It discourages giving away possibly good games more than once and provides incentives to just buy a bunch of different cheap bundles to boost up the value. The system will also be as exploitable if not more so than the current setup by sometimes punishing generous people and rewarding abusers.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe so, maybe not. Not a lot of games go to 90-95% off, people would really have to hunt them down. And even if they did, they would only be able to get their value once.
Some people farmed over $1000 of value from Crazy Machines bundles because it was 95% off - impossible to do this under this system.
Comment has been collapsed.
But being capped at only getting the value once per bundle would be a slow+steady rise, not a huge sum at once.
Right now, if I bought 10 Darksiders packs and gave them all away I would get $400 of c.value. That would take me quite some time buying only the UTA ($1) versions of all the standard bundles.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah and with the amount of bundles you will get the same value in no time. It would be a ritual just when a bundle comes out everyone posts a giveaway for the games of it.
No,changing from a bad system that encourages exploiting to another one that encourages exploiting won't help.
Comment has been collapsed.
As the supporters of the GalaStore/Amazon etc bundles would say:
"It's not an exploit, it's just a sale!"
Right now the line between what is and isn't a bundle is so gray that we need an all or nothing solution.
Under the current system, why can I buy the Darksiders/Red Faction pack for $1 and get full value, but not buy an IndieRoyale for $5+ and get any value at all?
Comment has been collapsed.
don't get me wrong. Concerning those stores I am on your side. That's why I take care that all those exploiters are NOT in my giveaway. But that doesnt change my view on bundles. Keeping the contributor but allowing bundles wouldnt change anything.
Old system,no contributor and no bundles is what I support. Would also solve the "problem" with the value of points.
Btw every high contributor I know (non exploiters) want to get rid of the contributor. So the ones who would profit dont want it because they dont need it for their so called "elitism" everyone says they are.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as I know, the only way to ensure "no bundles" is to enforce "no keys". One of the most efficient ways to ensure "no keys" would be to implement a system like the PlayBlink bot, and allow only Steam giftable copies.
If you suggest we return back to the time where SG didn't allow bundle games to be given at all, I don't think that's possible without at least 6-7 always online support members checking every giveaway. There are right now about ~25k reported giveaways all remnants of that time. That was the main reason why the bundle system was put and bundle games were allowed in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
well the amount of support needed for this surely is solveable,make a "report as bundle" button that creates tickets for a "bundle support only",have a few of them. To me a bigger problem is that it has been allowed for quite a long time now,forbidding it again would be quite an act.
Comment has been collapsed.
Putting the manpower for it is not the only problem. People will continue to post bundle keys and stuff, no matter how much they are reported / suspended. Don't forget about the userbase that don't read the rules too. Unless we are to suspend half of the userbase permanently, not allowing bundles but allowing keys is not an option.
Just my two cents of course, all these discussions is giving us an idea about what the community wants, so I'm not against brainstorming.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you there. I mean, I'm nowhere near a 'high contributor' but I could see the value of removing the system.
This thread was more along the mindset of "if we are going to have it, this may work better".
Comment has been collapsed.
what if its diminishing returns instead of flat zero? like loose 1 cv every time after first or whatever i donno(so 10 for 1 crazymachines, but only 55 for 10 instead of 100?) still no?(or maybe every 2nd so it'd be 80 for 10, but only 110 for 20 instead of 200. cause by the time you've given away 20 copies you pretty much definitely aren't just doing it normally right?)
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the OP, but getting rid of all contribution is the best idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, yes. But beyond scrapping the system I think my suggestion works quite well.
People would be forced to give a variety of games to raise value.
Rather than see 100 Shadow Harvest giveaways, we would see tons of different games (even more so during a big indie sale like Steam just had.
Comment has been collapsed.
So I could not give away, let's say 3-copies from a 4-pack. Or several copies from a game I enjoy? No sir.
Comment has been collapsed.
Discourages one from gifting 100 copies of Skyrim though :P Also doesn't work well with 4-packs. Honestly nothing really has to be fixed at this point in regards to CV; CV giveaways have become pointless when as little as $105 can max your CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
^
Keep the contribution value on people's profiles for bragging rights (some people care about stuff like that) and just remove the benefit of farming contribution.
1 copy per game might sound good for some deals which can be exploited for massive contribution gain, but it does penalize people who often give away multiple copies of good games when they're on sale. I don't know of people who have given away 10+ of the same AAA title, but I certainly know of people who have given away 4 or 5 copies of the same AAA game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would support this. Keep the value on profile for "bragging rights" or to assist in Private Group selection.
But remove it for Public giveaways; maybe have an option when creating a giveaway to "Has Contributed" but it would only be a checkbox (the same as a $0.01 c.value giveaway).
Comment has been collapsed.
As long as these bundle games get entries, I'd say that there are people who do want them.
Comment has been collapsed.
We are both long enough on this site to know that ppl enter for everything. They enter for games they can get for free,they enter for games they can get for 10 cents,the enter for games that costs $50. Doesnt matter. If someone really wants those games there are enough possibilities to get them.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are right rickiel,
THIS is happening at another site right now! it has become a place to drop bundles. that's it
Comment has been collapsed.
I support getting rid of CV giveaways. HOWEVER, you have to remember that the day CV was implemented saw a huge increase in giveaways that has not declined since. CG has the statistics. I admit that I do not know the quality of these giveaways, but this is still something to keep in mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
This only works if you have a system to eliminate leechers. Why put leechers and contributors on an even playing field?
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you gift bundle games, because you want contribution or because you have too much unused keys?
Comment has been collapsed.
I like your point, I could care less if I get a cv from it. I buy so many bundles I end up with a lot of overlap. Sometimes I just want to be kind. I don't need anything back. The system is fine as it is in my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most people the latter, but many people the former. You see people giving away like 10 copies of darksiders. You think it's because those keys are just "extra"?
Comment has been collapsed.
True, but the results speak for themselves. Look at the 2 Humble Weekly sales, Bastion vs. Darksiders.
Bastion maybe got to 200 copies total, but Darksiders? Well over 700 copies.
Comment has been collapsed.
This. I have given away many games that I got zero cv for.
Comment has been collapsed.
This site is not about contribution value, everyone always forget about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole reason for the bundle list in the first place is because of abuse.
To some people, getting as much value as possible is what this site is about. Look at the people who gave dozens of Shadow Harvest games. Do you think they gave all of those terrible games away for any reason other than it's $20 non-bundle value?
Comment has been collapsed.
So what? They gave them away, fuck the reasons why.
Comment has been collapsed.
People give games away. Sometimes these games are added to the bundle list. Sometimes people get high CV, sometimes CV drops because of bundled game. The main reason is that they share tons of games with others, and nobody is hurt. Or not?
Comment has been collapsed.
If only everyone had your point of view. Unfortunately, most people do not, which is exactly why you see dozens of threads popping up every day complaining about CV or asking why their bundled games didnt give CV
Comment has been collapsed.
And also why you don't see games that were in a bundle back in 2011 and never been in a bundle since almost never given away. If someone is going to buy a game to give away, they are going to look for something on sale and not on the bundled list.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeh, this is the part that bothers me. It would be nice to have these games give value, just looking at the list you see tons of great games that people no longer bother with.
Comment has been collapsed.
Now if someone want to giveaway 10 copies of Skyrim (or other AAA title) he will get contribution for only one of them, while someone giving 1$ bundle gets same amount (if not more) of contribution value, because he will giveaway few cheaper games.
My opinion: your idea is not as good as you think.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just as flawed as the current system, but punishes generous people more than abusers.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is, people don't give away 10 Skyrims. People do however do 10 copy (or as much as they can at once) giveaways of Shadow Harvest or Crazy Machines.
Besides, this might encourage someone who had the money for 10 Skyrims to give away a variety of good games rather than the same one over and over.
Comment has been collapsed.
How so? If I had $100 to spend, but could only gain value from a single game once I would give away all kinds of different things.
Are you telling me there are not enough games out there that you enjoy that you have to resort to giving away the same game over and over?
Comment has been collapsed.
True, but why should I make a contributor giveaway to thank those who provide the biggest amount of gifts when they're the ones having their gifts not accounted for?
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha a rare case and you know it! But for someone like this, the rule would have 1 of 2 outcomes.
1) They couldn't care less about their value anyways, and will keep giving whatever they want. It is unlikely this user is trying to 'farm up' c.value.
2) They might decide to start mixing up their giveaways; something different every time sounds more interesting and gives more people a chance to win.
Comment has been collapsed.
I support thee, reasonable idea of the decade!
Seriously, listen to this guy. Much better idea than anything this site ever tried or mentioned so far.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't think anyone would be supporting me here :P
Thanks haha!
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this is a good idea, but maybe, rather than subsequent giveaways being completely "worthless" in terms of CV, why not make it a reduced percentage?
For example:
First copy of Crazy Machines = $10 CV (Total)
Second copy = $15 CV (Total)
Third copy = $18.33 CV (Total)
Or something like that
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm for this. Also, why not just ask for a receipt? What if the gifter wishes to supply evidence they did not get it from a bundle? I get the emails all the time, how hard can it be to supply them as screenshots or something? There is way too many good games on the bundle list which ruins this site. You always see the same shit (fyi, I see some games waaaay too much and I know it's because of their 80% off sale, what makes these any different?)
At the least, make exceptions for certain titles.
Comment has been collapsed.
You know that the staff here are all volunteers right? Who has the time to read through these claims?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeh, ArmadX suggested diminishing returns as well. $10 for the first, and then each subsequent copy being worth less and less.
I could see that working.
Comment has been collapsed.
This thread is 1 hour old as well... We likely just had a similar thought, but I can assure you I didn't write out that whole OP just to steal your idea :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Lol, yeh you got me! I was just lurking the forums looking for an idea to steal in order to get yelled at by a bunch of people and you were my unfortunate victim!
Muhahahaha!
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty much this, I was reading the topics, saw a few talking about Bundles/Contribution Value, and then made my own.
I don't think we are the first 2 people to ever think of this, I just found it silly that I was accused of ripping the other guy off :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Obviously to me it does. It doesn't matter if it is a passing comment, if you thought of something and someone takes credit for it it isn't right morally, plain and simple. But what doesn't matter is pursuing it further than pointing my thoughts.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have no proof he stole your idea. The two posts are mere minutes apart (his original post likely took him at least a few minutes to write up), he didn't copy and paste any of your post, and you think you're the only person to have thought of this idea on your own? He didn't even post in the other thread that you're so convinced he stole your idea from. There's no reason to believe he even read your post prior to creating this thread.
You could have simply stated that you said something very similar in another thread and left it at that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Did I not post my idea to the community? I am not saying he shouldn't have mentioned it, and if it does good for everyone, then good. I was merely metioning i said this in another thread minutes before he has a miraculous idea. My original post was not one for glory or attention, which is why I did not make my own thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, most people yelled at me and hated the idea :P
I thought of this idea at work yesterday, then forgot about it until I read the topic Title of the other thread (didn't even go into it). So, yes, the topic itself reminded me to post my idea, but it's more of a "Minds-think-alike" than anything else.
Comment has been collapsed.
You wrote "Which is what I said Here over an hour ago...
Kinda weak to take someone elses suggestion and make your own thread about it."
You used an ellipses, judged him (negatively) ("kinda weak") and said he took your idea and opened a thread.
So far as my understanding goes, this wasn't "merely metioning(sic)". It was clearly intended as an ad hominem argument in this discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. When I buy a bundle of which I already own 1 or more games in it, I want to give them away here, but since I don't get anything in return and people will even complain that I am "giving away bundle games" I will just not do it, it's like I'm being punished for giving away a game, and right now the list of bundle games is so big that even if you get a game not through a bundle you will probably still not get value from it. When you reach 30$ contributor value there is absolutely no incentive to give the games away through this system, so what I do is just give them away to friends that don't even want the games, and bundle games are also games and some of them are very good so I think the current system is hurting the SG community itself, since I always thought that the majority of people use this site to redistribute games that they found themselves having and don't really need because they already have them or they don't want to pley them, I think your solution is a very good one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good idea, but if you buy 1 HIB for a dollar you get like 130$ contrib value. that is unfair
Comment has been collapsed.
I've had it with these monkey fighting snakes on this Monday to Friday plane!
Really I'd just like the contributor system to go away as it's not befitting of a giveaway site, but this seems a worthy solution, especially with diminishing returns as suggested, shouldn't punish too much for multiple copies I think (until it reaches double digits).
Comment has been collapsed.
What would happen to the public giveaways in such an instance, everyone could enter everything? (I don't want to question your intentions or anything I'm just curious as to how SG would be organized then since a bunch of people in this thread already mentioned this solution. No particular reason I'm replying to you, just because I know you from the Backlog Attack group I guess :) )
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe groups already serve the purpose of wanting to gift to a certain people - without the pretense of money. Those who gift games shouldn't expect anything in return, and those who wish to gift games to those who gift games just kind of have it backwards, though the sentiment isn't wrong.
Perhaps there could be a small distinction for those who aren't just leechers, a simple flag for meeting a minimum requirement, or for being around the average. Honestly I'd rather all public giveaways be enterable by everyone, though the point generation system might need a revamp to make spending points actually rewarding in that case. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry but I have to disagree with removing the bundle list when you can pay $1 and get 10 games that will yield a ton of contributor value (even if it is only once each). If anything I would get rid of the entire contributor system instead, since as you pointed out there have been many instances of using games such as the Crazy Machines series (among others) to contributor whore hundreds of dollars of value for not much spent (generally at 20:1).
Comment has been collapsed.
Humble Bundle is really the only one that puts a kink in my suggestion. Most bundles are almost worthless at $1, and you have to "Beat The Average" to get all 10 games (but by then you spent $4-6). Some don't even have a $1 option anymore (Royale) but are still treated as "bundle games".
The whole problem with contributor value in any systems is that as long as it exists, there is a segment of the user-base who will be looking to maximize the value they get for the smallest return possible.
It must be a gamer thing to min/max or 'game' every system like this :P
Comment has been collapsed.
But as you said, I doubt that DSC or Skyrim Guy are really all that concerned with their c.v.
The main thing I want to try and accomplish is to bring back some value to all the old "Bundle Games" that no longer get any love due to being bundled once-upon-a-time.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1, But they need to put a clear time for this too. So after a month you can gift an other one of that game again,
Or they just can create a system that add games with lot of giveaways to list and then remove them after that.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. People would pay 1$ and get 100$ c.v. (1 hib) this doesnt fix anything. Less ppl would give non-bundled games. If you can kick your cv by 100$ on each bundle there is no reason to give games regularly. What if we made a dynamic list of "bundle games" with categories.
Example:
class 1: games that take part in pay 1$ minimum give little cv or max 30$ etc (eg Trine).
class 2: "beat the average" games give smthing like 50% cv (eg darksiders 2)
class 3: games that took part in old bundles and now are valued again like their steam store price (eg amnesia, braid) 75% cv
class 4: games that didnt take part in any bundle. 100% cv
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem here is, who's going to manage this, because this would be time consuming and I don't believe CG would pay anyone to do it.
I like the idea. But if you could create a system that would require minimal effort, or make it community driven without being open to exploitation, then you have succeeded.
Comment has been collapsed.
Private usually = puzzle, which are open to the public
Comment has been collapsed.
70 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by Foxhack
54 Comments - Last post 41 minutes ago by Aetternumm
102 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by lycankai
1,135 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by sfkng
79 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by MeguminShiro
16,630 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by Kenruyoh
891 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by nhahtdh
238 Comments - Last post 26 seconds ago by jm
131 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by Mikurden
114 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
969 Comments - Last post 12 minutes ago by quijote3000
2,797 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by Yamaraus
980 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by GameOverGiveAways
29,383 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by Unfy
So, since this happens every time there is a big sale of a game not counted as a "Bundle Game" I figured I would suggest something I think we could all agree on.
Rather than worry about what games need to be on the list, which don't, which sales are "Real Bundles" and which are not; this is what I propose:
1) Remove the bundle list entirely. It has outlived its usefulness as the amount of bundles has skyrocketed. It is also inconsistent as to what counts as a bundle game or not.
2) Limit the contributor value that a member can obtain from any single game to one copy. That means you get full value the first time you gift a game, but no more after that.
ie: Give away Crazy Machines - $10 Contribution Value. Give away 10 copies of Crazy Machines - $10 C.V.
Setting the system up in this way removes any potential for abuse of certain games, while still allowing everyone to give the game away once for full value.
This also "restores" value to older bundle games that people avoid gifting now, like Super Meat Boy or To The Moon. We could see some great games start to be gifted again!
Lastly, this has a side effect of nerfing huge value gains from Developer giveaways and keeps the amount earned for those at a fair level.
Please let me know what you guys think :)
EDIT: OK, so after reading the replies it's clear that this likely wouldn't work well. It would also make quite a few people upset :)
I'll leave the thread up for conversation purposes.
Comment has been collapsed.