Steam Greenlight

[PizzaSHARK]

http://steamcommunity.com/greenlight/

Valve's newest thing, showing everyone else how it's done. All hail the Gaming Messiah, amen.

Seems like it's inspired in part by things like Kickstarter. A developer tosses up their project in whatever state it's in when they're ready to announce it, and if the project receives enough positive votes from the community, Valve will greenlight it for sale and distribution through Steam. Sounds like there's no time limit, either, so the project will remain up for as long as it takes to gather the votes, or until the leader decides to take it down.

I'm really liking the implications of this if it takes off.

[Deleted]

Really interesting. We should be seeing some interesting games if this becomes successful, methinks.

[ddsad2212]

This is a very smart business move that also makes them look like as you stated a gaming messiah, very smart move tbh. But id like to see how this will work when a game gets enough votes and then the game get cancelled ie will people who then bought it get a refund? Because this is the first time steam will be putting up games that have a chance of not been finished.

[Larath]

This is a very smart business move that also makes them look like as you stated a gaming messiah, very smart move tbh. But id like to see how this will work when a game gets enough votes and then the game get cancelled ie will people who then bought it get a refund? Because this is the first time steam will be putting up games that have a chance of not been finished.

isn't it just voting so you can't actually buy it until its a game?

[procne]

From what I read, it's a way to circumvent evaluation process on Steam.
Basically every game that a developer wants to put on Steam is evaluated by Steam workers to make sure that only quality games land on Steam. Many indie games, especially the ones which are still under dev don't pass this evaluation.
With Green Light players will be able to tell Steam that they want this game on this platform nevertheless. It's like Steam moved part of the evaluation process to the community, since number of indie games is increasing.
I wouldn't treat it as kickstarter. You will be buying those games, not preordering.

[PizzaSHARK]

isn't it just voting so you can't actually buy it until its a game?

Yes. I used the Kickstarter comparison since Kickstarter allows developers to circumvent part of the game-making process (finding funding) by appealing directly to their consumers.

Greenlight stands to let developers do that (circumvent the approvals process) for developers who want their product to be on Steam, while also being able to effectively gauge how many initial sales they'll get. Stands to reason that nearly everyone that votes for a game would also be likely to buy that game.

[Restos3]

I'm a little bit worried about wagons of hate, just because.

[superstarz]

http://steamcommunity.com/greenlight/

Valve's newest thing, showing everyone else how it's done. All hail the Gaming Messiah, amen.

Seems like it's inspired in part by things like Kickstarter. A developer tosses up their project in whatever state it's in when they're ready to announce it, and if the project receives enough positive votes from the community, Valve will greenlight it for sale and distribution through Steam. Sounds like there's no time limit, either, so the project will remain up for as long as it takes to gather the votes, or until the leader decides to take it down.

I'm really liking the implications of this if it takes off.

Can you like, not post while you are high anymore.. thanks


Personal insults do not add anything to the conversation. Please post constructively in the future. Thanks.

[Fuzzzie]

I think its a bit of a waste. The biggest problem is that it attracts attention to games where agents for the game (or fans) go out and seek people to vote up the games. It only takes a popular personality to push a game up regardless of if that game is actually worth it. People will just blindly vote it up because they were told too.

The same thing can happen in reverse as well, seeing as how you can downvote things. TB made a good point in one of his mailbox episodes questioning why there is even a downvote option. What does it matter if you or I isn't interested in a game? It should only matter that the people who are interested in it share their interest.

In principle it's a good idea, I just think the mob mentality of the internet, pushed on by popular gaming personalities will heavily skew the numbers. Even worse is the thought that these people who upvote because they're told will never actually purchase the game. With any luck, they'll be able to keep an eye on the numbers of upvotes vs purchases and maybe be able to re-work the system. A game with 10,000 upvotes and only 500 purchases didn't do any better than the game with 550 upvotes and the same sales. The system just looks (for now) like that will be the perception.

[Shadylol]

I think its a bit of a waste. The biggest problem is that it attracts attention to games where agents for the game (or fans) go out and seek people to vote up the games. It only takes a popular personality to push a game up regardless of if that game is actually worth it. People will just blindly vote it up because they were told too.

The same thing can happen in reverse as well, seeing as how you can downvote things. TB made a good point in one of his mailbox episodes questioning why there is even a downvote option. What does it matter if you or I isn't interested in a game? It should only matter that the people who are interested in it share their interest.

In principle it's a good idea, I just think the mob mentality of the internet, pushed on by popular gaming personalities will heavily skew the numbers. Even worse is the thought that these people who upvote because they're told will never actually purchase the game. With any luck, they'll be able to keep an eye on the numbers of upvotes vs purchases and maybe be able to re-work the system. A game with 10,000 upvotes and only 500 purchases didn't do any better than the game with 550 upvotes and the same sales. The system just looks (for now) like that will be the perception.

This is unfortunately accurate. The success or failure of games on Steam Greenlight will largely be a result of internet superstars, regardless of the actual quality of the games. Just look at how many people buy every Razer product, and reroll Warriors in WoW, simply because of Swifty. Greenlight is a cool idea, but the present day internet community is too malleable, and eager to follow someone from YouTube or Twitter or whatever, for Greenlight to really do anything special

[PizzaSHARK]

This is unfortunately accurate. The success or failure of games on Steam Greenlight will largely be a result of internet superstars, regardless of the actual quality of the games. Just look at how many people buy every Razer product, and reroll Warriors in WoW, simply because of Swifty. Greenlight is a cool idea, but the present day internet community is too malleable, and eager to follow someone from YouTube or Twitter or whatever, for Greenlight to really do anything special

Yeah. Having had a month to observe it, I think it's turning into Kickstarter - something that had a fantastic concept to start out with, but is being ruined by people "misusing," it.

Still, I like the concept, where the players at least help decide which games make it onto Steam. But you're right that too many people are just going to be sheep and do what their favorite Youtube personality tells them to do.

[Fuzzzie]

Yeah. Having had a month to observe it, I think it's turning into Kickstarter - something that had a fantastic concept to start out with, but is being ruined by people "misusing," it.

Still, I like the concept, where the players at least help decide which games make it onto Steam. But you're right that too many people are just going to be sheep and do what their favorite Youtube personality tells them to do.

Even worse is that the people led there to vote up something wont actually buy it. It might be better if it were more like kickstarter where you had to put down a nominal fee that would go towards your purchase of the game. This would get rid of a lot of followers who are just doing what they're told.

[PizzaSHARK]

Even worse is that the people led there to vote up something wont actually buy it. It might be better if it were more like kickstarter where you had to put down a nominal fee that would go towards your purchase of the game. This would get rid of a lot of followers who are just doing what they're told.

That's a potential solution, but I probably wouldn't greenlight a game they want to sell for $60, I just plain refuse to pay that much for a game.

[procne]

I think its a bit of a waste. The biggest problem is that it attracts attention to games where agents for the game (or fans) go out and seek people to vote up the games. It only takes a popular personality to push a game up regardless of if that game is actually worth it. People will just blindly vote it up because they were told too.

The same thing can happen in reverse as well, seeing as how you can downvote things. TB made a good point in one of his mailbox episodes questioning why there is even a downvote option. What does it matter if you or I isn't interested in a game? It should only matter that the people who are interested in it share their interest.

In principle it's a good idea, I just think the mob mentality of the internet, pushed on by popular gaming personalities will heavily skew the numbers. Even worse is the thought that these people who upvote because they're told will never actually purchase the game. With any luck, they'll be able to keep an eye on the numbers of upvotes vs purchases and maybe be able to re-work the system. A game with 10,000 upvotes and only 500 purchases didn't do any better than the game with 550 upvotes and the same sales. The system just looks (for now) like that will be the perception.

I don't think it really works as a downvote. Right now Steam asks you - would you buy this game - "yes" or "not interested"? Yes is obviously upvote, but I expect that "no" is more like an answer for yourself, meaning that you have checked this game and didn't like it. It makes more sense when you start checking all games - you end up seeing lots of games that you are not interested at all, but that doesn't mean they are bad. But saying "no" marks them as evaluated by you and they won't appear on your queue.

As for the "agent's" popularity pushing the game... Is it really bad? I mean, if those agents can push people to provide votes then they can also push them to buy the game. In the end Valve wants to sell games on Steam. If a game gets many sales then it is "succesful". Besides, those "agents" have the reputation which they want to maintain, so I doubt they would promote some fluke.

[Larath]

That's a potential solution, but I probably wouldn't greenlight a game they want to sell for $60, I just plain refuse to pay that much for a game.

isn't greenlight for mainly indie devs though so I very much doubt you'll see 60 dollar games on it.

[Deleted]

im just glad they added the $100 fee to activate accounts (goes to charity) so it filters out all the idiots spamming.

[Fuzzzie]

That's a potential solution, but I probably wouldn't greenlight a game they want to sell for $60, I just plain refuse to pay that much for a game.

I doubt you'd find many indie games that are looking for $60 up front. Price is something they would work out with Steam anyways.

I don't think it really works as a downvote. Right now Steam asks you - would you buy this game - "yes" or "not interested"? Yes is obviously upvote, but I expect that "no" is more like an answer for yourself, meaning that you have checked this game and didn't like it. It makes more sense when you start checking all games - you end up seeing lots of games that you are not interested at all, but that doesn't mean they are bad.
But saying "no" marks them as evaluated by you and they won't appear on your queue.

Fair enough.

As for the "agent's" popularity pushing the game... Is it really bad? I mean, if those agents can push people to provide votes then they can also push them to buy the game. In the end Valve wants to sell games on Steam. If a game gets many sales then it is "succesful". Besides, those "agents" have the reputation which they want to maintain, so I doubt they would promote some fluke.

It will remain to be seen if those upvotes translate into sales. By agents I mean people who have an invested interest in the game. They'll come to a site like this and create ads for the steam greenlight campaign (which is a no no btw). Another example would be something like yogscast say "greenlight this game" and 10,000 people rush over because they're told to and upvote without any real intention of buying the game.

It reminds me a lot of the whole King of the Web thing. The people who win aren't necessarily the most deserving but they're the people who managed to rally enough support for the month. It's really meaningless votes if you're looking for a true gauge of somethings popularity.

im just glad they added the $100 fee to activate accounts (goes to charity) so it filters out all the idiots spamming.

Removes the idiots spamming titles that already exist or will never exist. Doesn't solve the problem of vote campaigns for games.

[procne]

Well, obviously only part of the upvotes will turn into sales, but I don't think it depends that strongly on those "agents". I have upvoted couple of games myself and I'm not sure if I want to buy them. I did so that I can keep track of them and see how they do, especially that many of them are still work in progress and it's too early to decide whether I will buy that or not.

Which brings me to another problem of Greenlight. Some people did treat it as kickstarter and have applied with games, that are sometimes only a couple of artworks with idea description with no actual footage / screens from the game itself. Sure, it's nice to be able to browse games in development like this, but Greenlight is not the place for it imo.

[Kelimbror]

Steam loses nothing by having this option. They look good for giving us a hand in the games benig distributed on their platform, but also all the responsibility if a terrible game goes live. As a business strategy, it's effing brilliant. They will make more money than normal, because games that would normally get passed over will be greenlit and bought by any number of people at no extra cost to steam.

I'm not one for tin foil hats, but it does worry me that Steam is headed down a dark avenue. Something that looks very promising with such potential negligent implications reminds me of political lobbying. They keep all plausible deniability when things go horribly wrong, but get to make more money in the process.

I'm all for it, but expressing my concerns. I appreciate their service over the years, so while I don't think they can do *no* wrong, I tend to trust them more than the average company.

[cudomix]

Every system can be misused, but that's no reason to not start this service, more exposure for smaller developers is always good. It can and probably will be more adjusted in the future to prevent abuse, but you have to start somewhere.