Steam Greenlight is Going Away

This guy has some titles that didn't start generating useful income for years...

If that's the case it actually argues for a lower entry fee (so that Valve can start keeping a cut rather than slowly draining off whatever fee they've already banked). Not how I'd implement it, though, from a profitability standpoint my earlier suggestion would still be more beneficial to Valve -- collect the percentage as normal, wait for some threshold beyond the fee, at which point the game has already proven it is generating sales activity, then refund the fee. But it's all speculation right now.

 

I know that fellow, nice chap. Good at guitar and erm, sticking with it for 11 years

 

Suddenly I have the urge to make a Match-3 game.

 

Plenty of things turn out not to cause what we think they will cause, or not to mean what we think they mean. We couldn't actually know how it would go until someone tried it out (and even then we only know how it went under those specific circumstances).

Also, I'm not sure that being "gamed and exploited" is the issue they're trying to solve here.

 

The result of this is Win-Win for the gaming industry.

If it is awful, it hurts Steam so then it's a win because it weakens their monopoly on PC gaming. That's fantastic! Maybe a lot of competition will finally rise up and begin taking hold.

If it is better, it helps Steam so then it's a win for everyone who uses Steam, which is a large percentage since it holds a monopoly on PC gaming.

Win-Win. Although IMO the best outcome would be that it somehow simultaneously helps indies while also hurting Steam sales... maybe hurt AAA but not everyone else? I really want to see an end to this monopoly, but I wish the best for all indies to be successful.

 

The age rating system only blocks people "dumb" enough not to move that last tab to 1999. It doesn't actually do anything by true age, though it is something they can point to in their defense. I know there are games with sexual content. However, I think having explicit sex shown in games (I'm talking penetration) with no age limitation (for all intents and purposes) would backfire significantly.

I'm not saying anything about whether Steam should be blocking those kinds of games (or making them censor themselves, as you see with VNs), I'm saying the age rating system really can't address that.

What if I'm in my Discovery Queue, and Steam thinks that because I played The Witcher 3, a game with a Nudity tag, I want to play Game X (XX) which also has the nudity tag? You're going to be exposed to stuff like that sooner or later.

Of course, the other conclusion is "Tough luck! Deal with it!" If that's someone's position more power to them, but by the same token it's someone's prerogative to not want to be exposed to that type of thing as well--and telling them "don't go to Steam" is untenable.

 

Um...I never see certain types of games because I've prevented their genres from being shown. In fact, my "Top Sellers" tab on the front page shows only 6 games, because I've blocked the rest from appearing.

You can filter them out. Only around 10 or so, but you CAN remove those.

It definitely needs to be better. There shouldn't be any limit at all on the number of tags you can block. But I can block them, and my Discovery Queue is usually stuff that I find somewhat interesting, if nothing else. So for me personally, using Steam to discover stuff works pretty well.

Edit: I just went through my discovery queue. I did not see any games with RPGMaker, Massively Multiplayer, MMORPG, Otome, 2D Fighter, VR, Movie, Horror, Psychological Horror, Zombies, Pixel Graphics, or Free to Play tags because I've blocked them. I saw one kind of cheesy looking game, Mortifero Motus. Outside of that there was nothing that looked even remotely like shovelware.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if alongside Steam Direct they loosen restrictions on age restricted content. Ladykiller in a Bind getting to Steam uncensored sets a pretty big precedent when it comes to erotic content.

 

Wow. I just checked the Steam page. I didn't realize they added "Sexual Content" and "Nudity" categories. I wonder if @Ony has tried getting any of her games on there lately.

 

Is that the magic year now? That makes me feel old. I used to have to dial it into the 70s. I do agree the age rating system is entirely ineffective. Across the internet anyone who wants to get rated content can get it.

But that doesn't make it right for the powers that be to simply ban content outright because a young person might access it. However I don't think concerns about young people are actually driving the sex ban.

Of course I disagree with general age restrictions on the internet in general. It's my responsibility to restrict what content my kids access, not the US government. So the grand tradition of lying about ages on application forms has been passed on to my kids too.

 

I haven't played the game, but as far as I know Ladykiller only shows breasts. It doesn't show vaginas or any type of penetration (not likely of course, given the game...).

Plenty of games have shown breasts. More importantly, as much as it is an erotic game Christina Love is actually a pretty good writer, and story is always at the forefront of her games, rather than titillation.

A line from her published script of a controversial scene: "President's cuts at the Beast in Pr6 are aimed directly at the player for fixating so much on sex"

So her games aren't mere "sex games."

Lol, I just randomly pick the oldest year that appears without having to scroll. I just thought to myself what it would have to be--2017 - 18 = 1999.

Of course it's not about young people, it's about the outlash. We haven't had anything like "Sexbox" for a while, but it's still a possibility.

 

Hmmmmmmm.... have to check into that. Thanks for the heads-up.

 

So the core point is, how much upfront fee to enlist on steam?
100$ or 1000$?

And there is no more greenlight system? Everyone who can pay upfront to steam can release game on steam? Or is this second barrier?

 

Cost not known yet. They said $100-$5000 range as example from dev polls. Greenlight will be gone for good and replaced by this.

 

If a developer can create a quality game in days, I will certainly not be calling that shovelware. To me at least, the "shovelware" tag has nothing to do with how long a developer works on a game. Hell, I am sure some of the shovelware took WAY longer to make than anyone would think.

What defines shovelware to me is a clearly lacking interest in making a quality game, while trying to cut every corner possible without caring about the end result.
When both the programming has been done sloppy, the art sucks or is composed of thrown together stock assets, the gameplay is either a straight copy, or lacking any refinement or balance, and generally you see that the game tries to capitalize on trends over bringing any originality or character of its own to the table, that is shovelware for me.

If its a great game with uninspired graphics... well, first impression might be that of shovelware, but if I would ever get to play it, I'd propably stop using the term. Could just have been a dev without art talent or the resources to buy that talent.
If its a great, original looking game with uninspired gameplay, clearly capitalizing on trends... that is a little bit harder to not call shovelware. At least the dev did invest some time on original art.


But there are plenty of low quality Indie games where the dev was lazy in ALL categories. These might still find "fans" (though I dare not think how you could be fan of such a game when better possibilities exist, at the same price or cheaper (there ARE great f2p games after all!)), but in all honesty, I don't think they belong on Steam. They clog up the queue for better examples in their categories where devs DID at least TRY to make a game that is worth its price tag. They try to trick players into buying a game that is clearly not worth its money given you get way better quality for the same price with other games.
They are created by devs that are lacking the traits of a professional game developer and instead show the traits of a professional scamer or other smalltime criminal. For me, as a player, I don't want to see that kind of dev flogging its ware on the Steam store where I am trying to find good games to play.


Long story short: for me its dev laziness and greed that makes games "shovelware" above everything all. Creating games to capitalize on trends is so commonplace today that I would have to call most AAA games "shovelware" if I went by that definition. And some games tend to take much less time to develop, some devs do have to cut all corners.
If the resulting game still shows the dev DID care, and the game can justify its price somehow, its not shovelware for me.

 

Absolutely. The only good thing about having ratings on boxes is that I know that I need to do a little research on the game.

What is sad is that your child can easily play a game where innocents are violently killed but they protect them from nudity.

The whole thing is simply a political mess, nothing to do with protecting children or helping parents. It is all about votes.

 

And to make it worse, its about American votes. Regardless of what country you live in, the internet at large tends to be set up to match American policies and values.

 

Yup. Sorry about that. Not my fault.

After posting that, I realized that there are a lot of countries with even stricter rules regarding nudity, sex, violence, and even what women can wear. So..yeah....

But if you are making game for the world, there are a lot of different policies and values that count here, not just American.

And in fact, I don't think American values have anything to do with it. I think it is the values of a minority that votes as a block. Your average American does not fit into that group. But when one small group has so much power, they get what they want.

If you want to understand what I mean, go watch some of the latest American shows on Netflix. Sex, nudity, violence, and they are popular. The problem is that some folks think they have to save the rest of us from playing bad games. Do we listen to them? No. Obviously, Steam is loosening up as well. So my guess is they won't get their way in the end.

 

Yeah. Not blaming anyone. Just complaining. Each country and company has a right to act in their own best interest. Just as I have a right to act in my best interest and lie.

My specific case is the kids have a YouTube channel and a Facebook page. They use it to share some of the cute creative projects they get into. But neither of those companies actually accept accounts from under 13 year olds, primarily due to US and EU data protection laws.

 

Yeah, they don't. My kids had to wait too although honestly, it was okay with me because I don't want them like some folks who are addicted to social media. Not sure what difference it made though since they are both on there now. lol

It would be nice if they would at least let them add as private accounts that could be linked to approved family and friends. I don't see the harm in that.

 

I wouldn't say that. There are large segments of the internet completely unaffected by its american portion. After all, the most spoken language on earth is apparently chinese.

 

Very true. But for English speakers it's the US companies that dominate.

 

Unfortunately, that is the way it works. The companies that dominate make the rules. Sad, I know. The way to change that is to bypass those big companies which is sort of what indie game developers do.

Obviously, Ony has found a way to bypass the issues and become successful so there are ways to do it. Just not as easy as it might be to make and sell games that mimic the ones the big companies make and therefore, do not "break the rules".

 

Not true. Some of us are indeed autodidactic polymaths.

 

Here is an interesting and pretty detailed interview about the things that have been talked and debated in this thread. They answer pretty much everything including, the fee, curation, quality of games, joke games, asset flips.

Related section starts around 3:15

 

They didn't clarify the fee--they left it at the range of whatever. They didn't point out any deterrents to "joke games" or low quality games. They just repeated what's been said here--that MAYBE the people making them wouldn't be willing to pay $1000 per game. They mentioned that there's some system (DMCA?) for asset flips, but didn't expound upon that. They mention that they don't want to do curation.

The single bit of "news" here is that Early Access is staying.

 

Yeah, I noticed that as well in that video. The funny thing about the DMCA answer is that DMCA is not used for asset flips involving purchased assets, such as UnitZ games. DMCA is used for stolen or ripped assets. The DMCA answer from Valve basically means Valve won't worry about assets unless they are stolen or ripped assets. So as long as flippers purchase UnitZ, then Valve is fine with a flood of UnitZ games.

Also, the comments about the price point in the video indicate that Valve is primarily concerned about making sure nearly every game can be on Steam. It is yet another indicator that Valve is probably going to aim for a low price point per game. They will use improved Discovery systems to help sell games instead of trying to severely limit the number of games getting released.

 

This makes me a bit nervous. I don't know what to expect now. Of course, Valve does this right when I was about to put a game on Steam Greenlight. What are developers supposed to do who have a game ready to go right now? Personally, I'm waiting until the transition happens.......but the question is when will the transition happen? I'm just sitting on a game right now, so this feels like the stock market with so much uncertainty lol.

 

Not very on topic, but did you do your Steam game all by yourself? Outstanding work either way. Is your game considered Greenlight or Indie? It looks so like a pro indie, kinda reminds me of Child of Light.

 

Hey, thanks bruh! My game was greenlit. It's kind of the expected result of a character animator making the game by himself, lol. Graphics are interesting, but the gameplay is lacking. But finally I finished a game! The curse is broken

 

So I've got one game on Steam, another one Greenlit (which might be a VR title) and working on a third. So this is could affect me a lot! Obviously for selfish reasons its in my interests that as few people as possible are on Steam so for that reason I should favour a high entry fee. On the other hand $5000 is way too much. I think its kind of unfair. If your game does badly, maybe not promoted well by Valve, then you've paid them $5000 for what exactly?

When I first payed my $100 to get on Greenlight, for me it was more-or-less YOLO, its worth a go. If it was $5000 I would have never even tried and maybe given up. I would say something below $300 would just about manageable. Even though that's a weeks wages for some people.

 

I hear a lot of people saying this, but that is not really how it works. Steam keeps adding more customers. In one video, Valve employees mentioned that 16 million new Steam customers were added to Steam because of new games. The customer base is rapidly growing. The important part is the discovery system, and Valve has made multiple improvements to that. The notion of fewer games leading to more sales is an outdated idea.

 

Hmmm... interesting point. But it seems like at some point the number of customers will reach a plateau (there's only so many people in the world!) and then as more games are added each game will earn less and less.

But I think currently it is still great to get your game on there so good luck to everyone who has.

 

That's from the perspective of someone who did it because "YOLO". To me that implies that being on Steam is some kind of bucket list novelty, as opposed to a considered venture. They might want to discourage that, and to be honest I don't see that as a bad thing.

As I mentioned earlier, $5k is cheap if you look at it as a "set up my path to market" fee. In most businesses you're looking at far more than that. And there are plenty of other avenues to release games if you're just doing it for the fun of it. And that figure is the upper end of what they're taking about, which is surprising considering how much these things used to cost. (I think it's good that it doesn't cost that much any more since I think it was a little absurd, I'm just surprised that people already making money didn't suggest higher application fees because higher barriers to entry are good for them. Of course I don't know who was surveyed or what the questions were, though.)

 

Yes, its true. I might be one the people they're trying to dissuade! So I have to tread the line carefully. I do actually make a living off Steam, but even so its not making me rich and $5000 would take over maybe over a year to be recouped just by lowering their percentage each time, depending on how they do it. And people don't have to buy my games if they don't want to.

But every investment is a gamble. And because Steam is secret about its statistics it even more of a gamble until you're in. And especially when Greenlight was there when there was no garuntee you would even get in.

 

So I haven't watched the video and not even sure these questions have been answered elsewhere. So I have never used my Greenlight account yet, paid the $100 fee. Will we be grandfathered in or will we be refunded? Also how much longer will developers be able to actually submit a game to Greenlight? Like next month will it end or by end of this year? If by chance a game get's Greenlit here in the next few months, will it be taken down after the new policy or will existing Greenlight games be able to stay?

 

I heard "Spring" as the time it changes. That's pretty vague so who knows. I would guess that if they closed Greenlight they would put a certain number through, refund the rest and give them the opportunity to go through Steam Direct. Probably better to still go on Greenlight at this point. No harm in it.

 

The money went to charity as a donation. For this reason, I do not think Valve owe anyone a refund. I am in a similar position, where I have paid it, but my game has not got enough traction to ever be Greenlit. My new project is going to take time and will probably miss any Greenlight deadline (if one comes into being). I'm a bit annoyed about it tbh.

I think the new idea, where anyone can submit a game is not a good one. The quality of games will drop, for Valve to take in more money up front. Not sure why this is seen as a better idea than Greenlight.

 

Ah yes I forgot about the developer fee being a "donation" to charity. Good call on that one.

 

I agree that $5k per game is reasonable for most businesses. However, the bigger issue is Valve wanting to make sure the next Minecraft feels welcome on Steam. Valve missed out on same big hits prior to Greenlight, because Steam was a difficult platform to get on at that point. Valve wants Steam to be even more welcoming with Steam Direct. If Valve chose a $5k per game fee, that would make Steam much less welcoming for many new titles.

 

The main problem with Greenlight was the unpredictable delay caused by it. You can spend a bunch of time and money developing a game, but you won't know if it will be Greenlit or how quickly it will be Greenlit. A nice looking game on Greenlight might take days, weeks, or months to get Greenlit.

That unpredictable Greenlight delay makes it hard to plan development. Developers are forced to decide if they want to put an unfinished game on Greenlight knowing it may take months to get through, or if they want to wait until their game is very polished before posting it on Greenlight in hopes it might get Greenlit quickly. With Steam Direct, developers can wait until their game is completely done, and then immediately publish through Steam Direct.

 

On the other hand, though, they might miss out on hits from the opposite, too - more stuff can get on the platform, but the same audience is then diluted out amongst more titles.

 

Have you read the book "The Long Tail"?

 

I'm familiar with the concept, but don't see how it's relevant. If you consider all time total sales, there's still more products to be shared among the same number of purchasers. That means that either some products don't get purchased, or some products get less purchases so that others get more. Either way, the average number of purchases per product goes down.

 

That's assuming people buy a set number of games per week. On the other hand if people buy all the things they're interested in and people have diverse interests then a long tail will make people buy more things.

 

That is not necessarily true, though. Increasing the variety increases total sales, because not everybody likes the same thing. For example, I would not buy a visual novel or a mobile game port on Steam, but there are people who actively search for that stuff. Other than Left4Dead, I don't personally like zombie games, but there are tons of people that love nearly every zombie game.

The key in any "long tail" situation (like Steam) is to have a solid refund system, great review system, and an excellent recommendation/discovery system. As long as the platform can reliably match up games and customers, there is no problem by having "too many games". Individual users can purchase more than one game. As long as Steam keeps recommending games of interest, many customers will each buy many games.

 

... except for when it doesn't. And that's just the first result from a Google search, referring to just one experiment of many you'll find it you look into this stuff.

 

Improvements to the discovery system will help more than reducing the number of choices. Steam needs to be more like Amazon, and less like a Best Buy store. Amazon thrives with tons of choices, because the important discovery systems work awesome.

 

I don't really have a dog in this Steam "fight." But I don't think the study/example provided is equivalent to browsing on the internet.

If I go to Express in person, I have to spend 5, 10 minutes looking through stuff to find something appealing. However, if I go to express.com, I can move my mouse cursor to the top of the screen and hover over Men, then over Jeans, then over Casual Jeans. I press the mouse button once and am taken to a page that lets me browse eleven items, all of which I can parse at a glance (I don't have to move the three pairs of jeans in "front" of one of the pictures) and then click on what I'm interested in.

The two aren't the same. I'm not saying that more choice equates to higher sales, but I'm saying that study isn't indicative of the internet experience in any way, shape, or form.

BTW I just "binged" the phrase "losing sales with more choice" and the only relevant link there was the one you already posted (and that probably only because Microsoft is a creepy stalker). (edit: this is a fail for Bing - using Google provides plenty of other links)

Edit: A comment from the writer of that post:

"An interesting part about the story is that I was so overwhelmed I wasn’t willing to look over the display for more than 30 seconds. Just too much to take in."

The problem wasn't the choices. The problem was that he couldn't parse the choices (which is basically the foundation of every online store).

 

Yes, there's plenty of meat to the discussion in both directions. Choice and variety are certainly good things to have, it's just not a universal truth that more is always better. Nor is it a universal truth that "more products = more sales".

Largely, though, it comes down to math. The following is true...

... but at the end of the day there is still a finite number of sales being made, and that finite number of sales is spread over an increasing number of products on sale.

I also did my search on "choice vs. sales" rather than using a word like "losing" because I didn't want to bias the outcome. I suspect that we could find individual studies supporting either outcome if we specifically looked for them.

The study referenced there is just one small experiment, so on its own it doesn't necessarily present a strong argument, and you're right that it doesn't represent an online shopping experience in general. All I was highlighting was that more is not necessarily always better, even before you look at the hard math.