Nice, nice, nice. Don't see much of these large kind of sprites.

Thanks.

I've started on the other sprite.


Both of them are mostly tests. The actual sprites will probably look different and have simpler wings and hair (at least this one) to facilitate easier animation. Though I'm aiming at having them in a similar size to this.

I haven't been pixeling for a while. Trying to get back into the swing of things.


Still wip though.

Based on my concept sketch.

It's on the steam workshop page.

What? That newspost? What happens when that post gets pushed that page eventually?  Not to mention that to actually get to the Steam Workshop page I have to go through the "My Workshop" page. Now like I said, this might not be an issue for very long since there's sopme revamping of the community side going on, and hopefully things will improve soon.

Do you really want greenlight to be advertised on the steam store frontpage?

Yes, Greenlight should have a place on the frontpage. If Greenlight is supposed to work by allowing the users to vote on games they like, then the process to do so has to be as accessible as possible.

Do you really Think about the kind of voter that will bring in.

If downvoting has no real effect towards the games viability on Steam, as some people claim (though I have not seen anything substantiating that yet) then why is this even an issue at all? With some simple comment moderating functions for the developer, "that kind of voter" would not be much of a problem. If downvoting actually DOES impact your games viability, then yes, that's a potential problem. But that doesn't change that for Greenlight to be viable longterm, it needs exposure.

I'm not saying Greenlight should take up the entire front page of the store, but having a Greenlight tab or something to that effect seems very much necessary. Casual users just aren't going to jump through the hoops to get to the Greenlight page from the Workshop, nor are they going to notice the tiny button at the very bottom of the store front page.

I just saw that just now so technically I was incorrect before. But like I said, that little button is incredibly easy to miss and is pretty much the definition of "pushing something aside".

Upon consideration, the fee isn't that terrible. It's a bit high in my opnion, but far from insurmountable. Helps that it's a one time fee and the proceeds go to charity, I guess.

But what bothers me is if Valve is going to keep pushing Greenlight. Currently there is no way to get to the Greenlight page from the Steam store main page. Things to help push Greenlight (like featured projects, a link to the Greenlight page, etc) could be in the works for this. There was the banner link they had when it launched, that's gone now. It's a bit early to say anything for certain, but if Valve doesn't push Greenlight more, the entire endeavour is pointless.

Greenlight isn't a marketplace for Steam to sell games or create awareness of games. It's a filter. It's a way for Steam to get a feel for what's currently hot out there. This isn't at all comparable to XBLIG nor XBLA, so I'm not sure what you mean with Microsoft?

Actually, it is. The process of getting a game onto XBLIG is very similar to Greenlight. You put up the game for rating by the community and if it gets rated enough, it's then put onto XBLIG. Thing is, Microsoft has kind of pushed XBLIG aside and it doesn't really do all that well afaik.

And yes, it's true, Greenlights primary function is to act as a filter Valve can use to gauge interest in a game. But it also functions as a way, as I've already stated, to showcase games with the possibility of people finding games they might not have otherwise. That's the entire reason the list is randomized (though I'd rethink that design choice if I were them).

Of course not. But you were talking about Greenlight being spammed with "fake and terrible games". If there's no browsable frontpage for these games to show up on, there's no incentive for people to submit them. Remove the incentive for people submitting "fake and terrible games" instead of punishing those submitting actual good games.

The browsing list actually does serve a purpose (even if its current implementation leaves much to be desired) and that is the ability to browse through the list and maybe stumble upon something you might not have noticed otherwise.

If all you want is a page on Greenlight you can link to, why do you need it? If you can raise enough interest for it on your own, why not just set up your own site and sell it through there?

For Greenlight to be successful it needs exposure (M$ didn't understand this, I hope Valve does, which they seemingly do) and taking away the Greenlight homepage/browsing list would be completely counter productive to that end.

You submit your game, get a page for your game, then place the link on your own website so that fans can visit it and vote for it. That's it.

Nothing is stopping you from doing exactly that anyway.

People on the Greenlight discussion boards are talking about having a fee for listing your game. Not sure what i think about that idea. It could help to weed out the fake and terrible games, but it's not a guarantee. The price would also have to be reasonable. The general consesus currently seem to lie around $10-15, though one guy wanted it to be $100.

8.5 million dollars is a lot of money to take from people by selling a pipe dream. A userbase of 59748 is nowhere near enough to support their business model. How are these two statements contradictory?

Yes, it is a lot of money. Money that can be used, amongst other things, to get some good exposure for the platform. that is what is contradictory in your statements. You complain about them having too small a userbase and at the same time complain that they got a lot of money from people so that they could expand the userbase. I can't speak for how they will use the money, but undoubtedly with the amount of money they got from the campaign they can use some of it to get some decent exposure.

And you say they took money from people. Maybe you'd call it semantics, but no one was forced to give money to them. But again, you seem eager to paint them in a bad light, so I'm guessing that's the reason for your choice of words.

Already previously posted in this thread. The Minecraft thing and the poll of games people want to see on the console are two examples.

Minecraft is already on Android, so that point is moot. And the poll? They put up a poll asking what people wanted to see. That's not misinformation, that's reaching out. Sure, a lot of people that answered the poll had unreasonable expectations, or just plain trolling, but that hardly qualifies as misinformation.

Try again.

... They don't have the numbers... ...It just gets me that the Ouya people have been able to take 8.5 million dollars from people with vague promises, blah di blah

So let me get this straight. On the one hand you complain that they don't have the numbers to support their platform, while in the next breath you complain that they got people to support them so that they might be able to get those kind of numbers?

And please do elaborate on the alleged misinformation.

Playing through Tenchu: Stealth Assassins on hard, messing around in Warsow 1.0 as well as Awesomenauts

[love it.]

Dunno why I didn't notice this before, but:

... and Rarity is best pony.

...

Also, Rarity's combos looks a bit overpowered and I love it.

/)

if it was up to me, everything would be dark souls

Like this?

because I had to write it objectively instead of subjectively,

lolwut? The very instant you started writing about "emasculation/-ing" you failed hard on that note.

My guess is that they have potential investors, and Kickstarter was used to gauge interest.
However, I'm only speculating.