Steam Greenlight closes with mass approval of games

SEANMCAD · June 2017

https://www.polygon.com/2017/6/14/15801334/steam-greenlight-closing-mass-approval-steam-direct

Valve really wants as much games out there as possible and they really want the community to curate.
The (Valve) are working on tools to help in that but in the end they want to get out of the quality control business

laxie · June 2017

Very curious how this pans out.

The two concerns of mine are that we will either see a lot of crap, or lose perfectly good games to an algorithm.

YouTube is a prime example of how the tweaking of a hidden formula can make or break products. A terrible video can pick up some semi-random traction at the beginning, spreading further than is justified. One of my videos has 30x the amount of views than the other ones, while being objectively worse. It's now being shown to more and more people, just because a decent number of people have already seen it.

On the other hand, the huge channels on YouTube often release videos that are poorly monetized or poorly viewed. If a new indie game on Steam happens to be shown to 10 people who won't like it, it may be doomed just because of the varience in user sampling. An objectively worse game could be shown to 6 people who buy it right away, hence the algorithm thinking it's a masterpiece.

The obvious solution is to show games to hundreds of people before making an assumption. This will probably mean I have to click through a lot of junk to see something good. Not sure there is a good answer to this.

SEANMCAD · June 2017

the plan has been and I suspect still is, to provide a way for a community member to make money by curation.

So for example, I might go to Gamespots Curation Steam Page and buy a game from there. they would get a cut.

Or I might go to 'Worth a Buy Guy's' Curation Steam Page instead and buy a game from there.

What games those two members will have depends on them doing research.

That has been the long standing plan for more than a year now

kitarad · June 2017

I've read and gone through other recommendations by curators and they have convinced me to buy a game by giving a good idea of the game and having done good research on a game and I don't see why this method is a bad idea. I think it can be used well unless abused by false recommendations for money.

waynejr2 · June 2017

laxie said:

Very curious how this pans out.

The two concerns of mine are that we will either see a lot of crap, or lose perfectly good games to an algorithm.

YouTube is a prime example of how the tweaking of a hidden formula can make or break products. A terrible video can pick up some semi-random traction at the beginning, spreading further than is justified. One of my videos has 30x the amount of views than the other ones, while being objectively worse. It's now being shown to more and more people, just because a decent number of people have already seen it.

On the other hand, the huge channels on YouTube often release videos that are poorly monetized or poorly viewed. If a new indie game on Steam happens to be shown to 10 people who won't like it, it may be doomed just because of the varience in user sampling. An objectively worse game could be shown to 6 people who buy it right away, hence the algorithm thinking it's a masterpiece.

The obvious solution is to show games to hundreds of people before making an assumption. This will probably mean I have to click through a lot of junk to see something good. Not sure there is a good answer to this.

Losing the good ones because they aren't popular is a loss imo.

SEANMCAD · June 2017

kitarad said:

I've read and gone through other recommendations by curators and they have convinced me to buy a game by giving a good idea of the game and having done good research on a game and I don't see why this method is a bad idea. I think it can be used well unless abused by false recommendations for money.

In effect I use youtube as my 'curation' and it works. does me well.

I think the argument however that any effort made that is tied to making money will end up being bad is not a good argument.

I think the current Steam Curation is only a small part of what they have planned in what appears to be the near future. I also think money can be a very useful motivating tool. I can assure you at least 1/2 of the youtube channels I go to would not do it if there was not some money involved.

SEANMCAD · June 2017

Nyctelios said:

kitarad said:

I've read and gone through other recommendations by curators and they have convinced me to buy a game by giving a good idea of the game and having done good research on a game and I don't see why this method is a bad idea. I think it can be used well unless abused by false recommendations for money.

At this moment the curator system is shallow and allows little to no customization tools so they may do "their job" - besides there is no rewards for curators. Some faced many threats and legal problems due their "work" making sure some shady stuff would go away.

When they have a third party connection like Youtube some fake strikes on their channels made by angry greenlight exploiters can kill their living (or their hobby).

I would suggest to search for TotalBiscuit and Jim Sterling videos on their visit at Steam where they had a meeting to talk about greenlight exploitations, curator system and Steam absent quality control.

the problem is both of them got the motivation of the Steam Direct completely wrong.
They both elluded that Steam Direct changes where some effort to curve scams but that is NOT the motivation of Steam Direct.

more over, if it was, would said company release all Greenlight games to the public in mass as a going away present? isnt that the EXACT opposite of what those two youtubers think Steam Direct was about?

Gruug · June 2017

Never cared for the Greenlight program.

SEANMCAD · June 2017

Nyctelios said:

SEANMCAD said:

Nyctelios said:

kitarad said:

I've read and gone through other recommendations by curators and they have convinced me to buy a game by giving a good idea of the game and having done good research on a game and I don't see why this method is a bad idea. I think it can be used well unless abused by false recommendations for money.

At this moment the curator system is shallow and allows little to no customization tools so they may do "their job" - besides there is no rewards for curators. Some faced many threats and legal problems due their "work" making sure some shady stuff would go away.

When they have a third party connection like Youtube some fake strikes on their channels made by angry greenlight exploiters can kill their living (or their hobby).

I would suggest to search for TotalBiscuit and Jim Sterling videos on their visit at Steam where they had a meeting to talk about greenlight exploitations, curator system and Steam absent quality control.

the problem is both of them got the motivation of the Steam Direct completely wrong.
They both elluded that Steam Direct changes where some effort to curve scams but that is NOT the motivation of Steam Direct.

more over, if it was, would said company release all Greenlight games to the public in mass as a going away present? isnt that the EXACT opposite of what those two youtubers think Steam Direct was about?

They got it wrong?

Steam called them to get their feedback as auditors on it. They shown mock-ups and asked them how they wanted it to work out.

So they got it wrong... from Steam...? You make little to no sense sometimes, you know.

yes...'they got it wrong'

they went to Valve, Valve told them X, they heard Y and reported it wrong.

I dont understand why this is such a mystery Gabe himself has stated explictly that they want to get out of the business of curating and that they want the community to do it. Why is this something I have to 'sell' to people. its in the plans, its been stated, its moving in that direction.

A company that is intrested in making changes for the purposes of curation sure shit are not going to mass approve all greenlight games and they sure as shit arent going to go around multiple times saying 'we want to get out of the business of curation'

a small part and a small change in Steam direct is designed to take care of a specific subset of scam concerns.

Steam Direct itself is NOT an effort to automate curation. it is in fact by itself the exact opposite of that

SEANMCAD · June 2017

Basically to shorten above

A company that is putting forth an effort to curate for its consumers does not do a mass approval of all Greenlight games nor do they repeately say 'we want to get out of the business of curation'

cameltosis · June 2017

I was a fairly late adopter of steam. My early experiences of it were pretty negative - I was still in the mindset of buying physical games and being able to play them on any PC without needing an internet connection. I always hated the need for an internet connection and the endless cycle of patches.

However, when I was working for a games company, we used steam to distribute and I began to love it. This was only 2014. I went from 5 or 6 steam games to my currently library of 80+ in roughly 2 years.

That said, I've never used Steam as a method of finding new games to buy. It has always sucked. There are far too many indie games that look utterly crap and they clog up every single category on the site. My steam queue sucks every time I look at it. The best steam ever seems to manage is it's most popular lists, which generally don't have too much crap in them.

So, I continue to use actual games sites, like here, MOP and PC Gamer, to find out information about new games. When I see one I like, then I'll open up steam, search for it and read more information, add it to my wishlist and then wait for an email telling me it's on steam.

I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some great games that are available on steam, but I can't be arsed to trudge through the rubbish in order to find them - there are enough good games that get reported elsewhere that I'm never short of something to play (except MMOs).

SEANMCAD · June 2017

cameltosis said:

I was a fairly late adopter of steam. My early experiences of it were pretty negative - I was still in the mindset of buying physical games and being able to play them on any PC without needing an internet connection. I always hated the need for an internet connection and the endless cycle of patches.

However, when I was working for a games company, we used steam to distribute and I began to love it. This was only 2014. I went from 5 or 6 steam games to my currently library of 80+ in roughly 2 years.

That said, I've never used Steam as a method of finding new games to buy. It has always sucked. There are far too many indie games that look utterly crap and they clog up every single category on the site. My steam queue sucks every time I look at it. The best steam ever seems to manage is it's most popular lists, which generally don't have too much crap in them.

So, I continue to use actual games sites, like here, MOP and PC Gamer, to find out information about new games. When I see one I like, then I'll open up steam, search for it and read more information, add it to my wishlist and then wait for an email telling me it's on steam.

I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some great games that are available on steam, but I can't be arsed to trudge through the rubbish in order to find them - there are enough good games that get reported elsewhere that I'm never short of something to play (except MMOs).

exactly..

which is why the curation system is about to get a big boost in tools which will make it more reasonable to find games.

side note: please stop reading PC Gamer, its a shit hole

cameltosis · June 2017

SEANMCAD said:

cameltosis said:

I was a fairly late adopter of steam. My early experiences of it were pretty negative - I was still in the mindset of buying physical games and being able to play them on any PC without needing an internet connection. I always hated the need for an internet connection and the endless cycle of patches.

However, when I was working for a games company, we used steam to distribute and I began to love it. This was only 2014. I went from 5 or 6 steam games to my currently library of 80+ in roughly 2 years.

That said, I've never used Steam as a method of finding new games to buy. It has always sucked. There are far too many indie games that look utterly crap and they clog up every single category on the site. My steam queue sucks every time I look at it. The best steam ever seems to manage is it's most popular lists, which generally don't have too much crap in them.

So, I continue to use actual games sites, like here, MOP and PC Gamer, to find out information about new games. When I see one I like, then I'll open up steam, search for it and read more information, add it to my wishlist and then wait for an email telling me it's on steam.

I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some great games that are available on steam, but I can't be arsed to trudge through the rubbish in order to find them - there are enough good games that get reported elsewhere that I'm never short of something to play (except MMOs).

exactly..

which is why the curation system is about to get a big boost in tools which will make it more reasonable to find games.

side note: please stop reading PC Gamer, its a shit hole

Lol, yeh, PC Gamer is pretty shit, it's kinda my fallback when I have run outta other stuff.

This site and MOP are my main reading material, but some days are slow (like today, friday, forum has been dead) and so I need other stuff to read.

Happy to take suggestions though, more procrastination always welcome!

SEANMCAD · June 2017

cameltosis said:

SEANMCAD said:

cameltosis said:

I was a fairly late adopter of steam. My early experiences of it were pretty negative - I was still in the mindset of buying physical games and being able to play them on any PC without needing an internet connection. I always hated the need for an internet connection and the endless cycle of patches.

However, when I was working for a games company, we used steam to distribute and I began to love it. This was only 2014. I went from 5 or 6 steam games to my currently library of 80+ in roughly 2 years.

That said, I've never used Steam as a method of finding new games to buy. It has always sucked. There are far too many indie games that look utterly crap and they clog up every single category on the site. My steam queue sucks every time I look at it. The best steam ever seems to manage is it's most popular lists, which generally don't have too much crap in them.

So, I continue to use actual games sites, like here, MOP and PC Gamer, to find out information about new games. When I see one I like, then I'll open up steam, search for it and read more information, add it to my wishlist and then wait for an email telling me it's on steam.

I'm sure I'm probably missing out on some great games that are available on steam, but I can't be arsed to trudge through the rubbish in order to find them - there are enough good games that get reported elsewhere that I'm never short of something to play (except MMOs).

exactly..

which is why the curation system is about to get a big boost in tools which will make it more reasonable to find games.

side note: please stop reading PC Gamer, its a shit hole

Lol, yeh, PC Gamer is pretty shit, it's kinda my fallback when I have run outta other stuff.

This site and MOP are my main reading material, but some days are slow (like today, friday, forum has been dead) and so I need other stuff to read.

Happy to take suggestions though, more procrastination always welcome!

I do 100% of my game research via youtube channels I enjoy, browsing steam and then going to youtube with said game. I dont read ANY of the 'gaming journalism' sites anymore for anything unless it happens to accidentally come up in my Google News feed.

Howdy, Stranger!

Steam Greenlight closes with mass approval of games

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Steam Greenlight closes with mass approval of games

Comments