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
Mivo Aug 21, 2013 @ 11:11am
Why Greenlight is really a disappointment
I just read a (too flame-intensive) thread were someone explained why Greenlight is "disgusting" and a disappointment. I didn't agree with most of the points, but I do agree with the premise. Greenlight is a pretty flawed system, but not for the reasons listed in that guy's post. Here are mine:


Lack of quality control

The biggest issue is, as with Steam in general, the insufficient quality assurance. For Greenlight it is entirely absent and people vote on screenshots and promises. Meaningless. There needs to be some barrier of entry, and developers should be required to have more than an idea or a few mock-ups. Greenlight isn't Kickstarter.


Lack of transparency and consistency

The acceptance rate of actually good (or good and finished) games is too low. Games that have over 20k "yes" votes, like Infinity Wars, stay inexplicably on GL for months. Meanwhile, inferior, early alpha games, or actual demos (like SolForge), show up in the Early Access program, either bypassing GL entirely or somehow in mysterious ways quickly slipping through it. There's too much smoke.


EA - Green bananas that never ripen

Early Access appropriately abbreviates to EA. I foolishly had bought Towns, for example, ages ago. I quickly realized it was a tech demo at best (this was before EA was called EA and Steam added betas to the catalog without clearly labeling them as such) and asked for a refund. Got none, was told there would be updates. The last Towns update I got was ages ago. Hard not to feel ripped off my such business practices. Where is the accountability and the customer protection? It seems like developers are free to take the money, but are not obliged to deliver "finished" games in a timely, publicly known deadline (something rough like Q3 would do).


Statistically meaningless votes

Votes are not weighed. The system does not at all consider a voter's standing, so a vote from a user who has 1 game on their account weighs as much as the vote from someone who has 2000. That's nonsense. A person who buys games regularly is more likely to buy a GL title. Likewise, past votes and follow-up behavior are not considered (did people who say they would buy a game really did buy it when it was released?). This makes votes meaningless. There is no accountability, there are no consequences. There should be a limited number of votes per user which is reset every x weeks, with the maximum depending on the number of games a customer has. Weed out the meaningless votes from people who won't buy stuff anyway.


Wasted potential

Greenlight could be much more than it is. Right now it's little more than occupation therapy for both users (who have the illusion that their input matters) and for developers (who foolishly believe that being on GL gets them closer to getting their game on Steam -- it's like a tranquilizer so that they stop bugging Valve). It's overall little more than yet another marketing scheme that works for no one except for Valve.

GL, Greenlight.
Last edited by Mivo; Aug 21, 2013 @ 11:14am
Showing 1-15 of 134 comments
< >
Gorlom[Swe] Aug 21, 2013 @ 11:29am 
Originally posted by Mivo:

Lack of quality control

The biggest issue is, as with Steam in general, the insufficient quality assurance. For Greenlight it is entirely absent and people vote on screenshots and promises. Meaningless. There needs to be some barrier of entry, and developers should be required to have more than an idea or a few mock-ups. Greenlight isn't Kickstarter.
The point of greenlight is that noone gets turned away from submitting to Greenlight. It is the FIRST gatecheck. Haveing any kind of quality assurance in Greenlight makes the whole thing redundant and pointless.

Lack of transparency and consistency
It was worse before, and imo it's virtually impossible to disclose and motivate every choice they make.
Add to that that a lot of users whill try to whine and argue with the choices made if they are made transparent. It's not necessary and it causes too many problems if they do.
Last edited by Gorlom[Swe]; Aug 21, 2013 @ 11:33am
ÐarkÐovee | Ꮆridhive.com Aug 21, 2013 @ 12:05pm 
holy ♥♥♥♥ all of these in 4 minutes !?!?!?
Skoardy Aug 21, 2013 @ 12:07pm 
Originally posted by Mivo:
Greenlight is a pretty flawed system, but not for the reasons listed in that guy's post. Here are mine:
Is there any reason why you felt the need to start yet another thread instead of adding your thoughts on the end of the thread you talk of?
Originally posted by Mivo:
Lack of quality control
I'm afraid you've completely missed the point of Greenlight. You're the quality control.
Originally posted by Mivo:
EA - Green bananas that never ripen
Never? Should I just dismiss you point out of hand now? Where is the accountability on triple AAA released products? Saints Row 2 was and still is to this day a horrifically buggy mess (but a great game if you suffered through it). I enjoy playing Fallout New Vegas but maybe only 1 in 5 times when I stop playing, it's by my choice and not a crash. Unlike the Early Access games, you aren't warned beforehand what you're buying into.
Originally posted by Mivo:
Statistically meaningless votes
That would definitely go down well and certainly wouldn't stop people voting (why bother voting if you suspect you're a 'lesser gamer'). You might have you heart set on that particular game you were going to vote on but what's the point if it's not going to count?
jeslyck Aug 21, 2013 @ 2:04pm 
GreenLight ( democracy ) is not perfect but i do not imagine it will be as long humans are the ones who make the decisions.
Sera Aug 21, 2013 @ 2:23pm 
If computers took the decisions, it wouldn't be better though. Did you ever watch I, Robot? But yes, can't ever expect perfection from humans. It's just how it is...
jeslyck Aug 21, 2013 @ 2:53pm 
Originally posted by Sera:
If computers took the decisions, it wouldn't be better though. Did you ever watch I, Robot? But yes, can't ever expect perfection from humans. It's just how it is...

So I'm not the only one who wanted to beat the boy to death with a rusty iron pipe .. .. I'm an a real boy a BAM! rrrreal bbbbboy BAM! i rr...eaaal buoooooy BAM BAM BAM BAM! where are you Steven.
Gorlom[Swe] Aug 21, 2013 @ 2:57pm 
Originally posted by jeslyck:
Originally posted by Sera:
If computers took the decisions, it wouldn't be better though. Did you ever watch I, Robot? But yes, can't ever expect perfection from humans. It's just how it is...

So I'm not the only one who wanted to beat the boy to death with a rusty iron pipe .. .. I'm an a real boy a BAM! rrrreal bbbbboy BAM! i rr...eaaal buoooooy BAM BAM BAM BAM! where are you Steven.
You're thinking of Artificial Intelligence. I, Robot is the one with Will Smith as a police officer that doesn't trust robots in a society where everyone has their own robot butler.
jeslyck Aug 21, 2013 @ 3:06pm 
Originally posted by GorlomSwe:
Originally posted by jeslyck:

So I'm not the only one who wanted to beat the boy to death with a rusty iron pipe .. .. I'm an a real boy a BAM! rrrreal bbbbboy BAM! i rr...eaaal buoooooy BAM BAM BAM BAM! where are you Steven.
You're thinking of Artificial Intelligence. I, Robot is the one with Will Smith as a police officer that doesn't trust robots in a society where everyone has their own robot butler.

Aa yes in this one i only wanted beat Will Smith to death with a rusty iron pipe.
C0untzer0 Aug 21, 2013 @ 3:54pm 
Will Smith has a habit of appearing in films with the same title as classic SF books, but no further connection to them.
Skoardy Aug 21, 2013 @ 4:00pm 
And TV. Don't forget Kurt Vonnegut's classic "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air". The novel was better.
orb Aug 21, 2013 @ 4:31pm 
Originally posted by Mivo:
(did people who say they would buy a game really did buy it when it was released?
And does it really matter that much if you buy the game you voted for on the day one or a few months after the release?

I usually keep 10-30 games on my Steam wish list, and that list is getting shorter almost only by buying (and not removing) them, and there are Greenlight (finished and Early Access) releases on it, too, but that doesn't mean I'll buy the Greenlight entries before all others, and some (non-Greenlight games) already spent there more than a half of year. I've previously bought Greenlight titles I voted for and also which I didn't vote, so that doesn't mean I won't eventually buy those I wish to have, either (as I don't expect getting them as a gift).

Does it mean my votes for games I haven't bought, but I plan to buy in some yet undefined future are meaningless?

How about games I voted for and then bought from the developers or from another outlet, but they haven't been released on Steam yet? The question is whether I'll buy it when it's in Steam, and not whether I'll eventually only enter a Steam key if it's offered when I bought the game somewhere else. Technically, I won't buy them when they are in Steam, and I don't really need to request or use a Steam key if these games don't require the Steam for their correct working. Do these votes matter, and is it a reason to treat me as less accountable and decrease my amount of votes I can use in future?

Or should I stop voting in Greenlight at all and put my faith in other (fewer) people who still vote and choose Games which will be available on Steam, and then blame them anyway that they haven't chosen any game I wanted to play?
Zino Grigio Aug 21, 2013 @ 4:37pm 
"Statistically meaningless votes

Votes are not weighed. The system does not at all consider a voter's standing, so a vote from a user who has 1 game on their account weighs as much as the vote from someone who has 2000. That's nonsense."

That actually isn't nonsense. Keep in mind, some people, like myself, have the money to buy all the games on steam, but CHOOSE not to. Why, you ask, well because why should I/we? I rather buy games I actually play instead of wasting my money on thousands of games that I will play for 10 hours or less. I for one give that money to people who really need it, like people in Africa or war zones.

Back on topic, my vote should be just as strong as yours, because IF, big IF, I find a game that I like, I WILL buy it. But there is the other problem with Greenlight, it looks more like a BlackBerry app world. I mean, there are tons of ugly 2d games, which are boring.

Moral of the story, this is how voting works, deal with it.

Well but that is just like my opinion man.
Last edited by Zino Grigio; Aug 21, 2013 @ 4:46pm
Mivo Aug 21, 2013 @ 5:17pm 
Originally posted by HYPERTRAXX:
Back on topic, my vote should be just as strong as yours, because IF, big IF, I find a game that I like, I WILL buy it. But there is the other problem with Greenlight, it looks more like a BlackBerry app world. I mean, there are tons of ugly 2d games, which are boring.

Which brings us back to the lack of any kind of quality control. There seems to be no barrier of entry, and so developers, actual and hopeful ones, spam Greenlight. This makes it much harder for studios or developers who really do have a good product.

Weighing votes based on past purchases isn't ideal, but if someone voted in the past "yes" on, say, 20 greenlit games and, even after months, purchased not a single of them, that person's votes don't carry much weight. Someone who voted "yes" on 10 greenlit games and bought half of them is more likely to back their votes with purchases. (When my company does surveys, we pay particular attention to the feedback from people who regularly buy stuff from us.)

Maybe GL just needs to rename that voting option. Most people read it as "are you basically interested in this game?" and not as "would you buy this game?".
Zino Grigio Aug 21, 2013 @ 5:34pm 
Originally posted by Mivo:
Which brings us back to the lack of any kind of quality control. There seems to be no barrier of entry, and so developers, actual and hopeful ones, spam Greenlight. This makes it much harder for studios or developers who really do have a good product.

Weighing votes based on past purchases isn't ideal, but if someone voted in the past "yes" on, say, 20 greenlit games and, even after months, purchased not a single of them, that person's votes don't carry much weight. Someone who voted "yes" on 10 greenlit games and bought half of them is more likely to back their votes with purchases. (When my company does surveys, we pay particular attention to the feedback from people who regularly buy stuff from us.)

Maybe GL just needs to rename that voting option. Most people read it as "are you basically interested in this game?" and not as "would you buy this game?".

I understand your confusing and anger, but unfortunately for you this is how voting works. Your survey company is not even close to voting matter, like you said, you pay more attention to the feedback from people who buy stuff. I can understand this for a survey company, good tactic. However what if we voted like this for our presidents, based on how much money one has? How would you like that? Just because people are rich doesn't mean they're smart. For instance take rappers or singers, Justin Bieber cough cough, most of them are rich, but are they smart?, I don't think so, not all of them at least.

So 'voting' should stay as it is, 1 vote = 1 point. No matter anything, like in real life. Now I do agree that this system is not the best, perhaps they should make a other system. Like you said, "would you buy this game" and, IF one clicks yes and the game passes GL, perhaps they should notify the user! Like myself, I'm not a real gamer-gamer, i forget those things also I'm the type a guy that changes his mind about 5 times per day. Yesterday I said I'ma buy another BMW, today I'm not sure if it ads anything to my life. So people change there minds, that's normal, that would explain why people sometimes don't buy a game even when they clicked YES. However if they do this about 20 times something fissy is going on.

My point, I have no point, the current system is not perfect, but hey Rome wasn't build in 1 day either.
-Z- Aug 21, 2013 @ 6:07pm 
Originally posted by Mivo:
Which brings us back to the lack of any kind of quality control. There seems to be no barrier of entry, and so developers, actual and hopeful ones, spam Greenlight. This makes it much harder for studios or developers who really do have a good product.
Except that this was already dealt with previously in the thread.

Greenlight is the barrier for entry.
Showing 1-15 of 134 comments
< >
Per page: 15 30 50
Date Posted: Aug 21, 2013 @ 11:11am
Posts: 134