But $100 for Valve to deign to consider and reject your game (as with, eg, New Star Soccer)? lolno
Last edited by TillEulenspiegel; 05-09-2012 at 01:28 AM.
Greenlight is clearly more then just a new submission process for game developers. Valve seem pretty happy to experiment with what are now fairly conventional social networking/marketing/crowdsourcing mechanics to improve their platform.
The problem of false reviews/support has actually hit the book industry lately. With the rise in self-publishing, some writers are paying for services where, for a nominal fee, their book is sent to a bunch of "readers" who will write "reviews" on all the major sites. While there is no guarantee (my ass), said "readers" are usually VERY flattering. http://www.harryjconnolly.com/blog/?p=6822 is an interesting commentary on it that provides links and allows me to advertise an author I really like.
And while I think 100 bucks is a bit much, it really isn't that bad if you think about it. Especially because, if Steam "supports" it, pretty much every other DD service will leap at it.
MS charges out the ass to use XBOX Live and go through "verification"
I don't know what Sony charges, but I imagine they charge for "verification" too
This is basically Steam charging for "verification" as it were. The only difference is that it is pending "proof" that the game will sell.
And if 100 bucks is going to make or break your development costs, it is probably best you didn't get on Steam in the first place. Hear me out. Odds are the beta testing is a very limited pool who are all fans. Look at Elemental for why that doesn't work ("Oh, that is probably a feature. I know Stardock wouldn't bugger this up. I'll ignore it") :p. So odds are a bunch of bugs and issues will be found via the Steam community. And if your development costs couldn't take a 100 dollar hit, odds are you don't have the resources to FIX those bugs. So if they are found early and people stop buying, the early adopters are boned.
Just to be clear - we're not down on $100 because it's $100, we're down on it because it's a shitty stopgap solution to a situation they SHOULD have seen coming before launch and using 'charidee' to deflect criticism is a low blow.
It's also 'per game' I think - and not a once-off fee - which will deter people from listing because they have a series of games or whatever!?
The way it was before tho, you had to be stupid NOT to put your game on there - it was free publicity (at least a few hundred hits an hour!!) - it's possibly even worth $100 to do it even now (just make it look like your game isn't totally shit and you'll get somewhere!!)
Charging customers money to solve YOUR problem and YOUR inability just to moderate content is still fucking cheeky tho. As LewieP said in Twitter, people would do it for you - peer review (review by other developers) works well for XBLIG and so on - many good solutions exist which don't mistake wealth for talent.
I'd made that mistake with Valve upto today - ah well, hey ho.
Dejobaan are offering to lend $100 to people who want to submit games to Steam (see Twitter)
I've suggested they simply setup an account and post anything they like on behalf of the developers - that way Steam get less money - but then, of course, they're doing Valve's job for them!!
If I step-back from this for a second I'm just amazed we've gotten where we are in less than a week. Steam has gone from 'walled garden' to "armoured fortress with a pay-to-peek window" and I don't think that's improved it in ANY way for ANYone.
I really had hoped Steam would become more interesting with this and the non-game content and stuff - but there's a really grimy and soiled aspect to this which is worse than some of the games on Greenlight :)
Trjp you're overreacting. No one really has much of an idea of what's going on behind the scenes. Greenlight could have been flooded with submissions from crapware publishers trying to get the dozens of shitty titles they own listed. The fact that changes are being implemented within a short time frame is a positive sign. And stopgaps usually are ugly. That's why it's so obviously a stopgap and not the end times like the way you're carrying on suggests. Remember, it's only been a week if that.
Before 10k sales, your game wouldn't be listed in the main store, but you'd get to use the Steam platform.
Last edited by Stardog; 05-09-2012 at 04:40 AM.
Wow. They took on my advice. Changed the thumbs up/down to "buy or not". :D
Wonder if I'd stand a chance getting a job there... ;)
These 'submission' fees keeps the entry real. No more trolling trash. It helps the legit entry get more views and filter away the trash. Something I wanted so badly.
I don't see why this is a bad idea. Oh you want free ? Enjoy the joke entries.
And if you think $100 is too much to get some exposure on Steam and hopefully be featured / at least gets people talking about it - then you're in the wrong line of business. You should try door to door, it's cheaper amirite?
Last edited by r3dknight; 05-09-2012 at 08:45 AM.
$100 to keep trash out sounds reasonable.
Having the "no" vote remove it from your sight sounds reasonable. Having it affect the prospect of a project sounds retarded and I think Steam will cop on to that if they haven't already. No reason that because 10K people want a game and 30K don't doesn't mean it shouldn't be sold.
My 'irk' is that releasing a system where ANYONE could upload a "game" - with no verification or moderation of what they uploaded - was naive in the extreme. To turn around within days and say "Oh - that didn't work so now we're going to ask for money" is a lazy and shoddy workaround (and using charity to deflect criticism is low).
They talk endlessly about their 'community' but they're not really doing anything with it. The 'community' has it within their power to create a peer review team - their community actually weeded-out the stupid titles pretty bloody quickly anyway AND the rate of those appearing was in decline (70 a day at first - down to just a handful yesterday).
The voting system remains opaque (it was positively obscure before - why don't they ENGAGE their users instead of treating them like lab rats. They'd not release a game which was half-baked and then fix it as they went along, would they??
Then there's the fact that to hit '100%', a game (currently) requires around 2 million unique visitors which is an astonishing requirement (one about 80% of their current catalog probably couldn't pull-off). Yes, they can vary it BUT that's not 'empowering their community' and unlike their willingness to trade common-sense for cash, they're not rushing into doing that are they?
I don't think I'm overreacting - I just get annoyed when I see something I could do way better being done so poorly by people who have the resources to do far, far better.
It's not the sum of money - it's the fact they've decided to use money as a measure of 'quality' which never EVER ends well.
Meh, they have made moving around Greenlight an absolute hell. The "generate new list" button doesn't work unless there are already open slots from where you have rated games that are in your current list. The only way you can get a new list is to change the filters, and even then, it seems like you get relatively the same list, only with the genres you don't want to rate filtered out. And then, on top of that, you get one page, and one page only. So you get to view what it decides to give you and ONLY what it decides to give you. There's not even a way to go through the entire list before rating what it gave you.
It also means more people might use it. I don't use the android app store because of the volume of crap in it. I wouldn't use greenlight if it had the same volume of crap in it. I only want to view potential projects that will actually possible come to light and not have to see fake projects in place of real ones. I'm sure devs also feel the same. They'd want you to see their project in your list/on the page and not "half life 3 for realsies!"
And the money goes to a charity, which is an added bonus.