Steam Greenlight Repels Trolls With New $100 Fee

[lancar]

$100 isn't that much, really. Not compared to the amount of time you spend constructing even a simple game. Unless you're flat broke and can't even afford food, I don't see how this would be an obstruction to getting your game submitted to the most popular game service on the internet. And the fact that they're donating all the proceeds to charity should make it even less painful.

Still. I suppose something like $50 or $60 would be more fitting (the price of a new game) and more affordable, since it gives a tangible comparison for submitters to make.

"Do I troll steam users about HL3 or get a new AAA game? Hmmm..."

 

[Wieke]

A $100 fine for illicit content would have been better, but i suppose a submission fee was infinitely easier to pull off.

What authority would steam have to impose a fine?

 

[gigastar]

A $100 fine for illicit content would have been better, but i suppose a submission fee was infinitely easier to pull off.

What authority would steam have to impose a fine?

It doesnt, but if authorities agreed that something the spammers were doing was against the law then Valve could get backing to impose it.

 

[Covarr]

A $100 fine for illicit content would have been better, but i suppose a submission fee was infinitely easier to pull off.

What authority would steam have to impose a fine?

If they require card info and make you agree to terms before you can submit, they have all the authority they want. That's how agreements work.

P.S. Thanks

 

[rodneyy]

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.

 

[uncanny474]

$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.

 

[Doom972]

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.

 

[Skratt]

To indie devs, it's $100 dollars, get over it. If you've invested hours of your time into making a game, you can pony up a paltry $100. If you are so broke that you can't afford even $100 to promote your game, your issues are more than skin deep.

 

[Rad Party God]

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.

 

[DugMachine]

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.

 

[Mattlore]

Dammit valve even in your "Less then popular" decisions you come out on the high road! It's REALLY REALLY hard to hate this company...It really is.

 

[shado_temple]

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.

 

[Squidbulb]

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.

 

[lacktheknack]

Well, it worked pretty well for SomethingAwful...

 

[DementedSheep]

$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

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

While I think this is a good idea, 100 USD might be a little steep. Well, Valve will figure things up in time. Greenlight is still young and as such will be subjected to many changes in days to come, me thinks.

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.

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.

 

[Stu35]

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.

 

[Faladorian]

(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)

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 ^^

 

[unstabLized]

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.

 

[lord.jeff]

$100 is a great price with how big Steam is because your not just buying a chance at getting published but also awareness of your game and a community of feedback.