Of course but you do know of a community who won't bad mouth Steam, you can't pretend it isn't there
-
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
Of course but you do know of a community who won't bad mouth Steam, you can't pretend it isn't there
exmachina64
Banned
Sure, there's Origin, Desura, and Capsule.
fabricated backlash
Member
At this point I'd even give Nintendo the nod for Indies with their latest push...
Man that sounds weird.
dark_inferno
Member
Why the hate for Greenlight? Since Greenlight we got a good amount of games that may would never make it to steam(Papers Please!, Surgeon Simulator, La-Mulana). Yes it has some issues here and there. But that doesnt mean they should abandon it.
And if gamers want that game(Talisman...) it will be released per votes. To think that a small indie game comes trough Greenlight because it has a publisher is unfair against the others.
And if gamers want that game(Talisman...) it will be released per votes. To think that a small indie game comes trough Greenlight because it has a publisher is unfair against the others.
alexandros
Banned
Maybe you misunderstand the context in which the term "walled garden" is used, I'll try and explain the difference. Apple and Microsoft (I'm going with those two because they are the ones you namedropped) are platform holders. Apple have control over both the hardware and software platform of their ecosystem, Microsoft have control over the software platform on the Windows side and complete control over hardware and software on the Xbox side. This means that they are both in a position to enforce specific terms on competitors or even lock them out of their platforms.
Valve are not a platform holder. Their store operates on top of the Windows, Mac and Linux platforms. Valve have no control over those platforms, they can't enforce terms on competitors and they don't have a say in who sells what on Windows, Mac and Linux platforms.
The App Store doesn't have any competitors period, because Apple don't allow it. The Windows Store doesn't have any competitors for Metro Apps because Microsoft don't allow it. Steam has a multitude of competitors because Valve can't do anything about it. Do you see the difference?
I'm pretty sure most people acknowledge the system's various problems. The issue is that noone is really sure what the best alternative would be. I've read a lot of suggestions and they all come with their own pile of problems.
Not a chance. Greenlight is fucking bad but there's still tons of indie games coming out on Steam and doing well thanks to sales.
I'm sure there are some zealots who consider it perfect but that's no reason to paint with a broad brush. Greenlight came under fire from developers and users alike the moment it was introduced.
But they have always been a walled garden (one of many within the fully open PC ecosystem), and they are putting more games out on Steam now than ever before. Greenlight is a flawed service but it's no worse than what they had before, and they are slowly taking steps to hopefully make it better.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Because it actively cuts into how successful someone's game/company is.
Not being on Steam means you have far less exposure and far less sales, and people are not going to go to your personal website to download your game. Not in the era of "No Steam, No Buy". The fact that Valve doesn't even follow their own rules regarding Greenlight is BS.
And now they are boxing you into not going with a pub that can help? For what I can only assume is cred with their audience? Wow.
They are stopping you from getting help from getting on their own service.
Just because it doesn't affect the consumer doesn't mean it's not shit.
Yeah, this is bullshit.
It's happened like five times now.
I feel like a lot of people in this thread didn't read the last Greenlight update http://steamcommunity.com/workshop/news/?appid=765
This covers many of the suggestions I have seen in this thread on how to improve the service. I think they really have to take steps to make this part of the selection processes clearer to people tho. And they do need better messaging on what games need to go through Greenlight and why. Hopefully they will bee taking more of those steps soon.
This covers many of the suggestions I have seen in this thread on how to improve the service. I think they really have to take steps to make this part of the selection processes clearer to people tho. And they do need better messaging on what games need to go through Greenlight and why. Hopefully they will bee taking more of those steps soon.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
I'm ok with that, why should they bypass the process when others will be unable to do anything like that because they don't have contacts with any publisher? I imagine this is the case only if the publisher didn't back the product from the beginning but after all was complete and up for Greenlight voting making it obvious that the only reason they went to the publisher was to bypass Greenlight rather than any other backing or support.
The process should become better but that wouldn't be the way to do it. It would become meaningless and more unfair. Anybody with a released game could then act as a publisher for others they know that haven't.
People likening it to a first party practice are silly. People get on a console through the only available channel, while people are on PC with or without Valve and only miss out on publisher (Valve) popularity.
It's better for these guys to do it properly too, as once they get on Steam they no longer have to do anything for their future games while bypassing it they'd have to bypass it every time and share their $.
The process should become better but that wouldn't be the way to do it. It would become meaningless and more unfair. Anybody with a released game could then act as a publisher for others they know that haven't.
People likening it to a first party practice are silly. People get on a console through the only available channel, while people are on PC with or without Valve and only miss out on publisher (Valve) popularity.
It's better for these guys to do it properly too, as once they get on Steam they no longer have to do anything for their future games while bypassing it they'd have to bypass it every time and share their $.
So basically what Greenlight is is just a... what do you call it, a petition from people Steam knows are active Steam users that will probably buy a game if it comes out... heck, it might even be better to just say 'well, this is just part of Steam's overall curation process, an initial step, and it's not the be all and end all of what comes to our attention, but it doesn't hurt to gauge enthusiasm with it'
Basically it replaces an email account where everyone and their dog submit their games with a publicly visible semi organised database where users can show their interest in titles which is used as an additional data point for the selection process to help Valve identify games that they may have dismissed but draw popular attention. Valve still have the final say and use other data to decide which games they want on their store front. They also hand pick certain games like FEZ for example before they are even submitted, and also established publishers and developers also can be accepted without being submitted.
That is how I interpret it anyway.
Valve's doing it right. Developers promoting their game for Greenlight = more people knowing about the game = more potential buyers. Also the game comes with built-in community and developers will get used to interact with it properly.
alexandros
Banned
True, but what if most of them only buy a game if it's Steamworks?
It makes perfect sense. Valve is doing what Apple does for Apps. Complete control and supervision of the market. It makes perfect sense for the company, less for the consumer.
But, Valve isn't know for being "open-source" friendly or whatever "free" ideology so it's not surprising.
I don't really know Greenlight. Is it a problem? Is it a long/hard/restrictive system? Why would you want to bypass Greenlight? I thought there could be agreements with publishers so that published games are already "greenlighted" by Steam. But that's another model (different than Apple).
But, Valve isn't know for being "open-source" friendly or whatever "free" ideology so it's not surprising.
I don't really know Greenlight. Is it a problem? Is it a long/hard/restrictive system? Why would you want to bypass Greenlight? I thought there could be agreements with publishers so that published games are already "greenlighted" by Steam. But that's another model (different than Apple).
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Um, you want Valve not to have control of their own service?
That makes no sense anyway, it's nothing like Apple since Apple allow anyone to pay a sum and get self published or get published by others who have already done such without investigating, without caring about them meeting a popularity quota since they take (a little) money anyway rather than only a cut from the sales achieved (which they also take of course, but this means even freeware games must pay Apple).
Valve also obviously doesn't block anyone who doesn't meet their requirements from the PC platform, only their publishing service. Plus with Greenlight, flawed as it is, they gave some control to the consumer.
Dat poor Minecraft. Everybody being able to be on Steam would mean you lose the benefit of its visibility anyway.
jediyoshi
Member
Conversely, everything being on Steam with zero curation effectively puts everyone and everything back to square one. It's a beautiful race to the bottom. Don't worry, no one wins in any situation and no one will ever be happy.
Greenlight was flawed right from the start. A crowd curated system will never be sustainable. Valve just has to hire a small team of people to handle the process, elaborate some pretty straightforward submission rules and always explain to the dev why their game wasn't considered. No system is perfect (only if you consider the internet as the de facto open walled store as I do) but this kind of process is the best for Valve, developers and customers.
I don't understand. Is it an obstacle?
The way I observe greenlight actually working is that there's likely a core 'greenlight' community that is themselves maybe logging in and checking out a couple of games a day or something and actively attempting to curate the community. But they're probably dwarfed by games that get popular outside of greenlight who then say 'Support us on Greenlight' and send a flood of traffic towards their own greenlight pages. Maybe a few of those split off and check out more greenlight games, but it essentially functions as a way for developers to show they have, well, an active steam-based audience built in.
So long as you don't consider it to be the whole of a curation process that seems... alright
So long as you don't consider it to be the whole of a curation process that seems... alright
They won't do it for customer service, why for this? We have shitty automation for that.
I never said I didn't want Valve to have control of their platform. On the contrary, I said I understood why they did that, for what purpose.
I said it was like Valve because there is a barrier to entry on the platform that is fully controlled and managed by the owner of said platform. I don't really know how greenlight works but is it really a matter of popularity like what it was at the beginning (people voting for 10-20 games they want)? Or is it just the "new name" of the certification system now globally called "greenlight"? As far as I know, I don't really see the big differences with Apple's supervision of its AppStore.
Valve doesn't block anyone from the PC platform of course but the popularity and the diffusion of the Steam platform is enough to discourage people from buying games that are not on Steam. And the same could be said for Apple : a developper can still release its game on the "smartphones" platform via Android.
If the game is on XBLA, PSN, eShop, GOG, Origin, or UPlay, it should get automatic entrance into Steam, no questions asked. If one of those companies approved the game for one of those services, then obviously the game passes muster. That would probably fix most of the complaint with Steam's current system.
jediyoshi
Member
What's even going on in this thread? Does every green light op need to reiterate how greenlight works so this doesn't happen?
Visualante2
Member
Steam is on a fast track to where XBLA ended up IMO.
fabricated backlash
Member
I meant in terms of policy, not the amount of content released/being worked on.
Sentenza
Member
Greenlight in short, according to this thread:
Valve: "We probably aren't good enough at choosing what games should go through, so we are democratizing the process and letting you people decide".
People: "Really, Valve? REALLY? YOU ARE FUCKING NAZI, YOU ARE TYRANTS WHO OPPRESS US".
Valve: "We probably aren't good enough at choosing what games should go through, so we are democratizing the process and letting you people decide".
People: "Really, Valve? REALLY? YOU ARE FUCKING NAZI, YOU ARE TYRANTS WHO OPPRESS US".
I doubt it, the Steam ecosystem (ties in with Humble Bundles, Summer Sales, Amazon) gives the service amazing flexability, and stuff like Early Access and unlimited patches/ developer control is cutting edge in the indie space. What won't happen is a repeat of the XBLIG failure.
There definitely needs to be a better system though, both individual certification and crowd-driven are flawed.
Visualante2
Member
Greenlight has exposed us to the games that aren't getting certified. Before it was behind closed doors. Now the selection process is in plain sight and people are outraged that smaller titles are getting held up.
Sentenza
Member
Maybe someone should calm down, step back and analyze the story with a bit of perspective before making even more idiotic claims.
While Greenlight (or any other approval process, really) could have its fair share of flaws, what is that some of you are expecting, exactly? To open the flood gates and allow *everything* on Steam?
Would it make things better? Just look at Greenlight, even now that there is a (trivial) payment threshold for submissions: how many even on this thread claimed that there is a shitload of crap and they can't be bothered browsing the service?
Do you really want the same amount of shovelware flooding the store?
Now, second point: "WELL BUT THEY COULD TALK TO DEVELOPERS AND ALLOW THEM TO AVOID GREENLIGHT".
Uh, they already do this. You still can contact Valve and pitch them your game, regardless of Greenlight.
But apparently there are some unrealistic expectations about how Valve should care for every single product out there.
Also, some pointless outrage when their answer is "Please, go through Greenlight", which I would guess is their polite version to "We are not impressed enough by your product to give it a free pass, so step back in queue like everyone else".
Last but not least, what this thread is about: "WHAT? They didn't allow this specific developer to sign a deal with another publisher to skip GL? Evil".
Think carefully about what you are suggesting. Think harder.
Are you really suggesting that it would be great idea to allow some third party publishers to prey on developers becoming a safe shortcut in, for money? Do you seriously see it as healthy thing in the long run?
Basileus777
Member
Fixed.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Nobody here is suggesting that.
But do you think Valve is blocking pub support to protect indie devs from the big bad world?
Sentenza
Member
I don't idealize Valve, I'm not that naive.
I think they are protecting themselves from having to deal with snowball effect where at some point GL (or any other form of approval process) becomes a formality cause of (minor?) publishers exploiting the system for a fee.
Basileus777
Member
If a game can attract a decent publisher, why should it have to go through greenlight? It's already been vetted, and by standards likely superior to those of the greenlight process.
Delusibeta
Banned
Greenlight is bad, but calling it worse than Sony's, Nintendo's or Microsoft's indie policies is fanboy delirium.
Uhm no?
Releasing an indie game on Nintendo platforms is much, much easier than on Steam, and from everything I've heard the same goes for Sony platforms, and I can't really think of anything particularly bad in their current policies.
MS have some crazy policies for XBLA regarding patches etc and while it's harder to get a release slot there, I'd still argue it's a more sane system than Greenlight. Also they do still have the Xbox Indie section. While much smaller than XBLA, I've seen some numbers suggesting it's a lot bigger than most people think.
Too late, there's lots of garbage on Steam now. Valve is letting Steam get like GamersGate, junk getting through all the time. I gave up on GreenLight, hopefully if enough people ignore it they'll address it.
jediyoshi
Member
I don't think curating means what you think it means.
Indie games still get released on Steam without greenlight.
Games on greenlight are still greenlit by Valve.
There's no automation in this chain either way.
If sane is a tens of thousands of dollars a patch, I don't think a lot of people want to be right.
*By going back to the less transparent approval process and/or having a smaller aggregate amount of games released, just in a different, less democratized manner
alexandros
Banned
Well, yes. For the people who only buy steamworks-enabled games (so as to have all their game library in one service), buying directly from the dev's website is a big no-no since it won't be a Steamworks key since the game isn't available on Steam.
I've given the matter a lot of thought and examined various methods of curation. I still can't find one method that doesn't have huge, glaring holes in it. It is possible that there's just no way of keeping everyone happy when you have to depend on people's personal taste, whether these people are a team paid by Valve or the Greenlight audience.
I meant something different. They are all potential buyers of the game on Steam.
The problem with Greenlight is the lack of transparency. We have no idea which games are close to being accepted and which are not. There's also a seemingly small window of success. If your game doesn't catch fire the first week or so, then it falls to the side, never to be heard from again. There are so many great games on the service that will never see the light of day.
I meant the process of getting the game released. Even though you need to go via a publisher on XBLA, that's traditionalyl something you negotiate early in the production, and if you can't find one you can cut your losses, stop the development or aim for another platform. Whereas on greenlight you pretty much need the finished game and release quality trailers on the greenlight page, and a somewhat big marketing push before you know if you'll be able to release it at all.
alexandros
Banned
Beril, how would you handle this if you were in charge of curation? As a developer, what do you think is the best method?
jediyoshi
Member
So the part where Steam has a section called Early Access where developers can put up their accepted games that aren't finished is less accepting than a console DD service that literally wants your finished code? And much more money? And for you to likely, actually have a publisher as opposed to just being anybody with a game to sell? Do you remember what Steam was before there was greenlight?