Valve to Indie Devs: Don't Use Publishers to Bypass Greenlight

[Vzzdak]

Valve is correct to protect Greenlight and indie developers.

-Valve brings a huge audience of potential customers that are willing to volunteer their time to provide free evaluation of the indie in-progress work.

-If it became normal for indies to change their mind and take their work elsewhere, then valve customers would contribute less time to other potentially good titles.

-Also, publishers would happily use Greenlight as free publicity, pretending that the game didn't have funding and then yank it when they were ready to release.

-As someone mentioned, if people become enthusiastic for a game that is being previewed in Greenlight, then there would only be disappointment and annoyance if a publisher then acquired rights [of the vulnerable indie] and then completely changed the game to something more "marketable."

The problems is that Valve itslef has let dozens of indie titles skip the Greenlight process in the last year alone, making them look like hypocrites in a massive way here.

Them not letting Adult Swim publish PA is a silly move when you consider that the following indie titles have skipped Greenlight since its inception:
Loadout
FEZ
To The Moon
Strike Suit Infinity
Don't Starve
Xenonauts
Prison Architect
Kerbel Space Program
and dozens more.

Some of the games I listed aren't even finished yet there are at least a couple dozens games Greenlit last year that are done and ready to go, yet have seen no release by Valve.

If you can explain to me how you think Valve is protecting the broken system that is Greenlight is any fair when they themselves have let so many games slide past, please do so.

Until then, I'm calling bullshit on Valve. Its like a bouncer not letting you come into the club when your VIP buddy wants you in, then letting his friends in no problem.

Not quite sure what you're complaining about. From what I recall about Greenlight, it was a means of enabling Steam customers to vet the backlog of indie games. If Steam already had sufficient information to greenlight a game, then there is no reason to waste customer time evaluating the game.

From your post, you seem to be saying that some of the greenlit games are crappy. Well, then early Greenlight doesn't matter because the games wouldn't make money, though they probably have niche appeal.

 

[Austin Manning]

We throw around the word entitlement a lot here. Basically what these devs are, is entitled. Basically they do not want to do the hard work to get themselves Greenlit. And all of you people who are saying Valve is in the wrong here, need to understand that Valve isn't trying to be evil about this, they are trying to curb a bad practice, they are trying to get developers to stop going "It's to harrddddddddd, lets just get a publisher"

You clearly do not know what the word entitlement means. By saying that the developers are entitled you are saying that they deserve to have a publisher and be on Steam. I'm not saying that they actually do, but you are misusing the word.

Also, how is it a bad business practice? A publisher has seen their game and is willing to provide marketing and possible development funds (depending on how near completion they are). This is literally how nearly every development company that isn't owned by a publisher puts out a title.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Surely you're not indie if you have a publisher?

Nice try but no. Starbound. Being published by and indie publisher. The same one that made Wanderlust. You buy Wanderlust, a portion of the proceeds goes to publishing Starbound.

Wait what? Indie means independent yes? Surely Activision is an independent studio then since they self-publish and aren't owned by anybody? I don't understand where this vague notion of "indie" ends and you just become another guy making a game published by a company, is it a set number of people and you're not indie like 10 or more?

Again, simple explanation. Indie studios aren't publicly traded on the stock market. Nor are they corporations. They are literally supporting themselves.

No stockholders buying pieces of their company.

No extra benefits from being incorporated.

No massive advantage.


So again, no. Indie doesn't end when someone publishes your game. Adult Swim publishing a game doesn't automatically wipe the indie status of said game. By your logic any game put on the XBLA indie market is no longer indie due to the fact that Microsoft is name publisher for ALL of them. We both know that's not true.

Indie games get big companies to publish their games all the time. Bastion was published by Warner Brothers, still an indie game. Its more than semantics.


EDIT: To your point about Activision, they publish, but don't develop, so no they no not self publish. They have contracts/own a lot of development companies.

But again there are plenty of private companies such as valve which don't have stockholders, there are small companies which are publicly traded too, stockholders don't really provide a "massive advantage" in so far as they are then able to dictate direction within the company, it is more of a trade-off than a flat out advantage.

Honestly I just think this holy grail concept of "Indie" has been so diluted that it's essentially meaningless, even companies such as EA have "indie" departments which in and of itself is bizarre.

EDIT: Also Activision, Inc. is the listed developer for many games, just not any big ones recently. http://www.allgame.com/company.php?id=34&tab=developed shows a list of games which they are listed as developer rather than publisher.

Well the easiest way to describe an indie developer is one that doesn't have a parent company. Yes EA, Warner Brothers, and Microsoft have indie departments, but they don't own the indie studios that make games for them. Those indie studios are still free to either find other publishers for their other titles or self release on the PC. Indie is still a pretty easy term to define in gaming.



And to your link about how Activision is a developer, look at the list please. I can tell just by looking at the list that the website you posted is either too lazy to put up developers or doesn't know Google exists. Activision did not develop Call of Duty: Legacy for example. That was a bundle released on the PS2. The games in the bundle are still developed by Treyarch. Same goes for the Medieval: Total War bundles. Again, developed by the Creative Assembly, not Activision.

Activision hasn't developed a game in a good long while and your link doesn't reflect that too well.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Not quite sure what you're complaining about. From what I recall about Greenlight, it was a means of enabling Steam customers to vet the backlog of indie games. If Steam already had sufficient information to greenlight a game, then there is no reason to waste customer time evaluating the game.

From your post, you seem to be saying that some of the greenlit games are crappy. Well, then early Greenlight doesn't matter because the games wouldn't make money, though they probably have niche appeal.

Seems you missed my point. Not once did I imply that some of the Greenlight games are crappy. It also seems that you're not fully informed on what Greenlight is here to do. Its not here to have customers vote on a backlog of titles. Its there have people vote on what they want on Steam and get it into the store. If it were to speed up backlog, then there would really be no excuse for why a good chunk of the games approved and completed are waiting in the first place. That would be Greenlight backlog, which would solve nothing and make Greenlight a failure immediately.

Let's throw another point into this and talk specific games here.

Venetica, a game release on the PC in Germany in 2009 and in North America in 2011. Published by Atari for NA and by DTP in Germany.

Why is this game forced to go through the Greenlight process? As was seen by the abysmal The WarZ, Valve stated that publisher and developers with previously released games on Steam wouldn't need to seek approval. The Witcher Series is published by Atari.

Not good enough? Ok, how about the fact that Venetica's developer Deck 13 has its Ankh franchise already on Steam? Again I ask why is it that Venetica has to go through Greenlight? By Valve's own words this game should have been on Steam two years ago. Furthermore, it was voted in a month ago. Why the delay? Why is it that a game that was made 4 years ago and voted in by the customers gets a back seat to a large bunch of titles that aren't even done?

Why is it that UnEpic is on sale everywhere but Steam? I know I'm asking a lot of why questions but you seem eager to defend Valve here.

Also, to your point about "if Valve has enough info on the game, it gets a pass" doesn't this defeat the very purpose of Greenlight? And why did the WarZ debacle happen if Valve had "enough info" to make that decision.

It seems to be Valve dragging it feed hard with Greenlight. Its a broken system and it need a lot of work. It seems that Valve is focusing more on Early Access titles than Greenlight at moment and that's troublesome for the developers who've been approved. While Steam isn't the only place for people to buy PC games, it helps in a very major way to be on Steam.


Like I said, I know I asked "why" a bunch of times, but frankly I don't think there's an answer you or even Valve at the point could give that would be satisfactory due to Valve giving out so many loopholes to other games and breaking its own rules.

The hypocrisy alone is why Valve not allowing Paranautical Activity to be published by Adult Swim is embarrassing. If Valve wasn't so schizophrenic with its treatment of Greenlight games and allowing games to bypass the Greenlight process, I'd probably agree with them on this, but it seems that they forgot that they've allowed many indie games to bypass Greenlight.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Shameful, really.

It suggests some unfortunate things if you cannot bow OUT of Greenlight without sabotaging your chances on a major marketplace.

I've said it before, and I'll keep saying it: when the likes of Sony and Nintendo offer a platform that is more open and friendly towards indie developers, then Valve simply have not got an excuse anymore. They simply haven't. Greenlight is a broken piece of shit, and the sooner they scrap it and start actually curating Steam themselves, the better it will be for everyone.

On one hand, I was hoping Valve would notice that Greenlight is basically a minefield of Bad Shit waiting to happen as is, and would fix the bloody thing.

On the other, it'd be nice if my 3DS finally got some real games instead of just the endless regurgitation of ports and sequels. Valve fucking up with indies seems like a good way for them to start looking at alternatives.

EDIT: Though upon further thought (and checking the 3DS's tech specs) I seriously doubt it'd be capable of running much of ANYTHING on Greenlight anyway. Still hoping though.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

I'm confused. How is them getting a publisher "cheating"? Doesn't them having a publisher mean they no longer have to go through Greenlight, because they have someone who is going to...what's the word I'm looking for...publish the game for them? Is there something I'm missing?

 

[bjj hero]

Valve DOES NOT OWE ANYBODY a free shot on their digital distribution service. This takes up time and money from Valve, in bandwidth and manpower.

I was under the impression they make money from selling games, including games they did not produce themselves. If it was so costly they'd only sell there own products.

Ultimately, it's Valve's service and they make the rules. If you as a consumer don't like it, by all means let Valve know. But they are well within their rights to do what they did, and I find it hard to fault them for it. I can understand wanting to rally behind the underdog, but I don't think anybody is in the wrong here.

I go one better and dont buy anything on Steam, I have it installed as its the only way to play Civ but thats it. I dont expect valve to mind, they have a huge user base like no one else on the PC and thats why its so important to small developers. This isnt just about rallying behind the underdog. This is about valve bullying a 2 man company, who are no competition or threat to them, into diverting there time and efforts away from making the best product they can to go through a popularity contest they still may not win.

For no other reason than because valve can.

 

[EvolutionKills]

Valve DOES NOT OWE ANYBODY a free shot on their digital distribution service. This takes up time and money from Valve, in bandwidth and manpower.

I was under the impression they make money from selling games, including games they did not produce themselves. If it was so costly they'd only sell there own products.

Ultimately, it's Valve's service and they make the rules. If you as a consumer don't like it, by all means let Valve know. But they are well within their rights to do what they did, and I find it hard to fault them for it. I can understand wanting to rally behind the underdog, but I don't think anybody is in the wrong here.

I go one better and dont buy anything on Steam, I have it installed as its the only way to play Civ but thats it. I dont expect valve to mind, they have a huge user base like no one else on the PC and thats why its so important to small developers. This isnt just about rallying behind the underdog. This is about valve bullying a 2 man company, who are no competition or threat to them, into diverting there time and efforts away from making the best product they can to go through a popularity contest they still may not win.

For no other reason than because valve can.

If you've managed to read up to my post and simultaneously miss every other post that delves into the possible rational behind what happened, that managed to reach deeper than the superficial 'Valve is a bully' nonsense; I'd strongly suggest you work on your reading comprehension.

If they are going to make money from green-lighting this game (as you claim), then I'd think they have some other non-monetary reason to do what they did. They're a business, ran by group of people who are not beholden to shareholders. I'd like to explore their possible reasoning as an interesting idle thought experiment. I rather quickly used my imagination to rise above 'Valve is getting their kicks throwing their weight around against a 2 man indie team'. Grow up dude.

I can see how Valve, having the largest digital distribution platform on PC, also needs to weigh the concerns of itself, its platform, and its user base. How so? Valve has huge penetration on the PC, and their platform is more malleable than similar competing platforms such as Xbox Live and Playstation Network (which have long, complex, and costly certification processes for patches and updates). Valve has now decided on their own, to attempt to open their system up to indie developers (in this case specifically, development teams without publishers) under a very specific set of criteria. It's new, and they didn't have to take on this headache, but they thought it would be worth it in the end. Knowing Valve, it will improve with time. I've had Steam since Half-Life², the service has evolved by leaps and bounds, and nearly always for the better. So let's take a quick look at another possible scenario...

I wasn't saying that this specific case is bad.
However, please don't forget that most publishers are soulless, lazy companies that make money from other people's work.
I'd like to point you to the game "Ace of Spades". It was a great indie game, but the developer ran out of money. Fortunately, noble publisher "Jagex" stepped in to help the developer out and take care of the Stream release.
Long story short:
They took the game in a totally different direction, which alienated the beta playerbase and made the developer unhappy. The original developer isn't part of the team anymore and has lost the rights for his own creation. They released a bastardized version of a game that is nothing like its beta, undermining the whole concept of the originals gameplay, as a money grab under a popular name.
Their moderators/admins on the forums are utter dicks who ban everyone who just mentions the original.
I don't care anymore, but they wanted to release a "classic mode". As played DLC of course.
A CONTRACT WITH A PUBLISHER USUALLY IS A ONE-WAY TICKET FOR YOUR IP.
If indie developers would start doing this in masses now...Christ.
Most wouldn't get happy in the long run.

So far, even after what you said, I'm not angry at Valve. But after being the moral police, now they have to do their part and actually take care of the complaints that there are about Greenlight.

Now just taking what 'TheSniperFan' said at face value, this is a possible example of a predatory publisher preying on a indie developer. In this particular case, Ace of Spades is available on Steam. It was published on their service on December 12th, 2012; so it predates everything that has happened with this current situation. Isn't it possible that this has stemmed from Valve listening to it's fans? What do I mean by that? This decision to not allow the developers of AP to bypass the Greenlight process (that they voluntarily entered in and agreed to), is meant to stop publishers from swooping in and gobbling up works-in-progress, then releasing them so altered from it's original vision that it has angered Steam's users. Remember that these people are Valve's customers too.

Now imagine if greed was the driving force here instead. In that case, they'd allow the developers to bypass Greenlight. Now what if the events that 'TheSniperFan' claims did in fact happen to Ace of Spades, became rampant across Greenlight? Where the games that became popular were bought up pre-release, then altered by publishers for the express purpose of making more money? There would be an angry outcry from Steam users, from Valve's own customers. They would abandon the Greenlight service if all it became was a tool for opportunistic publishers. And they would complain to high heaven that Valve was nothing but a bunch of greedy assholes, bullying the indie developers and allowing them to be eaten by opportunistic publishers.

I'd like to think that instead this is just an awkward situation, and is all a part of the growing pains of Greenlight as Valve tries to make the whole thing work better. You seem to have entirely missed my original point when I said that this endeavor costs Valve in manpower and bandwidth. Valve already makes plenty of money, and with far less extra work and headaches, if they just allowed titles with established publishers willing to simply pay to get onto Steam. It costs them more to have their people develop this Greenlight initiative, monitor it, work through it, and improve it. It takes up the costly time of employees to make this work, when they could be working on other things (you know, like Episode 3). Valve doesn't have to allow indie developers onto their service at all, but they are trying to get a system into place to allow indie develops to appeal directly to Steam users to get their games on Steam without signing over their IP to a publisher; and people want to burn them at the stake for it because it doesn't work perfectly. I think a little more perspective is in order here.

That's not to say that they aren't making money from Greenlight, or that this isn't just taking a financial hit now for the sake of good PR from helping indie developers, or that they're not just banking on the future of a more streamlined and profitable Greenlight in the future. Hell, it could be a way for Valve themselves to scout promising developers in the indie scene (remember what they've done in the past with Left 4 Dead series developer Turtle Rock Studios).

But in light of Valve's previous actions thus far, and given what I know about them and the games industry as a whole; the cry of Valve being nothing more than playground bullies here seems to me to be nothing more than a childish canard. It could be correct, it might be the truth, but I highly doubt it. The logic doesn't follow and the evidence doesn't support it.