Support NeoGAF

[Stumpokapow]

I'll bet "recoupable application fee" is probably something along the lines of minimum units sold thresholds/projections that need to be hit, and then they're given their fee back. No withholding of sales revenue, just the fee money itself.

Probably on a case-by-case basis too.

The more logical way to do it would be Valve waiving its 30% cut against the fee. So if the fee is $250 then you'd be paid back 100% at $800 of revenue (in addition to the $550 of money you made on your own from those sales). This way even if someone doesn't recoup the fee, they recoup it partially.

 

[That1BlackGuy]

As other posters said, my main thing is that I really hope that their fee takes one-person developers, smaller houses and international indie developers into strong consideration when determining their fee.

 

[Vibranium]

Jim Sterling will not be happy

Man, I am eagerly awaiting the Jimquisition on this. He's going to go in.

Maybe we'll get a marathon of Greenlight by him on the last day before it closes.

 

[Brokun]

I feel like $1,000 bucks could be an appropriate fee.

This is my thought as well. It's enough to keep the shovelware at bay, but not so prohibitively expensive that someone who is serious about putting up their indie game can work a side job to come up with the money if they don't have it on hand.

 

[ieptbarakat]

Thank god, my Steam group and I have been getting constant a spam of trash greenlight/curation requests for years.

 

[Coxy]

is there any reason why they couldnt just offer both options?

It's hard to tell either way on this right now until they finalize the numbers, if it worked like $100 for the first game, 200 for the second, 400 for the third etc to prevent spam of crap it might be better.

 

[astrogamer]

This doesn't really solve the big problem with greenlight which was that no names devs are flooded out by asset flips and unfinished games. If the fee is cost-prohibitive to those, then unknown devs can't really pay either but a fee too low means even more flooding, and being on Itch.io is just as good until they miraculously break out.

 

[KHlover]

If a $1000 vs $100 fee makes you feel like your game won't make a profit in the end...well I just hope you're not planning to live off game development alone.

 

[Tater]

If you don't believe that your game can generate a meager 5k in profits then you need to stay off of steam and release it independently.

The problem with that mindset is that the policy will strangle out smaller devs with potentially more creative ideas. Even a 5k entry fee isn't going to be enough to discourage the companies that dump crap on steam.

 

[Nanashrew]

I feel like actual curation is needed. An entry fee will not ensure more quality games make it and keeping the bad seeds out. It could very well keep the good games out too, and sometimes it's the bad seeds that actually have the money to burn.

The fee could hurt indies a great deal depending on the price. And worst case scenario is a resurgence in requiring game publishers just to make it on to Steam.

 

[chubigans]

Reading the replies here, yeah, maybe a thousand is too unreasonable. $250-500 might be the best spot.

 

[Spirited]

So does this mean we'll get less videos from Jim about horrible greenlight games?

They will just end up directly on steam instead. I have no problem with that though.

 

[Wonko_C]

Hopefully they keep all my favorited/followed games on Greenlight so I don't forget about them once they're out.

 

[Stumpokapow]

I think th issue with $1000 is not so much that people should be releasing games where they expect the lifetime revenue won't recoup the fee, but rather the issue of how to come up with $1,000 upfront.

 

[Nzyme32]

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.

In what way?

 

[Rockk]

I imagine this thread is very depressing to read as an indie developer.

Anyways hopefully the fee is on the lower end. Something like $500 but even cheaper would be better. Bring on the "garbage".

 

[Knurek]

I think th issue with $1000 is not so much that people should be releasing games where they expect the lifetime revenue won't recoup the fee, but rather the issue of how to come up with $1,000 upfront.

Reading the replies here, yeah, maybe a thousand is too unreasonable. $250-500 might be the best spot.

I still think $1000 if not more is the best idea.
If you have a good game on your hand and don't have the money for Steam, get a publisher. I'm sure guys like Devolver or Adult Swim will be happy to get a deal with you.
If you don't have a good game, why are you trying to release it on Steam?

In what way?

Knowing him, the answer will be along the lines of Valve should just mandate all developers to release the vastly superior UWP version. Hell, Valve should roll over and let MS take over Steam.

 

[Spirited]

Jim Sterling will not be happy

Isn't that his shtick? I mean ranting about stuff dumb shit even when it's very minor to pander to his fanbase?

 

[Garrett Hawke]

I still think the solution to the "problem" of bloat ware isn't to shut the gates, its better curation.

I just don't understand how anyone is inconvenienced by shitty games existing. Don't buy them, and they sure as hell are not going to be pushed on you by a rec system unless people are trolling and rating it higher.

 

[kswiston]

Not for smaller titles, like the vast majority of Indie games. A $1000 buy in price is a huge chunk of whatever that game will end up making.

The biggest problem is that an insane amount of shovelware comes from devs who view quantity over quality as their business model, and many of them do very well out of it. Raising the cost into the thousands probably won't affect them - it'll affect the people genuinely pouring years of work into a single game, not for the money, but for the love of it.

We must be talking about super small titles, since a recoupable $1000 fee would only be a loss of income over free if you were forcasting fewer than 700 copies at a $5 average a piece. You would break even at 285 copies.

Last year, median ownership was 22k for titles with the indie tag on Steam. That is likely inflated quite a bit by bundles, but even if you halved it, 300 copies or less would be a small minority of games.

If you dont care about making money and are expecting fewer than 300 buyers, why even bother with Steam?

Like I said, they could just take their cut out of your sales instead of demanding $1k up front, since that seems to be the more realistic barrier.

 

[Elandyll]

I feel like $1,000 bucks could be an appropriate fee.

Same.
It should weed out, at least partially, people who just repackage free assets.

Imo even $2000 shouldn't be too much to ask for a serious project, as the fee is recoupable out of your sales it looks like.

Obviously, if your "game" is a scam, user reviews will deter buys and thus you recouping the cost.

 

[Trace]

I still think $1000 if not more is the best idea.
If you have a good game on your hand and don't have the money for Steam, get a publisher. I'm sure guys like Devolver or Adult Swim will be happy to get a deal with you.
If you don't have a good game, why are you trying to release it on Steam?

Yes I'm sure Devolver wouldn't mind publishing a couple hundred games.

It's funny to see all the people in here that say $1000+ is fine, because if you don't have $1-2k lying around to spend on putting a game on Steam you're not a "real" developer.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

Huh?

A lot of the submissions on greenlight are (for lack of a better word) "Trash". They are not full games, they are broken and are generally lacking in both quality and competency. Some of these submissions are uploaded in an attempt to "scam" people into buying the game, or by profiting from trading card sales and some of them are just uploaded by kids who don't really know any better.

Either way, they take up real-estate and visibility for games made by developers who have legitimately worked hard at their games to create a cohesive and fully featured product. Not to say that game is necessarily good, but theres a difference between a fully featured game that just happens to be bad, and a lazy asset flip or a bunch of asset packs hastily stuck together over the course of a few days.

One of the reasons there are so many of these "trash" submissions is because someone only has to pay $100 and then they can submit as many "games" as they like. That is an incredibly low barrier to entry. By having a fee per-title (Even if it were to remain $100) would eliminate some of those people because either the potential for profit would be harshly lowered, or become something that "Mum and Dad" aren't willing to pay for.

 

[Abilidebob]

I think th issue with $1000 is not so much that people should be releasing games where they expect the lifetime revenue won't recoup the fee, but rather the issue of how to come up with $1,000 upfront.

Exactly. People also need to remember that there's other countries besides the US. 1000 dollars is 3.5 TIMES the monthly minimum wage of my country. It's simply unfeasible for a lot of devs from 3rd world countries. Some gaffers here need to consider people's situations.

 

[Delstius]

That's a step in the right direction at least, Greenlight served its purpose and obviously needed to evolve. The entrance fee being recoupable shouldn't be much of an issue as long as it's still reasonably affordable.

I wonder how (if at all) they will deal with the numerous asset flip and the steam cards issue though."Showing the Right Games to the Right Customers" is working great for sure but it doesn't adress directly those kind of issue.

 

[DNAbro]

I still think $1000 if not more is the best idea.
If you have a good game on your hand and don't have the money for Steam, get a publisher. I'm sure guys like Devolver or Adult Swim will be happy to get a deal with you.
If you don't have a good game, why are you trying to release it on Steam?



Knowing him, the answer will be along the lines of Valve should just mandate all developers to release the vastly superior UWP version. Hell, Valve should roll over and let MS take over Steam.

Do you think it's that simple to get a publisher? What if you make something like a visual novel with a very niche audience?

 

[HandsomeCharles]

I imagine this thread is very depressing to read as an indie developer.

Anyways hopefully the fee is on the lower end. Something like $500 but even cheaper would be better. Bring on the "garbage".

It depends what the fee is. If it's under $1000 then (IMO) its a price worth paying for more visibility (As a lot of the "trash" won't bother paying the fee - See my other post) but if its over that then it becomes pretty difficult.

Also, they did not detail how you can recoup the cost.

Basically, we need to know the full deal.

 

[Elandyll]

Exactly. People also need to remember that there's other countries besides the US. 1000 dollars is 3.5 TIMES the monthly minimum wage of my country. It's simply unfeasible for a lot of devs from 3rd world countries. Some gaffers here need to consider people's situations.

Anything less than $500 and it might as well be nothing frankly.

 

[More_Badass]

Release off of Steam if you can't afford it.

If you can't afford to invest in marketing, you'll probably fail anyway.

I don't just get people can have this attitude in 2017, after so many debut indie titles, one-person projects, and niche games finding audiences over the last 5, 6 years

How is that advice any different from the days when good games would be stuck on Desura and other sites, because they couldn't get on Steam?

 

[jshackles]

Everyone who thinks the entry fee should be lower or non-existent, think about this:

Submitting items to Greenlight cost $100 (as a one-time fee that goes to charity). Now, imagine everything currently on Greenlight is now available for purchase on Steam. Obviously, the fee needs to be higher than $100.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

Exactly. People also need to remember that there's other countries besides the US. 1000 dollars is 3.5 TIMES the monthly minimum wage of my country. It's simply unfeasible for a lot of devs from 3rd world countries. Some gaffers here need to consider people's situations.

That's a very good point, but unfortunately as Valve is US based I would imagine they won't be taking this into consideration. I feel for you though!

 

[Knurek]

It's funny to see all the people in here that say $1000+ is fine, because if you don't have $1-2k lying around to spend on putting a game on Steam you're not a "real" developer.

Kickstarter exists.
Humble Store exists.
Itch.io exists.
Steam is not end-all, be-all of PC gaming.
If you don't think your game will recoup $1000 entry fee, you should be thinking why won't your game generate ~150 full price sales on Steam (at €10), instead of whining the entry fee is too high.

 

[Anno]

The release reads like they want to make it easier overall to grt your game up and running so I imagine it'll be cheap. Hopefully, at least. The more open and accessible the better.

 

[ymgve]

I wonder what they mean by recoupable?

Probably something like "Valve won't take their 30% cut of sales until the submission fee has been paid back"

 

[Ionic]

I think if they go the fee route, no more than 300 to 500 would be good. What I'd also recommend is a barrier for trading cards as well. Like, your game won't drop cards until it makes 10000 or something. I feel like I recall the card system being one of the reasons some devs fart out so many games. Locking that cool but exploitable feature behind a revenue barrier makes more sense to me.

Edit: Also if you are an indie dev, this would be the point in time where you message people at Valve directly regarding your thoughts. They appear interested.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

A high fee will kill a fair amount of good work by devs that have slaved in their own time but don't have excess cash of any meaningful amount. This is a lot of people. Unless the fee is a couple hundred at most, this is a terrible decision.

Instead of curating their own store, they are potentially making it just for the wealthy. People with cash will still be able to spam shit games, and people with good games and no cash will be shit out of luck.

 

[Trace]

Kickstarter exists.
Humble Store exists.
Itch.io exists.
Steam is not end-all, be-all of PC gaming.
If you don't think your game will recoup $1000 entry fee, you should be thinking why won't your game generate ~150 full price sales on Steam (at €10), instead of whining the entry fee is too high.

I'd prefer to put my game on Steam for free and give it away personally. I'm not in it for the money(obviously), I'm making a game for a community I love. I don't have a grand lying around, and while I believe the game is going to be fantastic it's also niche as fuck. And why the fuck should I "kickstart" a steam fee, really? Come on now.

 

[Evolution of Metal]

I just don't understand how anyone is inconvenienced by shitty games existing. Don't buy them, and they sure as hell are not going to be pushed on you by a rec system unless people are trolling and rating it higher.

What about people who are actually interested in exploring upcoming games but don't want to dig through a load of asset flips and generally shit games?

What about aspiring developers who worked their asses off to build something good, but instead they get thrown in the same platform as garbage iOS ports and asset-flips. It is much harder for them to get discovered.

 

[jshackles]

I think if they go the fee route, no more than 300 to 500 would be good. What I'd also recommend is a barrier for trading cards as well. Like, your game won't drop cards until it makes 10000 or something. I feel like I recall the card system being one of the reasons some devs fart out so many games. Locking that cool but exploitable feature behind a revenue barrier makes more sense to me.

The problem with this idea though is that you're now inconveniencing customers, not developers.

 

[Knurek]

I'd prefer to put my game on Steam for free and give it away personally. I'm not in it for the money(obviously), I'm making a game for a community I love. I don't have a grand lying around, and while I believe the game is going to be fantastic it's also niche as fuck.

I'm sure Freeware titles (not F2P, Freeware, like Heroine Quest or Cupid) won't require entry fee.

 

[Polioliolio]

Why does it need to be pay to play (application fee)
Why can't they just judge the games by briefly playing them and knowing they're not asset flip pieces of shit, and then proudly host them on their floundering marketplace?

 

[Tain]

Everyone who thinks the entry fee should be lower or non-existent, think about this:

Submitting items to Greenlight cost $100 (as a one-time fee that goes to charity). Now, imagine everything currently on Greenlight is now available for purchase on Steam. Obviously, the fee needs to be higher than $100.

I was under the impression that everything on Greenlight at this point already does make it onto Steam eventually, though, and this has been the case for a while.

 

[Timeaisis]

Thank god.

I think the fee needs to e $500 - 1000. That's a lot of money, but it's not completely out of range. I'd willingly pay it.

Problem with greenlight right now is, as others have said, it's just a popularity contest. It also hinges on if the developer takes the time (and ample money) to promote their product on greenlight. For a small developer, $500 - 1000 may seem like a lot (and it it), but when you consider the amount of time and energy (and money) a small developer needs to put in to advertising, marketing, etc. to just get their game greenlight...it really adds up.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Kickstarter exists.
Humble Store exists.
Itch.io exists.
Steam is not end-all, be-all of PC gaming.
If you don't think your game will recoup $1000 entry fee, you should be thinking why won't your game generate ~150 full price sales on Steam (at €10), instead of whining the entry fee is too high.

So if you want to put your game out there for free?

I genuinely think that everyone who is going "boo hoo you'll make it back if it's good" should try and make then market a game. Visibility is so fucking difficult ALREADY. Now having to put your game on a niche site where nobody will ever see it unless you manage to cause some kind of kerfuffle on twitter is sending your game to die.

What about people who are actually interested in exploring upcoming games but don't want to dig through a load of asset flips and generally shit games?

What about aspiring developers who worked their asses off to build something good, but instead they get thrown in the same platform as garbage iOS ports and asset-flips. It is much harder for them to get discovered.

It'll be infinitely harder to discover their games if they're not on steam at all.

 

[Hibiki Kurosawa]

I hope the fee is still fairly low... I have dreams!

 

[Lister]

I imagine this thread is very depressing to read as an indie developer.

Anyways hopefully the fee is on the lower end. Something like $500 but even cheaper would be better. Bring on the "garbage".

Is it?

I've read several articles of indie devs hating the grenelight system as a very hard way to get noticed and into the store.

I'd imagine a straight up fee would be something a lot simpler for most, especially if itsn't super high.

I like the idea of kisckstarter too. I'd bakc a kickstarter/fig campaign for a "Get me into Steam" fee from a game I believed in.

 

[hampig]

Sort of spooky for me being a part-time dev of niche games. I don't expect anything I make to really get me a ton of money, if that fee is too high then I guess Steam will be out of the picture for me, which is a bummer.

I have hope they'll do this right though. Greenlight was an idea, but not the best solution.

 

[Arion]

So if you want to put your game out there for free?

I genuinely think that everyone who is going "boo hoo you'll make it back if it's good" should try and make then market a game. Visibility is so fucking difficult ALREADY. Now having to put your game on a niche site where nobody will ever see it unless you manage to cause some kind of kerfuffle on twitter is sending your game to die.

And this new system should help with visibility. If this works new releases on steam won't be clogged up with garbage so people will be more willing to go through it to find something new.

 

[Ionic]

The problem with this idea though is that you're now inconveniencing customers, not developers.

I understand you're one of the people most familiar with how cards work on this whole forum (and that's an understatement). But trading cards are ultimately such a miniscule feature for consumers. People should be buying games for games. The reason a lot of these straight garbage games go anywhere is because people buy them for cards. Get rid of that immediate incentive and the garbage doesn't get purchased, but eventually the good games get cards.

 

[Abilidebob]

That's a very good point, but unfortunately as Valve is US based I would imagine they won't be taking this into consideration. I feel for you though!

Eh, Valve can do some pretty stupid things, but to just ignore 3rd world devs is something I can't believe they'd do.

Anything less than $500 and it might as well be nothing frankly.

Yeah you're right. Only Americans and middle class/up devs should have the privilege of having their games on Steam. It's not like poor people can develop a good game, right?