Valve's Greenlight now charging 100 USD fee per developer. What do you think?

[Phoxtane]

I found this article on Rock-Paper-Shotgun about Valve's new Greenlight service.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/green-for-greenlight-valve-now-charging-100-fee/#more-123152

I'm curious to see what you all have to say, but I must ask:

-READ the ENTIRE article!

-PLEASE keep it civil!

My personal stance on this change:

It was a logical step for Valve, since their service was being overrun by those who would abuse it. I do think that the price is a little high at 100 USD; I would drop it down to 75 USD myself. However, the fee is going towards the Child's Play charity, and it's a one-time fee for the developer. Overall, I can't really think of any other way that Valve would be able to police the system without huge expenses for themselves. This way it discourages those who aren't really serious.

[whatisthisidonteven]

Now I don't know how much money Americans typically earn, but in the UK £63 ($100) is very little. The money is going to charity and it prevents their submissions from being filled with junk (I don't think anyone will pay $100 just to spam useless stuff that will probably get deleted anyway). Also, if you aren't willing to part with even $100 - Perhaps you should reconsider game developing. You have to spend some to make some!

[trbinsc]

I wouldn't really call it charging, it's more like requiring, because Valve isn't getting the money.

[Ydoow]

$100 shouldn't be considered much to anyone with a game their trying to sell.

To an average person, like me, $100 entry fee is kind of a lot.

But realistically, if you don't think you can come out on top with a risk like this, then there was no reason for you to submit it in the first place.

I feel like you shouldn't submit a game to Steam (or at least not depend on making it into Steam) without making a name of yourself (or game) beforehand.

I'd say offering your game on a regular ol'e website would be a better approach until you have a reputation.

[Capt'n Skunky]

This seems like a reasonable fee for the exposure one gets be being on Steam. If the price is too steep, you're not ready for the big time anyway. When Greenlight was opened for submissions, they got 90% crap. This should cut down the crap people were submitting, most of which was stuff they didn't even own. People were treating it like a wishlist.

There's even the added benefit of the fee going to charity. Also, as point out, this is a one time fee for a developer, they can put as many games as they want on Greenlight once the fee is paid.

Cheers!

Capt'n Skunky

KSP Community Manager

[MoonOfEve?]

For a system that is suppose to be an efficiant way of letting people decide whether a game should be avalable to buy on the store, charging, or requiring, a fee to be paid to childs play is logical. I would have put the fee at 150-175 though, as 100 seems a little on the low side to me. Eather way, there should be less crap going into the greenlight service now.

[Apothecarian]

I think that the fee is alright. If you are serious about development, you should be happy to pay it. After all, if you are making an omelet, you need to break a few eggs, right?