Evolving Steam(steamcommunity.com)
steamcommunity.com
Evolving Steam
http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/558846854614253751
7 comments
Does the typical Steam user have enough games to make this an issue for them?
Buy a few Humble Bundles, where you don't specifically know what some of the games are, and it happens quick.
I have 70 and I find the methods to organize them pretty much meh.
I have like 10 categories, but as I'm only actively playing (i.e. have installed) like 5, the rest is still a collapsed bunch of categories...
I have like 10 categories, but as I'm only actively playing (i.e. have installed) like 5, the rest is still a collapsed bunch of categories...
i think this is bad news. "We will ask new developers to complete a set of digital paperwork, personal or company verification, and tax documents similar to the process of applying for a bank account."
It's all about control and stopping real indie development. "low as $100 to as high as $5,000." That's _per title_ ! and it will whatever they can get away with. $5000 to publish a game is not indie anymore.
It's all about control and stopping real indie development. "low as $100 to as high as $5,000." That's _per title_ ! and it will whatever they can get away with. $5000 to publish a game is not indie anymore.
Valve aren't looking to make money here (well, obviously they are, but not directly from this like you are implying). $5k a game means literally nothing to them - the amount they make from sales makes that a joke.
This is a matter of competing pressures. We want indies to be able to publish as easily as possible, but customers don't want to see lots of bad games.
The easier you make it for indies, the easier you make it for people pushing out crap. This is clearly a response to people's complaints about the lowering quality of the average content in the Steam store, after their attempts at providing better game discovery methods and curation systems haven't solved the issue.
This is a matter of competing pressures. We want indies to be able to publish as easily as possible, but customers don't want to see lots of bad games.
The easier you make it for indies, the easier you make it for people pushing out crap. This is clearly a response to people's complaints about the lowering quality of the average content in the Steam store, after their attempts at providing better game discovery methods and curation systems haven't solved the issue.
point taken. but it need not be solved by increasing the barrier to entry. instead it's a ranking problem; make the poor titles sink to the bottom.
This sounds like they're re-launching Steam Greenlight, but without the pretense that only quality games will get through. Hopefully the fee will be high enough to stop asset-flips and shovelware, but low enough to allow smaller indie devs in.
I think (assuming I'm reading the announcement correctly) there's an extra wrinkle here, though.
In the old model, the way to get your game onto Steam was to put it through Greenlight, where if it gathered enough support it could get promoted to the main storefront. You had to pay a fee to Valve to submit games to Greenlight, but it was a one-time fee ($100, IIRC), after which you could submit as many games to Greenlight as you wanted.
In the new model, Greenlight goes away; you just submit your game directly, and after you pay a publication fee, the amount of which is still up in the air (anywhere from $100-$5,000), it goes into the storefront. But, and this is the wrinkle, now you pay the publication fee for each game you submit rather than just paying it once. So if you submit ten games for publication, you pay the publication fee ten times.
So why the change? My guess is that Valve has decided that the essential premise of Greenlight -- that community curation would surface the gems within the vast pile of dross that gets submitted -- has been comprehensively broken by tactics like voting rings and giving out free keys in exchange for votes. So this represents them abandoning that idea and replacing it with a more blunt filter: a per-title publication fee. In the old model it cost the same to submit a thousand games as it did to submit one, so developers just threw lots of things against the wall and prayed one would stick. Now there will be a financial incentive for developers to put more wood behind fewer arrows, as the saying goes.
The big question is whether this will improve the overall quality of games on Steam, or reduce it further (if that's even possible). I'm honestly not sure. A lot will depend on where precisely they set that publication fee -- too high will drive off cash-starved indie devs, too low will mean the crap merchants will just swallow it as the cost of doing business.
In the old model, the way to get your game onto Steam was to put it through Greenlight, where if it gathered enough support it could get promoted to the main storefront. You had to pay a fee to Valve to submit games to Greenlight, but it was a one-time fee ($100, IIRC), after which you could submit as many games to Greenlight as you wanted.
In the new model, Greenlight goes away; you just submit your game directly, and after you pay a publication fee, the amount of which is still up in the air (anywhere from $100-$5,000), it goes into the storefront. But, and this is the wrinkle, now you pay the publication fee for each game you submit rather than just paying it once. So if you submit ten games for publication, you pay the publication fee ten times.
So why the change? My guess is that Valve has decided that the essential premise of Greenlight -- that community curation would surface the gems within the vast pile of dross that gets submitted -- has been comprehensively broken by tactics like voting rings and giving out free keys in exchange for votes. So this represents them abandoning that idea and replacing it with a more blunt filter: a per-title publication fee. In the old model it cost the same to submit a thousand games as it did to submit one, so developers just threw lots of things against the wall and prayed one would stick. Now there will be a financial incentive for developers to put more wood behind fewer arrows, as the saying goes.
The big question is whether this will improve the overall quality of games on Steam, or reduce it further (if that's even possible). I'm honestly not sure. A lot will depend on where precisely they set that publication fee -- too high will drive off cash-starved indie devs, too low will mean the crap merchants will just swallow it as the cost of doing business.
I think a sliding scale of fee based on sell price would be a good thing as well.
I wonder what they mean by "recoupable" fee, though. Will it count towards per-purchase fees?
I would assume recoupable will mean that you get 100% of sales revenue up until the point you've earned the publication fee back. Then Valve will start taking their % cut on sales thereafter.
The amount of shovelware and asset flips suggest the current fee of $100 is far too low.
I'm dismayed there is scarcely any mention of the quality of works entering Steam. It's patently obvious that quality is the major issue now, not the usability of the platform or developer features.
I'm dismayed there is scarcely any mention of the quality of works entering Steam. It's patently obvious that quality is the major issue now, not the usability of the platform or developer features.
Valve's corporate philosophy seems to go completely against any sort of regulation. This is reflected in their management/leadership structure (or famous lack there-of).
It seems pretty clear to me that their plans are to rely on the market to moderate this stuff.
It seems pretty clear to me that their plans are to rely on the market to moderate this stuff.
My understanding is the current fee is per-developer, not per-game. The new plan is to charge per-game, which might help combat the issue to some degree.
This. My kids primarily buy games through Steam. More and more they wind up buying early access games at "finished" prices.
My second concern is that Greenlight and shovelware will turn into a malware channel. Some of the anti-cheat utilities have deep access.
My second concern is that Greenlight and shovelware will turn into a malware channel. Some of the anti-cheat utilities have deep access.
Yeah, the early access stuff is more miss than hit. But I've played one game, The Long Dark, that's been "early access" where I've got over 100 hours in it. That's a lot for me. Only the "sandbox" mode is available, but it's enough for me. More than enough. The game is therapeutic for me. It relieves my anxiety.
This is a case where the developers had a vision (and still do), but early access to a mode that was initially just for testing allowed them to discover their test mode (aka "sandbox") was actually a fine game in and of itself.
Early access, I think, allows developers with perfection obsession to go ahead and ship something. Instead of developing it forever, hoping to achieve their goal, and never shipping.
It's true that there is a lot of garbage in early access, but I don't think it's a worse ratio than most indie games.
This is a case where the developers had a vision (and still do), but early access to a mode that was initially just for testing allowed them to discover their test mode (aka "sandbox") was actually a fine game in and of itself.
Early access, I think, allows developers with perfection obsession to go ahead and ship something. Instead of developing it forever, hoping to achieve their goal, and never shipping.
It's true that there is a lot of garbage in early access, but I don't think it's a worse ratio than most indie games.
If the point is to find the great games Steam should make it free to publish, doesn't matter how many bad games there are except they are a factor in how many great games there are.
Bad games don't make much money before it's discovered and Steam has a 14 day-ish refund policy. It might force them to automate it, like Google Play does for 2 hours after purchases.
Bad games don't make much money before it's discovered and Steam has a 14 day-ish refund policy. It might force them to automate it, like Google Play does for 2 hours after purchases.
This is a bit underwhelming in my opinion. Providing a more streamlined publishing experience is great, but it's not even close to the biggest problem Steam is facing. What about the interface (which is definitely showing its age) being an unresponsive mess, or the fact that support STILL has not improved in any major way? It reminds me of iTunes a bit, especially since this update has the potential to actually make Steam Greenlight even worse.
Valve definitely does not seem to have a clear vision for the future.
Valve definitely does not seem to have a clear vision for the future.
Realistically they never had a vision for the future. It seems to be a combination of a bunch of visions. Nonetheless, I can't see much about Steam that took 360+ people 13 years to develop. It seems to me that there is a fear of commitment in an environment that tries to foster comfort for it's workforce. Maybe they need someone to point their finger at a goal and start demanding that progress be made to achieve that goal.
Finish the HL2 story arc for crying-out-loud. Or just cancel it so your fans can move on.
Finish the HL2 story arc for crying-out-loud. Or just cancel it so your fans can move on.
Exactly. They're doing even worse in terms of vision for their game franchises, which is what got them where they are in the first place.
This is a gaming company that hasn't really done anything major for gaming in nearly a decade. How is that even possible?
This is a gaming company that hasn't really done anything major for gaming in nearly a decade. How is that even possible?
They don't make the games you want (or I want, i.e., Half Life), but they clearly are still making games, and games they have made in the last decade are currently #1 and #2 in concurrent players:
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Also in the last decade: Portal 2, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2.
http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
Also in the last decade: Portal 2, Left 4 Dead, Left 4 Dead 2.
I used to be a huge TF2 fan, I've got about 2k hours logged. But I haven't played in a long time, it really needs a breath of fresh air and to bring out TF3. I get that they are still making a killing off in game purchases, but they could do the same thing with a newer version, allowing people to bring items over with a 'vintage' like characterisation.
My main competitive game I play now is overwatch. They took a winning idea, and improved upon it with many more classes than TF2, and took elements from other genres (ie dota and 'ultimates')
My main competitive game I play now is overwatch. They took a winning idea, and improved upon it with many more classes than TF2, and took elements from other genres (ie dota and 'ultimates')
Left for Dead is Turtle Rock and published by Valve
Oh please.
Steam on Linux hasn't ushered in "Linux on every desktop" but it's done quite a bit for Linux gaming.
Dota 2 came out 4 years ago and is huge.
Greenlight was launched 5 years ago. That achieved nothing for indie game devs I guess.
Anyone of those was a pretty major event in "gaming".
Steam on Linux hasn't ushered in "Linux on every desktop" but it's done quite a bit for Linux gaming.
Dota 2 came out 4 years ago and is huge.
Greenlight was launched 5 years ago. That achieved nothing for indie game devs I guess.
Anyone of those was a pretty major event in "gaming".
I never claimed that Valve wasn't productive. I meant to highlight the seeming lack of discipline they sometimes display. They are a "Jack of all trades" but the master of none. They'll work on hardware or features for Steam that nobody asked for while (sometimes arrogantly) letting other projects (with actual demand) linger.
A master of none? They've created and still run the #1 content distribution platform for videogames, they've developed some of the highest-rated games ever, several of their games are still very popular with their most recent one in particular (Dota 2) even drawing massive crowds at live events. I'm right there with you that they've got some problems to solve, but they're absolutely very competent or at least very successful in other areas as well.
Dota 2 is in the last decade. I think that counts!
It took them 5 to 6 years to port the original DotA in its entirety to the Source Engine. They added the first major changes to the original game only a few weeks ago. Everything else was just copying Heroes, items and features from a really old mod. Don't get me wrong, I like and regularly play DotA2, but it's nothing groundbreaking.
I stand by what I said. The Orange Box was the last great hurrah for Valve gaming.
I stand by what I said. The Orange Box was the last great hurrah for Valve gaming.
You play DotA and you are claiming that 7.00 was the first major change? You are having a laugh. The game has made massive strides in UX, gameplay and graphics, all while also pushing a professional scene that is now running three multi-million dollar tournaments a year in a scene of nearly-constant tournaments around the game.
Also, Portal 2 was an incredibly polished, fun game.
Also, Portal 2 was an incredibly polished, fun game.
As an avid player of dota 2, I think your underestimating how much invisible work goes into dota 2 itself. It's probably the best MOBA in the market as far as game design.
Dota 2 is pretty much the only game that can keep my attention, everything else just falls by the wayside after a while.
Dota 2 is pretty much the only game that can keep my attention, everything else just falls by the wayside after a while.
So which other decent game distribution platform is out there? Which does support Linux? Which does provide its own OS?
Some of those 360 people were involved in other things, like developing the HTC Vive VR rig, which is nothing to thumb your nose at.
Trading cards were added to make people happy?
The gamification of the games platform. People will buy games just for the trading cards. The more trading cards you have, the better your odds of completing a set and turning it in for XP and leveling up your Steam account, unlocking new profile and friends list features.
Yeah, I never got that. For a while I would just sell the trading cards as soon as they were awarded. I think I got some cheap DLC for free from that money... it probably wasn't even worth my time to do that.
There's probably an age demographic involved here. It's probably not worth your time because you're an adult and earn a good income. But most kids under a certain age don't have a job, don't think of their time in monetary terms, and might find collecting and trading cards to be fun.
Steam probably has a ton of such demographic information that would make for some really interesting articles and research.
Steam probably has a ton of such demographic information that would make for some really interesting articles and research.
Same here. The notifications are the most annoying part to me. I really don't care about that stuff, and I don't need a message in my inbox about some new thingy.
With any pretense of curation gone, I'm afraid Steam will go the way of the Apple App Store. It is a swamp of copycats and low quality half-efforts. Sure, there's quality in there, but it is awfully hard to find.
I hope they make the entrance price high. Steam is already clogged with a lot of subpar stuff. Perhaps if a developer has to put down a chunk of change, he/she will think twice about publishing the 37th zombie-tower-defense erotic (but PG!) visual novel.
I hope they make the entrance price high. Steam is already clogged with a lot of subpar stuff. Perhaps if a developer has to put down a chunk of change, he/she will think twice about publishing the 37th zombie-tower-defense erotic (but PG!) visual novel.
> I hope they make the entrance price high [..] Perhaps if a developer has to put down a chunk of change, he/she will think twice about publishing the 37th zombie-tower-defense erotic (but PG!) visual novel.
Please not, the 37th is the best of all!
Seriously, you are arguing that developers should be hindered from making software so that you don't have to make a selection from so many titles.
Alternative solution for your problem: Replace the generic ratings with ratings calculated only from my friends' and my ratings (or with people matched via ratings of games I played and rated as well).
Please not, the 37th is the best of all!
Seriously, you are arguing that developers should be hindered from making software so that you don't have to make a selection from so many titles.
Alternative solution for your problem: Replace the generic ratings with ratings calculated only from my friends' and my ratings (or with people matched via ratings of games I played and rated as well).
I like alternative solutions to this problem, but I don't think yours solves all cases of the problem. What if someone keeps a tightly knit group of friends? Your solution relies on having a substantially sized community of friends that play a wide variety of games, of which, they write reviews for. I feel this is a really tight use case, and one Steam might need to retrain a community for. Do you still think it would work?
There's also the argument that other providers are out there, too itch.io. This compels me to think that the problem isn't really that these software engineers/game developers aren't really hindered in terms of how they're exposed.
Which app store 'gets it right' and how close to do you feel it's use case is to Steam's?
There's also the argument that other providers are out there, too itch.io. This compels me to think that the problem isn't really that these software engineers/game developers aren't really hindered in terms of how they're exposed.
Which app store 'gets it right' and how close to do you feel it's use case is to Steam's?
> I like alternative solutions to this problem, but I don't think yours solves all cases of the problem.
If I cared enough about solving "all cases of the problem" I'd probably not post my solution here but patent it and live off royalty fees for the remainder of my life ;)
Honestly, my solution collides with the aim of any game provider: I want recommendations based on trust, games providers want to sell games. If steam implemented my solution, it might work out, but it also might lead to a decline in sales (because I suspect most people to buy stuff based on some arbitrary "rating").
> Which app store 'gets it right' and how close to do you feel it's use case is to Steam's?
None, because the store's and my goals are mutually exclusive (at least as far as "app stores" work for now): I want stuff I like, the store wants my money. There is no incentive to implement my solution because, as of now, there is no evidence that the store makes more money by not pushing unwanted apps into my face.
PS: Thanks for your feedback, it forced me to reflect upon and spell out things I usually take for granted because I live in my own filter bubble.
If I cared enough about solving "all cases of the problem" I'd probably not post my solution here but patent it and live off royalty fees for the remainder of my life ;)
Honestly, my solution collides with the aim of any game provider: I want recommendations based on trust, games providers want to sell games. If steam implemented my solution, it might work out, but it also might lead to a decline in sales (because I suspect most people to buy stuff based on some arbitrary "rating").
> Which app store 'gets it right' and how close to do you feel it's use case is to Steam's?
None, because the store's and my goals are mutually exclusive (at least as far as "app stores" work for now): I want stuff I like, the store wants my money. There is no incentive to implement my solution because, as of now, there is no evidence that the store makes more money by not pushing unwanted apps into my face.
PS: Thanks for your feedback, it forced me to reflect upon and spell out things I usually take for granted because I live in my own filter bubble.
Reading this made me realize how common this is among modern "free" to use communities. Steam doesn't directly charge us any money to use Steam, only for games. Thus, there is no direct fiscal consequence for showing lower quality games. As long as they have games people want that you can't get elsewhere or have some quality overall, people will use it.
It reminds me of when Facebook was testing a redesign of the site. Users reported how much they liked it, and Facebook found that users had an easier time navigating around. But this also reduced the amount of time users stayed on Facebook, by quite a lot, so they never went forward with the new design.
It reminds me of when Facebook was testing a redesign of the site. Users reported how much they liked it, and Facebook found that users had an easier time navigating around. But this also reduced the amount of time users stayed on Facebook, by quite a lot, so they never went forward with the new design.
>I hope they make the entrance price high
Yeah, that will result in only pre-established games making it onto the store because no one will even risk having to pay that fee for a game there is no market benchmark for.
Have fun seeing only AAA titles and clones thereof in the store. But hey, at least you can be lazy and not have to put a little effort into finding cool new stuff!
Greenlight is a muddy mess of copycats, but imposing a barrier like this to all indie devs universally is a terrible idea. Most likely, it will never even work since indie devs will just move to the next platform where they can actually do their job; Steam will lose all its interest and become a sort of playstation store for PC
Yeah, that will result in only pre-established games making it onto the store because no one will even risk having to pay that fee for a game there is no market benchmark for.
Have fun seeing only AAA titles and clones thereof in the store. But hey, at least you can be lazy and not have to put a little effort into finding cool new stuff!
Greenlight is a muddy mess of copycats, but imposing a barrier like this to all indie devs universally is a terrible idea. Most likely, it will never even work since indie devs will just move to the next platform where they can actually do their job; Steam will lose all its interest and become a sort of playstation store for PC
My thoughts almost exactly!!!!
I used to be a compulsive Steam game buyer, but at some point Steam started showing me tacky anime-dating-visual-novel-high school-crap. I don't get it, what happened? I've bought a few Japanese shmups and a few fighting games, but that's the closest I can get to any possible reason why Steam wants to shove this sh*t down my throat that I'm clearly not interested in.
The store really has become useless for me, unless I know exactly what I want beforehand.
I used to be a compulsive Steam game buyer, but at some point Steam started showing me tacky anime-dating-visual-novel-high school-crap. I don't get it, what happened? I've bought a few Japanese shmups and a few fighting games, but that's the closest I can get to any possible reason why Steam wants to shove this sh*t down my throat that I'm clearly not interested in.
The store really has become useless for me, unless I know exactly what I want beforehand.
When searching for new games using Steam's "Discovery Queue" feature (under "Explore") you can click on "Customize your queue" and add tags of types of games you don't like. Then, when you browse through your queue, you won't be shown games with those tags.
For example, if you don't like anime games, just add "anime" as a tag in the discovery queue customization dialog.
Unfortunately, they only seem to allow a maximum of 12 such tags. But it's far better than nothing.
For example, if you don't like anime games, just add "anime" as a tag in the discovery queue customization dialog.
Unfortunately, they only seem to allow a maximum of 12 such tags. But it's far better than nothing.
[deleted]
I've never found curation useful. As long as Steam continues to have reviews, screenshots, tags, a decent way to search and exclude types of games you don't like, and the ability to get a refund if I don't like a game, it'll be good enough for me. I just wish Steam allowed me to exclude many more types of games in my discovery queue.
I agree. To make a decent game an enormous mount of effort has to go into it. If you are a solo dev that has spent the last year pouring your heart into a game, I don't think $1000 to release it to a massive audience would stop it being published. If you employ a few people to create a higher quality game, compared to their wages, $1000 is nothing.
If you are a manga artist trying to release the 100th iteration of a 'game' based on suggestive images, it may slow you down.
Not suggesting that $1000 is the perfect price point, just that $100 is far too low.
If you are a manga artist trying to release the 100th iteration of a 'game' based on suggestive images, it may slow you down.
Not suggesting that $1000 is the perfect price point, just that $100 is far too low.
They also called it a "recoupable application fee" so it sounds like they might reduce their 30% cut until the fee is earned back.
So as long as a game sells even reasonably well they could get the fee back in full while low quality shovelware gets discouraged.
So as long as a game sells even reasonably well they could get the fee back in full while low quality shovelware gets discouraged.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wow, this is really exciting. I love the idea for a fairly high recoupable application fee in order to weed out the crap.
Careful usage of categories can make up for some of it, but even that is clunky and not something I want to spend time on.