Should we treat massively discounted expensive software as a free game?
+1 I personally don't care if someone gets some CV for free. I give because I love to give. I pity those that can't just enjoy the act...
Comment has been collapsed.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhh
he makes sense!
listen to the screams
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 - Anyway, the person paid for the item, so they should be allowed to get the CV out of it, no matter how discounted it was. I'm not aware of any other heavily discounted games/software that have been treated as free, so I don't see how it'd be fair for it to be done to this one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anything can be exploited really..
Just look at when bundles get happy hour... If you are in a group buys group then you can buy a bundle for $1 give or take and a lot of the time you can easily get $12-15 for it... Buy 5 copies and you are farming like a mad man/woman :3
Comment has been collapsed.
farming like a mad man/woman
farming what?! chickens?!
Comment has been collapsed.
It's still a bundled game, no matter its discount. Why treat a bundled game as a free game? People are afraid that other steamgifts users will get to a higher level than them? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
$15 CV is meaningless to me, and i do appreciate the extra P
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, this bundle is a massive CV farm, T1 gives $17 CV for $1.
No, it's not much of an exploit, its return of investment is pretty similar to Indie Gala Happy Hours.
Comment has been collapsed.
And still only about 65% of what the last Gamemaker bundle gave in CV, at that.
And, at 94% discount, it's still comparable to what you can get if you catch a good deal on a USD-restricted currency site.
There's arguments to be made about sales that go far beyond the mold, or about adjusting how certain things are handled, but this bundle isn't really a valid instigator for movements in that direction.
Comment has been collapsed.
1 dollar is also money. Almost all SG is just about buying convenient bundles and make GAs from it. I really don't think people making GAs from convenient bundles should be somehow penalized. Much worse is that most people here are just leechers who have spent exactly 0 dollars for GAs as you can see in the enclosed graph.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, you know, this site isn't only about giveaways. :P A lot of people have come here in order to trade. Myself included, although I ended up entering giveaways too. Anyway, that's why you see so many level 0 users.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good point, but I believe that most of people who entry GAs are lvl 0 anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
True, but many of them enter ga's but do't give a single game.
Comment has been collapsed.
steam (DRM client) gifts (a thing given willingly to someone without payment; a present.)
The name to me would indicate this site is all about giveaways and trading is a secondary thought for additional web traffic (and limited to the forum only). It is not as if this site has coded processes like barter.vg does (which is obviously for trading).
Is there trade forums and feedback? Yes - do I believe that people ONLY come here to trade - absolutely not. If trading was the premise I would expect the URL to be steamtrading not gifts.
That is besides the point though. Maybe there should be a level below 0 - that would be for traders only - and it would prevent people from being allowed to enter GAs. You know, the whole 'you reap what you sow' type of concept - if you refuse to purchase a $1 humble bundle base tier and give away 1 of the 3-4 titles you received for $1 while entering 25+ GA's a day - then let's just be honest and be allowed to say that 'you're' just a piece of shit.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're mistaken. A lot of people come here only for the trading. That was my original intention too. Steamgifts and steamtrades may have got combined in one site, but still, steamtrades is an important part of the site. Without steamtrades, a lot of steamgifts users would just disappear from the site. Don't believe me? Go search the trades section and check that a lot of traders have never won a giveaway. Don't underestimate how important trading is for this site. Steamgifts feedback has become a really important thing for traders and usually clarifies who will go first in a trade.
Now, about level 0 users, there are people who don't have money or they can't find a way to acquire e-money like paypal or steam wallet card (including me, no matter how weird that seems if you decide to check my steam profile) or that they just wait till their first win in order to give away something. You can't just say that someone is a piece of shit just because he hasn't given away something YET! That sounds bigoted. You don't even know him in real life. Don't rush to judge someone.
Anyway, a lot of level 0 users are either inactive or traders, so the real number of level 0 users that enter giveaways is smaller than the one you see in the stats.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 ppl seem to forget there is a totally separate domain linked to this website too, nowadays it redirects to steamgifts.com/trades, but steamtrades.com itself used to remain its own domain that shared the same account with steamgifts.com.
Comment has been collapsed.
True. This site is famous for both its trades and its giveaways. A lot of traders have joined this site just for the trades and a lot of people have joined this site for the giveaways. Some people have joined this site for both.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shamrock, I like you, you're on my whitelist - have been for a long time. That said I completely disagree with you.
When a member has been level 0 for 4 years and continues to enter GA's then that user is clearly a piece of shit - in my mind.
When a member has 300+ rep for trades is still level 0 and continues to enter GA's, then that user is clearly a piece of shit - in my mind.
But let us be clear about something - the inability to afford $1 USD to provide even the most meager of a GA is an invalid argument to me. It may be valid to you, or to others, but it is not valid to me.
If the premise that 'I should win' before I create a GA - then there would never have been a GA for anyone 'to win' in the first place - so how is that remotely a valid argument?
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't say that someone is a piece of shit without even knowing him. He may be awesome in his real life. Hell, he may be a shit in his real life too, but eventually do something good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeVLxcekEsw
Also, as I said, not everyone has the means to get e-money or maybe he doesn't even have money at all. But let's say he has real money. Some countries don't even have steam cards, you know. Or maybe his parents don't want to give him money.
But I can see that know you have become more specific. Before, you were talking about level 0 users in general, but know you're talking about level 0 users that enter giveaways all the time and have a lot of trade feedback. That's different. But still, why judge them? Maybe they'll eventually give away something. Or maybe, they give a lot of money to charity when buying humble bundles. Or maybe they give games for free to their friends. You see, don't be prejudiced against them if you don't even know them. :/
I said that some people may be like "I will give away something when I get my first win", not everyone. I have a friend who kept saying that anyway.
And in the end, you may find some really polite level 0 users that are really awesome in their real life, but also find some level 10 users that are completely impolite and bullies and completely shitty in their real life. So, you can't judge someone positively just because he has money to give away games, just like you can't judge someone negatively just because he can't acquire money to give away games.
Comment has been collapsed.
In my mind, a piece of shit is someone who believes giving away automatically makes them a better person than someone who does not
Comment has been collapsed.
its not about being a 'better person'. It is about being a member of the community (that this site is about - IE GIVING STEAM GIFTS) that adds value. Someone who does not create giveaways does not create any community value.
Comment has been collapsed.
Someone who does not create giveaways does not create any community value.
trading with other users holds no community value? all traders who do not gift something and still enter into GA's should be banned for not giving? even if they never won something too, or are we going to at least add the addendum that they had to of won something first? or if we go that far should we make it a ratio based and they must give 2games per every win? where does the line get drawn?
Comment has been collapsed.
I am not on a crusade to change any SG rules - I am simply suggesting that a member of this community who does not provide value to this community should rightfully be considered a piece of shit in this community.
Comment has been collapsed.
but that is my point, they are here providing a service to this community, its just not the service that gives you an option at winning something therefore you don't like the service they provide. you are in fact calling a contributing member of this website a piece of shit for not contributing in a way you perfer.
Comment has been collapsed.
what service are these level 0 members who enter and win GA's providing to the community exactly?
Comment has been collapsed.
i dont know how to better say it, see photo i suppose?
Comment has been collapsed.
oh, so you are suggesting that level 0 members who enter and win GA's provide a trading service to the community?
and what is your contention for the rest of the level 0 members who enter and win GA's who do not engage in trading? What value/service are they providing?
At what point are you willing to concede that there are piece of shit leechers here? Or will that admittance never reveal itself?
Comment has been collapsed.
some sure, why not? you completely disregarded all i was just stating some do provide a service, just not the one you preferred.
for the rest, they're flat out leeches, no denying or defending that.. but i don't feel just because someone is poor and cannot afford to give, that they should instantly be banned from the community as long as they are not breaking any rules, nor be labeled pieces of shit just because they don't give.
i concede that there are piece of shit people and simultaneously there are leechers, therefore some piece of shit leechers are here. but never that all leechers are instantaneously pieces of shit. the two do not have to me mutually exclusive.
Comment has been collapsed.
so on to semantics then? As the originator of the insult - I am the party afforded the right to define it - as such piece of shit leecher is the same thing as mother fucking leecher or dick smoking leecher or whatever preemptive negativity term added to leecher. The term has no bearing outside of this community ie - we are not covering every facet of the individuals life.
On to the next thing - being 'poor' and being able to afford 1 PENNY or $.01 games on indiegala are two entirely different scenarios that are not mutually exclusive. My premise is, if you walk down the street you can look down, pick up a penny and afford to provide a GA within the 4 years of your membership. Are you unable to find some middle ground on this topic? Truly unable to agree with that statement? Truly believe that people who can afford an internet connection and a computer cannot afford 1 SINGLE PENNY? Is that really the argument you want to defend?
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you unable to find some middle ground on this topic?
i really kinda thought we alrdy were just about there tbh ^^ i agree there is pos leeching ppl, but we do differ on all of them being that. some of them do spend that penny or a few dollars and choose to trade their spares for something they would perfer, all along the while still entering into GAs to see if they can win, and sure occasionally winning and still not giving to the community, but that doesn't mean they never will either. so i don't consider them pos's till they start bragging about winning and not giving, or flat out stating they would never give anything and still plan to enter into stuff, sure that would make them a pos instantly too.
Is that really the argument you want to defend?
no actually ;) lol its not worth defending at all. why have i? idk. just i suppose to show you not literally all are pos, just a great deal of them probably. =)
Comment has been collapsed.
I did enjoy the conversation I must say. Not all are pos leechers but that is the thing about stereotypes - it applies to the majority and it is unfair to the minority but they exist for a reason. It could be said that there are leechers at every level but the difference between a level 1 leecher and a level 0 leecher is quite clear - at least one of them provided a GA to the community that provides them with wins.
Comment has been collapsed.
i think thats my and most ppls problem with it.. if it were just "almost all" or "majority of" then it wouldn't of been so bad, but instead they lumped everyone together which was just a bit too far =)
Comment has been collapsed.
I am great at compliments, what can I say?
You are absolutely welcome!
Strange to see so many level 5+ people defend the level 0 leechers while not a single level 0 leecher defends him/herself. They are probably just too busy adding value to the community to stop in and defend themselves ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Level 0 leechers generally barely demonstrate an ability or willingness to read. Certainly they wouldn't waste their reading on a thread with no giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
don't do it! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Now you too are fair game for the leech support squad... get to 'da choppa!
Comment has been collapsed.
They're not really leech support.
They just think you think that all level 0 people are shit, or in the case of someone like theLuckyShamrock think that you shouldn't judge someone for being a leech because IRL they could be an awesome person. And so on...
Personally I'm unpersuaded. All things being equal giving > not giving. There are people on this site whom--agnostic of their personal circumstances, or even their motivations (or even their ratio of public giveaways to insular group circle-jerk giveaways)--are "better" than me.
There is no injury to my psyche upon acknowledgment of that fact. I am comfortable with my contribution here.
Similarly there is (usually) no injury to the psyche of someone whom wins 60 giveaways without ever giving a thing away. They are (usually) comfortable with their lack of contribution here (so long as no one calls them out), especially since so many are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, even 4 years, 61 wins, and 1643 Steam games later.
(Yes, I am talking about a specific user whom I will not name, most especially because we got into it a little bit and he had the nerve to say, "Besides, who knows I might (or not) start cleaning my own bundle keys leftovers as well as promote various channels etc and quickly turn the ratio of my games I have received and sent." Like I'm a fool. That was four months, 15 wins, and the same 0 giveaways ago.)
Personally I have no problem with people allowing a person like that to win games. I'm just very inclined to blacklist someone like that if I come across them, and have no qualms with--within the context of SG's purpose and community--considering them to be a piece of cow flop.
Comment has been collapsed.
it really must go without saying that one cannot possibly believe that all level 0 people are shit - just like not all gamers are guys or all guys are messy. To believe a mass stereotype can be equally applied to everyone is just ridiculous.
Could I have provided more specific frames of reference or been more articulate instead of saying 'piece of shit', you will get no argument from me on that. But at the end of the day, I am absolutely comfortable with saying what I want to say and being blacklisted and/or suspended and/or banned because of it.
What gets me, more than anything, is the guys who rush to defend the level 0's... you know what i'm talking about - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7vQSPBtwyc
Comment has been collapsed.
You went straight grimy with that link.
I approve of the characterization--not necessarily because I think it's accurate--but because maybe it will entice you to call people out as "Captain Save-A-Zero".
Please put the 'lo' in dLo.
Comment has been collapsed.
Someone who does not create giveaways does not create any community value
So ? How does that automatically make them a piece of shit ?
And the community isn't just limited to giveaways. If a trader can help me and other people to get some games, he's valuable. If someone creates scripts or tools that are helpful to the community, he's valuable as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
And how many of these level 0 people create scripts or tools for the community? I would suggest that any answer other than ZERO is incorrect.
Comment has been collapsed.
My contention is quite simple - any member of this community that does not provide value to this community YET participates in and consumes the value of this community should be removed from this community.
Agree or Don't. The premise is quite simple - I encourage you to stop cherry picking and start discussing the REAL issue.
Comment has been collapsed.
any member of this community that does not provide value to this community YET participates in and consumes the value of this community should be removed from this community.
wow, ok, nazi alert
start discussing the REAL issue
I don't see any issue
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh nazi alert? How delightfully original considering Jewish people provided immense value to the German community for hundreds of years before the Nazi party came to power.
Please spare us all from any further ignorant Nazi comments.
Just because you refuse to agree with the fact that the issue exists does not dismiss the issue's existence.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's no issue. You're shaking your fist because people aren't using the website in the way you want them too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, because I am sure the majority of this community do not have any issue with extreme leechers... no problem to see here.
Comment has been collapsed.
any member of this community that does not provide value to this community YET participates in and consumes the value of this community should be removed from this community.
I'm glad you don't get to make the rules around here. What a horribly exclusionist, obnoxious attitude.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is absolutely nothing obnoxious about it. And someone who suggests it is an exclusionist attitude yet gates the bulk of their GA's behind SG level requirements your history supports that attitude.
Comment has been collapsed.
Making GAs for different levels ≠ wishing for members to be removed from SG.
Comment has been collapsed.
Making GA's behind a level or WL or invite only gate is the exact definition of exclusion. The ideas are the same, the execution is different.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your logic is flawed. You want members that do not fit your criteria to be "removed from this community". Setting entry requirements for GAs is narrowing down the number of possible entrants for those GAs according to variable criteria. It does not automatically imply a desire for non-entrants to be "removed from the community". Sometimes I do not want everyone on this site to be able to enter a certain GA. That does not mean I want them banned from this site. You assume intent that is completely different to your own.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe you don't quite understand what I was suggesting.
When I suggest we should exclude individuals from GA's by removing them from the community and you suggest you should exclude individuals from your GA's by gating them behind WL / levels / etc - that is the exact same idea of exclusion. The execution of the idea is the difference - your execution is to add the gate, mine is to remove them from the pool entirely.
There is no flawed logic and what I stated previous is correct - same idea, different execution. It is neither a compliment nor an insult - merely a statement of fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
It is not the exact same idea of exclusion. Limiting entrants for a GA is just that - you make a GA where a certain subset of the pool can enter and the rest can not. Those unable to enter are still free to engage in the community in any other way, they can enter any other GA's that they meet the requirements for, read and post in the forums, make and solve puzzles, trade, etc. They are not somehow excluded from participating in the community because of their inability to enter these GA's.
What you are suggesting, on the other hand, is for people you deem undesirable to have their membership terminated and for them to barred from all other community activity, including entering GA's.
Comment has been collapsed.
same idea, different execution.
We agree that seclusion is good (yes for some reason you insulted me for it remember - "What a horribly exclusionist, obnoxious attitude.") but we disagree in the execution of that seclusion.
same idea, different execution.
Comment has been collapsed.
same idea, different execution.
No. Your idea is one of absolutes. You want people you don't like to be excluded, absolutely, from everything, everywhere.
My idea is one of different criteria and possibilities for different occasions. I like having options. Does that mean people are excluded sometimes from certain things? Yes. Do I want these people actually removed from the population? Hell no.
We agree that seclusion is good
I recognise that seclusion is an unavoidable consequence of flexible requirements. I do not think that it is "good" in and of itself, nor that it should be a goal, or a primary means. You, however, are embracing and advocating for complete and utter seclusion of people who do not meet your ideal. That is something else entirely.
for some reason you insulted me
Correction. I insulted your attitude. Because it is insulting.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sensing that you truly just do not understand so there is just no point on continuing with you.
There is nothing insulting about exclusion. There is nothing insulting about someone having an opinion that differs from your own.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sensing that you truly just do not understand so there is just no point on continuing with you.
Funny. I thought the same of you a few posts back. God knows why I actually bothered.
Also, for the record, I'm not insulted by the mere fact that your opinion is different to mine. It's the content of that opinion that I find objectionable.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I really couldn't give two fucks if you find the content of my opinion objectionable - while practicing that opinion and having the inability to even understand that.
Comment has been collapsed.
God knows why I actually bothered.
Since you seem to be well capable of keeping a clear head in these discussions, while providing sound explanations to your views, you might have done it, so others, who don't have the same capabalities, can at least read something sane within this toxic thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think dLo's point is that the overwhelming majority of level 0 users do not in any way make the community better in any substantive fashion. Their interests here are wholly selfish. Not selfish in that it can be argued that a generous or selfless person derives utility from selfless acts and thus true selflessness doesn't exist... more like, while there are selfish users and jerks represented in every aspect of the site--or any community of humans for that matter, regardless of how it is stratified--the fact that one has never created a giveaway in months or years as a member but has enjoyed receiving games from other is for some individuals a pretty damning indictment of selfishness and non-contributory irrelevance.
It is not that all level 0 users are selfish non-contributors, or that all users who give away games are great, unselfish people. It's that with the limited information that one may be able to digest initially--say, the information on an SG profile--all things being equal the crappiness of a user, for some, is proportional to their unwillingness to give away a game as cake day after cake day passes and as Cat Sagan after Cat Sagan graces their browser window.
Comment has been collapsed.
(link removed)
Piece of shit - or legit Trader / GA enterer? You decide.
I could post these examples all day. When do you decide that someone who had their last GA 4 years ago, yet continues to be an active trader on the forums AND enters AND wins other GA's? When is it acceptable for us to call someone a piece of shit?
I am not into politically correct bullshit - I call a spade a spade, and the individual I posted is.... total piece of shit. Whether you agree or don't does not make my assessment 'bigoted' - it makes it my perception of factual events and ability to be honest with what is actually present to me. If you would suggest that the individual posted is a legit trader / Ga enterer - then I would suggest that you are delusional and your perception is warped.
Comment has been collapsed.
Please remove the link. That's called calling out. :/ I told you above that you can judge someone when you eventually get to know him, not before.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good call, I removed the link.
But past that - I can and will judge someone on their merits as a member of this community so long as they are a member of this community period. I don't need to know them their entire life from birth to death to determine what their merits here in this community are. I can see what their merits are here - and if they are found lacking - then the label of piece of shit is justly applied.
Comment has been collapsed.
then the label of piece of shit is justly applied.
in your opinion.
in mine they are more of a digital leech, but i wouldn't personally go as far as calling the pieces of shit. sometimes even shit can be more appealing. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Hopefully you read my huge comment above. If you did, then you should understand that calling someone a piece of shit, is a really bad general term. You can call him a leecher - that would be fair, although it would be for the best if you wouldn't call him anything. You don't want him to win your giveaways? Fair enough, then blackllist him, if you're into blacklisting people for their ratio. But honest, it would give me more happiness if a poor level 0 user would win my game and play it rather than a level 10 user that is rich and would just farm my game (it's an example - I'm not saying that all level 0 users are poor or that all level 10 users are farmers, I hope it was clear enough already).
Comment has been collapsed.
Most native english speakers are able to distinguish labels by the frame of those labels. In this case 'piece of shit' is distinguishable as 'piece of shit leecher' - no one is suggesting that they are a 'piece of shit' in all facets of their life because they do not provide any value to this community.
Comment has been collapsed.
Native english speakers are a minority on this site. For majority piece of shit is piece of shit.
Calling names in place of critique only creates toxic enviroment. This is what I'd call "creating negative value". What label that leaves for you? And what should be done with you, if no value equals ban...
Comment has been collapsed.
Then you would simply have to determine my total community value and if that value was below 0 - then I would be suspended and/or banned. That total value could be determined based on (any combination of the following): completed GA's, failed GA's, positive forum posts, negative forum posts, utility/tools provided to community, etc.
If my value was below 0 - then action should be taken.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're not going to get people to agree with or acknowledge the validity of your perspective by being haughty, dLo.
Trust me. I haught the shit out of this mother in here, bro.
Comment has been collapsed.
With the other games, you get $17.25 of CV for $1. So it's a bit less than 95% off. It's not much different than giving a game that's around 93% off, so there's no reason to treat it differently.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah someone already did the math. Spares me the effort to disprove the argument "far greater than the 95% discount".
Comment has been collapsed.
Support will be happy to get even more angry tickets, now asking why they just changed the rules for cv.
They'll surely appreciate to explain that.
There are so many ways to "exploit" the cv levels if you want to. You could just buy all your gifts regionlocked to RU on g2a and you'll end up at level 10 with probably less than 1000$ spent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Very few people give away anything at full price on this site. You draw a line in the sand with certain "farm-able" games/software, and someone else will come along and want to move that line even further. $15 might seem like a lot of CV, but once you get up in levels, it's a drop in the bucket.
Beside that, I'm sure there are at least a few people out there happy to have a chance at that software. :X
Comment has been collapsed.
$15 might seem like a lot of CV, but once you get up in levels, it's a drop in the bucket.
ha, exactly. I loose that amount due to pricedrops, like nearly weekly xD
Comment has been collapsed.
I've almost caught you, SillyScream! (I'm at 7.41) ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, most people don't even buy games for themselves at full price. xP
Comment has been collapsed.
everything's been basically said already, but just to note: that cv amount may look big, but only for high price regions, big parts of low price (restricted) regions get many such deals quite often
Comment has been collapsed.
If we attach an arbitrary start point to the value where we stop honoring bundled games as bundled and start treating them like freeware, where do we set that point and what exists to stop it from changing? It could start at $100 so CTF is no longer honored as bundled, but it eventually could be decreased until until no game over $5 qualifies. Why would they do something like this? No idea. Maybe all Level 10's become mods and they don't want anybody else entering level 10 giveaways, so they want to make it harder to become level 10. It's a stupid idea for an example, I know, but giving the Kardashians a TV show was a stupid idea and yet it's been on for multiple seasons.
Anyway, do what I've been doing: take advantage of your points refilling so quickly and just enter all your wishlisted giveaways and any recommended giveaways you want. Use this problem to your benefit, and you might realize it's not actually a problem at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I get what you're saying, but I was more impressed with the way you went from talking about bundled games right into the Kardashians. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
I was going to compare the idiocy of just going along with a bad idea to Nazi Germany but that got too dark too fast.
Comment has been collapsed.
I gave a key away not to exploit the CV, I didn't even realise that it was $100 ($15 bundled), but rather because I won't use it, nor did it have any trading cards. I don't see too much issue with it, the rules are there, the bundle is there, people create a GA. It wasn't free so, I think it's fine. We can't keep changing the rules every time something new comes up, otherwise we'll be changing on a weekly basis. There are much more complicated exploitation to worry about, like regions...although I technically don't have an issue with it either, but it can be exploited a lot easier than these bundles.
BTW, the points generation has been great this past week, so use that to enter GAs you want...I entered all on my wishlist, so that's a really nice benefit.
Comment has been collapsed.
So will most of the giveaways. A very large number of giveaways are given away by people that want to gain CV. Actually, that is probably the main reason for over 95% of the giveaways on this site. Take away the CV system and all those giveaways will be gone. There will no longer be an incentive to give so there will be very few giveaways and they will probably all have over 10,000 entries.
I am happy there is a CV system and I am happy lots of people give away lots of bundle games for the purpose of gaining CV. It is what drives this site.
Comment has been collapsed.
i disagree. although it has some "rewards" for the more generous users.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes! Let's go on a crusade. This has been going on for too long. All these stupid people spending real money on bundles to give away to total strangers and getting away with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't do much about it because there are a lot of sales that some people may consider abusing the CV system and everyone will start crying over different bundles, like spending a few dollars and getting 20 hidden object games and then buying 5 of those bundles on happy hour at an even bigger discount. Nobody will be able to know before they buy the bundle if someone is going to create a big deal about it after they buy it and then end up getting no credit for it. This will create many more problems and people will stop giving away games when they feel cheated.
There was another game maker bundle recently that had a $150 steam key in the $1 tier. Are we going to go back and take the credit away from all those people now as well?
What about Humble monthly? Those games give you full non bundle value which is a lot higher than most other bundles. For $12 you get between $110 and $150 in full non bundled value. Most bundles give you 3 to 6 times the money you spend in CV, Humble monthly gives you 9 to 12 times what you spend.
Comment has been collapsed.
Possibly. But then the group giveaway CV should also be restricted. Being in a Steam GA group shouldn't be worth 'free' levelups when using SG as a conduct.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually it's not that big discount. it's 17.09$ CV for 1$. It's just 94.1% discount. SO it's less than sale discount for game to become bundled ;)
To put it into perspective - if there was a game that costed 17.09$ on steam Store and it went on sale right now costing 1$ it wouldn't get into bundle list and would be giving full CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
You got that a bit wrong. You are doing your 95% off calculation on the already bundled value. You need to calculate from the full retail value.
Edit: Nevermind, I am wrong, I didn't understand what you were saying.
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, I got people may misunderstand it that's why I added 2nd paragraph ;) game costing as much as this 100$ software and all additional games gives to your CV right now costing same 1$ would still give the same value, so I don't think it's anything too hardcore ;)
Heck - 99% price error titles goit not removed from GA list so I see no reason why this should.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, why? Regular bundle so regular 15% of value...
Its GIVEAWAY and guys bought that game (sw/bundle) and yes its big "base price" but its regual bundle, no reason to disable value. Why so much care about CV, let it on classic basis. Not needed any talking about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope. As mentioned by others, very few people actually pay full price for anything they give on here. Bundled games have rules already, so why give 0 CV for something that has been paid for, given that at this moment it has not been given away in mass? HB doesn't allow people to buy more than a few bundles per payment option anyway and CV received drops after giving away 5 copies, so no need to worry about someone getting too much CV for oh-so-much-less.
And if you think I'm defending it because I did the same, nope, although I would've given it away if I had wanted more of the games in the bundle, since it doesn't interest me.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole point of having the bundle list is to prevent people from exploiting cheap sales to gain CV. If a game makes the bundle list, either by being on a bundle, or by being very heavily discounted, it's added to the bundle list. But when software like clickteam that costs $100 is one of six games on a $1 bundle, it's still worth $15 CV. That's a huge boost, far greater than the 95% discount that qualifies a game for the bundle list.
Hence, we've been flooded with Clickteam giveaways. I severely doubt that that many people actually want the software, and it's wreaking havoc on the points system.
Should such blatant CV farming exploits be prohibited?
Comment has been collapsed.