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
Adelion Jun 16, 2013 @ 5:21am
Abandoned Greenlight/Greenlit entries?
I cant say for sure but I have a feeling that there are some abandoned greenlight entries. There aren't probably too much but something around 10 %? Would it be a good idea to set a Greenlight Entry into auto-hide after they haven't checked it for one (open to discussion) month? And after 6 month it would be deleted completely but with the ability to re-submit it for free (even opener to discussion). It would maybe reduce the amount of entries especially for people new to Greenlight, atleast a small bit. I mean every author interested getting on Steam should have the time to check his entry once a month. The same rules may appeal to the concept section.

Another thing maybe interesting for developers which would like to use Greenlight to get community feedback to develop their game. Valve could make it so that a Greenlight Entry that has been in hide for a certain amount of time (something like three months or another value which people think is appropriated) they are getting listed again under recent/newest entries. So develeopers can collect feedback go in hide, prepare a major update and can then present the results of their work without losing their earlier votes. Or maybe to avoid confusion for people who are following an entry enable a "new" update mode which is basically the same as being in hide but you are reading a message like: The author has changed his entry to update mode. The item will be available for voting earlierst in blabla example three months again.
This way greenlight could be used better to build a community for a game although this probably isn't in interest of Valve or the average Greenlight voter.

The second idea could also be "abused" by people hoping their stagnating project will get more votes again after being in hide for three? months and the chance to be listed under the recent/newest entries. But with a timer with a reasonable length this should not happend too often. And even then their entry is not cramping Greenlight for the given time.
Last edited by Adelion; Aug 16, 2013 @ 2:52am
Showing 1-15 of 49 comments
< >
jeslyck Jun 16, 2013 @ 1:27pm 
Just wanted to say I really like the first idea. Everything to shrink the unnecessary fillings and the idea does not hurt anybody.
Last edited by jeslyck; Jun 16, 2013 @ 1:30pm
WaaghMan Jun 17, 2013 @ 12:37am 
You mean removing the game page from people that paid $100 in exchange for the bitter experience of seeing how their game was never going to get even noticed by Valve? Sure, sounds like a good idea
C0untzer0 Jun 17, 2013 @ 2:31am 
Originally posted by WaaghMan:
You mean removing the game page from people that paid $100 in exchange for the bitter experience of seeing how their game was never going to get even noticed by Valve? Sure, sounds like a good idea
First, you make a false assumption that the people paid $100 when in fact most of the "games" in question were submitted before the fee was in place.
Second, as the OP's suggestion involves a minimum period of inactivity, it seems that the "Developers" in question have already given up, and this cull would merely end their suffering.
Nyaamos Jun 17, 2013 @ 3:55am 
Thats a good idea in my opinion. If even the developer/submitter cannot be bothered to check his game atleast once a month it should be hidden because he clearly doesnt care for it anymore. If he decides to bother with his project again he could just take it out of hiding anyway if we follow this idea.
jeslyck Jun 17, 2013 @ 3:44pm 
Originally posted by Mindwedge:
Originally posted by C0untzer0:
First, you make a false assumption that the people paid $100 when in fact most of the "games" in question were submitted before the fee was in place.
Second, as the OP's suggestion involves a minimum period of inactivity, it seems that the "Developers" in question have already given up, and this cull would merely end their suffering.

Still, Valve takes quite a beating in other forums for how it treats devs (very nasty stuff, some of it). This would go over like a lead balloon.

Also for consideration, the primary focus on vote count/trending really comes from outside of general Greenlight browsing/voting. Culling is unlikely to change that much


It can not be the affected developer who are complaining because they are long gone. Have difficulty understanding who should have relevant objections, to the proposal ( yes yes they complain on a forum shocker! ) real objections.
Gorlom[Swe] Jun 17, 2013 @ 3:49pm 
Originally posted by jeslyck:
It can not be the affected developer who are complaining because they are long gone. Have difficulty understanding who should have relevant objections, to the proposal ( yes yes they complain on a forum shocker! ) real objections.
Considering who complains about early access games not being ready yet up for sale I don't think that being affected is a criterium (it's allways people that havent bought or does not want to buy). People will be upset with what they percieve as bad or evil policies regardless if they are affected or not. They might be affected somewhere down the line.
Last edited by Gorlom[Swe]; Jun 17, 2013 @ 3:50pm
TyberZannxxxx Aug 2, 2013 @ 3:58pm 
I reported the abandoned/unfunded entries as cancelled.
-Z- Aug 2, 2013 @ 4:39pm 
Originally posted by TyberZannxxxx:
I reported the abandoned/unfunded entries as cancelled.
Not all unfunded entries are cancelled.
wilco64256 Aug 2, 2013 @ 8:43pm 
Originally posted by TyberZannxxxx:
I reported the abandoned/unfunded entries as cancelled.

I'm confused about why you would do that. What gives you the impression that it's your place to assume that just because a developer hasn't updated their project in a while or because their campaign didn't meet a funding goal, that means it becomes your job to report their project as being in violation of some rule? How can you possibly know the status of the projects in question?
irrevenant Aug 3, 2013 @ 1:03am 
General principle seems sound. One month does not seem long enough.
Skoardy Aug 3, 2013 @ 7:13am 
Originally posted by wilco64256:
I'm confused about why you would do that. What gives you the impression that it's your place to assume that just because a developer hasn't updated their project in a while or because their campaign didn't meet a funding goal, that means it becomes your job to report their project as being in violation of some rule?
Some non-existent rule at that.
Last edited by Skoardy; Aug 3, 2013 @ 7:45am
Resolute Aug 3, 2013 @ 10:47pm 
I would support the 'no developer activity after a month' your proposal would go from public to private until they relogged in.
AusSkiller Aug 3, 2013 @ 11:55pm 
I've always wanted something similar to what you are suggesting, except I'd base it on the performance of the game on greenlight. I'd like to see any games ranked below 500 and that have been on greenlight for at least 3 months removed. Realistically if you can't get into the top 500 in the first 3 months then you are never going to get into the top 50 where games are greenlit so those games are just cluttering up greenlight. I think developers should be able to resubmit their games if they are removed though, but I doubt many would bother without drastically changing their game since it's a pretty clear indication that what they have isn't popular, and being able to submit it again anyway means there is very little even the $100 people could complain about except the minor hassle of remaking the greenlight page.

Greenlight definitely needs some sort system to clear out the crap that almost nobody wants.
jeslyck Aug 4, 2013 @ 3:09am 
Originally posted by AusSkiller:
I've always wanted something similar to what you are suggesting, except I'd base it on the performance of the game on greenlight. I'd like to see any games ranked below 500 and that have been on greenlight for at least 3 months removed. Realistically if you can't get into the top 500 in the first 3 months then you are never going to get into the top 50 where games are greenlit so those games are just cluttering up greenlight. I think developers should be able to resubmit their games if they are removed though, but I doubt many would bother without drastically changing their game since it's a pretty clear indication that what they have isn't popular, and being able to submit it again anyway means there is very little even the $100 people could complain about except the minor hassle of remaking the greenlight page.

Greenlight definitely needs some sort system to clear out the crap that almost nobody wants.

Would be a breath of fresh air for the new Greenlight users
Gorlom[Swe] Aug 4, 2013 @ 3:38am 
Originally posted by jeslyck:

Would be a breath of fresh air for the new Greenlight users
Really you don't think there will be a lot of resubmissions from games around the 500 mark swarming for a safe position?
I wonder what will be worse, haveing lots and lots of games that you have to go through once, or haveing 600 games where you have to go over the last 150-200 games 10 times because of resubmissions...
Last edited by Gorlom[Swe]; Aug 4, 2013 @ 3:39am
Showing 1-15 of 49 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Jun 16, 2013 @ 5:21am
Posts: 49