We can make it better by not having the same discussion over and over every week, and maybe learning to read through a forum somewhat before posting yet another rehash of a discussion held every time something gets greenlit.

Well there is something there! i mean i know you dont like my comment, but why is it we have to look through all the discussions? dont you think if steam had some ryhme or reason there could be separate places for different kinds of discutions? Forums usually have a multitude of sections, this could be under proccess, another could be the way things are set up. If anything these dicussions could be seen as a pardody of the greenlight system, lots of items but hard to find the items you really want to find.

I'm impressed by the opening paragraph. Most people that wants to talk about this topic from your stance usually whine. It's refreshing to se someone that can have a discussion. That being said I dont think transparancy in showing the number of button clicks.. Things like that has a tendency to influence people when they are about to press those buttons.

I think that picking from multiple genres as a rule would mean that we quite quickly get bad games in some of the genres and devs might start to make games in unpopular (among the devs) genras jsut to get their game on Steam rather than for the love of that genre or their game. While it is a nice thought it will probably come with concequences down the line that just isn't worth it.

If green light is here to help indie developers, let it help them and not games that would be instantly aproved.

It's not. It's meant to help Valve select what to put in their store regardless of what kind of game it is.
Valve has let games through without going through greenlight based on indie rewards or publisher backing. (I assume there are other situations as well that I'm not aware of.)

Publicado originalmente por UrsaMajor:

Well there is something there! i mean i know you dont like my comment, but why is it we have to look through all the discussions? dont you think if steam had some ryhme or reason there could be separate places for different kinds of discutions?

I think C0untzer0 is just tired of this particular discussion and the poor attittude of the guys (before you) that whines and tries to fix, what isn't broke, in a way that breaks it more than it fixes it.

Just today there was a guy that thought Greenlight was accepting too many games onto Steam and wanted to suggest a beta testing process to every greenlight game that gets selected (I think it was the games that got through rather than those up for voting). He insisted his idea was flawless and that everyone else did not understand while spouting absurd claims and misinformation.

Some internal information from Valve is required to even comprehend the problem. Information we don't have and probably never will.

Publicado originalmente por UrsaMajor:

but why is it we have to look through all the discussions?

Basic Netiquette? To avoid going over ground worn out by another thread on the same page of the forum? Because that's how discussions work?

I admit whineing was my first thought of responce, but we have plenty of those. I understand steam is a bussiness and needs to put itself first so it much better to work with them than against them.

I think you might be right about the transperancy thing, i would really like to know the metrics but perhaps that impossible too. If not numbers than perhaps a leaderboard would work? I saw one game that mentioned they were talked to after they got on the steam top 50 (verdun or something) If it something that inspires voting than its not all that bad.


yeah i thought about that when i put up the genre point. but i think just as you can report abuse for games makeing a mokery of the system, it could be used for games being put in genres they dont belong. The other problem i thought of was games that had multiple genres, I supose they would put themselves in the most advantagous slot, but if they fit that genre all the best too them. It would really add some diveristy to whats being put up which i think would make it worth the hiccups.


I supose your right about the indie thing, thats how its being marketed, not what they are acutally trying to do.

forums allways have sections, i dont see why you would even argue it. and again if you realy belive thats how it works, than why cant it be better.

We want it to be better. And people make it better by putting in the effort to find threads (by using the handy search functions) that cover the topic they wish to talk about. Instead of trying to draw parallels with Greenlight itself, just admit you didn't bother looking before you posted.

Even just flipping through the first five pages of the forum, I came across a handful of threads your thoughts could have been added to and one I can pretty much guarantee will have already had your suggestions brought up and discussed in.

I'm going to throw in my usual "I still don't understand why the approval bottleneck is so small" comment.

Since Greenlight was launched a year ago, 78 games have been Greenlit. That's 1.4 games greenlit per week.

What is stopping them from accepting games at a faster pace?

Publicado originalmente por irrevenant:

Since Greenlight was launched a year ago, 78 games have been Greenlit.

Seems almost everybody is lately forgetting to add the number from the "Released" list to get the actual number of Greenlit games since the beginning.

Publicado originalmente por Mindwedge:

Publicado originalmente por irrevenant:

Since Greenlight was launched a year ago, 78 games have been Greenlit. That's 1.4 games greenlit per week.

Publicado originalmente por Alden, July 24th, 2013:

We've just Greenlit another fourteen games and two software titles, bringing the total number of Greenlit titles to 127.

Publicado originalmente por irrevenant:

What is stopping them from accepting games at a faster pace?

Fax machines. Haven't you heard?

That was one example that you seem to have latched onto, seemingly to trivialize our efforts. Having antiquated processes, systems, tools, personal marketing and tech support for our partners, etc. keeps us from shipping and supporting as many games as we'd like, but again, the actual reasons don't really matter. Improving things is going slower than everyone would like, but we are genuinely working on the problems.

Publicado originalmente por orb:

Publicado originalmente por irrevenant:

Since Greenlight was launched a year ago, 78 games have been Greenlit.

Seems almost everybody is lately forgetting to add the number from the "Released" list to get the actual number of Greenlit games since the beginning.

Really? That's kind of unintuitive - I figured the "Greenlit" list included the "Released" list - released games are all Greenlit after all.

Publicado originalmente por TomB:

Having antiquated processes, systems, tools, personal marketing and tech support for our partners, etc. keeps us from shipping and supporting as many games as we'd like, but again, the actual reasons don't really matter. Improving things is going slower than everyone would like, but we are genuinely working on the problems.

Thanks Tom, the reply is appreciated.

I'm sure you guys aren't just sitting on your hands. It's more a matter of managing expectations - it's not apparent to the average Steam user how much is involved in processing a Greenlight application so we watch it moving at a glacial pace and wonder "Just how hard can it be? Are they really serious about this?". It would probably be a lot less frustrating all round if the whole process were more transparent.

Also, is there anything the community can do to help things along?

Publicado originalmente por irrevenant:

It would probably be a lot less frustrating all round if the whole process were more transparent.

Wouldn't that increase the workload making the process even slower?

Publicado originalmente por GorlomSwe:

Publicado originalmente por irrevenant:

It would probably be a lot less frustrating all round if the whole process were more transparent.

Wouldn't that increase the workload making the process even slower?

That's a fair question and the honest answer is: I don't know.

They already have staff responding to ongoing questions about Greenlight. Adding some structure around that might take more effort. Or it might end up easier to manage overall.

Also, even if it did end up making the Greenlight process a bit slower, pragmatically it's probably better customer relations to be visibly moving slowly forward, than to be moving slightly faster and noone realising it.

Publicado originalmente por irrevenant:

Really? That's kind of unintuitive - I figured the "Greenlit" list included the "Released" list - released games are all Greenlit after all.

But including "Released" positions in "Greenlit" list would require changing translations of the "Greenlit" label (which for example in my native language is translated to "Approved", which is intuitive). If anything, then better change the English label of the list, than include released items there.

Publicado originalmente por orb:

Publicado originalmente por irrevenant:

Really? That's kind of unintuitive - I figured the "Greenlit" list included the "Released" list - released games are all Greenlit after all.

But including "Released" positions in "Greenlit" list would require changing translations of the "Greenlit" label (which for example in my native language is translated to "Approved", which is intuitive). If anything, then better change the English label of the list, than include released items there.

Coincidentally, "approved" is the meaning of "greenlit" in English, too. ...which begs the question why Irrevenant thought it would be more "intuitive" to list those games that have passed beyond the "approved" stage alongside those that are still in said stage rather than listing them separately due to their being in a separate stage.