next »

[s0]

the fact remains that without steam's earlier "quality control" of only letting AAA titles and high profile indies in it's become 1000 times easier to sell an indie game on pc. for the overwhelming majority of released indie games, discoverability is immeasurably better than it would have been in, say, 2010.

repeating myself here, but going back to terrible gatekeepers like the IGF and an "all or nothing" model where youre either one of the chosen few who get on steam or never sell anything is NOT something most devs posting in this thread actually want.

[Bad_Dude 2017]

Ah, I was waiting for "steam owes QA to everyone" with carefully prepared rant.
Old style control is 2009, fulltime valve greenlight QA staff would be much inferior to general voting.
They would need to be 100% zen game trend specialists who are tasked with judging and turning down unknown projects in a total vacuum of opinions. "Trash game" is not really measurable metric. Is Rust bad survival game? Is Undertale rpg maker trash? Is FNAF bad Slenderman screamcam game?
Not mention in alternate universe same people would be upset with same power, but this time they would spin "sjw bias" narrative with some rejected devs pandering to that while other side would write article after article about steam letting in "problematic" games.

[Photon]

Ah, I was waiting for "steam owes QA to everyone" with carefully prepared rant.

?

Old style control is 2009, fulltime valve greenlight QA staff would be much inferior to general voting.
They would need to be 100% zen game trend specialists who are tasked with judging and turning down unknown projects in a total vacuum of opinions. "Trash game" is not really measurable metric. Is Rust bad survival game? Is Undertale rpg maker trash? Is FNAF bad Slenderman screamcam game?
Not mention in alternate universe same people would be upset with same power, but this time they would spin "sjw bias" narrative with some rejected devs pandering to that while other side would write article after article about steam letting in "problematic" games.

I'm not saying Steam needs an internal review system to play through entire games, but expecting a simple fee to cut down on the "noise," as they put it, probably isn't going to pan out nearly as well as one might think. Pertaining to quality control, certainly there's a happy middle ground that could be found, right?

[Bad_Dude 2017]

i was jumping off from that grocery store analogy, i guess my rant is not pointed directly at you as much as it is at all people who cry for moderation on tweeter and their cozy articles

[PaulWv2.017]

Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting this, but I read a comment on some article about how essentially its not Steam's job to do quality control; they are a distribution platform. To that, I call total bull. That's like saying the grocery store doesn't have to concern themselves with the quality of their produce and food. They distribute it and that's all that matters, which I'm sure most of us would agree that that's complete bologne.

That's one of them Jim Sterling false metaphors. One, a grocery store is interested in quality control because they have competition, and two, they have shelf space constraints.

Again, because Steam is a de facto monopoly, they have a duty not to be terribly critical, in much the same way that Microsoft shouldn't be walling off their OS to select developers. Why do consoles get away with it? Because they're deliberately marketed as children's/teen's toys, not multi-use workstations.

[J-Snake]

A high fee would be good for publishers, that one is for sure.

[Photon]

Hopefully I'm not misrepresenting this, but I read a comment on some article about how essentially its not Steam's job to do quality control; they are a distribution platform. To that, I call total bull. That's like saying the grocery store doesn't have to concern themselves with the quality of their produce and food. They distribute it and that's all that matters, which I'm sure most of us would agree that that's complete bologne.

That's one of them Jim Sterling false metaphors. One, a grocery store is interested in quality control because they have competition, and two, they have shelf space constraints.

Again, because Steam is a de facto monopoly, they have a duty not to be terribly critical, in much the same way that Microsoft shouldn't be walling off their OS to select developers. Why do consoles get away with it? Because they're deliberately marketed as children's/teen's toys, not multi-use workstations.

You omitted the second half of my paragraph, where I essentially said "but" followed by what you just said.

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

note for people who ranted about devs who used to publish games on greenlight and rely on trade cards sales.

you only get 10% of what cards generate.

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

They would need to be 100% zen game trend specialists who are tasked with judging and turning down unknown projects in a total vacuum of opinions. "Trash game" is not really measurable metric. Is Rust bad survival game? Is Undertale rpg maker trash? Is FNAF bad Slenderman screamcam game?

you understand that most market leaders in their fields can afford to do this, right? you understand that steam is the wealthiest games distributor (possibly like, digital content distributor period) in the world, right? The only reason valve doesn't do this is because they don't have credible competition. It's a basic service that can and should be expected from large distributors.

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

By 2011, Steam controlled over half of the digital PC game market and Valve was the most profitable company per employee in the United States.[4]

[s0]

The only reason valve doesn't do this is because they don't have credible competition. It's a basic service that can and should be expected from large distributors.

i think that's his point.........

[Photon]

note for people who ranted about devs who used to publish games on greenlight and rely on trade cards sales.

you only get 10% of what cards generate.

My impressions was that it didn't have to do with the actual trade card revenue. It was simply the fact that it makes the game a profitable target for the card farmers, thus driving sales.

[Photon]

They would need to be 100% zen game trend specialists who are tasked with judging and turning down unknown projects in a total vacuum of opinions. "Trash game" is not really measurable metric. Is Rust bad survival game? Is Undertale rpg maker trash? Is FNAF bad Slenderman screamcam game?

you understand that most market leaders in their fields can afford to do this, right? you understand that steam is the wealthiest games distributor (possibly like, digital content distributor period) in the world, right? The only reason valve doesn't do this is because they don't have credible competition. It's a basic service that can and should be expected from large distributors.

This is why I think, given time, something like itch.io could continue gaining traction and eventually force better market practices. Unlikely? Maybe, but still a possibility.

Realize, of course, that by "time" I'm talking several years.

[Richard Kain]

The only reason valve doesn't do this is because they don't have credible competition. It's a basic service that can and should be expected from large distributors.

I don't think it's quite as cut-and-dry as you are making it out to be. I also don't think Valve deserves a free pass on this issue. I can understand and appreciate why Valve handles this issue the way they have been handling it. I also know that Valve knows what the more optimal solution is, and avoids that solution because it doesn't line their pockets with filthy lucre.

Valve could establish a human-supported approvals team. It would require a fairly large team, and one specifically trained to peruse and evaluate submitted game titles. An effective team of this type would require critical judgement, solid communication skills, a decent amount of technical expertise, and a LOT of patience. Given the sheer workload we would be talking about, I'm thinking they would have to start it off at 30 heads minimum, probably scaling it up to double or triple that initial number. And this team would have to be specialized, full-time staff. 40-hour work week minimum.

Since you can't just hire interns for this sort of work, we're talking somewhere on the order of 50K annual starting salary for such a team, probably bumping up into the 60-70k area for the more experienced members. And this is just assuming that the team is not located in an expensive area. If they're located in places like California or Seattle, you can just bump those figures up by around 20-30k. So, we're looking at a one and a half million dollar per year continuing expense for the bare minimum team, scaling up to around three and a half million after you flesh the team out to handle more submissions.

I'm not saying Valve can't handle such an expense, but you can see why they would be more eager to pursue other solutions. Those figures are pure expense, no guaranteed return on investment. And they're recurring. You have to continue paying those salaries and benefits year after year. When you design an automated community-driven system like Greenlight, it costs next to nothing to keep that going. When you scrap Greenlight and replace it with Steam Direct, you get to line the company coffers with submission fees that Valve may or may not have to pay back. That approach actually has the chance of making the company more money.

Valve's motivations in this matter are extremely mercenary. They're making these choices because they are a business, and they want to make their accountants happy. When accountants see revenue increases, they get happy. When they see recurring expenses that don't boost sales they get sad. It's not the best solution for developers, and it's not the best solution for players. But you can easily understand why it might be seen as the best solution for Valve.

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

I agree with your analysis -- but I don't see how that's anything but cut and dry.

The most profitable company per person in america, probably the world, wants to save a tiny fraction of its money because there's no pressure on them from either competitors or their clients to do better. It's not seen as the best solution for obvious reasons: the people it benefits have no leverage.

[Photon]

Yeah, it just kinda reinforcing the point. There IS a better way to do it that's well within Valve's power to do. But since there's no competing force making it a necessity, why bother? And believe it or not, I have a feeling 3 million dollars a year is pocket change for Valve and companies making far less spend far more on staffing.

We just have to come to grips with the fact that, bottom line, Valve's interest in being our "friend" is very one-dimensional.

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

note for people who ranted about devs who used to publish games on greenlight and rely on trade cards sales.

you only get 10% of what cards generate.

My impressions was that it didn't have to do with the actual trade card revenue. It was simply the fact that it makes the game a profitable target for the card farmers, thus driving sales.

Digital homicide and similar devs sent free keys for cards. Card farmers mostly relies on either cheap games (~10 cent value game) or giveaways. Also all the groupee bundle and indiegala trash. (10cent value games)
Those games don't sell much on steam store.
Steam is the only winner here. Devs gain almost nothing from their game sales, and steam takes 90% of card trade.

[Bad_Dude 2017]

They would need to be 100% zen game trend specialists who are tasked with judging and turning down unknown projects in a total vacuum of opinions. "Trash game" is not really measurable metric. Is Rust bad survival game? Is Undertale rpg maker trash? Is FNAF bad Slenderman screamcam game?

you understand that most market leaders in their fields can afford to do this, right? you understand that steam is the wealthiest games distributor (possibly like, digital content distributor period) in the world, right? The only reason valve doesn't do this is because they don't have credible competition. It's a basic service that can and should be expected from large distributors.

its not question of affordability, its entirely possible, i just think less people would be happy with that choice. I guess i should have stressed out that i meant greenlight moderators and not regular indie publishing in the vein of GOG and ps4.
I just think that design is more effective in moderation of large crowds of people and valve is going that way.

[Photon]

They would need to be 100% zen game trend specialists who are tasked with judging and turning down unknown projects in a total vacuum of opinions. "Trash game" is not really measurable metric. Is Rust bad survival game? Is Undertale rpg maker trash? Is FNAF bad Slenderman screamcam game?

you understand that most market leaders in their fields can afford to do this, right? you understand that steam is the wealthiest games distributor (possibly like, digital content distributor period) in the world, right? The only reason valve doesn't do this is because they don't have credible competition. It's a basic service that can and should be expected from large distributors.

its not question of affordability, its entirely possible, i just think less people would be happy with that choice. I guess i should have stressed out that i meant greenlight moderators and not regular indie publishing in the vein of GOG and ps4.
I just think that design is more effective in moderation of large crowds of people and valve is going that way.

But does the crowd want to be the moderator? That's the kicker. I don't think anyone here wants Steam to go "Big Brother" on us for game releases, but I don't think expecting some minimum standard of quality for their storefront is unreasonable.

But I feel like I'm repeating myself now. I guess as long as we keep throwing money at it, it doesn't really matter.

[Bad_Dude 2017]

minimum standard of quality

whats that
everyone tell me which product desrves to pass greenlight(black desert excluded for obvious reasons)