Support NeoGAF

[Frozenprince]

Shovelware studios are already here and established. They have enough money to eat that 1K entry fee and recoup that by duping enough people to pass breakeven. They won't likely be that deterred. This will disproportionately fall on passion projects and single digit teams.

 

[Parsnip]

 

[Polioliolio]

Floundering? You sure?

Anyway, they tried that and it didn't work. Also, Valve wants the Steam store mostly automated, meaning they don't want to hire a bunch of people to decide what the customers want to play.

I really don't know how you stop people from buying shit games. I mean, I'm not that smart, but i've managed to avoid regretful purchases over the 12 years I've used Steam. All the info is right there in front of your face. Most of the games Jim Sterling talks about, I have NEVER even seen. Like ever.

A modest fee to get on the Steam store is there to weed out the bullshit entries that are only there for the yucks. Its proven to work, but needs to be a bit higher than $100.

Is it that taxing to have some test of quality? It's not about deciding what people want to play. It's about making sure the game even functions, for starters.


The games Jim plays? Go ahead. Open steam right now. Look at the new releases. They're everywhere. I don't think people are having trouble spotting bad games, dude. You can tell in a second, based on art quality, screenshot. The problem is that it's almost futile to even use steam as a store front, it's so front loaded with shite it's impossible to navigate like a proper games store, where most of the games aren't utter garbage.

I'm almost exclusively a PC gamer these days... Do I ever use steam to shop anymore? No.. Like I said, it's a mess. Usually I hear about games from word of mouth, here on neogaf. If I ever buy something directly from steam, which almost never happens now either, I'll type the name of the game into the search bar. Actually shopping, or looking through steams recommendations? Utterly worthless.

And when I said floundering, I meant in terms of practical use.. It's a fucking dumpster.

 

[MrS]

Does this mean Jim isn't The Steam Cleaner any more?

 

[AColdDay]

Where are you going to draw the line? At 10K? At 20K?

This is one of the most naive things I've ever read of this forum. More to the point though, even if every project was guaranteed to break even, an arbitrarily high upfront fee would still prevent many games from being released because most people don't have that kind of liquid cash at one time. This applies to many aspects of life too, not just entrepreneurial affairs which is why being in poverty is so expensive.

Just a reminder, dudes. I didn't come up with an arbitrary 5k figure off of the top of my head, THE DEVELOPERS AND STUDIOS who were asked did. I just agree with it.

On the point that "if every project was guaranteed to break even" nonsense, that is exactly the point. A lot of these projects are NOT going to break even. They aren't serious products, and they don't deserve serious attention on a storefront. If you aren't serious, I don't want you wasting my time as a consumer on Steam.

 

[LordRaptor]

Does this mean Jim isn't The Steam Cleaner any more?

He's more of a Boston Steamer

 

[Frozenprince]

Is it that taxing to have some test of quality? It's not about deciding what people want to play. It's about making sure the game even functions, for starters.


The games Jim plays? Go ahead. Open steam right now. Look at the new releases. They're everywhere. I don't think people are having trouble spotting bad games, dude. You can tell in a second, based on art quality, screenshot. The problem is that it's almost futile to even use steam as a store front, it's so front loaded with shite it's impossible to navigate like a proper games store, where most of the games aren't utter garbage.

I'm almost exclusively a PC gamer these days... Do I ever use steam to shop anymore? No.. Like I said, it's a mess. Usually I hear about games from word of mouth, here on neogaf. If I ever buy something directly from steam, which almost never happens now either, I'll type the name of the game into the search bar. Actually shopping, or looking through steams recommendations? Utterly worthless.

And when I said floundering, I meant in terms of practical use.. It's a fucking dumpster.

This is just flat out lies.

You can easily navigate newer releases while filtering out garbage. If you're trowling for indie titles to begin with your curated front page and releases searches will do that FOR you.

This is a lie repeated over and over. It's so simple to never have crap in your front page or your searches.

 

[Hnetuduft]

One of the main problems with this system is that usually the people that have something interesting or thought provoking to say are those that don't have access to large sums of money up front.

What? If I have 500-1000 dollars to spend, I usually don't have something interesting or thought provoking to say? Weird argument.

 

[jshackles]

5K isn't that much money? What fucking planet do some of you love on where that's the case?

Let's say you plan on selling your game for $20. Under today's operating standards, Valve's cut would be $6 and you get $14 for every game sold.

Under the new proposed changes, you are essentially pre-paying your cut to Valve, so for the first 833 games sold, you get 100% of the profits (and Valve's cut is the fee you paid originally). In this scenario you're still earning the same amount of money: $11,660 ($14 x 833) but are instead paying $5,000 up front and receiving $16,660 on the back end.

Of course these numbers scale depending on Valve's fee, number of sales, and the price of your game.

I think what people are arguing is that $5,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money when, if you have a viable product, you stand to gain much more money simply by virtue of having your product being sold on Steam. The only way you "lose" money in this scenario is if your $20 game fails to sell 833 copies, which I think to most casual observers is a pretty good metric to keep the shovelware from the store.

 

[Dascu]

On the point that "if every project was guaranteed to break even" nonsense, that is exactly the point. A lot of these projects are NOT going to break even. They aren't serious products, and they don't deserve serious attention on a storefront. If you aren't serious, I don't want you wasting my time as a consumer on Steam.

Heaven forbid you spot a store space occupied on the front page's new releases tab.

 

[collige]

Just a reminder, dudes. I didn't come up with an arbitrary 5k figure off of the top of my head, THE DEVELOPERS AND STUDIOS who were asked did. I just agree with it.

On the point that "if every project was guaranteed to break even" nonsense, that is exactly the point. A lot of these projects are NOT going to break even. They aren't serious products, and they don't deserve serious attention on a storefront. If you aren't serious, I don't want you wasting my time as a consumer on Steam.

My point was that even games that are "serious" by your arbitrary standards would be negatively impacted by the fee. Furthermore, the projected number of sales of a game has no bearing whatsoever on the final quality that affects you as a consumer.

We're also free to call the developers who asked for a $5000 fee privileged idiots.

 

[Frozenprince]

Just a reminder, dudes. I didn't come up with an arbitrary 5k figure off of the top of my head, THE DEVELOPERS AND STUDIOS who were asked did. I just agree with it.

On the point that "if every project was guaranteed to break even" nonsense, that is exactly the point. A lot of these projects are NOT going to break even. They aren't serious products, and they don't deserve serious attention on a storefront. If you aren't serious, I don't want you wasting my time as a consumer on Steam.

What a ridiculously rude assumption to make about someone's project and art. Yes, some suggested five grand. Some also suggested keeping it 100$.

Jesus.

 

[AColdDay]

I think what people are arguing is that $5,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money when, if you have a viable product, you stand to gain much more money simply by virtue of having your product being sold on Steam. The only way you "lose" money in this scenario is if your $20 game fails to sell 833 copies, which I think to most casual observers is a pretty good metric to keep the shovelware from the store.

Exactly! Thank you for articulating the point that I'm trying to make (and butchering).

 

[Delusibeta]

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.

Actually, as I understand it, the current system is that you need to pay $100 per account to access Greenlight and upload infinite number of Greenlight projects. With Steam Direct, that switches to $100 per game. I honestly think the switch from per-account charging to per-game charging would be sufficient to clear out the worst of the drek, while simultaneously not being an impossibly high barrier for actual hobbyist developers.

 

[RedToad64]

Hopefully this means Treasure will put out Radiant Silvergun soon. ;___;

I'm pretty sure Treasure is dead, unfortunately..,

 

[collige]

Let's say you plan on selling your game for $20. Under today's operating standards, Valve's cut would be $6 and you get $14 for every game sold.

Under the new proposed changes, you are essentially pre-paying your cut to Valve, so for the first 833 games sold, you get 100% of the profits (and Valve's cut is the fee you paid originally). In this scenario you're still earning the same amount of money: $11,660 ($14 x 833) but are instead paying $5,000 up front and receiving $16,660 on the back end.

Of course these numbers scale depending on Valve's fee, number of sales, and the price of your game.

I think what people are arguing is that $5,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money when, if you have a viable product, you stand to gain much more money simply by virtue of having your product being sold on Steam. The only way you "lose" money in this scenario is if your $20 game fails to sell 833 copies, which I think to most casual observers is a pretty good metric to keep the shovelware from the store.

It seems more sensible to me to implement the reverse where the dev pays nothing upfront and in turn sacrifices the first X dollars of sales (or a siginificant percent of those sales) towards the fee.

 

[Frozenprince]

Let's say you plan on selling your game for $20. Under today's operating standards, Valve's cut would be $6 and you get $14 for every game sold.

Under the new proposed changes, you are essentially pre-paying your cut to Valve, so for the first 833 games sold, you get 100% of the profits (and Valve's cut is the fee you paid originally). In this scenario you're still earning the same amount of money: $11,660 ($14 x 833) but are instead paying $5,000 up front and receiving $16,660 on the back end.

Of course these numbers scale depending on Valve's fee, number of sales, and the price of your game.

I think what people are arguing is that $5,000 doesn't seem like a lot of money when, if you have a viable product, you stand to gain much more money simply by virtue of having your product being sold on Steam. The only way you "lose" money in this scenario is if your $20 game fails to sell 833 copies, which I think to most casual observers is a pretty good metric to keep the shovelware from the store.

But that's after you've spent the five grand to put your product on its storefront. Five grand to just spend, all at once, upfront, is a LUDICROUSLY large amount of money to many many people. It's not their ability to recover it that's the issue. It's the fact that the vast majority of people don't even have 1/5th that much in a savings account. Let alone on hand to get past a gated entry fee just to sell their product.

 

[jshackles]

It seems more sensible to me to implement the reverse where the dev pays nothing upfront and in turn sacrifices the first X dollars of sales (or a siginificant percent of those sales) towards the fee.

That actually does make a lot of sense, assuming the goal is to get as much shovelware on the store as possible and to let the good stuff rise to the top. This would be a double-edged sword for Valve who would probably generate more work for themselves dealing with the inevitable copyright infringement stemming from no barrier of entry.

But that's after you've spent the five grand to put your product on its storefront. Five grand to just spend, all at once, upfront, is a LUDICROUSLY large amount of money to many many people. It's not their ability to recover it that's the issue. It's the fact that the vast majority of people don't even have 1/5th that much in a savings account. Let alone on hand to get past a gated entry fee just to sell their product.

I agree wholeheartedly. Consumers rarely see the "human" side of these types of business deals and think it's all big corporations shuffling cash. I'm just trying to point out why people feel like $5,000 "isn't a lot of money".

 

[Risk Breaker]

In this thread: consumers speaking about things that concern developers as if they were one (not everyone of course).

I am kind of OK with a small fee per project, to avoid massive dumps of shit, but as an individual developer with plans to publish something on Steam, I'm NOT OK with a large fee of any kind (large = over 200 USD).

First, a higher fee doesn't really stop people wanting to put shit out. If all you need to do is pay a fee then that doesn't really control quality, as can be clearly seen with PSN. It's just some classist bullshit favoring the already wealthy. Not surprised some people here find that OK, but it is definitely not OK.

Second, Valve being a US company, I'm not really sure I feel comfortable having to do paperwork with, and I doubt it will be easy for people from outside the US. I also don't think I have to do that kind of stuff to open a bank account where I live

Third, what does Valve offer in return for that higher entry fee? Might as well invest more and go to PSN, where at least Sony will publish my trailer on their YT channel.

$100 is far too low and barely a hurdle for shit peddlers. Maybe $5000 is too much, but with players being able to refund shitty games now, devs have to be willing to commit to an investment in their game. The fee needs to be high enough to scare off people who are trying to push shovelware cash grabs.

I thought user voting was supposed to avoid letting shovelware into the store.

 

[Dusk Golem]

I'm a bit sad. I've been releasing free games on Steam that have been getting positive impressions, reviews, and the like on Steam for the last year or so. This fee aspect basically is going to kill the free games coming to Steam.

I think there should be some other barrier than money, this basically makes it less that shovelware can't get through and more that the poor can't get through.

 

[AColdDay]

It seems more sensible to me to implement the reverse where the dev pays nothing upfront and in turn sacrifices the first X dollars of sales (or a siginificant percent of those sales) towards the fee.

I really want to agree with you here, but where is the accountability or risk for someone who releases an absolute garbage fire game they crapped out in RPG Maker over the weekend? That person doesn't expect to actually sell enough to get through the X dollars of sales and it still clogs up the pipeline for the consumer and makes it that much harder for a real invested developer to get attention.

 

[Frozenprince]

I really want to agree with you here, but where is the accountability or risk for someone who releases an absolute garbage fire game they crapped out in RPG Maker over the weekend? That person doesn't expect to actually sell enough to get through the X dollars of sales and it still clogs up the pipeline for the consumer and makes it that much harder for a real invested developer to get attention.

What pipeline? What version of steam do you use that is inundating you with garbage?

 

[AcceptableGhost]

This new setup seems fine to me, Greenlight was pretty much just a queued submission process at this point anyway. As long as the fee isn't enormous (please not 5000 dollars holy shit) and it is recoupable, it seems fair to me.

I'm a bit sad. I've been releasing free games on Steam that have been getting positive impressions, reviews, and the like on Steam for the last year or so. This fee aspect basically is going to kill the free games coming to Steam.

I think there should be some other barrier than money, this basically makes it less that shovelware can't get through and more that the poor can't get through.

I hadn't thought of freeware, that is an interesting problem. Perhaps they can make a special case for freeware (like a much smaller fee, or none at all).

 

[Hnetuduft]

200-500 per game seems reasonable.

 

[jshackles]

Second, Valve being a US company, I'm not really sure I feel comfortable having to do paperwork with, and I doubt it will be easy for people from outside the US. I also don't think I have to do that kind of stuff to open a bank account where I live

As far as I know, they aren't proposing any new paperwork that isn't already required of them to do business with developers. They're just saying Greenlight used to be the buffer (where they weren't required to get details on developers, as no money was changing hands and no product was being sold) that will no longer be in place. As part of removing Greenlight but still allowing anyone to apply, they're just saying that anyone who applies will have to go through their business paperwork.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

It is very much like the sugar tax landing in the UK. It doesn't stop people drinking coke, just poor people.

Likewise this doesn't stop people releasing trash, just poor people.

I don't think saying you only need to sell 800 copies at $20 to get it back is a good defense. It would destroy well crafted projects that are poorly received, filling valves coffers for a failed project, the opposite of what should happen on a store. Many would need to seek funding if it was thousands, and that is prohibitive to many well meaning devs who would otherwise have been able to release their hard work. It would be prohibitive to me personally.

I think charging per game is a much better solution, but not at a much higher cost. And it's fair to say at a low cost, it won't make any difference, but then I'm not convinced it will at a higher cost either. It becomes an obstacle for everyone, regardless of the quality of their work. This seems in a cynical eye a way to simply increase revenue from the service, while still not doing any fucking work to curate the material. That irks me.

 

[More_Badass]

The games Jim plays? Go ahead. Open steam right now. Look at the new releases. They're everywhere. I don't think people are having trouble spotting bad games, dude. You can tell in a second, based on art quality, screenshot.

Sure, let's go ahead and do that

 

[Frozenprince]

Man More_Badass look at all that garbage.

 

[More_Badass]

If anything, Popular New Releases dont show enough good games, since Induction and Splasher arent there. Those two, and Bleed 2, are probably the main releases I'd recommend this week

 

[Risk Breaker]

As far as I know, they aren't proposing any new paperwork that isn't already required of them to do business with developers. They're just saying Greenlight used to be the buffer (where they weren't required to get details on developers, as no money was changing hands and no product was being sold) that will no longer be in place. As part of removing Greenlight but still allowing anyone to apply, they're just saying that anyone who applies will have to go through their business paperwork.

Ah, I guess that's fine then.

 

[Nzyme32]

Sure, let's go ahead and do that

Man More_Badass look at all that garbage.

Another running problem here is that some folks are going to jump out about those being shit, when they are demonstrably not imo. I almost never run into issues of finding shit tier games when I look around steam, because it is all hidden away since that simply isn't what I am purchasing, so Steam doesn't push it.

The only issues I've had is down to VNs / Dating Sims occasionally popping up that I know I am extremely unlikely to buy - enter the store preference filter to save the day. Now the only issue is having friends with taste that deviates massively from my own, so the odd game in the friends playing queue can be stuff I know I won't touch. That's hardly a massive issue though

If anything, Popular New Releases dont show enough good games, since Induction and Splasher arent there. Those two, and Bleed 2, are probably the main releases I'd recommend this week

Also on point. I'd want a better section for this. A way of being able to better sift through them through a whole bunch of metrics.

 

[AColdDay]

Man More_Badass look at all that garbage.

Only in the context of trying to win an argument would "Steam has a lot of poor quality games that you have to wade through" ever be a controversial statement.

 

[HandsomeCharles]

Man More_Badass look at all that garbage.

The garbage in the Greenlight system is more detrimental.

Greenlight is a big part of a developer's launch. When you're on the first page of submissions you get about 90% of your entire greenlight traffic. Many successful games have been spotted from greenlight, which has helped their actual launches significantly.

The problem with the garbage is not so much that it ends up on the store (Because as you aptly point out, the consumer in the majority of cases won't end up seeing it) but that it denies hard working developers the visibility at the early stages of their campaigns.

Now, this is just my opinion, but I think that visibility should be for hard working developers. It doesn't matter if their game is actually good or not, but if they have put the months and years of effort into creating a product they absolutely should be given a platform on which to present it. They shouldn't be "pushed out" by things that have been thrown together in a couple of days or over the course of a few weeks. Yes, it's incredibly difficult to police but raising the entry fee absolutely will deter people from putting up their "garbage" because it will be incredibly unlikely that they will ever see their money again.

 

[More_Badass]

Only in the context of trying to win an argument would "Steam has a lot of poor quality games that you have to wade through" ever be a controversial statement.

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.

 

[12Dannu123]

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.

That move would drive developers away from Steam.... it's not a good idea.

 

[Frozenprince]

Only in the context of trying to win an argument would "Steam has a lot of poor quality games that you have to wade through" ever be a controversial statement.

Because you don't have to wade through it. The good content is always front and center.

Where is all this shit you have to get through every single time you want to purchase or find a new, quality title? Which I imagine is an indie title made by a small team that likely wouldn't even be able to get into this new system since larger games made by dedicated professionals are almost always first page results.

 

[KHlover]

Sure, let's go ahead and do that

Damn, Icey sounds really interesting. Bought.

 

[mindatlarge]

Hopefully this will weed out some of the pure garbage but not restrict deserving titles.

 

[AColdDay]

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.

I clicked on Steam Greenlight to find interesting indie titles. In addition to finding several quality ones, I found lots of stinkers. If you have never had this experience, I would like to know how.

 

[Frozenprince]

I clicked on Steam Greenlight to find interesting indie titles. In addition to finding several quality ones, I found lots of stinkers. If you have never had this experience, I would like to know how.

Showcase these stinkers. What are they? Where are they? Have they been greenlit? Your complaints so far have been about the storefront aspect of steam, unless they've been greenlit, these projects aren't even technically on the store yet.

 

[Nzyme32]

I clicked on Steam Greenlight to find interesting indie titles. In addition to finding several quality ones, I found lots of stinkers. If you have never had this experience, I would like to know how.

Steam Greenlight is literally just that - games yet to be greenlit. These are all games that have yet to be decided as to whether they end up on Steam or not. The only way to specifically see Greenlit titles from there is to choose that section, and then view them in a non-specific order.

Doesn't sound like you've ever browsed the actual Steam Store. Show us your Steam front page and popular new releases tab. If you have to consistently "wade" through shit, I would be very surprised. Also since you specifically want indie - hit up the indie genre link or tag and show that one.

 

[Compsiox]

This is it guys. Now it will be up to the community to make it so that the quality games are noticed and the rest are left for dead.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Put it at $200 and donate half of it to a fund to help rookie game devs get training.

I 100% agree that Valve's store should have a very small amount of common sense curation. A product being put up on the store should be worth something.

 

[Teppic]

The fee better not be more than $100. Otherwise I guess people who make new indie games and don't have a lot of money will have to skip Steam.

 

[Pantz]

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.

 

[AColdDay]

YOU GOT ME GUYS. I can't on demand log into steam on my phone, and live stream for you the sequence of events that led me to bad games. Me and all the others who have complained have been making it all up in a cheap ploy for attention. Honestly, we are throwing you a surprise birthday party, and we needed to distract you long enough to set up.

 

[Lister]

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.

Do you live in a cardboard box?

I make a hell of a lot more than that and I can't afford no 4K tv ;(

 

[Teppic]

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.

Aka, screw the poor.

 

[Gorilla Shark]

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.

 

[HK-47]

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.

Idontbelieveyou.gif