Support NeoGAF

[Jobbs]

This is bullshit. Not every game that doesn't make money is bad.

There's always an audience for great games.. Making $1,000 in sales is a pretty low bar.

We're talking in circles here, but if you're serious about your game you should be able to tie up $1,000 for a while, even if it means crowdfunding the fee (which, again, would be very easy if your game looks good -- In fact, if your game does look good, you'd be quite likely to far surpass that goal)

 

[Dusk Golem]

There's always an audience for great games.. Making $1,000 in sales is a pretty low bar.

Is it slightly less convenient for some indie devs to get their game on steam with this recoupable fee in place? I guess.. But that's the whole point. Steam being cluttered with trash isn't helping the people who make the great games we're talking about.

We're talking in circles here, but if you're serious about your game you should be able to tie up $1,000 for a while, even if it means crowdfunding the fee (which, again, would be very easy if your game looks good -- In fact, if your game does look good, you'd be quite likely to far surpass that goal)

But what about free games? This argument also only works if you really think a fee paywall will get rid of shovelware, which I really don't believe.

But I also think there's far better solutions to the shovelware problem than a monetary paywall. And I agree with Valve's overall sentiment that not everyone has the same definition of what shovelware is. I just feel though that the paywall isn't going to do what they hope it does and many people in this thread seem to think it'll do, and will hurt more than it'll help anyone.

 

[Harmen]

I think a 1000 dollars would be a good fee. If you have a product with potential to show, people should be willing to invest in it.

 

[Dusk Golem]

Like, okay... Here's an example of why I think this system is flawed. And this is just one example.

Shovelware often ends up in bundles, bundled with other games. Those bundles make money and sell hundreds to thousands of bundles, and thus copies, on various bundle sites (Groupees, Indiegala, DailyIndieGame, etc.), while giving a split of the overall bundle value to the companies. Many people buy bundles to increase library count, cards, a game or two in the bundle interests them for cheap, whatever.

A developer who cares about their game will be less likely to put their game in a bundle for devaluation, but those who make shovelware will just throw it wherever they can get money and don't care if their quickly-made game becomes devalued in the process, they can easily make more games and bundle their game endlessly. And so by being able to throw their game into whatever bundles dozens of times, they can recuperate the cost and get more money to circulate releasing more shovelware easily.

Meanwhile the developer who cares and makes a product they care about won't have this option, as putting your game in a bundle does mean keys will start circulating on gray market sites and devalue the product and devalue your game. Instead they'll likely will try to appeal more for customers buying their game, which is much harder to do, and thus the revenue streams for these games won't come from easy sales like bundles either and they won't put their game in a bundle at all or won't until down the line if they decide to bundle it eventually.

But there is an easy-to-do method for the various shovelware game developers on Steam to easily pay off whatever fee that isn't available to someone that's earnestly hard working. And that's just one possible solution for shovelware developers among many other possible ways. The monetary wall I don't think will change a thing, just make earnest but poor people have more trouble.

I don't think a monetary wall is going to stop shovelware. In fact, in many ways I feel like those who will sell their game through whatever method to get as much money out of it with no care of devaluation and can quickly pump out more games to get into the circulation will benefit from this system.

 

[Joni]

Random question: A fee like that would be a tax deductible business expense?

 

[Chobel]

How easy is it to launch a (successful) Kickstarter campaign? Genuinely asking, because with so many people throwing the word "Kickstarter", you'd think kickstarting is piece of cake that anyone could do it.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

How easy is it to launch a (successful) Kickstarter campaign? Genuinely asking, because with so many people throwing the word "Kickstarter", you'd think kickstarting is piece of cake that anyone could do it.

Impossible, depending on where you live. I don't think IndieGogo has that restriction (other than countries it can't legally do business with, being a US entity, but that applies just as much to Steam).

 

[Kuni]

Surely this can only be good. Greenlight was just so bad overall and exploited. Hope this improves the quality.... It was so bad.

 

[Five]

How easy is it to launch a (successful) Kickstarter campaign? Genuinely asking, because with so many people throwing the word "Kickstarter", you'd think kickstarting is piece of cake that anyone could do it.

A lot of people launch their kickstarter before figuring out how they're going to get the word out about the project. In those cases you're just rolling the dice and the odds are really low. Kickstarter is how you get paid, not how you get most of your attention.

Like, okay... Here's an example of why I think this system is flawed. And this is just one example.

Shovelware often ends up in bundles, bundled with other games. Those bundles make money and sell hundreds to thousands of bundles, and thus copies, on various bundle sites (Groupees, Indiegala, DailyIndieGame, etc.), while giving a split of the overall bundle value to the companies. Many people buy bundles to increase library count, cards, a game or two in the bundle interests them for cheap, whatever.

If a lot of people are buying those bundles it's because a lot of people find them valuable. From the way you're framing this example it sounds like they find it valuable in a way that you cannot or choose not to, and that's fine. I don't find any value in first person shooters but clearly the majority of people do, so it's fruitless and selfish to suggest people shouldn't be able to buy first person shooters just because I see no personal value in them.

The goal of raising the barrier to entry isn't to ensure that only the very best games get on the system, it's to get the games that people want to buy. There's a huge overlap between those groups but as you've so adamantly pointed out it's not the same, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[sammyCYBORG]

$1000 is too low. Anyone can have that.

$5-10k.

 

[Risk Breaker]

$1000 is too low. Anyone can have that.

$5-10k.

I thought the point of indie development in 2017 is that anyone should be able to create a game and, if deemed interesting by the players, be published on Steam.

I think it should be 50k, let's go back several decades and increase the class gap even more.

Spoiler

fucking /s

People in this thread keep relating having money with making quality games, which is just insane. They are completely unrelated.

Trust me, I'm sure most of the people spending hundreds of dollars on asset packs to dump them on Steam can afford a fee.

 

[DiscoJer]

As bad as Greenlight is, I think this is worse.

As someone who likes niche games, turn based strategy and such, I'm sure there are many that would not make it. Oh sure, your big names from Firaxis. But one of my favorites is Ghost Control Inc.

It's basically that old C-64 Ghosbusters game meets X-Com (the original). I think it was funded by KS for like $25k

Halfway is another. It reminds me a bit of the old Breach games.

 

[viHuGi]

So no more terrible games on Steam all the time? Great news but 5K? Lol no way too much. 1K tops.

 

[gdt]

Eh I don't know. I don't mind the awful weird games that pop up. I just don't buy them. That's the kind of stuff that keeps the pc and open and accessible (for devs) platform. Broke people can make games too.

 

[M3d10n]

A $5000 fee would make it more expensive to launch a game on Steam than on the PS4, even for an indie dev that didn't get a free dev kit from Sony (which they hand out like candy).

This is regressing the industry to the PS2 era, where you had to order a minimum amount of physical copies and pay for them in advance, forcing pretty much everyone to rely on publishers.

 

[Storm360]

All this is going to do is fuck over small indies I feel. Shovelware devs have no issue with the cost with bundles giving them it all back.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Random question: A fee like that would be a tax deductible business expense?

Yes.

 

[Darkstorne]

So no more terrible games on Steam all the time? Great news but 5K? Lol no way too much. 1K tops.

There will always be bad games on Steam. There are a lot of "development teams" out there who spend money on assets, slap them together quickly in a building-blocks engine, and throw it up on Steam for a quick turnaround. These are the guys who have the initial investment to afford these fees.

I get what Valve are thinking - at some level there will be a price point that makes this business model obsolete. The low number of games sold, and having to pay thousands to get each game on Steam, means it won't be profitable any more. Maybe $5k is that magic number that reduces shovelware by a significant amount (it will never kill it entirely) but the problem is... that will also reduce the number of genuine Indie games by a significant amount. People who work on games part time around other jobs who view $100 as a safe investment won't be able to say the same about a $5k investment.

Charging per game, rather than once per company (so unlimited games after the one-time $100 fee) is definitely a good move. But any more than $500 and I really think this is killing too many genuine Indie devs to be worth the trade-off of less shovelware. I can't imagine many gamers thinking less shovelware in their discovery queue is worth killing off future Necrodancers and Binding of Isaacs for.

 

[Sad Affleck]

I think that killing Greenlight is a good move but I have no idea what kind of fee would be appropriate. $5000 seems way too much for every submitted game.

 

[Parakeetman]

About damned time they got rid of Greenlight.

 

[LordRaptor]

For those of you who think you're suddenly going to see less terrible games on steam, or that your own games will suddenly become more visible;

You're not.


What you are going to see is the rise of "publishers" loan sharking that initial fee.

 

[frankie_baby]

Would certainly be interesting if if it's cheaper to develop for consoles than it is for steam

 

[Dusk Golem]

Would certainly be interesting if if it's cheaper to develop for consoles than it is for steam

This is another thing bothering me for some of these suggestions. I don't think some people know how much it costs to have a game submitted to consoles. Tip: To buy a fucking console dev kit, submit your game for review, and then put it up on the store is WAY less than $5000 altogether. Why the fuck should an open platform like PC with a store like Steam that literally has ten of thousands of games be so expensive compared to every other platform to submit your games to it for?

Devkits are the most expensive part of console development, to get a devkit you do need to be approved and all that first, and on PS4 & Xbox One a Dev Kit costs usually somewhere between $2000-3000, but both often they will wave the upfront fee aside to be paid off by sales afterward. but both of those gives you the various tools you need, developer consoles, programs, etc., to be able to work on and test your game. It's a full-on devkit that costs $2000-3000, not individual game processing.

A PC and a game engine is all you need to make a game for a PC, there is no devkit required for Steam itself. I also think Steam going closed off like consoles is a terrible idea. A big part of the appeal for PC games is the fact that it's an open-ended platform. Hell, Valve says as much in their post on Steam Direct. They don't want to shut out games from coming.

I just feel there should be some other metric being used here other than money to submit a game to Steam.

 

[Poodlestrike]

So, what's this mean for games that already passed through Greenlight but haven't hit the store proper yet?

 

[@MUWANdo]

Yeah, GOG is pretty snobby.

Of course, their entire premise is to cater to old skool gamers with old skool games, so it makes sense. But still, they are pretty snobby.

It's not even snobbery, they're just straight-up ignorant about a lot of genres to the point where I'd recommend people not even bother with them anymore.

 

[Dusk Golem]

So, what's this mean for games that already passed through Greenlight but haven't hit the store proper yet?

They'll be fine, Valve has it so games that passed before new rules were introduced still work off the old rules.

IE, I'm releasing a game this Monday I got greenlit a year and a half ago. Back then Valve didn't require you to submit your game for review before being allowed to sell it, and so that game hasn't had to go through that process. But a newer game I submitted that I hope to release later this year I got greenlit last October applied to the new rules because it was greenlit after that review process was introduced and made a requirement.

Thus any games greenlit before this comes into play will be still greenlit and free to come to Steam without paying the fee, and all games on the store will still be on the store.

 

[Darkstorne]

I just feel there should be some other metric being used here other than money to submit a game to Steam.

Yeah, I just don't know what that could be.

Some people have suggested allowing other developers to work as curators, testing submitted games for quality in exchange for rewards, but that opens up issues like some devs deliberately downvoting other games they see as competition. Valve certainly aren't going to curate themselves. That's an insane amount of work, would create incredibly long delays between submission and (possible) acceptance, and means Valve spend a crazy amount of money putting a dedicated team together - something they clearly refuse to do.

I honestly think they were heading in the right direction through improvements to game filtering and recommendations, helping to filter out shovelware. It's important people realize shovelware is never going away, and even a $1k+ entrance fee isn't going to stop it. Yes, it will reduce the amount of shovelware, but it will also reduce the number of legit Indie developers trying to make their dream games. That's not an acceptable trade-off.

I really like the idea of paying a fee for every single game you release, instead of just the first (like Greenlight operates right now). That will definitely hurt shovelware teams more than the guys and girls who release a game every year or two. But if it's any higher than $500 then it's far too high imo. EDIT: Also, we need more clarification on what "recoupable" means. If it means a $500 fee means Valve forgoes the first $500 of their percentage cut, then okay. If they simply mean you'll eventually make it back through profit, or it's tax deductible, then that's not good enough.

 

[CyanideFuse]

I am intrigued as to what the straw was that broke the camel's back with Greenlight. Was it an accumulation of things or a specific incident that tipped Valve?

if you believe in your game clap your hands

if you believe in your game clap your hands

if you believe in your game,
check your bank account,
there's an extra $5000 you forgot about

Or not.

 

[ElFly]

if you believe in your game clap your hands

if you believe in your game clap your hands

if you believe in your game,
check your bank account,
there's an extra $5000 you forgot about

 

[ScatheZombie]

if you believe in your game,
check your bank account,
there's an extra $5000 you forgot about

My bank account is not Fantasia. Though sometimes it does feel likes it's under attack by The Nothing.

 

[Timeaisis]

There are many games that fail at getting the word out. Steam Greenlight doesn't in and of itself help with that. If you can get the word out about voting your Greenlight project onto the store, then you can get the word out about funding the game or receiving other support.

Please stop acting like I'm unaware of the difficulties in successfully leveraging social media. I don't happen to think I've very good at it, certainly I wouldn't be employable for the skill, and yet I've still had remarkable success in several instances over the past seven years.

If you don't want to invest in learning how to spread the word about your game, then you shouldn't automatically get the same mindshare as people who are interested in that. There are a myriad ways to get the word out. It's just that most people make junk games. Most people are not the best at what they do, and thanks to the internet we're able to see all the better people. If you're not making ripples on social media then you're probably not as good as the people who are.

In the era of easy refunds, something selling on Steam absolutely means that it's quality. To argue otherwise without explaining why is delusional. Just because you like something the most doesn't make it a better thing. To you it does, but not in aggregate. And aggregation is what this whole thing is about.

Are you saying if your game isn't getting noticed on social media your game is bad? There are literally thousands of obscure but great games. You are working off a faulty premise.

 

[2+2=5]

Buget has nothing to do with quality, money barriers just separate those who can afford them from those who can't afford them, they don't separate good developers from bad developers, it seems to me that Steams is just asking for more money earlier because... well because it can.

 

[toddhunter]

This is another thing bothering me for some of these suggestions. I don't think some people know how much it costs to have a game submitted to consoles. Tip: To buy a fucking console dev kit, submit your game for review, and then put it up on the store is WAY less than $5000 altogether. Why the fuck should an open platform like PC with a store like Steam that literally has ten of thousands of games be so expensive compared to every other platform to submit your games to it for?

Devkits are the most expensive part of console development, to get a devkit you do need to be approved and all that first, and on PS4 & Xbox One a Dev Kit costs usually somewhere between $2000-3000, but both often they will wave the upfront fee aside to be paid off by sales afterward. but both of those gives you the various tools you need, developer consoles, programs, etc., to be able to work on and test your game. It's a full-on devkit that costs $2000-3000, not individual game processing.

A PC and a game engine is all you need to make a game for a PC, there is no devkit required for Steam itself. I also think Steam going closed off like consoles is a terrible idea. A big part of the appeal for PC games is the fact that it's an open-ended platform. Hell, Valve says as much in their post on Steam Direct. They don't want to shut out games from coming.

I just feel there should be some other metric being used here other than money to submit a game to Steam.

Just use the same metric I use. "How anime is this game?"

 

[whalleywhat]

How easy is it to launch a (successful) Kickstarter campaign? Genuinely asking, because with so many people throwing the word "Kickstarter", you'd think kickstarting is piece of cake that anyone could do it.

Well, this game is by the makers of well-regarded Stasis, comes with a recommendation from Brian Fargo, who has hired them to work on the next Wasteland, and was started alongside the free release of a Stasis prequel, which is about as much of a media blitz as I could imagine any small developer mustering, and is currently ~$20K off its modest goal with 6 days to go.

 

[AcceptableGhost]

Honestly in terms of fee pricing, 5000$ is way too much. It is too much of an upfront investment for most people just starting out and your game would have to make ~17,000$ revenue (if the recoup is coming out Valve's 30% fee) to recoup the money and that is ignoring stuff like sales tax/vat which is taken out before Valve takes the fee. 1000$ is reasonable but it should probably be lower then that.

And obviously, fully freeware games should be exempt from the fee.

 

[Nzyme32]

I am intrigued as to what the straw was that broke the camel's back with Greenlight. Was it an accumulation of things or a specific incident that tipped Valve?



Or not.

They've been talking about getting rid of greenlight since 2013. Apparently all the pieces needed for that were still to be implemented at the time.

 

[Makai]

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.

Games like that should be embedded in a website - much easier to distribute through a browser than a desktop client.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

It's not even snobbery, they're just straight-up ignorant about a lot of genres to the point where I'd recommend people not even bother with them anymore.

It would be a smidge better if their submission language basically wasn't "make real games and we'll put you on".

 

[whalleywhat]

Games like that should be embedded in a website - much easier to distribute through a browser than a desktop client.

Looks cool.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Looks cool.

It is cool. And only a couple of minutes long so you should try it. There's a Mac version on their site if you're on Mac. Steam version is Windows only.

 

[Makai]

This is bullshit. Not every game that doesn't make money is bad.

$1k is a pathetically low bar for starting a business. To your point, I can't think of any paid Steam games that sold so poorly. According to SteamSpy, the worst-selling great game I know, Steven's Sausage Roll, sold only 6,000 copies - but that's still over $100k in sales.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

$1k is a pathetically low bar for starting a business. To your point, I can't think of any paid Steam games that sold so poorly. According to SteamSpy, the worst-selling great game I know, Steven's Sausage Roll, sold only 6,000 copies - but that's still over $100k in sales.

I have no particular dog in this fight, but this was made by people I know at my local university:

http://steamspy.com/app/538550

 

[Orayn]

Games like that should be embedded in a website - much easier to distribute through a browser than a desktop client.

Oh, is this going to be the new "Binding of Isaac and Super Meat Boy should be free because they look like Flash games?"

 

[FyreWulff]

Only games made in C are real games. C# , C++. and .NET GTFO

 

[Makai]

Oh, is this going to be the new "Binding of Isaac and Super Meat Boy should be free because they look like Flash games?"

It's literally a two minute long free educational game. I can easily share browser games with friends, but they're not going to bother if they have to install a desktop client and make an account first.

 

[Lister]

Only games made in C are real games. C# , C++. and .NET GTFO

What?

 

[Dusk Golem]

What?

He's being sarcastic because some people have some sort of weird elitism to what should and shouldn't be a paid for game with weird arbitrary requirements.

He was saying it in response to the person posting a bit above about how Super Meat Boy and Binding of Isaac back in the day got a lot of slack for being paid for by some people back in the day because "it looked like a flash game", and those shouldn't be sold according to those folks because it doesn't meet some elitist arbitrary requirement in their eyes.

 

[Cipherr]

There is no perfect number. Some people are going to get gated by the recoupable fee no matter what. And some shovelware will always make it through no matter what also.

That sounds terrible actually, and something that should get called out (and I think it would anyone else not valve trying to pass it up)

This is by the way the exact same reason tim is becoming paranoid about Ms lately.

I have NO idea how you are even remotely coming to this conclusion after reading the details of this.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

This is the right move. I wouls put the fee around $250.

 

[LordRaptor]

It's literally a two minute long free educational game. I can easily share browser games with friends, but they're not going to bother if they have to install a desktop client and make an account first.

I don't know the authors and the only reason I am aware of that game was that it appeared in new releases on steam and seemed interesting.

I feel having played it, it was a net positive in my life.
It taught me things I would otherwise not have known, and it did so via the medium of videogames, a medium I enjoy.

In fact, I would go so far as to say I wish more games like this were made, period.