It's a nice idea but lets also think like that - every indie game will sooner or later appear in a bundle. Amnesia did, Bastion did, Dungeon Defenders did, even most of Serious Sam games did. This changes will make people stop giving away indie games at all because sooner or later each game's value will be decreased...Steamgifts will be either empty or full of COD-like AAA games (i dont want to imagine that!). Rather put a "it's a key" checkbox into gift creation and a "key received" and "tradeable copy received"; if both key options or just key received are checked and the game was/is in a bundle, reduce the value to 20%. That will make us 3rd party shop (Amazon, GMG, GG,...) buyers suffer, but it's still better than punishing someone for gifting Amnesia last year because it appeared in a bundle 1 month ago...
Comment has been collapsed.
Boxes for "key received" and "tradeable copy received" is a good solution.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have different idea not punishing honest contributors like this one. What about block all bundle games? After chosing bundle game from list it should show some notification like this:
This game is blocked. If you want to give away a legit (gift of keys from shops like GG, GMG) copy, contact with Support to verify legality of your game.
Then someone have to send a ticket with fair proof that his game isn't from bundle (e.g. visible items in inventory or some screen from purchase mail). It's not to much work for support to check it and for sure less than suspending all bundlers. Note also that many of these guys just resign to giving away their bundle keys.
Comment has been collapsed.
How are bundle keys not "honest", other than their price value being currently unrealistically high?
The keys still work. They're still keys for games on Steam being given as a Gift on Steamgifts. What, other than their price value, makes a bundle key not an "honest" contribution? Your solution still leaves the problem of there being an arbitrary huge tangle of games that can't be given away, whcih is frustrating for new users and old.
Comment has been collapsed.
...unless the bundle buyer chooses to buy a particular bundle as a gift, which is an option with all of the big bundle sites.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wrong, at least for all of them. Indie Gala explicitly allows users to give away individual keys at their own discretion. They even include ON THEIR FRONT PAGE instructions for what to do if a user wants a second copy for themselves - and why would they need two or more keys for one game if not to give it away?
They tweeted once, when they were new, around the time HIB switched to the single-key-multiple-game system, that they intended to keep using the individual keys for exactly this reason.
What's against TOS is using bundles to make one or more copies for others from any one specific bundle - such as, for example, buying a Humble Bundle, keeping the Steam key, and then sharing the DRM-free download links. They don't (and can't) seriously expect users to just throw keys away for games they own because you're not allowed to give them to others. It's called right of first sale - If I buy a copy of a computer game, I can't give copies of that game away to everyone I know, but I can give away the individual copy I paid for.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indie Gala doesnt tell you how to get more than one CD key for a single game... why would anyone buy gift copies if they could just duplicate all the keys from the first one they bought and give them away? Ya I didnt think that all the bundles asked you not to split them up, but I wasnt sure.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, it tells you how to buy multiple bundles for yourself, which means they don't have a problem with people giving away excess keys, because obviously every key you get in a second copy is excess.
Ya I didnt think that all the bundles asked you not to split them up, but I wasnt sure.
If you weren't sure, why did you claim exactly that?
HIB doesn't allow you to and makes it impossible to, Royale asks you not to because they come with both Desura and Steam keys (i.e. two copies), Indie Gala explicitly DOES allow it, and have said such on their website and on Twitter.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didnt claim exactly that, I posted most/all as a shorter way of saying "most if not all" and I was correct. Obviously they expect you to giveaway keys from a second bundle, but most of the bundle sites want you to give away the entire second bundle instead of giving each game to someone different. I believe you are right about their stance especially if they said so on twitter but I couldnt find anywhere on the home page that said anything about giving away single keys, just references to giving away bundle urls.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's in the Happy Hour hover-over text, but I could be misremembering. Either way, I know for sure they've addressed it before, especially on Twitter, and they don't generally have a problem with people giving out individual keys. That's why they give out individual keys, instead of taking hte approach Humble and Royale do of giving you only one key (Humble does it with Steam; Royale with Desura).
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be a lot of work for a small support team. Verification of the nature of the given game by both giver and recipient would be easier.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not necessarily, if it were done well. It could be as automatical as only possible (for example):
Remember, that most of bundlers seeing this difficulties will just resign and it shouldn't be so many tickets to check for support. Of course, some poeple will try cheat the system, as same as verification by both users, but at least it'll stop the bundle keys influence. Double verification won't.
Comment has been collapsed.
What happens to future games that are tagged as bundle games? Say I give away Dear Esther and it becomes a bundled game in a month.
I also understand how people can abuse bundle keys by listing the highest value game from the bundle instead. Perhaps giving the winner of such a giveaway a checkbox to mark whether or not it was a bundle key might help? It would be discreet.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've read it twice and don't see my question answered. Then again, it's late and I might have missed it. Point me to the area where this is addressed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose I should add that I am trying to say that this is unfair. I had no knowledge that the game I gave away a month ago would be bundled. This would deter people from giving away any indie game, ever, given how many of them eventually get bundled.
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam has nothing to do with this. A simple solution would be to make a rule that bundled games given away before a specific date (the day they were released as part of a bundle) would be exempt from bundle treatment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Depending on how the system is set up steam could have a lot to do with this. I dont know how the site is written but based on the fact that it currently pulls information off of steam automatically it could very well be difficult to set up that kind of idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm starting to feel we are not talking about the same thing. I think you are suggesting that we pull Steam inventory information. I don't think that is likely or possible. There are privacy issues, first of all. Also, not really an issue, maybe the gifter plans to actually buy the game say, the day before his giveaway ends.
Comment has been collapsed.
No I am saying that steamgifts.com already pulls information off of steam, thats how it generates the points required and determines your contributor value without CG having to manually update each game. If the database is set up nicely than it should be possible without too much trouble, but unfortunately not all code was created equal =P
Comment has been collapsed.
Umm no, that is not how the contributor value is determined. The contributor value is determined when the winner of your giveaway confirms he has received the game.
I think you are referring to account value. Not the same thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
And where do you think steamgifts gets the games value after the person confirmed they received the game? You cant see anyones account value in steamgifts or steam itself.
Besides I never said they couldnt do it, just that without knowing exactly how steamgifts works its impossible to say how much work is actually required to record pre bundle prices.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, so you're talking about the value of a game. I am thinking you mean that the value of a copy of, say, Psychonauts, which someone purchased from Amazon, a copy of the game purchased from the Steam Store, and a spare key from an indie bundle are different. The thing is that retail prices are fairly consistent from retailer to retailer, so just the Steam price to judge is fine. Bundles are only available for a limited amount of time and should not be judged. For individual games, it's unclear how to determine its price from a bundle and some bundles give out individual keys.
The problem I proposed, that this new proposition from cg is unfair as I have no knowledge if a game I have given away now would be part of a bundle in the future (cg's proposition appears to treat bundled games given at any point in time the same), is easily remedied by acknowledging the time of the giveaway and checking if the date is before the date the game was bundled. As there are not too many bundles now, implementing this kind of thing now would be easier than doing it much later when the saturation is much higher.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, games would be manually marked with the "bundle taint" by the mods here right?
Wouldn't be too much of a second step to just also give a starting date to the "bundle taint", and query the date of each giveaway of that game, and if giveawaydate < bundleinclusiondate then give full value, otherwise use the above restriction.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is there a way we can get our total updated if we can prove we gave them as gifts and not keys? Like a screenshot of the inventory history. I've given a few gifts that were in bundles so it's made my value go down. Either way I really like the idea and hopefully it get's implemented soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
Noooo this drops me back down below $100 D:
Overall though I think this is the best idea I have read so far. I might be losing some contributor points myself despite buying those titles in steam but the old system wasnt working at all and this is much better than an outright ban.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's another idea:
Instead of saying that bundle games can max out at 20% of non-bundle contributor value, how about simply discounting bundle games themselves?
Say, for example, all games that have been bundled before are now worth only $1 in contributor value.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it is, though it would at least not make indie games completely useless for gifting.
I mean, consider that pretty much every indie game has been in a bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
Indie games cannot be considered useless. As explained by cg, if you gave away enough non-bundle games, they would still count with their full value into your contributor value. But I definitely see the problem with the uncertainty of might-become-part-of-a-bundle-in-the-future, which could decrease the contrib. value for some people drastically.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, not all indie games have been featured in bundles, but a very-quickly-increasing number of them are. And indie bundles are starting to feature games that non-indie games too, such as the current Indie Gala which features King's Bounty: Armored Princess.
However, your second sentence is exactly the kind of thing that I think this proposed policy will cause. People will be afraid of gifting stuff other than big-name titles because it might later become "bundle tainted" and they'll lose a lot of value.
And now suddenly you have a system that actively discourages people from giving indie games--both ones that have appeared in bundles and ones that might (which basically means all of them). Unless they go and buy enough non-indie games to compensate--which now adds a further layer of annoying strategizing to this whole thing.
Cue SteamGifts people asking indie devs not to put their games in outside-of-Steam bundles...
Comment has been collapsed.
My only request would be backdating the bundle games, if for example Skyrim (random example, not necessarily plausible) popped up in an indie bundle today then anyone who gave the game away prior to today would not be impacted by this.
Those that give the game away after today would be impacted.
Whether that's a plausible change or not I don't know.
In any case, I support this change regardless of whether that change can be made.
For the vast majority of legitimate gifters it's not going to have any impact whatsoever, and if it does it's probably not going to be to a significant extent. For those that are scamming the system this pretty much completely defeats such attempts.
If this change is implemented there really needs to be a thread with a full list of all games that have been in indie bundles, there have been so many at this point that I've long since lost track of them all.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is the least that should be done to make what is really unfair to those of us who've gifted lots of games that have been in bundles but were gifted as Steam inventory items.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please this. Otherwise you are punishing contributors for something they have no control over and further down the line, making them cautious giving away indie games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe people like you could go to the admin on a case-by-case basis with screenshots of your non-bundle source, like Steam gift history, Amazon or GMG or GOG or whatever emails...
I gave Psychonauts out from an Amazon sale too and I'm pretty sure that was in a Humble Bundle later.
Comment has been collapsed.
It was. I saw that and kinda had buyer's remorse. It'll be interesting to see where all of this goes
Comment has been collapsed.
So I saw a guy with $500 value goes down to $60. lol
Comment has been collapsed.
What about games from later Humble Bundles that didn't come in individual keys? Just food for thought, there's no sense in devaluing those when people aren't able to give those keys out individually anyway. Especially since HIB in particular tends to have popular games that people are likely to have gifted before.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have an ideea that will work better than this.
Make an system when a gifter makes a giveaway he must specify if he has a key or a gift, this also will be shown in the giveaway in brakets, the gifter must validate a link to the gift or a key (valid format for both) so when the giveaway closes, the winner recieves the link/key by automated mail system.
Now the problem and workaround of this system, I dont know if the gift url can expire, if this is true then make the gifter validate the key/gift (in a valid format) after the giveaway has closed.
Also if the winner does not recieve what he participated for, he can report this (the mail must contain this info too).
So in this way you can put other bundle restrictions in the future for the key only giveaways.
Cool? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is still based on the idea that the winner has to report if they were promised an inventory gift but were given a key.
I think it's enough. Some other people here think it's not.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it would be nice if it was implemented for all the giveaways, not only the bundle games. Everybody would know whether the game being given away is a gift or a key without asking the gifter (who may not read the comments under their giveaway). So the person who entered for a gift and got a key could refuse to accept it (because for example they suspect it doesn't come from a legit source and don't want their Steam account banned) without the risk of being accused of trading the game or something like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're lucky; my total contributions will get devalued 100% despite coming directly from Steam purchases.
Well, contribution, and purchase. I've only given one thing back. Would have done more if my Paypal account hadn't gone dumb right before the summer sale...
Comment has been collapsed.
You mean your reason for spending money to contribute to this website is only to increase your own arbitrary recognition, rather than to give away games and participate in the community?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, why is there such a thing like "contributor value" if not to encourage you to increase it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Quite honestly, to date, it's done more harm than good.
Why would people spam $0.01 indie keys - or an even better question why would that be considered a harmful activity, if not for the fact that this stuff is tracked?
But because contributor value is not only tracked, but incentivized, we have all these problems of bundle keys being banned, people trying to give them away anyway (just turn the filter off and watch any time any bundle launches), people trying to private-giveaway highprice games in bulk to raise their score, and so on.
Besides, most people's contributor scores are still unrealistically high. Do you really think this website has generated a million dollars in sales? Really? You don't think Steam's habit of regularly providing games at 75, 80 percent off has anything to do with that high amount?
When I can raise my score for twenty cents on the dollar completely aboveboard, that score just plain isn't very useful.
Now I don't realistically expect they'll do away with the tracking altogether, but quite honestly it seems like they never should've started.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, but that is not what i intended with my question. This site is not only about gifting games but also about receiving games and thus increasing the chances of winning is a valid reason to gift games.
However, i'd agree that the current system is flawed, it not only encourages gifting to increase one's chance of winning but also encourages maximizing the contributor value while minimizing the input. The second is unwanted but just a logical result of the first and the only taken action to decrease this behaviour is manually suspending some of the people that do this, mostly those that take it too far. The new system would decrease that behaviour even further but not make it impossible, i guess :/. However, i must admit i like the idea that contributors get benefits so i could live with that, even if there are people that get the same benefits than i do although they donated less, as long as they are the minority
Comment has been collapsed.
Hpmestly, there is nothing in itself wrong with maximizing your output of giveaways. It's the reason this site practically exploded during hte summer sale - why buy a gift at full price when I can buy it 75% off? It'st he exact same gift, and nwo I can buy four for the price of one - that means four times the giveaways, should I choose to give them all away. The only reason that could possibly be seen as bad is that this site is no longer about giving and winning games, but about the race to increase one's epeen score.
If contributor score had never been tracked in the first place, the only outcome of people trying to maximize their cost:giveaway ratio is that we'd get more games to win, which is obviously a positive.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's what i meant with "...suspending some of the people that do this, mostly those that take it too far". Gifting Amnesia that was bought in a bundle for 1$ (95% discount) could result in ban while gifting Trains (90% discount) was completely valid. I also wouldn't consider increasing one's epeen through increasing one's score a bad thing since that score only reflects the amount that has been given away. The general reason for gifting is that you get a nice feeling because you gave something to others and i don't care if it's the act of giving or that nice number in one's profile that triggers this feeling since the latter is only a causal effect of the first. However, trying to scam the system to get further advantages definitely is a bad thing
Well, as i sad, i like the idea behind the score because it encourages people to gift more games (like it did to me) and also increases my chances of winning games
Comment has been collapsed.
"since that score only reflects the amount that has been given away."
But that's the point: That sentence is utterly not true.
For starters, the contrib score does not "only" reflect anything: it actively allows or blocks your ability to enter specific giveaways.
Secondly, it does NOT accurately reflect the amount that has been given away, both because of the cost of bundles, and because of Steam sales themselves. I could spend $2 on Steam and give away a $10 game, quite easily. Or spend $5 and get a four-pack of a game that sells for $10 normally. This actually happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, i meant that only in the context of the epeen increase. If your score increases, you probably don't feel your epeen grow because you can enter more giveaways but because that number gets higher. And that number correlates to the amount/quality of games you gave away. Therefore the number is nothing more than a numeric representation of your list of created giveaways and thus has the same influence on your epeen. Sorry if i didn't make it clear enough what i meant, i have problems with every other language than my own ;)
In my opinion, the score and it's ability to block/allow one's ability to enter some giveaways is a good thing. You're right that it's not calculated very accurate, but since probably the most people give away only games that they bought on sale i believe it's more accurate than you said (not the absolute number but the correlation)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's not that fair as you think. There will be more bundles with more games and in long run contributor value will be lowering. IMO it would be better to allow submission of one copy of each game from bundles per user. Next thing is, that each bundle has minimal value (starting from $1, i think) to get steam keys, so people still need to pay for this and i see no difference between buying bundles and games from daily deals on steam, gmg and so on.
Maybe next solution is to compute value from number of all created giveaways of each game (more giveaways = less points).
Comment has been collapsed.
Daily deals on Steam don't tend to get you $100 in games for $1. Your idea rewards bundlers with more while simultaneously severely punishing those who gave out multiple copies of a game legitimately.
Comment has been collapsed.
$573.51 ($201.36) .. LOL.. new sistem should be up but it is devaluing ALL indie games since they already were or will be in some future bundle.. I was expecting something, for my giveaways for example ship to be devalued (although they were all obtainted in trade as I already prove that to support :P ).. but this is too much. New sistem devalued all games that were in bundles even though they were tradable copies (and all mine were, can easyly be proven with ss if needed; cogs, super meat boy, shadowgrounds, edge.. and all were multiple copies .. I don't even know what is and what isn't devalued, don't even know where to start calculating :) )
I really don't care that much for contribution, as far of giveaways I m doing fine with puzzles and I already have a shitload of games.. but like I said already.. it fucks up contribution level for all legitimate indie gifters.
Comment has been collapsed.
lol? after look at your profile, I just realize that all of your ship sank. Now you are complaining why your 500 value goes down to 200.
Comment has been collapsed.
ship is not a problem.. by cg's calculation if it was only ship then contribution will be 573.51-219.89=353.62+20%=424.34.. simple math.. and thats ok; problem is other games.. smb, cogs, edge, .. problem is even nation red, because it was not yet in some bundle but it will be in future! problem is like I said in last line for TL;DR a-holes.. it fucks up contribution level for all legitimate indie gifters.
Comment has been collapsed.
ok.. i'll post this one also for you..
ship is not a problem.. by cg's calculation if it was only ship then contribution will be 573.51-219.89=353.62+20%=424.34.. simple math.. and thats ok; problem is other games.. smb, cogs, edge, .. problem is even nation red, because it was not yet in some bundle but it will be in future! problem is like I said in last line for TL;DR a-holes.. it fucks up contribution level for all legitimate indie gifters.
Comment has been collapsed.
No matter what route you go down, there is someone hurt. Whether it be legit contributors, bundle spammers, or the admins/moderators (with workload); someone will be taking a hit. My input is that inventory trading should be 100% value, and for any keys this setup would be alright. I am affected by this even though I inventory traded every copy I have given away so far. Since I don't believe there is any way for Steam to tell you what went through the trade window, I'm sure this isn't easy and would require the receiver to mark the way they got the game.
Yes, people will get into scenarios where they are told to mark Steam Trade instead of CD-key.. but a simple screenshot or going as far as a reward system for reporting someone who isn't following the rules could be put in. I understand the situation completely, but in the end I honestly feels that there needs to be full credit given to inventory trading. Until bundles give you tradeable copies, it's not fair. Either differentiate, or give us the option to give you a screenshot of our inventory history to be given full credits for those giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this is perfect. It doesn't completely discourage people from giving good games that were in bundles (since they still get their values if they give other games), but still makes it impossible for someone to spam bundle games to get contributor value.
Seems great.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if you're only interested in gifting indie games, which have mostly been featured in bundles at some point or another?
Comment has been collapsed.
Precisely.
I would be quite outraged if, say, I bought up like 10 copies of Recettear and 10 copies of Terraria, gave them all away, and then suddenly there's a bundle including both and my contribution value is suddenly zip.
Comment has been collapsed.
That list is fucking huge. And has some pretty big names on it.
Someone higher on this page just pointed out that King's Bounty: Armored Princess is on the latest Indie Gala bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lex retro non agit..!
It's been 3 mothns since my last bundle key, because of IndieGala and not me.. I was contributing all bundle packs..
Also - everything is fine but why setting the max cap..? This means when you reach it, you are not able to contribute bundle key anymore even you give away 1000 in non-bundle games.. And $60 it's what? 2 games? :)
Make it 10% with no maximum cap :)
Or simple - Bundle keys are always giving us 5-10% of their value.. You sumbit $50 in bundle key? You get $5!
Comment has been collapsed.
So now I'd better start counting how many copies of Mirror's Edge or Blade Kitten or other random non-indie game I have to buy in order to get my indie games to count...
Comment has been collapsed.
For you one copy of each game would be good, and it would leave you with another dollar worth of bundle game cap for the future. =P
I can imagine there will be a lot of people who will be confused and have trouble. I suppose a thread every day would still be a lot less work for the mods than the current system though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like this a lot. Thank you, cg.
If I understood correctly, the contributor value cap for bundle keys would constantly adapt according to the current non-bundle value of your contributions so, in other words, a gifter would still have a chance to "redeem" Amnesia's full $19,99 worth in the future as long as they contribute $100,00 worth of non-bundle games. (e.g. like going from User #2 --> User #1 in the OP).
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, that's my understanding. I don't think its a bad thing at all. So worried about your contributor value? Give away games from the weekly hump-day sales. Boom! Tough actin' Tinactin.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep, exactly, they can easily get the full value back. The largest room for error is with low value contributors. For example, let's say 5% of all games on Steam were once in bundles. Now, we take 100 users that have given away a single gift, and never payed attention to bundles. We'd expect 5% of those users to gift a game that was once in a bundle without knowing it. Now, what value do we give these users? Their only gift comes from a game once in a bundle, and we have no way to verify where it originated. That's a difficult situation, and we're going to assign those 5% a zero value, which is kind of a downer. Of course, if they give away a second game, there's a 95% chance it's going to come from a non-bundle game, and they'll begin to receive value from the first game. For that reason, low value contributors are open to the most risk, but as they gift more, we get a larger sample of their giveaways, and more accurate values.
Comment has been collapsed.
Any chance you could set the cap at $1 even if they have given away only bundle games? This would let them enter the 1 cent contributor giveaways at least. You have to spend at least that much to get any steam keys anyway, its a somewhat accurate representation of how much a single bundle key is worth.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am all for a system that promotes giving away more. It will promote the low-value contributors to give more away, as the benefits of the contributor value will compel them to do so. Good-luck. There's going to be backlash no matter what you do
Comment has been collapsed.
30 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by akylen
150 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Menacer
26 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by Axelflox
33 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by sensualshakti
8 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
28 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by MisakiMay
513 Comments - Last post 4 hours ago by FranckCastle
133 Comments - Last post 50 minutes ago by samwise84
676 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Ilan14
29 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Kyog
19 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by KiLLLLeR150
28,156 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by philipdick
3,332 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by yugimax
141 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Axelflox
Hey everyone, it's no surprise we've been struggling with bundle keys lately, and we're bouncing a lot of ideas back and forth. One suggestion is below, and we're curious to hear what people have to think.
Proposed changes to contributor values
Bundle games, and those freely available at one time or another (Ex. Shadowgrounds), will only add a maximum of 20% to a user's non-bundle contributor value. For example, if a user has submitted $50.00 in non-bundle games, they would have a cap of $10.00 (20% of $50.00) for any bundle games submitted. Therefore, if they submit $10.00 or $10,000.00 in bundles, their contributor value would reach a maximum of $60.00. To further demonstrate, a few scenarios are below.
User #1
Previous value: $119.95. New value: $119.95. They receive full value for Amnesia due to the amount of non-bundle games they have contributed.
User #2
Previous value: $39.98. New value: $23.99. The value of Amnesia drops from $19.99 to the max of $4.00 (20% of the Counter-Strike value) since their non-bundle contributions are quite low.
User #3
Old value: $69.95. New value: $23.99. Same as the above, the max of 20% is reached, so it cannot increase any further through bundle games.
User #4
Old value: $29.98. New value: $0.00. With zero contributions not from bundles, their contributor value remains at zero.
How will this affect your contributor value
Add /update to the end of your profile URL, and you'll see a new contributor value in brackets, next to your existing one. This reflects the updated value, limiting bundle giveaways to 20%. This will have no affect on the vast majority of our users, and only begins to adjust values on those that have submitted a higher than usual amount of bundle games.
Proposed changes to what can be submitted
Lately, the rules are difficult to understand. Certain bundles can only be submitted at given times, and there are over 100 individual bundle games. Users submitting individual bundle keys, whether on accident or on purpose get a bad reputation, and it's the cause of countless arguments. It creates a lot of confusion and brings a negative feel to the entire community, which completely goes against what we're trying to accomplish. The above changes would mean anything can be submitted at any time, and the site will automatically keep contributor values in line. If someone enters a $120 contributor giveaway, you know a minimum of $100 is coming from non-bundle games.
Feedback
No changes have taken place yet. At the moment we're looking for feedback from the community to decide on a fair approach. Please post your thoughts below. Thanks!
Comment has been collapsed.