What Taerdin said. It effectively screws the genuinely GOOD people here, that simply cannot afford games. I don't care to chum out games to faceless greedy kids that want something just for it being free. But someone simply unable to afford a game right now, at this point in their lives? I've been there. I've no desire to see them gone.
Comment has been collapsed.
well said , we should always think about those people who truly cant purchase any game and those certain fans of the games
Comment has been collapsed.
I can see why everyone would not like the idea because they like the chance of entirely free games.
It is a good point Taerdin, that the site should be for those who simply can't afford games. So it is allowed then, for accounts to have no giveaways because they cannot afford to buy any games and that is perfectly fine.
So then a profile over, say, $500 in value should be frozen from the site? Unless they maintain a quota? (The idea seems a little shaky to me, just putting it out there). I know my account is worth around $300, but I've spent maybe 1/3rd of that because I take advantage of sales. So that wouldn't exactly be fair, seeing as a $500 account may actually be $150 or so, amassed over the years.
I don't want to see anyone who is legitimately poor to not be able to utilize the site, I'm all for spreading the gaming love, but I feel like there should be something in place to make the giving a little more frequent.
Comment has been collapsed.
How about this goes into effect AFTER the Person Wins ONE (or Two, Though I like the 1 Better) Game? As where $1 = 1 Point into your Stay "Fund", and it requires a $5 "Donation" (Giveaway) to the Site to keep your account Active. The about of Points in your "Fund" has No Limit. HOWEVER, You ONLY get those Points into the "Fund" IF, and only IF your giveaway is marked as Received.
Add-on Idea- Another idea that could work with that is that you only have to do that each time you win a game. So, if you don't win anything for Two months, you don't have to pay anything. You could also say that you have to pay Max ONE time a Month. Meaning if you win 5 Things that Month, you don't have to pay $5 Each time.
This would therefore "make" people only enter into games they REALLY Want, or risk winning a game they don't want and then be "forced" to giveaway a game themselves to try to win another. This means that someone that never has actually gotten something from this site can still get something for 100% Free, but if they want to Win more then they have to put something themselves into the site.
I, Personally, don't see how this isn't fair (But to be Honest it IS my idea). Now, I'm pretty sure someone will come up with some excuse, and if it's a reasonable one, I will try to Edit my Idea to make it work with whatever they said. But don't expect a response if you know what your saying is just outright stupid.
Edit- Further Though on how it would be fair based on Responses to other posts below.
-"Genuinely GOOD" people CAN still win a Free game without putting anything into this site, as this would ONLY Go into Effect AFTER they win ONE game.
-People that can't Truly Afford game (I myself cannot) can still win one. Personally, I find it Greedy to "Expect" to win more then 1 Thing without putting ANYTHING in yourself. The Add-on Idea could also help so your not forced to pay Monthly if you don't win anything that Month, so it would be a Max of $5 a Month.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your idea, then, would then limit me in who I can gift to. I'd like to reserve that judgement, thank you. If I wanted to give a hundred dollars-worth of games out, willy-nilly, then why should I be limited to them only going to a subset of people that the system determines?
What you are suggestion seems, rather, to be better suited for something that already exists: private giveaways for people who have not won any games (or won once, and so on).
Comment has been collapsed.
How exactly does it limit that?
or do you mean you want to gift to people that Truly Cannot Afford even $5 A Month and only IF they won something. Which, that is understandable, but The Current way the site is, For all you know your gifting to someone that doesn't care about the game at all, but just to collect it so they can make there collection bigger even if they don't play the game, OR, even quite possibly someone that only enters in hopes of winning only toward the point of making it where no one else can have it.
Because what you say is a Reasonable Excuse, Here is an Idea that could make it where my Idea would work while still making you Happy with the outcome of it (I'm only pointing it out that I'm doing this so other people know I actually do this when you have a Reasonable Argument Against it):
How about, Include with the idea, is the Option for GIFTERS to Choose whether or not they want to gift to someone who has the "Active" Status or not. The Active Status would only mean that you have Given something yourself for something that you won (Even if what you won was Worth MUCH more then what if gave), and would give you access to the "Exclusive" Giveaways (Exclusive, as in only for people with the Active Status). People that haven't won anything would have the Active Status until they win something.
About the Second Part of your Post, my idea only Expands on the Idea of the First Post, Unless I Misunderstood what the first post is saying (Which I tend to do sometimes, so please correct me if I'm wrong). So, Technically, that would be directed to the whole idea of the Thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can see where you are coming from just fine. Some people here will even find it humorous that I, of all people, would insist that there be no automatic restrictions for people able to receive a game given away (I strongly insist upon thanks being given). However, MY preferred restriction is that contestants thank me for the chance to win. Do I want to see that imposed upon other gifters? No. And likewise, I don't think you shouldn't be able to have restrictions for who gets what you offer, or how...And I don't want to see it imposed upon me. =)
I'm speaking from a position where I can think of 5 people that really cannot afford to offer anything up in a giveaway, but whom I believe deserve (at the very least) a chance at getting some free games via this site. I'm betting that there's more than those 5. And so, I don't want to see any of them restricted or limited. Just as I don't want to see someone else's restrictions applied to me, when I decide to give something away. Likewise, I don't want to see my restrictions forced onto other people when they offer something up. That's all.
Comment has been collapsed.
How about limiting or tiering how many times each user can win? Just as an example, maybe a user could win 4 times, but in order to make himself eligible to win (or enter) after that, he needs to create giveaways worth at least x dollars/points... You could then have a second tier of users who have gifted at least x dollars worth of games, can win up to 8-10 times, and to move up to the third tier, you have to have successfully gifted a total of y dollars worth of games, etc. Obviously, the numbers would need tweaking, but that's the general idea.
Such a restriction still allows everyone the chance to win something, but softens the "leecher" mentality by creating "ratios," so to speak. As a side effect, it might persuade first tier users who have already won stuff to think more carefully about which giveaways they want to enter/win, as opposed to entering everything, just because they can.
Comment has been collapsed.
So far, I'm liking this idea the best. I haven't seen anyone win over 3 games anyway (and that's pretty rare), so I think this would help out a lot in the long run. So when you win 3 games, you have to giveaway something worth 5 dollars, then after 6 games you have to giveaway another 5 dollars worth. That makes a lot more sense than a time-dependent option (like mine was/is) and still allows users to get plenty of free games from the site. They can leave after 3 anyway if they cannot pay (since there are plenty of poor users that haven't even won that many).
The other idea for the "Giveaway for Gifters Only" would be a separate deal entirely. I'm surprised this option isn't actually on the site?
Comment has been collapsed.
The goal of the site is for people to give away games out of their own good will. The site should not hold its service hostage from users that may not have the money to buy games. For those users, that is the reason they are here and love this site.
Comment has been collapsed.
Doesn't it make sense for those people who want to spread the wealth to not join giveaways after winning 3 of them already when others who are in their same financial predicament have won none? Of course, no one would do that, but freezing accounts after 3 gifts would allow those who can't afford games to have a higher chance of winning, rather than the same chance of winning as those who have won 3 times already.
I don't think its a jerk thing to do, but I don't think accounts should not have the option to not continue entering after 3 games, so the "give to continue taking" would regulate it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see your point, but there are many little flaws with that (people giving away a fortix for every Skyrim giveaway they win) and in order to fix them we'd just screw up with the point of the site.
If you pity people who never won a giveaway, feel free to add them and gift them things yourself.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying this should necessarily be done, but for those interested in the discussing the option: you could judge it by value of the giveaways (i.e. dollar or point cost of the giveaway) instead of by quantity of giveaways. So setting up 10 Fortix giveaways (1P x 10) has the same value as setting up 1 Limbo giveaway (10P x 1), because their cumulative point values are equivalent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Private giveaways. There are several groups which are for gifters only, for those who want gifts to go only to others who contribute. Some have higher requirements than others, but they are there. Public ones are just that, when people want to give everyone an equal shot at winning whatever game they put up. If you want to limit that more, why not support what Cult and others have suggested by adding a ticket system to replace the point system. Generating something like 1 ticket per day, and limiting the max so people can only enter a few giveaways at a time? By doing that you force people to enter more-so for games they really want, and not so much randomly just to win or horde.
You may think what I say is moot due to the fact that I do have $0 in contribution, but I am actually one of the people who are 'for realz' broke. Not saying that for any other reason but to clarify.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the purpose of the original poster is two-fold: he wants a system that encourages people to give things away while also regulating the entry system. A ticket system only limits entries, it does not encourage giving. It would also reduce interest/traffic of the site, due to the lessened necessity to visit the site more than once every ticket distribution period.
Again, I'm not saying I agree with it necessarily, but I am pointing out what seems to be the intent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea, I do understand the want to get more people to gift, but I do think that is kind of the wrong approach to take. It would tend to make the site more elitist. Next people would want entries for people who gifted to certain ranges of 1-10 10-20 and so fourth, which kind of destroys the whole point of the site being supported by generous people who truly like gifting.
I was more-so going on about his point of wanting it to be that those who truly want certain games to have a more 'fair' shot at them. I do agree with that too many people enter giveaways to enter them, not for things they truly want, which is a shame. I just agree with others about how a ticket system could be used to resolve that to an extent.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what I'm understanding is people want to freeze the accounts of anyone who won a gift at random by system that chooses said users out of thousands of users, makes perfect sense.
And then you want to punish users who have lots of games? Some users are poor but rack up on games given out for free. Every user has just as many chances to win as anyone else. There's no reason to be upset because one user won 5 giveaways in a row and you've been on the site for along time and not gotten a single thing. That's selfish, wanting a higher chance than other users or taking away theirs completely. I'm pretty sure this site is about giving and giving is a selfless act.
Comment has been collapsed.
7 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by herbesdeprovence
1,814 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by moronic
43 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by BorschtLover
58 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by SketCZ
85 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by WaxWorm
16,299 Comments - Last post 9 hours ago by Carenard
72 Comments - Last post 19 hours ago by Reidor
9,536 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Fluffster
57 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by Fluffster
187 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by Fluffster
16,786 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by adam1224
26 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Gamy7
1,598 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Fluffster
807 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by MyrXIII
I figure this has probably been suggested before, but I couldn't find it.
It seems to me it would make sense to have a quota of points you must reach in giveaways in order to keep your account on the website. It could be really low too - something like 5 points. 5-10 dollar games go on sale for super cheap and would still give you the total dollar amount in points, so you could probably manage not to spend more than 2 bucks a month.
I imagine it like this: Every 30 days, five points is added to your total quota. That means, if you buy a 50 dollar game, you're good for...300 days. So the values roll over every month. And when you have not reached your quota, then your account is "frozen" - that is, you cannot enter any other games until you create a giveaway (perhaps not until you have received feedback that your game has been received).
Now, you may say that it sounds like a "subscription" to steamgifts, and that steamgifts should be entirely free. Well, it still is. You don't pay steamgifts, you are giving back to the community that you are taking from (whether you win or not).
I believe this would increase the amount of giveaways as well as lower the amount of entries for each one (both desirable!).
Thoughts?
Comment has been collapsed.