That isn't the point. The point is to encourage giveaways and to allow a slightly more exclusive public giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yup, my main point is that there is incentive to add games if people who do and people who don't are on the same level.
Comment has been collapsed.
An example to how many less people would be entitled to enter. Go to a giveaway's entries and middle mouse click above 15 entries. By doing this you'll see, maybe only 2 out of 15 have given something away.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if we want to give our gift to everyone who has given something away. Your not seeing the POINT. It wouldn't be public, it'd be something more exclusive to toss leechers under a bus.
Comment has been collapsed.
Private doesn't let me distribute the link to all contributors, that's what I'm asking for.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is pretty much like the SGS giveaways. There, you had to post 10 comments every month or week to be titled Contributor. I like this idea, tho, people would give away a 1$ DLC and get an entry. So, it should be refined, say, 20$ worth of giveaways, or 30, or 50.
Comment has been collapsed.
These are called private and/or group giveaways. Contributors can easily make giveaways private or group only, and yet most of them don't. You want special treatment for people who have given away something before? Let me just list some Indie bundles or DLC I got for free, then.
Seriously, don't lobby for discrimination here just because you've won four public giveaways and didn't win a fifth.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think its discrimination when people like Raiden should be able to win some games over freeloaders like you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd say even if you gave something for free, it'd be great. I shouldn't have to explain why.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about people like me who can't give back due to anything from expenses to being underage, and DO want to give back but can't?
Maybe this should happen, but instead of giveaways only for contributors, maybe contributors get a higher chance in these types of giveaways, something like a bonus. Small chance varying based on how much you gave away, perhaps. But only in the giveaways where a 'Contributor Bonus' button was selected. Sounds good to me at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
Come on bro, you have Skyrim, Dead Island and other games. Surely you could buy a game on sale to give it away.
Comment has been collapsed.
I got Skyrim from my bro and Dead Island from (unfortunately) fkn0wned. (Not from buying the game, it was some free giveaway thing on 4chan right before the big Steam crash spam crap happened) No, I can't buy a game for you guys because I'm underage. I was planning on giving away a Humble Introversion until I found out that you couldn't give away the already-emailed links if it counts for anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not trying to remove public giveaways, just trying to make it possible for contributors to choose whether they want a public giveaway or a contributor giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah. There are already invite-only groups that are just for people who have given things away. You can pick one of these, or you can do what many do and give private links through the forum or the chat, so you exclude people who take no interest in the community. If CG implements this suggestion, we'll soon have people complaining that they entered such a giveaway and lost to someone who has only given away a Humble Bundle! Or they gave away Alpha Protocol when it was on sale last week when it was so cheap, he hasn't -really- given anything back! I understand your frustration, but a random system means yes, sometimes someone you perceive as less worthy than you will win.
Comment has been collapsed.
Giving away even a $1 game makes you a contributor. I wouldn't mind losing a giveaway to some who paid $0.01 for a humble bundle because my chance are greatly improved by the exclusion of leeches.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude, 'the hell is this attitude?
This site MEANT to giveaway to people who can't afford games. Why should you give a game to someone, If that someone can afford games and even GIVING AWAY games to completely strangers?
Maybe you're half right, there is people who can afford but still pirate and entering giveaways, however it's not right to call everybody a "freeloader"
Comment has been collapsed.
About 60,000 members and 20k gifts.
So that's 3:1
But A LOT of people gift more then once.
So I think it's something like 10:1 for "Gifters:Freeloaders"
EDIT: Also I agree. Would be nice to see it, encourage people to gift more.
Comment has been collapsed.
210 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by Wok
1,031 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by MrTommy
22 Comments - Last post 56 minutes ago by steva
71 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Gamy7
16,552 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Carenard
17 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by spodamayn
910 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by InSpec
4 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by JerichoOfRivia
29,183 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by TosterX
10,939 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by JMM72
46 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by shortyginger
39 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by hallak65
976 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by Chris76de
212 Comments - Last post 54 minutes ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
I think we should implement contributor giveaways, similar to group or private giveaways but for users that have given games away.
The amount of "freeloaders" greatly outnumbers the amount of contributors. It's kind of annoying to lose a giveaway to someone who won't ever give back to the site.
EDIT: http://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/iM6wI/magicka
Comment has been collapsed.