next »

[GregWS]

I too would prefer to buy the game alone than to buy it on Steam, but at least Steam will introduce indie games to a larger audience. I suspect that all most gamers know about indie games is Introversion and Cave Story right now.

You're probably pretty right about that, which is really sad IMO.  I mean, think of all the people missing out on Kenta Cho's shmups, Knytt Stories, and a lot of really obscure titles that I'm missing out on too (I'm definitely looking forward to your editorship rinkuhero, as I hear you're quite the connoisseur of obscure titles).

[Oddbob]

I dunno, man. I'm just not picking up the right sort of vibes from this petition. It does seem a bit too much like TeamQuiggan pointed out earlier. Sort of "I want to be in your party, but you won't let me, boo hoo." and standing outside the door yelling demanding to be let in.

Getting more exposure is always a good thing, but banging on a carriers door demanding to be on their platform after being told no seems, well, petty and pathetic.

[GregWS]

The problem is that we weren't told "No" at all.  We've gotten nothing, and that's the problem here.

If Valve said no to games and provided reasons for it, or even just said "No Indie" and provided reasons, no matter how flawed, then that's their business.  But at this point they haven't given anything but mixed messages.  Both Audiosurf and Everyday Shooter are indie titles on Steam, and there are other high quality indie games that are equally qualified to be there too.  No, there are not a lot of these titles, but they are out there; I think Noitu Love 2 is a good example.

[Oddbob]

I'm sure there are loads of titles that deserve to be seen by a wider audience, but no reply is far and away different from "sending mixed messages".

I'd suggest it's pretty clear cut. Either they are interested in putting the game on their platform or they're not. Indie or nay. Whether you or I believe something deserves to be there isn't really an issue until we're running the platform and it's our business plan we're working to.

I understand it's a pisser not even to get a courtesy reply, and I consider that rather rude myself (although I'm notoriously shit for not replying to emails, so pot/kettle/black away there). It's their platform and their choice as to what goes on the platform and if they don't for whatever reason they see fit believe it slots into their current plans, then I can't see how that's unreasonable.

They might have a certain criteria I'm sure, but I get the feeling that it's "I think this is some cool shit, I think we could sell this" is the overriding one. It sounds nebulous and it likely is, but I'd rather that than a checklist of things your game must achieve because it keeps the tickbox fiends off the service, which as a customer makes my experience with Steam more pleasant. I'd also rather that than having it as a free for all. One of the beauties of Steam for me as a user is that it's not flooded with thousands of titles, it is currently select.

No matter the intention behind this petition, the way I'm reading it is as I posted earlier. I don't think that this is the right way to go about convincing Valve of your worth, rather quite the opposite. Personally, I'd rather put my case by proving that I'm worth having that slot than crying at them like a petulant child.

[Bad Sector]

What Oddbob said, plus: a portal/publisher/etc doesnt usually reply not because they have something against the developer or theyŕe snob, but because even if they dont like your current game, they might like your next and they dont want to lose destroy their bridges with you by saying something negative. I mean, for most people getting a "sod off" response has a greater negative impact in later time than no response at all. In the first case you'll feel like a dumbass if you try to convince them again for your newer game, but in the second case you'll try again because you wont - and shouldnt - be sure about the real reason you never got a reply. It could be a trigger-happy spam filter, your bad grammar misrepresenting the game or that previous game selection prick who got his ass fired last week.

It sucks when you've just made the greatest game ever (by your judgement), but if you think about it a little, its better. You dont want to actually make that uberhit and because of Steam's previously negative response not even consider showing them your game and lose all the potential gamers the platform has.

[GregWS]

but in the second case you'll try again because you wont - and shouldnt - be sure about the real reason you never got a reply.

I don't think I can agree with this.  I always take no reply as rejection; why wouldn't it be?

And if you submit something to Steam that isn't perfect yet, then that's your problem; you shouldn't have submitted it yet anyway.  Very rarely does a game become that much better with a bit more development.  If the core of the game doesn't work (and I'm assuming Valve would say something to this effect), then no matter how many tweaks are made, you're still left with a bad game in the end.

[jeb]

I can fill in with some actual information about Steam.

We've sent two games to them for evaluation. They have always replied (altough it took 2 weeks).

If they don't like the game, they'll say "This game doesn't seem to suit Steam, but please let us see your future projects!".

[Cagey]

I always thought there were plenty of indie games on steam. Does anyone know of any that got rejected?

Have you read the petition?

Oops :D

I think my Valve fan-boyism is clouding my vision

It's such a pity that there aren't better indie games on Steam, considering most of the indie games on steam are shite (or at least not great).

[Zaphos]

Indie stuff on steam seems like it was picked at random ... I can't tell if they just don't care, or if they left the job to someone with bad taste

So, opening it up would definitely be a benefit for the consumers ...

[Bad Sector]

No, opening up Steam (which is a totally different matter btw) is the worst thing Valve could do because it will become full of crap that the current audience (which, btw, includes me) does NOT like. Steam is good because they DO select what is going in and what not and they DO know what their audience likes (or else Steam wouldnt have that audience and their e-shop wouldnt sell anything else than Half-Life 2 and it would close instead of expanding).

Steam is not the only route on the net you know. If you want to find nice stuff there are many places, including this very site. And if you want to sell your stuff, there are many ways to do it beyond Steam. Besides there is good chance that a game isn't already on Steam because either nobody (including the devs) asked it or because Valve thinks that it wouldn't fit in Steam's audience. And yes its THEIR system and THEY decide what goes in and what not.

If you disagree with this, make your own system. Valve provides Steamworks for this and actually binding the IE engine in a window isnt the hardest thing to do. And besides there is always Stardock.

[Oddbob]

It seems obviously very targeted to me. Certainly there's a few there that aren't to my taste, but I can see the logic behind every game on the service. Well, almost - I can't possibly account for Gumboy in a million years but there's always got to be one

You want crazy Minter inspired shooting? Hey! Bullet Candy. You want glowy vectors? Hey! Gravitron. You want something that bridges the elitist/casual divide? Peggle me up.

Each game fills a certain niche. They may not be (and in some cases I'd argue aren't even close to being) best in show, but it's far, far from a random choice.

[diwil]

I signed this, for at least having the selection criteria published. Who knows if they choose games on a whim, or first impression?

"Screenshot looks lame, REJECTED!" and thus, little Timmy in his bedroom office cries.

[ChrisFranklin]

This is the manifestation of what is really an underlying conflict that goes on in virtually all discussion of user-generated content on the internet.  Inclusionism and deletionism were terms coined to discuss differing philosophies about Wikipedia's content, but you can see the ideologies behind them debated here and elsewhere.  You see it discussed with regards to the end of the upcoming Little Big Planet beta ("Save the good stuff, wipe the crap!"), with the differences between YouTube (which accepts just about anything) and Vimeo (which has begun to draw lines in the sands as to what they consider artsy enough), and whenever the subject of democratizing development comes up (I've seen plenty of people concerned that the XBLA Creator's Club will be "flooded with crap").

What really interests me is that it is, at heart, a usability/interface problem.  If I could assure you a way of searching through swaths of user-generated content (including the crappy stuff) such that you were absolutely certain to always find what you wanted then this would be a non-issue. 

[Corpus]

This may have been said already, but... well, TL;DR.

As some people have said, there is no clear-cut way to get your game on Steam. The best way of doing it is basically to get one of the Valve guys drunk.

As "haha, aren't we some crazy dudes" as this is, it is kinda unprofessional and, clearly, far from ideal.

[Movius]

protip: valve want to make money.

Make a game that will make them money.

[Craig Stern]

It sucks when you've just made the greatest game ever (by your judgement), but if you think about it a little, its better. You dont want to actually make that uberhit and because of Steam's previously negative response not even consider showing them your game and lose all the potential gamers the platform has.

I'd like to think that most indie game developers are mature enough to handle constructive criticism without flying off the handle and blacklisting Steam. No one likes being rejected, but if it's accompanied with a measured, thoughtful response that encourages the developer to improve and try again later, there's no reason why that should turn off any indie with even a modicum of professionalism. Just ignoring the developers, on the other hand, is rude, and sends the message that their efforts do not merit consideration.

[Crackerblocks]

Each game fills a certain niche. They may not be (and in some cases I'd argue aren't even close to being) best in show, but it's far, far from a random choice.

And it's conceivable that some of these games would have a no-competition stlye agreement.
If Valve published an equally as good Darwinia clone, for example, each would have its sales cut in half. In theory. Leading to two unhappy devs instead of one happy dev, and no net profit for Valve.

But yeah ignoring people sucks. But I wonder if for book publishers, screenwriter type people, no-reply is the norm.

[ChrisFranklin]

And it's conceivable that some of these games would have a no-competition stlye agreement.
If Valve published an equally as good Darwinia clone, for example, each would have its sales cut in half. In theory. Leading to two unhappy devs instead of one happy dev, and no net profit for Valve.

But yeah ignoring people sucks. But I wonder if for book publishers, screenwriter type people, no-reply is the norm.

Generally exclusivity contracts work to benefit the publisher, not the developer.  I.E., "Sure, we'll publish your game on X terms, but we have the exclusive rights to your property for six months/a year/forever.  You'll be limiting your source of revenue to just us, but it's this or nothing!"  And invariably people sign because it's How Business Is Done in this industry. 

I don't think a developer has ever had the ability to get a non-compete agreement with a publisher they've signed with to not release games of that developer's style.

[moi]

I'm not in favor of this petition for all the reasons already exposed.
People tend to consider Steam as the be-all,end-all of portals, but it's not, there are many alternatives at this moment. It has never been as easy to release a commercial indie game as it is now, you just have to try again somewhere else(and have a good game to start with).
And I don't think this would be particularly good for eiter steam or the indie games.
I think Steam made the choice to target the hardcore shooter fans with some good quality games and a few hand picked small games, I don't know many indie games that would look good when compared to portal for example, or would be as immediately fun as DEFCON, and you can say what you want about the popcap games but they have much better production values than most indie games.
I can understand that steam doesn't want to open its catalogue too much to experimental gameplay.
It's true that some devellopers such as Cas, Cliffsky, Konjak or Derek would deserve to be on board but if they are rejected there is no point making a fuss about it. There are other options.

[arrogancy]

Steam is not the only route on the net you know. If you want to find nice stuff there are many places, including this very site. And if you want to sell your stuff, there are many ways to do it beyond Steam. Besides there is good chance that a game isn't already on Steam because either nobody (including the devs) asked it or because Valve thinks that it wouldn't fit in Steam's audience. And yes its THEIR system and THEY decide what goes in and what not.

There is nothing on the PC that is potentially as profitable as Steam. Self selling hardcore titles means that you typically have to keep your day job (because hardcore titles sell like relative crap on anything but Steam/consoles) which means less time (and motivation) for making more games.

I don't think Steam should "open up," but they do need to use better selection when it comes to indie games. To allow Eternity's Child, but ignore Aquaria at first is beyond retarded, but a lot of that has to do with Eternity's Child having an existing publisher's name behind it doing some of the legwork. But then again Eternity's Child also made it to Wiiware, which is also ridiculous, given how picky they are as well.