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

引用自 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.

引用自 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?

引用自 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.

引用自 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.

引用自 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.

引用自 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.

引用自 AusSkiller：

引用自 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.

引用自 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.)

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.

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

引用自 .!.oO=Boney-Dog-Lee=Oo.!.：

And those that do, depend on money, so it's fake.

You depend on money. Are you fake?

引用自 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.

引用自 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.

引用自 -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.

引用自 .!.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?

引用自 -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?)

引用自 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.

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.

You did something there. I have seen it.

Quite an amusing turn towards the end of this thread. As an indie dev wholly reliant on this fabled "money" thing, I can attest to the need to sell a product for more than personal satisfaction. Being an indie dev doesn't mean I don't have to pay for my living quarters, eat, or otherwise fund my incessant toilet paper usage. It just means that it's a lot harder to do. If I make anything off a project, it certainly doesn't diminish the enjoyment of creating the game.

But back to the OP... Greenlight is cool, however I have seen a lot of dead projects that got Greenlit with only a rendered cinematic trailer, while games with public demos, betas, etc are still floundering about for votes (yes, including my own). That doesn't mean that it hasn't served its purpose, as the intent was to gauge interest in an idea and not necessarily gaurantee that it would be developed on the spot, but I'm also pretty sure that Valve assumed those games would be completed at some point when they had the original vision of Greenlight. After all, the final stage of Greenlight is approval to release your game on their platform.