'We knew that we wanted it to be as small as possible to ensure it wasn't a barrier to beginning game developers, while also not being so small as to invite easy abuse by people looking to exploit our systems'
Couldn't you have the price vary depending on the size of the company so that big companies pay more and small indie developers pay less?
Comment has been collapsed.
The publication fee isn't even steam's main source of income. So, why care at all? You know that "big companies" won't even blink an eye when paying those $100-$5000, while indie developers may suffer from it. I, for one, think that a low fee is a good idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not income at all, since it's refunded automatically after hitting X sales.
Big publishers don't have to pay it at all:
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup, seems fair. Also glad to learn it's actually refunded after X sales, it makes sense.
Comment has been collapsed.
The fee is recoupable. If the game sells on steam to real people they get the money back over time, so big companies paying more shouldn't really change anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
The fee is no form of quality control whatsoever, so it doesn't matter as long as they carefully look over what games get approved and put on the store.
It's a good decision that they made it per game, though, so no one will try to flood the market and slow down the reviewing system with cheap and undeveloped games.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they can and will filter out the card-misuse though bot systems... it could work. Same as previous GL fee, but instead of lifelong, it's / game, I think that's not a bad decision, as it doesn't hinder quality.
I personally expected something in the 200-500$ range
Comment has been collapsed.
That will somewhat happen when they put in place the new card system in which a game that gives cards only is allowed to have them drop after it hits some unknown metric.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's quite cheap, didn't expect them to go that low.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah russian will keep spaming useless games with cards.
per game with 15 cards --> 8 drops
each key will bring them 8 cent. so basically they just need to giveaway 1250 keys and hope that people sell the cards on the market and they have the money back.
Comment has been collapsed.
That amount is perfect, they just need to manually check what they accept on Steam. Now we need to see how they will handle that (Steam Direct)
Comment has been collapsed.
that sounds like work. valve doesnt like doing work, theyre not going to check anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
They already check if the game is working and so on. They don't "rate" games by quality though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do they really?
I recall TotalBiscuit saying the opposite repeatedly, that games even without executables have made it onto the service.
As does the mass of "not working" launch-day reviews we usually see (clearly, they can just be missing some issues).
Edit for clarity
Comment has been collapsed.
the mass of "not working" launch-day reviews
Some games work perfectly fine on 90% of configurations and have problems or refuse to work on a number of specific machines for reasons that are hard to know upfront. Sometimes number of computers with problems can be higher, that doesn't mean game was not tested and working before release.
TotalBiscuit saying the opposite repeatedly
While I have great appreciation for his work, he doesn't know everything, and if you read Valve's "discovery 2.0, steam direct and curators 2.0" blog posts, you'll see they clearly said they test every game before release to make sure it's working, virus free, have the features that are advertised by the devs (like controller support) and so on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some games work perfectly fine on 90% of configurations.
I don't disagree; that's the caveat I stated exactly. Granted, it's anecdotic, and people with issues are more likely to be vocal, but it could be a symptom of a lack of curation, that's why I mentioned it.
On the TB front. That's obvious as well, but I'd have expected that his research on what he called "the minimum curation Steam should be doing" to be on point. Add to that that Steam has a history of looking to work/intercede less and automate more, so I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't someone validating that games can run. I may be remembering old videos, so you can be right on that.
If we had heard of a game that had been blocked due to it being unplayable then I would have no doubts on the matter (I concede that it seems unlikely due to corporate privacy policies).
I'm just skeptical on how exhaustive the checks are; but, point taken.
Comment has been collapsed.
If we had heard of a game that had been blocked due to it being unplayable
But, if they would block a game (and let's say, give developer a chance to fix the issue before it's allowed to release), how could you (or me, or TB by that matter) hear about it? No one would know.
As you said yourself, you only hear from more vocal members of community - those that have problems with otherwise working and released games.
Comment has been collapsed.
As it says in my last reply, I've acknowledged that.
All I was saying is that without another party confirming that these actions are being taken, there is no way to really know that they are, aside from taking Valve at their word.
Comment has been collapsed.
On that topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QU16Ty0QJQ
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, he sounds like jackass. He's attacking Valve for Direct, and Direct starts on June 13th. This game has nothing with Direct and whatever he's implying. I'm not going to go into it any further into the topic, but this looks like a case of wrong configuration. But if you're a famous "journalist" you should at least check your facts before you go into rage mode.
Comment has been collapsed.
What you said also has nothing to do with Direct:
They already check if the game is working and so on
Regarding the video, you misunderstood what he was saying. You clearly missed the point he was making on their competence not on what Direct is doing as if it was already running.
On the example:
A missing executable and/or other files is not a configuration issue.
From the reviews:
Destruction 48 launched with missing gamefiles resulting in an unplayable product. At the time of writing this review, this game could NOT be launched at all.
Jim is a bit of dick, but this and other broken games wouldn't have made it onto the service if Steam was really doing the QA you said they were doing.
Nevermind if you don't care, I just thought you might want more information, but if you are believing that because you have some inside information I'm lacking I'd love to have that.
Have a nice day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering most of the low end junk asset flips come from exactly these weaker economies because card profitz are actually worth something there, no, no they should not get a discount rendering any kind of minimal barrier function void.
Comment has been collapsed.
I didn't care until that Badm "struggling dev" asshole showed up after scamming $500 from few thousand people.
Or other key revokers and shit. I'm terminally fed up with idiots posing as "devs" only to annoy & scam the indie supporting userbase.
Some thinning out is direly needed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder how many cents per copy the bottom of the barrel bundles give to devs. So how many copies is needed to cover the 100$...
Comment has been collapsed.
how many cents per copy the bottom of the barrel bundles give to devs
0.01-0.04
Comment has been collapsed.
So 10000 to 2500 copies...
I'm doubtful that there is so many of us wanting them...
Comment has been collapsed.
That's their profit, PER CARD.
So you need about 10.000 card sales, at worst, and people get atleast 3 automatically.
You have to do something bizarrely strange to not get a return out of that with the amount of card-fans out there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Though the game has to pass some sort of check before those cards start existing.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't agree with this because it is an investment to publish your game. If developers from a country with a weaker economy has to pay less, then it wouldn't be fair to ask more money for the same game in a country with a stronger economy.
Personally I think the whole regional pricing is stupid. Let's say you have 1 indie developer from western Europe and 1 from Russia. They both make a game with the exact same quality.
The person from Europe sells his game cheaper in Russia which effectively decreases his income per game even though he lives in Europe and everything is more expensive.
The person from Russia sells his game more expensive in Europe which effectively increases his income per game while he needs less money to live.
Sure, I get why developers do it. Otherwise they will sell less games in poorer regions, so they get less money. But that doesn't make it fair.
So basically, with the same quality game. Both developers pay and earn the same amount of money on paper. But because of the economy differences (you can do a lot more with 100 euros in Russia than in western Europe). The Russian can rent a house, the European can rent a garage.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rent a garage for 100€ would be awesome! Where I live it costs 3 times as much/month.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a matter of increasing a price, it's a matter of lowering a region's price so that it stops being prohibitively expensive when accounting for the converted value of that region's median salary.
It's an attempt to solve access issues and break into markets where taking no economic considerations has forced people to piracy.
You shouldn't make less money by having more people become able to purchase your product (ceteris paribus), you should make more.
The same is true for the devs, if one has to (for the sake of argument) skip a meal while another has to sell a car to pay for the fee, guess which developer wouldn't be able to list their game.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just a matter of from what perspective you view it. Personally I believe a developer should be compensated fairly to their regions standards.
It's the same as someone in western Europe would work for Russian minimum wadge. He wouldn't even be able to rent a room, let alone eat... Basically he would be dead within a few weeks lol.
I get where you are coming from. But a developer from a "rich" country makes less money from selling games cheaper in a "poor" country. And a developer from a "poor" country benefits greatly from selling games in a "rich" country.
But shit happens. It has happened long before steam too There is a reason many big companies have big factories in third world countries. The people who actually do the labor earn 1 euro a day or whatever. While they sell the shoes (for example) for 100 euros a pair in a first world country. The big companies are just accounting for the converted value of that region's median salary.
It's the way the world works. But that doesn't mean I have to be okay with it :)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's the same as someone (...)
That's exactly the point. Where you live and hence your salary dictates what you can afford to do, i.e. what your purchasing power is.
But a developer from a "rich" country (...)
That's irrelevant. The issue is the barrier to entry not the difference in purchasing power resulting from where that person decides to take his money. By that logic people who move somewhere should have their assets liquidated and only get a fraction back whenever they move somewhere new.
By what you are suggesting, who should keep the profits you are taking away from developers because, you believe that they should be paid a lesser cut since they live in a "cheap" country? That money doesn't vanish on its own.
big companies have big factories in third world countries. (...)
That's completely unrelated to what this is, the only way you'd link it would be by noting that the poor salaries those people earn require lower prices otherwise nothing could be sold there.
Your need to go on tangents makes me think you don't understand what is being discussed.
Yes, there isn't a universal salary across the world, so we should ignore that and act like it doesn't happen, instead of accounting for it, resulting in more people having access to, in this casem Steam games and their development?
Regional pricing allows for more people to access a good or service, hence getting the company more profit, they would otherwise miss out on, and resolves the access issue that pushes those people to seeking replacements or abstaining, depending on the type of good.
I believe that the only counter point that can be argued, though wrongly in my opinion, is that being someone who can afford the higher price you are essentially subsidizing the cheaper regions, due to the greater portion of profits coming from the more wealthy regions. But that ends up in a question of how the business strategy/profit margins of the company were designed, so that if by selling, in a particular region, at close to cost the margins in a different region had to be increased to make up for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would be here for this. I'd been thinking about developing some games, you know, learning and stuff. But the fee discouraged me. That's quite a huge amount and I literally cannot afford it at the moment. And with my games possibly/most likely flopping, it's basically just one big, bad investment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Guess I need to start building that Steam game I always wanted to develop...
Comment has been collapsed.
In the Steam announcement of this, Valve said that they were thinking more like in the 500$ range.
So the easiest way for Valve is bending like long grass in the wind while they did have the opportunity to ask for a decent amount and start fresh.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really miss that feature because I and a lot of others used this a lot. ;_;
Valve: "negligible collateral damage in the combat against the grey markets"
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve was created so we could play games in first place, not a place where all of sunden everyone is a game trader/seller.
if you're into trading as a hobby, my dear steam is made for gaming ;)
you can still trade as well, but now you're going to deal with 3rd party websites
you can argue that you cant gift a certain game to your friend that it is on sale, well my dear you can
all you gotta do is buy a steam gift card and give him the pin so he can grab that amazing deal
and Im pretty sure you can do it online.
And yes I do trade from time to time, I rarely do games, but ingame items my dear, I usually trade them for steam gifts cards
or sell them into steam market and I made few transactions with real money envolved as well and so far so good.
I still dont get why everyone is so blind when it comes to that, first of all steam just opened the doors to everyone
now every 3rd party website can grab some $$$.
But maybe I get it because Im not that "kind" of person that has 8k games into my account
Maybe for you guys theres a convenience factor but still > not the end of the "steam world experience"
all you guys need is to adapt to those changes :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm for more than a year completely retired from trading but I bought and stored steam gifts directly in my inventory so I could make giveaways here (3.5K+ to date and many were Steam gifts) on SG whenever I wanted as I had a lot of gifts in my Steam inventory.
And having 5 games or 7K+ games in ones inventory is a non issue because in both cases you can't buy and store to the inventory anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe too low, and it should be a variable fee as niceguyjon said.
For example, an Apple developer have to pay 99 USD yearly only to be able to publish a simple Safari extension in their platform.
Comment has been collapsed.
How much is the fee for their store for iPhone? And see where that has led... It's really example of market I see Steam already being near and not one I like.
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve's dream is to become a store like Google Play or Apple. That's why they began to publish movies for example.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't understand before entire Greenlight fiasco they were in good spot to build... They should have opened the market a bit, but this extend...
Comment has been collapsed.
that does alot of sense tbh, wouldnt be surprised if they managed to do it.
I mean if they can pull this off, theyre face2face with microsoft store.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is variable fee, it only applies to 'indie'/small developers, proven publishers are excluded from paying fee.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about card drops? They still drop? How do we know if a game drops or not? Will this only be aplicable to newly released games? Wheeeen?
Comment has been collapsed.
well removed games still drop cards you just cant list them on the market.
Comment has been collapsed.
They already fucked over the card drops. From http://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1954971077935370845 :
"Instead of starting to drop Trading Cards the moment they arrive on Steam, we're going to move to a system where games don't start to drop cards until the game has reached a confidence metric that makes it clear it's actually being bought and played by genuine users. "
Where it's unclear how the new system works. I mean, I don't know how we can end p with a situation where cards aren't dropping for Vanquish, where Steamspy shows pretty decent stats (for a HD remaster of an old game): https://steamspy.com/app/460810 , there's a large nuber of reviews already etc.
Where this: http://store.steampowered.com/app/614950/Shootout_on_Cash_Island/ typical $1 game already has card drops enabled 1 day after release. (Steamspy doens't have stats on this one yet.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Do you know if they implemented the trading cards for Vanquish already? Maybe that's the issue. It's mentioned on the store but not implemented yet. I think that is the real issue, not Steam change to card drops.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well if they're not implemented yet, that'd explain it. But then why allow advertising with them on the store front ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Not the first time something like this has happened. Shadowrun Hong Kong advertised itself as having trading cards at release... and they never added trading cards (but they've removed the thing that says that the game has it). It seems like its up to the devs/publishers to set these things, and there's nothing on the side of Steam that actually checks to make sure that its true.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's 10$ more than the greenlight fee, so nothing will change and we can't even vote on games anymore. Great change!
Comment has been collapsed.
it's $100 per game vs $100 per unlimited games, big difference on shit games no one buys :P
Comment has been collapsed.
no one buys? as soon as you see a game....costs 10-50cent
open your friend activity page .... and start counting let's roughly say 400 people just have to buy it
and you have your $ 100 back as a trash developer and that without the whole cardsales
And as we have learned ....add stupid super easy and many many achievements ..and you get positive feedback = carddrops
Comment has been collapsed.
Unfortunately there's a demographic for shit games on Steam, especially considering there are a lot of those that buy new games when they come out, so making those 100$ back isn't that hard.
Comment has been collapsed.
hopefully lack of cards changes that even a bit.
Unless they move to achievements and steam items like this or this
Comment has been collapsed.
I knew about the achievements, but items are new to me! At least you gotta give those devs some credit that they're always finding new ways to cheat the system.
Comment has been collapsed.
Cards should not be accessible until the game has enough positive review, it would calm some "dev" for sure. No need for a fee to discourage abuse then.
Comment has been collapsed.
Reviews is bad metric. Real unrefunded purchases is only true one to go by.
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe it still better than just 100$.
If you count only purchase and not key activation, I agree with you. Otherwise it would be too easy for the dev to make a HUGE GA and all these collectionners would keep it in their library.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly what I meant. Certain number of unrefunded that is past refund purchases from Steam Store.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if a developer giveaway 10.000 keys. Will many of those people give a Good review, So that they can activate their card drops.
Edit: only direct buyers from steam reviews count.
What if a developer add many easy achievements for a bad/fake game. HOW many people will get those achievement to activate their card drops.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was gonna add what you EDIT : the review made bu purchasers and not key activations.
Even if there are easy achiev, at least the dev will have to produce something. Too many games for cards are just idled without being launched, why bother making something running correctly ?
Comment has been collapsed.
What if I buy the game from another site like humble bundle because it's cheaper and player the game for 20 hours?
My review just randomly doesn't count?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. It will be shown, but not counted toward the median score.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's going to be a lot of reviews for a lot of games that aren't counted towards the score then.
Comment has been collapsed.
This has already been implemented a few weeks ago. Reviews from people who activated keys AND people who activated gifts don't count toward game score anymore for weeks now. Many games already changed scores, some dramatically.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is and it isn't. If you buy on the store, your voice matters to other customers of that store. If you buy a key on GMG, leave a review there and it will matter to buyers there. If you buy on gamersgate, leave a review there... I can understand their logic even if it makes my own game have less reviews.
Comment has been collapsed.
They have done it because if a developer giveaway free keys, many people could give good reviews even if the game is terrible.
On the other hand even direct steambuyers can only give good reviews to activate their card drops. Their new system isnt perfect
Comment has been collapsed.
Valve has stated that they'll look at a number of different metrics to determine if a game is going to be allowed to have cards or not, and they've been careful with not revealing what those metrics are (which is the right thing to do, the less we know about the metrics, the harder the system will be to game).
Comment has been collapsed.
oooh, I did not know ! Well, it's an excellent thing that they keep the secret, or scammer devs will try to match those criterias and only that ones ! Thanks for the info :)
Comment has been collapsed.
You disliked CALL OF DUTY 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 and 10.
Maybe you're interested in... CALL OF DUTY 11?
[/every sale discovery queue to date]
Comment has been collapsed.
The discover queue does not seem to care what you've marked as not interested, other than it won't show that particular game again. They really should improve that. What they could simply do is give you two different choices, "not interest in this game" (works like the button does now) and "not interested in games like this" (which will change what other games it will recommend).
Comment has been collapsed.
Was just pointing out Steam's "algorithms" are generally worse than really bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep. Many developers had to put their games in "greenlight bundles" to attract attention towards their games and get enough audience to publish it. I think that devaluated their games since day 0.
Comment has been collapsed.
Paid for each individual game, while Greenlight had a 100$ lifelong publishing format.
Comment has been collapsed.
also that 100 buckeroos went to a charity.. sooo seems like Valve now will have that monies to themselves
[insert maniacal laugh here]
Comment has been collapsed.
Not quite. The $100 is more of a deposit that you'll get back with sales. Valve will basically not get a cut of any sales up until the first $100 that they would have got, which instead goes to pay back your deposit fee. Or that was at least how Valve said that it would work when they first explained the new steam direct system.
Comment has been collapsed.
eurogamer and arstechnica claim dev will get the fee back after they reach $1000 in sales on steam
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright, so that's slightly different from what Valve said when it was still in an earlier stage, but still similar. Hopefully this wiĺl encourage devs to actually sell their game rather than just do mass key giveaways
Comment has been collapsed.
Greenlight was gamed by unscrupulous individuals. It was also a one-time free. Pay those $100 and you can upload as many games as you want.
Comment has been collapsed.
It allows people to directly pay Valve to get their game on the store rather than having to buy upvotes.
More crap, more money for Valve, win/win for everyone but the customer!
Comment has been collapsed.
Steam Direct fee is...
The most acurate statement i found for myself: is not bothering me at all
https://media.giphy.com/media/l3vRi0EtWE9RrFpDy/giphy.gif
Comment has been collapsed.
gabe: "we can make an extra $100 per title if we do away with the greenlight system. but we gotta make them think they came up with the idea, or else it won't work."
scott: "how do we go about doing that?"
gabe: "we pitch this awesome idea about steam direct and how it will get rid of all the trash by making developers pay larger fees"
scott: "isn't that the opposite of what we want done?"
gabe: "sure is, that's why it's brilliant. all we gotta do is say it was their idea to make it cheaper!"
Comment has been collapsed.
I expected it to be a bit higher. But luckily Valve is also making another change, where cards won't drop until they're sure that what they have is a game, and not just a card farming tool.So that should discourage some of the worst offenders at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was just thinking about that. If cards won't drop unless they can make enough people to actually play the game, then it should be a lot more difficult to game the system as recruiting farmers is a lot easier than asking people to spend 1-3 hours actually sitting in fornt of the game and playing it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ehmm... Doesn't farming count as playing the game (I mean, farming adds hours played to your account. Valve can't know if they are actually playing it or farming it)?
Comment has been collapsed.
As I heard, unless your engine absolutely does not support it, Steam integration with achievements is mandatory now.
Comment has been collapsed.
- Can't you get achievements using certain idle software?
- Are really achievements mandatory now? wow Can you show me a source of that?
- What about engines not supporting achiements?
Comment has been collapsed.
Some dev mentioned it in some conversation. I have no idea what thread it was, if it was even here and not on Steam itself.
As I said, if the engine lets. Some do not, even today.
You can unlock achievements using SAM, yes. But it is not that difficult to check if achievements are unlocked in a randomised way for people or at really similar intervals. The system can be cheated, true, but that would need writing a dedicated script for every single game individually, and convincing people to run some unknown file on their PCs. (Granted, there are enough dumb and/or naive people on Steam to do that, considering the vast amounts of gullable idiots who lost their account on clicking random links posted by total strangers.) Or organising masses to unlock achievements at certain intervals manually, because let's face it, if people would unlock all achievements in the same second, Steam could easily detect it. Assuming they did not fire that one intern who knows how to code.
Comment has been collapsed.
it is not that difficult to check if achievements are unlocked in a randomised way for people or at really similar intervals
That would need writing a dedicated script for every single game individually.
Also if you play offline achievements are unlocked at the same time next time you open the game in online mode.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or they don't unlock at all Glares at Guacamelee Gold But yeah, if they do unlock, its a wave unlock
Comment has been collapsed.
This price is not the issue. I think a 100 bucks for indie devs is more than enough. Triple A companies should be paying more, if anyone has to. But Steam needs a proper quality control. An agent perhaps for each game released that checks whether the game can be allowed in the store or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
They are going to use curators as quality control. Working for Valve in exchange of free keys
Comment has been collapsed.
That sounds like a terrible idea...in fact that seems like what crashed greenlight.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you just need to bribe a few curators rather than a couple thousand users?
(Mind you, the whole damn curator system is a joke and about as useful as the worst troll-reviews. Actually, troll-reviews are generally better. I rather would have curators be removed ENTIRELY than giving them more power for whatever god-awful reason anyone thinks that's a good idea)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think $100 will prove to be too low to keep the asset flipping, card farming achievement sellers out.
But it's less risky to start low and then bump up the price until you get deisred result, than to start high and scare off too many legit devs I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was afraid when they mentioned 100$-5000$ spectrum. I think it's fair enough. For first time developers nothing changed, almost.
Comment has been collapsed.
And to the surprise of no one, Valve changes absolutely nothing!
How is $100 per game but direct access to the store better than $100 for account for a chance of getting to the store? We already get peeps burning $100 to upload jokes/copyright shit on greenlight, so I doubt this will change anything -.-. At least Greenlight offer a modicum (even if possibly imagined) of curation, but now with direct we are hoping that it is no longer financially feasible to sell shit games on Steam when the initial cost is $100 US? Are they not aware that games are literally being sold for pennies within the first month of launch already?
$100 may inhibit those that start from nothing, but this will not stop the ball from rolling at the current state. A $100 is nothing and once peeps figure out how to game Steam's new card system, it will get even worse. If they truly wanted to fix the system, they should at least know how it works.
W/e, at least I get pointless +1s.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well as submission process requires much more information, I doubt anyone would be so likely to burn their info on a jokes.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main difference is that it's going to be $100 per game, not per account.
And the curation of Greenlight is purely imaginary, simply because Valve did exactly jack shit to stop vote boosting groups.
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people already found out how to game the new card system... The new system actually made it easier to game it because it removed a part of the manual approval process for the cards which got placed by an algorithm that can be fooled in a rather simple manner and Steam Direct would make it even easier to release games for that purpose... I've reported it to Steam, but I doubt it's getting fixed any time soon, cuz the Valve time clock says it's coffee break time for the next year or two now that they "fixed" so much. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
$100 per game
Is it too low in your opinion?
https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1265921510652460726
Comment has been collapsed.