My Steam Greenlight experience

A few of you might have noticed I got cheeky and took Pond Wars to Steam Greenlight. Anyway, as promised, I wrote up a blog post on the experience. I thought I'd share it here as it might be interesting to others.

http://blog.boredmormongames.com/2016/07/steam-greenlight-lessons-learned-from.html

 

Why not remove it and try again when you have better graphic assets to show?. Going through Greenlight as an experiment instead of a serious effort could be bad for your reputation.

 

I'm not entirely sure that failed a Greenlight destroying reputation is valid. Somewhere around 900 people saw the campaign. That's hardly going to destroy my reputation. Plus nobody actively disliked the game, the overwhelming message in the comments was simply "its not ready yet".

And lets say I have done irreparable damage to my reputation. This is the internet. Worst case simply leaves me spinning a new identity for my next project.

If anyone has any experience otherwise, I'd be keen to hear. Does a failed Greenlight lead to more failed Greenlights?

 

I tend to think you're right. If you want to just make a new dev account it's pretty doubtful anyone will look up PondWars, and even if they do - so what?

It's a different thing if you released a good first product, then the followup was bad. Since here you actually have a reputation (read existing audience) to protect. If you just need to return to zero though, it shouldn't be a big deal.

 

Recent posts have led me to believe that a little infamy is more of a positive than a negative on Steam.

 

I'm not saying you are destroying your reputation but there's people that are permanently visiting Greenlight to talk crap about ugly games and some of them even make youtube videos (they want to be next Jim Sterling apparently) so there's some potential damage to be had.

Its up to you of course but in my opinion you should'n use Greenlight if you don't have your best looking material yet.

 

I'd like to comment, but none of my Steam Greenlight campaigns have ever failed... <thumps chest gorilla-style>.

 

@BoredMormon - it's worth noting that how long you last on the charts will also depend on the genre tags. A lot of people will filter the greenlight search by genre and not all genres move at the same speed. A good amount of organic traffic can continue long after 36 hours.

I also think that Steam tend to add games that do better into more people's viewing queue if it's better rated, which also helps drive traffic after the first 36 hours. I'm almost certain this is weighted by rating. Again, I drove very little external traffic and got pretty consistent votes for about a week and a half from what I believe was largely organic traffic.

 

Despite the negative comments and votes you could still be greenlit (because the system is silly like that).

What would you do in that case?

 

There's a difference between a game that looks ugly and a game that is crap, and that's where the distinction lies with most of those kinds of videos.

 

For the hating bandwagon there's no much difference. There's many Steam users that are more interested in playing a "hating meta-game" than actual games, you don't want to give them excuses to target you.

 

My game was kind of weird, it had a very steady linear vote curve for a very long time. Most games tended to flat line in around 3 days, then around 5, mine didn't flatline until around 10.

When I was on greenlight, my theory was that the linear curve was because I was entirely relying on organic traffic. I figured the guys who jumped up then got flat were driving traffic on the first few days, then they had to rely on organic and flatlined.

 

Not wanting to derail but when are you going to start promoting your game, @frosted ?

I already told you that it looks good and your Greenlight results were way better than mine.

 

If the hating meta-game existed like you act it does, PondWars would have already been a target No offense, @BoredMormon, but it really is the look that's holding you back. It's a bit incoherent and kinda feels, well, lazy. I'd comment more on the gameplay itself, but my virus scanner is being very aggressive with it right now.

 

Well, don't believe me if you want. I only know that I talk from experience not only as a dev but also as a gamer. If the hating bandwagon didn't target this game is probably because there's a lot of better options to hate (apparently only the graphics are the real problem here) but leaving it in Greenlight without improving it helps no one.

 

I just finished a vertical slice last week. It's like... actually good finally. Like, it's finally fun. I don't really have time for promotion, I am shooting for early access release in like 2 months. Once the game is in a releasable state I can start doing promotion. I just got a list of festivals and stuff... Maybe it's naive but I think the game will speak for itself. My sales targets are low, and the quality is way higher than I ever imagined I'd be able to produce.

I really just need to sell like 1k copies, so it's not super high pressure. I am pretty sure I can hit that. If I can get to 2k, I am officially in the black... which I never expected to achieve.

 

Great stuff. I noticed that the frame rate in the trailer seems really low.

https://obsproject.com/ should be able to record a proper video without frying your system, no?

The Greenlight crowd seems to be really forgiving, looking at the comments. Not too suprising considering what gets waved through with a few cheesy promises.

I want to add that i tried out Pond Wars a long time ago and to my shame i have to admit that i just couldnt hit the other ship. It's just too hardcore for me.

ps: I realize that the Greenlight thing wasnt fully serious.

 

I strongly suspect this is happening. I didn't get that many initial yes votes, so I didn't see it or comment on it. But it would make a lot of sense for games that get yes votes to be pushed by Steam to more voters.

Plan always was to hire an artist if there ever became a real demand for the game. However there is not.

No offensive taken. I'm with you on saying the biggest issue with the game, at least for steam, is the art and the look. But there are some other fundamentals in the actual game design itself that mean its not likely to be a viable business proposition even with art upgrades. Not without some major work.

 

Oh, it's also worth noting that over the course of the time I was in greenlight, my approval rating slowly - but consistently - dropped. I think I started out at like a 55% rate, then ended at like 49% yes rate.

Given again that I was relying on almost entirely organic traffic, my theory is that Steam will try to target your game to less and less friendly audiences in order to gauge how wide the appeal might be. So initially it will queue you into people who are strong genre fans or generous voters, then expand out to kind of measure how broad the appeal is.

I have no idea if this is actually true or not, but I can't really explain why the approval rate would slowly and consistently go down otherwise. I don't have any following or social media or any of that, so it's really just about the people the system drove to the page.

 

Cool! Thanks for posting the info. Its interesting to read about.

Next time make the game thumbnail as cool as your avatar and you'll be golden.

 

It really all comes down to the "elevator pitch". Basically, if your art and very basic premise doesn't give people something they wanna see (or at least tear down in the comment section), they'll simply click "No" and move on with their lives. The screenshots and game name are what gets people to stay. Some will then at least skim the description and/or watch the trailer fully. A good looking trailer, interesting screenshots and maybe a playable demo really make a big difference. Some genres have it quite easier than others, too (though that doesn't mean you should make an anime dating sim just to soak up attention)

Sadly, with the amount of games that constantly flood Greenlight (and many of them either asset flips, haphazard mobile ports, troll games or other nonsense), you need to hook people pretty fast or they will not care. Put effort into really polishing your presentation and hooks.

Thank you for sharing your experiences in your writeup. I wish you that your future projects fare well!

 

This is why it takes more than an elevator pitch these days. As with crowdfunding, you're trying to get a lot of responses in a short time. Most of the successful campaigns seem to start with an established supporter base. Then they just need to call that existing base to action. The good thing about this is that you can gradually build that base over a long time with dev blogs, YouTube previews, etc., and only launch your Greenlight campaign when you have enough supporters.

 

I honestly don't think this is needed. I think my experience shows you just need to have something that looks fun, since I had no supporters or following and did very well. It may have changed over the last year, but I am pretty sure this is still very much the truth.

Kickstarter and crowd funding is way more difficult, since this involves people actually handing over money on a pitch. I've seen many greenlit games fail to hit very, very modest kickstarter goals.

I think your "build a support base" advice is absolutely correct for kickstarter, and you should approach crowdfund sites as pure pre-order platforms. Greenlight on the other hand is far easier.

I've recently started to consider running a kickstarter after early access release, since this might help drive a bit of sales, etc. I think this kind of approach to crowdsourcing (treating it more like patreon - where people can support an effort where they already see tangible, sale worthy results) may be more viable.

 

@frosted that is very cool. So it sounds like Steam itself is actually a near complete system not only for selling & distributing games but also as a means of marketing the games. I didn't expect it to be that powerful on the marketing side. Then I read about the Visibility Rounds and yeah that is a lot of exposure. I wonder how they target those displays. Is it based on genre, tags, a combination of the two or something else?

 

@frosted: your screenshot reveals pretty good traffic.

Did you enter top 100? With as many visitors I'm surprised if you haven't made it. Maybe there was something (if you havent well lol...) that would've stopped approval. But your stats and I m sure your game are pretty good.

 

Mine was swinging a lot - between 40% and 60%, ultimately ending in 50/50.

 

Yeah - I got top 100 in around a week and got greenlit in around 2. This was a long time ago, over a year.

I've been trying to make the stupid game fun since then. Getting something to be really fun can take forever. I expect to be working on this for another 6+ mo after early access -- well, unless it flops.

@BoredMormon - sorry i didn't mean to like hijack the thread - i just wanted to share more details on the greenlight process.

 

I had very similar experience like yours it seems...

In about 2 weeks greenlit, without promoting anything outside greenlight. Then developing was either postponed or just stuck at times.

A bit off topic but:

Ultimately getting it on Steam seems to be success at the moment for me. There are indeed sales (finally found the returns dat duh! - it's not too much...the vast majority over 95% seem to be ok without returns...).

So again, while sales are not super impressive I am already getting very positive exposure which won't be possible without steam. I got basically "extorted" earlier today to sign a contract with some guys (don't want to share names...) who have over a million followers on twitter and promise to help the game get $25k-$40k in August, will see.

My point (sorry i know this went too off topic!):

Even if your game isn't finished - do as i did. My game is probably currently way behind yours but it's enough to get positive experience from people who are worth it. I am planning many improvements sure...but really don't care about the temporary troll armies who were active in the weekend but have vanished today.

 

Let me guess, they offered to promote your game to their million twitter bot followers and you need to pay them for it, but if you decline they'll tell their followers your game sucks and that they should stay away from it. Am I getting close?
I've heard similar ugly stories. When you're getting extorted by key giveaway promo sites to give them keys or they'll trash your game in steam reviews, then there's a good chance you'll see those keys being sold on g2a etc..

I'm having doubts that it's possible to get a "demand" for any game, as long as it has ms paint level graphics.

Have a look at this, he has some good examples on how his artwork investments payed off:
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1023432/The-No-Hit-Wonder-11

 

In regards to the game, I would say no, your art doesn't have to be on point, I mean look at 'Thomas was/is alone'

If you are going for the naive "look" it has to be done well though. The trees could be stylised more, the reality is MS Paint doesn't cut it. Also a quick question, did you use unity's 2D buoyancy effector?

 

I doubt it there are so many game developers on steam no one will remember your failed greenlight attempt(s) unless you got swatted by Jim Sterling. You dont even have to get in the top 100 to get greenlit.

 

Get a better artist.

 

@frosted What's your game? Can you post a link, I'd like to take a look.

 

You would need to have a better framerate, invested some money in the art, maybe add some sfx+ music. Got rid of the menu, dont have the black text as long. Maybe have an animated gif, check the "adventure" category (it gets more traffic). That might have made some difference.

 

That's all hella important stuff too, not gonna deny it. But for Greenlight specifically, where people will click "Yes" for often extremely simple, superflous reasons (it's a genre I like! I love pixel art! The name is funny!), that first impression is the top priority. People on Greenlight do not commit to buy something - They simply say they would consider it if it was avaible for sale on Steam. With crowdfunding, people commit with their money, and that immediately makes them scrutinize things more heavily. There, an established fanbase and good PR is key.

 

This is a relatively old game, before the buoyancy effector existed. I rolled my own. If you look through my post history you should be able to find several places where I talk through the technique.

 

I think you could use that same kind of art by playing off the "my young daughter did all of the graphics" angle. Might work better for something like a platformer or such not sure. I seem to remember seeing one or two games that did that. A child like 5 or maybe 7 had done all of the graphics and it seemed to do quite well. Can't remember the name(s) for the life of me.

I don't know.... I think it all comes down to connecting with people in the end. If you can make that connection then people will buy.

 

From memory though, it was a pretty damned artistic 5 year old

 

A) that would require people to read something before they click "no", which I doubt many will do in any kind of queue system. I often click "no" in less time than it takes to load the next store page, when browsing the steam discovery queue.
B) Some of the people on steam tell devs to get cancer and die, if a game doesn't live up to their expectations. Somehow I don't anticipate that kind of audience to go "Awwww, but his daughter drew all the pictures. I can't say 'no' to that.". Sure, there will be exceptions and not all of them are like the worst of them, but still, I have my doubts that enough people care.




What many don't realize is that "simple" doesn't mean "bad" and "complex" doesn't mean "good". Also it doesn't matter who or what made your artwork. If your dog happens to produce artwork with a sufficient level of coherence, that also fits the theme of the game, by all means, let your dog do the artwork! Might even be able to get some good PR from it. Even better if it's a cat, but I hear they're hard to work with.

Also not everyone with an art eduction does automatically produce good artwork. If it's an incoherent mess done by a professional, at the end of the day it is still an incoherent mess and people will judge it accordingly.

"But look at [example game like minecraft or thomas was alone], you don't need 'good' artwork to be successful".
Those are really bad examples in my opinion. Those games may have simple/minimalistic artwork, but it is "good" because it's coherent and fits the games. There still is a huge component of personal preferences, and marketshares of people with certain tastes of course.

Take a look at this:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/370360/
I've started playing it today and I'm having fun with it. The artwork is getting really close to being as minimalistic as it is possible with a game. But it is 100% coherent and fits the theme perfectly. I swear, I'd have never touched that game, if it looked like most of the solo-indie UIs I've seen, where colors, fonts, alignment, etc. are all over the place. The presentation does matter.

 

@Martin_H Completely agree the presentation matters. If I made a game where every thing was exactly the same color... say black.... with no lighting to change it... I'd have a game that is a completely black screen. There is no doubt that presentation matters.

There are a number of styles though and a presentation that may look amateurish can still come across as charming and just very personal. Sometimes games that look superb come across like people are trying too hard to be something they are not.... like shooting for AAA as a bedroom developer.

Definitely agree keeping everything "the same" is the key. I've played many games where the presentation is simplistic... but everything is simplistic... that is the key. Often developers who are more programmer-oriented end up trying to make stuff very detailed and that is when everything falls apart. It ends up looking like a sort of muddy mess. And was way more work than it often appears to be! In those cases making silhouettes in monochrome would have been better. Save a lot of time and create a cool look the non-artist can pull off in a reasonable amount of time.

 

Yep, spot on! By the way, the game in the style of children's drawings could be this one:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/26900/

I think their choice of artdirection was quite brilliant.

 

I don't think that is the one I was thinking of but it may be. Seems like it was a platformer but I might be completely off about that.

At any rate yes this is a perfect example. I checked out the reviews and the game isn't criticized for the graphics. In fact "charming" is a common word used to describe them.

I agree with that. The thing is a world where every game looks like AAA games would be an extremely boring world. Especially if they are all going for realistic graphics. It's always nice to see something different. Something that shows a little more creativity even if it was born out of necessity!

 

Yeah I agree... The mechanics of that game is just amazing and definitely warrants the pricing. I actually wanted to really buy that one. The art style fits it perfectly.

 

An online mode would make it a lot more attractive. Silliness needs to be shared. Looks fun.

 

Thank you for releasing your information. There were some things to be learned.

But overall, you know the story. With a billion games being released on Steam every hour, you simply cannot advertise your game, even if it is in alpha, using placeholder graphics. You only get one chance to make a first impression, and with so many games to see, that first impression is entirely the title of the game, and the graphics. You need to work to get people to spend more than 30 seconds checking out your game.

 

You may be thinking of Sissy's Magical Ponycorn Advenuture.

 

A lot closer to what I was thinking of but I don't think this is it either.

 

"My name is Sissy, and I friggin looove ponycorns" - that line makes me laugh every time.