"If you want a game that badly, just buy it." Then what's the point of steamgifts? It's to have a chance at winning a game that you want badly. I don't think it should be having a chance to win random games that you could care less about. That sort of defeats the purpose and makes it so that the people who would really want the game (and would actually play it) have less of a chance.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you couldn't care less about the featured games then you shouldn't be entering giveaways for them. It's as simple as that. You have the same odds as everyone else who enters these giveaways. It's completely fair and equal. You can already prioritize your points by just entering games you really want.
If you prefer waiting a potential eternity for a game you're very interested in then that's your prerogative. If you want a game so badly that you have to enter a single giveaway 30-40 times to increase your chances, then just buy the darn thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Theoretically, this would be true. If you don't really want a game, you shouldn't enter in it. But obviously that's not quite the case. I'm willing to bet that there are people who win games and don't even get around to playing them, whereas others would actually play that game but didn't win. With a system like this, if you would actually play the game, you could enter 2-3 times and have a better chance than the person who enters once (and would just let the game sit there). It's still fair on a point bases, and allows people to enter games that they want to win. If someone chooses to enter 3 times on a single game because that person really wants it whereas another person chooses to enter once on each of 3 different games, that's up to them. Do I think that people could just buy games that they really want? Yes. But do I feel this system would reduce the amount of people entering games that they aren't that interested in? Yes again.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're depending on winning games you really, really, really want by entering giveaways with less than a .0025% chance of winning each one - which is the chance of winning a 400-entry giveaway that is nowhere close to the average number of entries - then yes, you may as well buy the darn game if you want it that badly.
So no, we're not entering giveaways for games we don't want, but we're certainly entering giveaways for games we can live without. It's a bonus. Nothing more.
Comment has been collapsed.
and steve's got 0 giveaways created. I love it when people who don't actively contribute to the community or don't chat with people in the steam chat want to tell ME how I should be spending my money because they want to win more games from me.
I pretty much only give away games in chat now because I know people care there.
Comment has been collapsed.
And yet you have nearly 2000 posts on the forum . . .
Comment has been collapsed.
Your 'active contribution' to the forum mostly consists of copy/pasting the same few comments over and over. Maybe we should force people to use points every time they want to post, so those with diarrhea of the keyboard can chill the hell out.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dammit.
Every idea thread is a repeat and bad at the same time, so annoying.
-Hillary
Comment has been collapsed.
Good Boy ! Now Lie Down , Roll over and Play Dead !
Comment has been collapsed.
Its fine how it is, everyone has a fair EQUAL chance of winning it, if you are to add a monopoly to giveaways, then welp whoever saves up the most points pretty much wins the giveaway or has odds that are a lot better (Reminds me of that coal trader who had the most coal but got 3rd prize with 49 others). Either buy it or try your luck on another giveaway of the same game.
Comment has been collapsed.
But if you saved up your points, you weren't entering other giveaways so if you enter once on as many giveaways as you can, you (theoretically) are no worse off. You might even be better off, if you use your points to enter group or puzzle giveaways with (relatively) high chances.
Comment has been collapsed.
You might be better off, but everyone else has just had a lesser unfair chance of entering something they also wanted.
Edit: It also benefits inactive people who visit every week or so, 30 entries into a 10 point game gives some pretty decent odds at 100 entries
Comment has been collapsed.
I think you guys miss the general point here, lots of us sit at 300P most of the time becouse there is not something we are really interested in. This is not a "grab all what you want" fest, here people are sharing, no one here is rich so stop thinking about ways to win easier or get moar free games, its not the idea here.
At least that how i think.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Its fine how it is, everyone has a fair EQUAL chance of winning it"
YES! The EQUAL chance of wining has a person who don't give a shit about game, but he/she has free points to use! "Why not?! A free game" - he/she thinks! The equal chance as a huge fan of the game, who can't afford it.
That's... STUPID. If we had f.e. 3-5 chances to enter, it would be much better.
Comment has been collapsed.
The way the system is now, it encourages people to enter for games they don't even want. If you are sitting at 300p, and no games particularly interest you, it's technically in your best interest to just enter whatever you see so that you don't 'waste' your points.
I don't do this, I actually sit at the cap a lot, but I'm just saying in general this is the kind of behaviour encouraged by the current system. Which is why we have so many people who win a game and then trade it away, or never play it at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
^ This. There's always going to be those people who will spend their points even on games that they aren't really interested in for a chance of winning, whereas others who are genuinely interested in the game have the same chance. By incorporating this idea, people who are genuinely interested in the game can put in more points worth, and people who don't really care can go on putting equal points into every game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see how people think this is a bad idea, if you want a game and you have a lot of points, but there is only one giveaway for it you dotn wanna hit the point cap so you spread your points on lame games, this would help you enter how you would like.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, what? How would it eliminate them? If anything, it would just give them more of a chance to do this.
Comment has been collapsed.
You keep saying this, but it is irrelevant. Just because he or she may not have the means or been here long enough to feel like giving something away, does not make their ideas automatically invalid. Please provide some actual criticism if you disagree with the proposed idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
If this would apply, then the randomness would probably favour those who spend more points, if that's the case, what's the point of having a random draw when someone can spend 300 points on it?
Comment has been collapsed.
Everyone gains points at the same rate. If everyone wanted that game the most, then everyone could have an equal chance at it. Also just because someone buys more entries, that doesn't necessarily mean they will still win, this is what the point of random draws is.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right about that, i forgot the fact that everyone gains points at the same rate. I imagine that, with a nicely implemented system (which would involve a tiny modification to the random number/name system) it could work.
The problem still lies in the fact that, while it is still random, some people will get a higher chance of winning than others, and in a way, it kinda goes the other way of what this site is: complete randomness.
I like your explanation about the system implementation and respect it, but i cannot approve it myself for that reason (it's in a big way what makes this different from lets say PlayBlink, another great site).
Comment has been collapsed.
In giveaways where there is more than one copy, the obvious solution is that once you win a copy the rest of your entries do not count.
Both ways are equally fair, it's just about the kind of behaviour each system encourages. One encourages people to enter for many different games (even if they don't want them), the other encourages people to enter towards only what they truly want.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally, I think it's a good idea. The only problem is that people will build up a TON of points and enter to win a 60p game 50 times, making their chances skyrocket. Otherwise, I have never seen this before and it is a good idea in my mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not a problem though, that's actually the point. To forgo entering games that you don't care about, so you can enter more times on something you do care about.
Plus everyone has equal means to enter giveaways, so anyone who wants to enter 5 times would be able to.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Thank you! You obviously understand how this would work out a LOT better than me.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's retarded actually... be lucky you're in this community that gives games for free.This is FUN because you never know if you're gonna win or not , if we could just spam our chances here it would be retarded...
If you really want games ... go work somewhere , earn money and buy it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Funny thing is, to enter multiple times on a Playblink giveaway you actually have to contribute money. If you have money to burn on a giveaway website, just use it to buy games instead.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is definitely a great idea. I don't get either why people are arguing against it. It's basically maintaining the fairness of the giveaways YET allowing one to enter in only the giveaways that he/she actually wants to win in. Which makes sense, seeing how many people enter in giveaways just for the sake of spending points without really wanting the game, making it unfair for the people who really do want the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you dont like the suggestion, explain why.
I actually like it. I enter only games that i really want to play.
For example i enter all magicka giveaways right now, because i really want this game, it will be nice if i could burn all my points on
some game that i really want.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it's not fair or random anymore. Let's say I want to enter a 10-points giveaway 30 times to spend all my points on it. The person who only have 15-points in her account can only enter once. Thus it's no longer fair to that person. Right now, everyone has equal chances of winning. The points system is in place so people enter only in giveaways that interests them instead of spamming all giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
But person who got only 15 points, spent all his/her points on other games. And he got chance to win there.
So if i enter 5 times on 1 giveaway and other person only once i got X5 more chance of winning . But other person enters 4 more other games and therefore chances are equal.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only reason the person with 15 points can only enter once is because they already spent their points elsewhere, presumably also on a game they wanted. It's still fair to everyone, because everyone gains points at the same rate, and has the same maximum.
If the person with 15 points truly wanted that game, they could take entries out from other giveaways to get more chances, or they could just manage their points better in the future. The people who say this change affects fairness are making a nonargument. It both doesn't affect fairness, and the current system isn't exactly 100% equal chances for all as is.
Comment has been collapsed.
In a real life lottery, you can buy more tickets if you have the money and are willing to spend it. Isn't this idea suggesting the same thing? We already do this in real life, so why would it be so much worse here than there? It may not get implemented, but I don't think it's necessarily as horrible as some people seem to.
Comment has been collapsed.
In a real life lottery, people don't trade away their wins and the prize doesn't go to people who never bought a ticket.
Comment has been collapsed.
What's wrong with you?You don't like this thread or something?I don't get it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wrong. It should go "What's wrong with you? Do you hate this thread or something? I don't get it.".
Comment has been collapsed.
If you don't like the idea then why are you going around critisizing everyone who does like it? Also, why are you even HERE??
Comment has been collapsed.
57 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by LordHamm
26 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Douchelord
83 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by doomand
67 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by lostsoul67
63 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by Moogal
1,235 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ceeexo
66 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by stlpaul
133 Comments - Last post 35 minutes ago by Mitsukuni
58 Comments - Last post 43 minutes ago by Noxco
16,297 Comments - Last post 45 minutes ago by SquishedPotatoe
15 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ceeexo
167 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Mitsukuni
107 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by ceeexo
211 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Yamaraus
I apologize in advance if this has been suggested before, I couldn't find anything via search.
This idea should give everyone a better chance to win the gifts they really want.
Instead of having to spread our points across multiple gifts, let us enter a gift more than once. The hope is that this should let a user prioritise their points over gifts they want WHILE not entering other gifts simply because they have unused points. You will also not have to share the chance with others who aren't that interested in the gift (because they'll be concentrating their points on the gifts they want). You are spending points on a better chance to win while giving up some chance to win some other gift.
I'm not sure on what the best way to calculate the point cost would be. I would just deduct the same cost per entry, perhaps also a cost for entering more than once. Example: entering a 50P game 3 times = (50P*3) + 10P extra = 160P. Then again, I am not entirely sure about the extra cost bit, it might hurt a user's chances of winning anything in the long run as they'll lose points faster. Maybe someone who's good in statistics/math can play with the numbers?
-Steve
Comment has been collapsed.