paperspace
Member
Pretty sure that was uploaded before the fee was introduced.
Not so sure.
Posted: Sep 5, 2012 @ 10:11am
Pretty sure that was uploaded before the fee was introduced.
Hi! We plan to submit JNG to Greenlight in 2 or 3 weeks. We wait until Valve solve all problems there. Thanks for your support!
The games from my friends just got a 9/10 from eurogamer ... so it is a good time again to call people to vote for Out There Somewhere ! =D
And my reaction to the 100 fee is :
Wich is not even dramatic enoght because it is not the ingredients, since it is a one time fee =P
If you pay 100 to get you AA game on greenlight you CAN then proceed to put Super Mario World if you want ... if you want your greenlight account banned for a few time xD
Furthermore, at least one indie developer/publisher (Dejobaan) has already offered to loan people the $100 if they're a special case with a good game who can't afford it or whatnot.I really do think if you can't shell out 100 dollars then maybe steam isn't right for you. If you can afford the equipment and education needed to create a game then you can probably find a way to scrounge up 100 dollars. If games are going to be your livelihood then you should find a way to make that investment any way you can.
If you are spending every single last penny on college loans or something and can't make that 100 dollar investment that could actually make your thousands and thousands of dollars you invested on college worth it, then at least there's other avenues, like xbox live indie and android. Or you can just find a way to sell it on your own site and get people like RockPaperShotgun to look at your game for free advertisement. If the game is good enough to get through the very tough competition of whats currently on steam greenlight, then its probably good enough to at least make up most of that 100 dollars on its own to start.
The games from my friends just got a 9/10 from eurogamer ... so it is a good time again to call people to vote for Out There Somewhere ! =D
And my reaction to the 100 fee is :
Wich is not even dramatic enoght because it is not the ingredients, since it is a one time fee =P
If you pay 100 to get you AA game on greenlight you CAN then proceed to put Super Mario World if you want ... if you want your greenlight account banned for a few time xD
The only ones I didn't upvote from this list were Gamekid and Snails.
Both looked fairly boring and like variations of games I've already played dozens of times on various flash portals. You really need to have either a standout presentation (and no, 10-colour retro graphics aren't it) or a really compelling gameplay twist to get me to change my mind from that initial assessment.
You mean not everyone hides guns under their pillows?
That's a bullshit analogy. It's more like having to pay a government fee to apply for a license to sell lemanode, where 90% of the applicants will likely be shut down.
It's not the end of the world, and people may be able to afford it but they're still entitled to complain when a valve adds a new arbitrary fee that doesn't pay for anything
That's a bullshit analogy. It's more like having to pay a government fee to apply for a license to sell lemanode, where 90% of the applicants will likely be shut down.
...that is how capitalism works =P
You have to make a good product and do all the marketing if you want your product to sell.
Greenlight is neither a place wich markets your product or make it looks awesome.
Or going by the lemonade metaphor, if your lemonade sux and you don't have enoght people thirsty than your lemonade stand WILL be shut down =P
So ive spent about a half hour looking through games and clicking yes to some and no thanks to most of them, then it hit me, does my no thanks act against the game? I was clicking no to alot of games that were fine but not my particular taste, i hope i havent caused them any issues getting certified. If this is the case Valve should really introduce a "next game in queue" option before you can pick yes or no, otherwise you have to make a decision on the game to see the next game.
So ive spent about a half hour looking through games and clicking yes to some and no thanks to most of them, then it hit me, does my no thanks act against the game? I was clicking no to alot of games that were fine but not my particular taste, i hope i havent caused them any issues getting certified. If this is the case Valve should really introduce a "next game in queue" option before you can pick yes or no, otherwise you have to make a decision on the game to see the next game.
So ive spent about a half hour looking through games and clicking yes to some and no thanks to most of them, then it hit me, does my no thanks act against the game? I was clicking no to alot of games that were fine but not my particular taste, i hope i havent caused them any issues getting certified. If this is the case Valve should really introduce a "next game in queue" option before you can pick yes or no, otherwise you have to make a decision on the game to see the next game.
So ive spent about a half hour looking through games and clicking yes to some and no thanks to most of them, then it hit me, does my no thanks act against the game? I was clicking no to alot of games that were fine but not my particular taste, i hope i havent caused them any issues getting certified. If this is the case Valve should really introduce a "next game in queue" option before you can pick yes or no, otherwise you have to make a decision on the game to see the next game.
I don't think the absolute number of votes should be the end all, be all. You can't expect a point-and-click adventure game to be able to garner the same amount of upvotes as a shooter or zombie game.I hope not. If a game gets 1 million yes and 10 million no-thanks, why would Valve reject the game? It has a potential sales of 1 million, and in that regard the number of people who don't like or not interested in the game is irrelevant, even if it's tenfold.
The chance is 1. aka 100%What are the chances you get a Steam key for the games you purchase in these bundles once they get onto Steam?
I know we're probably going in circles in this thread, but I'm pretty sure Valve mentioned that they may accept some games without the percentage even going to 100%. It's just data. Valve is a company that above all (except perhaps hats) loves data, and often doesn't like other people to have access to that data, so they're experimenting with people like they do with their various sales and TF2 items and so forth, and changing as they go along, and in theory games will pop out the back end after a few months. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just kind of the way they operate. It'd be nice to see how many favorites each game has, for instance, but maybe Valve decided they didn't want people knowing that so they can't complain that X game was accepted with Y number of favorites.I don't think the absolute number of votes should be the end all, be all. You can't expect a point-and-click adventure game to be able to garner the same amount of upvotes as a shooter or zombie game.
That game (Unepic) is a blast and I already bought it one year ago directly from the developer.
Im gonna try to comment on every page I give thumbs up to. Also is it me or did they get rid of the ability to view all games? I wanted to see how many submissions they get a day now with the new rules.
I wanted to see how many submissions they get a day now with the new rules.
Im gonna try to comment on every page I give thumbs up to. Also is it me or did they get rid of the ability to view all games? I wanted to see how many submissions they get a day now with the new rules.
The only ones I didn't upvote from this list were Gamekid and Snails.
Both looked fairly boring and like variations of games I've already played dozens of times on various flash portals. You really need to have either a standout presentation (and no, 10-colour retro graphics aren't it) or a really compelling gameplay twist to get me to change my mind from that initial assessment.
Same flawed reasoning as every other commentator who thinks it's about the dev's own financial means, instead of whether they'd be able to get the support of backers/donors.I have re-evaluated my position on "$100 isn't that much". Somewhat. I think the man's alternate suggestions, like requiring a functional game demo, might be of better use.
I have re-evaluated my position on "$100 isn't that much". Somewhat. I think the man's alternate suggestions, like requiring a functional game demo, might be of better use.
Eh the "starving indie artist panhandling for coins" image has an irresistible, romanticized hipster appeal to it."non-privileged backgrounds" ???
NON PRIVILEGED BACKGROUNDS ?????????????
That's a bullshit analogy. It's more like having to pay a government fee to apply for a license to sell lemanode, where 90% of the applicants will likely be shut down.
It's not the end of the world, and people may be able to afford it but they're still entitled to complain when a valve adds a new arbitrary fee that doesn't pay for anything
When you spend hundreds of dollars on a nice suit to present yourself well in a job interview, do you feel entitled to a job too?
To be fair, the suit would be reusable in any subsequent interviews with other companies too. I like the college application fee analogy.When you spend hundreds of dollars on a nice suit to present yourself well in a job interview, do you feel entitled to a job too?
To be fair, the suit would be reusable in any subsequent interviews with other companies too. I like the college application fee analogy.
To be fair, the suit would be reusable in any subsequent interviews with other companies too. I like the college application fee analogy.
Rodrigo Monteiro said:Why is the $100 fee a good decision? Why not a lower value?
Originally, uploading games to Greenlight was free. This meant that there were a lot of troll submissions, or people who misunderstood the service for a wishlist. There were also many very sub-par entries, either very early in concept stage, or done by amateur teams. The harsh reality is that most indie games are terrible, precisely because most of them are made by inexperienced teams. The harsher reality is that those don’t deserve to be on Steam, and their presence there was harming everyone else.
The $100 fee makes sure that not only legitimate developers submit their games, but it also discourages people with weak ideas from doing so. A lower value, say $10, could easily have blocked most of the trolls and confused users, but it wouldn’t stop the unmarketable games from being added there. With this relatively high fee, you need to have SOME faith that your game has a decent chance of being approved. Again, remember that Valve’s business is not to include EVERY indie game on Earth, merely the best of them. People who are amongst those almost certainly already have a following around them, and have built enough confidence that this is something that people would pay money for. From that view, $100 becomes a very irrelevant value – it’s the value of a few dozen sales even at low prices. If you don’t think that your game will sell thousands of copies, then don’t bother putting it there.
What about poor indie developers who can’t afford $100?
This is where things got really ugly on Twitter. There were many developers claiming that they simply can’t afford the $100 needed for the submission. They dedicate their lives to the craft and live on the edge, without a cent to spare. But again, this only seems relevant if you have a minor game that nobody has heard of. If you have a fanbase of thousands of people who want to play your game, surely you can do a fundraiser asking for 100 dollars for that purpose. Once your game is on Steam, you can just give them Steam keys (which apparently you can do at will), so this also works as a Kickstarter/Pre-order model. Or you can ask somebody else to cover that cost for you – if you truly have a Steam-quality game on your hands, somebody will pay that for you. I even saw some Tweets of people offering to do so. You’re only “left out” if you’re simultaneously extremely broke and unpopular – and, at that point, you’re not going to be successful in Steam anyway.
Finally, if your game is popular enough to eventually pass Greenlight, it should be popular enough to net you well over $100 of sales on OTHER, more indie-friendly websites, such as Desura. Once your game sold a few copies there, use the money to pay your entry into Greenlight.
Remember: Greenlight and Steam are not your personal marketing page! They are a STORE, to which you will only be admitted after proving that you can reach their standards. They owe you no favours.
I have re-evaluated my position on "$100 isn't that much". Somewhat. I think the man's alternate suggestions, like requiring a functional game demo, might be of better use.
Man .. you make a game. You sell it 10 times for 10 dolars or 20 times for 5 dolars.
You get a LIFE TIME subscription to send as many games as you want to steam
If you are not able to sell 20 games for 5 dolars, getting it on steam will not change ANYTHING.
When you spend hundreds of dollars on a nice suit to present yourself well in a job interview, do you feel entitled to a job too?
$100 spent on Greenlight is per-developer, not per-game.
The people that lack the money but still have dedication to their project will find a way to overcome that obstacle. Those who lack the money and drive to accomplish this may not be best served by Greenlight anyway. Releasing and supporting a Steam title will require a tremendous amount of effort from an inexperienced dev with a low amount of resources.I have re-evaluated my position on "$100 isn't that much". Somewhat. I think the man's alternate suggestions, like requiring a functional game demo, might be of better use.
To be fair, the suit would be reusable in any subsequent interviews with other companies too. I like the college application fee analogy.
According to that analogy, indie devs wouldn't be able to sell the game legally on any other places without said permit, so no.That's a bullshit analogy. It's more like having to pay a government fee to apply for a license to sell lemanode, where 90% of the applicants will likely be shut down.
It's not the end of the world, and people may be able to afford it but they're still entitled to complain when a valve adds a new arbitrary fee that doesn't pay for anything
Sure, unless you need that income for other stuff like rent, food or debths.
(As a side note. Gunman Clives total revenue on Desura is $92 but I can't really claim I've done all I can to promote the PC version )
That's not really relevant for most smaller devs. I don't think a lot of them have a huge backlog of games ready to submit to steam and they can't exactly whip up a new one to submit by next week
If you are a freelance artist, you will have very few money, but you NEED to get a tablet if you want to get the best of your work and increase your possibilities of getting more money.
By tablet I mean a Wacom Bamboo AT LEAST, not an ipad =P
It is an investiment and one that you NEED to make if you want to go professional.
Also, if you are a freelance artist, you need to create your portfolio, you need to have something to show to the people who will hire you. You need to do some work before you can get some work.
If you are not good at metaphors, Wacom is the fee and the portfolio is the backlog.
If you are not professional than you migh reconsider and if you can't pay your bills with it you might want to consider a second job, or alternate ways to get money from it.
And you saying that you praticaly already got the fee on Desura only with less than 6 month with a 5 dolar game and praticaly no promotion is more than enoght excuse for a developer to get financial before entering.
And lets not even talk about your other ways of seeling the game like the app store !
...or marketing =P
Why did you people think that half of the budget for an AAA game goes to marketing alone ?
I have re-evaluated my position on "$100 isn't that much". Somewhat. I think the man's alternate suggestions, like requiring a functional game demo, might be of better use.
Yes there are other things in life that costs money, and yes there are several ways to get money. That's not the problem. The probelm is that there is very little justification for the fee itself. There needs to be some way to filter out the trolls, but it could have been done differently/cheaper.
Also I'm not talking about myself. I'm pretty comfortable financially at the moment and Gunman Clive made a decent profit on Android and iOS. My example of the desura revenue was only to illustrate how ridiculously low PC sales are on most places other than steam. I've seen a lot of other decent games that judging by number of comments and reviews haven't done any better.