Greenlight Replacement

[Henryetha]

$100 isn't a big deal in countries with strong economy.

It is, if you have a family to take care for besides.
As mother I think twice, if I shall spend $100 for putting my game on steam or if I rather spend them on my children.
And I'm sure there are many people in the same boat.

 

[RHachicho]

Hmm not sure what your point is Henryetha .. I mean If you sell 20 copies total at $5 a copy you would make that back .. Hell if you get $1000 in sales you not only make more profit but get the money back. Steam is supposed to be for serious developers. If you just want to casually distribute a game you made there are many forums you can post download links on. Hell as long as you make $1000 in sales you would get a $500 inlay back. So let's talk about what it would mean to get $1000 in sales

$5 games 200 copies
$15 games 67 copies
$ 30 games 34 copies.

Not sales numbers you should really miss if you have any real confidence in your product .. It might be a bit more difficult for $5 games if they are highly casual. But if you have something worth playing it can also convince more people to buy the game. As it represents less risk on their part.

I would honestly say that if you want to put on a game and don't expect to get at least $1000 back in raw sales then you shouldn't be on steam. It's supposed to be a professional storefront .. not a yard sale.

 

[Henryetha]

Well, usually I'd set the price for the first released game at about 0,99 € - 1,99 €.
And looking at other rpg maker games, there are many around that price class.

I'm not only a developer but also a player and buyer.
With nearly 900 games in the steam library there are many games for comparism.

Then again there are really good games free to play, there you either spend the 100$ and hope for support/donations or you don't release on steam, which is actually a pitty.

And 30$ for an rpg maker game.. this will be hard to justify as the market is flooded and will be flooded aswell in future.
For comparism:
You get The Witcher 3 for 30$ when it's on sale..

Then again - for many people it's np at all to pay these 100$ and release their low quality game - which completely misses the point of steam being a "professional storefront".

Anyway, 100$ is reasonable (also and especially for people new in the game development - and everyone started at some point), but "is not a big deal" simply isn't true for everyone.

 

[RHachicho]

Yeah I was just giving an example of an upper limit with $30

But seriously 1.99? If your game is only worth that much I'd say itch.io is a better place for it than steam. Can you give me a link to one of your games so I can see just what you are charging $1.99 for?

 

[txtk]

The Greenlight system will be abolished when they finished the installation process of the new Direct system.

Based on the trending of daily unique visitors that we've been keep track off, both Steam and IO have been trending up. Steam is basically one of the Youtubes, the Googles of the gaming world. So I don't expect any downfall to them even if they make a bunch of mistakes. There have been no real competition to them whatsoever.

And honestly, I've a feeling that they don't really care much about the shovelwares stuff. Itch io is full of shovelwares and they're doing just fine. Itch io don't even care about shovelwares, they just let the market and the buyers use their wallets to decide what is a good game and what is a bad game. Itch io was the first who follow this line of thinking and then gamejolt follows and then now Steam. I can see the trend here.

Last week I chatted with a friend who is working for Steam, he said that the main reason for the change was that Steam just no longer can check on the greenlit games. There are just too many games. A few years ago, the Greenlight system was replaced the manually testing system was actually to reduce the workload of the employees, the game testers. And more and more games come in over time and finally it was just too much, especially last year. They finally followed the Itch io, Gamejolt footsteps and abolished the game tests altogether.

This is a very interesting concept and philosophy that started by Itch io, basically, they want to make it fastest and easiest for the developers. As a developer, I like it.

My friend don't work in the website or server department but I have to guess that Steam must have known exactly where most of the shovelwares come from, through the IP addresses of the developers, if they were even care about the shovelwares. And this thing must have affected their decision.

 

[RHachicho]

That's a short sighted position for a developer. If you are an extreme amateur itch.io already exists. What you DON'T want as a developer is for your new game to leave the new releases front page within days of release because some company decided to port all it's mobile games or release it's entire back catalogue of 15+ year old games. Not too long ago you used to be able to say .. "My game was on steam" and people would automatically make the connection that it wasn't a completely broken pile of rubbish. That's the value that being on the steam storefront had to a developer. And that's why people campaigned and campaigned and steam greenlight was introduced in the first place. The easier you make steam membership THE LESS IT IS WORTH. Now admittedly in the beginning there where a lot of good games that needed to be on steam and weren't. So things needed to get easier. But this is waaay too far the other side. We don't need two itch.io's. We need steam back.

 

[txtk]

Update: The Greenlight system just have been retired. The Direct system will start on 6/13/2017.

As for the current discussion, yeah, of course I don't want my game stands next to a bunch of shovelwares or crapwares so people will assume that my game is bad, too.

The thing is, it's just the reality nowadays with so much indie games, small games, and game engines, so many games being made, upload and published every single day. The old way of fully test each game before release is getting tiresome for the stores and becoming impossible for sites with many developers like Itch io and Steam.

I think the Itch io story is really awesome. When they first came out, a lot of people were skeptical. The idea of completely abandon the checking/testing process of the game before release, completely let the developers and buyers decide what are "awesomewares" and what are crapwares, seemed crazy at the time, and now people are slowly copying it (Playfield, Gamejolt, Steam, ....) .

It basically forced developers/publishers to up their game in term of presentation and marketing, and forced the players/buyers to take more time to search carefully.

If a store is so small or they mainly work with AAA games, they can review each game before release. But for the big stores who strike for indie friendly, developer friendly, this seems to be the trendy way to go. No way they can review 1000+ games on a daily basis. I mean, they can, but it would take a huge number of employees, which mean more expense.

The voting system simply doesn't work with all the community rigged votes. They can set a higher number of fee, but the higher the fee, the more risk of a good game couldn't get on Steam but will be sell on Itch Io (check my old posts on the rapid rising of Itch io). Do they want to risk yielding a bunch of good games to Itch io and other portals? Do they want to risk blocking out genuine indie developers from poor countries? With $500, you can pay for all source of things and complete a small game with custom resources in some countries.

At the end of the day, there are no perfect plan. They'll have to give up something to get something.

 

[Henryetha]

Yeah I was just giving an example of an upper limit with $30

But seriously 1.99? If your game is only worth that much I'd say itch.io is a better place for it than steam. Can you give me a link to one of your games so I can see just what you are charging $1.99 for?

No, I haven't released one. I am saying "I would set the price".
However, I'd say you can tell already by some map screenshots, that there's more effort behind my game than on many others which already are being sold on steam.
I'm in no position to tell how much my game will be worth. But as I said, the market is flooded.. so when comparing prices of usual rpg maker games.. most are between 3,99 - 7,99 €.
But many also are at a much lower price.

Also I wouldn't set a "game's value" on its selling price.
As said, there are very good free to play games.

And I wouldn't put a game on steam to earn money either.
That's a personal wish.
Usually I did plan to make it either free or at a very low price, that's why I say 0,99 - 1,99 €.

Why Steam?
Myself I use Steam alot, it's MY place as a player where I collect my games on.
I dislike the idea to focus on another platform to publish my own game.
But it's sad that one would be forced to set a minimum price so he can make up the costs for publishing the game.
That the game self shall have some qualitative value is something which should be selfunderstood.
Sure.. sadly not "selfunderstood" for everyone..
A majority of the rpgm games on steam show already on their screenshots/videos not much effort.

 

[RHachicho]

I'm sorry but all these seem like idealistic sentiments that really don't work in reality. The reality is that games that are worth something are generally sold for more than $1.99 unless they can count on selling a LOT of copies.

Without you providing a link to your game I really can't judge whether or not you are underselling yourself. But your own personal inclinations do not determine what is best for a whole platform. And as I said steam is not supposed to be a yard sale where just anyone can put their game with no real intention of earning money. Because believe it or not by doing this you are hurting developers that ARE trying to earn money. They are depending on the overall quality level of their platform and above everything their time in the front page spotlight. Which is going to be cut short if everyone gets to put their smaller games on the platform.

Itch.io was created with this kind of gaming in mind and it IS a yard sale. I know you will probably take offense at this .. But I don't think your personal preference for steam should have any bearing on your games suitability for the platform. Again I can't really judge your game without seeing it for myself. I am genuinely NOT putting you in the "lazy developer" category without seeing what you make for myself. But if you are someone who wants to make a $10 game and charge $1.99 for it you are just hurting yourself. And the rest of the industry by doing that. Everyone else needs to get paid. And if you undersell yourself you undercut people who need the money. It's the same problem that would happen if some rich guy came along into any field and did all the work for free because he could. Now yeah the customers are gonna jump for joy. But all the rest of the workers are out of a job. If you make a $10 game you have a responsibility to charge ten damn dollars for it XD

 

[Henryetha]

@RHachicho I see your point, but I cannot fully agree..
I play videogames since I'm a little girl and during my lifetime I have purchased alot of titles and played even more titles.
There are just many very good games which are simply free - which is less than $1,99.

Path of Exile - just one example.
The game is free to play without pay2win elements.
And it's a good game.
Does this keep people from buying Blizzard's Diablo?
Hardly. (and Blizzard isn't even on Steam)

Will you stop buying a book for $25 because there is another title for $5?
Not if you want to read that specific title.

Also we live in a time where people can simply download illegal their stuff - if they are not willing to pay the price.
(That goes for the more expensive titles)
So the buyer self needs to WANT support the developer (or company in other cases).
The game "speaks" for itself - and I say this as a gamer / buyer / consumer.

A videogame is a piece of art, just like music or literature - and can't be measured by its price.

Also if you want to call sth cheap games, then just take a look on the game bundles..
$1-$3 for a bundle of 6-12 games..
And this is no exception.
Neither do they only contain bad games. In fact I've seen them including some of the better rpgm titles of which I even followed their development in the past.

Steam as a advertising platform.. (this is how I read your post) I don't agree on that.
A commercial videogame becomes rather known by being played by popular youtubers or being advertised on other websites (and magazines).
Again speaking as a player.
The most expensive titles I purchased on steam, I bought after seeing them in Let's Plays or reading about them in gaming magazines or on social media.

And I don't take offense.
I know you can't judge my game without having played it. And I cannot show it as long there is not even a demo.
So let's just say it would be "suitability" (its quality) for the platform, this won't change the fact that I am making a game because I have a passion for it and not to make money.
And seeing which really bad titles are (seemingly) "suitable" for the steam platform.. I won't even judge maps only containing RTP resources.. but no effort at all put in the maps, not even shift clicked when it's necessary.. + some 08/15 dialogues + the 08/15 standard battle.. and overall even map bugs which wont let you progress further (had that too already!) - this I'd rather take as an offense.
Putting a game on steam which seems like 2 days max of rpgm work, putting the $5 price tag and lay back - this is offending me as a player AND as a developer who actually makes alot of effort.

 

[RHachicho]

Well the whole if you read a $25 book what would stop you from reading a $5 book analogy doesn't really work. As we aren't talking about a customers willingness to buy the product or their budget we are talking about shelf space. The problem is that the whole store is full of $5 books that aren't really very good .. what happens. People stop shopping at the store. And even the customers that come in might not even see the $25 book and half of the ones that do will probably just buy a few $5 books because they haven't heard of the $25 one and don't wanna risk paying more for something that's around about the same.

As for being on steam being a selling point all it's own. Yes it is no longer true. Games are mostly publicized by platforms like youtube/twitch. However we would all do well to remember that the rise of the indie developer scene started in the first place because steam started letting those titles into the same space as AAA games. Before then the idea of some random studio or person just making a game .. and having that game be worth anything at all was widely considered absurd. And it was steams credibility as a platform that changed this widely held belief.

As for the game bundles the vast majority of those games have been out a long time. And have already made their money. Therefore they can afford to lower the price. This is common practice thought the game industry. And shoving a game into a bundle that you know is good but has already recouped it's cost is a good play for some free publicity. It's not a valid move for a new developer looking to establish itself financially.

I completely agree that the bug filled rtp only messes do nothing for the platform at all. But it is THESE people I wish to keep out with the higher bar for entry. Not people who genuinely try to produce a good game. Now yeah a higher bar might keep out some people who are genuinely passionate/talented but who don't have much money. But it's a small price to pay for taking out the trash. I think I've said about everything I'm gonna on the subject at this point.

 

[SinのAria]

Really the problem I had with the new change is that it really hurts those who make free games. Now you either have to charge a price and hope to recover the money or you have to pay 100 per game and hope that people will donate to you. I for one don't want to put a "Oh hey, I accept donations if you liked the game" into my games.

 

[Jomarcenter]

Really the problem I had with the new change is that it really hurts those who make free games. Now you either have to charge a price and hope to recover the money or you have to pay 100 per game and hope that people will donate to you. I for one don't want to put a "Oh hey, I accept donations if you liked the game" into my games.

Well according to steam they will check on the game itself before you pay up. I think if it a good free to play game on steam standards they could waved or even lower a price for a game to be put up on the store. They don't mentioned how they will handled free to play games anyway especially for games without IAP of any kinds. I think it best to wait and see what would be the result of their plans. they already fix the problems that could raised because it the cheapest they can do (Trading cards, abuses, etc...) the only think that we hoped there won't be another Homicide Studio Incident on steam after Direct is release.

And also we don't even know how will they priced for regions. For Philippines it cost 2200 pesos for greenlight which is half of 100$ (44.00 $) in today value.

 

[sabao]

@Henryetha I'd just like to raise that with or without the recent changes in Steam's policy, you would have had to pay $100 anyway. Greenlight had a one time application fee of $100. Direct is actually the better deal in this case because at least now you have an opportunity to earn that initial investment back through sales.

Greenlight was great on paper but as far as screening for any actual quality goes, it wasn't really working. Everyone was getting approved. I've talked to a large number of indies that have run campaigns on Greenlight and none of them have failed to get their game approved. The only entries that don't get approved have either done a horrible job at getting word out (very rare), have regional licensing issues (commercial games that have regional publishers) or have attempted to cheat the system. If you've ever run a campaign before, you'll know your dashboard has analytics for your own campaign as well a side-by-side to compare your daily/weekly performance with other Greenlight campaigns, so these these things were pretty easy to catch.

IMO, whether or not Direct will be an improvement depends entirely on how decent their screening process becomes, where details remain fuzzy. I have some degree of faith that it will be considerate of projects with smaller production values and stuff, but some standards do have to be set. If the rate of new games on Steam goes on the way it does, it'd get as hard to sell games on Steam as it is on mobile.

 

[Henryetha]

@sabao
I was aware of that Greenlight fee. However, it was a one time fee.
The issue aren't really those $100 by itself, at first place I just pointed out that saying

$100 isn't a big deal in countries with strong economy.

isn't quite true for everyone.
Sure you can calculate with a good game, make good advertisement, and get those $100 back.
But seriously.. when I am working hundreds or thousands of hours on my game - it is MY work after all - then I should have all the rights to decide if I wanna sell that game at all or if I created it to share my love and passion put into that project with other gamers.
And if you put a free2play game on steam - as far as I know - you also have to pay the fee now every single time.
As I mentioned above already.. videogames aren't only "products", they are artworks..
On the other side.. with direct it will be easier now for developers who just wanna make the fast money. But usually as a gamer you can tell if a game is just an okay game or if someone rly put efforts and his heart into it.

Not to mention that native english speakers are generally favoured by this aswell as the english speaking player base is much wider.
So as a non-english speaker you either have to hire someone checking your grammar in the game (more costs) OR publish it including some grammar errors OR publish it only in your language - thus - smaller player base and less people who will buy your game.

With the one time fee you could at least publish various projects.
And yes, going through the greenlight process.. but you anyway need to do some advertising for your games.. also with direct, else you might have it on steam but hardly anyone will buy it.

 

[bgillisp]

@Henryetha : You always have the right to decide to show off the game. No one is making you post the game on Steam after all. Just like the authors who self publish, you could self publish your game by posting it on your own website. Think of the $100 as a few to pay for higher exposure of your game, just like say paying someone to host art for an art show.

 

[sabao]

@Henryetha I live in a third world Asian country with a day job that paid $540 a month which only barely covers living expenses. Every other personal expense I have to cover with freelance work. The company I worked for closed up shop a month ago so now I have to double down on the latter to survive. I'll have three-four hours a day for making my games. More if I cut back on sleep.

Some indie game devs have gone so far as living in homeless shelters and working on their games in public libraries just to get their game out. I don't believe this is a bright idea under any circumstance, but my point is anything worth pursuing never comes easy. You very much have the right to share anything you make with the world, but as @bgillisp says, it doesn't have to be on Steam.

We put a game up on Steam not too long ago priced at $4.99 and we easily passed $200 in sales in a month*. It wasn't even that great of a game, but we made back the $100 we spent on Greenlight fairly easily. I'd have cried foul if it were higher, but $100 for the exposure Steam gives you is pretty damned lenient.

Some folks may not care for turning a profit with their games. The rest may actually want to earn cash to build capital for bigger, more ambitious projects or depend on that income to keep the lights on.

*Some really stupid things happened involving the studio, and the game was pulled from Steam as a result. The game was in Steam's store for around a month.

 

[Henryetha]

I will make this short now cuz I feel like keep repeating myself:

- I don't say $100 is too much, I just say "not a big deal" is not true. And yes, I've already said that.
- I want to publish on steam, myself I have a 900+ games library on steam and it's my #1 platform for gaming. Bad enough I have to justify myself for that. And yes, I also mentioned this already.
- You may go for profit as much as you want (or need to). But just because you have to doesn't mean I was not allowed to make a free game.
- There are already tons of F2P games on steam. They didn't keep you from earning $500 in one month.

- There are also passionate gamers who cannot afford games. There are always two sides.

My husband's family is from colombia.. yes, I'm european, but I'm not a spoilt little girl who knows nothing. In fact it's one of the major reasons why I dislike going for making money with my game.
And the $100 fee wouldn't keep me from going for steam. Still it IS something to consider. $100 is real money - even in europe. Even if the values are different and won't keep us from buying food, it is still money. And when you have children, you generally will spend your money with some sense of responsibility - whereever you're living, you'd always go sure first, that your children have everything they need - which may be food and costs for transit + university in some countries.. in other countries even superficial things like new clothes.. but $100 is not an amount you would spend mindless, unless you only are responsible for yourself.

 

[sabao]

As illustrated above, a lot of people work several jobs just to survive. $100 is absolutely not nothing. I've never said that it 'wasn't a big deal'.

There are definitely devs out there that just want to make games and don't care about making money and there is definitely a market of gamers out there who can't afford anything other than F2P. That's fine.

What I am saying, however, is that there is actual value in the exposure being on Steam provides your game. If this new service helps cull lower quality games and improves curation, then that's more views and potential downloads for my own game. It's a service they have every right to charge for, and devs can either choose to play ball or publish elsewhere.

 

[Henryetha]

$100 is absolutely not nothing. I've never said that it 'wasn't a big deal'.

So in the end we do agree.
Because this is why I started to respond to this discussion at all. Because right in my 2. response I stated that $100 still was a reasonable price...