Topic: Steam Greenlight (Read 3349 times)

Zaratustra · « **on:** September 05, 2012, 05:01:01 AM »

OK. so Greenlight is now requiring a one-time donation of $100 to get into the poll.

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/09/04/steam-greenlight-now-requires-100-fee-which-goes-to-childs-pl/

Indies are fricking abuzz about this. On one hand I think that if your game is not going to provide a return for $100, it shouldn't really be on Steam. On the other hand I can understand many indies live in some sort of high-functioning squalor, so I'm torn.

Also this thread is for games you see on Greenlight that are good. I found this rather interesting thing while looking around:

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=93233471

James Edward Smith · « **Reply #1 on:** September 05, 2012, 06:31:16 AM »

If you aren't willing to earn the princely sum of $100 from working at a day job for a little over a day or so, then you aren't hungry enough to be an indie developer.

This is a near perfect solution that Valve came up with in a day and it immediately eliminates pretty much ALL of the joke entries. Now the good games and the shit games made by people who are fooling themselves can actually have a chance to get some non-directed traffic to their little green-light pages.

Mongrel · « **Reply #2 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:01:21 AM »

Any other giant distribution channel would be asking more for even initial "working exploratory meetings" (maybe not in cash, but in terms of time, effort and logistical costs). $100 is nothing if you're genuinely investing in the creation of a saleable product.

Zaratustra · « **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:09:58 AM »

It is really an expression of the wild divisions between groups of indies.

There's people that genuinely think they'll make a game in Game Maker, go into Greenlight, get their game voted up by some guys in Reddit and then sell like a hundred copies. Or maybe put it there for free so their friends can download it.

That is totally not what Steam is about. It has an audience of millions. When I say Eversion sales on Steam were crap, I'm referring to over ten thousand sales.

I'm not going to say $100 is chump change because some people are suggesting it be upped to $1000 and I feel that is not chump change, so to each their own. But I honestly see no alternative that would allow competent developers in and keep 90% of Kongregate out.

TA · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:11:25 AM »

I would be happier if the $100 was a refundable deposit, rather than a flat payment.

Brentai · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:41:49 AM »

So who gets to claim the tax break for donating to a charity, you or Valve?

Mongrel · « **Reply #6 on:** September 05, 2012, 08:04:51 AM »

Quote from: TA on September 05, 2012, 07:11:25 AM

I would be happier if the $100 was a refundable deposit, rather than a flat payment.

That thought crossed my mind too.

That's how they handle joke political candidacies in almost every district I've ever heard of. There's an $x deposit to run on the ballot (usually the low hundreds, unless you're running for president or something) and if you get some nominal percentage of the vote (usually 1-2%, or a numerical threshold like 200 or 300 votes), you get the deposit back.

Niku · « **Reply #7 on:** September 05, 2012, 08:09:21 AM »

I literally just wrote a thing about this (plug plug) before noticing the thread but basically I think the whole thing is cool, admirable, brilliant, and just a little bit skeevy. But I'm leaning toward all the first things. Still, a part of me wonders how "forced donation to charity to be a part of this" really goes down morally, but at the same time it's not really that unheard of in other sectors.

Mongrel · « **Reply #8 on:** September 05, 2012, 08:15:32 AM »

As far as "Forced donation to charity" goes, I think Brent actually raises a very good point. Because it's Valve who'll get the deduction if anybody. The game maker is paying what amounts to a developer fee, rather than any kind of charitable donation. Valve is simply choosing to donate that developer fee they just received.

So yeah, Valve does profit from this indirectly (tax deductions). Now, whether you think this a deliberate mustache-twirling plot or just the unforeseen consequence of a hurried patch is another matter entirely.

Thad · « **Reply #9 on:** September 05, 2012, 08:17:35 AM »

Quote from: Niku on September 05, 2012, 08:09:21 AM

cool, admirable, brilliant, and just a little bit skeevy.

That should be their slogan.

That should be EVERYONE'S slogan.

Beat Bandit · « **Reply #10 on:** September 05, 2012, 08:27:06 AM »

Quote from: Mongrel on September 05, 2012, 08:15:32 AM

So yeah, Valve does profit from this indirectly (tax deductions). Now, whether you think this a deliberate mustache-twirling plot or just the unforeseen consequence of a hurried patch is another matter entirely.

Neither? It is literally the perfect thing, not taking actual amount into account since that's subjective.

A flat payment is the best possible way to keep real devs around and loiterers out.
Giving to charity makes Steam look good and if anything only the people who complain about paying it look bad.
Steam is profiting from it.
They implemented it in what, 5 days over a weekend?

A marketing director somewhere killed himself after reading about it, knowing he would never see something as beautiful again.

Cait · « **Reply #11 on:** September 05, 2012, 08:57:38 AM »

Quote from: Mongrel on September 05, 2012, 08:15:32 AM

As far as "Forced donation to charity" goes, I think Brent actually raises a very good point. Because it's Valve who'll get the deduction if anybody. The game maker is paying what amounts to a developer fee, rather than any kind of charitable donation. Valve is simply choosing to donate that developer fee they just received.

So yeah, Valve does profit from this indirectly (tax deductions). Now, whether you think this a deliberate mustache-twirling plot or just the unforeseen consequence of a hurried patch is another matter entirely.

I'm not certain off-hand whether Child's Play is registered as a 501(c)(3), but the way Valve has structured this transaction should attribute any tax benefit to the person registering for a Greenlight account, not Valve itself. Valve is serving as a proxy, nothing more.

EDIT: Tweaked the wording based on a little more poking into the tax code. 'Absolute' is never something one should use for these things, really.

Mongrel · « **Reply #12 on:** September 05, 2012, 09:19:09 AM »

Fair enough. If US tax law lets you register something like this as charitable, than more power on them. I think on our end the fact that the "primary purpose" is the developer fee so the donator can publish their game would invalidate that (but maybe not? I'd have to look into that...).

Brentai · « **Reply #13 on:** September 05, 2012, 09:28:05 AM »

That's why I posed it as a question in the first place.

Mostly I'm wondering why they don't do it as a sort of purchase guarantee. Have backers put in a deposit at Steam's fixed price and once whatever meaningful threshhold is reached, bam, x purchases made automatically. That'd be a lot more visceral, benefit the devs, and you wouldn't get into this weird "throw your money into this other bucket to vote" gray area.

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #14 on:** September 05, 2012, 10:23:18 AM »

Quote from: Cait on September 05, 2012, 08:57:38 AM

I'm not certain off-hand whether Child's Play is registered as a 501(c)(3), but the way Valve has structured this transaction should attribute any tax benefit to the person registering for a Greenlight account, not Valve itself. Valve is serving as a proxy, nothing more.

Their FAQ page lists a tax ID number for people who want to deduct cash contributions, so I'd say it's safe to assume they are.

Quote from: Brentai on September 05, 2012, 09:28:05 AM

That's why I posed it as a question in the first place.

Mostly I'm wondering why they don't do it as a sort of purchase guarantee. Have backers put in a deposit at Steam's fixed price and once whatever meaningful threshhold is reached, bam, x purchases made automatically. That'd be a lot more visceral, benefit the devs, and you wouldn't get into this weird "throw your money into this other bucket to vote" gray area.

This wouldn't fix the 'flood of pointless/terrible crap' problem, though. Just look at Kickstarter.

Brentai · « **Reply #15 on:** September 05, 2012, 12:49:18 PM »

...wait, I completely misread this. I thought it was a $100 donation required to vote.

Yeah a $100 tax-deductible submission fee is fucking nothing. Almost laughable, actually. Carry on.

Classic · « **Reply #16 on:** September 05, 2012, 01:54:10 PM »

BUT BRENTAI! HOW ELSE CAN WE PROTECT AGAINST VOTOR FRAUD!?

James Edward Smith · « **Reply #17 on:** September 05, 2012, 01:54:44 PM »

It's completely laughable

AND YET

I still had the following Twitter back and forth about it. After they made a tweet complaining about the fee, I wrote them this:

"If you aren't hungry enough to work a day job long enough to drum up $100, then you don't really want to be an indy developer."

to which they responded...

"AH YES, THE "STARVING ARTIST," AN IDEAL WE SHOULD ALL STRIVE TO EMULATE go fuck yourself"

...

Please help me to make heads or tails of this because it seems to me like the conversation entered a reverse portal at some point.

Brentai · « **Reply #18 on:** September 05, 2012, 01:58:52 PM »

Most people don't understand the term "hungry" as meaning "ambitious". It actually took me a few reads to understand what you actually meant the first time you said that, and I don't expect the average Twitter user to take that much time to come to a conclusion.

TA · « **Reply #19 on:** September 05, 2012, 02:23:43 PM »

According to Anna Anthropy, this is CLASSIST and EVIL and being a WANNABE GATEKEEPER.

News:

Author Topic: Steam Greenlight (Read 3349 times)