This is par the course for Valve though. They arent a very transparent company.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Valve is blocking publishers from helping indies bypass Steam Greenlight
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
This is par the course for Valve though. They arent a very transparent company.
Tallshortman
Member
Nah this wouldn't be as big a problem if Valve would stop being cheap fucks and actually hire enough resources to sort through submissions properly and in a timely fashion.
Bingo!
Agreed. I really dislike Steam, though, since they are responsible for establishing the Steam-AppID method (Locking games to their service.), along with somehow convincing the majority of gamers that "this is ok". It isn't even necessary according to GOG.com.
Steam is a huge success, and was the first one out with games locked to their service - this means that Steam is and will be the only viable option for a lot of people. This also means that it's not possible to compete with Steam, and that Steam will, most likely, be the only major DD service.
GOG.com is an incredible service that does it the right way, so that is good, but it doesn't get a lot of the newer games (It's goodoldgaming.com, indeed, but it does get several new, independent titles.)
balladofwindfishes
Member
Except it's entirely possible, and often happens. Amazon's PC game sales are better than Valve's most of the time. Same for GMG and other sites that compete just fine with Steam.
From what I've seen, (most) people are only interested in buying on those stores if their role is reduced to distributing Steam keys. They're not truly independent platforms/services in that sense.
Ihateyouchris
Member
I wish I could say differently, but from my own buying habits I know I'll pretty much only buy a game if it includes a Steam key. DRM free is great, but as a hedge in case Steam goes all EA on us. This is why the Humble Store is awesome.
For example, I honestly would have bought Love+ ages ago if it had a Steam key, even if I could only get that key directly from the dev and not from the Steam store. I literally just bought it on Desura, mainly 'cause I feel a bit guilty about that and the game looks awesome, but apparently I forgot I had set up two accounts. Now the game's associated to the wrong account further fragmenting my purchases and becoming a pain in the ass. This is nothing against Desura, I'm just a dumbass consumer.
SteveWinwood
Member
guys i have this rumor that team fortress 3 was actually cancelled to make dota 2
i cant confirm it because its a rumor and theyre secret sources so take it as you will
i mean theyll deny it because i mean come on pr wouldnt say otherwise
i cant confirm it because its a rumor and theyre secret sources so take it as you will
i mean theyll deny it because i mean come on pr wouldnt say otherwise
jediyoshi
Member
Could you describe a transparent digital distribution service? What it'd entail and how steam is less transparent now that greenlight exists?
Unless there's an underlying point of you being under the impression that the aggregate amount of games approved has reduced, this doesn't make sense.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Yes they are. Valve sees none of that money (unless they're the publisher). It's the best of both worlds, companies get a central system with locked in games and DRM, users get their games all in one place, a huge social network, a console like experience, AND the ability to buy their games anywhere they see fit.
Until Valve gets rid of Steamworks and Steam keys, or tries to take a piece of their distribution, Valve cannot be a monopoly on PC game sales.
How do crescendo events suck? They were just as much a part of 1 as they were in 2. 2 just had more variety.
'cause they're amazingly predictable (ex: at the end of just about every level) and tend to slow players down to a crawl, which is antithetical to first-person shooter play (as FPSes are, and should be, entirely about movement). If you're NOT carrying a melee weapon, it's useless--they even reduced ammo count to ensure that a melee weapon would be a good choice.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
Yeah uh, L4D2 is pretty much better (imo) in most resepcts than L4D1 and Crescendo events were even in L4D1. Also, in your opinion FPS games should be about people constantly on the move. That is not a given fact here and you should not try to push it as one. A few of L4D2's events even encourage you to be on the run while they're active - See Parish 2's mid-level event.
Melee is a greatly welcomed addition but most players I work with prefer the magnum because it is the only gun that is a 1 hit kill on realism modes over the base pistols. I do think the starter pistols are too weak for their own good but if you had something that great to always fall back on, why would you even need to bother with some of the tier 1 weapons?
RocketDarkness
Member
We have seen zero proof there is a Shantae PC port in development. Not even a single mockup. No updates beyond the initial post and a "Hey guys we're doing super-well thanks for all the support." Nothing.
I do think that a lot of it is being pissed off that Steam is harder to get into than Nintendo or Mobile devices.
I'm sure that if I made a game and after 3-4 months it didnt get Greenlighted, I would feel bad because that mostly mean that the majority of people do not want to play my game, without trying it. That's shitty, but what is the point of being released if nobody buy your game? To cash in on the Steam Sales?
Well some indie did get a massive boost from the steam sales. Like Amnesia who was able to make a sequel because of the Steam sales.
Its on greenlight.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=94588574
Most of the people I play with always have the magnum as the back up. Also you dont level this as a criticism against 1 yet that game actually encouraged hunkering down. In 2 you have gauntlet events and well as two special infected specifically designed to punish camping. Also weapons ammo is rarely a problem unless things go horribly wrong (which is tense when it does happen) and you always have infinite ammo pistol backups. Also FPS are entirely about movement? Maybe if I was playing a twitch, team based shooter, which L4D isnt. In addition, many crescendos occur in the middle of levels. They are predictable in the way collecting keys in Doom or capturing points in TF2 are predictable. They are part of the game design.
CheesecakeRecipe
Stormy Grey
Right, I forgot about Shiva-stacking from L4D1. The ultimate camper's dream. L4D2 does so much more to rock you for trying to stay still for too long.
jediyoshi
Member
It's still obliterating my mind that people are off put by the idea that it's easier to get approved for a mobile service in general than a games service. It's as if suddenly any of the negative stigma attached to them gets negated when it starts affecting a certain sect of people outside of them directly.
SteveWinwood
Member
With an iphone trailer and a bunch of screenshots that aren't off a computer.
Well doing a PC port is not really that different. They will want to keep the aspect ratio, and they just have to change the controls for PC and or controller. They are in the Top 100 of Greenlight, so I suppose they worked on it.
RocketDarkness
Member
Bingo. I'd like to think that if they were actually working on a PC port, they'd post updates once in a while. At the very least, get rid of those embarrassing iOS trailers.
Were in the Top 100. In November.Rubius said:
AlejandroDaJ
Neo Member
The problem with Greenlight is that it makes it next to impossible for small indie devs to budget their design process correctly. Greenlight's a popularity contest with a nebulous outcome, and you very much can't have "?????" be the most crucial bullet point in your return on investment model.
Now, this isn't a problem for truly small developers, i.e. the people who crap out relatively simple, self-contained games on small budgets. My last game, Cute Things Dying Violently, is a single-screen puzzle platformer that was done on an extremely modest budget and did really, really well on XBLIG. It got rejected by Valve pre-Greenlight and is languishing on GL right now. However... it was a small game that was cheaply made and I had my two shots. I had a more-than-fair shake.
But here's the thing: CTDV on XBLIG has enabled me to move up in the world. And thanks to the sea change in development efficiency that tools like Unity 3D have enabled, I can now put together a far more ambitious game that's intended to have way more staying power than your typical XBLIG fare. I also want to invest a lot more money into it and really make it shine. The problem is, how do I know how much money to invest if my ROI model has that silly "??????" hanging over it due to the GL process?
Greenlight isn't a problem for garden-variety indies. It is a problem for devs who want to take the next step and up their game.
Now, this isn't a problem for truly small developers, i.e. the people who crap out relatively simple, self-contained games on small budgets. My last game, Cute Things Dying Violently, is a single-screen puzzle platformer that was done on an extremely modest budget and did really, really well on XBLIG. It got rejected by Valve pre-Greenlight and is languishing on GL right now. However... it was a small game that was cheaply made and I had my two shots. I had a more-than-fair shake.
But here's the thing: CTDV on XBLIG has enabled me to move up in the world. And thanks to the sea change in development efficiency that tools like Unity 3D have enabled, I can now put together a far more ambitious game that's intended to have way more staying power than your typical XBLIG fare. I also want to invest a lot more money into it and really make it shine. The problem is, how do I know how much money to invest if my ROI model has that silly "??????" hanging over it due to the GL process?
Greenlight isn't a problem for garden-variety indies. It is a problem for devs who want to take the next step and up their game.
Yes, but my opinion is the best opinion.
In all seriousness, I can't think of a single great FPS that's not about motion. Ever wonder why people hate regenerating health? It's because it slows down the pace of the game, resulting in a more stop-start, less strafey experience. Know what has a cult following? Mirror's Edge. People like motion in FPS games.
Also, L4D hordes weren't predictable, other than when you set off a car alarm, for the most part. They were also significantly more navigable, and felt, generally, organic, as in, it felt like an awful lot of zombies were running at you. With Left 4 Dead 2, they come across less as a bunch of zombies and more like a stream. I don't even really think about killing them half the time. I just move forward and use guns to paddle.
If you like the game, you like the game, but it is pretty damn broken. The writing's worse, the levels are a mixed bag, and Valve also insisted on trying to make memes happen (did the same deal with Portal 2) where they'd always occurred somewhat naturally before, by making L4D2 a lot more cartoonish than its predecessor. Chicago Ted > Keith.
The entire game is built around encouraging players to move forward to get to the safe house and progress. Being able to set up 'arenas' and trigger events was part of the strategy that made the game fun--hunkering down rarely lasted long, and the only ones that come to mind are both in the Airport.
I think the spitter is actually the best thing to come out of Left 4 Dead 2. All the infected discourage camping simply because they track you down--the smoker's still the best at this.
The crescendos are a bad part of the game's design. They're just endless streams of "oh god, not this again." That pseudorandom element that made the original game genuinely interesting is gone when you get bits like this that are absolutely predictable.
Eh, we're getting off topic, and I'm not going to convince you. Kinda bummed that everyone had to leap onto my criticism of Valve's games and not, y'know, the overall point. I spent a lot more time talking about how their customer service sucks as a result of their structure. I still think that their organizational structure is the reason Greenlight exists. At the very least, they're applying their philosophy to EVERYONE with Greenlight ("hey! Be a part of Valve and approve what shows up on Steam!") but, again, that doesn't work with large groups.
The main problem I've personally found when browsing games on greenlight is the constant quality shift between products. Granted some of them are more refined or at a later stage of dev, but the jump makes it really easy to judge a game in the wrong light.
The fault here is shared between valve and the devs though. Valve should do a better job of promoting the games though, how hard can it be to have a fucking 'spotlight' post on a daily basis that shows up on the storefront.
The fault here is shared between valve and the devs though. Valve should do a better job of promoting the games though, how hard can it be to have a fucking 'spotlight' post on a daily basis that shows up on the storefront.
jediyoshi
Member
I don't think I see it yet, are you also implying that without greenlight, the game would've assuredly gotten approved to be on Steam? How about in the period when greenlight and standard game submission coexisted on Steam? How has the amount of games approved been affected by greenlight overall? How much success is achived relatively between both platforms for games that are indie hits? Is there another underlying issue from the public itself that Steam is their preferred platform on PC whereas XBLIG is a completely closed service on Microsoft's own box?
You could easily hunker down in every finale and most of the crescendos in 1. In fact they had to go back and change some finales cause it was to easy in versus for the survivors to camp even against human players. And you could set up the same way in 2 as well. Also every level in the first game had an event. The random hordes are the same in 1 and 2. Also certain events called gauntlets required you to move in 2 or get overrun by a stream of zombies so maybe you are mixing things up. And how does the smoker prevent camping unless you manage to pull them out a window? Your criticisms arent consistent. Thats why I'm arguing with you. You dont know what you are talking about and seem to severely misremember L4D1.
RocketDarkness
Member
Uh...the game still has hordes at random intervals, just like the first game. And none of the original SI (other than the tank) discouraged camping. What's the best strategy when a hunter pounces someone? Melee near the pounced person and then shoot it to death. What's the best strategy for a smoker? Melee the ensnared person and then shoot the smoker. What's the best strategy for when a boomer strikes? Stick together and defend against the horde. How do you counter that in L4D1? Well, you can't really.
AlejandroDaJ
Neo Member
1) No, like I said, my game got rejected the usual way pre-Greenlight. Which is fine for me... not much was risked on my part by submitting.
2) The coexisting period ended pretty quickly.
3) Varying platform success is a tricky thing to pin down. My game did really well on XBLIG (which is completely open, not closed) but it was a very control-centric game. My PC release would've done abysmally being just on Desura if it hadn't been for the Indie Gala and Indie Royale bundles I was in. However, I'd like to make a PC-centric game and have some idea of what its ROI is. Sure, devs can build a cult following without Steam if they're lucky, but the vast majority of indie games released without Steam don't do so well, even if they have great press and great word of mouth. A perfect example of that is Ian Stocker's Escape Goat.
spindoctor
Member
You do understand that "doing it the right way" is the reason they don't get any of the new/big games right? Just want to make sure...
Delusibeta
Banned
Crescendos and random hordes exist in both Left 4 Dead one and two.
Sentenza
Member
Valve should allow on GL just finished or at least playable products.
And if developers think people are misjudging their games because they are in a early state and will improve a lot with time, then they shouldn't submit them at all?
Wait when your product is ready to be judged fairly.
Which by the way often happens anyway, because let's face it, most of the games refused are just ranging between "uninteresting" and "simply terrible".
Jesus Christ, people, try to step back from the hyperbolic outraged claims that are filling this thread and get a grip on reality, for once: no matter how you try to spin this, it isn't a human right to be allowed into a curated store and it isn't "evil" that the company in charge of said store decides who goes in and who doesn't.
It's even less reasonable to blame that company of being evil when it lets the audience decide what they want.
"BU-BUT BAD GAMES ARE BEING APPROVED". I agree. So? Why is that your problem?
They must be clearly bad games with a decent following, which makes them fine enough for Valve.
And let's not miss what this thread is about, by the way. This isn't Valve doing some particularly shady shit, this is them saying "No, signing a contract with some third-party publisher isn't going to give you an automatic free pass. You still need to be approved".
Now, can someone explain to me HOW IN THE HELL this is driving the discussion toward absurd claims like "That's it, this is Valve doing a face-to-heel turn" or dismayed, delirious mea culpa like "It's our fault cause we gave them too much power"?
No idea, but it would be interesting to know, and if yes then why.
I think you and I played the games very differently.
I think the problem is that it's essentially a death knell for anyone who releases a game not to get on Steam, but the people who pick what games should and should not go on Steam seem to have arrived from 4Chan or something, and primarily care about watching the kind of games they can expect Pewdiepie to make interesting videos about.
Essentially, people are upset because their ability to make a living is limited by the public, and the public displays a huge tendency only to go for what is familiar until someone comes along and provides something new for them to want.
Look at Love+. Game looks awesome. Should totally be on Steam and in Indie Bundles and stuff. But it can't. I've voted for it, I want it on Steam, but, hey, the guys who want Slender: the Slimmening don't... so... it's not getting up there. :|
RocketDarkness
Member
Just because you didn't do it didn't mean you couldn't. And in Versus mode, it was a huge issue.
alexandros
Banned
Since quite a few developers are reading this thread, I have a question: What do you think is the best way for a curated platform to accept new entries? What would it take for an indie dev to have some degree of assurance that his game would stand a decent chance at being accepted, so that he can budget the game properly? Finally, what is the most fair way of evaluating games for a specific (in this case, Steam's) audience?
Fully agreed. I really hope that Newell goes through with his plan of decoupling the Steam API from the storefront. I want the same for other services like Origin but I know that it's a fool's hope.
Fully agreed. I really hope that Newell goes through with his plan of decoupling the Steam API from the storefront. I want the same for other services like Origin but I know that it's a fool's hope.
Sentenza
Member
Which is the norm.
That's a baseless claim.
No, it doesn't. At least not to me.
I know the developer posted even in this thread and I'm not trying to come out as confrontational or anything, but it really doesn't strike me as something I would like to play even for free, let alone pay for it.
Hey, they voted for it, they are (probably?) going to buy it. It doesn't look even remotely good to me, but I'm not going to argue about how people like to spend their money.
And if I really have to, there are episodes that strike me as even more offensive, anyway. Like Assassin's Creed and it's inexplicable popularity.
They also approved things like Unepic, Age of Decadence and Dead State, by the way.
*shrug*
I feel like Greenlight is antiniche. Niches are where the good stuff is, in my experience, and Greenlight simply caters to the largest common denominator--y'know, the one that buys Assassin's Creed nonstop, whilst letting Black Isle and Looking Glass go under.
alexandros
Banned
This is kinda how I feel as well. Some genuinely good games are still falling through the cracks but for some of them, maybe Steam really isn't a good fit. We have to at least entertain the thought that some games, even ones successful on other platforms, just don't interest a large enough part of the Steam audience.
If a game's ranking is based only on an absolute number of votes and doesn't take into account details like the game's genre then it most certainly is antiniche. Imagine if an adventure game and an FPS needed the same number of votes to get accepted, the FPS would win everytime. I've seen quite a few niche games getting greenlit so I have to imagine that Valve are already taking this into account, it would be absurd if they didn't.
GravityMan
Member
Valve had better get their act together soon on Greenlight. If they don't, then there's a good chance that indie devs will soon abandon Steam entirely. They will go through GOG, their own websites, and Sony (PS4/Vita). Valve and Steam will be left out in the cold.
I don't have much hope that Valve will fix GL, though. They're increasingly seeming like a "we'll do whatever the fuck we want" type of company.
I don't have much hope that Valve will fix GL, though. They're increasingly seeming like a "we'll do whatever the fuck we want" type of company.
Sentenza
Member
Not likely to happen sadly. Developers already try to go to those places, but Steam is still considered the ultimate goal for most and that won't be changing for a long time.
Also, regardless of how good they have been lately, unless they make a huge step forward that we don't know about yet Sony won't even be close purely because developing for a console is still much more expensive than a PC. Nintendo have moved to make the Wii U extremely accessible, so that might be a candidate but it still won't get close to distribution on the PC.
This is just the old inclusionist versus exclusionist debate that seems to happen often in the digital space (online storefornts, databases, even Wikipedia).
I'm firmly in the camp of the inclusionists. There is no such thing as limited digital "shelf space". If a large amount of content makes it hard for people to find what they are interested in, then your search, aggregation and recommendation algorithms suck -- not the fact that you offer a large selection.
So, I believe that every game that is functional should be able to be sold on Steam. They can keep their current nebulous policies in place for deciding what to put on the front page, but if you improve the way games are presented and recommended on an individual customer basis there is no reason to artificially limit selection.
I'm firmly in the camp of the inclusionists. There is no such thing as limited digital "shelf space". If a large amount of content makes it hard for people to find what they are interested in, then your search, aggregation and recommendation algorithms suck -- not the fact that you offer a large selection.
So, I believe that every game that is functional should be able to be sold on Steam. They can keep their current nebulous policies in place for deciding what to put on the front page, but if you improve the way games are presented and recommended on an individual customer basis there is no reason to artificially limit selection.
There's a massive difference between the public not buying enough of your game to make a profit, and not hitting an arbitrary number of votes to be able to release your game.
I'd be perfectly fine with never getting in the top ten sales lists. I don't need that to make money, nor would I claim that my game is better than the games in the top ten. But not getting into the top ten on greenlight means the game can't be released on Steam and 0$ from the PC version.
If there is one company I would have expected to have this figured out by now I would have expected it to be Valve. You need the Greenlight process and a curator to pick the best stuff that is not getting voted for. Blocking them from getting a publisher just feels likes an insult to indies. Whatever happened to the Valve that could do no wrong?
However, its possible they are just ignoring Greenlight's problems at this point and focusing on replacing with a seller API where everyone can just straight sell their games on Steam from their personal marketplace. That would be the ideal solution.
However, its possible they are just ignoring Greenlight's problems at this point and focusing on replacing with a seller API where everyone can just straight sell their games on Steam from their personal marketplace. That would be the ideal solution.
Delusibeta
Banned
Not likely. GOG is even harder to get on than Steam, as I understand it, with their strict "no more than 2 releases twice a week" schedule, meaning you're competing with their older games for slots, not to mention that you may only price your game $5.99, $9.99 and $14.99 on there, which is restrictive. Ultimately, as much as I hate to admit it, GOG makes Greenlight look like the App Store.
Meanwhile on the Sony side of things, while I approve of their pro-indie stance and new policies, I can't help but feel that at best, it'll be another XBLA whereby it'll fizzle out in a few years in favour of a new platform. While I'll agree that Greenlight needs fixing (and I've outlined how I'd fix Greenlight earlier in the thread), I won't put my money on Sony saving the day (or at least before Gabe smacks Greenlight with his impressive collection of knives).
Sentenza
Member
But that's false. For many reasons.
First, because not getting into Steam doesn't mean you can't sell elsewhere. your own website, competing services, etc. Which are all "PC" options.
Second, because they are not really picking just the top ten.
Beside, weren't you the one proudly claiming in another thread that you don't care about this PC version at all and you put virtually zero effort in it?
Personally, and I'll be bluntly honest here, that doesn't even matter to me because I frankly don't like what I've seen of Gunman Clive so far. The aesthetic doesn't appeal to me(maybe in concept but not in execution) and the gameplay failed to impress me... But that's just me.
You could eventually find your audience if you at least made an effort.
You can't be bothered with it? You don't care about it and you are not willing to "make PR" for your product?
Then why are you expecting it to be approved? No, not even that... Why are you submitting it in the first place?
re: sony
do people even have any kind of concrete info as to how sony is currently treating developer submissions and approval? from what i can tell there's just been some "hey go talk to sony they're great!" tweets which is a positive sign but doesn't say anything about the real nuts and bolts of the process
in any case i very much doubt sony is having to deal with anywhere near the volume of indie submissions that steam sees
do people even have any kind of concrete info as to how sony is currently treating developer submissions and approval? from what i can tell there's just been some "hey go talk to sony they're great!" tweets which is a positive sign but doesn't say anything about the real nuts and bolts of the process
in any case i very much doubt sony is having to deal with anywhere near the volume of indie submissions that steam sees
this is what really confuses me about it
greenlight isn't perfect or even all that good IMO but all it is really doing is formalizing the advertising/outreach/hype cycle that indies will have to go through if they want to sell their game anyway
Pretty much this. There are many pixels per marketplace to promote up arcade and indies, battling among full paying marketing published games, when the flood gates open, oh well, the things get ugly.