Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
Just press "no thanks/not interested" and move on.
i couldn't disagree more.
im going to copy something i posted in another thread here;
"greenlight is a business. its serious stuff and should be treated like so. there are people here who actually want to make a living out of selling good quality games."
"the problem is not greenlight, but the lack of moderation here. people post whatever they want and get away with it. and horrible scam games get greenlit every month because everything seems to be done by robots over here. "
greenlight is not a place to sell your hello world game or your half baked 2 weeks flash game. and most of all its not the place for joke-games.
want to make games? go study a couple of years. make lots of crappy prototypes (everyone goes through this). then when you have something interesting to show, come back here.
Simply because what you are asking for is not greenlight.
The OPs suggestion would go against the idea of Greenlight. The idea of Greenlight is that we the community is the very FIRST gatecheck and that there is no moderation based on quality. That the only submissions that get removed by Valve are unlawful ones.
If you think there is a problem with greenlight, then that percieved problems lies in that you find a fault in how people answer the question Valve asks.
To me this complaint just sounds like you want Valve to take responsibility for what the community is responsible for. THat you want to be spoonfed what you should like and dislike. That Valve should be responsible for what games you buy because you can't bother to do proper research on them before you press a button.
im not sure why people are trolling greenlight
Well it depends what Steam is for. Is it like an art gallery where only works of art deemed suitable and respectable are allowed to be shown.
Or is it more like a market place where it caters to all tastes?
I'm not saying one is right and one is wrong.
If 100,000 people want to put a poster of Justin Beiber on their wall, I'm fine with that. True, it wouldn't go in the National Portrait Gallery.
I'm not saying allow everything. But maybe if there if 100,000 people want it then even if it's not considered "high art" it should be allowed?
It's an interesting debate.
Yes. By selling things deemed suitable and respectable (and by suitable and respectable, I just mean the stuff that people want more than other stuff).
And if that 100,000 is the threshold for Greenlight, fine. However, by your phrasing of 'suitable', 'high art' and 'respectable' you seem to be making out that the generic democracy of Greenlight is somehow elitist.
Are you asking for clarification or challangeing his views?
Just because most people vote "yes" or "no" on a title does not mean the game is gold or lacks quality.
Quality isn't even technically what Valve is asking you to judge when you vote. Valve is asking if you'd buy it.
Which is why you get some questionable releases from Greenlight.
Greenlight has nothing to do with quality.
Then he seemed to move on to a claim that Greenlight was somehow holding popular games back with some kind of high brow standards, which I'm not even sure I understand how that would work.
I'm not sure wher you got the whole "someone (singular) might buy it" from?
No... he's still on the same line that if enough people wants it it should be allowed in. He is just using those terms to build a metaphore since you reacted to his first post, which made it seem like you wanted to prevent something (that is getting a large number of votes) to get in... He is trying to clarify and then you jumped on him for that...