I never have time to use all my points anyway, so I don't feel very strongly about this in any direction.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, so this is the reason why I can't enter anything now... I thought I was picky... Obviously, not enough for SG.
Is there a reason why suddently there a lot of games from my wishlist on SG (and no it's not Humble monthly) ? It was empty for days !
I hate this new system, I'll have to stack points for days like this, and I'll have to jungle my points between my entered giveways to find the one with the most chance...
Comment has been collapsed.
And more fakes.
Or free stuff for points (since those weren't excluded from point generation... the whole issue actually in the first place, that instead of changing they did this).
Comment has been collapsed.
And now until your points refills, the great games from Monthly bundles will be already sent away..
That's why we need at least 12h minimum limit for creating GA!
To me, this is bad move..
Comment has been collapsed.
Its going to encourage you to bank points in long giveaways that you don't use and then remove your entry in those long giveaways for when the humble bundles comes out so you will have points to use.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wont this have affect on the site traffic? Meaning less ad revenue as well?
Comment has been collapsed.
But we've literally been doing that always anyway?
Comment has been collapsed.
Less point-generation would have done that. While still keeping the benefit of active bundles generating more points to compensate, something severly lacking now requiring you to stock for bundles. And it's not like Humble Bundle or other sites generally have very rigid timingrestrictions, and quality fluctuates even more, so you pretty much have to prepare for any event. 500points sounds like a lot, but it can be gone quickly on a single Humbe Bundle day if there's literally ONE game you want.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sweet! Now I will only have to enter SG in the morning and evening :) It's a good change.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as I am concerned this is a welcome (albeit probably long overdue) change. It was tedious and required too much effort to try and spend as many points as you could without letting them go to waste, in particular whenever there was a popular bundle or free game that would cause a point explosion, sometimes even lasting for many hours, even days. Hell, there have been times where you would accumulate 300 points in under 2 hours they were churning out so fast. I know there is probably someone sitting there that is going to read this and want to voice that same old tired argument that "points are free so who cares? blah blah blah". Well who are you to judge people's giveaway habits? Maybe, just maybe some people like maximizing their chances or winning and what's wrong with that?
Anyway, I'm sure there will be some people who will not like this new point generation system either because they are accustomed to having so many points that they can enter every giveaway under the sun, or for no other reason than they have an aversion to change. And like it has been pointed out previously, while it means that you will need to be more selective and won't be able to enter as many giveaways, neither will anyone else, so it evens out in the end and your overall chances of winning should remain roughly the same. Actually, it's going to take a little bit of time before all the extra points that people have invested in various giveaways are gone, but once that happens the average number of entries on giveaways should drop and then it will paint a clearer picture. The regeneration rate may need some tweaking but in my opinion it's for the better.
edit: the other thing I would like to add are the following suggestions. It would be nice if:
- points were refunded when users delete giveaways on their own (and not by a mod) - was this ever fixed?
- when you win a giveaway and the other entries for that same game are automatically removed -- the points that are refunded are allowed to exceed the point cap. The higher (500) point cap helps a bit here but it could still present an issue as far as lost points go.... and just like with the change above, less point management is a good thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the result of this will be that everyone who enters public giveaways will lay priority on the highest winning chance which will mostly be the giveaways of their own level.
Before the change if you had e. g. 50 giveaways for a whished game you probably were able to enter all. Now you can maybe enter 25, the other 25 will maybe be level 0 or 1 giveaways so basically the chance to win those will increase the most. I don't think there will be much difference to higher level public giveaways or invite/group/whitelist ones (maybe a little more change for the games you don't have wishlisted but give a try because you had enough points)
I will not value this scenario because I am happy if I win something but I am not jelous if someone else wins. It's just the question if this is what cg had intended with the change. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
No wonder my points keep going up faster than before
Comment has been collapsed.
I have to agree with the majority that 1-hour giveaways are more why you'd feel inclined to visit this site frantically moreso than the point system. That wont be different now. Just need to "store" points for those sudden 1-hour 50P costing giveaways I suppose...
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, I like it so far.
Although I would like points to reflect the value of the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmmmm, I was interested in the previous update regarding chasing the bots away (and still hoping to hear how that's going...) but don't have any strong opinions about points... :)
I guess people will be more likely to enter giveaways for something they actually want, instead of trying to win everything? That's probably a good idea. Suppose people who make big events and things will see some changes, too. Dunno about that, either. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
More points are needed, previous system was better. "2." point cap may stay but "1.",
"3." should be reverted, anyway more points then currently are needed in my opinion.
Maybe points regen could be bit less then previously but not so drastic as now. And I'm against to extend min. giveaway time globally but must agree then now it is not working as it should (in p. restricted system) as it not help in fighting against bots (bot entries can be seen as even more valuable now) or to not enter frequently.
And most important change should be effective bots banning.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've been sitting on 300 points most of the time, now I'll sit on 500 points, what's not to like? :D
Comment has been collapsed.
This has been the worst update, in the history of updates, ever
Comment has been collapsed.
So... How are we expected to join giveaways of, say, Wargame: Red Dragon? I mean, I find myself storing my points in long-lasting giveaways now, just to have a source of points for games that I am interested in. That is the opposite of what was intended, not?
Oh well. In the end, it is still free, and that is something I deeply appreciate as someone without a lot of money. But I think the system as it was - variable, based on the value of the giveaways that are created - was far better.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm getting the impression that micromanaging entries (i.e. frequently leaving and entering different GAs as the situation changes) including point-banking in long-duration giveaways is a consequence of needing to make tougher decisions about which GAs one can actually enter now. For someone who feels compelled to do such optimising but doesn't enjoy it, it may feel more frustrating, but was being able to enter every GA for the games you wanted without having to make tough decisions any better?
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't need to make such tough decisions. It was more like 'mhm, I'm getting a lot of points now, this game also looks interesting / I have played this for a long time, but never on Steam, so let's enter it - oh, I have less points now, well, too bad about that interesting game, but others are more interesting'. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
What issue do you have with joining Wargame: Red Dragon giveaways? Here is an example, where points are 3x less, so you can enter 3x fewer giveaways, and those giveaways have 3x fewer entries. In both situations you join the giveaways with the lowest entry counts.
Before - 90P available, 30P to join a giveaway
Wargame: Red Dragon (563 entries) - You enter this giveaway.
Wargame: Red Dragon (531 entries) - You enter this giveaway.
Wargame: Red Dragon (590 entries)
Wargame: Red Dragon (610 entries)
Wargame: Red Dragon (629 entries)
Wargame: Red Dragon (518 entries) - You enter this giveaway.
After - 30P available, 30P to join a giveaway
Wargame: Red Dragon (188 entries)
Wargame: Red Dragon (177 entries)
Wargame: Red Dragon (197 entries)
Wargame: Red Dragon (203 entries)
Wargame: Red Dragon (210 entries)
Wargame: Red Dragon (173 entries) - You enter this giveaway.
So before, you had a 1 in 179 chance of winning Wargame: Red Dragon. After, you needed to join less giveaways, and you have a 1 in 173 chance of winning.
Comment has been collapsed.
And now you need to take swappers in account. That swap from low chance to high chance GA's. So those entry numbers will fluctuate loads in the last 30 -15 minutes of the GA. Meaning in the end you will still have to check everything often.
Then again it is hard to tell what the results will be, it's been less then 24 hours since it was implemented. Only time will tell what the results will be :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Agree with lindax. And it's not fun to have to swap from a giveaway started long time ago (with lots of entries) to a new one, ending at the same time but shorter and with less entries. If was fun to come when you want and spend points whenever I wanted.
I dont like the update even if I'm agree with the fact It will help me be less addict and come less than before.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a good illustration. You will however get people look at it and use faulty logic such as:
When 90P was available, you had 3 chances at winning, and 3 giveaways where you had 0 chance.
When 30P available, you only have 1 chance at winning, and 5 giveaways where you had 0 chance.
Therefore you had more chances at winning when there were 90P available. The 30P situation feels much worse.
Comment has been collapsed.
The REAL situation however is that it isn't about the chances per win, it's that the flexibility is gone.
You get the same points on Humble Playstation Day as you get on Humble Monthly day.
In the old situation you would have less interesting titles on PS Day, but thus also less points to spend, balancing it out.
In the old situation you would have more interesting titles on Monthyl Day, and also more points to spend on them.
The only logical conclusion thus would be to take the Playstation Bundle points and bank them for the Monthly Day since it'll generate too little points for the amount of (wishlisted) giveaways being created. Worse, most will be 1-hour giveaways take take more points than a single hour can even GENERATE.
If you trust on the 500 max you really cut your chances short compared to banking those calm Playstation days that had no real reason to generate so many points.
There's no reason why such a good, flexible system nicely playing into the whole bundles that are often given away, with only a few minor (mostly gamemakers) ones screwing it over (or people mass giving away the free Outlast) needs to go for a rigid system which doesn't play into especially Humble Bundle's release schedule.
Even if you literally bank all your points knowing in advance the HB days, you wont know the titles, so you don't even know if you're limiting yourself for something you want.
Meanwhile bot-users can just set their bots to join every 1-hour giveaway not caring and raking in the massive wins they'll get now from people having to hoard for bundle days. Effectively making bots more effective in what they do, farm cheap games to futher bot them card drops.
Nobody wins whereas simply making the point generation smaller (and not have free games count as people said countless times) with a few safeguards for excesses like Outlast or RPGMaker would have kept a perfcectly good flexible system which works well with the bundles this site 90% relies upon.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi Hassat, please provide some exact numbers here, so I can better provide feedback.
- How will points be distributed and at what rate?
- What will be the point cap, or how will it be calculated?
- What happens to the above two variables if overall site activity changes, and we have 3x as many giveaways next month?
Comment has been collapsed.
-
Same as old. But free games no longer count, and value is cut depending on desire. 50% to start off and feel the waters, if after a week that still feels like too much another 25% cut.
The old system (points based on amount of giveaway) is good, considering it allows more people to enter Humble giveaways without needing to up the amount of points otherwise. -
Same as it always was (300). The idea is to give less points right, not make people visit less. Cause if it was the minimum amount of giveaway time (1H) is definitely in conflict with the goal.
-
If the influx is caused by free games; nothing changes. If suddenly 3 super popular new bundle sites appear and everyone buys from them, likely those extra points would be needed. And we still evaluate under #1 anyway.
Now reverse the same back;
- How are people expected to enter a 50P giveaway in 1H (since min) if that hour generates 20P?
- The cap is based on allowing people to log in one day, why are giveaways not adhering this idea?
- What happens to the above two variables if overall site activity changes, and we have 3x as many giveaways next month? (or even on a single day? The rigid system wont compensate for a daily spike after all. Say... Humble Monthly day?)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think your three questions are quite excellent, yes. Why do you think value should be cut, though (not saying I agree or disagree; I can't do that without knowing reasons :) )?
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the whole idea behind this change, people get too many points, enter too many giveaways; they should pick their games.
I don't exactly disagree, I overflew with more points than I knew what to do too... but from what I hear "free games" participated in that, and they never took them out. Or just tried 50% of the original rate.
You know, small tweaks, evaluate, and if that fails then go radical.
Instead of going radical straight away.
Kinda what I prefer but I see it's not that logical apparently, since also many websites or games when thinking about alterations they never make small changes to a working formula, they immediately make a full 180 degree.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, sure, if people perceive that to be a problem, then that is fine. Take out the free games, or reduce it with 50% during a Humble Bundle sale, or gradually scale down the amount of points one gets as more and more people reach the cap - but yes, I like the sentiment of running small experiments first.
Yes, I have also noticed that a lot with patches of videogames, or with interface design, for example. 'Tis odd, isn't it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup. There are very few websites who change their interface just to be better... rather than just to be different, and be horrible because of it. It's like webdesigners really have no idea of functionality at all, and really think the ugly things they pump out are "better".
For the most recent example of that D:OS2 latest patch featured a "reskinned save menu"... only thing I noticed is it went from widescreen to a cropped phone-like menu. WHY?
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, so if I understand correctly, you would lower points between 50-75%, similar to what just occurred (roughly a 66% decrease from last month). You want to keep the previous 300P cap, but remember that with a lower amount of points being distributed, users would reach that cap after about 15 hours, instead of the previous 5 hours or less we experienced last month. That goes against what you said though, "not make people visit less".
Both systems don't provide points for free games. So, the only difference is that during a popular bundle, your suggestion has an increase in points, and if giveaways trend upwards on the site overall, users receive more points as well.
So, next month if there are 3x the giveaways, users once again have 1,500P a day, and reach the 300P cap after 5 hours. Isn't this the issue we've been experiencing, too many points, and a point cap requiring users to visit more often than possible?
To answer your questions...
- During the past few years users couldn't enter a 100P one hour giveaway if they had zero points, because the site didn't generate 100P in that hour. The was never an issue. You also just suggested we cut points 50-75%, which means users would also have 20P most hours, and experience the exact same issue you are criticizing.
- I think giveaway creators have lots of valid reasons to run one hour giveaways, and they should keep that control. It also provides a small incentive for users to visit the site more often, without providing an advantage as large as the previous excess of points.
- I answered this one in an earlier comment. Fixed points will work fine if the site has 5x less giveaways, or 5x more giveaways. Unlike the flexible system you suggested, users do not need to suddenly enter more giveaways and visit more often, they just do the same as always, and have higher odds of winning the giveaways they're joining.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not my experience. 300P could take about 4H in the old system, less during Bundle days. Compared to the 15 hours of now, that's 27% the old droprate. Quite a difference still from 50%. And keep the flexibility, something I much appreciated myself and was actually a very strong point on Steamgifts above other systems. My purpose isn't really "making people visit less"... since just a point-change wont do that. The giveaway minimum timer also needs raising. Not doing that, changing any points specifically for that purpose misses it's mark.
"So, the only difference is that during a popular bundle, your suggestion has an increase in points, and if giveaways trend upwards on the site overall, users receive more points as well."
That's the whole point, yes. It's the... or was the... best part about Steamgifts point system.
While Steam Direct spills us with titles, I doubt the incrux will be as extreme as to require more adjustements anytime soon. How long did the current point system last before it needed changing? Also, again, I have no problem with people visiting more often. If the goal is to counter that, point changes are pointless (ha), the giveaway timer needs adjustement too. Just one or the other changes nothing, only both can turn that tide. Question if that's desired.
-
During rest-time, likely. During bundle-time, probably not. The great thing about variability. And if all comes to push you got a secret weapon... "create giveaways!" The new system however has no mystery, no variables. It's cold hard math. In a mathemitcal system with no unknowns, no influences, pure staticness, I don't see why it should be designed to not allow you to really want to enter that one giveaway you really want as it appears. Which means only 1 hour min for 15- point, 2 hour for 35- point and 3 hours for up to 50. Or maybe that's just my opinion on how if you make something pure math, no randomness, the math needs to check out. After all, you really can't account for the market, but you can for your design. And one we got the power to do something if it turns against us, the other not, so it should be designed fairly.
-
Then you probably shouldn't make this change to combat "I see this as an issue, because users should not need to invest this much time into entering giveaways." when you actively support people needing to invest that much time to enter giveaways. I would also say having to visit the site every 5 hours is probably more reasonable than 1 hour for the "advantage"... and the best people to take advantage of a 1-hour cycle, always online are not human. The advantage of flash giveaways outshines points. And it's the one you get a LOT more 'profit' off entering than spending your points on longer giveaways.
Maybe this is purely an opinion of difference what the bigger benefit is. You say points, which would make sense to do this then. I would say hourly giveaways trump it hands down, to which this point change does nothing. For maximum efficiency a "life" here is still needed, and this was supposed to combat it. It wont if it only attacks the area that needs 15% of the attention the other area does. -
No, the truth is on the 5x lower giveaways, people store the points in 4-week giveaways. On 5x higher, they cash in these stored points. Technically making something that's "almost a job" actually resemble a job. Accounting, laundering, shuffling, whitewashing. People don't need to spend nothing a day in advance of a HB day to get the 500 points for giveaways. People can enter the Monthlies they want with the stored points rather than the dropped points. In practice, this "flexible" system just changed into one that means a LOT more busywork for users, with the same result (less points used on low days for more points use on high days). For an update that is said to be designed to make entering giveaways less work.
It would make sense if not 90% of this site is dependant on bundles. Bundles are not a steady supply. Bundles are like the economy. Wave-pattern. High points, low points. Recession and Progression. Governments handle those by spending more in recession and saving while progressing. Not keeping an equal level throughout.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry, i don't know how to properly quote.
"Unlike the flexible system you suggested, users do not need to suddenly enter more giveaways and visit more often, they just do the same as always, and have higher odds of winning the giveaways they're joining."
After the change, the chances dropped close to 0.
Comment has been collapsed.
it has happened to me more times I can recall that:
There is a game I really want to win and there are many public and some closed group GA running for it. Of course I used to use all my points available to enter all chances. Many times I have end up winning the game from public GA with hundreds and sometimes even thousands of entries, NOT from the closed group GA with less than 50 entries. Looks like this happened to you too recently:
http://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/ZqHmR/sonic-adventure-2/winners
http://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/nrqlY/monster-slayers/winners
http://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/fCcok/poly-bridge/winners
I have no problem admiting that overall I have won more from small private group GAs, but there is a major difference. Winning from private GAs is somehow acquired privilege and they usually come with responsibility: the need to give something of similar value back and that's why GA groups have the ratio systems. Thus public GA wins feel more like winning in lottery instead.
I know in theory the chances are what they are, but in practice things don't go so due to the luck factor here. Some users end up being more lucky on expense on someone else's bad luck, but then again overall that difference should usually normalize in the long run a'la https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
But, (in my opinion) SG is still smallscale system from 1 user's point of view and CLT doesn't really apply here, also because of the complexities involved. The site certainly has great number of users and number of GAs being posted overall, but still: the number of GAs 1 average user is able to enter is pretty small to take statistics too seriously because:
- only about 60% of GAs are public, the rest are private+whitelist GAs that only very small portion of all users can enter
- we all own unique set of games in our accounts so we all have access to different set of GAs
- the problem with card farmer, reseller and other bot users
- IDK for sure but I would assume most users are not game collectors, and some even enter GAs only for games they have wishlisted
- IDK for sure but I would guess that 1/3 (if not more) of the GAs on "flood days" are "repeats" (extreme example: Bundle Stars bundles with 30+ games for $1 or humble bundle $1 tier games given away in 100's if not 1000's) vs AAA-games are given away like just a handful per day in comparison.
I think the entry count becomes pretty irrelevant already at 100 entries if not earlier. Winning from 1% chance does not happen very often, not to mention GAs with 200+ entries, but every time somebody wins from every GA and that's why I think it's odd logic to limit entries radically this way, when it's the GA creators that should decide the better kind of restrictions: is the GA public or private, level requirement, how long duration, special sgtools rules, require puzzle solving etc. Read below my idea of changing the entry point system so that the GA creator decides it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rethinking the point requirement to enter GAs:
To me it's strange to have such wide scale, 1P...50P, because the entry points don't really involve real money and because the points are generated out of thin air at fixed rate. High Steam Store retail price doesn't automaticly mean the item is higher quality or actually worth that much more. 50P game may be worth less than 5P in cheap bundle deal if consider points as $value. Why not consider making the entry point value customizable, so that the GA creators can set it as they feel is right? There are lots of ideas to consider, some quite radical ones for example:
- idea 1) Remove the entry point relation to the Steam Store price completely. For example set a fixed entry point value for all GAs.
For example 10P, if bundled and DLCs 5PThis change would make GAs more equal in terms of being able to enter them regardless of their Steam Store price. The limitations to who can enter GAs are better defined by the GA creator by choosing the level requirement, making the GA private group etc choices instead relying on the Steam Store price. - idea 2) (continuation of above, I prefer this) Let GA creators decide how many points are required to enter (with certain minimum and maximum of course: like min value 1P and the max value would make sense being the Steam Store price)
- idea 3) Use for example Steam review system and wishlist count as data for entry point requirement. If game is on lots of wishlists and has positive reviews, it would have higher entry point requirement and vice versa.
- idea 4) Keep as is now, but give high level users some benefit: for example higher rate getting entry points the higher level, or the entry points are lower the higher level the user has.
So with this suggestion I'm coming to the same exact end conclusion here as in the previous message: it is the GA creators that already can set the better kind of restrictions to limit entries: is the GA public or private, level requirement, how long duration, special sgtools rules, require puzzle solving etc. Adjusting the GA entry point value would be just one more of those settings. I would see people making use of it. At least I would usually set low entry point value for my GAs because I dislike that people can't/don't enter my GAs because of the high entry point requirement. I actually even can't think any good reason when it would make sense for me to set high entry point value for my GA, but I can also understand those who consider it as fitting restriction for their GAs. It would just be nice additional setting to use, just like setting the duration of the GA is very flexible.
For example, if you are planning to give away something really valuable (like Vegas Pro) and you want to try and make sure it would go to someone who would actually play and appreciate the win, there are existing groups for this purpose, for example: https://steamcommunity.com/groups/playing-appreciated
However, in my opinion even better option is to create a closed Steam group for that purpose and gather such people there you know yourself or otherwise know that they want the game and would actually play it. Then once there is enough interest, create the GA as group only and you prevent the problem with public GAs going to a undesired winner type. And now think of doing the GA in this kind of closed group, does it still make sense the entrants would still need to spend lots of points to join the GA? In this kind of case, wouldn't it be nice to be able to adjust the entry point to something like 1P?
edit: (Reading comments here gives me impression that some people misunderstand that changing giveaway entry point would also affect CV, but that is not the case! GA entry points affect only the points required to enter the GA. I am not suggesting anything regarding CV accumulation, it is fine as is! Recent changes explained here: https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/RCZPq/reduced-cv-and-no-cv-giveaways )
Comment has been collapsed.
I can spot a big problem with your suggestion. It requires instant and accurate bundle listing. Most of the giveaway spam happens during the first few hours after a bundle release. First time bundled games will still be counted as non-bundled and require 5P for entry.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand and it's a good point. What I posted earlier are just a raw idea template examples that of course require fine-tuning if taken into actual implementation. Now rethinking this, if GA creators are given the ability to adjust the entry points (idea 2) then I think that issue gets pretty much taken care of. Because if GA creator still likes to limit the entries by this method, he or she would then set high entry point requirement anyway.
So now I think the simplest solution could be for example: there could be just one default entry point value, like 10P, but GA creator is always given option to modify it to whatever value (within certain limits like minimum 1P and some maximum value which would make sense to be the Steam Store retail price).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes this is a nice idea, I can make a small change in adjusting the point requirement. Allowed entry points can be 10% to 400% of the steam store price, max cap being 200P (or steam price whichever is higher and <= 500P). I agree the giveaway creator can decide the entry fee it sounds reasonable to me.
Eg: 100$ game can be set to minimum 10P or up to 200P for entry, 250$ game collection can be set to min 25P up to 250P.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is true, and a fair example, but I think lindax makes a very good point here. It further drastically alters the flow of the site, so to say? There is no reason to check 'New' giveaways, because you can't join all the new ones you're interested in anyway. There is no reason to come here every hour or so either anymore, perhaps every day at most, and then you can join a handful of giveaways, if that - so well, why come here at all, why not wait until you have 500 points? And so, you will end up having far fewer chances of winning, actually (though I would note that I do not particularly concern myself with having the highest chance of winning - I just enter the giveaways of games that I enjoy, and that isn't possible now).
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not the problem.
Problem is that on Level 2 you get more time listed some higher value games, so people with higher Level should earn more points per same amount of time (15min). ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You spend the whole month before point-laundering.
Which is pretty much going to be my MO when logging into SG from now on, check wishlist, check recommended, stock points in 4-week duration giveaway.
Need to have a 'stash' for bundles, cause just logging in once a day wont help there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, this is bad, it seems to me, that we won't have liquidity, when a bundle comes out. Now I need to check in more often to see if there is anything good, and work out a system for point banking.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also I can imagine people creating alt accounts, with zero GAs created, to enter non resticted giveaways, because they can't afford them.
Comment has been collapsed.
You need at least $100 in non-bundled games on your steam account in order to be able to create an SG account.
Plus, as others have said, it's a perma-ban offense. And it's something that people are doing (and getting perma-banned for).
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really fond of this change. I prefer to enter a lot of giveaways even if I have low chances of winning, than not being able to enter them and have 0 chances. I can't even enter all of my wish-listed games that end in 6 hours from now. It just feels frustrating
Would prefer 50% reduced points generated from giveaways like some people suggested. Also a poll would have been nice just to see that the majority of the users like the old system more.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm from Romania, I've heard a lot about communism, there was a limited weekly 'point system', you could only have X amount of bread, Y amount of sugar etc.
Back in the golden era everyone had to have a whole room, just to store shit, because you never knew when will you need more sugar, flour, meat or whatnot. It's not a reasonable solution for anything. Now I need to store my points like I'm in a communist sg.
Comment has been collapsed.
Same thoughts from me from Croatia...which got out of communist Yugoslavia! :D ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hi SG,
After the recent discussion, updates to the point system are now live. They are as follows:
I think these adjustments will provide a number of improvements for the site. However, I'll keep an eye on user feedback, and try to make sure the changes are working as intended and meeting the needs of the community.
Comment has been collapsed.