Support NeoGAF

[Pachinko]

A few sounds good but I think it shouldn't apply for a companies first release beyond whatever clerical work is required to get a first time indie dev up to speed.

So releasing 1 game would be basically free , a second game released within 6 months or less might cost a bunch , quite a bit less after 6 months and perhaps after a year it's free again.

So if your companies games are good and you work fast you pay more but you get it back through sales. If you try to release an asset flip every month then you get charged through the ass and make nothing.

 

[Teppic]

I think a good way to handle this would be to let each individual/company submit one game to steam without a fee annually. Then the 2nd would be $1000. The third $2500 and $5000 each after that.

This would make it too expensive for the shovelware bullshit scam artists to submit a new half assed game every few months but would make Steam accessible to those indie developers who have poured their heart and into a project but might not have a lot of money.

It would also stop sequels to good quality games that doesn't sell. Maybe if it increaed only if you submit more than one game per year. That way you can make a dud and later have the chance to make another game, sequel or something else.

 

[RyanPierre]

Sounds fair to me. I make 10K a year and last year I pledged $1000 to a single game. Also bought a 4K tv for $1100, Oculus Rift for $600, and PS4 Pro for $400. If you're a company and can't afford $5000 then you need to be in another line of work.

I'm really hoping this is a joke post, but who knows anymore.

 

[Ozium]

Sounds fair to me. I make 10K a year and last year I pledged $1000 to a single game. Also bought a 4K tv for $1100, Oculus Rift for $600, and PS4 Pro for $400. If you're a company and can't afford $5000 then you need to be in another line of work.

why would you spend more than you make in a month on a pledge for a single game?

jackiechan.png

 

[FyreWulff]

$1000 to be able to sell your game(s) to millions of people doesn't seem outrageous to me.

1000$ is enough to get a nice single page landing site with a cool logo-grpahic to help promote your game. It's a lot of money.

The first game I pushed out like 10+ years agp I spent about 2,000$ on paying for music, site graphics, etc. It's still in the negative for budget . Steam having a stupidly high registration cost will result in less games, period. It's not easy to sell a game. It's not even easy to make money doing it.

Developers should have more freedom, not less.

 

[Saty]

The positioning of Steam Direct as replacing Greenlight makes no sense.

Our goal is to provide developers and publishers with a more direct publishing path and ultimately connect gamers with even more great content.

By having a an upfront fee (of higher than $100) you're by definition connecting gamers with less content (great or otherwise) simply because this fee is a larger hurdle to publishing on Steam than Greenlight is. How is Direct lowering the barrier to get your game on Steam? It's increasing it!

What we learned from Greenlight

Clearly Valve hasn't learned from people's key criticism of Greenlight because:

Once set up, developers will pay a recoupable application fee for each new title they wish to distribute, which is intended to decrease the noise in the submission pipeline.

Hello? Don't you remember how fans were flabbergasted that established games, developers and studios were asked to pass through Greenlight as if they were nobodies working on their first game? Devs that already had a game up on Steam asked to go through Greenlight.

And now Valve is exacerbating the problem by demanding devs to pay up in advance for every title they make (to the end of time?). Why should studios who made successful titles be then asked to pay up for their next one? Are you forever branded as a 'Direct' developer? Are you forced to bear this stipulation for all eternity? Are they creating a lesser group of developers on Steam? Oh, you're one of those Direct developers.. How the fuck do you get rid of this Mark?

 

[DesmondGreer]

This could have saved Jim sterling from a lot of headaches and annoyances had it been implemented earlier.

 

[Gorilla Shark]

It would also stop sequels to good quality games that doesn't sell. Maybe if it increaed only if you submit more than one game per year. That way you can make a dud and later have the chance to make another game, sequel or something else.

I agree, making those limits/prices annual would be the way to go. I think for most indie dev with limited access to money being able to submit one new game annually would be enough? Maybe?

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

Can they clean up the mess that is Steam Greenlight's existence spewing all over?

 

[Quadraphonic]

If you can't afford a $1,000 as just one part of developing a game, you shouldn't be spending your time as an indie developer because you should have a job that provides a more immediate income.

I mean, there's many costs to make a game. ISP, computer, electricity, etc. And that doesn't include the hours you work making it.

Indie developers need to start approaching game development like everyone else that starts a business. You need capital to get started.

 

[Chris R]

Just give me an option to filter ALL greenlight/direct games so I don't see them in the store until they are ready to be "finished"

It sucks seeing something pop up in my queue only to realize that it won't be done for another three years.

 

[The_White_Rose]

$500 should be enough of a barrier

 

[Eila]

when mom's cooking is that good and you can spend all yer cash on video juegos, why leave?

Staying with your parents well into your 20s is normal in the developing world. The contrary happens mostly in the US and a few north European countries, it's not the norm.

 

[JetSetRadio]

Just have better shitfilters.

 

[Tunahead]

I don't understand the logic that a $5000 threshold is more likely to keep scammers out than indie devs.

In what world does a person lacking any moral qualms when it comes to the acquisition of money have a harder time getting $5000 than an indie game developer who hasn't released their game yet? What? Help me out here, I don't understand.

 

[Quadraphonic]

I don't think it's necessarily scammers in the sense of stealing money.

It's more about turning away people recycling assets from the Unity store or just games that are flat out amateur, but since most things get through Steam Greenlight, it becomes resume fodder.

They aren't whole-hearted efforts to sell a product.

Steam isn't the only web store for titles, especially on PC. You have many, many options. This isn't like Microsoft is requiring the fee to run GCC and compile the game.

Since the fee eventually IS recoupable, I believe the idea is to have less of a flood of titles so those funds can be more directed into those games making it easier to garner those sales.

 

[ScatheZombie]

You don't. You never do. If you're wading through shit games browsing Steam, I'd love to know how you got to that point.

Your screenshot has Bloody Boobs in it. As the very first game, in fact.

I want to hear the defense for that one, if only to hear a mod defend a 'game' where there's almost no actual gameplay other than being a naked big-breasted Amazon-looking woman running away from giant-dick demons.

Let me grab some popcorn before you delve into a good justification for claiming that one ain't garbage-tier shit.

 

[Eila]

Given that this is a U.S./Euro-centric forum, throwing around making 10k (which implies U.S. dollars, yes?) and still being able to spend lavishly on gaming crap without also mentioning that you don't pay rent or deal with any of the other basic struggles someone who might be affected by this change confronts on a daily basis.... it's just a little bit disingenuous, yeah?

Like, talk down people who can't afford to drop 5k all you want, but at least tell us what your living expenses are in rupees and whether your meal costs are tracked in the calories spent walking downstairs.

Lol how can you only make 10k in the US? It's impossible unless you are only working part time.

 

[Kthulhu]

It's not that they don't give a fuck, but that they and many other people realize it's a better system for the platform and industry at large.

Not when malware, pirated games, games missing exe files, asset flips, and straight up broken games end up on Steam and Valve just lets it sit there it isn't.

 

[Teppic]

I agree, making those limits/prices annual would be the way to go. I think for most indie dev with limited access to money being able to submit one new game annually would be enough? Maybe?

Oh, I missread your first post. I see now that we have the same opinion. Language barrier

 

[Maximo]

I mean..most of these *shit games* probably already have the money for it they make money off the Steam Cards so looks like this effects those legitimate developers that don't have the money cause they put it into actually developing their game.

 

[Teppic]

I mean..most of these *shit games* probably already have the money for it they make money off the Steam Cards so looks like this effects those legitimate developers that don't have the money cause they put it into actually developing their game.

Yeah. Removing Steam trading cards would make a lot more bad games disappear than setting a high fee.

 

[Pantz]

when mom's cooking is that good and you can spend all yer cash on video juegos, why leave?

Live with older Brother and Sister, share car and I have a taste for cheap food (ramen and burritos). It leaves lots of savings for gaming budget. I did overspend a bit though as I'm now in debt a couple hundred until work starts again in March.

It's just that it's hard to find the good games on Steam between all the bad ones. How about if they let developers pick $5000, $1000, $500, $100, $50, $10 and then put them into categories by how much they paid so people can browse the $5000 only games if they want to and others can check the $10 games too if they're really looking for something hidden in there.

 

[Card Boy]

Sounds fair to me. I make 10K a year and last year I pledged $1000 to a single game. Also bought a 4K tv for $1100, Oculus Rift for $600, and PS4 Pro for $400. If you're a company and can't afford $5000 then you need to be in another line of work.

Also you

 

[Eila]

oh hey, in the time it took you to assume i'm unaware of how people live outside the US/EU (which also ignores how a lot of people live IN the US at the moment, but that's another topic) and write a post shaming me, you could've read the content in the actual post I was replying to

I can relate to that post pretty well (except making 10k per year part, I make less). No point in saving that little, honestly. Just enjoy life and wait until a good opportunity arises.

 

[mephixto]

This could have saved Jim sterling from a lot of headaches and annoyances had it been implemented earlier.

He could just stay on his Steam front page instead of diving into the dumpster of the store. Like many have said, I rarely see a game that is not worth it on my steam store page.

 

[Maintenance]

Like, talk down people who can't afford to drop 5k all you want, but at least tell us what your living expenses are in rupees and whether your meal costs are tracked in the calories spent walking downstairs.

Surely you mean upstairs.

 

[Kthulhu]

He could just stay on his Steam front page instead of diving into the dumpster of the store. Like many have said, I rarely see a game that is not worth it on my steam store page.

Someone's gotta call attention to the problem. Sinclair could've just gone vegan and not written the jungle.

 

[Faabulous]

Maybe Valve could make an automated system that tests games on modern OS's to see if they work and reject them if they don't. I'm pretty sure you could build such and with Valve's resources it wouldn't be insane to achieve a high level of confidence in it.

That is the only curation they ever need, products that work. They don't need to tell people what to play base on other "quality" metrics, because that's often bullshit.

 

[GcRayden]

Sounds fair to me. I make 10K a year and last year I pledged $1000 to a single game. Also bought a 4K tv for $1100, Oculus Rift for $600, and PS4 Pro for $400. If you're a company and can't afford $5000 then you need to be in another line of work.

As someone who is currently still paying off outrageous pet bills for my slowly dying cat, have medical bills of my own, and have been working on my game for the last 3 1/2 years with only a slow drip of income, these kind of comments make me very sad.

I'm a struggling developer who has been through all sorts of hell to release a niche game that I think a lot of people will appreciate, but I have no clue on how well it will do. I am putting my heart and soul into developing my game and the reason I'm releasing on steam is because it has a low entry fee unlike almost all of the consoles where you have to pay thousands upon thousands into buying a dev kit.

I know it's easy for someone who has the money to release a game with a high entry fee, but like most indie success stories, some people creating some of the most creative and innovative games are struggling and a fee anymore than a few hundred would completely destroy years of planning.

Example: As a dev who is planning on using steam's workshop, now I have to think about "what if I can't pay to get on steam?" and start thinking about using some other form of content delivery, which sucks because my game was built around using that system. I doubt Scott Cawthon would have been a success without such an easy access to greenlight, since he originally went to kickstarter to fund Five Nights at Freddy's and it never took off.

Now, on content control and only allowing games that are functional while having a decent amount of content --that's something I could get behind. I'm in no way afraid of my game's quality; but the appeal and reading the market for how well it will sell...that's a very scary thing to me; even Team Meat who was supported by Microsoft during the release of Super Meat Boy had the same feeling of failure on appealing to a mass audience, so I believe it's a very common and rational fear.

 

[timmyp53]

Why are some people overlooking the fact that they have not set a fee? Could be as low as 100 bucks.

 

[gun_haver]

Well, I hope the application fee is not too high, but at the same time if you are serious about releasing a game then I suppose getting a bit of money together is hardly the biggest hurdle.

What do they mean by recoupable in this context? As in it would function like a deposit, just to put up a barrier? Would you get it back regardless of acceptance or only one or the other?

 

[More_Badass]

Live with older Brother and Sister, share car and I have a taste for cheap food (ramen and burritos). It leaves lots of savings for gaming budget. I did overspend a bit though as I'm now in debt a couple hundred until work starts again in March.

It's just that it's hard to find the good games on Steam between all the bad ones. How about if they let developers pick $5000, $1000, $500, $100, $50, $10 and then put them into categories by how much they paid so people can browse the $5000 only games if they want to and others can check the $10 games too if they're really looking for something hidden in there.

I'm assuming you're joking with that second comment. If not, what does that have to do with quality? A $10 game could amazing, a $5000 game could be terrible.

 

[Axass]

I'm just glad there's a lot of movement over at Valve right now, on Steam, VR, games, support, feedback. Felt like Valve was in the same spot for such a long time.

 

[Pakkidis]

Progressive entry fee based on a one 1/2 year period.

First game released 100 dollars
Second game released 200 dollars
Third game released 400 dollars etc,

Would prevent people from releasing shovelware to make a quick buck while still being affordable for serious developers who release one to tow games every few years.

Steam also needs to update UI and search function.

 

[HK-47]

Someone's gotta call attention to the problem. Sinclair could've just gone vegan and not written the jungle.

Going vegan wouldnt have stopped Sinclair from writing The Jungle, since that wouldnt suddenly make him not a socialist, which was the real point of the book.

 

[Miff]

Why are some people overlooking the fact that they have not set a fee? Could be as low as 100 bucks.

I'm also thinking that they may have quoted $5k as the ceiling in order to improve the reception of a final, lower fee.

 

[OmegaX]

"Introducing itch.io direct

100% free, now and forever. Upload directly, no applications or approval necessary.

https://itch.io/direct "

https://twitter.com/itchio/status/830185059739131904

LOL it seems itch.io is making fun of Valve. They were always free.

 

[NoPiece]

I think a good way to handle this would be to let each individual/company submit one game to steam without a fee annually. Then the 2nd would be $1000. The third $2500 and $5000 each after that.

This would make it too expensive for the shovelware bullshit scam artists to submit a new half assed game every few months but would make Steam accessible to those indie developers who have poured their heart and into a project but might not have a lot of money.

The thing you need to account for is that when you have a big public system with $$ being transacted, you are going to have a ton of really smart people trying to abuse it. If the first game is free to submit, the scammers will set up some fake company, dump some POS asset stolen crap game into the system, rinse, repeat. They need to find the threshold where scammers can't make money, but indies can still participate. Reality is there is no perfect answer, you are going to end up with some scammers still able to get in, and blocking out some small devs.

 

[NoPiece]

"Introducing itch.io direct

100% free, now and forever. Upload directly, no applications or approval necessary.

https://itch.io/direct "

https://twitter.com/itchio/status/830185059739131904

LOL it seems itch.io is making fun of Valve. They were always free.

When itch.io gets enough traction and sales, scammers will show up there and ruin the free submission model. I'm skeptical they'll be able to stick with 100% free, no approvals unless they aren't successful.

 

[MartyStu]

It also needs to be low enough that people like me can get games on Steam. Do I have $1000 lying around to put a game on Steam that might not even recoup those costs? Fuck no.

Sounds like Valve gives the money back.

 

[LordRaptor]

Sounds like you Valve gives the money back.

No, it seems they reimburse you from sales.

Which means if you wanted to make a freeware educational game about the role of the US in overthrowing Irans democratically elected government and the subsequent consequences - for example - you no longer could, or rather it would cost you money to put that on Steam.

 

[The Smoking Man]

Just give me an option to filter ALL greenlight/direct games so I don't see them in the store until they are ready to be "finished"

It sucks seeing something pop up in my queue only to realize that it won't be done for another three years.

Well, I have good news

 

[MartyStu]

No, it seems they reimburse you from sales.

Which means if you wanted to make a freeware educational game about the role of the US in overthrowing Irans democratically elected government and the subsequent consequences - for example - you no longer could, or rather it would cost you money to put that on Steam.

I think the rules for free games without in-game purchases should definitely be different.

 

[Geminosity]

Sounds like Valve gives the money back.

They can't pay you back something you never had to give them in the first place

I wish I had the money to be all "oh $1k? No problem." Just affording the $100 wasn't easy. I worry this'll just turn steam into a playground for rich kids to dump stupid stuff for the lulz while indie devs who could actually use the money are walled out. Heck I already know more serious indie devs who can't afford $100 per game than ones that can. I'd argue it's more affordable for casual devs who do a full-time job rather than developing, which I guess is fine if you want games released a glacial pace due to them only done in someone's spare time :/

 

[The Technomancer]

This is all fucking bullshit. Just curate your stupid store and keep the literal trash games made from flipped assets dropped into Unity skyboxes off and let other stuff through. Just do some basic fucking quality control and allow both garage projects and indie studio works onto the platform

 

[The Faceless Master]

the number should be as low as posible.

$100 sounds great.

scammers will have an easier time paying larger fees than indie devs.

 

[Mivey]

It also needs to be low enough that people like me can get games on Steam. Do I have $1000 lying around to put a game on Steam that might not even recoup those costs? Fuck no.

Why does it need to do that? Valve isn't beholden to release every game of every singe developer. They expect you to make a buck. That's how capitalism works. And 1000$ is basically a cent, as far as Steam as a whole is concerned.
Their not a charity.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Game development is not cheap, and the fee should reflect that. Not be too high, but not be too low. People have some valid complaints about the fee system, but honestly, you're already paying a pretty penny too develop.

 

[FyreWulff]

100-200$ is enough to keep people from being tempted to automate submissions. As others have pointed out, 5000$ would just filter out a lot of really small developers but allow bigger companies to push software through anyway.

As for "plopping a biped into a Unity tutorial skybox", I do believe the refund system will prevent that from getting anywhere.

Otherwise developers will have to seek publishers to help front the cost and we're back to the same old system from the 90s. I thought gamers didn't want publishers being the gatekeepers to games being made?