surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
If you can't find $100, then you don't believe in your game enough. Even kids without a job should be able to get the money from their parents.
Greenlight seems like a great opportunity for indie game developers. $100 is nothing for the potential outcome greenlight can offer.
Greenlight seems like a great opportunity for indie game developers. $100 is nothing for the potential outcome greenlight can offer.
I think further clarification of this new addition is needed in the article: the $100 fee is a one-time thingy, that is - you don't pay $100 per submission, you pay $100 once and can submit how many games you feel like.
As for my opinions on the subject - I'm all for the new fee and weeding the bullshit submissions out, however I think a one-time $100 is kinda high (I think it's just enough a sum to frighten a new indie developer from trying and maybe failing). A better system would be if they would charge less money (around $10-$20), but do it per submission.
As for my opinions on the subject - I'm all for the new fee and weeding the bullshit submissions out, however I think a one-time $100 is kinda high (I think it's just enough a sum to frighten a new indie developer from trying and maybe failing). A better system would be if they would charge less money (around $10-$20), but do it per submission.
Really? People are complaining they can't afford $100? With how much that goes in to making a game, that fee is too much? Come on, raising that money isn't hard at all, and I think the benefit it gives will be worth far more than that price. People really do try so hard to find things to be angry about.
@ yentas
You would rather the fee be $10 to $20? You mean, like the cost of two happy meals (give or take a couple bucks)? Come on...if you are fully invested in this game you are developing, you should be able to come up with $100. I mean, damn, I made $100 a week on my paper route in 1993. Are these developers homeless or don't own a single asset to their name to sell, if need be?
You would rather the fee be $10 to $20? You mean, like the cost of two happy meals (give or take a couple bucks)? Come on...if you are fully invested in this game you are developing, you should be able to come up with $100. I mean, damn, I made $100 a week on my paper route in 1993. Are these developers homeless or don't own a single asset to their name to sell, if need be?
In terms of how much it costs to make a game that should be on steam $100 is nothing.
This will hopefully stop us having to look at people posting a tech demo they worked on for a day and pictures of how they want there game to look.
So few actual games on greenlight that look ready to go on steam.
This will hopefully stop us having to look at people posting a tech demo they worked on for a day and pictures of how they want there game to look.
So few actual games on greenlight that look ready to go on steam.
Finally! Having checked out the update, it's way more user-friendly and this fee will help a lot. Now, I won't have to make tens of reports because kids are bored and stupid creatures.
This fee is worth it to the people who are serious with what they're uploading. Plus, you're getting your game ideas out there while donating to charity and helping people's lives. How cool is that?
If your product is good, if you believe in your product, $100 is paltry. Paltry! I know indie devs pockets aren't exceedingly deep, but there's plenty of ways to rustle up the cash. Kickstarter has been mentioned. That seems perfect. Selling the game elsewhere, too. Hell. Black Mesa Source landed today on Greenlight - they obviously had to pay the $100 fee and THEY'RE RELEASING THEIR GAME FOR FREE.
If you plan on selling your game, but you don't think you'll make back on a $100 investment, then maybe you've not really given it that much thought. Maybe. If you're the exception that has a great product but can't afford the fee... that sucks for you and I'm sorry. But you know, fans will pay for anything. You'll find a way. It isn't an exuberant amount by any stretch.
If you plan on selling your game, but you don't think you'll make back on a $100 investment, then maybe you've not really given it that much thought. Maybe. If you're the exception that has a great product but can't afford the fee... that sucks for you and I'm sorry. But you know, fans will pay for anything. You'll find a way. It isn't an exuberant amount by any stretch.
Think of how much ramen $100 could buy?
VALVe YOU MONSTERS!
..... actually I'm cool with this. Greenlight is an awesome thing but OMG right now its a stagnant quagmire of crap. I think I've actually voted for 4 games (3 up, 1 down) and have a faves list of about a dozen that I'm watching.
That one downvote freaking earned it. Not just the game but the developers appear to be total tools as well. Anyhow getting out of that tangent ^.^
If this helps clear up the (at last I checked) 700+ (probably closer to 1k now) games most of which don't even belong on a smartphone let alone on Steam, then AWESOME!
Keep in mind this is only one way to get your game on Steam you can always submit it directly to Valve and if they feel it fits then you get to skip this whole process. Also it's not like Valve is the only Digital Distro Storefront in the sea. There is also GoG or you could always sell your game yourself via a paypal storefront on your own website.......
VALVe YOU MONSTERS!
..... actually I'm cool with this. Greenlight is an awesome thing but OMG right now its a stagnant quagmire of crap. I think I've actually voted for 4 games (3 up, 1 down) and have a faves list of about a dozen that I'm watching.
That one downvote freaking earned it. Not just the game but the developers appear to be total tools as well. Anyhow getting out of that tangent ^.^
If this helps clear up the (at last I checked) 700+ (probably closer to 1k now) games most of which don't even belong on a smartphone let alone on Steam, then AWESOME!
Keep in mind this is only one way to get your game on Steam you can always submit it directly to Valve and if they feel it fits then you get to skip this whole process. Also it's not like Valve is the only Digital Distro Storefront in the sea. There is also GoG or you could always sell your game yourself via a paypal storefront on your own website.......
i don't know if anyone said this yet but it's a one time fee,
after that you can put any amount of games on greenlight.
after that you can put any amount of games on greenlight.
Think of it like this- The $100 is going completely to charity. That coupled with if you are serious enough to get your game recognised and on steam, you won't mind the $100 donation to get it some recognition. If it was a $1, the trolls and idiots would still upload. It's only a buck after all, hardly expensive (which is why I think VALVe put the bar high).
@Patrick Hancock: Thank you for writing the post I was going to.
The only people who think you don't need to be rich to have $100 to spare are people who are and have always been rich enough that they wouldn't miss $100 on their bank accounts.
The only people who think you don't need to be rich to have $100 to spare are people who are and have always been rich enough that they wouldn't miss $100 on their bank accounts.
"Failing to put any barrier there will only guarantee that every Tom, Dick and Harry submits something [..."
I should hope.
@Niero
Any plans to introduce a subscription fee to Dtoid's commenting system to weed out the trolls?
I should hope.
@Niero
Any plans to introduce a subscription fee to Dtoid's commenting system to weed out the trolls?
I don't see how this even merits a debate. $100 is an insignificant fee. If a developer can't afford $100 fee they can't afford to develop a game, period.
The $100 fee is because no-one was reading the following.
Before you post your game to Steam Greenlight, you must agree to the following:
You own the rights to sell the game you are posting, or you have specific authorization to represent the developer
You agree to the terms and conditions of the Steam Subscriber Agreement
Additionally, you agree not to post any item to Greenlight that contains the following:
Someone else's game, unless you have specific authorization to do so
Porn, inappropriate or offensive content, warez, or leaked content
Cheating, hacking, or game exploits
Threats of violence or harassment, even as a joke
Games using copyrighted material such as assets or intellectual property without permission from the owner
Soliciting, begging, auctioning, selling, advertising, referrals, racism, or discrimingation
Before you post your game to Steam Greenlight, you must agree to the following:
You own the rights to sell the game you are posting, or you have specific authorization to represent the developer
You agree to the terms and conditions of the Steam Subscriber Agreement
Additionally, you agree not to post any item to Greenlight that contains the following:
Someone else's game, unless you have specific authorization to do so
Porn, inappropriate or offensive content, warez, or leaked content
Cheating, hacking, or game exploits
Threats of violence or harassment, even as a joke
Games using copyrighted material such as assets or intellectual property without permission from the owner
Soliciting, begging, auctioning, selling, advertising, referrals, racism, or discrimingation
Know who doesn't have $100? Kids. If you are over the age of 18 and can't come up with $100 yet somehow have the means to develop a game, you're doing it fantastically wrong. Hell, I'd pay the $100 fee and then not post anything simply because it's a 100% donation to Child's Play... In fact, I fully intend to do just that.
fine. even if you're not doing well financially, coming up with $100 for something you really believe in is a no brainer.
also, i'm fine with joke submissions that people paid $100 to submit, because at least then they might actually be funny.
also, i'm fine with joke submissions that people paid $100 to submit, because at least then they might actually be funny.
I kinda feel bad for anyone that doesn't think this is a good idea. I honestly stopped even looking at greenlight after a couple days because it was flooded with shit.
It makes sense, and its good that they aren't just pocketing the cash when they could justify it as a way to keep the service running (like SOME -- read: most-- companies would try to do), but its also like some others say, if you've got a game to bring out, expect to pay to bring it out.. I mean, seriously, nothings REALLY ever free. If developers can't scrape it together (after -I'm assuming- already probably hitting Kickerstarter for the rest of their project) then somethings really wrong and people need to quit making games without a minor in business to back them up. Cause like others also said, it costs at least $100 A YEAR, to keep games up on other services -they're lucky Valve is only asking for it once.
I honestly think they should have done more than $100 to help make sure people were serious and only doing serious submissions. Not barely changed source mods or "make your own game" glorified fanfics that are hoping to make it big on Greenlight. I stopped looking at Greenlight because it became a cesspool very quickly. This may bring me back to it.
I don't think anyone, ANYONE, could create a worthy game and not have $100 to spend on it.
That's like saying you can't afford to pay for tenant insurance while you smoke a pack a week and play angry birds on your newest iPhone.
That's like saying you can't afford to pay for tenant insurance while you smoke a pack a week and play angry birds on your newest iPhone.
It should be 1000 dollars that is a deposit. You get the money back down the road (ie once you get accepted or remove your project from greenlight), and if you don't have 1000 then you have to submit it with a petition to get the deposit waived.
Yet another example of why we can't have nice things because people are fucking selfish stupid assholes.
@ bariman
It makes more sense to me, yeah. Truth to be told, the whole "$100 is affordable" angle is irrelevant and weak.
It is irrelevant, because by disputing affordability we kinda forget the subject at hand, that is - why the fee was introduced in the first place. The answer is to filter trolls/jokers and the junk from the stuff with time and effort invested into it that might actually sell. Now, with that answer borne in mind, tell me - if the fee was $20 per submission instead of a one-time $100, would the goal of the fee will still be met? I say that it will, therefore there's no difference in the filtering effect whether you charge $20, $100 or $1000. And if there's no difference, there's no need to ask for sums that high; if anything, it would actually turn more beneficial for Child's Play if
my suggestion would be implemented.
It is weak because if I've asked you for $100 without return, you won't give them to me, no matter how easily can you reacquire them. And that's because, affordable or not, $100 is a substantial amount of money that you'd rather invest in more "smartly", and I think one of the points of Greenlight is to encourage devs to try, not to test how firm is their belief in their game.
It makes more sense to me, yeah. Truth to be told, the whole "$100 is affordable" angle is irrelevant and weak.
It is irrelevant, because by disputing affordability we kinda forget the subject at hand, that is - why the fee was introduced in the first place. The answer is to filter trolls/jokers and the junk from the stuff with time and effort invested into it that might actually sell. Now, with that answer borne in mind, tell me - if the fee was $20 per submission instead of a one-time $100, would the goal of the fee will still be met? I say that it will, therefore there's no difference in the filtering effect whether you charge $20, $100 or $1000. And if there's no difference, there's no need to ask for sums that high; if anything, it would actually turn more beneficial for Child's Play if
my suggestion would be implemented.
It is weak because if I've asked you for $100 without return, you won't give them to me, no matter how easily can you reacquire them. And that's because, affordable or not, $100 is a substantial amount of money that you'd rather invest in more "smartly", and I think one of the points of Greenlight is to encourage devs to try, not to test how firm is their belief in their game.
But if they don't get upvoted enough then they'll have wasted $100 that could have gone to making the game. I think that a fee should be in place, but I think that the fee should be lower.
I'm from the "poorest city in my country, and even I find this as reasonable. Seriously, the proceeds are even going to charity. If you have the resources to make a decent game, there should be no way $100 should be able to stop you.
Total waste of money, nothing is getting through that Greenlight "service" unscathed. Just go with Gamersgate, Desura and other competitors and forget Steam.
Charity is irrelevant. I'm not seeing many of the games getting the numbers. From an advertising angle sure, but then again the target demo of Greenlight? Thats 100 dollars out of your pocket with a very slim chance of making a difference and getting signed.
Charity is irrelevant. I'm not seeing many of the games getting the numbers. From an advertising angle sure, but then again the target demo of Greenlight? Thats 100 dollars out of your pocket with a very slim chance of making a difference and getting signed.
follow
