Steam Greenlight is Going Away

I mean look at Amazon. They're my go to for everything, because they have everything, not because everything on there is good. I know that If i want a high quality monitor, or some random complete piece of crap as a joke present, I know it will be on Amazon. Think of steam in the same light, it's digital, yes, but it's still a marketplace

 

I don't agree. Google play controls front page content but has an insane amount of shovelware throughout the store, and as far as I know, they have a much lower reputation than the apple store.

I don't think this works well in practice. You can't have a toilet in your kitchen without the smell of one affecting the experience of the other. It's one thing to idealize that, but until it can be properly implemented, it's probably useful to totally separate things. Maybe there can be a section for beta/prototypes but I can't imagine steam bending over backward to accomodate what probably would end up amounting mostly to shovelware, in the interests of attracting more customers.

 

I doubt that Google draws its primary revenue from Google Play. Their store always seemed little more than an afterthought compared to the google's never ending quest on dominating informational field and serving ads.

And that's the primary reason for low reputation of the store. Google does not seem to care about it much.

It already exists. "Early access" titles.

 

I think steam should add tags im interested in rather then having to filter everything out manually (tags to filter out) and I can only filter out 3 categories. If they just changed it 3-10 tags im intersted the front page would be useful.
https://store.steampowered.com/account/preferences

 

Regardless of why they allow junk on there, they do and it effects their reputation.

I think the per-title fee could be a good thing in that regard. On Google Play anyone can release anything with a little paperwork and a one-off $25. There's no reason not to release minimum-effort stuff. If Steam's fee is appropriately high then it won't be worth hacking junk together and throwing it up there to see what happens. And even the highest fee they've speculated on doesn't seem that bad to me - in other businesses it commonly costs way more than $5k to get sales and distribution in order, and it's not recoupable.

I agree the fee sucks for people in tight financial situations, but I also agree that there's ways around that (ie: sell your game elsewhere, get a publisher/investor, apply for a grant, crowdfund just your Steam application fee, etc.). In the long run it'll hopefully be better overall for everyone, including helping those people not just make their entrance fee back but ideally also have a profitable title.

 

Yeah but how could they improve it really, without actually removing the stuff?

Well they might just keep that in some way. I don't necessarily disagree with having a section for this kind of thing, but I definitely think it's a good idea to raise the barrier to entry for the core store content. There needs to be a clean separation to funnel good quality content into its own space, and a paywall probably goes some way to doing that.

 

Content matching is something that no one seems to get fully right. Adding tags for what you like to see would be helpful. In fact adding a ton of controls, or even surfacing key ones would be great. I would like to see all search / matching tools provide access to your personal matching profile.

For example, audible is really good at matching generally. However a few weeks ago a friend sent me a link to a political biography. Because I viewed or followed it from an external site, my "you might like..." section now contains random similar biographies. I don't like those books, and don't have a way to exclude them. They simply don't have enough robots and spaceships.

If steam is opening up the floodgates, making their matchmaking as good as possible would be useful.

 

Pour resources into search suggestion algorithm,user preference tracking algorithm, matching content, similar interests, etc. The problem is not "bad content" but showing people content they didn't want.

I'd say steam does better job at this than google, especally seeing that steam has truly horrible titles on their store. You'll have hard time bumping into those, unless you start looking for them.

In the end the problem of google play is not that it has a lot of junk on it, but that you have hard time finding what you want.

I disagree. I think that trying to follow this idea - that there's a"good content" and "bad content" - will result in lost profit. People want different things and have different tastes. Someone might be looking for all the horrible games. Someone needs one genre, someone might need another. Good and bad content is a matter of a viewpoint.

It is store's job to track what people want and offer it to them. Trying to separate things into a "good pile" and a "Bad pile" will only cater to some people, but not all of them. Interest tracking would cover everybody.

 

The words "good" and "bad" aren't helpful here. What matters is that there is "content that sells" and "content that doesn't sell". (In this case I'm considering downloads of free games as "sales".) If something doesn't sell then why keep it around? It just clutters space for things that do sell.

Those things might never make it to my front page or a featured list, but they sure as heck take up space (and time and clicks) when I browse by category or release date.

 

You can't clutter up what is near-infinite space. All your problems can be solved by the first half of neginifinitintinity's post, honestly.

 

On the note of relying on the user-specific search bubbles, the matching algo there becomes far less useful if your game consumption is spread over multiple services. Steam has no idea what I've bought or played from GoG, or on my PlayStation or Xbox or Vita. This leads to both suggesting stuff I've already got and not taking it into account when trying to figure out what else to suggest to me.

As a consumer, there's also questions of what exactly the filter is trying to achieve. Is it going to recommend games like The Witcher because I somehow managed to play 100+ hours of that, or is it going to lean towards stuff I barely play? (The conspiracy theorist inside of me points out that while I'm playing 100 hours of The Witcher I'm not thinking about what to buy next, but when I buy something that only lasts me an hour I could be looking for my next purchase at my next login...)

As I said, I often look for stuff by browsing release date or category, and the limitation isn't "space" it's "viewing time".

I haven't browsed Steam like that in ages, and it's precisely because the last few times I did I spent more time clicking past stuff that didn't grab my attention than looking at anything that did. If I'm looking to discover something new - different to what I normally play - then a search bubble based on what I normally do gets exactly the opposite to what I want.

 

I agree that shovelware is not the real problem on Steam, and I honestly doubt Valve views shovelware as a problem. I think a lot of developers are expecting Valve to introduce Steam Direct at a high price point to reduce shovelware, but I actually suspect Valve is going to go with a low price point and Valve will welcome the flood.

 

I think the point he was trying to make is there is content that sells to me, and content that sells to other people. Steam does a pretty good job of showing me only content that sells to me.

There is some content that doesn't sell at all. But that is pretty rare. The cost of content hosting is so low these days, that even if I only sell to my mum and my best friend, Steam still makes money.

 

For sure. I don't think what I was saying was clear enough... "good" and "bad" are subjective terms. "Selling" and "not selling" are far less so (though there's still some grey area - how many sales is "selling"?). It doesn't matter whether or not I personally think a game is "good", all that matters is that it has an audience and has reached that audience.

 

I just saw on their forum that if you have paid the Greenlight fee and not submitted anything, they will refund the money. Now I really wish they would give us more information on when the change will happen and what the fee will be. I was planning on submitting to Greenlight in the next day or so. Is that enough time to get Greenlit before they take it away? Will the fee be low enough that the $100 I've already paid will give me a guaranteed spot instead of just a Greenlight dice roll? Will a Greenlight submission drive enough traffic to the Kickstarter to make potentially eating the $100 fee worth it, or are users not going to Greenlight anymore because it is going away? There are way to many unknowns for me at an already very stressful time. I really wish Valve handled this better.

 

I think we're talking about different things. Sure, the store should connect you with the types of games that you want. But it hurts everybody when you, as a customer, download a crappy game and have a bad experience.

I'm certainly not suggesting that content should be separated into 'good or bad' based on the type of game. In fact I don't think it's useful to separate it into 'good and bad' period. You simply throw up a paywall and it sort of separates things naturally, at least to some extent.

In fact one of the reasons why I think steam favors a paywall, despite some drawbacks, is the fact that it doesn't discriminate on any basis but whether the fee is paid or not, which is hard to argue with when it's not your store. If there was any other kind of separation, it would be the subject of heated debates as to whether XYZ game deserved to get slotted into such and such a category.

Greenlight survived because it was democratic and there was no real target for developer's angst (other than the customers, which obviously never goes down well). I think Steam has no real choice beyond case-by-case curation, greenlight and paywall.

 

Correction: GreenLight didn't survive. I'm not sure if you've heard yet. But Steam is pulling the plug on it.

 

A free copy of Portal was what got me to finally download Steam all those years ago... and they've definitely gotten much of my video game purchasing budget over the time since.

 

It went for 5 years, which is a fairly significant period of time in digitally-based business. Also it didn't come to a catastrophic end, I imagine it just isn't working quite as well as other things would.

Arguably it was the right thing for its time, when the indie game industry was still somewhat smaller and more optimistic, but in the current climate it seems pretty disfunctional.

 

They should have a $5000 fee ... just to enter greenlight. And if gets voted then goes to be approved by curators. And then every week the approved game devs need to fight in american gladiators type match televised world wide and the winner gets their game on Steam!

 

1) Filter In
When I go on the front page 90% of the things they are suggesting or have in popular selling I am not interested in. So if they instead allowed me to filter the type of games I want, I would be more likely to buy more games and wouldnt waste devs impressions. Also some games that are really niche and cater to a niche audience might stay on the front page longer (if I only care about top down shooters for example).

2) Follow IP or developer button
This is something you could do on greenlight but it doesnt seem like steam has this feature yet. For example Bleed 2 was just released and I never knew about except I randomly decided to visit the frontpage of steamspy

 

Honestly though, I think the general concept seems like a good idea. I think possibly, it was just handled poorly. Maybe not, dunno. Maybe simply anything do with gamers in a community/social site is just doomed to fail.

 

I agree, I think the concept makes for a much more interesting place where gamers have a way of directly influencing what they want to see, and let's face it the drama can sometimes be interesting..

Maybe the problem has more to do with the fact that expensive legal cases can arise out of greenlight bickering, and potentially affect Steam themselves.

Also I think that another problem with the greenlight thing is that it doesn't jibe well with the long, slow nature of game development. Someone can spend upwards of a year on a game and if they don't show things off well or at the right time, people just hit dislike or whatever within 2 minutes. Although I'm not entirely sure this is a bad thing - it might encourage better dev practices such as building a community as a buffer.

To be honest, although I'd really like to see a higher class marketplace in general, I'd also like to see a place for greenlight sort of stuff to go on, and I hope it continues somewhere if not on steam.

 

I don't think it is. Valve is privately owned and money is pouring in - they don't have an issue or a (huge) incentive to up revenue.

As I see it, Steam Direct is an initiative to lower the amount of low quality submissions to Steam. This is pretty much why award shows require a fee to submit - to weed out the shovelware. Since the fee will be recoupable, it should be possible for pretty much everyone to submit a game, if that game has potential. It is also one of the reasons why Google Play get a lot more shovelware than the App Store.

It might look like Steam will focus on higher revenue games, but that is primarily because the easiest way to measure quality is by sales. So yeah, they don't want games, that people don't want to buy, for the sake of the developers with games that people do want to buy.

I believe this will result in fewer, better games on Steam and a better store front for us users. Is it the perfect solution? Nope. Will they change it again? Probably. Will some developers suffer from this decision? Most likely. But the same things could be said about Greenlight.

As a developer myself, I can attest to the fact that discoverability on Steam is absolutely horrible, so I support any initiative to do something about this.

 

As far as I can tell, latest major moves by valve were mostly revenue oriented. For example switching TF2 to F2P model, CSGO item price madness (those Azimov rifles....), trading cards, etc. Not to mention steam sales. Even the more or less failed idea of steam machines was an attempt to get their own hardware platform.

Basically, there are layers upon layers upon layers of systems that in the end are designed to draw the user in and make them stay.

That's why I think it is about revenue.

 

Yeah, but those are different products/ecosystems, and of course they are optimized for revenue, but as you say they are layers - and I think they stand on their own. The store itself is it's own beast.

I'd say it's more about user experience and catering to more quality driven content (and sure, it might drive up revenue, but that is from increased sales of better games - not from Direct itself). It also sets a bar for quality, implicitly saying "Your game should have a sales potential of X."

In the end, no matter the fee, I don't think this alienates any serious developers. If you have a quality product with potential, you will be able to find the means to pay the fee somewhere. We'll probably see initiatives to help devs do this, if it will be needed.

 

I'm pretty sure those are entirely dictated by how much users offer them for and how much users are willing to pay for them. Valve doesn't set the prices for the things, they just decide how rare it will be and that is one of the factors that leads to high prices. There is a pdf presentation somewhere about the whole weapon skin eco system and also technical aspects of how they implemented it, it's a very interesting read.

 

Interesting point. I just read an Engadget article about this Greenlight situation. The article claimed Steam will "verify the submission is a game"... now it was Engadget which isn't exactly top quality reporting, but it makes me wonder.

Or, as we describe it at home, "All Pandora stations eventually play dubstep."

 

Yeah, but you gotta agree that this allows valve to milk one game for cash forever (or for a very long time, at least). Those AWP rifles cost more than AAA titles.

 

Exactly. Customer acquisition is one of the most important things here. I've worked places that would spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to acquire a single customer because on average they spend more than that cost.

 

I think one of the biggest problems we're seeing highlighted by this thread is the diverse range of expectations as to which games should be on Steam.

I think some people want to see only AAA-like games on Steam. That's what they are interested in and everything else is just "junk" that serves no purpose but to clutter up things and make it harder for the AAA-like games to be found. Their preference is probably when they go to Steam all they ever see on the front page is AAA-wannabe and true AAA games. And basically they just never see anything else there period.

For me I don't want to see any AAA-like and certainly not actual AAA games available on Steam. These are not games I am interested in and serve only to clutter up things. My preference is that when I go to Steam I never see such games on the front page and never come across them period.

So ultimately it goes back to what @neginfinity was saying about investing more in their tech to deliver meaningful content to their customers.

The ideal IMO would be for Steam to break out the site into multiple dedicated sites.

BigAssUltraFancyGraphicsAndOtherAAALikeGames.SteamPowered.com
TinyWeirdIndyGames.SteamPowered.com
PixelArtAndUltraLowPolyRetroStyleGames.SteamPowered.com

Probably need more but at least in this case I know I would only ever need to visit the last two places and mainly perhaps just the last one but I like tiny games in general and checking out the "weird" games is fun too. Where the folks I mentioned above would probably only ever visit the first site.

 

I'd just be happy if some platform, ANY platform, would recognize that RTS ≠ Strategy.
It's like searching a movie site for Sci Fi and getting a ton of fantasy junk in the results.

By this point I've read quite a few articles about this decision and the general consensus seems to be "open the flood gates" is their goal. Quantity over quality. Basically, "How can we make even more money, yet be even less involved, or uninvolved, in the process?" Nice work if you can find it.

 

Yeah that's what I was getting at. Players have distinct preferences. Things they are looking for. Both things they want and things they don't want.

So to really do it justice they'd need like a dozen or more subdomains. In this case it could be StrategyGames.SteamPowered.com and inside that a filter would be RTS, Turn-Based, Other.

This is the real problem. I know there are many more games on Steam I'd buy IF I could actually find them. But with the constant flow of true AAA, AAA-wannabe Indy games, big games, etc the games I want are quickly buried. And likewise for those who view my kind of games as burying the kind they want.

 

That is not a reasonably sustainable structure. The existing Tag system is way more sustainable.

 

Again, it depends on the price point that Valve chooses for the per game submission fee. If they choose $5k per game, then it will definitely weed out a lot of shovelware titles. But if they choose $100 per game, then it will actually dramatically increase the amount of shovelware on the store.

If I had to guess, I would say Valve will most likely set the price low and open the flood gates. Shovelware is not hurting Valve. I actually suspect that Valve views the Greenlight delay as more of a problem than shovelware. Valve is likely concerned that a lot of small titles end up at places like itch.io instead of Steam, and Valve is
more likely to deal with that competition instead of worrying about decreasing shovelware.

But of course, we will not know for sure until Valve announces the price point for Steam Direct.

 

The problem with the tags is it isn't working. Because every few weeks or so I stumble upon a game shown on a website someplace that is the kind I search for and has never shown up. Happens a lot. With a dedicated breakdown it makes it simple.

I think for me there is a solution though. Just switching to GameJolt or itch.io and buying all of my games from those two sites. I don't recall ever seeing a AAA game on either of them and Most of the games fall into the very Indy tiny, weird or retro style categories.

 

Good riddance to Greenlight. It was a mess... made with good intentions, badly implemented, being gamed by the underbelly of Steam devs pretty quickly, and then left to itself far too long.

While I really welcome steam game submissions not being "free", and think everything up to 1000$ should be a reasonable sum to most Indie devs that are at least a little bit professional (you need money to make money, if you have NO budget, what are you doing trying to sell games in a professional storefront?), and 5000$ are still quite a low sums for the bigger fishes in Steams Indie pond, I am not sure a monetary hoop to jump through at the beginning is going to solve the problem with Steam not doing any kind of check on new entries in their queue, or that a flat fee can EVER be fair to everyone.

I hope the fee scales at least somewhat to the project, and the dev in question. Don't think it should ever be lower than about 500$, but might be higher for devs with bigger pockets.
And I hope that money is finally spent on actual humans doing some QA on games submitted to Steam. Both so devs get some feedback as to what they might be doing wrong, and the worst offenders, who actually have the pockets to put shovelware on steam expecting to make back the 500$ should it just be a deposit, get found out and kept out of Steam.


I really hope this keeps some of the Trash from getting on to steam. And then Steam will start cleaning out the back catalogue and throw out the games with bad review scores after a QA check by a Steam employee.

Hey, most probably not going to happen, but sometimes you have to have a dream.


As to bottomfeeder Indies not getting unto steam anymore.... is this a bad thing? Isn't it better to have separate storefronts for the AAA and big indie games, and the small fishes?

So the Indie noise is not clogging up Steam for people mostly interested in bigger releases, while the new storefronts that Indies find a home in actually give the better Indie games the visibility they deserve, which can be hard in the current "anything goes" mode steam is in?

 

I think this is basically the view I am coming to. Steam may be the place for non-Indie games. AAA and these crazy outfits that call themselves Indie yet have a large team, corporate structure, etc.

Yes I know the whole Indie definition thing comes into play. Bottom line is myself and many people view it like if you or Arowx, etc make a game that is a true Indie game. If you and your team of 11 other people make a game that is something else. Not sure what. Probably striving to reach AA or dreaming of reaching AAA.

And yes places like GameJolt and itch.io are by far more real Indie oriented IMO. I go to them both often and find many more games I am interested in. Made by one person or tiny teams. True Indie games. Targeting very niche markets. Bottom feeders as you say.

There are two different ways different peole classify Indie when it comes to games. Some use the formal approach of as long as it is not a AAA dev company OR a publisher fundig then it is Indie. Yet even that breaks down because many games have used a publisher.

The other way is actually clearer in a way. If it is amateur... one person, a few friends.... perhaps a husband & wife team or even an entire family of 6 people making a game that is Indie. Regardless of whether they use a publisher to release their game or not.

It is sort of "the lore" that defines it. The woman who makes a game with her companion. The guy who makes a game part-time outside his job. The family who all works together to make a game. There is an interesting backstory... "the lore" to speak.... and the games are not expected to be as highly polished as AA because... common sense. lol Not every solo person, couple, tiny team of friends or family will have a programmer and an artist (i.e. someone strong in those areas). But they make games that mean a lot to them regardless.

 

Yeah.

That is one thing that always scared me about Steam. If your game is not one of the "hot" game genres such as zombie survival, fps, action PVP, etc., what were the chances of getting a game approved through Greenlight? Since we are making a niche game and one that many gamers hate with a passion that surprises me, I had this internal fear that if we ever went to Steam that the haters would destroy any chance we had, even with a community.

Even now, I post on forums general ideas about the niche and I get people saying not so nice things..and they don't even know we are making a game. Yes, there people who say nice things, but they get attacked.

A system that depends on reviews/votes from gamers, who are a very diverse group of people are always going to favor the most popular genres. While that is fine, what about all the gamers who are seeking games that don't fit into those categories? I am not sure Steam really is a good place for those types of games. Not only will they get lost among the higher rated popular genres but they could find the voices of their audience drowned out by some intolerance of others.

Personally, I think raising the fee is a good idea as well as getting rid of this popularity contest, which has been abused. Of course, niche games will also be hurt by a huge fee, since most niche games are labors of love from people who know they will not make as much money as those who publish all those survival games. It will be interesting to see what happens.

 

Good points. And this where the whole "Indie" thing has become so twisted. At one time it would have exactly referred to the so called "bottom feeders".

But it seems like many people here kind of want Steam to mainly be like AA style games or higher. And this community is unique in that I have never seen so many game devs who seem to view things this way. Like Indie seems to mean a pro programmer, a pro artist and maybe another dozen people all working together to create AAA style games (reduced of course).

It is almost like many people here don't even really like "Indie games" meaning the games that were hailed just a few years ago as being great examples of Indie games like Thomas Was Alone, Downwell, etc. And instead they just want EVERYONE to either be making AAA-style games or don't make anything. lol Yet not every person, tiny team of friends, family, couple etc will have a pro programmer and pro artist. They surely aren't going to have 8, 10, 12, 15, 20 and more people. And that is what makes them Indie by this definition.

Anyway as you said it will be interesting. I am sure the world will not stop spinning for anything to due with this.

 

Iirc a friend of mine once had an 80$ knife skin. Or was it 800$? Both seems equally plausible with that game. I've dug out the pdf link for you, please read page 88, it explains all the non-monetary benefits they have from the skin economy:

http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/2014/gdc_2014_grimes_csgo_econ_content.pdf

Valve must have so much money from all the games published on steam, I don't think they really care all that much how much CS:GO skins earn them. I hate F2P concepts and anything that feels like that with a passion, so I truly understand your skepticism. But CS:GO still is being sold for upfront payment, which is super important as barrier to entry against cheaters, there is no pay to win element, it is all cosmetic, and nothing forces you to take part in the "skin economy". If you play a lot and just sell everything you get, you'll probably even make a tiny profit money wise from playing the game. Valve is hosting dedicated servers for CS:GO, which games like Call of Duty don't (and therefore are unplayable for anyone who cares about lag), which are ongoing costs for them. I perfectly understand if they want to get an ongoing cashflow in return for ongoing investments. And part of the fees that they collect from the item sales, go to the original item creators themselves. I know people wo make that kind of content for Dota2 and holy S***... you wouldn't believe how much you can make from one item-set if you're among the lucky ones to get chosen by valve. It can easily be more than I earn in a year. Some super popular ones even make 6-figures for the content creators I hear. But there are so many people uploading stuff for the workshops of those games, it's ridiculous and I don't like gambling with my time. I've tried my luck making a bit of stuff for both games, didn't have any luck. I really don't wanna be a valve fanboy, I think the whole "crowdsourced art lottery" is borderline unethical because for the vast majority of participants it's working for free with no way of selling that stuff elsewhere if they don't get chosen. But even as anti-f2p as I am, I can't see anything wrong with the weapon skin thing (except for exploiting or creating gambling addictions maybe, but I don't seem to easily fall victim to that). Bottom line people seem to really enjoy this stuff and player retention is very important for a competitive multiplayer game.

 

I think that is probably what a lot of people want. However, you just have to brush that off. Indie means Independent Game Developer, not working for a large company. That could include solo developers, small teams, studios with larger teams or even pros who have broken away from the AAA game studios to make their own games.

It is a huge category under such a simple label but it is the way it is. I am not sure how that matters to Steam though other than they might want to scale their fees based on the team sizes/income.

There will always be people who prefer AAA games. There will be always be those who prefer indie. And even some of the pro indie teams have screwed up and have lost customers. It is all about making a game that is fun to play and has an audience.

The problem with steam is finding that audience or finding a game that suits your style.

 

Very true!

Well I meant it from the angle of helping people to best find only the kinds of games they are interested in. I know this is just something being speculated on in this thread and others speculate the opposite... far more "bottom feeder" type of games coming in... but anyway it might actually be better if Steam does become focused only on the larger teams and AAA games. If they set the fee to maybe $5k or $10k per game that would likely go a long way to catering only to AAAs and the AAA-wannabe Indie teams.

And then places like GameJolt and itch.io can focus on all of the non-AAA like stuff. The tiny teams. Basically the other definition of Indie.

And this would work out well not only for gamers who then know go here for these kind of games that I want and you go there for those kind of games that you want... but also it benefits developers because the sites themselves are more targeted.

It makes no sense for a person to make a tiny or pixel art or programmer art or awesome looking game with not-the-best-programming and offer it on Steam if the folks there are only interested in top of the line professional quality. Same as it would make no sense for someone to strive and make Witcher 3 and release it to an audience who find that completely the opposite of what they want... only wanting tiny games, "home grown" games, etc.

So basically... there could be some real benefit if things turned out this way. But we have no idea if they will. Just as, probably more, likely is Steam will continue to cater to all Indies of all sizes and skill levels.

 

Probably. I know people who go to Steam to find indie games so it isn't everyone. I thought I read that indie games did well in the last year...but of course, that depends on your definition of indie.

Seriously though, I find Steam easier to navigate than Google Play or Apple's app store. I hate those places with a passion, which is one reason I rarely play games on my tablet or phone.

 

Prove it. It's easy to talk a ton of rubbish on the forums. But why not send us a link to this wonderful game? I've seen plenty of people work 12 hour days on games and have an unplayable mess.

If the game really is good, generating enough interest to meet the Steam entry fee won't be a problem. It's also possible that the game isn't as good as you think it is.

 

Jim Sterling posted a video today about Steam Direct:

 

....

I hope you were paying your share of house bills all that time. Because otherwise you're going to run into trouble when trying to publish your project.

You can only be "above the $" if all your bills are paid, preferably for one year in advance.

At least that's the way I see it.

 

Jim makes some good points but I always feel like I need a shower after watching him. Ugh.

 

That's the spirit

 

how so? ...you mean the entry fee?

... sure i get what youre saying...

but chyah steam isnt everything, and i seen this coming for awhile now..
but yeah it kinda sucks that slapped together garbage gets in quicker, and projects that take time and effort take too long to get in easy..

but i mean yeah sure, with new system ... we dont even know... good stuff gets in
but, as said "$5,000" ??? wow FFFF yoou!!

true, ... well its not to the level of showing to impress.... it DOES have a lot of code as a framework, that is really not showable at all..
...and i havent given effort to show it much yet, as its not to showable state yet, this is old stuff...
but sure, ill show you the pathetic lame web presence that i deemed a waste of time to expand upon that i have, whatevs

https://connect.unity.com/p/58310fe7090915001a6cd816
https://gamedevsorcery.wordpress.com/