutes of famers?

    • Shortwave says:

      They could pay some people to do it, sure.
      Or just let the people do it themselves as they would anyways…
      Achieve the same result.. Meanwhile helping out kids!

  10. Caliau says:

    Cant believe no one is seeing the bigger picture. Paying the $100 might come as a simple advertising fee in the long run. I mean come on maybe ur game wasnt heard before, its a good platform to market ur goods. If u are complaining about such a meager amount, then your not trying hard enough. Quit making games and go work at some fast food restaurant.

  11. MattM says:

    So If you need to submit to green-light and pay a fee is valve willing to post upfront information about the cut they will take of sales. It seems like they are asking a lot of developers before they are willing to even disclose what it will all cost.

  12. Shortwave says:

    As I see it, all Gab did here was turn the negative to a positive into a positive.
    Which is great really.

    If you’re seriously trying to release a game and a 100 dollars is a big issue to you.. Well.
    You seriously need to reconsider how much you actually care about what you’re doing.
    In the BIG PICTURE of things the amount of promotion and opportunity you get on steam is,
    worth a lot more than a hundred dollars if you’re actually putting a real effort into the project.
    Not to mention that the money is going towards an insanely worthy cause..
    More companies need to do shit like this, it’s how we actually make a difference in the world.
    Meanwhile still helping people who are generally already doing alright, do even better.

    So please, bitch about this kiddies.
    Along with all your other first world problems.

    Meanwhile people like Gab are helping make this world better step by step.

  13. Cam says:

    Hey, geniuses at Valve. How about a 100 dollar deposit that will be returned if the person is not a troll?

  14. Very Real Talker says:

    I really don’t like the idea of greenlight. It will open the doors to a flood of rpg maker badly done animu rpgs with small girls as protagonists, and heaps and heaps of showelware….. and billions of unnecessary zombie games.

    • blackxshade says:

      I seriously doubt floods of “rpg maker badly done animu rpgs” will get the community approval needed. If they do, hey then that’s what people want. And whats wring with young female protagonist? Personally I don’t care what gender or age the protagonist is if the game is entertaining.

  15. Acidictadpole says:

    The whole thing is actually positive for developers who are serious about this kind of thing. $100 may be a pretty substantial investment for a basement-coder, but I’d wager the better signal-to-noise ratio is worth it.

  16. Bipolar.Bear.Disorder says:

    I really don’t see why people are so upset at this fee.

    If you’re a serious developer (and not some weekend-basement-coding-hobbyist), and have a finished (or nearly-finished) product, then Steam shouldn’t be the only way to raise interest and distribute your game. Steam isn’t an end-all-be-all solution to your financial needs, and being on Steam doesn’t guarantee you Minecraft-like success. With indie-gaming getting so popular over the last couple of years, raising interest and raising money shouldn’t be too much of a problem as long as your playing it safe and smart. Desura, Kickstarter, and the countless websites (RPS included) that advertise and discuss upcoming and released indie games are all totally viable ways to raise interest and eventually sell your product.

    Greenlight, however, isn’t Kickstarter. It isn’t a place where ideas and money are thrown around at leisure. To be considered by both the community and Valve, you have to have vested interest in both your craft and your product. Because after paying hundreds of dollars for a computer and all the programs you need to actually develop your game, $100 should be a drop in the bucket. By that point, you’re invested – there’s no turning back now. You’re either a full-time game developer or a hobbyist with a lot of free time and overblown expectations.

    By the time you’re actually considering submitting your game to Greenlight, you should already have a sizable audience interested, and have probably already released your game on “lesser” distribution services. And if – by some incredibly lucky chance, no doubt – your game actually gets “Greenlit,” you will quickly earn back that $100 because people will buy your product in the thousands because, hey, they’re the ones that voted for it in the first place.

    Greenlight isn’t the solution to the indie-developers plights. It’s merely yet another tool to showcase your game. The crucial difference is, instead of showing a “rough draft,” it’s a polished experience, one that people are already willing to pay money for.

    • trjp says:

      My problem with the fee isn’t the amount – it’s the fact that asking for money is a LAZY way to regulate submissions.

      They could have setup a peer-review system where selected Steam members get to check submissions and rubber-stamp them for Greenlight (ala XBLIG) – that fits more in their their “it’s about the community” schtick than this tollbooth bullshit.

      Sure – a proper company would see $100 as nothing- and they’d submit a tonne of their games which may or may not actually be any good – in fact they’d be motivated to publish as many as possible rather than using any sort of selectivity.

      Meanwhile, a “one-man band” could find $100 rather a lot given the low chance they have on success and yet their game could be something amazing (Minecraft was a one-man-band game so we can immediately get down off our high-horses on the difference between small developers and larger ones).

      It’s not the money really tho – it’s using money as a lazy solution to a problem they’d somehow, astonishingly to me at least, not even considered before launching this!!

      • blackxshade says:

        Lazy yet it’s already working…

      • Bipolar.Bear.Disorder says:

        I don’t see it as being “lazy,” but I understand why people can see it that way.

        However, as blackxshade had already pointed out, this “lazy” way of doing things is actually working. What the $100 entry fee does is help sort out the chaff from the wheat, which is evident by the few remaining games being Greenlit. From what I’ve seen, the games on Greenlight are actually near-finished or completely finished, and have videos and screenshots to prove that they are indeed serious about their game. Without the Half-Life 3s and Battlefield 3s clogging up the Greenlight, quality products are being showcased, as they should be.

        Having the Greenlight be judged by a “select” group of Steam users isn’t the democratic way Valve were envisioning. How can we be sure that those Steam users are representative of any and all Steam users? What if they’re all RPG lovers and have a disdain for FPSs? Or what if they can’t stand RTS games, and only want turn-based games to be featured? By having the entire community rate these games, it ensures that every person have an equal say in what they want to see on Steam.

        To tackle another point, and to tie in with the previous point, the $100 fee isn’t a tollbooth, it’s a buy-in. It’s a guarantee to both Valve and the community that you’re completely serious with your game. It’s like politics. While you want any and all able-bodied person to vote, you wouldn’t necessarily want any and all able-bodied persons to be elected to a government position, right? To become a “serious politician,” you need to sink a lot of money into your campaign, which shows that you’re completely serious about the job. Imagine trying to vote for members of Congress (or Parliament, for you British types) and the ballot sheet was twenty pages long, and every other person was Cleetus-the-pig-farmer from Kentucky, and the other was Clarence-the-ignorant-bigot from… err… Yorkshire.

        Maybe that’s a bad analogy – and it probably is – but the logic still stands. It’s an investment, not a fee. And even if you weren’t chosen to be Greenlit by Valve, you can at least spin some good press out of it and declare that your company both donated to charity and were considered by Valve and the many Steam users to be interesting. Imagine what the developers can post on their websites now? It’s good advertising, for relatively cheap. Rather then spend many monies on ads on website banners and such, how about spent $100 and be featured on Steam for a considerably long period of time…?

      • Bipolar.Bear.Disorder says:

        ignore…

  17. Premium User Badge

    RobF says:

    FYI “Serious developer” folks. Having $100 just means you’ve got $100. It doesn’t mean you’re any more/less serious about your craft and making a game. It also is in no way a dividing line between being a hobbyist and being a professional. It just means you’ve got $100.

    Really, we need to stop with the anti-poor rhetoric, it’s pretty gross.

    • trjp says:

      It never fails to amaze me that people cannot grasp that the value of money varies enormously from one person to the next.

      It’s one of the main reasons using money as a deterrent for anything is bloody stupid – it’s why people write-off “fines” as being ‘a tax’ and not a punishment (see motoring fines and late video fines and all the other things people bitch about when it was 101% their own fault).

      Valve knew this well enough to put the charidee ‘distraction’ in there but the whole thing is a slapshod mess and it’s reduced my opinion of them from a smart company to one which has perhaps just been a bit lucky and in this case, it’s luck has just, plain run-out.

      If I were running a competitor to Steam now I’d be DANCING on this nonsense – “come to us and submit your games FOR FREE” – “why pay $100 for a chance of being told no?” etc. etc

      • blackxshade says:

        “using money as a deterrent for anything is bloody stupid”
        And yet it’s already working.

        “come to us and submit your games FOR FREE”
        I believe we’ve already been there… didn’t work to well.

    • TCM says:

      I am in no way anti-poor (in fact I am not in the best of financial straits myself), nor am I part of the ‘serious dev’ crowd (though putting your money where your mouth is is a pretty good standard of how serious you are about something), but I do wonder what kind of theoretical poor person who can’t scrape together $100 towards a business investment develops games for a living, presumably on at least a half decent computer.

      Consider the context when considering the meaning of money.

      • Premium User Badge

        RobF says:

        An absolute real poor person. A real game developer like many that exist. That’s what kind. The kind that make videogames and if you buy indie games, you’ve likely bought a game by someone who couldn’t afford $100 at some point. Maybe they had to sell their home to carry on doing what they do. Maybe they’re 1000′s of pounds in debt to make the game, with money having come from family, friends and credit cards galore, maybe they work out of coffee shops on battered old laptops just good enough to run what they need. And they do this because they are very serious about making games and want people to have the best games.

        But y’know, since when is “putting your money where your mouth is” any more a sign of being serious about something than building a game with the absolute most love and conviction possible? Since when is not having $100 left any sign that someone hasn’t been putting their money where their mouth is? Who’s to say they haven’t spent the whole time spending the money on making the game?

        Please, stop making up random rules that people need to conform to and just, y’know, listen to people rather than saying “you can be this, you can’t be that, you need to be this for that”. Hear them when they say “I can’t afford this” and don’t say “well, you should or you’re this”. Understand, please. These people do exist and they do make brilliant things, important things and indie dev is tough enough without making up silly random rules and trying to exclude them solely because for whatever reason, someone has decided they can or cannot be serious or proper businesspeople just because they’re not sitting on or willing to risk $100 on a gamble.

    • Bipolar.Bear.Disorder says:

      It’s not being “anti-poor,” it’s having your priories straight. If you’re a game developer – serious or not, it doesn’t matter – and you are confident with your product, then by all means, spend that $100 on what is essentially a gamble.

      If you can’t afford the $100, then why did you spend hundreds of dollars on a computer and the programs required to develop a game? If $100 is too high a price for you, then you shouldn’t be a game developer… yet. Get another job, pay off your debts and whatever else that is making you “dirt poor,” and sort out your life first. The game industry won’t die in the years between now and later. No one’s forcing you to be a game developer now and suffer the consequences.

      If you have to choose between spending that money on being Greenlit on Steam and feeding your family, then feed your fucking family. It’s that simple. In the meantime, raise interest on your game, and maybe even start a Kickstarter, or release a demo to the public, and release the game when you’re ready.

      • Premium User Badge

        RobF says:

        You don’t build business relationships on these sort of grounds, you don’t gamble for a place on a storefront, you bring value to the store as a developer because without developers bringing their products to the store, the place is a barren wasteland of fuck all.

        People really need to start remembering that in transactions like this. You’re worth more than a gamble, you’re what enables the store to make a profit because it’s your work they sell. So equitable relationships, yeah? No gambling and no justifying bullshit fees just to try and attract a store owners attention. It’s got nothing to do with confidence and everything to do with keeping business on reasonable terms.

        No big publisher would stand for this, Gabe Newell would likely walk out the room if someone told him he’d have to pay a fee to possibly be considered, maybe in order to get a Valve game on a service. Don’t encourage it to happen to indies when no-one else would put up with it.

        If Valve have a problem with spam submissions then it’s not up to genuine developers to pay for the problems others cause in their system. It shouldn’t be a gamble full stop, Valve should be getting on and fixing up Greenlight proper to mitigate these problems without passing it onto developers and I suspect they will and I suspect and hope that this fee disappears soon also.

  18. blackxshade says:

    I’m really wondering where all these alleged “dirt poor” devs are who have possibly created the greatest game ever. Yet are unable to pony up, scrape together, and/or have donated in their name 100 bucks toward it’s possible success on one of the most popular online markets of PC gaming.

    Further more I’m also wondering where the possibly 100s of spam item went from green light… Gee, maybe they are gone for good…

    • Bipolar.Bear.Disorder says:

      If you can afford a computer and the programs to develop the “next-big-game,” then a $100 fee shouldn’t be too much to pony up.

      Quite simply put, if you’re a game developer and can spent $100 to be considered to be on Steam, then by all means, go for it. If you can’t, then you got bigger problems to worry about than whether or not your game will be selected.

  19. postrook says:

    if you’re serious about getting yr game on steam, $100 is nothing, and it keeps out the trolls who will make the entire greenlight system look bad.

    I think valve did the right thing.

  20. InternetBatman says:

    $100 isn’t that bad for US or EU teams, I don’t think is the best way to do greenlight in the long run, but it’s fine in the short run. I hope that they have a different price for other parts of the world though.

  21. Tuco says:

    If as a developer you are not confident enough in your product to invest 100$ to promote it and give it more visibility, then I probably don’t even want to see your game, because it’s going to be some serious shovelware.

    “But, but but… Even if I pay my game could still be rejected!”.
    Well, if you feel so strongly that’s a consistent possibility then maybe you should put more effort in improving your project or just give up about the idea of publishing it for sales on Steam.

    And that’s from someone who’s “poor” enough to consider 100$ a not-trivial amount of money.

  22. Yglorba says:

    The one sad thing about this, to me, is that it’s presumably going to keep out most genuinely free (not F2P) mods and games. Getting more mods on steam, in particular, was one of the really big things about Greenlight to me — I remember when the original Zombie Master shut down, part of the reason was their failure to get on Steam, which killed their audience (along with L4D being released, of course.)

    The cynical part of me suspects that that’s intentional; genuinely-free games on Steam risk luring people away from the games that actually make Valve a cut.