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
ManeShadow Jan 26 @ 10:41am
Yeah, Greenlight had to go.
In my opinion, while Greenlight worked sometimes. Valve just didn't maintain it right. I can find a couple greenlit games that are completly dead and haven't been updated in a year. Want two? Slendermans Shadow (Not that it was that good.) and The Intruder. Both games have been completly invisible for god knows how long. Another problem was just in the concept itself. The greenlight games didn't need to have a playable version so people can see if it's good or not. It's being brought to Steam merly on it being a interesting looking concept that people liked, while some developers did include demos which I applaud. Many didn't, and with that you end up with Day One: Garry's Incident.

So, whatever Valve's next stage after they lay to rest Greenlight will be, I hope they make fix these problems. Otherwise we seem to get some games that are terrible, buggy, or just unplayable.

And don't even get me started on Concepts,

Actually, get me started. All it really needed was some moderators to filter out the crap.
Last edited by ManeShadow; Jan 26 @ 10:43am
Showing 1-15 of 45 comments
< >
Tatsuya Hiroki (HU) Jan 26 @ 1:11pm 
Indeed unfortunatly. Im more worried about projects that are already greenlighted and stil in process
Gorlom[Swe] Jan 27 @ 12:24am 
Since noone has acctually spent money on any of the greenlit games (through steam at least) that has been cancelled I don't think I see or understand the big issue with games getting cancelled or not being completed?
I'm sure this happened a lot before public greenlight (in the closed internal greenlight) just that we consumers never noticed it.

Does it offend you that there are games in the "greenlit" section that will never be released? :S
Last edited by Gorlom[Swe]; Jan 27 @ 12:24am
ManeShadow Jan 27 @ 1:00am 
Originally posted by GorlomSwe:
Since noone has acctually spent money on any of the greenlit games (through steam at least) that has been cancelled I don't think I see or understand the big issue with games getting cancelled or not being completed? :conwayheadscratch:
I'm sure this happened a lot before public greenlight (in the closed internal greenlight) just that we consumers never noticed it. :actime:

Does it offend you that there are games in the "greenlit" section that will never be released? :S

Not "Offended" really, just sad to see a game that seemed like it could be a cool concept fade away and not update.
Gorlom[Swe] Jan 27 @ 3:19am 
Originally posted by ManeShadow:

Not "Offended" really, just sad to see a game that seemed like it could be a cool concept fade away and not update.
And this is Greenlights fault, how?
AusSkiller Jan 27 @ 4:22am 
Originally posted by ManeShadow:
In my opinion, while Greenlight worked sometimes. Valve just didn't maintain it right. I can find a couple greenlit games that are completly dead and haven't been updated in a year. Want two? Slendermans Shadow (Not that it was that good.) and The Intruder. Both games have been completly invisible for god knows how long.
That has nothing to doe with either Valve or Greenlight, that is a failing of the developers/publishers of those games. Of course this isn't really a problem anyway since as Gorlom mentioned no money was involved.

Originally posted by ManeShadow:
Another problem was just in the concept itself. The greenlight games didn't need to have a playable version so people can see if it's good or not. It's being brought to Steam merly on it being a interesting looking concept that people liked, while some developers did include demos which I applaud. Many didn't, and with that you end up with Day One: Garry's Incident.
Again, not a problem with Valve or Greenlight, this time it was the voters at fault, it's what people wanted, it could even be argued that it isn't a problem at all since people are getting what they voted for.

Originally posted by ManeShadow:
So, whatever Valve's next stage after they lay to rest Greenlight will be, I hope they make fix these problems. Otherwise we seem to get some games that are terrible, buggy, or just unplayable.
The problems are external to Valve so it's not something they can fix, all they can do is look for a way to minimize the affect of the problems that others create, but the problems will still be there. Greenlight would have been a perfect system if people weren't greedy jerks or idiots, sadly most people are and so they wrecked it, however I must admit it was a bit naive of Valve to think people were rational, well informed and good intentioned.

Originally posted by ManeShadow:
And don't even get me started on Concepts,

Actually, get me started. All it really needed was some moderators to filter out the crap.
Concepts were always going to be bad, Valve separated them out, so it isn't a problem for the Greenlight process now. It's too hard and time consuming to decide fairly which concepts can stay and which should go, so the reporting system is as much moderation as we could reasonably expect of Valve.
ManeShadow Jan 27 @ 9:28am 
Originally posted by AusSkiller:
Originally posted by ManeShadow:
Again, not a problem with Valve or Greenlight, this time it was the voters at fault, it's what people wanted, it could even be argued that it isn't a problem at all since people are getting what they voted for.

Originally posted by ManeShadow:
So, whatever Valve's next stage after they lay to rest Greenlight will be, I hope they make fix these problems. Otherwise we seem to get some games that are terrible, buggy, or just unplayable.
The problems are external to Valve so it's not something they can fix, all they can do is look for a way to minimize the affect of the problems that others create, but the problems will still be there. Greenlight would have been a perfect system if people weren't greedy jerks or idiots, sadly most people are and so they wrecked it, however I must admit it was a bit naive of Valve to think people were rational, well informed and good intentioned.


Well, actually. When you put it like that, I get your point. I guess it isn't Valve's actual fault, and I've been putting the fault on the hand that feeds me.
(Messed up quoting that, I said that. not AusSkiller.)
Last edited by ManeShadow; Jan 27 @ 4:04pm
.!.oO=Boney-Dog-Lee=Oo.!. Jan 27 @ 3:00pm 
You can't advertise an open system and then close it down. ValvE should have thought about that one first. (The fee issue) How to deal with the 'spam' and how to make a system that highlights active and relevant developers and get the customers involved and updated nicely. That is a hope they could not quite live up to, yet. But mostly that shame is on the waves of wannabes that just wanted to cash in, without seeing the opportunity of communicating with the best audience and not selling every word. But I'm happy to see where it is going. And I do wish them all the best. It's just a funny thing that 'Indies' don't care about the business too much because the drive is different. And those that do, depend on money, so it's fake.
Gorlom[Swe] Jan 27 @ 4:00pm 
You can't advertise an open system and then close it down. ValvE should have thought about that one first. (The fee issue)
was it advertised as free to developers though? I know the fee wasnt there at the start but was it ever advertised in such a way? That sounds really strange to me.

It's just a funny thing that 'Indies' don't care about the business too much because the drive is different. And those that do, depend on money, so it's fake.
Which indie isn't dependant on money? Does being dependant on money automatically mean all "care about the buisiness" from that person/team is fake? Can't one have genuine care and be dependant at the same time?

Does non-indies care in a different non fake way? Or did you just expect Indies to care in some paradoxal way where they have a large excess of money just lying around and can do any and everything they want to service your gaming needs without ever needing to worry about their own? :S
Last edited by Gorlom[Swe]; Jan 27 @ 4:02pm
-Z- Jan 27 @ 4:29pm 
Originally posted by .!.oO=Boney-Dog-Lee=Oo.!.:
And those that do, depend on money, so it's fake.
You depend on money. Are you fake?
.!.oO=Boney-Dog-Lee=Oo.!. Jan 28 @ 12:59am 
Originally posted by GorlomSwe:
was it advertised as free to developers though? I know the fee wasnt there at the start but was it ever advertised in such a way? That sounds really strange to me.
The absence of financial cost prior to release was noted in the first public announcements and I'd say that is advertised. Otherwise I would have never come here. Sure there is pretty often room for interpretation as there always is. But I did not have to pay money to present my work.

Originally posted by GorlomSwe:
Which indie isn't dependant on money? Does being dependant on money automatically mean all "care about the buisiness" from that person/team is fake? Can't one have genuine care and be dependant at the same time?

Money introduces greed and additional pressure, therefore distracts an artist further from their soul intention of creation. That should awnser the rest. And sure, there are exceptions to that. But it takes quite some experience to be able to differ. Not saying to avoid it at all, just avoiding it as dependance, can help you to stay true to your walk in life.

Originally posted by -Z-:
You depend on money. Are you fake?

I depend on health, time, food, shelter, amusement, love and the warmth of fair company, things like that. And that is heavy enough. Money is only something to barter with, but if you have other things to give, money becomes less the main concern. That is what I was trying to say. I may have started some things for money (or rather in hope of a less concerned life) a long time ago. But things have changed for me and I just wanted to share that so it might give food for thought to others that should know.

Please, don't pull me apart. It hurts as it is. Thank you.
-Z- Jan 28 @ 2:29am 
Originally posted by .!.oO=Boney-Dog-Lee=Oo.!.:
I depend on health, time, food, shelter, amusement, love and the warmth of fair company, things like that. And that is heavy enough. Money is only something to barter with, but if you have other things to give, money becomes less the main concern. That is what I was trying to say. I may have started some things for money (or rather in hope of a less concerned life) a long time ago. But things have changed for me and I just wanted to share that so it might give food for thought to others that should know.

Please, don't pull me apart. It hurts as it is. Thank you.
Quite a long way to avoid admitting that, yes, you do depend on money. After all, provided that you do not actually reside in a country that still uses a barter system, money is what you exchange for said food, shelter, and amusement (in forms, of course, outside sitting there and daydreaming or making toys out of things you find lying around that are freely available).

Simply put, trying to condemn some indie devs for being interested in monetizing their work is unwittingly hypocritical at best.


But, for the sake of humoring your apparent idealism, what do you suppose that you could barter in exchange for the games devs produce that would not only allow them to continue basic survival but also aid in overcoming the cost of development and potentially set them up so they can begin work on their next project?
Last edited by -Z-; Jan 28 @ 3:03am
C0untzer0 Jan 28 @ 3:06am 
Originally posted by -Z-:
for the sake of humoring your apparent idealism, what do you suppose that you could barter in exchange for the games devs produce that would not only allow them to continue basic survival but also aid in overcoming the cost of development and potentially set them up so they can begin work on their next project?
And is remotely transferrable (Unless there is a way to upload a turnip that I missed out on?)
-Z- Jan 28 @ 3:54am 
Originally posted by C0untzer0:
And is remotely transferrable (Unless there is a way to upload a turnip that I missed out on?)
He could possibly mail a turnip, but it'd spoil in transit and the cost of shipping would probably be more than the cost of your average indie title and also mean that he still would have to part with money to make the exchange.
Last edited by -Z-; Jan 28 @ 3:54am
C0untzer0 Jan 28 @ 3:58am 
And he'd have to provide a set value of turnip (weight/quality/freshness).
It'd be simpler for all concerned if there were some sort of system where tokens could be exchanged for goods and services, with a recognised value, backed by some kind of authority, and legally protected.

That'd replace money.
-Z- Jan 28 @ 4:04am 
You did something there. I have seen it.
Showing 1-15 of 45 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Jan 26 @ 10:41am
Posts: 45