Steam Greenlight

Help pick new games for Steam

Browse through the entries here and rate up the games you want to see made available via Steam

Submit your product
Walken on sunshine Jul 5, 2014 @ 8:52pm
Flood, broken, scam games- more curation options?
As of now theres a huge flood of greenlight games: each time i come back theres more and more bad entries- from barely any concept art with no screenshots to joke entries- making it harder and harder to browse greenlight and finding projects to our liking.
Nowadays you pratically need to giveaway free keys or other such tactics to get greenlit- tactics wich unfairly make some games get greenlit where they never would... much like kickstarter where some projects don't deliver and results in broken games, but here the system can be gamed and pass trought.
I had enought broken games that got greenlit, while other interesting games are sitting in waiting.

In my view thats bad- for the devs who are struggling to get visibility and to us consumers.

What could change? Do you agree something needs to change regarding that? Gabe mentioned in more then one interview hinting that Steam will change things and most likely kill greenlight since its not working as it should- but despite its flaws i rather have greenlight, letting choice on our hands, then raising barriers for indies to get on steam again.

So heres the idea- to have this and similar topics always bumped; with enought attention higher the chances of Steam staff taking it into account.
Any ideas of what could change? Even if not, if you agree just coment and help this topic gets traction.


I started this topic proposing a idea that wasn't well received, thus i changed the title and topic to keep things in focus.

My idea was a heftier thumbs down/red flag option in wich depending on the ratio of thumbs downXpositive votes would put entries in the cold, out of the greenlight queue for some time to shun away joke entries and giving serious devs time to put a new better entry (or improving the content before trying again). But it seens that would leave plenty of room for haters to break the system.
So what could be changed iin a non-sploitable way?
Last edited by Walken on sunshine; Jul 7, 2014 @ 11:51am
Showing 1-15 of 138 comments
< >
Gorlom[Swe] Jul 5, 2014 @ 9:01pm 
For the "down votes" you suggest to have any actual effect other than indicating to the dev that their project is too early to be shown is a tremendously bad idea.
It will be abused and trolled... which is why it was not included in the first place.
Walken on sunshine Jul 5, 2014 @ 9:11pm 
Would it? Does people who not want a game would devote so much time and effort down voting games in comparison to those who vote yes? Perhaps. As a concept(on the paper) this is solid, but implementation always needs more care- done right that wouldn't happen.

Greenlight have always been experimental and Valve said more then once that it will change or be removed some day(Valve Time...). Nothing stops things to be experimented upon to reach the right spot- in this case, a proper ratio from down votes to 'yes' votes. If haters clearly outmatch as majority then it would only mean increasing the ratio.
If i were in charge of greenlight the release of such change would have a huge ratio (5 or more times downvotes in comparison to 'yes' votes) and a bigger time frame(2-3 weeks before a entry being accounted for closure), later tweaking this up or down depending on results.

It could also work without those effects as you said, but the impact compared to the effor to implement wouldn't be all that worth.
Gorlom[Swe] Jul 6, 2014 @ 12:24am 
Originally posted by Walken on sunshine:
It could also work without those effects as you said, but the impact compared to the effor to implement wouldn't be all that worth.
The effect you are after wouldn't be worth the effort to implement. Infact it would defeat the point of Greenlight.
Qon Jul 6, 2014 @ 2:59am 
Originally posted by Walken on sunshine:
Would it? Does people who not want a game would devote so much time and effort down voting games in comparison to those who vote yes? Perhaps. As a concept(on the paper) this is solid, but implementation always needs more care- done right that wouldn't happen.
There is at least one steam group already dedicated to qollectivly downvoting entries just to sabotage, or something, even though it has 0 effect. You guys want to give these kinds of people influence?

Originally posted by Walken on sunshine:
Greenlight have always been experimental and Valve said more then once that it will change or be removed some day(Valve Time...). Nothing stops things to be experimented upon to reach the right spot- in this case, a proper ratio from down votes to 'yes' votes. If haters clearly outmatch as majority then it would only mean increasing the ratio.
If i were in charge of greenlight the release of such change would have a huge ratio (5 or more times downvotes in comparison to 'yes' votes) and a bigger time frame(2-3 weeks before a entry being accounted for closure), later tweaking this up or down depending on results.

It could also work without those effects as you said, but the impact compared to the effor to implement wouldn't be all that worth.
5 is a huge ratio? Does it really matter if 1 billion people hate your game if you have 100 000 fans who wants to purchase your game? Why would Steam care about the opinion of 1 billion people who aren't even affected since they can just choose to not spend their money on it?
That's a ratio of 10 000 and it still isn't high enough...

You can write your dislike in the comments section. It's already possible for the dev to find out if his project is not ready for review. No need to force it.
Last edited by Qon; Jul 6, 2014 @ 3:00am
C0untzer0 Jul 6, 2014 @ 3:17am 
It comes down to these possibilities:
  • The genuine developers with unready or sub-par projects already take the criticism on board and don't pretend that negative comments aren't real. They don't need this extra burn.
  • The "developers" caught up in the Dunning Kruger loop of confirmation bias will see it as confirming their genius. Obviously the bad votes and comments are just proof of the massive conspiracy which has been holding them down, and it won't have any impact on them
    edit: Or even worse, will convince them of their comedic genius because you "just don't get their joke"
  • The idiots out in the voting publc who already have trouble operating a 3-button system will accidentally sabotage a project which is just not their thing. That's just inexcusable design.
Last edited by C0untzer0; Jul 6, 2014 @ 9:57am
Skoardy Jul 6, 2014 @ 4:27am 
Just out of interest, how are games that are not being sold damaging the market (in various levels)?
QUENOUILLE Jul 6, 2014 @ 8:20am 
ok
Sera Jul 6, 2014 @ 9:56am 
Remember that one of point of Greenlight is for devs to communicate with the players. I understand your intention with this but I don't think there is a need for a negative point system. You can use the comments or even make a discussion thread on their game page to tell them your opinions about their game.
Walken on sunshine Jul 6, 2014 @ 11:54am 
I didn't knew of such a group on steam(the down voting one). It seens human taste for trolling goes even beyond what i tought, thats sad.
That alone jeopardize the chances of this working- but i guess only Steam would be capable of judging it properly, we lack full stats of how many people vote wich options or in what time frame. Its a given by the very nature of the system that it draws much more people interested in indies then people that wants to go trought all the trouble of browsing those pages only to screw things around...

Seeing this i agree that this idea is too risky - but Greenlight still need changes and, together with then, a better way to improve more visibility of entries that deserve it(wich also means decreasing visibility of others).

Originally posted by C0untzer0:
  • The "developers" caught up in the Dunning Kruger loop of confirmation bias will see it as confirming their genius. Obviously the bad votes and comments are just proof of the massive conspiracy which has been holding them down, and it won't have any impact on them
    edit: Or even worse, will convince them of their comedic genius because you "just don't get their joke"

I agree that people in the loop of confirmation bias would just keep at it- they would just have to deal with ever increased times for re-entries.

Originally posted by C0untzer0:
  • The idiots out in the voting publc who already have trouble operating a 3-button system will accidentally sabotage a project which is just not their thing. That's just inexcusable design.

Thats actually an idea- the design could be inexcusable or far from it. It all comes down to implementation.
An option for red flag content is common place nowadays, the button didn't need to be alongside the 3 main ones- in other words, it all comes down to implementation. I come from a graphics design background and i focused on UI/UX - good ideas can be destroyed and seemingly bad ideas become major features depending on UX. Our perceptions are manipulated all the time (mostly for good) without us noticing... This system may be flawed but this or another system wouldn't fail out of confusion- unless you're certain Steam wouldn't put capable people to implement it. I may dislike some of their choices regarding Ui/Ux but i understand all their decisions and Steam is far from bad design.



Originally posted by Skoardy:
Just out of interest, how are games that are not being sold damaging the market (in various levels)?
I said that mainly regarding broken games that get greenlit- but the flood of bad entries on greenlight damage the very devs on greenlight struggling to get visibility. Ive seen bad games getting more spotlight and being greenlit far earlier then deserving projects (that generallys involves dubious tactics like free keys giveaways to get greenlit).
Its a mess to find anything on greenlight nowadays, i follow mostly recommendations found elsewhere, and each time i roll a new queue on greenlight it tooks me longer to have the patience to browse it.
Flooding and overwhelming the customers is a real problem and played a large role on that 1983 crash- part of the problem was the flood of cheap bad games flooding the stores.
Every bad purchase made by anyone means less cash flow elsewhere. Im tired of seeing almost every month another dev house closing doors or switching to predictable mobile games.

The actual flood is such that lots of hidden jewels get lost on the cogntive chaos alone. I, and i believe many here, search out for those. But the average consummer not. Many brilliant people with good work aren't getting the attention they deserve.

Am i really alone on that here? No one sees the flood of derivative me-too games?



Originally posted by Sera:
...You can use the comments or even make a discussion thread on their game page to tell them your opinions about their game.
Definetly.
The main thing tought would be some system to better filter games on greenlight or better boost visibility. The comment idea would just better filter comments (separating then- i do stop to read comments and its hard to filter then, must be crazy for the devs to browse all them as well).

The main point here isn't this implementation- this is the biggest problem with greenlight as it is(among other flaws). If this isn't a good idea what could be done then? Im among those who don't want Steam to close Greenlight wich is very likely to happen anytime soon from what Gabe said on interviews.

Any other ideas?
Last edited by Walken on sunshine; Jul 6, 2014 @ 11:56am
Gorlom[Swe] Jul 6, 2014 @ 12:19pm 
Originally posted by Walken on sunshine:
Seeing this i agree that this idea is too risky - but Greenlight still need changes and, together with then, a better way to improve more visibility of entries that deserve it(wich also means decreasing visibility of others).
Why does visability for any game need to be improved or decreased? All of them have equal visibility in the que right now. Everyone will get to each and every games eventually.
That visibility modifier idea goes against the idea of Greenlight as that would influence the "votes".
The reason the que is random and not sortable after "highest rated" is that Valve wants everyone to make their own judgement instead of going by what others like.

Am i really alone on that here? No one sees the flood of derivative me-too games?
We see them. Nothing needs to be done about them. We just "vote" no thank you/not interested and move on.
Last edited by Gorlom[Swe]; Jul 6, 2014 @ 12:20pm
Qon Jul 6, 2014 @ 1:02pm 
http://steamcommunity.com/groups/thumbsdown
Proof of existence.
It's a small group but the risk of this type of behaviour growing if their actions mattered isn't 0.

Yes greenlight qould be improved, but this isn't it and I don't know how.
What you want is something like a stack exchange moderation system for something qompletely different. There are no strict rules (not any at all) against low quality qontent and the qontent is art where quality is almost purely subjective. Also the games do not have to be qomplete or representative of the final product.
There are reasons that greenlight isn't sorted by popularity. Valve made reviews of games in the store sorted by popularity/helpfulness votes because the review system is not "greenlight for aspiring pro reviewers"...
Skoardy Jul 6, 2014 @ 1:21pm 
Originally posted by Walken on sunshine:
I said that mainly regarding broken games that get greenlit- but the flood of bad entries on greenlight damage the very devs on greenlight struggling to get visibility. Ive seen bad games getting more spotlight and being greenlit far earlier then deserving projects (that generallys involves dubious tactics like free keys giveaways to get greenlit).
Sorry, I was reading your suggestion from the assumption you wanted to encourage devs to work more on their games, not as some sort of method for stopping games getting on Steam that a majority of Greenlight users actually want on Steam.

Going on what you're saying about 'deserving' games, wouldn't they also be victim to your new system? I mean, we already know these people don't appear to want these games on Steam as those who do. What stops them from taking their dislike of games you like a step further and kicking them off the track for increasing lengths of time?
Cpt. Carolina Jul 6, 2014 @ 1:45pm 
Limit the voting system!

May I suggest Valve limit the amount of NO / YES votes you get like reporting players in Dota 2. That gives individual votes more power. Players then can vote for games they really like, leave other interesting games alone, and then report the truly terrible games. Why would a player waste a yes vote for Derp Simulator 2014 as only a joke?

Also, Increase the Greenlight license price tag!

I am disturbed that people are wasting 100$ to post RPG Maker games with default assets, X Simulator 2014 games, and other garbage. It's clear that these people aren't really game developers but trolls or modders with minimal experience. They just have a lot of spare cash.

The 100$ price tag for entries is a basic, and crude filter but I think it should be increased. Just increasing it to 150$ should help reduce a lot of terrible game entries. It will screw over one man developer teams but for small teams of four or five people, that splits to around 40 dollars per person. Steam is one of the few locations with a mass market of gamers so it should be a bit difficult (and expensive) to get your game in.

Qon Jul 6, 2014 @ 2:14pm 
Originally posted by mazman:
Limit the voting system!

May I suggest Valve limit the amount of NO / YES votes you get like reporting players in Dota 2. That gives individual votes more power. Players then can vote for games they really like, leave other interesting games alone, and then report the truly terrible games. Why would a player waste a yes vote for Derp Simulator 2014 as only a joke?
Do you want to limit the amount of regular no-votes? If you do then discussing greenlight improvements with you is like discussing bipedal locomotion improvements with a shark.

Limiting the amount of Yes votes qompared to no-votes might have some effect. What might happen is that people value their yes votes more and only vote yes for what they truly qonsider buying. It also limits people who don't browse the greenlight queue and instead find GL entries through other channels. It is frustrating for people who choose to opt-out of the GL queue browsing when they get forced to go through the queue anyways just to be able to upvote the game they like. The system qan also be circumvented since no votes are not affecting anything. You can simply automate the no voting process and no vote on every single entry and then use another queue system to keep track of what you have visited, giving you maximum amount of yes votes instantly without the need to no-vote anything.
Maybe it will drive some extra traffic to all GL entries but it since it is unpleasant and unwilling participation it will not be recieved well.

Originally posted by mazman:
Also, Increase the Greenlight license price tag!

I am disturbed that people are wasting 100$ to post RPG Maker games with default assets, X Simulator 2014 games, and other garbage. It's clear that these people aren't really game developers but trolls or modders with minimal experience. They just have a lot of spare cash.

The 100$ price tag for entries is a basic, and crude filter but I think it should be increased. Just increasing it to 150$ should help reduce a lot of terrible game entries. It will screw over one man developer teams but for small teams of four or five people, that splits to around 40 dollars per person. Steam is one of the few locations with a mass market of gamers so it should be a bit difficult (and expensive) to get your game in.

Why would 150$ be any different at all qompared to 100$ for joke entries?
And who in their right mind wants to screw over one man teams in favor of rich 4 man teams, disregarding quality qompletely and rating games solely on the amount of people who are working on it and the amount of money they have?

Why not just SELL steam store shelf space then? -.-
Walken on sunshine Jul 6, 2014 @ 2:33pm 
I concur with you Skoardy- that risk would be too dangerous and this idea is most likely flawed. Ive seen 'anons' and internet going to great extents to mess things up agianst major business and i personally don't think that would happen the same way in these cases but theres the risk thats for sure. A better solution is more then welcome.

My main intention is for devs to work more on their games- but seeing your game siting on greenlight for too long without votes don't send clear messages enougth. The majoritiy of comments are either from haters or those who liked it (far more then constructive criticism) and the reasons why your entry isn't going foward aren't clear- 'maybe its just visibility. Maybe i need to advertise more or give free keys like some other do.' Etc, etc.

If i had an entry on greenlight i would like to know those things. I would rather find a stop sign 'go back to the drawing board some more' then feeding hopes. Im very passionate with game design, maybe thats just me, but thats far from a let down- i believe the same happens with other devs, it just encourages to try harder.

What if a game gets unjustly holded off with such an system in place? Nothing really- it just means you didn't presented it well enought, the time-off for re-entry would be a good time to change tactics- maybe a video explaining the features and gameplay, maybe another way to write things, or a blog showing more content.

Mazman, the limited vote sounds interesting- as long as there were a good amount of those replenishable by week or month i could see that working.

But the price of entry? NO.
Believe me, game devolpment (even indie) can cost a whole lot more then it seens. Even with free game engines and self-made art assets, most indies work part-time and struggle to make it trought a month. Theres no one paying then for all those hours of work. Every dime spent for greenlight entry is one less dime that could go into an site, advertising, paying an artist, paying bills.
Showing 1-15 of 138 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Jul 5, 2014 @ 8:52pm
Posts: 138