The Valve/Steam thread

[Lafolie]

Slime makes a good point here. It could even be argued that denying players the chance to play a demo will increase anticipation. How many times have you said or heard a peer say "I can't wait to play [x]!". Plus, if your description is accurate, chances are people will have a good idea of how the game is supposed to play out, since there are doubtless other games that are similar.

The fee is good, end of. Without it the amount of garbage and un-deserving projects would overwhelm the initiative. Sadly it seems that there are many developers who don't understand that the end user/player will not appreciate all the lines of code they wrote to make a sprite move around the screen, and that they are only concerned with the end result, or at least something near-completed. There may be the odd example of a game whose development process has been closely followed (Minecraft?), but for the majority of games this won't be the case until the game starts taking on it's own form and showing some promise (and often it won't even do this).

One of the keys to marketing is knowing your audience demographic. I would estimate from my experience (without any prior research, so take this lightly) that the majority of Steam users purchase AAA games and the odd arcade/smaller/indie game. This majority will be impressed by gameplay innovations, fancy graphics, multiplayer capability (where appropriate) and more than anything, convenience. Is your game is a week old, chances are you shouldn't be posting it on Steam greenlight. Players will have to wait months or even years to actually play your game, which is not convenient at all. So no votes for you.

People who don't want to/can't pay their fee because of these reasons are being spared from derogatory comments. It's more of an idiot-barrier than a fee, there's no real issue for the games that deserve to be on there or that people really want. I mean, if a developer truly can't afford the money and there are people who want it on there this fanbase will likely fund the game's posting (Kickstarter is pretty much just that, though not focussed on greenlight).

$100 is nothing for a deserving game. Greenlight is not a distribution platform for indie devs, though it may seem to be. It is simply a way for Steam to cut down on expenditure and workload whilst also appeasing their userbase. Why go hunting for developers when you can make them come to you with little effort? If you're a sensible developer and you have an original/sincere project then greenlight should just be something to try, fee or not. You may get somewhere using it, you may not. There are other ways to get yourself heard, and if you are not careful your project will get hacked to pieces by negative comments left by the elitest, the harsh and fanatic. Confidence or not, it can be tough to recover from negative, non-constructive criticisms in the marketing world.

Eh, there's always going to be people so disillusioned as to pay the fee and put their undeserving project on there, but at least the fee cuts most of the unwanted fat out of the system.

It is a completely subjective system. If you want something to get the go-ahead, vote for it. If you feel they wasted their $100, downvote it. In either case, tell your friends, rally the troops and support your cause. (Vote for this: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/f ... earchtext=)

Don't be an idiot. Post your game when it is truly ready to inspire awe into those that gaze upon its screenshots.

[ivan]

Do companies that use Steam have to pay a fee or a split when the game is actually being sold on it?

Yes, there is a split of course.

Steam is really not a democratic universe. They have particular tastes concerning Indie games. I remember some more or less know indie games have their games refused before cause of style or more mature content.

I think it should be pointed out that the purpose of Greenlight is NOT to promote good or innovative games but to find what will sell on Steam.
If you're looking for innovation, the last thing you want to do is let the average Steam users decide based on a few screenshots and a video.
Nobody will play through all the submitted games either just to figure out which have the best gameplay.

Also, Greenlight is not (and probably won't be anytime soon) the primary source for new games on Steam.
Steam has deals with loads of publishers who don't have to go through Greenlight at all.
Greenlight is more of a supplement to the influx of (bigger budget) games they already have coming in.
It would be interesting to see which games get picked as I do hope they will be of a variety of genres and not just the ones with the most votes.

[coffee]

I think it should be pointed out that the purpose of Greenlight is NOT to promote good or innovative games but to find what will sell on Steam.
If you're looking for innovation, the last thing you want to do is let the average Steam users decide based on a few screenshots and a video.
Nobody will play through all the submitted games either just to figure out which have the best gameplay.

Just to note that when I was talking about "they" I was talking about Valve and not the users. Valve old problem is that indie games don't/didn't fit their family/standard/clean profile but they are aware now with Minecraft wave and Xbox indie games that can sell very well. So Greenlight is a kind of relief for them for not have to choose, aprove or refuse strange games by their concepts. Before was "too weird for us" so refused, now will be "too weird for us but ok that appear to appeal, can sell enough so we close our eyes".

Also, Greenlight is not (and probably won't be anytime soon) the primary source for new games on Steam.
Steam has deals with loads of publishers who don't have to go through Greenlight at all.
Greenlight is more of a supplement to the influx of (bigger budget) games they already have coming in.
It would be interesting to see which games get picked as I do hope they will be of a variety of genres and not just the ones with the most votes.

My view is Greenlight serves two purposes.
1 - Keep Steam cool, follow the trends, don't be too old-fashioned. A PR action we could say.
2 - Get away of the burden of no longer directly accept/refuse kind of games that aren't their core business.

[felix24]

if every cent of the $100 fee actually goes to charity i have no problem with it.

what i think is pretty cheeky though is that you have to buy a steam game before you can submit to greenlight. granted pretty much everyone has a steam account with games on it already, but still.....

[coffee]

EA 'held talks to acquire Valve for $1billion'

Holy Crap! Just to don't have to split Sims profit on Steam! (kidding)

http://www.develop-online.net/news/4191 ... Develop%29

[josefnpat]

EA 'held talks to acquire Valve for $1billion'

Holy Crap! Just to don't have to split Sims profit on Steam! (kidding)

http://www.develop-online.net/news/4191 ... Develop%29

I quote from reddit;

Gabe's comment on Valve being more likely to "disintegrate" than be acquired is one that should give everybody re-assurance that Valve isn't going anywhere.