Should asset flipped, overpriced, garbage be banned here?

I didn't know that - so that's good to hear. Hopefully anyone trying to 'game' SG finds that out the hard way...
I don't even know why it irritated me seeing them... Guess I just woke up in a bad mood, lol.

Still, I would rather ave the junk delisted here.

I'm not sure I agree about using direct GA links if that's just your opinion - but have updated the links as you suggest in case it's against the rules? I was trying to call out the type of game, not the user specifically - and links to the game actually calls out more users?

I agree with you about banning the publishers though!

I agree with that - CelestialFrog above says they give zero value to the creator - which is good. And anyone entering should check what they're giving 50p for and I agree 0p would be more appropriate.

Fair enough - valid opinion! Just interested to see what the majority think.

I thought Steam had banned a bunch before, that were clear asset flips / money laundering scams etc. I guess it's an on-going battle for them!

Agreed

The gifters get nothing anyway. Maybe short level boost if the game hasn't been caught by the mods yet, but they are unlikely to win anything in that time.

Sadly, partly, wrong.
Some of this games will not be set to reduced or free, and for the ones that get set to it, it takes partly years..., because their price is constant high and not goes up and down.
Some members of my group have a user in their focus that is at the moment level 6 or 7 only from around 6 of such GAs.
It's absolute insane but that's the handling at the moment.

I thought they were a vehicle for some to 'game' SG though and why I thought maybe there is a case for banning them. But - as some have said, they're worth zero CV (although that's been questioned) which makes them mostly harmless - if correct.

Simple the money they get to put the games on the store like all the $100

Ah - thank you - was sure it would have been discussed before. But I'm less worried now knowing it gets maintained for 0VC, as otherwise it would have devalued SG levels imo.

I think I get it - I (incorrectly) look at the 'p' cost of a GA and make an assumption on it's quality. I know that's often right, but not always!

I think that's what irritated me when I saw a 50p title and thought - "ooOOo - what's this AAA game I've never heard of before?" If I see something with high p I go check it on Steam if it's something I'd play and was baffled by the AAA price for what looked like rubbish. Perhaps some enter a GA without that step, assuming it "must be good" for that price?

they're routinely marked as 0 cv

I didn't know that when I created the thread - and it does render them 'harmless' I guess. Can see there could be grey areas when deciding where the line is!

I don't see the point in banning them considering that they're routinely marked as 0 cv

https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/agNCPEk

"where the heck to draw the line between legitimate indie game that just happens to use a bunch of store bought assets and what one would normally call an asset flip."

Crap games that are used to exploit the cv system on sg get sold for a few cents. In nearly all cases in the same, few, trash shops.
The other games, that are made maybe with bought assets too, aren't sold for cents. Not sold in the few trash shops.

Very easy to see the difference.

And you can assume it very sure only from looking which accounts made the GAs. You see always the same names and tiny side accounts that are most likely not main accounts on steam (so multiaccounters or totally newbies -and someone needed to show them the cheap trash shops and how to game the system on sg [so they are, in many cases, from a bubble of people that do such stuff "daily/often"])