Steam Greenlight Failure Leads Indie Dev To Torrent His Own Game

[Albino Boo]

there is no benefit on being on the largest pc game retailer then?

Well according to every news piece we've heard about Greenlight, I guess?

VAlve is not the publisher of the game but just a retailer and if you want them do your marketing for you then you sing a publishing deal. Business do not do thins out the kindness of their hearts, if you cant drum up enough people to vote for you then you wont drum up sales either.

Let me go back to my main point here: "the consequences of giving one group a near monopoly and control on an entire market, they can treat devs how they like without worry of consequence"

I'm not exactly seeing a counter to that, I'm not disputing that Valve aren't obligated to do marketing. I'm just pointing out how stupid Greenlight is.

If you can't sell your game it does not matter about the the market share of this or that retailer you still won't be successful. Its easier to shoot the messenger than to accept that you failed to convince the general public your game is worth buying. A lot devs have put their heart and soul into making a game they think is great, but none of that matters if you can't convince anyone else.

 

[Brian Tams]

This is less of a problem with Green Light, and more of a problem with "No Steam, no Sale" attitude that's infected the gaming community.

"I released it days ago on Desura/Humble Store, but the trend is clear: nobody is going to buy it unless it's on Steam. Thus, I've put it on torrent so everyone can enjoy it."

This itself is ridiculous. Just because it goes up on other sites doesn't mean it should be ignored.

I'd like to see the dev turn to GOG.com. I think it would do much better there.

I'd still like to see greenlight get axed, though. Horrendous idea.

 

[Falterfire]

And this is perhaps what I hate most about Greenlight. Even if it wasn't a miserable clusterfuck that has accomplished absolutely nothing it wouldn't change the fact that the overwhelming "no steam, no buy" attitude creates an environment where unless your name is Notch failure to get on steam basically locks you out of major success. (as an indie, AAA is different obviously, although I suspect even in that sector not being on Steam is a bad idea)

I'd say that part of that has to do with the sheer number of games available. I tend to be 'no Steam, no buy' because I like Steam and there are way way more games released each month than I can afford to buy (Or find time to play if I had the money) anyways. It's not like not buying non-Steam games puts me in a position where I'm finding myself at a loss for quality games to play in the time I have available. If a game not on Steam manages to catch my attention I'll still buy it (I grabbed Creeper World 3 a little while ago from the dev's site) but in general enough quality games are put in front of my face that I don't need to go looking for them.

'No Steam, No Buy' is part of the problem, sure, but if every game automatically got on Steam (Or was just open for fair consideration) you'd still have to deal with the truly ridiculous number of games available making it hard for any one to get attention.

 

[Ipsen]

I wouldn't be so quick to blame Steam, the company for issues like this case. Steam only has its pervasiveness because of its users, and what is Greenlight, but a voting platform for the users? We decide what goes up on Steam.

The voting platform is controlled by Steam though, the onus is on them to fix it if there is a problem.[footnote]This point rests on the assumption of Steam's main defenders claim that it's the best DD platform.[/footnote] The developers can't do anything about it (though as we've seen with many recent debacles, the makers of the shovelware and unfinished games that plague Steam are given Carte Blanche to control the image of their game on Steam). If the devs don't like it, then they'll have to find another way of getting their game out there, which isn't that easy.

Of course a 'simple' voting system can be abused. It shouldn't be so simple then should it?

But 'voting' sounds nice! Being simple is a plus!

No, really, would you WANT to deal with a more complex selection process, given the rate games are being submitted to Steam now?

And let's be clear here; Greenlight is getting used. Steam had the control to make the platform, take down the platform, or fix a recognized problem with the platform. Pretty much everything in between, the outcome/output of the platform, is by power of the vote of users; at least, that's the intent of the platform.

But Steam has to first recognize an issue, or at least an issue in which its resolution won't fuck everything else up. The current cries for blatant 'curate your games, Steam!' (looking at you, Jim) only hearken back to how Steam used to market games. Not integrally problematic, but all things considered, it puts more work on Steam (again, considering the bursting volume of game submissions), plus less control for users, which I surmise can be a stifiling, if not outright negative position in the long run.

On the other hand, Greenlight remains mostly as it is (until its purported end); users have the agency they always have, but they have to deal with the deluge of games. This is the more likely outcome, since again, the platform Steam made gets used by simply putting things in the hands of users. Problems

Do you see where I'm coming from? I think this is less about Steam solving some contrived issue, but one of an excess of games of wildly variable quality reaching the market place. Whether Steam or the users let bad games through, that outcome would always be problematic in the end.

I'd be more for facilitating better selection filtering of games now, by the power of the interested user than even the demands of developers who, while a great portion practice honesty in approach in marketing, are intent for my money, and some fall to more unscrupulous methods with that intent. Developers do need good tools for marketing (there's a noticable number of people who haven't even heard of the game in this article), but I think some of that marketing for awareness has to be facilitated outside of Steam, personally.

 

[NiPah]

Credit where credit is due, giving your game away for free so more people can enjoy it is pretty ace.
Just, maybe he should have approached this differently, instead of putting your bets in with Greenlight maybe he should have gone with a known publisher? Steam is a powerful marketing force but if you're not selling on other pretty well known online stores then maybe there isn't enough public interest/knowledge, so hopefully this will get it some more positive PR.

I notice in his post he never actually attacks Steam Greenlight, good on him.

 

[Vivi22]

And this is perhaps what I hate most about Greenlight. Even if it wasn't a miserable clusterfuck that has accomplished absolutely nothing it wouldn't change the fact that the overwhelming "no steam, no buy" attitude creates an environment where unless your name is Notch failure to get on steam basically locks you out of major success. (as an indie, AAA is different obviously, although I suspect even in that sector not being on Steam is a bad idea)

This is utter nonsense.

Firstly, it's a bit difficult to say Greenlight has accomplished nothing when hundreds of games have gotten on Steam because of it. I don't deny that it's got a lot of problems, but being completely ineffective isn't one of them.

Secondly, the idea that a game absolutely must be on Steam to sell is nonsense. It helps, but there have been a great many indie titles that sold well without being on Steam, and even more which only got on Steam in the first place because there was huge buzz about them on the internet. All that needed to happen for this particular game to make it onto Steam was for this guy to get the word out and cultivate a fan base that was pumped enough about the game to vote en masse to get it through. That that didn't happen tells me that either he's a terrible marketer, or the game wasn't all that to begin with. Neither of which would be Steam's fault.

A lot of titles fail all the time without being bad titles. And more often than not it's because the people making them aren't business people and don't know how to cultivate their fanbase and keep them interested enough to get the word out there. Let's not pretend that this business is something it's not and act like any game that is just a good game has what it takes to make it. If the only thing you're relying on is your game being good in order to sell it then you're taking a massive risk and will be lucky to get anywhere.

 

[major_chaos]

Firstly, it's a bit difficult to say Greenlight has accomplished nothing when hundreds of games have gotten on Steam because of it. I don't deny that it's got a lot of problems, but being completely ineffective isn't one of them.

Most of the good games that made it through greenlight should have made it faster (on what planet is Wayforward not a qualified developer?) instead of languishing in purgatory for months. And prehaps more importantly it has done nothing to stem the tide of semifunctional garbage that pours onto steam on an almost daily basis. Delaying the relese of good games wile doing very little to filter out the bad strikes me as a failure. What Steam needs isn't greenlight, its internal quality control.

Let's not pretend that this business is something it's not and act like any game that is just a good game has what it takes to make it. If the only thing you're relying on is your game being good in order to sell it then you're taking a massive risk and will be lucky to get anywhere.

And this is a horrible state of a affairs that has given us the terrified, safe, stagnant AAA industry. Its no longer about making a good game, its about making a marketable game.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

And this is perhaps what I hate most about Greenlight. Even if it wasn't a miserable clusterfuck that has accomplished absolutely nothing it wouldn't change the fact that the overwhelming "no steam, no buy" attitude creates an environment where unless your name is Notch failure to get on steam basically locks you out of major success. (as an indie, AAA is different obviously, although I suspect even in that sector not being on Steam is a bad idea)

This is utter nonsense.

Firstly, it's a bit difficult to say Greenlight has accomplished nothing when hundreds of games have gotten on Steam because of it. I don't deny that it's got a lot of problems, but being completely ineffective isn't one of them.

293 of the 647 games Greenlit have been released. Some of which were Greenlight in the first batch and still have no release date. Greenlight may not be completely ineffective, but it being less than %50 effective combined with Valve letting dozens of other games get on without Greenlight, as well as plenty of Early Access titles bypassing Greenlight, AND the recent trend of allowing literally entire 10+ year old titles from a developers backlog clog up the New Releases tab make getting onto Steam as an indie developer with no publisher borderline impossible.

Secondly, the idea that a game absolutely must be on Steam to sell is nonsense. It helps, but there have been a great many indie titles that sold well without being on Steam, and even more which only got on Steam in the first place because there was huge buzz about them on the internet. All that needed to happen for this particular game to make it onto Steam was for this guy to get the word out and cultivate a fan base that was pumped enough about the game to vote en masse to get it through. That that didn't happen tells me that either he's a terrible marketer, or the game wasn't all that to begin with. Neither of which would be Steam's fault.

Steam does sell titles. The developers have said so. They've even said that simply being on the front page boosts sale significantly. A lot of titles of sold well without Steam, but for every one of those titles, there are many more success stories with Steam than without. Games just don't sell as well being on just GoG.com. People like to pretend this isn't true but that's a fact. I'm not saying Steam is perfect. Believe me. I was one of the first people saying that Greenlight was going to be a failure back when it first started. But to say that Steam doesn't increase sale chances is like saying being sold in EB Games doesn't increase console titles sold compared to Wal-Mart.

A lot of titles fail all the time without being bad titles. And more often than not it's because the people making them aren't business people and don't know how to cultivate their fanbase and keep them interested enough to get the word out there. Let's not pretend that this business is something it's not and act like any game that is just a good game has what it takes to make it. If the only thing you're relying on is your game being good in order to sell it then you're taking a massive risk and will be lucky to get anywhere.

This is an an exceedingly fair point. I have never heard of this game, but if it did get released on Steam millions people would have at least seen it up on the "New Releases" tab. The traffic of Steam would have undeniably boosted sales.

 

[Denamic]

It's easy to blame others for your failures. Sure, Greenlight is pretty crap, but you can't put all blame on it. Like many others in this thread, I've never even heard of this game before. And even if it was on steam, I still wouldn't buy it. Not only because I'm not into puzzle games, but it really doesn't look interesting to me, and I'd wager a guess that the game didn't spread by word of mouth because others thought so too. There are people who appreciates this kind of thing a lot more than me, but they are too few and far in between to effectively spread virally, which is why you need to advertise.

Then again, this is pretty effective advertisement, not to mention free, and I have to wonder of it was intended. If it was, well played.

 

[Albino Boo]

Funny story. A lot of the trash is voted in.

Basically any _____ simulator gets voted in. Zombeer got voted in. Guise of the wolf got voted in. Castle Miner Z got voted in. Day One Garry's incident. Rekoil got voted in.

All the big name failures that isn't War Z got voted in.

Steam's QA is basically a bunch of people voting. and greenlight voters are as awful as real voters. Steam lets the masses run steam, and the masses are way too naive and way too willing to spend money on promises.

Greenlight is so swamped with mobile gaming trash no one bothers to get to the good games. Publishers rather put out their old backlogs than support unknown indies. Even the old backlog gets voted in because people want it.

I have stopped browsing greenlight entirely. There is just so much trash.

Err guess what its the masses that buy the games. Those pesky masses won't spend money on things they don't like so letting them vote is pretty good indicator of what will sell.

 

[alj]

So any Joe publisher can put utter trash on the store from 15 years ago that does not even work, yet a dev with a new game no matter how unknown it is cannot get onto the store when his game works and its brand new.

Crazy

Honestly at the moment steam is worse than origin.

 

[flamedance58]

Look up TotalBiscuit's videos about why Steam is so messed up...and this is a perfect example of what happens.

It's really hilarious how you might make a AAA game that everyone and their donkey wants, and then I can just upload a hundred games all about purple frozen eggplants doing the Polka and your game is not on page 9.

 

[Roxor]

This is less of a problem with Green Light, and more of a problem with "No Steam, no Sale" attitude that's infected the gaming community.

"I released it days ago on Desura/Humble Store, but the trend is clear: nobody is going to buy it unless it's on Steam. Thus, I've put it on torrent so everyone can enjoy it."

This itself is ridiculous. Just because it goes up on other sites doesn't mean it should be ignored.

I'd like to see the dev turn to GOG.com. I think it would do much better there.

I'd still like to see greenlight get axed, though. Horrendous idea.

I wouldn't call it a horrendous idea, rather an incomplete one.

I think Greenlight would work better if it were just the first stage of a system which EVERY game which ends up on Steam has to pass through.

Maybe something like this:

Stage 1: concept evaluation (basically Greenlight)

Anyone can vote on a game in this stage, and the developer doesn't need to supply an executable. It's essentially for evaluating what people think of a concept. Every month, the list is filtered to those games which have been in the system for more than three months and have accumulated more than 1000 votes. It's then sorted by ratio of Interested to Not Interested votes. The bottom 10% is rejected and the top 10% is passed to Stage 2.

Stage 2: testing the beta

Again, largely done by the general public, but the developer needs to provide an executable. It doesn't have to be finished, but it does have to be functional. Participating players (maybe those who beta-test Steam itself) try the game and after playing it for a few hours, give it a yay or nay vote. Either way, they get their Steam wallet credited by the game's price as compensation for their time (or maybe a copy of the game if they liked it instead). The same automatic accept/reject criteria as Stage 1 are applied with regards to whether it gets passed to Stage 3 or rejected.

Stage 3: qualified evaluation

To test games in this stage, you need to sit an exam to prove you know something about what makes a good game. Games in this stage must be finished and ready for release. Basically Stage 2, but with qualified people. Maybe journalists, like The Escapist's own Jim Sterling. If it passes Stage 3, it gets into the store.

Given how much crap there is on Steam at the moment, I would suggest putting the entire current Greenlight and Steam Store contents through this new system, and if an existing Store entry gets rejected, give everyone who bought it a refund.

 

[Kahani]

It's an unfortunate outcome that speaks rather poorly of Steam Greenlight

It does nothing of the sort. The entire point of Greenlight is that it is a way to choose which games get sold on Steam and which don't. One person whining about his game not being one of those chosen says absolutely nothing bad about it at all. The fact that no-one is buying it in other popular, although much smaller than Steam, stores makes it seem far more likely that the problem lies with the game and/or marketing. Greenlight may be horribly flawed in some ways, but the fact that some games are chosen while others aren't is not a flaw, it's the whole fucking point of the thing.

 

[Albino Boo]

Funny story. A lot of the trash is voted in.

Basically any _____ simulator gets voted in. Zombeer got voted in. Guise of the wolf got voted in. Castle Miner Z got voted in. Day One Garry's incident. Rekoil got voted in.

All the big name failures that isn't War Z got voted in.

Steam's QA is basically a bunch of people voting. and greenlight voters are as awful as real voters. Steam lets the masses run steam, and the masses are way too naive and way too willing to spend money on promises.

Greenlight is so swamped with mobile gaming trash no one bothers to get to the good games. Publishers rather put out their old backlogs than support unknown indies. Even the old backlog gets voted in because people want it.

I have stopped browsing greenlight entirely. There is just so much trash.

Err guess what its the masses that buy the games. Those pesky masses won't spend money on things they don't like so letting them vote is pretty good indicator of what will sell.

So people are only allowed to spend their own money on what you think is good. What makes your opinion better than everyones elses?

masses vote for garbage.
masses buy garbage.
masses blame steam for letting them buy garbage they wanted.

one of these things is not like the other. one of these things is an awful idea.

and the fact steam is flooded with garbage shows that mob democracy is awful.

What makes you opinion better than everyone elses? Why are you so important?

 

[Robert Marrs]

Greenlight is for sure a failure but I don't really think this game not getting on greenlight is evidence of that. Maybe the game just isn't that great or people just are not interested in it? Granted a spot on steam would greatly boost the sales and exposure of even the worst games but if the game sucks anyways no loss to the world. Really I had never even heard of this game until now so he obviously didn't do a very good job on raising awareness for his game. So yes greenlight is completely broken and really shit games from developers who don't have to submit to greenlight slip through the cracks but some personal responsibility needs to be taken here. If nobody even knows your game exists how can you expect for them to vote for it on greenlight?

 

[uncanny474]

Utter nonsense.

And a howdy to you too.

Its up the people putting their games on to greenlight to market it. Steam is not going to do that for them and if you can't do your own marketing as an indie you are never going to make it whatever platform you use.

Fair enough then, though I have to wonder why you'd use Greenlight then. I just read this on Valve's page on it:

Who should submit their games to Steam Greenlight? Is there another way to submit my game to Steam?

Steam Greenlight has replaced our previous submission process. Any developer or publisher who is new to Steam and interested in submitting their game to the platform should submit their game through Steam Greenlight.

So there is no real benefit for Greenlight to developers then, it's just another set of hoops for indies to go through.

It's *supposed* to be quality assurance. Previously, they had an *actual* QA process that new devs went through, but a few indie devs with more pull than Steam expected got rejected and bitched to their fanbases, and based on the drama from that, Steam said "You want to sift through the garbage instead of us? Fine. Steam Greenlight."

Though the fact that steam, as far as I can tell, runs literally NO QA on established publishers and devs is a little bullshit, I'll admit.

 

[DrOswald]

there is no benefit on being on the largest pc game retailer then?

Well according to every news piece we've heard about Greenlight, I guess?

VAlve is not the publisher of the game but just a retailer and if you want them do your marketing for you then you sing a publishing deal. Business do not do thins out the kindness of their hearts, if you cant drum up enough people to vote for you then you wont drum up sales either.

Let me go back to my main point here: "the consequences of giving one group a near monopoly and control on an entire market, they can treat devs how they like without worry of consequence"

I'm not exactly seeing a counter to that, I'm not disputing that Valve aren't obligated to do marketing. I'm just pointing out how stupid Greenlight is.

To be fair, greenlight is only as stupid as the gamer community makes it. The biggest mistake made with greenlight was Valve respecting the decision making powers of the gamer community.