Steam Greenlight Repels Trolls With New $100 Fee

[Rednog]

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.

 

[Falterfire]

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 ^^

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.

... 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.

 

[Yopaz]

I think this is a good idea. 100 dollars isn't much to get your game out on a platform that many people use and in any case you will get some recognition even if it doesn't get approved so 100 dollars can get you some advertisement at the very least.

This is a great way to get rid of the trolls since a lot wouldn't mind wasting 5 or 10 for a joke, but with 100 they will take care. This makes it easier to actually find the real titles and those have a higher chance of getting approved.

 

[6SteW6]

Hmmm greenlighting games is really going to cut into my TF2 Engagement ring budget :S

 

[Baresark]

Why not just have a review process before it gets put up to public view? Hire a few people to go through the submissions, either accepting or vetoing the submissions before putting them onto Greenlight.

The reason they have Greenlight is to cut back on that. If they did that, it is exactly like it was before. The problem is that at any given point in time, they had a lot of people submitting software to be sold on Steam. They can't get through everything, so a lot of games were slipping through the cracks.

 

[Vzzdak]

A small cost to developers to screen out crap that would otherwise obscure their good games. If crap submissions continue, then people will just stop bothering to look at them.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

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.
Maybe they knew this was going to happen and it was just a cleverly disguised ploy to not only gain money but have someone else do the work of looking at potential games for steam.

Yes I's sure this entire episode was masterminded by Valve so that people would have to give money to Child's Play.
/sarcasm

Greenlight was a rush job, after the Mutant Mudds debarkle they realised that the application possess was slow, inefficient and didn't allow consumer input. Greenlight was supposed to give more power to Steam users and a chance for people to get behind games they wanted on the platform.

Unfortunately they didn't count on the Human/Troll factor when creating it.

 

[Scrythe]

I'm all for this. I could cite my many reasons, but I'm only going to point out that I've found at least six carbon-copy ripoffs of "Slender" begin put up there. Complete with the same Slenderman model.

 

[funksobeefy]

got to spend money to make money

 

[-Dragmire-]

I wonder if it'd be too much work for them to setup a refund system for legitimate indie devs.

 

[ThePS1Fan]

Seems like a good way of preventing trolling. Nice to see Valve donating all of it too. It's a shame it couldn't remain free. But if anything holds true 100% of the time, it's that people suck.

 

[TAGM]

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure this will work 100%. If only because there are people that have proven through action that they're willing to spend $100 to make a single joke that lasts but a fleeting moment for several thousand people.

As in, those TF2 wedding rings. There were people there using those to make Anne Frank jokes, and that cost just the same amount. Add the fact that the joke may well go out to a larger audience, for a slightly longer time, AND the dollars go to charity, and you'll most likely have at least those people, and possibly a few more, happy to make those jokes once again for the same cost.

Granted, this is still a good tactic to drop off 99% of the trolls, and indeed those few jokes will be somewhat funnier due to a lack of over-saturation. So... Well played, I suppose.

 

[BoredAussieGamer]

I was a little weary about this, then I noticed the words "The proceeds will be donated to Child's Play. We have no interest in making money from this, but we do need to cut down the noise in the system."

And people wonder why Valve gets so much love.

 

[theultimateend]

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.

You aren't out of touch. I would argue you have perspective .

100 dollars for a venue to potentially sell a video game is a pittance. I lose more than that taking the family out to eat (5 people but still).

Maybe they knew this was going to happen and it was just a cleverly disguised ploy to not only gain money but have someone else do the work of looking at potential games for steam.

You didn't actually read the post...

That's what I take away from this line.

 

[Stevepinto3]

Seems fair, it's not too much if you're seriously interested in putting your game on Steam. The charity donation is also nice.

Of course I imagine EA isn't one to be outdone, so let's look forward to Origin's indie service where they charge you $1,000 for a submission. Also none of it goes to charity, just to EA.

Yeah, that sounds about right.

 

[ThunderCavalier]

As a programmer and amateur (Read: wannabe) game developer, I think I can pretty safely say that if you're serious about making games and actually have the resources to be involved in seriously producing a game, you should be able to produce $100 fairly easily. Given how big of a deal Steam is for a lot of indie companies, I think it can be safely said to be worth it. I think $100 is a nice balance between "Too high for people to waste money on a lot of junk submissions" and "Low enough that legitimate developers can afford to pay it."

And of course, all of this is still cheaper than messing with XBLA. And if it drives away a few of the more mediocre developers, hey, less competition for the good ones. Because I can assure you the good developers may not be rich, but if they thing Steam is important they will be willing and very likely able to produce the necessary $100.

(SIDENOTE: I am working on a game that I hope to put on Steam when I finish it (No really, I'll finish it eventually, seriously guys. I'm just as trustworthy as that guy in Starbucks writing a novel) and this news does not affect my plans in that direction)

Basically this.

If you're gonna spend $100, it's best to assume that the person is pretty serious about making a video game to be taken (somewhat) seriously.

 

[Rednog]

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.
Maybe they knew this was going to happen and it was just a cleverly disguised ploy to not only gain money but have someone else do the work of looking at potential games for steam.

Yes I's sure this entire episode was masterminded by Valve so that people would have to give money to Child's Play.
/sarcasm

Greenlight was a rush job, after the Mutant Mudds debarkle they realised that the application possess was slow, inefficient and didn't allow consumer input. Greenlight was supposed to give more power to Steam users and a chance for people to get behind games they wanted on the platform.

Unfortunately they didn't count on the Human/Troll factor when creating it.

I missed the Child's Play part, but still implementing such a convoluted process doesn't make sense. They've let in some real huge sinkers on steam, one would assume that they might as well just let everything in and reap the profits.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

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.
Maybe they knew this was going to happen and it was just a cleverly disguised ploy to not only gain money but have someone else do the work of looking at potential games for steam.

Yes I's sure this entire episode was masterminded by Valve so that people would have to give money to Child's Play.
/sarcasm

Greenlight was a rush job, after the Mutant Mudds debarkle they realised that the application possess was slow, inefficient and didn't allow consumer input. Greenlight was supposed to give more power to Steam users and a chance for people to get behind games they wanted on the platform.

Unfortunately they didn't count on the Human/Troll factor when creating it.

I missed the Child's Play part, but still implementing such a convoluted process doesn't make sense. They've let in some real huge sinkers on steam, one would assume that they might as well just let everything in and reap the profits.

Perhaps they DON'T want to add any-more stinkers into Steam? Perhaps they AREN'T solely driven by a mad desire for profit?

Valve isn't perfect, their inability to count to 3, that crappy Left 4 Dead/Maya knock off and Mutant Mudds prove that.

But at least they try act like a company that cares and listens to its customers.

 

[jbm1986]

100$ is a bit much. Maybe donate half to charity and then give the other half back to reinvest in other dev costs.