surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
A couple questions:
Do we know how many upvotes it takes to get accepted?
If a developer can't scrounge up $100, is the game really going to be of good quality?
How many of these devs, that can't pay the fee, will turn to Kickstarter to get the money?
Do we know how many upvotes it takes to get accepted?
If a developer can't scrounge up $100, is the game really going to be of good quality?
How many of these devs, that can't pay the fee, will turn to Kickstarter to get the money?
This won't do much except separate those who have the cash to burn and those who don't. Make it like 20 dollars to get rid of the joke submissions and make it more accessible.
As Conrad mentioned, a 100 price tag does not weed out the shit, just weeds out the shit with cheap devs. Creating a higher price sends a mixed message - any game can get on Steam! Unless you're living paycheck to paycheck and can't pay the entry fee.
As Conrad mentioned, a 100 price tag does not weed out the shit, just weeds out the shit with cheap devs. Creating a higher price sends a mixed message - any game can get on Steam! Unless you're living paycheck to paycheck and can't pay the entry fee.
I was wondering if they were going to go this route to cut down on the garbage. Similar to how Microsoft charges $99 to publish a game to the App Hub for XNA development.
I personally think it's a good move on Valves part, 100 bucks is not a big fee, and no sane person will pay 100$ to make a lame 9/11 joke or some other bullcrap they decide to flood the submissions with.
I think it will filter out a lot of the shit that may be thrown on there.
As said, 100 bucks is not a lot, but it's a gamble if you're not even certain you'll get enough votes to get your game on the steam marketplace. (worth a try though)
I think it will filter out a lot of the shit that may be thrown on there.
As said, 100 bucks is not a lot, but it's a gamble if you're not even certain you'll get enough votes to get your game on the steam marketplace. (worth a try though)
Lol at the tweet that blasts this with nonsense remarks like 'the rich get richer' because $100 is evidently the qualification for being rich.
There's absolutely no way the system could have thrived when so many pieces of shit were clogging the site's arteries. If a dev can't afford the entry fee, that's something.
There's absolutely no way the system could have thrived when so many pieces of shit were clogging the site's arteries. If a dev can't afford the entry fee, that's something.
Developers who can't afford the $100 can just create a $100 Kickstarter. Or borrow $100 from their roommate/parents.
I..........have no issue with this. Should probably be higher, to stem the flow of crap.
I genuinely want this to work, but it won't if users are forced to wade through a sea of shit in order to get to the titles worthy of voting on.
I genuinely want this to work, but it won't if users are forced to wade through a sea of shit in order to get to the titles worthy of voting on.
$100 seems a little harsh to me, I know it's not a lot for most people but for a one-man dev team living from paycheck to paycheck it could be a big barrier. I think somewhere around the $20-$30 range would have been just as effective without providing such a challenge for people who struggle financially.
Then again, it's all going to charity, so I can't complain too much.
Then again, it's all going to charity, so I can't complain too much.
$100 seems utterly fair, especially being its not profit for valve. If you are having a hard time scrounging up $100, then you are either with a dead broke team who wont have the resources after the game makes it through to support the game, you are with a team that refuse to chip in anything but work, or you are a lone dev who probably doesn't really care if your project makes it through or not.
Those who care about their project will pay the fee. Teams cant have a hard time chipping in 20 bucks per person on a 5 man team. It really isn't a murderous price, and anyone complaining about it is really just whining.
Those who care about their project will pay the fee. Teams cant have a hard time chipping in 20 bucks per person on a 5 man team. It really isn't a murderous price, and anyone complaining about it is really just whining.
I'm pretty sure you could eliminate 99% of the trolls by charging, y'know, a dollar. Or five dollars. Or ten. Anything more than that seems a little sketchy.
Wish it wasn't needed,but people are morons. 100 bucks is just enough to make people think twice about submitting a joke game such as Mr. Cockingtons Big Cock Adventure 2: Beach Trip Party.
Wait, that idea is a goldmine. To Frebooter!
Wait, that idea is a goldmine. To Frebooter!
I'm sorry, but any game that costs little enough to make that $100 is a burden should be on Newgrounds, not Steam.
Go glad to hear this. Sick and tired already of having to filter through junk that shouldnt be there in the first place.
I can view the 100 dollar cost as a really cheap fee to get your game/concept advertised. I'd be fine with the money going to Valve, but the fact it's going to a charity makes it seem reasonable
If $100 is too much for a dev, making a game is questionable. I mean, look at the guy who made fez, not exactly moneybags pennyworth and he managed to get a full arcade game. If you can't save up $100 over a few months than you either have no job or have no concept of saving money.
Thank God. I think $100 is just right too. Sure there are still assholes that'll pay that for a joke, but I don't think there will be too many of em
Honestly, if you cannot afford to pay $100 for a chance to be on the steam platform, chances are I don't want to spend time with your game in this day and age.
I will say that this means only the serious need apply, as this would mean that if you DON'T get the approval you need, you're out $100.
I am for this as a gamer, but I can see why devs might be concerned. Not for the money, though.
I will say that this means only the serious need apply, as this would mean that if you DON'T get the approval you need, you're out $100.
I am for this as a gamer, but I can see why devs might be concerned. Not for the money, though.
$100 isn't harsh and isn't a high price for those talented people that believe in themselves and their products.
Honestly, if you cannot afford to pay $100 for a chance to be on the steam platform, chances are I don't want to spend time with your game in this day and age. I'm sure there will be an exception to this, but are ALL of the indie games expecting to get on the platform?
I will say that this means only the serious need apply, as this would mean that if you DON'T get the approval you need, you're out $100.
I am for this as a gamer, but I can see why devs might be concerned. Not for the money, though.
I will say that this means only the serious need apply, as this would mean that if you DON'T get the approval you need, you're out $100.
I am for this as a gamer, but I can see why devs might be concerned. Not for the money, though.
Seeing people argue against it is just dumbfounding, it really shocks me that people believe they "deserve" anything.
Sounds fair to me. Lets not forget that you're developing software and planning to sell it.
1)If its worth submitting and selling on a high profile platform like Steam, then surely you're expecting to make at least that much back.
2) You're developing software on a computer that maybe cost you (or your kind benefactor) at least $300. You paid X amount of money for an engine or a compiler that you fancy (Game Maker is at least $40, $100 if you want to "splurge" for releasing to Mac and the potential to publish other platforms). You maybe (or your benefactor) is *probably* connected to the internet, which is at least $30 a month. And don't tell me you've not bought *ANY* games for your PC off of...Steam. Tell me haven't (or your kindly benefactor) hasn't paid for at least two Humble Bundles worth of games: surely you found the money for about $100 worth of games.
I'm all for as many people expressing themselves as possible. That's great. But, if you're looking to get into the arena of selling that work, the least you can do is invest $100 with your writ of intent. Or yes, ask your benefactor for $100 loan with a reasonable vig should you actually get accepted. As floors for investor input goes, its just not that bad.
1)If its worth submitting and selling on a high profile platform like Steam, then surely you're expecting to make at least that much back.
2) You're developing software on a computer that maybe cost you (or your kind benefactor) at least $300. You paid X amount of money for an engine or a compiler that you fancy (Game Maker is at least $40, $100 if you want to "splurge" for releasing to Mac and the potential to publish other platforms). You maybe (or your benefactor) is *probably* connected to the internet, which is at least $30 a month. And don't tell me you've not bought *ANY* games for your PC off of...Steam. Tell me haven't (or your kindly benefactor) hasn't paid for at least two Humble Bundles worth of games: surely you found the money for about $100 worth of games.
I'm all for as many people expressing themselves as possible. That's great. But, if you're looking to get into the arena of selling that work, the least you can do is invest $100 with your writ of intent. Or yes, ask your benefactor for $100 loan with a reasonable vig should you actually get accepted. As floors for investor input goes, its just not that bad.
I think it's a fantastic idea. I stopped looking at Greenlight after 5 hours because of the piles of utter garbage and people throwing wishlist crap up there.
And let's be honest here - if a developer can't afford $100, then they're probably not making a very good game and shouldn't be cluttering up Greenlight in the first place.
And let's be honest here - if a developer can't afford $100, then they're probably not making a very good game and shouldn't be cluttering up Greenlight in the first place.
$100 might be a bit too much, but I certainly understand the need.
I think I'd rather have seen them ask would-be developers to drop a "deposit" down instead, though. That way it bars morons from entry, and gives those with a good idea (i.e. the kind likely to get greenlit in the first place) peace of mind knowing that they'd get their money back after enough votes.
I think I'd rather have seen them ask would-be developers to drop a "deposit" down instead, though. That way it bars morons from entry, and gives those with a good idea (i.e. the kind likely to get greenlit in the first place) peace of mind knowing that they'd get their money back after enough votes.
I agree with everything in that article, we want good games but not at the expense of making steam like XBL indie.
It's only 100 clams not much if you are actually serious about being published. I'm OK with this. However I would still like to see a 9/11 half life 3 inspired game at least then half life would have a plot.
If you can't generate $100 outside of steam for your game then you'll never get the attention on greenlight otherwise. There are plenty of other avenues to test your game (Desura, kick starter, direct sale).
Why are they mad? It costs at least $100 a year to be able to sell games on the iOS app store. Why should this be different?
I have a hard time believing that $100 is significant compared to the cost of developing even the most basic of quality indie titles. Even if your a game didn't actually require that much money to make, the opportunity cost of doing so as opposed to other activities is many more times $100.
Unless it's a drawing of a dick in SimCity. Then $100 is a lot of money. Which is the entire fucking point.
Unless it's a drawing of a dick in SimCity. Then $100 is a lot of money. Which is the entire fucking point.
Next in news, Phil Fish throws a tantrum about how he can't afford the outrageously high fees Valve charges for Steam.
What about games hoping to use Steam as a distribution platform for a FREE game / high quality mod? Where the developer isn't going to make that 100$ back because the game is free.
So it's $100 to maybe get your game put on Steam? That doesn't seem fair. It should be 10 or 20 bucks. I don't think people would pay $10 to troll.
I think it's worth noting that they're not COLLECTING the hundred smacks, they're passing it straight to Child's Play. So it's not like this a cash grab, and honestly, a hundred bucks isa s good a authenticity handshake as any.
Who in the world says this is a bad move ? It's a good one,because you won't get to troll pages of games that doesn't exist and will never exist.
I can't think that a "developer" is serious enough if he can't pay 100$ anyway.
I can't think that a "developer" is serious enough if he can't pay 100$ anyway.
Like others said, if you can't save up $100 to invest in a game you're looking to promote, then you can fuck off right back to middle school. "Rich get richer" quote just made my day. Seriously?
Well that should stop all the RPG Maker VX Ace shit from getting submitted. I was fucking tired of looking at that shit.
100$ isn't that much, just equals 10 copies of 10$ sold, even the shittiest games manage to do that. K it may be a little bit more due to valve's cut but it is still something I think every single game on steam at least sells. Valve is also giving that money to charity so its not like they make money out of it. Sure 20 or 30 may have hold of most of the bogus submissions but I expect a few more crappy ones to flow through as a 30$ prank may still be done, 100$ a bit different.
Please people...if you don't have $100, then you have no place being on Steam. Steam has no obligation to put your shitty game on their service (or give you a small glimmer of hope of being on the service), especially for free.
follow
