I get the idea behind the changes, but there is apparently no distinction being made between a game that was given away as a bundle key (bad giveaway) and a game that was in a bundle but given away as a tradable copy (good giveaway). Without this difference being made, I think the proposed solution is, unfortunately, flawed. People who gift tradable copies of games should not be penalized just because the game was in a bundle at some point -- they didn't give away a bundle key.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess that doesn't only apply to "bundled games" and "free games that were exploited" becouse from 49,98 i have $24.00 updated, when i have gifted 2 Dota 2 keys, 1 The Ship and 1 Shadowgrouds survivor ( yeah i'm kinda ashamed XD but god dangit i need 0,1$ to enter a giveaway XD). So Dota 2 keys and other Beta keys are now only 20% or something ?
Comment has been collapsed.
My new contributor Value is now $6 guess that takes away every game I have given away Which kind of sucks... The only key was ARES and I traded a tradable game for the key which I eventually gave away(glad it worked). Kinda harsh going from $104.93 down to ($6.00). I suppose I don't deserve $60 for the 4 copies of Nuclear Dawn I got for free, even though I gave away my 3 extra copies from a 4 pack to friends. Eventually its going to get to a point where no indie game can be given away. For most people low budget indie games are all they can afford to offer up as a gift. I suppose this is the best option though...
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's nice that you're doing something to counter this problem but if I could add a couple of suggestions:
Please let me know what games are counting toward that 20%. I'm looking at my given games and I'm not quite sure which ones of them counts as bundle games. (Since I never gave bundle keys, it's harder to figure out.) Maybe even show in what bundle the game was.
This might be a little bit more complicated to implement but could the giveaway date be taken in consideration? If I gave away a game BEFORE it was ever in a bundle, I think it should still count as face value. (Would also prevent accounts' value from going down if a popular game would suddenly be included in a bundle.)
Assuming you can implement the suggestion above, maybe put a time limit on how long the games are considered "bundle games". Maybe 3-6 months after a game has been in a bundle, new giveaways should no longer be considered as bundle games.
Just my thoughts, hope some of it can help out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totaly agree with that.
And i can see only one game that could be considered "bundle" or actually "free". It's Hacker Evolution Duality. I think they were giving away free keys a week ago ? But yeah your account shouldn't have it's giveaway value down.
Comment has been collapsed.
You need to update your info on bundles. Fe, Serious Sam: The Random Encounter, HOARD, Swords and Soldiers HD and
Dead Horde were all in various bundles.
This is not to say I don't agree with Zomby2D - I fully support his first two suggestions (if there wasn't for the new system, I wouldn't have known that Caster was in a bundle fe, and I gave out two tradeable copies), and am a bit unsure about the third, since a lot of people keep their keys for a long periods of time (I still have an extra HIB1 key fe)
Comment has been collapsed.
There might be a few that slips in there after the mandatory waiting period, but most of the times the massive waves of bundle keys do appear while the bundle is on sale or shortly after. By reducing a game's value from the 1st day of the bundle start to 3-6 months after the bundle ends, I think we'd get most of the keys. No system is perfect and people could very well keep them for longer than that, but they would be exceptions and not the rule. I believe we punish less legitimate gifters that way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hacker Evolution wouldn't count as the keys had to be redeemed ninja-style. You couldn't keep it for later.
I'm pretty sure Dead horde and Runespell went into bundles at some point. Probably some other that I'm forgetting. (Hard to keep up with all the bundles ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
I was just thinking about how this could hurt non-bundle-abusers too since if I have been gifting a lot of copies of Commandos or King's Bounty months ago and suddenly my contributor value is $0 because these games have been in bundles, I wouldn't be happy. So I like the date thing that you suggested there, it sounds like a lot more work but I'd also hate to wrongly accuse or punish people for having gifted games in the past that just happened to be in a new bundle now.
Also, put the FAQ back on the top or somewhere else visible in the front page and shouldn't be hidden on the forum or that one tiny link on the bottom of the page, it should be clearer and more accessible. I bet most of the people who give bundled games don't even know it's against the rules because they don't even know where the rules are.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why not the third? (Not criticizing, just asking.)
Comment has been collapsed.
I like all these ideas.
I've also heard that it may be possible to bring up a user's gifting history on Steam itself (which obviously doesn't include keys)...that might help.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think they could have access to your gifting history. This is kept private and only you can see it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The goal is to reduce policing on the site, but I agree than special cases like yours where contributor value is brought down to 0 could get special consideration. The system in place should however keep those cases to a minimum.
Comment has been collapsed.
The number of games that have been present in bundles is quite large and is only going to increase. However that does weed out people who only ever trade bundled games. It's also better for the support team as they won't be flooded with giveaway reports every time a new bundle launches.
I guess it's a good solution until a better one is found.
Comment has been collapsed.
If that's the only giveaway you've made, the value would drop to 0 under the proposed solution. That's why I suggested to consider the date at which the games was given.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it keeps track of the date so you still get points for games that later go into bundles, I'm all for this idea. Otherwise, I'm sure there's going to be a HUGE drop in giveaways made when new bundles are announced but the list of games hasn't, and I'd be wary to give away any games at all when my hard earned money that I spent to buy a game for some stranger might be meaningless just because I was unlucky enough that the game I picked when into a bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally I gave away legit copys of games, which went into some bundles afterwards, so I will loose ~50%, I don't really care about it, but I think, if you take contributor giveaways as a serious implementation, there should be a option to make legit giveaways with those games, too. When I look at actuall "indie"-bundles there are sometimes games in it, where I think:"Indie???". And I guess that won't change in the near future. Another point is, that this system could encourage people to give away bundle keys, which is not allowed, because they're only for personal use, afaik, so I think, this is still worth a suspension. On the other hand support will explode, if they don't do anything. I take whatever comes.
Comment has been collapsed.
Die bundles sind ab einem Dollar zu haben. du bekommst mehrere keys, die für Spiele mit weit über 50P sein können. Du kaufst also 10 bundles und hast weit über 500P weggeben. Hört sich fair an...
Außerdem sind diese keys nach den AGBs der Seiten nur für private Zwecke bestimmt. Kein Handel, oder sonstwas.
Mehr Argumente? Benutz die Suchen-Funktion!
Comment has been collapsed.
so you fist argument is that they bought games on a discount and abused it this way... what is the difference to other games which are on discount? it is the same thing. your second argumend is that on the sites where bundles are sold is statet that you can not trade the budles... but trade means that someone reseivec something for the game. but here you give it only away... you don't get anything for giving a bundle here away so i think this arguement is invalid. and for me... if i am winning a game i don't care if the game is from a bundle or not. i am glad that someone gave a game to me. a game which i can not afford at the moment.
Comment has been collapsed.
1.) You get something: Contributor-Points.
2.) "I don't care if the game is from a bundle" So your counter-argument is: fraud is okay for me? Then nobody can help you anymore, I guess.
Also I don't know why I am replying here, use the goddamned search function. Everything has been discussed a hundred times before and I just pointed out some arguments.
Comment has been collapsed.
In the process of creating a new giveaway that will feature a bundle key, will we receive a notification page of how much it'll add to our contributor value? Or will we only see that after the fact?
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be a good idea to include the points value of the game after selecting it from the drop-down list (and ideally showing the name of the bundle it is/was in) People wouldn't get surprised by getting lower than expected amount if they see it beforehand. At the very least, show it on the confirmation page.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some of my games were later featured in BeMine and I'm pretty sure they counted those.
Comment has been collapsed.
I like the idea! I do however worry that if some games previously given away get pulled into a bundle, that the contributor value will decrease at some point in the future (which would in turn, deter/inhibit people's intent to giveaway their keys)
The only suggestion I'd recommend is that there be a time marker for when a game was added to a bundle. Eg:
Amnesia - let's say it became part of a bundle on 24th January 2012 (as an example)
All Amnesia entries made before the 24th of January would have a full contributor amount allocated to it, and any entries from the 24th January onwards would have the "bundle" contributor limitations placed on it.
I'm not sure how feasible this is, but in my opinion, it would not inhibit people's generosity for indie games, for the fear that their contribution be diminished at some point in the future :)
Comment has been collapsed.
That might help a little, but only in some cases. People can still obtain tradable, non-bundle key copies of games after they've appeared in bundles. A tradable game gift should not be treated like a bundle key gift, which is what the proposed solution here does, and I think that distinction needs to be made, regardless of the time the gift was given. If it was tradable, it should not count like a bundle key.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm too lazy to read 5 pages, but if someone as said this then forgive me.
How about keeping the bundle/free keys as is, but do not let them contribute more than once? Or perhaps they're 20% worth, but you can only contribute at most 5 times for contribution. Only for bundles/keys given for free. Not normal games. That way someone who has contributed $1000 worth of humblebundle didn't really contribute that much, but instead it'd be like $5.. which is still more than what people would have paid for if you still could get them for a penny for most of these guys giving them away. Alternatively this could be applied to keys that were handed out for free like Lucid, Shadowgrounds, Faerie Solitaire, etc etc
Comment has been collapsed.
This whole contributor e-peen controversy is gonna tear this site apart.
Comment has been collapsed.
The rule was first put in place to prevent people from giving away bundle keys which is a violation of the terms of most bundles anyway. They pretty much all have a rule that says you have to keep the games for yourself. They don't mind selling you games 95% off, but they expect that if your friend wants them, he can also buy his own copy.
Now with contributor's giveaways, people are trying to increase their value by submitting those games and it'S become too much for the admins to handle. This change of rules would allow you to give the games on the site (although you'd still be breaking the agreement from the bundle) but reduces their contributor value so that people don't just buy the bundles to abuse the contributor system. That way we should see mostly people giving away their unused keys instead of pages and pages of bundle games that people have bought just to increase their worth a lot without spending much.
Comment has been collapsed.
I basically understand this and why they don't want people to give out bundle keys. But I didn't give away any bundle keys, and my contribution credit under this proposal will be $0 because the games that I did give away were apparently all in bundles. I followed the rules, all my giveaways were tradable copies, but I'll be penalized under this system. I think that indicates a flaw in the solution. Somehow giveaways of bundle keys need to be differentiated from giveaways of tradable copies of games that happen to be in bundles.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get that this penalize some people more than others and the whole point of this thread is to get our input in order to find the best solution for everyone. It's not like they put this in place already without consulting the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am aware of why the rule was created in the first place but the funny thing is that you don't see anybody bitching about TOS violation when giveaways are done in the forums or on SPUF. WHY?? Because their relative e-peen doesn't get smaller so they don't bitch about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
to the point of TOS violation... if we take this serious, in most countrys it is forbidden to give cd-key away. that means if you bought a game it is yours and it is not allowed to give it to someone else. so we should punish also the ones which gifting normal cd-keys?
as a result of that this side should decide to support only tradeble copys on steam (from inventory).
and for the bundle thing... yes i understnad this... i forgot that in most bundles like the HIB you are not only getting the steam version, you get also a DMR free non steam version... so you could give a way the steam version and keep the non steam version...
Comment has been collapsed.
By limiting contributor value, it will probably help keeping the number of bundle giveaways down while leaving users to deal with their breaking of the TOS (unless there would be some kind of legal actions taken gainst SG) The rules should probably state that you are allowed to give individual keys from bundles as long as the TOS doesn't forbid it, but not necessarily be enforced like it is now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it's against the terms of service for those indie bundles. You know, those bundles that are run for charity.
SteamGifts doesn't need to have a bunch of people breaking the TOS of indie bundles on their site. (This is how PirateBay and other torrent sites got in trouble, for facilitating people who would break legal agreements.)
Comment has been collapsed.
While the two situations are similar in principle, I think in practice SG is far, far away from getting into that kind of legal trouble.
Comment has been collapsed.
SteamGifts hasn't ignored legal requests, but it puts SteamGifts in the position to receive them.
I believe both situations are similar from a practical standpoint as well, just on different levels so to speak. I don't believe SteamGifts would ignore the C&Ds, and thus never warrant any formal legal action. However, I do believe that they might receive them should a great number of bundle keys be shared on their site.
The comparison was that enabling such actions leads to trouble. Ignoring the trouble that follows leads to the kind of trouble torrent sites get into, but I'd like SteamGifts to stay completely out of the spotlight all together.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's be honest here. It's not about the fact that it's against the TOS to give it away. People give it away in the forums, and no one bitches. Even on Steam's official forum (SPUF) people give these keys away all the time and the mods there just let it go.
It's all about the contributor points e-peen.
Comment has been collapsed.
It becomes a very sticky issue when you involve contributor points.
You don't want to be seen as rewarding people for breaking the TOS for these bundles.
I concede that contributor points and their worth is a great deal of the issue though, I'm just raising another point of it. The "hey, let's not allow something on the main part of the site that seems kinda iffy"
Comment has been collapsed.
I think this solution is very reasonable and fair. I know alot of members of the community appreciate this so thank you for taking the time to create this method.
For those worried about losing some points, you really shouldn't because it would be a small amount unless your contributions are solely based on bundle games. Plus the contribution system is fairly new and before it came into effect we were fine without it and we didnt care if we lost value due to any circumstance (like when a game loses value). So don't fuss over not being able to enter games that require a certain amount of contribution value because there alot of many oppurtunitites availible.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it's mostly a problem for someone who gave like only one or two games and suddenly they become part of a bundle so they lose their contributor's status altogether. I still think that at the very least, contributions made before the game went into a bundle should still be unaffected.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's also a problem for people who gave away tradable copies of games that happen to be in bundles. If the giveaways were not bundle keys, they should not be treated as such. Stopping bundle key giveaways should not mean penalizing people for gifting tradable copies of those games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is your status in value that important to you? It shouldn't really matter like i said its only a small amount of points, and yes I know you feel disappointed because the games you gifted were in bundles at some point so you value is affected. However it should change over time as you make more giveaways in the future, and even then your value will be affected by devaluation of games as time progress. Would you still care about value if the contribution system disappeared? I think no one would really, but its only there for contributors to award other contributors. So dont worry about it, this site is about giving and receiving.
Comment has been collapsed.
...we didn't care before the contribution system about value and status.
But it has changed, and now we do, apparently. If I remember correctly, the contributor giveaways were introduced, among other reasons, to encourage people to contribute (more) -- by offering something (chances to join more giveaways) in return. You cannot blame people for accepting that offer. And taking their contribution and suddenly labeling it as a "not-a-contribution after all" may really seem like a stab in the back from this point of view.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeh I understand what you mean, but not all people care about it, some do and some dont. A stab in the back how so? Its only affecting a small amount of games (mainly indie games). You can always gift indie games, you just wont get value for it I see nothing wrong there (If people think otherwise, then what happened to the spirit of giving?). Im glad that the contribution system encouraged many people to start gifting games to get there values up to participate in contributor giveaways, but If I recall initially it was to reward user who has contributed to the community.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I recall initially it was to reward user who has contributed to the community.
Well, we're both talking about the same thing here -- rewarding those who contributed. And now there will be people who did contribute, and get a reward, and others who contributed the same amount, but will go unrewarded. Possibly with the only difference between them and the first ones being not the contribution amount, but the choice of the games. It will raise all manner of complaints like "what's he done better than I have?" and "if I had known you would change the rules, I'd have picked a different game". Retroactivity in these situations can be very, very ugly.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is true no matter how it goes these type of situations are going to get ugly. Well like CG said this is a proposal and its always good to give as much feed back either pro or against said proposal.
I guess a compromise is going to be done in the end.
Comment has been collapsed.
Keep the same rule you have now. "No bundle keys", but when selecting the giveaway to add an indie bundle giveaway option.
If someone selects the indie option, they're banned from making the giveaway for that game.
Sort of like an automatic prevention. (To aid admins.)
"WHY? WHAT IF I WANNA GIVEAWAY MY BUNDLE KEYS?! Who are you to say I shouldn't!!?"
Apart from it being heavily exploitable and causing this whole contributor value exploiting stuff- it's also against the rules of the indie bundles.
DEAL WIT IT.
In short, no one should be able to giveaway bundle keys anyways unless you want to bring down the wrath of charity indie bundles on SteamGifts. (Yes, I'm serious.) Doing this is putting a band-aid on the problem of people giving away keys of bundle games. Banning all key giveaways for bundle games solves this. If it's not in their inventory the giveaway gets taken down.
Very few people are going to have recently bought keys for a indie bundle game just as it came to be into an indie bundle. Support would be able to handle those few cases, and the rest can be removed or banned.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess so.. I really didn't think of it that way, but yeah that's basically it.
That should cut down on the flood of bundle keys from new users. The more experienced exploiter may go on to list it as a normal Steam tradable copy, but everyone would be able to see their inventory anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not to mention there are far fewer experienced exploiters anyway.
Just make sure that the trap isn't simply selecting it on a drop-down menu. It's gotta be actually clicking through to create the giveaway. That will teach people to read shit carefully. Including the rules.
Also make sure there's something to say "read the rules carefully before creating a giveaway".
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the idea of it anyways. I'd be willing this never goes through though.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I were admin I'd be fine with it. Tell people to read the rules before making a giveaway, then let people select the bundle key option. If they bother to ask why the option is there, say that they should read the rules clearly and if anything happens when they select that option, it's their fault. And if they select that option and make a giveaway, splash page saying that they should have read the rules, thou shalt not create bundle key giveaways, and now they are barred from posting that game on SG.
Comment has been collapsed.
We don't need a bunch of people breaking the agreements of the Indie Bundles on this site and attracting negative attention to this site.
Definitely one of the more important points in this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't like that games I've contributed as non-bundle games may have their value lowered to $0 if they ever appear in a future bundle. Why do the contributor points have to change after you've given the game away? If a game was worth $10 when I bought it and gifted it, I should have $10 added to my contributor value, which stays as $10 even if the value of the game drops over time. It's not fair that a person who pays $60 to gift a AAA title only ends up with $5 credit when it drops in value over the course of time. They paid $60 so they should have $60 value on their account. I think the new system would be fair IF your contributor value was calculated from the price of the game gifted on the day it was gifted and if it was a bundle or non-bundle game on the day it was gifted. Future price changes and bundles should not affect what you have given in the past. Why does contributor value have to fluctuate with the price of the game over time? Isn't it supposed to reflect the amount of money I've spent to give games away on the site?
Comment has been collapsed.
It's been argued before that very few people buy the games at full price to give them away so the devaluation of games usually ends up being closer to what people really paid. But adding a devaluation for bundle, it starts to go below what many people paid now.
It's probably time to re-evaluate historical prices of games and take it into account because it could really hurt someone who made legitimate giveaways and who suddenly sees it's contributor value drop to 0 because games show up in bundles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't steamgifts read the current price from steam including sale price? If they buy the games from another site, oh well they got themselves a deal. I just see my solution as a no-maintenance approach that rewards people for buying more expensive games, rather than the way it is now, which rewards people who buy games worth $1 on steam because they won't devalue over time.
Comment has been collapsed.
They already track the prices of games on SteamGameSales.com so it could probably be put in place that the value at the date of giveaway be taken into account. It wasn't seen as such a big problem before but I think it might become necessary to do it now so people don't just stop giving away indie games in the fear that their contributor value might go down. (And to prevent an outcry when a high-profile game suddenly goes into a bundle)
Comment has been collapsed.
Here is a suggestion.
Why don't you set it that if a game was in a bundle you'll only get credit for giving the game away ONCE at full value. Anytime after that you will get no credit in your contributor status.
Example:
First gift of Limbo $9.99 contributor value
Second gift of Limbo $0.00 contributor value
Third gift of Limbo $0.00 contributor value
...and so on
I think this system will only promote lesser quality games being giving out and become detrimental to indie developers (nobody will buy a steam giftable copy to giveaway in direct support of the indie dev if they know a reward isn't coming). What will end up happening is your going promote sale "abuse" (-90% off train simulator sales) over the current bundle "abuse".
I would like to point out that I know this is a difficult problem to find a solution to but I wanted to throw this idea out there for whatever its worth.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly. Giveaways of tradable copies of games should be treated differently from bundle key giveaways. The proposal here seems to treat them all the same way, as if every giveaway of a game that was in a bundle is a bundle key, which is of course not the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
Problem is, they have no way of knowing if your game is giftable or a bundle key. I still stand by my suggestions of using the date of the giveaway so people are not penalized when something goes into a bundle afterwards. (And ultimately, put an end date to the lower value)
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, there is, and I just found out about it. Your profile in Steam offers both an inventory history and a gift history. If you gave away a tradable copy of a game, it should be in one of those two locations. Screen shots of these histories would provide proof that you didn't gift a bundle key. We should be offered the chance to provide our histories if SG is going to implement the change as proposed here, so that we can get full credit for tradable games we gifted.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then again, screenshots can be photoshopped.
Then again, that does add one more barrier to cheating, which will dissuade a good number of them.
Comment has been collapsed.
But that would completely defeat the purpose of what they are trying to do here, which is to spend less time policing the site. Instead of spending time deleting giveaways they would spend time analysing complaints and screenshots.
I guess they could implement something to help people like you who would see their contributor status go down to 0, but I foresee a lot of people wanting the same treatment and a never-ending influx of people wanting to have their giveaways credited.
Comment has been collapsed.
33 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by sensualshakti
8 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
25 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Chris76de
28 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by MisakiMay
513 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by FranckCastle
29 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Hawkingmeister
25 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by CapnJ
29 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Kyog
19 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by KiLLLLeR150
675 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by philipdick
28,156 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by philipdick
3,332 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by yugimax
141 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by Axelflox
54 Comments - Last post 43 minutes 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.