Its clearly nowhere near as simple as that
-
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.
Steam axes submission process, ALL new pubs/devs must go through Steam Greenlight.
- Thread starter chubigans
- Start date
Its clearly nowhere near as simple as that
Yeah, I would love for you to mention some of these other "big" mistakes.
At that time people weren't in direct public competition with what are essentially Kickstarter pitches, either. Finished games shouldn't be waiting in line behind lofty promises and sweet concept trailers.
Minsc
Gold Member
All I want to see from Greenlight is Pinball Arcade on PC, and since they seem adamant on having it release through Steam are thus stuck with Greenlight. They have had their full fanbase voting it and are coming no where close enough to getting selected.
Greenlight leaves me with a bit to be desired in this situation, given FarSight has released the game on 360, PS3, Vita, Android, iOS, Kindle, Mac OSX, and Wii-U is on its way, yet they can't release it on Windows, probably one of the most open platforms on that list, because they are set on using Steam. Why Valve doesn't consider published games on 8 other platforms as something that expedites the process is beyond me. Oh and they also successfully funded around $125,000 worth of licensing in two separate kickstarters, but hey, pinball, who wants that!
Greenlight leaves me with a bit to be desired in this situation, given FarSight has released the game on 360, PS3, Vita, Android, iOS, Kindle, Mac OSX, and Wii-U is on its way, yet they can't release it on Windows, probably one of the most open platforms on that list, because they are set on using Steam. Why Valve doesn't consider published games on 8 other platforms as something that expedites the process is beyond me. Oh and they also successfully funded around $125,000 worth of licensing in two separate kickstarters, but hey, pinball, who wants that!
hire more people, which could lead to making more money from sales of games they approve........
In some weird way, I don't think Valve wants to be the curators of Steam. But they really need to set up some kind of division who would police the Greenlight program.
If you think making a good game and sending it to a site is all it takes, then I suppose we have a fundamentally different view on how getting games on Steam via Greenlight, works.
The majority of games aproved aren't even finished (or in some cases even closed to), so that right there should tell you that games don't get voted for being good games, I would go farther and guess the majority of votes don't come from people that played the games.
More so than being a good game, it matters that the game sells itself as one.
And that goes from having good trailers to (as you said) being shown in popular sites to creating word-of-mouth in forums and social networks. This aren't trivial task as you paint them to be it involves having a marketing strategy and knowing how to sell a product to both consumers and site.
Yes, advertising/marketing matters, look at Postal 2, which got voted on brand name and "vote for us and get the game for free".
And in a lot of cases even doing this things aren't enough.
There are games that were featured in sites such as RPS/GiantBomb that aren't anywhere close to get aproved (look at Cook, Serve, Delicious by Chubigans which was featured on GiantBomb, which did help but still left him pretty far from the top 100).
And yes, I'm fairly sure Valve analyses the sales potential, it's why see good games such as Oil Blue, or Pinball Arcade being rejected despite good publicity, word of mouth, good impressions from several outlies, and in the case of the later even being available for consoles.
Valve is ultimately running a business, and while a more pro-consumer/developer oriented than most, the games they put games on Steam are, for the most part, those which are likely to sell.
Thinking that there's no sales consideration for the majority of titles getting accepted on Steam is a relatively naive view, even when applied to a company such as Valve.
And Wadjet Eye case shows this no longer applies, they have put out several quality games on Steam and now they are being forced into Greenlight for their next title. How do you explain that?
they clearly dont want to be the curators of it, they're still very much a videogame company, and the only comparable ecosystems are run by big publishing moneyhats. Also, again: you hire more people while the thing is growing, it gets to a point where you have to apply limitations, make the process more complex, etc. They could be 100% on top of it and let it be smaller and worse, or try to build something bigger and better (wich clearly they are still early on the process of) that works on itself and is run by people, based on what people want
Notch may hate windows 8 but
"So as much as people bitch about Windows 8, at least any indie can publish directly to the store after certification (which is free..)"
edit: guys this is coming down to a financial decision no doubt. Perhaps wadjeteye didn't bring in enough commision to valve for them to care about them anymore
so even if you get on steam you better fuckin hope your game sells well enough to get more on there without the bullshit greenlight
"So as much as people bitch about Windows 8, at least any indie can publish directly to the store after certification (which is free..)"
edit: guys this is coming down to a financial decision no doubt. Perhaps wadjeteye didn't bring in enough commision to valve for them to care about them anymore
so even if you get on steam you better fuckin hope your game sells well enough to get more on there without the bullshit greenlight
its a new system pretty much uncomparable to anything else, of course its rough and there's questionability on the stuff that gets approved and by whom. Still, I never said that good finished games are the ones that get approved, the unfinished stuff that gets greenlit is ussually because the project seems interesting and shows promise. All of the issues you listed are user-based and due to the fact that Valve needs to handle greenlight better in order to get the right people to vote.
Ways they could fix this: make the "approved number" more than 10. Have different categories and different levels of "greenlit" to separate finished games from cool looking early projects. But that's just my idea.
I never tried to imply this, what I meant is that for a project to be even considered, before even going into how much it would sell, it always had to be popular, somewhat known or recognized by other outlets. There's probably the extremely odd case when a dev went directly to steam and the game looked cool enough that they said "sure", but this was more than likely at the start of the service. They havent done that in a long-ass time, chances are super slim.
I dont. This is what the thread should be about, as I said. Im just mentioning the fact that it's one case of a dev complaining through twitter, not the generalization that some people in this thread claim.
Maybe the other wadjet eye games underperformed? who knows what's the reason
SteveWinwood
Member
Pretty sure that's the last thing they want... which is why they have greenlight.
Valve is probably the last company we have to worry about wanting money. Call me naive if you want, but it's not all about money for them. Sure, they like it, and want it, but their end game is for many loyal users, which you can say is also for money, but it's slightly different than that.
my point is if they want to run a service like steam they need to have a certification process and so they need to invest in one instead of probably doing it on the side of their major projects...
you don't make money without spending it.
and to be fucking honest, if quality is what is stopping games hitting steam, AC3 should not be on there at all because its a buggy piece of shit
the fact that you CAN get another game in there fueled by the fact that people liked it and want more of it, even when these people were few and the previous one underperformed is a pretty fucking big step in the right direction for game distribution.
it's not about not wanting to spend money, it's about the fact that they DONT want to have a certification process like XBLAs and PSNs, they want something different, IMO vastly better, and they are doing it. Its early, it's rough, its different, people dont get it, some people get it and dont like it, big etc, but it's not unlike Steam at first and look how that turned out. I believe in it's potential, I just hope they're on top of fixing it and polishing it quick.
greenlight is a silly system
how many knew about minecraft day 1?
Dayz day 1?
these games probably would have failed a greenlight submission due to lack of developer awareness and knowledge
Turning it into a popularity contest is stupid and ridiculous.
If they don't want to run steam properly and see it as a problem fucking sell it and let someone else do it properly.
how many knew about minecraft day 1?
Dayz day 1?
these games probably would have failed a greenlight submission due to lack of developer awareness and knowledge
Turning it into a popularity contest is stupid and ridiculous.
If they don't want to run steam properly and see it as a problem fucking sell it and let someone else do it properly.
SteveWinwood
Member
Once again they're worth so much money that if this was just a financial problem... it wouldn't be a problem. They are trying something different, and something they feel can be better.
Why do you believe they NEED a certification process? What would that accomplish and how would it be different than what they had before greenlight?
A certification would mean that every project would have a shot at getting through. Greenlight is just a popularity contest. That's pretty much it.
It's worth mentionning that there never was a Steam cert before. You send your game and if you are lucky, someone plays it and likes it and gives you the go.
It's worth mentionning that there never was a Steam cert before. You send your game and if you are lucky, someone plays it and likes it and gives you the go.
eh, no
also, what prevents games like Minecraft or DayZ doing the same exact thing those games did, AND putting a link to their Greenlight page on their websites, while releasing DRM Free somewhere else like, you know, Minecraft and DayZ did?
you're not making any sense, you are using examples of games that are not on Steam
And those games / mods would have failed a certification process because of quality issues. I don't get your point.
What online distribution service won't let you publish a second game after having had a previous game bomb? Has such a thing ever been reported on any platform?
it would stop indies being locked out for one.....
Valve has pretty good judgement of games. They were teh ones determining if a game should hit and they as game designers/developers could do that quite well
turning this into a popularity contest is dumb.
There are a lot of people who won't buy a game unless its on steam
if you are in a market leader position like that, you have responsibilities.
SteveWinwood
Member
How is greenlight preventing this from happening now? Because of those few tweets in the op? How about all those indie games that came out, oh I don't know, last month that didn't go through greenlight?
And yes, a certification system on xbla and psn has done wonders for not locking out indie games on their platforms.
who knows if that's the reason though? im responding to a hypotesis. It's not been reported because you barely see those devs coming up with something else.
also again, to respond your question: none, and there still isnt a service out there that wont let you do that, including Steam. People are treating greenlight like being thrown to the bottom of a barrel when in reality it already proved succesful to a good number of devs out there.
It just comes down to Valve having way too many games submitted and them not wanting to set a cert process comparable to Sony's or MS, trying to do something different that they feel could be better. That's it.
yeah, the market of people who wont buy games that arent on Steam is terrible, look at Minecraft's failure
you're setting examples that work against your complaints
PS3 has some dead set fucking amazing indie games. Oh and PSMobile? yeah cert process but only to check it doesn't fuck the system (much like Windows Store)
locking people out is stupid
Foliorum Viridum
Banned
As a massive Steam user, being able to pick what little games get on Steam via Greenlight is great.
But I don't want to moderate everything. Not sure I like this. I've only used Greenlight once since it started. I'm sure most games will get through fine, but it's an odd direction to take.
But I don't want to moderate everything. Not sure I like this. I've only used Greenlight once since it started. I'm sure most games will get through fine, but it's an odd direction to take.
Visualante2
Member
I'm reminded of this episode as well. Really sad that their doubts are coming true. I think this is one step forward and two steps back sadly. More avant garde independents are going to have to show too much, and invest a lot of effort to get discovered when previously all you had to do is get a curator to approve a game.
If Steam greenlight's userbase doesn't cater to my tastes I'll quickly begin buying my indie games elsewhere. I just bought Proteus direct from the developer, and I'd love to see that get Greenlit.
Can't say I agree with the majority of complaints about Greenlight. The only thing I want to see is support for some demos (which really should be there from the start), and that's about it.
I don't agree there should be TOP-anything rankings. My personal experience with app store and Google play tells me the majority will just look at the top ranking games, rate them and ignore the rest.
Sure, it makes it more painful for us to vote, since you have to go through the same shit others have gone before just to find what you like, but it's ultimately for the better, as lower ranked games won't get ignored.
I also don't agree that the current implementation will leave "diamonds in the rough" out to dry. Primarily because diamonds, in terms of games, really aren't defined. Different people have different tastes. A good game isn't something you can just scientifically achieve and prove. And since diamonds in gaming have to be defined first, who better to do it than gamers themselves? I certainly don't trust any individuals or select groups of people to decide what a good, steam worthy game is. Certainly not over a system where anyone can voice their opinion.
Ultimately, whatever the people choose will be that diamond in the rough, even if I don't like it or agree with it.
I don't agree there should be TOP-anything rankings. My personal experience with app store and Google play tells me the majority will just look at the top ranking games, rate them and ignore the rest.
Sure, it makes it more painful for us to vote, since you have to go through the same shit others have gone before just to find what you like, but it's ultimately for the better, as lower ranked games won't get ignored.
I also don't agree that the current implementation will leave "diamonds in the rough" out to dry. Primarily because diamonds, in terms of games, really aren't defined. Different people have different tastes. A good game isn't something you can just scientifically achieve and prove. And since diamonds in gaming have to be defined first, who better to do it than gamers themselves? I certainly don't trust any individuals or select groups of people to decide what a good, steam worthy game is. Certainly not over a system where anyone can voice their opinion.
Ultimately, whatever the people choose will be that diamond in the rough, even if I don't like it or agree with it.
Two very different issues at hand, the issues people have with the Microsoft Store are unrelated to the ability to publish on it, and it's ultimately a completely different subject which we had several threads about in the past few weeks.
Also Notch refuses to publish Minecraft in Steam and has complained about Steam monopoly in the past, so he's been perfectly consistent with his position.
And I don't disagree that it's a rough and early system, that does not make people critics of it any less valid. Those are indeed user-based issues which why they will still be issues regardless of how Valve handles it, thus why I say that Valve should keep having some role as a curator, regardless of their wishes.
The majority of consumers aren't simply in a position of knowledge to decide this things, and I think that's where our position differ.
There are indeed many things that Valve could do, but at the moment they haven't and we don't know if they will, which is why we're having this discussion in the first place.
But now Valve created an environment where developers are directly competing for a limited number of spots and as such the things you mentioned aren't enough, which is why a budget/stragegy for marketing and advertising is more crucial to get a game greenlight than it was for it to get accepted on Steam before. You don't need to just be somewhat known or recognize, you need to be those things more so than the other games in the service.
It's natural we have only one case so far, there hasn't been a high number of indie developers with products already on Steam releasing games since Greenlight appeared.
Regardless it sets a bad example, and as such it's natural for other developers as well as informed consumers to be worried about this. Hopefully it was a one-off case.
people comaring PSN and XBLA to Steam fail to realize the numbers Steam moves and the fact that it operates on a completely different platform. The only thing you could compare is a cert process if they ever introduced one, and it's just that: having something like that wouldnt work because of those numbers and because they operate on a very different and more open platform.
SteveWinwood
Member
Yes, yes it does. It also has such a fraction of games let through and released compared to steam that it's laughable to compare the two.
Compare this: http://www.psnstores.com/upcoming/
To this: http://store.steampowered.com/news/?feed=steam_release
Granted one is a larger platform but it's still apples and oranges.
Edit: Or what salsa said.
Dog Problems
Banned
That's what I'm already doing. There's no way I could rely on Steam for what I want to play, and thankfully I don't have to. Of course, if those games ever appear on Steam then I'll definitely rebuy them to show support and to have them part of my Steam library.
Also, I'm pretty sure Proteus is going to launch on Steam. I've seen the developer talk about it some on his Twitter and elsewhere.
Warm Machine
Member
The problem with Greenlight is hardly anyone on Steam even goes there. Our games have seen 15k unique visitors total. Out of 5 million Steam users that are on at any one time that is a really poor percentage of engagement. That is like a .3%! And that is users that are currently on, not even the total user base!
Valve is still there. There's a reason why there's only 10 games released each time. Do you think those are the only ones that reach the wanted number? it's a number to call Valve's attention. This needs changes though, and I trust they'll come.
I dont see the budget issue if you have an interesting enough game. Good games call attention by themselves, word of mouth is everything.
Also I get your point, but it would seem as if it applied to wich games release first. It's barely a competition on what gets released and what doesnt when you consider the fact that they can keep trying all they want. Maybe your game doesnt come out because there were better games at that point, maybe it comes out on the next batch, maybe you reach your number 3 months later, etc.
Again, the 10 games thing will probably see more than one transformation
doesnt stop people from already reacting as if it was more than one case. Im sure that if this gains enough attention we'll have clarification by Valve soon
Majima Everywhere System
Member
again, steam is unlike anything else, and they dont wanna make it such a closed monopoly as so many people fear. It's too ambitious and they want a way to step aside and let people get the games they want. You can complain about the results and how the thing works so far at its early stages, but complaining about the potential of a model like that seems silly.
SteveWinwood
Member
They have. More games are coming out than ever before, regardless of greenlight.
They have. Greenlight existing is proof of that. And they already are the premier store.
There isn't a problem. They could literally say fuck it let's not even bother with indies, and they can do that if they want. I'm not saying look they're throwing you a bone fucking accept it, but it will get better or they'll change it. I'm saying be patient.
They can and they are.
How many do we have so far?
It's not going to be closed, but it's going to cater to the taste of the majority. That's pretty much how it has worked so far.
Titles that could be interesting but don't get noticed will linger and never get picked up.
The fact that it's 10 games doesn't change the fact that those games were decided by the community. As I said I feel Valve should be choosing games besides the top voted ones, as I don't believe the majority of consumers are informed enough to have complete power over what games get and don't get on Steam.
Well I don't think a game being good is enough to call attention for themselves, in general I find it that the image of the game is more important than the quality of it when you're trying to "sell" it to an audience.
Especially when the people voting probably didn't even tried the game or a demo (something I'm sure Valve will solve in time).
As long as we have a limited amount of slots and a community voting for those, and assuming this is the only way of getting into Steam as a new/small developer (which it might very well not be), this is unlikely to stop being a problem.
A limitless amount of slots would cause a whole new array of issues, which is why I think Valve should still have people looking at greenlight titles and accepting them on a case-by-case basis in addition to the limited slots decided by the community they have now. Of course this is all moot if Valve is doing that and simply not letting us know.
Well I can't talk for others, but as for myself I'm discussing the situation with the data we have, and discussing both possible issues (derivate from the data) as well as some actual issues of greenlight.
I don't really think we're have a direct clarification by Valve as they tend to keep internal policy to themselves, I do expect an announcement of a solution if they have one though.
How much attention though? There's plenty of good small niche games that don't need to sell a lot to be successful, but with greenlight they need to compete with the biggest indie games before they can even start selling.
There are plenty of decent looking games outside the top 100; even if no new games are added from here on, it would still take years before they're accepted at this pace.
this is no different than how it always work, maybe with the really odd exception.
truth is, that exception will most likely still happen, and what the possibility of what we, and other devs get in return is still much more preferable
I dont disagree on either account. Greenlight needs changes.
but the community decided on more games, Valve decided to pick those 10. The changes that I can think of all have advantages and disadvantages. Thankfully im not the one to decide that and im sure they're working their ass off in fixing it and finding a proper, more efficent way for Greenlight to work.
this is not always true of course, but I just dont think they necesarely need that "big budget" you keep refering to