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
merkyor Jan 2, 2013 @ 7:16pm
$100 Fee
I think any game posted before this became a requirement should be moved to the concepts section and have to pay the fee to get moved back to greenlight. it would make it fair for everyone and would get rid of a lot of the garbage submissions. not to mention it would mean more money going to charity.
Last edited by merkyor; Jan 2, 2013 @ 7:22pm
Showing 1-15 of 64 comments
< >
wilco64256 Jan 2, 2013 @ 8:04pm 
Strongly disagree. If people were on the ball enough to post their game at initial launch then they shouldn't be forced to pay just to stay where they are. There's also no method to move a project from Concepts to Games anyway.
Skoardy Jan 2, 2013 @ 11:32pm 
So all those games that adopted Greenlight early lose all the votes they've accrued so far and their placing thanks to no fault of their own?

ps. Congrats gearsman311 for going completely off-topic with some pointless rant. What has any of that got to do with people paying a $100 fee to keep the spam/joke projects off of Greenlight?
C0untzer0 Jan 3, 2013 @ 2:46am 
Originally posted by Skoardy:
ps. Congrats gearsman311 for going completely off-topic with some pointless rant. What has any of that got to do with people paying a $100 fee to keep the spam/joke projects off of Greenlight?
Having seen him post elsewhere, this is as close as he's ever got to saying something rational. clearly a case of retardation coupled with the urge to whine for attention.
Last edited by C0untzer0; Jan 3, 2013 @ 4:03am
jeslyck Jan 3, 2013 @ 3:22am 
Originally posted by C0untzer0:
Originally posted by Skoardy:
ps. Congrats gearsman311 for going completely off-topic with some pointless rant. What has any of that got to do with people paying a $100 fee to keep the spam/joke projects off of Greenlight?
Having seen him post elsewhere, this is as close as he's ever got to saying soething rational. clearly a case of retardation coupled with the urge to whine for attention.


Damn my cereal is sold out!
C0untzer0 Jan 3, 2013 @ 4:04am 
Originally posted by jeslyck:
Originally posted by C0untzer0:
Damn my cereal is sold out!
What, your cereal abandoned its artistic integrity for a major label deal? What a bummer, man!
Highway Jan 3, 2013 @ 6:00am 
Originally posted by gearsman311:
steam is a rip off anyways lol you pay $60 bucks for a new game and for what a digital download there is literaly nothing in your hand that you can hold or put on a shelf, all my games have been redeemed on steam or gifted.
Such a out of date concept... it's not real unless i have a 5p box with 25p worth of paper and 10p worth of dvd plastic in a box. The only real exception being collectors edition where they chuck in toys and posters etc, for everything else you are paying for the data use not ownership of the data and thats always been the case.

The reality is and has been for a long time that you essentially pay for the serial key and everything else is packaging. You do have a physical copy on your hard drive which you can backup as you see fit, unlike cloud gaming services such as OnLive which are really the ones to be very wary of.

Oh and if you pay $60 for a new game without looking for the best deal, nobody is to blame but you. I've never paid RRP for any game in donkies years, it's not hard to check around for offers or preorder deals, or just wait 3 months and get it 50% off.
Last edited by Highway; Jan 3, 2013 @ 6:19am
C0untzer0 Jan 3, 2013 @ 6:06am 
Complains about the price of games, then suggests that publishers increase their costs. He could probably sue his school for failing to provide an education.
merkyor Jan 3, 2013 @ 6:20am 
thread went about as well as i expected
WeeabooJudas Jan 3, 2013 @ 9:32am 
You know, I'm pretty sure I saw a lot of games get taken off/put back on when the $100 rule was implemented. How are you sure Valve didn't do exactly as you said and only let on the payees?
Skoardy Jan 3, 2013 @ 10:46am 
Probably because people have since spoken about not having paid the $100 fee.
wilco64256 Jan 3, 2013 @ 1:22pm 
Originally posted by WeeabooJudas:
You know, I'm pretty sure I saw a lot of games get taken off/put back on when the $100 rule was implemented. How are you sure Valve didn't do exactly as you said and only let on the payees?

Because they didn't. I'm 100% positive. We didn't have to pay a fee to keep our project up, and it didn't seem to me that there was any kind of drastic reduction in existing projects when the fee was implemented, just a major slowdown in submissions.
AusSkiller Jan 3, 2013 @ 6:11pm 
It might be ok to just remove the submissions that weren't paid for from the bottom 50% of all greenlight games since they are obviously not going to get greenlit at this rate, but the games that got in for free and that have been doing well should certainly not be removed.
Elizerection Jan 3, 2013 @ 6:48pm 
Originally posted by AusSkiller:
It might be ok to just remove the submissions that weren't paid for from the bottom 50% of all greenlight games since they are obviously not going to get greenlit at this rate, but the games that got in for free and that have been doing well should certainly not be removed.

This is a terrible idea and you should be ashamed.
Sera Jan 3, 2013 @ 9:48pm 
I'll agree with Erin... What kind of idea is that? o.O
AusSkiller Jan 4, 2013 @ 6:05am 
Originally posted by Erinduck:
Originally posted by AusSkiller:
It might be ok to just remove the submissions that weren't paid for from the bottom 50% of all greenlight games since they are obviously not going to get greenlit at this rate, but the games that got in for free and that have been doing well should certainly not be removed.

This is a terrible idea and you should be ashamed.
Say what? Did you misinterpret what I said? I read through it again though and don't see how it could be misinterpreted to be a terrible idea though, so could you explain to me why you think it's a terrible idea? Because I'm really thrown, I can't work out what would be so terrible about that, let alone why I should be ashamed of the idea.

Just to clarify what I was suggesting is to take the bottom ranked ~500 games of the 1000+ that are on greenlight and remove any of those ~500 that didn't pay the $100 fee, those games have been on greenlight for over 4 months, I don't understand why it would be terrible to remove them from greenlight given that they have failed to even get into the top 100 let alone get anywhere near being greenlit. The community obviously doesn't like them and I'd be surprised if more than a handful of them were ever actually developed to be commercial products.

Could you or Sera please explain what about that is terrible? I'm really curious as to why you guys think that since you are both usually pretty level headed.
Showing 1-15 of 64 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Jan 2, 2013 @ 7:16pm
Posts: 64