I think the idea of a monthly fee might well drive developers away - your game could be good but only have a niche audience. You'd have to sell even more to make a profit and then it'd be kinda like a leech. You'd get to a point surely where the amount you'd spent in tax was greater than the amount you'd gained in profit? Also, wouldn't this make it difficult to keep a game on steam? You can't guarantee that so-and-so many people will buy your game each month - sales will trail off eventually. Or have I missed your point?

As for the ascending fee, again, it would make it difficult. Also what classes as indie? What about people releasing through a distributor?

Elaborate forms, I can agree with. It seems strange that people are able to get away with making multiple accounts with no sort of vetting...

What if you're a developer with a few games already made and released elsewhere, and you come to steam and find you have to wait ages to upload your catalogue? Seems like a measure created specifically with asset flippers in mind, but which potentially messes with legitimate devs as well.

Ah. Yes. The crux of the matter. Human oversight...I think you could combine a lot of your other ideas into this one. Basically I think valve needs to have a human sit down and play some of this shite.

I could get behind that. I feel sometimes like they would struggle to find 200 games each month, so it's not like a bottleneck. It would be kind of a balance between the old ways and the new. Valve excuse of 'oh, we can't judge our customers taste' can be worked around. Most people don't want to play a buggy mess slapped together in an afternoon, regardless of what they like.

About the minimum price...well. I don't really see it's a problem to let developers name their own price and discounted price. If all the asset flippers have already been weeded out then there's no reason to raise prices. Personally, if I see a game heavily discounted, with trading cards, and decent reviews I'll usually go for it. If the price was higher, I'm less likely to take the risk.

I kinda feel like, if Valve didn't bother to Jim Sterling when they invited him in for his opinion, then nothing's going to change until they find themselves obsolete in the game market. Which sucks for me cus I've only been here for a year...

I'm not a major fan of the game itself, the house has featured in a number of recent indie games, but it seemed like Steam was finally allowing some more, um, adult material on the storefront before it changed its mind. I would assume nobody bothered to actually look at the game in any detail before they put it up on the site.

I can understand Valve not wanting their storefront littered with shoddy porno games, and since they seemingly have no problem with shoddy non-porno games I can see how things would end up if they relaxed their nudity rules.
Still it's frustrating. What is the point of having an age restriction for certain products if the thing behind it is barely worth the restriction? I do roll my eyes when I see 'sexual content' in the tags...means I'll have to find a fan patch or pay for one. Everything has to be so bloody kid-friendly...*grumble*

Originally posted by Cyberman:

Originally posted by ThreeLeggedFeline:

And Cyberman, I do hope you're being sarcastic. Drinking that capitalist kool-aid...
It's naieve to think that consumers and wallets can stand in for QC - look at all the people who buy asset flips, even when the devs lie or steal.

Those devs gave away free keys to those people. Also, do you know of any better alternative to capitalism? Please share your secrets.

Not all of them. Some of the achievement spams like Sisters In Hotel has enough buyers to turn the review score mixed - it's not just keys anymore.

Personally I like a blend of capitalism and communism - all things in moderation. Great wealth does not denote great morals, and money has no code of ethics. I'm a cynic, I know all systems have flaws, which is why I found your apparent blind faith in capitalism disturbing. Just because I don't have the answers doesn't mean I can't see the problems.

Back on topic, you can't rely on money or algorithms to do a human's job. Nor should Valve rely on their customers to sift through the evergrowing mountain of trash.

It's a shame. I don't think they'd change unless it was costing them money...and the ones most likely to be hurt are the indie devs trying to get noticed amidst the daily influx of asset flips and achievement spam.
The shady devs are getting cannier, or maybe just better at hiding bad press. The reviews are no longer always a good way to tell. It's frustrating having to screen all potential purchases, just to make sure they aren't just minimal effort trash cunningly disguised. I really don't understand why they can't have a human being just look at some of this BS...and I can't stand how they blame it on visual novels. They couldn't predict the rising popularity of a niche genre, so their solution is to retreat to their room, slam the door, and scream about how they might as well let their customers pick all the games since they can't do it right.

And Cyberman, I do hope you're being sarcastic. Drinking that capitalist kool-aid...
It's naieve to think that consumers and wallets can stand in for QC - look at all the people who buy asset flips, even when the devs lie or steal.

I play a lot of visual novels where the achievements are mostly milestones in the story, or awarded for viewing specific endings or scenes. I like this, as it's a good way of gaging how much content I have left to see. They're not necessarily hard to get, and require you simply to play the game you've bought...
Which is what peeves me most about achievement spammers - the game doesn't matter. The devs (if they can be called that) are just selling steam achievements, they are taking advantage of a specific storefront to make money. And their customers love it...you see it in the reviews. It's like they forgot what the point of a game is. It's not just the developers, it's the market which feeds them. I'm sure big companies like EA and their ilk would come in their undies with sheer delight at the idea that they can get away with selling their customers any hastily cobbled together tat as long as it has a few thousand 'cheevos tacked on. Lets hope they don't try to get in on the action too...

Anyway, that's my take on thing. New to the group. Cheers.