Steam Greenlight Repels Trolls With New $100 Fee
- Thread starter Fanghawk
- Start date
Recommended Videos
as arbitrary numbers go why not $100, what people consider too high or low is so subjective does it really matter?
i imagin that most people who are in a position to make a game that would get through the voting process are able to absorb the extra cost espically as the gains at the other end stand too be so high.
now the people voting will know that the designer has enough faith in the product to pay to get it seen, and the developer knows now their product will stand on its merrits and not get burried under a mountain of spam and maybe overlooked.
also how long do you think people will wade through the voting process if every time they have to report half a dozen games. they put up with it as its new later on they will get fed up and not bother.
i imagin that most people who are in a position to make a game that would get through the voting process are able to absorb the extra cost espically as the gains at the other end stand too be so high.
now the people voting will know that the designer has enough faith in the product to pay to get it seen, and the developer knows now their product will stand on its merrits and not get burried under a mountain of spam and maybe overlooked.
also how long do you think people will wade through the voting process if every time they have to report half a dozen games. they put up with it as its new later on they will get fed up and not bother.
$100 is the perfect price. It's high enough that nobody's gonna pony it up "for teh lulz", but it's low enough that anybody who's actually serious can get in.
To put it in scale, I work part-time at a grocery store making just above minimum wage, and I make about $100 per week. It's a substantial amount of money, but not enough to get in the way of anyone's dreams.
Plus, it all goes to charity.
To those of you who think Valve should hire screeners: That's exactly what they WERE doing before they instigated Greenlight. And you got mad at them, so they made Greenlight. Make up your damn minds.
To put it in scale, I work part-time at a grocery store making just above minimum wage, and I make about $100 per week. It's a substantial amount of money, but not enough to get in the way of anyone's dreams.
Plus, it all goes to charity.
To those of you who think Valve should hire screeners: That's exactly what they WERE doing before they instigated Greenlight. And you got mad at them, so they made Greenlight. Make up your damn minds.
When I first looked at the games at Greenlight, I saw mainly troll submissions, which made me abandon the whole idea of looking at these games, since I didn't want to bother with all the troll submissions.
A $100 fee shouldn't deter a competent developer, but it is likely to deter trolls. Since the money goes to charity I guess it's OK.
A $100 fee shouldn't deter a competent developer, but it is likely to deter trolls. Since the money goes to charity I guess it's OK.
Seriously guys, $100 isn't much if you were serious with your proyect to begin with, I absolutely see nothing wrong with it, especially as all of this money goes towards charity.
I didn't realize indie game makers were poor sobs with no money. It's $100, if you're serious about your game and have the time to create one anyways i'm sure you can spend that much. Good for Valve, the troll submissions were getting silly.
I think both the idea and the price is just about right. I had initially thought $100 was a tad steep, but then I remembered that Valve has already dealt with giving the public a certain permission at the same price: their "Something Special for Someone Special". For those unaware, it was a digital ring you could buy for someone in Team Fortress 2 for $100. When you did, you were given the ability to essentially broadcast some sort of message to all of those playing the game at the time. As you might imagine, people jumped on the opportunity.
So yeah, $100 doesn't seem so bad.
So yeah, $100 doesn't seem so bad.
This raises the question of who would believe that Half-life 3 would need to go on Steam Greenlight. I doubt Valve needs to get votes to approve their own game.
And I've seen what it was like before, it's a shame this had to be done but it really was getting out of hand.
And I've seen what it was like before, it's a shame this had to be done but it really was getting out of hand.
$100 seems fair, high enough to deter anyone doing it just for a joke and junk submissions but low enough that anyone who is actually serious about it should be able to pay it.
I didn?t actually realise they weren?t making money from it. Point for value
I didn?t actually realise they weren?t making money from it. Point for value
The problem is that you're looking at this from a personal standpoint. Obviously for you, $100 is a pretty sizable purchase that needs a lot of consideration and justification. For a business, though, $100 should be a drop in the bucket. Say this game sells for $5, he only needs to sell 20 copies and he's already paid for the submission fee.dangoball said:
And really, that's just the point. You have to really be desperate for a chance to troll if you're going to pay $100 to submit a fake game; meanwhile someone who's really serious about getting into the gaming industry will barely even feel the hit.
It just occured to me how out of touch I am with reality...
I'm looking at the posts saying '$100 is a bit steep', and thinking, that's about 60-70 quid... Who hasn't got 60-70 quid to blow?
... At some point in my life, I apparently became a lower middle-class version of that Richest-woman-in-the-world who recently told all the poor people to work harder if they want to be rich.
... Seriously, if you're serious about developing a game, surely getting $100 together isn't going to kill you? Especially given (and I know nothing of this so I could be wrong) that there's going to be more than one person on a team.
I'm looking at the posts saying '$100 is a bit steep', and thinking, that's about 60-70 quid... Who hasn't got 60-70 quid to blow?
... At some point in my life, I apparently became a lower middle-class version of that Richest-woman-in-the-world who recently told all the poor people to work harder if they want to be rich.
... Seriously, if you're serious about developing a game, surely getting $100 together isn't going to kill you? Especially given (and I know nothing of this so I could be wrong) that there's going to be more than one person on a team.
Falterfire said:
As am I. In fact, I have five game concepts that I have in a mental queue of the order in which I'd like to make them.
But, alas, I currently lack the knowledge and resources to make any of them.
I'd be interested to hear your game concept, though. I always like hearing those ^^
This is understandable, and I agree with the idea, but $100 is somewhat a bit too much. Maybe $60? Around that? I don't know, just my 2 cents. Still a good idea though.
Once again I have to ask what valve was thinking when it came up with Greenlight. Why didn't they just accept every game that developers brought to them and just put it up on steam. It's not like Valve had some sort of standard they were trying to upkeep.
Edit'd for a mistake.
Edit'd for a mistake.
I'd tell you, but then other people would point out the games I'm obviously ripping off (Which I've never heard of) are evidence that my semi-original idea was completely identical to something that already exists. Suffice to say it's a modified tower defense, so there's no shortage of other similar games already in existence.Faladorian said:
... Eh screw it. SELF INDULGENT TIEM!
The basic concept is a tower defense game with customized tower. Throughout the game you unlock a series of different launchers, projectiles, and effects and when you load a level in you can choose up to five different towers built out any combination of pieces you've unlocked. So if you want to build a rapid fire ice bomb launcher, you can, it just may cost you all the resources to build.