Author Topic: Steam Greenlight dead  (Read 2357 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Blue Lion

  • Star Shatterer
  • 210
I made a joke about this and someone linked the story so I figured why not, it's not discussed here.

http://steamed.kotaku.com/steam-s-greenlight-replacement-could-pose-problems-of-i-1792242919

I never thought I would get tired of seeing games but I have been flooded with derivative and just cheap games on Steam. You play one survival horror and suddenly there's hundreds of them, and they look awful. So I can't say I'd be sad to see Greenlight gone but what of the new system?

Is it worth putting up a pay wall to keep out droves of games that suck if it means we lose the few that are good made on a shoestring budget?
eeeeeeeeeeh?

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Good frakkin' riddance. Now, if they only removed all the shovelware that already made its way there (or provide a way to filter it out, at least)...

I don't think a high fee would be a big problem, though it should vary according to the payer's location, like game prices do, mostly to avoid discriminating against devs from other countries (there are many Russian games on Steam that are crap, but it'd be a shame to lose the likes of Perimeter). If your game isn't worth at least 1000 (or whatever works as an equivalent if the currency is silly) of your local currency, it probably should not be on Steam.

It would block student projects, dinky "studios" making games about indecent exposure (seriously. My father got one of those from a bundle) and shoestring budget games. In short, the exact people who fill Steam with crapware. Hopefully it'll curb the prominence of lazy "pixel art" and "retro" games that actually look worse than most actual old games.

 

Offline Mikes

  • 29
*Some* of those pixel games are dang good:
http://www.axiomverge.com/ for instance.


That said: Good riddance to Greenlight ... the garbage to game ratio was indeed inconceivably horrible.

 

Offline potterman28wxcv

  • 27
  • Just a fan player
It would block student projects, dinky "studios" making games about indecent exposure (seriously. My father got one of those from a bundle) and shoestring budget games. In short, the exact people who fill Steam with crapware. Hopefully it'll curb the prominence of lazy "pixel art" and "retro" games that actually look worse than most actual old games.
If it's one of these bad games, you detect it in advance either in the reviews or in gameplay videos. So where is the harm ?

On the contrary, by removing Greenlight you're just limiting the possible range of games. Only those that already have decent money will be able to post. Which is quite sad. Especially since it wasn't doing any harm.

imo that's just another way for Steam to earn more and more money. Just like when they wanted to introduce "paid mods" in the Steam Workshop. To "promote serious content" and other kind of arguments like this.

The reality is that they're only killing the community aspect of Steam to grab more money.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
The thing is, it used to be that when a game was on Steam, it had a reasonable chance of being good. You could browse Steam and have a good chance of finding something decent. Not anymore. It's drowning in "indie" crap which is made on no budget, put on Steam for no cost and made without the slightest effort. This kind of games are going to stop coming to Steam. Instead, they'll stuck somewhere like Newgrounds, where people who want them can play them for free (because they're not worth money).

The entry fee would discourage the most ridiculous entries. If your game can't expect to make you 5000$, it shouldn't be on Steam.

 

Offline Snarks

  • 27
In my experience, Steam isn't necessarily flooded with "crap" games, just a lot of games that have already been done, perhaps oversaturated genres. The first set of pixel art, platformers sell well. The 5th set is just beating the genre in the head over and over again. Yes, there's going to be the occasional shovelware, but they're not the majority or even plurality by far.

I think Steam needs a system for removing games with absolutely **** ratings, and a system to prevent that from being cheesed. Shovelware should be removed, but we shouldn't be removing half decent games along with them.

Or perhaps even better, an algorithm to sort games by their types. The Discovery queue does an alright job at this so far, but there's room for improvement. Sure, I might be sick of retro art platform IVX, but there's probably a market for people play nothing but those. If games can be sorted in a manner that lets consumers find the games they want to play, then it's not really an issue.

My gripe with Steam Direct is that I'm uncertain of its efficacy. It puts forth a very high barrier of entry (essentially risk), and the developers who put a lot of time and resources into a game are already shouldering more risk (in terms of time and money spent) than people making shovelware. Yes, it might stop shovelware, but it can sure as hell stop a lot of decent games from going on as well.

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
It's not only lack of quality that makes shovelware. There's also the fact that most of those games are awfully derivative. You play one pixel platformer, you've played them all, with exceptions being in minority. Even if the game is on the "decent" level of quality otherwise, it doesn't matter if it's utterly redundant. A handful of similar games are fine, but given how flooded Steam is with those genres that are easy to make, in order to be worth attention a title of these genres should either be an exceptional example, or a novel approach in some way.

 
Awfully derative games are not neccisarely a bad thing (otherwise, none of the CoD games would be on steam), but Steam's current release process is rather bloody awfull. As noted by John Walker over at RPS:
Quote
Of those released games, I’d estimate (and I stress this is my own anecdotal estimation) about half aren’t in a fit state to be on sale. I know this because I play so many of them. I scour through the utterly useless and hidden All New Releases list, adding anything that catches my eye across multiple genres, and then work through them whenever I can trying to find unknown gems to highlight on RPS. And wow, there’s so much broken rubbish. This morning in half an hour I got through three interesting-looking games that didn’t have functioning controls. Many times I’ll find that games don’t even launch. And this is it: Steam as a store is so bad, so lacking in visible curation of any sort, that there are games released for it almost every day that don’t even load.

In the comment section he mentions finding games that don't even come with a .exe... Steam very definitely has a quality control issue at less visible end of the spectrum. Does a pay barrier fix this? Actually, I would say that it does. At the very least it provides a stick to ensure that people make sure their games actually work.

On the other hand, Valve has virtually limitless amounts of money. Instead of making publishers have a pay barrier they could be hiring people on their end to ensure a basic form of quality control. Microsoft and Sony have a verification process, why doesn't Valve?

 
because to run a quality control team you have to hire a bunch of normal people and manage them rather than a bunch of rockstar game devs ****ing around in a ~flat management structure~ and doing absolutely nothing of any worth
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline potterman28wxcv

  • 27
  • Just a fan player
The entry fee would discourage the most ridiculous entries. If your game can't expect to make you 5000$, it shouldn't be on Steam.
What about free games that are issued out of Open Source ?

There are not many, but there's still a few of them. Do you want the authors to gather the money by themselves ?

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Why would completely freeware games need to be on Steam? Valve could either make a special case for games which are provided for no charge (as those games are rare enough for case-by-case decisions to be manageable) or simply live with the fact that not every game needs to be downloadable through Steam. As far as I know, the only truly freeware (that is, not charging money for anything) games on Steam that actually use its internet features of are Moonbase Alpha and America's Army, both made by US government, which can obviously afford 5000$. :)

 

Offline potterman28wxcv

  • 27
  • Just a fan player
Why would completely freeware games need to be on Steam? Valve could either make a special case for games which are provided for no charge (as those games are rare enough for case-by-case decisions to be manageable) or simply live with the fact that not every game needs to be downloadable through Steam. As far as I know, the only truly freeware (that is, not charging money for anything) games on Steam that actually use its internet features of are Moonbase Alpha and America's Army, both made by US government, which can obviously afford 5000$. :)
I know BallisticNG. It's a very good quality game, it started on a forum of Wipeout and it's really the kind of game that is "for the fans  by fans".

It uses Steam feature (or intends to use ?) for Steam Workshop mostly - be able to create your own tracks and share it to other people.
But also, Steam provides way more visibility than if you had your own website. Especially for small projects, it really helps with getting known.

It's completely free, and the guys do it on their free time. They're not a company - just a bunch of guys that want to develop a game.

This paywall will prevent projects like this one to happen.. Which is really sad for me.
Unless they add an exception for projects that swear to be completely free (no merchandise whatsoever). But that's not going to happen. The proportion of affected games is too small, no one will care about them. Especially not Valve.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2017, 10:05:20 am by potterman28wxcv »

 

Offline Kobrar44

  • On Suspended Sentence
  • 29
  • Let me tilerape it for you!
    • Steam
Totalbiscuit had this pretty big talk on this topic with some people from the industry.


I don't enjoy this whole "steam will just do it's thing anyway", I believe they should curate all games in person and it wouldn't hurt them a tiny bit financially. They just continue to be bad as much as possible because they can.
Oh guys, use that [ url ][ img ][ /img ][ /url ] :/

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
This paywall will prevent projects like this one to happen.. Which is really sad for me.
Couldn't they do without Steam, though? Steam Workshop is a neat modding platform, but it's nothing revolutionary. It's slightly more convenient than downloading from the browser, but if they didn't have access to Steam, they could just set up their own system. Kerbal Space Program, for example, has a community-made downloader capable of pulling updates from Github or other download sites. They also set up a pretty good site for uploading mods. A free game could easily do the same.

It'd be a reasonable move to allow free games in without a fee, if only because uploading mods to Workshop also doesn't cost anything. However, I see no particular reason why free games would need Steam for anything. About the only unique thing it could offer are multiplayer matchmaking and anticheat, but generally, multiplayer games want money from their players one way or another.

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 29
  • Madman in a box.
This paywall will prevent projects like this one to happen.. Which is really sad for me.
Couldn't they do without Steam, though? Steam Workshop is a neat modding platform, but it's nothing revolutionary. It's slightly more convenient than downloading from the browser, but if they didn't have access to Steam, they could just set up their own system. Kerbal Space Program, for example, has a community-made downloader capable of pulling updates from Github or other download sites. They also set up a pretty good site for uploading mods. A free game could easily do the same.

It'd be a reasonable move to allow free games in without a fee, if only because uploading mods to Workshop also doesn't cost anything. However, I see no particular reason why free games would need Steam for anything. About the only unique thing it could offer are multiplayer matchmaking and anticheat, but generally, multiplayer games want money from their players one way or another.
90% of people who play videogames have problems installing a game from a disk, I had to install X-wing vs Tie Fighter from GOG.com for my brother because he couldn't tell what he had to do to install it himself.
Or to be more clear: a lot of people are so used to steam they don't search for games outside it and have problem installing stuff that isn't in it.
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 

Offline Scotty

  • 1.21 gigawatts!
  • Moderator
  • 211
  • Guns, guns, guns.
"I don't have a problem, therefore there must not be a problem for anyone."

 

Online Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Minecraft
    • Steam
    • Something
Not only that, but saying "well they don't need Steam" is ignoring the tens-of-millions-of-active-users elephant in the room.  If you make a great free game and want a bunch of people to see it, what's the one place on the planet you want to have it hosted?

 
Saturday night live?

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • The sky is the limit.
Not only that, but saying "well they don't need Steam" is ignoring the tens-of-millions-of-active-users elephant in the room.  If you make a great free game and want a bunch of people to see it, what's the one place on the planet you want to have it hosted?
Wouldn't they be able to build up an userbase if they didn't use Steam, though? They could spread the word on forums, maybe buy some cheap advertising, you know, the old fashioned way? Kerbal Space Program somehow got very popular way before it ended up on Steam. Warzone 2100 never was on Steam. MW4: Mercenaries didn't need Steam. FS2 only got on Steam recently and FSO never had a need for such a thing (though a workshop-like idea was floated before. Indeed, it was probably around before Steam Workshop even existed). Diaspora wouldn't be able to get on Steam even if the team wanted that. X-Wing: Alliance graphical overhaul was going on long before the game was put on Steam. For some reason, all those projects are alive and well.

Steam is nice because its convenient, but there was gaming before Steam, too. The world doesn't end on Steam. It's important for commercial games, because it brings sales revenue. For a freeware game, this is not a primary concern. The userbase might be smaller than it would be with Steam, but this doesn't directly hurt the project's ability to continue.
"I don't have a problem, therefore there must not be a problem for anyone."
So, you're saying is that most people are too moronic to download a self-extracting installer and follow the instructions? OK, maybe they are. Still, I'd imagine that it's possible to build up a decent userbase out of people who are just a bit smarter than then rest, thus being capable of using an old-fashioned installer.

 

Online Mongoose

  • Rikki-Tikki-Tavi
  • Global Moderator
  • 212
  • This brain for rent.
    • Minecraft
    • Steam
    • Something
Wouldn't they be able to build up an userbase if they didn't use Steam, though? They could spread the word on forums, maybe buy some cheap advertising, you know, the old fashioned way? Kerbal Space Program somehow got very popular way before it ended up on Steam. Warzone 2100 never was on Steam. MW4: Mercenaries didn't need Steam. FS2 only got on Steam recently and FSO never had a need for such a thing (though a workshop-like idea was floated before. Indeed, it was probably around before Steam Workshop even existed). Diaspora wouldn't be able to get on Steam even if the team wanted that. X-Wing: Alliance graphical overhaul was going on long before the game was put on Steam. For some reason, all those projects are alive and well.

Steam is nice because its convenient, but there was gaming before Steam, too. The world doesn't end on Steam. It's important for commercial games, because it brings sales revenue. For a freeware game, this is not a primary concern. The userbase might be smaller than it would be with Steam, but this doesn't directly hurt the project's ability to continue.
Half the games you mentioned are 15-year-old retail titles, so obviously neither the Steam nor freeware arguments apply to them, but the ones with currently-active projects have absolutely miniscule fanbases compared to the Steam userbase.  Yes, KSP was a modest success before it wound up on Steam, but I can absolutely guarantee you that it has sold substantially more copies on that platform than directly from Squad's site.  (Plus, again, it's not freeware.)  Yes, it's possible for a (non-EA) PC game to become a hit without Steam, but unless you're a runaway juggernaut like Minecraft, the vast majority of potential players aren't going to go out of their way to track you down.  Steam is where the eyeballs are, and getting a game on it provides multiple tangible benefits.

I mean, you don't think that we'd get FSO or Diaspora on Steam if we were able to?  The teams wouldn't have to think twice.