It's $24.99 on Steam now, that's how CV works.
http://store.steampowered.com/app/202170/
EDIT: If my netbook didn't take forever to load pages I wouldn't have been a minute behind those other posts and now I feel dumb. qq
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand your answer. I'm not saying it because it would benefit me, as you can see I've only given away bundled games that I wasn't interested in or that I bought specifically to gift cause I don't have much money to buy games to share. I just don't understand why people who actually buy more expensive games to giveaway should be affected by this. I know gifting games isn't about getting CV, but anyway, they're gifting games, why "punish" them like this?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not an error, it's how it works. I'm assuming SteamGifts keeps tracks of the games you've given away, but not the values at the time and since the cost of the giveaways are determined by the price of the game ($1=1P) when a price drop occurs, it changes the value everywhere it's displayed.
They could start keeping track of values when they're given away, but that'd be unfair to those like the OP who have already lost CV. It would be possible to correct all of the people who have had drops, but it'd be a lot of work to compile a list of every game that has had a price drop and when it occurred.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've read in the other post that that's what people chose, I could understand it as a way to encourage people to give more games if they want to keep their CV, but since it actually lowers after some time, I don't see what the reason would be.
Comment has been collapsed.
I completely agree with you on this one. There stands to be no reason why someone (motivated by CV) should ever give away a AAA title.
Your best bet is a combination of games that are and that you know for sometime will be worth $20 that you've purchased for $5 (75% off) as well as bundled games valued at $10-$20 you've purchased for $1. Your ratio of bundled to non bundled must be 80% non bundled to 20% bundled that way you retain full CV value of the bundles (they deduct CV if your bundled games giveaways gets any higher).
Also investing in "complete packs" that aren't available all the time. Because the specific "complete pack" isn't available all the time the price only rarely changes on steam gifts. For example look at this giveaway then look at the pack on steam and tell me when you think the CV for something like that will go down.
http://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/PaMYO/assassins-creed-pack
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't believe correcting an error would be unfair to anyone. The correction would affect everyone globally at the same time. No disadvantage would be dealt to anyone specific person.
Comment has been collapsed.
The idea of the decreasing CV is that if someone wants to have a $3000 CV, they cannot build up to and rest on their laurels, continuously entering higher CV giveaways. The decrease based on game price changing ensures that if someone actually cares about CV, they have to maintain it.
This topic gets rehashed every time a 50+ game drops, so it gets pretty boring seeing these threads and the same arguments over and over.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I think it's a good idea to lower the CV so people has to give more games if they want to keep their CV. But I read somewhere that your CV actually lowers after some time even if the price of the games haven't changed, like after five months of giving a game, the CV you obtained from that game disappear, so it's not fair if your CV is going to lower after sometime anyway. Imagine giving a game and getting your CV lowered the day after. This should be in the FAQ, cause I don't remember reading that, only in threads in the forum.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry I haven't responded. My brother needed a ride to run errands anyway I'm back and I have a few thoughts on the subject. First off since that is how the site "rewards" people who have given away hundreds of dollars worth of AAA titles then I don't ever want to see another thread full of complaining about people "abusing" the CV system with bundles.
In other words what I'm saying is the CV system never actually represents the amount of money you've given away therefore it is perfectly acceptable to spend $1 and get $20 of credit. The system is built on depreciating value therefore there is no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to mitigate yourself from substantial losses.
Comment has been collapsed.
Contributor giveaways were introduced as a way to thank people who put a noticeable amount of money into this site in terms of giveaways. People then buy $1 bundles and get as much cv as someone who bought and gave away one AAA game. That's alright on small scales.
Now imagine someone gives away 7 $60 AAA games. $420 cv they then want to enter a giveaway limited to people who have given that amount of money away, so they do.
But they are also up against those people who spent $7 on 7 bundles with a total value of $60 per bundle. That's not particularly fair on the person who gave the AAA games is it?
I know the system isn't perfect, and my opinion is that it should be scrapped entirely, but cv abuse does exist and you shouldn't blow it off as easily as you did just because your cv dropped. Yes I know that hurts you, but it also hurt anyone else who gave away sleeping dogs. Or Skyrim. Or Borderlands 2. Or Dishonoured. They all price dropped recently and do we see anyone else complaining? No...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you're misinterpreting what I am saying. Believe it or not we are in the same boat. We both believe your CV should accurately represent your contribution to the community. The system as it stands is set up to prevent that. It is then incumbent upon you to operate within the system (even if at the fringes) to rectify that situation.
Also the CV system was not put in place to "thank" anybody it was put in place to slap people in the face and rudely say "I know you have done something for me in the past. But what have you done for me lately?". People recognize this and are reacting as they normally do. I for one won't hate on any of them anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was made to thank people, hence why the cv giveaways all have a line saying this is a thank you giveaway to the people who have contributed.
The point about cv abuse still stands. People do abuse bundles just to enter theses high value cv giveaways. This isn't the way the system is meant to work. Having a depreciating value on the higher value games (and to a less noticeable extent, the lower value ones) encourages the people who can afford to giveaway big name games regularly to keep doing so to over come this depreciating value.
Giving away smaller games is safer since the chance that they'll drop a significant amount is smaller so your value is more likely to stay as is. On the other hand, giving away cheaper games isn't going to get you noticed by the community as a generous gifter as much as someone who gives away more expensive games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Boo ****ing hoo at your loss. Give away more, watch it go back up. If you are giving purely for CV to boost your chances, don't bother. Save the cash and buy the games yourself. Give because you want to, not just for a number.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although I don't appreciate the general tone of your post I feel that it is worth noting the CV system was put in place in part to motivate people to give better games. What I am stating here is how the design of the system is counterintuitive to itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
You might not like it the way it is, but that is the way it is. The people that run the site have it working that way because it is less data for them to keep track of.
Comment has been collapsed.
"If you are giving purely for CV to boost your chances, don't bother." While I understand your sentiments, I, personally, don't agree with that. The CV system will naturally produce people who want to reach a number to qualify for more giveaways. It's inevitable. And while I don't condone the so called "abuse" like crazy machines, I think it's a bit unfair to condemn all people who give away a game for CV purposes. I'm certain that the people who won those giveaways don't really care about the intentions and are happy to get the game.
Assuming your presumption that jperry gave away sleeping dogs only for CV is correct, if I had been the winner I would much rather have had him give it away to get CV than "not bothering". I actually did win Sleeping Dogs here on SG and whatever the intentions of the giftee was, it's one of the games I'm the happiest about winning here... So it's rather astonishing to me that you could tell someone to not bother giving away games of quality and demand just because you don't agree with their intentions.
Comment has been collapsed.
I won it here myself, but I still don't see much reason to giveaway purely for a number that might boost chances. It will go down, because games do devalue. I've lost about $75 if I remember correctly. But I don't really care. People get to enjoy their prizes, and that is the only reason someone should be giving away. The thought of a number that will benefit them is pointless, my own statistics for this site show that I've given a significant more than I've won.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you on that one as well. You should give to make people happy not to see a number on a website go up.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said that I disagree with your sentiment that people shouldn't giveaway things purely to boost CV but that I disagree with telling people to not bother because of it. The benefits of that person giving it away for that intention is much greater than any negatives (what is the negative if the person's giving away things like Sleeping Dogs?) so why would you tell them not to bother because of a difference in ideals?
Comment has been collapsed.
Short, sweet and to the point. This man knows what he is talking about.
Comment has been collapsed.
It should happen automatically, just give it a while.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. It dropped down to $40 a long time ago to. I'm surprised it didn't drop when that happened. Although when you create a giveaway you have literally hundreds if not thousands of titles to chose from. I can imagine Valve would be a little peeved if SG tried to poll all of those titles on a regular basis.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I can't say I'm surprised. People are literally giving their games away ;) *walka walka
Comment has been collapsed.
81 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by Kratos1
11 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by CryinOrion
607 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Aradiel
14 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by ewoda
34 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by RowdyOne
24 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by DeliberateTaco
84 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by Luckz
41 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by jhr76
59 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by Helgrind22
83 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by Megamind9
36 Comments - Last post 24 minutes ago by Mhol1071
26 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by windkit
97 Comments - Last post 44 minutes ago by Delisper
10 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by WellKnownPlayer
Logged in today to find my CV on my sleeping dogs giveaways drop from $40 each to $25 each. There is a giveaway with a relatively high CV and low entries ending soon and I really wanted to enter it and now I can't. Can anyone show me that sleeping dogs was in a bundle from March 26th and before?
Comment has been collapsed.