6 ms·

Valve's solution for Steam Greenlight's noise: A $100 donation to Child's Play

68 points by CrazedGeek 14y ago

kevinconroy 14y ago
+100 for charity, -100 for open marketplaces.
- darkestkhan 14y ago
  It is still open marketplace.
  - newobj 14y ago
    You mean "It was never an open marketplace", right?
    - lazugod 14y ago
      The market is open, the store is closed (or walled).
    - darkestkhan 14y ago
      In many marketplaces you have to pay for place in order to open stand yet we still call them open marketplaces (as long as price is affordable, but I would consider 100$ to be such) so why when you apply the same mechanisms for "virtual stand" it suddenly ceases to be open?
- jordanthoms 14y ago
  Sure, Steam isn't an open marketplace, but I don't think that was ever really the point. You can just download a program outside of steam or use a competing store - Steam is more like a Retail Shop where there is a bar to get in to keep the quality up.
- jonursenbach 14y ago
  Steam is never going to be an open marketplace because of its nature, so stop holding your breath.
- matthew-wegner 14y ago
  Greenlight wasn't an effort for Steam to become an open marketplace. It was specifically an effort to unclog their submission pipeline (which was previously being handled by a handful of employees). Now, these employees can pay attention to the top % of submissions and ignore the crowd-designated chaff. In that respect, it's working marvelously well. And it's working even better with the $100 fee, since developers are already stepping up to the plate and offering to individually (!) vet submissions to loan them the $100: http://www.dejobaan.com/greenlight100/ http://www.dejobaan.com/greenlight100/
forrestthewoods 14y ago
This is a great fix. Greenlight was immediately filled with fake entries full of porn, copyrighted material, and games that simply don't exist. The $100 price point is high enough to turn away most fakes but low enough that it's not a barrier for real products. Greenlight itself still has problems but Valve has already shown they are quick to respond to issues so I expect it to continue to improve.
- demallien 14y ago
  Yup, it's a good solution. Funnily enough, it's very similar in nature to Apple requiring you to pay $100 to get a developer certificate for iOS (which allows you to run software that can break just about any limit that Apple imposes on AppStore apps). Maybe Apple PR will notice that this was positively received, and start donating the $100 developer fee - it sends a loud signal that the fee is all about filtering, and not about raking in $$$
  - chrisballinger 14y ago
    Those fees also pay the salaries for a large number of full-time app reviewers.
    - dalke 14y ago
      Huh. Really? So the overhead fees that Apple charges for placing something in the app store doesn't including paying app reviewer salaries? How strange. Given that there's probably over 100x as many IOS users as developers, and that the users are supposed to be the ones who benefit most from review, it seems a rather strange bias. Where do you get your information about the internal income source for the reviewer salaries?
    - DeepDuh 14y ago
      Since Apple supposedly doesn't account in separate business units this still shouldn't make a difference to them.
activepeanut 14y ago
I think this should be implemented by Apple and Google with a curated list of charities you can select your donation to go to.
- apike 14y ago
  Apple charges $99 per developer per year, but Valve seems to be charging $99 per title. This approach might cut down on "spray and pray" noise in the App Store, and the extra cost wouldn't materially affect most legitimate developers.
  - wccrawford 14y ago
    $100 per title that you need greenlight without the normal channels. I think if you already have a good-selling game on Steam, the second game would be a lot easier to get through normal channels.
mdonahoe 14y ago
Reminds me of the $99 yearly fee to submit apps to the App Store. Except Apple isn't one for charity.
- kartoffelmos 14y ago
  But then again, after the $99 is paid to Apple, you can publish what you make to the App Store (yeah yeah, we are all aware that restrictions apply here). From what I gather, after paying $100 to Steam/Child's Play, you have a _chance_ of having your game/app have a speedier approval process.
kevingadd 14y ago
The choice to use charity is a nice move here, but I still think it's kind of a poor choice. The indie games community in particular is an example where lots of 'outsiders' with very limited access to resources are able to build interesting games that speak loudly and provide experiences people have never seen before. Many of those people cannot afford even an extra $100 to submit a game to a service like Greenlight just for a chance to share it with people (the same complaint has often been lodged against competitions like the IGF), and end up having to beg fans to help them handle it. For someone earning minimum wage, a $100 donation - which seems tiny to me, used to Silicon Valley salaries - is over a day's worth of take-home pay. A fee this large skews the effort involved in a Greenlight submission such that it is dramatically in favor of people for whom money does not mean much, and has the unfortunate effect of excluding developers who are perfectly willing to invest TIME into their games but do not have extra money to give away just to get into a public voting competition. The games are not worse just because the authors are poor. Note that services like Apple and Microsoft's marketplaces at least provide some value for your $99: They host your game, they perform basic quality certification, etc. In this case you aren't getting as much for the expense. EDIT: Some additional thoughts: Offloading the fees directly onto charity means that the impact of a potential chargeback (most likely to come from a jerk who is looking to put fake entries up for laughs) is more dramatic than it would be otherwise. Now the bill for a chargeback is potentially being sent to the charity (though I'm sure in this case Valve would choose to eat the fees.) If the goal is merely to filter out joke submissions, the fee does not need to be remotely as high as $100. SomethingAwful uses a much lower cost for forum registrations which does help to filter out noise. On the other hand, SomethingAwful is proof that a fee is not sufficient to keep trolls, unkind individuals, stupid people and all-around jerks away from your community. Valve can set the fee as high as they want and bad things will still happen. The problems that currently afflict Greenlight require a serious approach to moderation and a serious approach to content discovery. Right now their approach to both is lackluster at best: The only way to discourage poor behavior on the part of a game creator is the Report button, while poor behavior on the part of commenters generates zero retribution (the most a creator can do is ban them from their game page). Game discovery is nonexistent as there is a single randomly-sorted list of games that reshuffles itself as you page through, making it impossible to simply browse. Even something as simple as 'people who upvoted this game also liked' is not present here. At present Greenlight is basically a popularity contest, with a group of around ~15 games currently boasting visitor counts in the hundreds of thousands with the rest of the games on the service sitting around 5 to 10 thousand. If Valve's goal was a popularity contest, it makes the idea of paying money to participate all the more ridiculous.
prunebeads 14y ago
It's an interesting approach to the problem, which doesn't hurt the customer. After all, the burden of marketing has always been on the seller's side. Indeed, $100 may seem too high a fee, but the mechanism isn't set in stone either. If Valve realise that it's too difficult for indies to get in, maybe they'll reduce the entry fee, or create a secondary market with a lower one. Anyway, the customer is the winner here, and that's good.

68 points by CrazedGeek 14y ago

kevinconroy 14y ago

+100 for charity, -100 for open marketplaces.

darkestkhan 14y ago
It is still open marketplace.
- newobj 14y ago
  You mean "It was never an open marketplace", right?
  - lazugod 14y ago
    The market is open, the store is closed (or walled).
  - darkestkhan 14y ago
    In many marketplaces you have to pay for place in order to open stand yet we still call them open marketplaces (as long as price is affordable, but I would consider 100$ to be such) so why when you apply the same mechanisms for "virtual stand" it suddenly ceases to be open?
jordanthoms 14y ago
Sure, Steam isn't an open marketplace, but I don't think that was ever really the point. You can just download a program outside of steam or use a competing store - Steam is more like a Retail Shop where there is a bar to get in to keep the quality up.
jonursenbach 14y ago
Steam is never going to be an open marketplace because of its nature, so stop holding your breath.
matthew-wegner 14y ago
Greenlight wasn't an effort for Steam to become an open marketplace. It was specifically an effort to unclog their submission pipeline (which was previously being handled by a handful of employees). Now, these employees can pay attention to the top % of submissions and ignore the crowd-designated chaff. In that respect, it's working marvelously well. And it's working even better with the $100 fee, since developers are already stepping up to the plate and offering to individually (!) vet submissions to loan them the $100: http://www.dejobaan.com/greenlight100/ http://www.dejobaan.com/greenlight100/

forrestthewoods 14y ago

This is a great fix. Greenlight was immediately filled with fake entries full of porn, copyrighted material, and games that simply don't exist. The $100 price point is high enough to turn away most fakes but low enough that it's not a barrier for real products. Greenlight itself still has problems but Valve has already shown they are quick to respond to issues so I expect it to continue to improve.

demallien 14y ago
Yup, it's a good solution. Funnily enough, it's very similar in nature to Apple requiring you to pay $100 to get a developer certificate for iOS (which allows you to run software that can break just about any limit that Apple imposes on AppStore apps). Maybe Apple PR will notice that this was positively received, and start donating the $100 developer fee - it sends a loud signal that the fee is all about filtering, and not about raking in $$$
- chrisballinger 14y ago
  Those fees also pay the salaries for a large number of full-time app reviewers.
  - dalke 14y ago
    Huh. Really? So the overhead fees that Apple charges for placing something in the app store doesn't including paying app reviewer salaries? How strange. Given that there's probably over 100x as many IOS users as developers, and that the users are supposed to be the ones who benefit most from review, it seems a rather strange bias. Where do you get your information about the internal income source for the reviewer salaries?
  - DeepDuh 14y ago
    Since Apple supposedly doesn't account in separate business units this still shouldn't make a difference to them.

activepeanut 14y ago

I think this should be implemented by Apple and Google with a curated list of charities you can select your donation to go to.

apike 14y ago
Apple charges $99 per developer per year, but Valve seems to be charging $99 per title. This approach might cut down on "spray and pray" noise in the App Store, and the extra cost wouldn't materially affect most legitimate developers.
- wccrawford 14y ago
  $100 per title that you need greenlight without the normal channels. I think if you already have a good-selling game on Steam, the second game would be a lot easier to get through normal channels.

mdonahoe 14y ago

Reminds me of the $99 yearly fee to submit apps to the App Store. Except Apple isn't one for charity.

kartoffelmos 14y ago
But then again, after the $99 is paid to Apple, you can publish what you make to the App Store (yeah yeah, we are all aware that restrictions apply here). From what I gather, after paying $100 to Steam/Child's Play, you have a _chance_ of having your game/app have a speedier approval process.

kevingadd 14y ago

The choice to use charity is a nice move here, but I still think it's kind of a poor choice. The indie games community in particular is an example where lots of 'outsiders' with very limited access to resources are able to build interesting games that speak loudly and provide experiences people have never seen before. Many of those people cannot afford even an extra $100 to submit a game to a service like Greenlight just for a chance to share it with people (the same complaint has often been lodged against competitions like the IGF), and end up having to beg fans to help them handle it. For someone earning minimum wage, a $100 donation - which seems tiny to me, used to Silicon Valley salaries - is over a day's worth of take-home pay. A fee this large skews the effort involved in a Greenlight submission such that it is dramatically in favor of people for whom money does not mean much, and has the unfortunate effect of excluding developers who are perfectly willing to invest TIME into their games but do not have extra money to give away just to get into a public voting competition. The games are not worse just because the authors are poor. Note that services like Apple and Microsoft's marketplaces at least provide some value for your $99: They host your game, they perform basic quality certification, etc. In this case you aren't getting as much for the expense. EDIT: Some additional thoughts: Offloading the fees directly onto charity means that the impact of a potential chargeback (most likely to come from a jerk who is looking to put fake entries up for laughs) is more dramatic than it would be otherwise. Now the bill for a chargeback is potentially being sent to the charity (though I'm sure in this case Valve would choose to eat the fees.) If the goal is merely to filter out joke submissions, the fee does not need to be remotely as high as $100. SomethingAwful uses a much lower cost for forum registrations which does help to filter out noise. On the other hand, SomethingAwful is proof that a fee is not sufficient to keep trolls, unkind individuals, stupid people and all-around jerks away from your community. Valve can set the fee as high as they want and bad things will still happen. The problems that currently afflict Greenlight require a serious approach to moderation and a serious approach to content discovery. Right now their approach to both is lackluster at best: The only way to discourage poor behavior on the part of a game creator is the Report button, while poor behavior on the part of commenters generates zero retribution (the most a creator can do is ban them from their game page). Game discovery is nonexistent as there is a single randomly-sorted list of games that reshuffles itself as you page through, making it impossible to simply browse. Even something as simple as 'people who upvoted this game also liked' is not present here. At present Greenlight is basically a popularity contest, with a group of around ~15 games currently boasting visitor counts in the hundreds of thousands with the rest of the games on the service sitting around 5 to 10 thousand. If Valve's goal was a popularity contest, it makes the idea of paying money to participate all the more ridiculous.

prunebeads 14y ago

It's an interesting approach to the problem, which doesn't hurt the customer. After all, the burden of marketing has always been on the seller's side. Indeed, $100 may seem too high a fee, but the mechanism isn't set in stone either. If Valve realise that it's too difficult for indies to get in, maybe they'll reduce the entry fee, or create a secondary market with a lower one. Anyway, the customer is the winner here, and that's good.