Steam Greenlight... Money where the Mouth is.
polycounter lvl 18
So, this has bothered me about Greenlight. Games can get to the top by people simply getting others voting, even if those others might not have real interest. Sort of like 1 upping on Facebook competitions. There is no commitment on the voters side other than someone spamming something to a group.
So, instead. What if the people voting had to or at least had the option to set money down? Who knows what games might have gotten looked over because they didn't get the voter traction. But those who did vote would have purchased it. Versus another game that just got lots of votes with barely anyone purchasing once it was in.
I'm not saying a large amount. Maybe like the developer has a choice of three tier ideas they think there game will be in. Like 1-5$, 5-20, 20+, and for each of these there is a certain amount that a voter must use to "pre-purchase" the game.
If the game is Greenlit, the amount they paid is put towards the final cost of game. Otherwise, the money is auto refunded to them in two months as Steam allows games to be up indefinitely. If they still believe in the game after the refund, they can choose to re-buy.
So, instead. What if the people voting had to or at least had the option to set money down? Who knows what games might have gotten looked over because they didn't get the voter traction. But those who did vote would have purchased it. Versus another game that just got lots of votes with barely anyone purchasing once it was in.
I'm not saying a large amount. Maybe like the developer has a choice of three tier ideas they think there game will be in. Like 1-5$, 5-20, 20+, and for each of these there is a certain amount that a voter must use to "pre-purchase" the game.
If the game is Greenlit, the amount they paid is put towards the final cost of game. Otherwise, the money is auto refunded to them in two months as Steam allows games to be up indefinitely. If they still believe in the game after the refund, they can choose to re-buy.
Replies
I've seen Valve mention that they're not completely happy with how greenlight currently works. However, I think it's a stepping stone to something much more.
I see a couple of very valuable features missing before we'll see the true power of Greenlight.
1) Weighted users. Different users should be worth more or less depending on his/her actions. Let's say I own many RTS games, I should automatically have more worth to RTS Greenlight projects. Then we have the issues of trolls: If I get banned a lot, don't own that many games, etc my worth should be low compared to a diligent collector / player. Lastly, if I don't ACTUALLY buy the games I vote on, I should get lower weight in the voting.
2) New store fronts. We will probably see this within a couple of years. A Steam where people will be able to create custom store fronts and ultimately author the individual store front's game selection. Say Yahtzee creates a store front for Steam and gets a license to upload and sell games himself. Essentially putting the ability for individuals to moderate their own game selection through licensed store fronts.
3) ?????
4) Profit
Early access is for games that already are green lit though. This is before. But I do agree, if money isn't exchanged then member value is another way. However that seems like a great amount of analytical data to go through to decide how much worth each vote is. The way I describe is direct as the user literally puts the money where their vote is. (Also if the project is greenlit, the developers DO NOT get access to the money the voter put down until at least an Early Access situation)
http://www.sophiehoulden.com/what-steam-should-do/
If people really want the game let them pay for it and start playing right away.
With that said, upvotes on Greenlight isn't the only thing Valve considers when determining if a game gets on Steam or not, or at least that's what they've said in the past.
It's the same reason I don't use Kickstarter a lot because it just seems like madness to throw money at people who are unproven.
It's also why I never pre-order games... it's just kinda weird.
They could just use some data to weigh users who have a track record of actually buying the Greenlit games after they're released.
The Early Access thing I'm cool with though. I've put down money for some games, like Prison Architect and Spy Party, because you get something straight away and they're clearly working on it. Ironically I don't play the beta for either of those games though. I'll just grab it when it's done.
Thats the issue though. You have no commitment. If you had to put something down, at least it would make you research what the group is doing better before just saying "sure, this looks interesting". It might also make the developers be more open of what they actually have knowing "it looks cool" would not be enough to establish a sale. Maybe there could be a compromise though. You wouldn't have to put money down, but your vote would be worth much less than someone who would.
Bens link to Sophie Houlden's blog about this is another option. Her method is offering a sandboxed area of steam with games that can be bought and played right away off greenlight, and if the sales and response are good, then allowing them into the regular steam store. Some of the critiques in the comments of her blog are valid though with how there wouldn't be much of a screening process, so copyrighted material, or even malware could be submitted.
I like the idea of there not being an attachment of monetary value to some of these things. Because there's no reason why I can't put up my new idea on Greenlight, get feedback/interest and develop it slowly over a year, get it greenlit over that period, then put it up on Early Access for free while I continue to develop it, and THEN release it, but for free with some kind of Steam Workshop integration that generates that revenue (and it generates it a lot faster/better because of that community build up).
Where as if you just introduced a standard indie game price to show your support/interest, then it kinda... limits it in a way.
I dunno. There's room for both. Which one gets Paper Please out sooner? I'll go for that one.
Also, your original hypothetical scenario... I'm just not really seeing it. Or at least, it doesn't seem like it'd be any more of a problem than with anything else consumer related. And Greenlight wasn't really about changing that, just helping get stuff out onto Steam and taking the load off Valve? I dunno. I'm going to bed because I'm depressed.
So, dialing this point down a bit: I've paid about £10 to £20 for both Spy Party and Prison Architect. Yet I've installed neither despite having early access to them and the ability to influence the development. So how useful is that to an indie developer wanting to grow a community/fan base? With Spy Party they wanted to get actual data from the game to help them develop it. They're not getting that from me. With Prison Architect they want players to help suggest things and shape development. Not from me. But I bet there are hundreds of people who would play the shit out of those games if the pay wall wasn't there at all and would write pages and pages of useful suggestions/info for the developer.
If think the main point though is the money... then you're evil cause money is evil. Or something less dumb.
Out of the 54 approved games only a couple include zombies -- there's a very large selection of genres being Greenlit.
I take back everything I said. This guy is totally right.
If there's one thing Valve is known for, its penny pinching.
/sarcasm
Not penny-pinching, no - but never having any dedicated staff due to "do whatever you want" achieves the same practical effect.
It doesn't really matter what gets voted since anybody is still in the same race if they are actually going to release their game. I don't think money has to be put down. If it's a good game and more importantly for any retail-space; a well marketed game, will be successful on both Greenlight and Valves original curation systems.
Greenlight just cuts to the chase.
I would view Greenlight like many of the other things Valve does with its online presence: An experiment. If the experiment is broken and only "zombie FPS" games are being voted on by the community, then clearly there is an issue with how games are showcased. An issue, I am sure, will be addressed. I would bet on the notion that some folks @ Valve are worried about this and working on solutions.
In the mean time we can do our best to "speak with our fingers" and continue to cast votes on games we want to see, zombie-FPS or not.
Which I argue is the issue since all that is needed is a finger click.
"Hey vote for me, click here!"
Valve have stated that the're not super happy with Greenlight so i'm sure there thinking up knew avenues. I think talking about them on here is great.
oXYnary, what you described in your initial post sounds pretty much exactly like Kickstarter. Granted in the environment of Steam may behave differently but i'm not certain. I think greenlight right now works as an excellent barometer to you games concept and appeal. If your not getting a lot of votes or attention it means there is probably something missing appeal wise, maybe your aesthetics aren't there yet, or your aesthetics are there but there doesn't seem to be any meat to the game-play or it's not coming across very clear.
I find a lot of the games on greenlight are very copy cat with people screaming "why isn't my clone getting noticed!" OR there are some genuinely interesting games in there that maybe didn't present themselves the best.
As far as things Valve could try to improve the system or for a different system, it's hard to say without seeing some numbers on how people were voting but I would like to see them tie in the idea of user made/curated "Shops" where your greenlight picks were also incorporated into these shops. So that eventually some "personalities" would come into the greenlight space. Like if "HuskyStarcraft" had a Steam store, with a collection of greenlight picks. Or Yahtzee. If you could get one of those guys to support your game, it could really boost your exposure. Much like the way that Husky kind of supported AirMech, it could really make some games pop out. I think that would get some more reliable trend setters in the space. Still a popularity contest though, but then again, what isn't these days, psh.
They do already have collections so i guess this could sort of happen already but I don't think it's the same as like a you-tube channel, or twitch channel. If there was like an equivalent to that on steam for personalities to link to games it could help people get some exposure.
But right now there's just a shit load of games in greenlight, i got a little overwhelmed by it really, kinda stopped voting. The idea of lists was a good call i think, it helped with that "endless pit" feeling.
Either I am not making myself clear or people are misreading. The developer DOES NOT get the money until they have something to deliver. Whether that be early access or release of final product. This is not like kickstart to fund projects. All funding still has to come from elsewhere. This is simply used to show how many people would actually buy a greenlight versus 1 upping which goes against your idea that the people voting now are actually fully voting for well rounded ideas versus "looks cool - *CLICK*", "Hey 1 up my friend on Steam (to facebook or large twitter following) *CLICK*." Or even on here tbh.
Personally, while some of the games asked by developers on here to be click voted look well thought out, I would never play them.. So how can I in good conscience vote for a retail market space for a consumer item I would never use? I wonder which developers have gotten in on linking alone, with high expectations from the developers themselves, to have it all crashing down when only 20% of the voters end up buying it, and the larger steam audience mostly ignores?
How many would then really click through games they really have no interest in if again they had to show a financial fortitude to what they vote on? If you want to keep things honest for the voter and developer. The voter can get a refund anytime until the game is greenlit, after such the money is locked until 1 month out from release or early access starts. At that point they can then choose to follow through with the full purchase or put the money towards another game or greenlight (in otherwords no refunds). This way the developer can't automatically consider those paid votes as sales. They still have to deliver in the end. While the end user not being allowed a refund if the game is greenlit makes it that much more relevant to them to choose wisely.
I know when steam changed the voting icon from a simple thumbs up and down to a "Would you buy this if it were on steam" if definetly changed my state of mind, i only voted for stuff that i would actually buy, which in all honesty is very, very low. (I don't have much disposable income right now) I had to kind of make an internal litmus test. Now granted there are a lot of people who get easily sold on things so yeah, making some kind of barrier other than "click here" would be a good idea. I hesitate to bring money into the situation though. I think there could probably be a more social/community way to drive a sort of voter responsibility.
Even something as simple as limiting the amount of votes you have a week? Or some kind of personal record on votes / successful greenlit projects so that people track how accurate they are on backing projects that will get greenlit. Where it's almost a game for people to try to guess which ones they think will get greenlit. I could see that turning into some kind of bad self fulfilling prophecy though, so maybe not.
And again, it's all about testing the waters, I was honestly surprised Valve even tried to 'adjust' the issues as early as a week after GL was open, some companies don't change a platform unless it's been tested for a year.
I think what he means is that a large number of games being shown are exactly what people claim to NOT want to play or create as content, not to mention sometimes underhanded drama or exploits.
-Big publishers making large burly space marines, with vixens from planet 69, fighting space nazi zombies? I know, lets go indie and do the exact same game!
-Whats that? You average game is de-made in 16 bit and is taking too long to be verified by Valve? I know, lets put it on GL and put the words 8 bit next to it!
-Game still not getting noticed? I know, instead of actually putting up any effort in our gameplay trailer on the main page, we will just throw a bunch of promises and words, and write about how I was at GDC, met a Valve employee, and say I had important questions to ask, but didn't! Publicity through passive-aggressive comments!
All GL did was show the nasty seams that content service providers have to go through with the large volume of crap being thrown at them, and I don't think there is much that can be done in this case.
Valve can employ all kinds of 'systems' in place to streamline the process even more, but at what point will that fix anything, if the community itself isn't willing to function within a set of rules? The conga line is a line for a reason folks!
If you want the perfect example of what I mean, there is a game called Mudd I think, it's an 8 bit side scrolling vagina game, issue is, it didn't get released on Steam, and on GL, it's failing hard to get any type of votes.
The author also never gave reasons as to why it's failing, apparently Valve didn't want to publish the game for some odd reason? So he decided to try GL instead?
Also, the author met up with a Valve employee and didn't ask any questions because they were shy or something?
Also, alot of people are giving feedback on how to heighten the chances of getting the game noticed, but outside of mostly drama, he isn't taking any notes?
Again, look it up, it kinda shows you the mess a developer them self can get into if they're not willing to adapt and ask questions.
DING DING DING! A consumer just stated his opinion in a logical fashion as why certain games are making it into the GL process, GG Trevor!
I just had a look at the list of games released and list of games greenlit and I don't see anything but cool games that deserve to be on Steam as much as any other.
Here's a recent example of a detractor saying the same thing:
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/JoolsWatsham/20130417/190704/Muddy_Steam__Before_and_After_Greenlight.php
Which I think is my issue with this is that we're boiling it down to:
Greenlight = problem
Greenlight with money down/no Greenlight = all systems go!
I understand that I may be naive, but from my point of view Greenlight hasn't caused problems that didn't exist already.
1. Greenlight has not replaced Valve's normal curator process. They clearly still accept submissions from both big publisher and independents constantly - and just as before, reserve the right to knock back whatever they feel.
2. All developers still have to spread awareness of their game and produce marketing materials to generate buzz/sales. They still need to court both their audience and retailers or any kind. If they do it poorly then they are rejected.
3. Popular upcoming games are still popular and still generate viral interest and sell. Greenlight simply asks potential customers their opinion of this before they are capable of buying it. Customers always have these opinions and it affects their decision to buying regardless of their ability to communicate this to retailers.
4. It's not a pre-order at crowd-funding service. Those services already exist and are patronised. They're legitimately different questions to ask a customer: "Does this look interesting enough to you to buy if you wanted to?" and "Will you buy this right now?" You can honestly answer differently for both of them.
5. Nobody deserves their game to be popular if there's no evidence. I could be somebody who wants to play both the generic zombie game and the inspired indie masterpiece. Other people don't so what wins is what wins.
* Any system that can be abused obviously needs to be fixed up (like abusing the report function.) That's not the intended purpose of the system.
Put simply if we're going to complain about the games that didn't get Greenlit, we still have no evidence that they would be on Steam today if Greelight didn't exist/or was paid. Valve are using this service to cope with the overwhelming number of submissions and can't critically assess the profitability of each one before approval; just having some data confirming that an audience has interest helps this process tremendously. It's been proven with pre-orders that interest can find some numbers. It's been proven with things like Kickstarter that customers want that interest acknowledged.
Incredipede failed to get through Greenlight - until recently. Six months after it was actually released. For many developers, direct sales versus Steam sales will be at a ratio of 1:10; having to wait for six months for a finished and popular title to make it through Greenlight is enough to [put them out of business
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/10/09/not-getting-noticed-on-steam-greenlight-incredipedes-story/
Games like Incredipede have fairly large audiences, but an external community does not translate to Greenlight votes and this is a genuine problem.
Games like Pinball Arcade also had to go through Greenlight, as did Out of the Park Baseball's latest iteration. Both games there were already successful - the latter the latest in a line of fairly popular niche games. I don't know if either made it through the process.
Ah well you definitely make good points here.
I was trying to avoid talking about Greenlight's efficacy and throughput simply because it's process was called into question instead.
But I do completely agree with you that it canbe poorly utilised. Valve should not use Greenlight as a crutch or replacement of proper curation.
I obviously have no idea how much faster the standard approval process for Steam is. I wonder if bureaucracy would have tied up some games as bad as waiting for Greenlight. Either way Greenlight should be much more streamlined and used less formally. I said it provided valuable data but already successful/finished games with an audience would have some data already and should be fast-tracked into approval.
It's still my opinion though that asking for money-down on votes will not improve Greenlight's volume.
This guy wrote up a transcript of the recent developer-Valve greenlight chat.