Steam Direct will be a flood of new games

[Tux]

http://www.pcgamer.com/valve-reveals-steam-direct-fee-upcoming-changes-to-the-store/

clearly not something that is going to slow down the 'noise' in anyway.

remove voting, replace with $100 fee?

[Albcatmastercat]

It may apparently remove "Asset Flips".

[Tux]

Originally posted by Albcatmastercat:

It may apparently remove "Asset Flips".

I very seriously doubt it

besides, if $100 is going to make your profit opportunity go away I gotta ask....how much of an impact to actual gaming community would said companies be in the first place?

also..its a TON easier to come up with $100 then it is to create a voting scam to get your game lit

[Mivo]

I feel that the store has already gotten flooded with low quality trash for quite a while now. No doubt this will get worse with Steam Direct, but it's really consistent with Valve's apparent desire to have a huge marketplace for games with as little quality control, barriers and interference as possible.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

$100 was the same fee for greenlight.

[Tux]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

$100 was the same fee for greenlight.

:qr:

so now its $100 + no voting required

[Albcatmastercat]

Originally posted by Tux:

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

$100 was the same fee for greenlight.

:qr:

so now its $100 + no voting required

$100 per game* as opposed to a single $100 payment.

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

per game rather than a 1 time fee.



edit: ninja'd!

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

$100 was the same fee for greenlight.

:qr:

Except the Greenlight fee was a one time payment. The steam direct one is per game.
edit: double ninja'd!

[Tux]

oh of course that will slow the flow tremendously.'
ha!

correction noted

[Tito Shivan]

Originally posted by Tux:

oh of course that will slow the flow tremendously.'
ha!

correction noted

It will more than the single fee. Now every asset flip will have to break even, which given the new store recommendation rules might mean less visibility for these games, means harder way of making money.

Before with $100 you could drop 10 similar card dropping asset flips. Now those 10 asset flips will have to make $1.000 to break even and cards won't drop unless the games are actually being played. Then there's the game getting less visibility on the store which will make harder to sell copies. You need to look at Steam direct as one tool amongst many to reduce abuse.

i doubt these assets flip being the problem Steam direct aimed to tackle anyway....

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

i doubt these assets flip being the problem Steam direct aimed to tackle anyway....

i think that has more to do with the trading card drop rule change.

[Albcatmastercat]

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by Tux:

oh of course that will slow the flow tremendously.'
ha!

correction noted

It will more than the single fee. Now every asset flip will have to break even, which given the new store recommendation rules might mean less visibility for these games, means harder way of making money.

Before with $100 you could drop 10 similar card dropping asset flips. Now those 10 asset flips will have to make $1.000 to break even and cards won't drop unless the games are actually being played. Then there's the game getting less visibility on the store which will make harder to sell copies. You need to look at Steam direct as one tool amongst many to reduce abuse.

i doubt these assets flip being the problem Steam direct aimed to tackle anyway....

What do you think the main problem was, then? Did that get thought up after the Digital Suicide Homicide incident?

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

many developers were abusing the system. it wasnt just DH.

[Tux]

Originally posted by Tito Shivan:

Originally posted by Tux:

oh of course that will slow the flow tremendously.'
ha!

correction noted

It will more than the single fee. Now every asset flip will have to break even, which given the new store recommendation rules might mean less visibility for these games, means harder way of making money.

Before with $100 you could drop 10 similar card dropping asset flips. Now those 10 asset flips will have to make $1.000 to break even and cards won't drop unless the games are actually being played. Then there's the game getting less visibility on the store which will make harder to sell copies. You need to look at Steam direct as one tool amongst many to reduce abuse.

i doubt these assets flip being the problem Steam direct aimed to tackle anyway....

there are a ton of problems with your theory.

1. any enterprise in which $100 is going to break your plan is not an entrprise that is going to ever have enough material impact on an entire industry to be of any concern.
2. There isnt any evidence that these asset flip projects are in the magnitutes of 100,000 instances or more thus sealing up point number 1 pretty solid.
3. I would venture that the vast majority of Greenlight entries have a 1 game 1 account ratio. I am sure there are some with multiples but I doubt such example comes even into a strong minority, let alone a majority.
4. I am nearly 100% positive that its easier to come up with $100 then it is to scam a voting system.

[Albcatmastercat]

Originally posted by cSg|mc-Hotsauce:

many developers were abusing the system. it wasnt just DH.

:qr:

"Abusing" as in? I know DH went too far, but what else is being done?