next »

[RabTom]

A couple of guys here had contacted steam via email and chatted with them back and forth, but eventually they stopped replying. One of them went to MIGS and talked to a Steam rep. After that they didn't have a problem getting their game on Steam

[moi]

So: be a little social whore and your game will be accepted?

[Hangedman]

So: be a little social whore and your game will be accepted?

why do you hate freedom

[Evan Balster]

Yar.  Again sad but true.  The upside is that just about any given person you meet in the games industry will be reasonably interesting, so social situations of that kind shouldn't usually end up being ingenuine or forced.  Not that I've even tried to do "networking for businessy reasons" with any more than one or two people.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

So: be a little social whore and your game will be accepted?

yep, that's exactly what i meant. the people in this thread offering suggestions are well-meaning, but missing the point. the point is that you shouldn't *have* to do these things to get a game on steam. the game's quality should be all that matters, along with how well it'll sell to steam's audience, not who you know or how famous your game is

offering suggestions about how to get a game on steam through these wily social ways is, again, obvious, and not relevant to the complaint. i think the issue itself should be fixed, i don't want to just get my game on steam, i want a situation where every good indie game that would sell to steam's audience is accepted on steam, and that isn't the case now. and until that is the case, it's a mistake to call steam 'friendly towards indies'

consider how many games are on steam right now. there are over 1000 games on steam currently. only just over 200 of them are indie games. that's only 1/5. but most games which are made are indie, there are far more commercial indie games than AAA games (even if you exclude casual games). so that seems a bit imbalanced

[cullinaire]

Well, maybe there is a sure formula for getting your game on steam (supposing it is above the minimal "quality" threshold) and maybe there is not. My guess is that there is not, and to look for one is like chasing unicorns.

Some relevant quotes from the source:

How important is it that the channel maintains the value of games, in regards to flooding the market with too much choice?

Jason Holtman, Steam Manager: It’s hugely important to us. We like to have lots of games on Steam but we’re careful about not flooding the market. We’re a software company, and we want to distribute software that has a chance to succeed. If we just try to commoditise, that would become a problem.

Maintaining the value of the games on Steam is one of our most important objectives. We have millions of people logging onto Steam around the clock asking themselves, ‘how do I find stuff now’?

We have that Netflixian problem. We have to expose great content and make sure none of it drowns. People need a good browsing experience.

We have 1,700 games on the service, but we’re not eager to say next year we’ll have 5,000. If you do that, because you’re looking to flood the market, I think you’re going to lose.

Customers don’t care if you have 5,000 games. They want to play good games. And developers want to have a chance.

The internal struggle there then, surely, is that if you want to maintain the value of the Steam collection, you’ll need to be more selective with what games you’ll put on there. You’ll have to be harder on submissions, because you don’t want to flood your own market.

JH: I don’t think we’re going to be harder on submissions. We’ve always been open to take a look at anyone’s game. We always love being surprised by the amazing things we find.

Mind you, sometimes we make mistakes with our submissions process. We’re not perfect. Usually we’ll have a group of about eight to ten people looking at all the different submissions we get.

Sometimes we’ll think the game doesn’t fit, and a month later we’ll get a mail from a disgruntled developer saying ‘this is what you said, and this is how many thousands and thousands of copies of my game I have sold since you said that’.

We’re always looking for the same thing. Is it fun? Is it done? Does it represent value? I don’t think that we’re going to change those rules – we’re not going to be harder in our submission process.

[cullinaire]

...so there you go: They are looking for "fun", "originality", and "value", whatever those mean to them versus what they mean to you. There's also proportions to consider - maybe if "originality" is weak, then you'll just have to make sure there's more "fun" and/or "value"!

Have fun!

[Vino]

So: be a little social whore and your game will be accepted?

yep, that's exactly what i meant. the people in this thread offering suggestions are well-meaning, but missing the point. the point is that you shouldn't *have* to do these things to get a game on steam. the game's quality should be all that matters, along with how well it'll sell to steam's audience, not who you know or how famous your game is

offering suggestions about how to get a game on steam through these wily social ways is, again, obvious, and not relevant to the complaint. i think the issue itself should be fixed, i don't want to just get my game on steam, i want a situation where every good indie game that would sell to steam's audience is accepted on steam, and that isn't the case now. and until that is the case, it's a mistake to call steam 'friendly towards indies'

consider how many games are on steam right now. there are over 1000 games on steam currently. only just over 200 of them are indie games. that's only 1/5. but most games which are made are indie, there are far more commercial indie games than AAA games (even if you exclude casual games). so that seems a bit imbalanced

Yeah, but honestly, most indie games are crap. The commercial:indie ratio may be very low but I think the commercial:quality indie ratio is a bit higher. Valve's ratio is probably a bit lower than that (meaning, they could stand to have more quality indie games) but I think it's not an order of magnitude off.

[Jay Margalus]

Just the facts:

- Our (Lunar Giant's) game (Delve Deeper) is on Steam.  They take a commission of 30%.  It is well worth it.  They're great partners, they promote the hell out of your game, and they genuinely want you to succeed once you get on their platform.
- When we started out with Delve Deeper we didn't know anybody.  We applied to Steam and they rejected us.  We worked our butts off to get the game in front of people in the press (DIYGamer, Indiegames.com, etc), other gamers, got ourselves on Impulse and GG, and many months later applied to Steam a second time.  They accepted Delve Deeper.  This was all done by email; we didn't meet and chat up anybody, sell out, etc etc.  As a matter of fact, the first conference *any* of us ever went to was PAX East 2011.
- We are not whores (that I know of)

Hopefully you guys found that useful and less full of personal opinion.  So, to answer Deviator's original question: yeah, it's hard, but if you're willing to work hard to get your game on there you can do it, and there's no reason you shouldn't try!  I certainly would never discourage anyone from giving it a go.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yeah, but honestly, most indie games are crap. The commercial:indie ratio may be very low but I think the commercial:quality indie ratio is a bit higher. Valve's ratio is probably a bit lower than that (meaning, they could stand to have more quality indie games) but I think it's not an order of magnitude off.

and most AAA games aren't? i think that, as a proportion, AAA games are much worse than indie games -- i'd rather play a random game maker click the clown game than the latest EA sports game

what you said isn't entirely untrue though, most indie games are unpolished, and i feel that steam values art and polish in indie games more than gameplay and originality (despite what their criteria says they should value)

[Vino]

Perhaps that's true but large published commercial games have the benefits that indie games don't of marketing and connections with Valve. Plus of course the clout of 6-7 digit budgets. So, they can get games of less quality or gameplay value on Steam with little problem while indie games are really a tossup.

I'm perhaps being a bit harsh when I say most indie games are crap. There's tons of great indie games that you'll never hear about. Naturally, for every one of those there's a ton more that aren't so good. Plus given the long tail, there's simply a lot more indie games than there are huge published games. So when Valve picks and chooses what indie games get on to its service I think there's only so much it can do to get wide coverage, especially given they want to make money and indie games just don't make as much money.

[SaturnineGames]

and most AAA games aren't? i think that, as a proportion, AAA games are much worse than indie games -- i'd rather play a random game maker click the clown game than the latest EA sports game

I think that says more about your personal tastes than anything else.

Yeah, you'll get an occasional clunker out of EA Sports, but on the whole they make quality games. They've got a huge fanbase and they tend to cater to them well. Sports games aren't for everyone though.

In general, anything's going to have a high portion of crap, but with AAA games, the quality bar is going to be much higher than average. Duke Nukem Forver is such a big deal because of how unusual the story is.

If you were talking about small budget major publisher games, yeah, there's an amazing amount of crap in there. Take about 99% of Ubisoft's DS games as examples. At that level of the market, quality isn't that high on the priority list.

[hanako]

I think that says more about your personal tastes than anything else.

You *almost* got the clue, but then dodged it slightly.

Someone who appreciates the sports games may say that those are quality games on the whole. A large number of gamers think they're complete crap being shoveled out with as little work on them as possible - largely because they're not interested in sports games and think the people who do buy them are stupid.

A large number of gamers will say the same thing about the 'Imagine' series for the DS - complete crap being shoveled on foolish unsuspecting buyers. But those games clearly have a big fanbase that's quite happy with them. That fanbase just doesn't get much of a voice in places like this.

Am I saying those games aren't crap? I can't, I haven't played them. (Well, except one, which wouldn't have been complete crap if Ubisoft hadn't intentionally made it worse when porting it from Japanese, but that's another story)

Quality isn't an objective measure.

In general the graphics bar for games made by big companies is set higher, that's something almost everyone can agree on.

[SaturnineGames]

I think that says more about your personal tastes than anything else.

You *almost* got the clue, but then dodged it slightly.

Quite the opposite, I'm speaking from more experience than you.

I've worked on a bunch of DS retail games, watched others gets developed around me, discussed my own games with publishers, and published on DSiWare myself.

Someone who appreciates the sports games may say that those are quality games on the whole. A large number of gamers think they're complete crap being shoveled out with as little work on them as possible - largely because they're not interested in sports games and think the people who do buy them are stupid.

Right, the sports games are crap commentary usually comes from non-sports fans. The games clearly aren't complete crap - they have large teams working year long schedules with lots of crunch time, all supported by huge budgets. That doesn't guarantee a good game, but it certainly helps.

A large number of gamers will say the same thing about the 'Imagine' series for the DS - complete crap being shoveled on foolish unsuspecting buyers. But those games clearly have a big fanbase that's quite happy with them. That fanbase just doesn't get much of a voice in places like this.

I've done a little work on Imagine games. Most of them were done with the minimum budget possible. Schedules cut as tight as possible with bare minimum teams on them. The developers do the best job they can, but the schedule just doesn't allow a decent game to be made. The schedules allow just enough time to get the bare minimum game working with no time to polish it. During their peak, Imagine games were released at a rate a little over one per week. You have to cut every corner you can to get a production rate that high.

If you want to talk about the Petz line, sure, what you're saying is right. Those are generally higher budget affairs, with enough time in the schedule to refine the game and give it some polish. They're not my type of game, but it's easy to see how other people could like them.

Also, there's a tier of budget games even lower than that. The really cheap games you see at Costco and stores like that? They're done on less than half the budget of the cheapest Ubisoft game and have the quality to match.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i wouldn't be so quick to say that you have more experience than her without knowing her accomplishments, hahaha -- you probably don't

[SaturnineGames]

i wouldn't be so quick to say that you have more experience than her without knowing her accomplishments, hahaha -- you probably don't

Yeah, it probably was a little harsh.

She did say that she's never played an Imagine game. I've been involved in making them, so I do think it's safe to say I know more about them than she does though.

[moi]

Someone who appreciates the sports games may say that those are quality games on the whole. A large number of gamers think they're complete crap being shoveled out with as little work on them as possible - largely because they're not interested in sports games and think the people who do buy them are stupid.

Right, the sports games are crap commentary usually comes from non-sports fans. The games clearly aren't complete crap - they have large teams working year long schedules with lots of crunch time, all supported by huge budgets. That doesn't guarantee a good game, but it certainly helps.

year long schedule and lots of crunch time have never prevented games from being crap.

[SaturnineGames]

Someone who appreciates the sports games may say that those are quality games on the whole. A large number of gamers think they're complete crap being shoveled out with as little work on them as possible - largely because they're not interested in sports games and think the people who do buy them are stupid.

Right, the sports games are crap commentary usually comes from non-sports fans. The games clearly aren't complete crap - they have large teams working year long schedules with lots of crunch time, all supported by huge budgets. That doesn't guarantee a good game, but it certainly helps.

year long schedule and lots of crunch time have never prevented games from being crap.

Of course not, but what I was responding to included the claim "as little work on them as possible". That's definitely not the case about EA Sports.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Yeah, it probably was a little harsh.

She did say that she's never played an Imagine game. I've been involved in making them, so I do think it's safe to say I know more about them than she does though.

but that just means your response contains bias -- if someone said the games i made are terrible, and i argued that they were not, would "i'm the one who made them" really make my argument more believable?

and i've never played the imagine games either, and perhaps they have good gameplay and are fun, but i don't think you have to play them to realize that their very concept is a bit shady: just look at the list of titles:

Imagine: Master Chef (2007) (known as Imagine: Happy Cooking in Europe)
Imagine: Fashion Designer (2007)
Imagine: Animal Doctor (2007) (known as Imagine: Pet Vet in Europe)
Imagine: Babyz (2007) (known as Imagine: Babies in PAL regions)
Imagine: Figure Skater (2008)
Imagine: Rock Star (2008) (known as Imagine: Girls Band in Australia and Imagine: Girl Band in Europe)
Imagine: Teacher (2008)
My Secret World by Imagine (2008)
Imagine: Babysitters (2008) (known as Imagine: Baby Club in Europe)
Imagine: Fashion Model (2008)
Imagine: Modern Dancer (2008)
Imagine: Fashion Designer New York (2008)
Imagine: Champion Rider (2008)
Imagine: Pet Hospital (2008)
Imagine: Interior Designer (2008)
Imagine: Wedding Designer (2008) (known as Imagine: Dream Weddings in Europe)
Imagine: Party Babyz (2008)
Imagine: Ballet Star (2008) (known as Imagine: Ballet Dancer in Europe)
Imagine: Movie Star (2008)
Imagine Gymnast (2008)
Imagine My Restaurant (2009)
Imagine Fashion Party (January 20, 2009)
Imagine: Cheerleader (February 3, 2009)
Imagine: Ice Champions (March 3, 2009)
Imagine: Family Doctor (March 26, 2009)
Imagine: Makeup Artist (May 12, 2009)
Imagine Music Fest (May 26, 2009)
Imagine: Boutique Owner (June 2, 2009)
Imagine Soccer Captain (August 11, 2009)
Imagine Teacher: Class Trip (August 25, 2009)
Imagine Detective (September 8, 2009)
Imagine Party Planner (September 24, 2009)
Imagine Salon Stylist (September 29, 2009) (known as Imagine Beauty Stylist in Europe)
Imagine Reporter (September 30, 2009) (known as Imagine Journalist in Europe)
Imagine Zookeeper (October 6, 2009)
Imagine Artist (October 13, 2009)
Imagine Fashion Designer World Tour (October 20, 2009)
Imagine Babyz Fashion (November 3, 2009)
Imagine Prom (December 18, 2009)
Imagine Sweet 16 (March 9, 2010) (known as "Sweet 16" in Europe)
Imagine: Animal Doctor Care Center (May 18, 2010)

shoevelware doesn't only mean that the games are bad, it means that they are "shoveled" out the door, regardless of quality. look at how many of them were released in 2009 alone: *19* games in a single game series in a single year. even if all 19 of those games are excellent, it's still technically shovelware due to the furious pace at which they are released

[SaturnineGames]

but that just means your response contains bias -- if someone said the games i made are terrible, and i argued that they were not, would "i'm the one who made them" really make my argument more believable?

If my comment was simply "I worked on the games, trust me, they're bad" then yes, that would be a horrible argument. But that wasn't my argument. I talked about how the development process on those games worked, and how it was intended to lead to a low quality game.

shoevelware doesn't only mean that the games are bad, it means that they are "shoveled" out the door, regardless of quality. look at how many of them were released in 2009 alone: *19* games in a single game series in a single year. even if all 19 of those games are excellent, it's still technically shovelware due to the furious pace at which they are released

That's what I was pointing out. I mentioned how they cut every corner to reach a peak goal of about a release a week. And to clarify, I think that number was counting Imagine + Ener-G + Petz, not just Imagine as I originally said.