Moan, moan, moan. That's all this thread is.
You've also got the wrong end of the stick entirely. It's not for rich people to buy something and give it to the poor - Robin Hood style - if it was, the contributors would come to the site to find a list of poor people with a button to add them / start a trade and then give them the game.
No, the site is to give everyone equal chances to win in whatever giveaway they can or wish to enter. It's not Robin Hood style giving, it's people being generous and charitable. Contributor giveaways are a way for a community member to say thank-you to the more generous people in a material way rather than a generic 'Thanks' which it looks like you never bother with anyway.
So, I for one will be making any future contributor giveaways with a value greater than or equal to the value of the game such that only people who have given away at least the value of what they are winning will have a chance to enter.
And before you rage that that is being elitist, I'm in the same boat as you in terms of money, yet I can still find it in me and the depths of my wallet to buy something for the community. So I would recommend buying something small, say one of the daily deals and giving that away, it's a good feeling when you do, plus people will like you more and stop calling you a leech.
Comment has been collapsed.
Provided it is the whole bundle and not just individual games...
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah i meant it as like as to stop people from calling you a leech. Not like as in friendly.
People on these forums are openly aggressive to people who 'leech' or moan or ninja keys without thanking or w/e. As soon as the person gives something, everyone backs off them and lets them be.
TL;DR: People on the internet are dickheads (but not necessarily so irl) and need appeasing or so it would appear.
TL;DR 2: People are bi-polar. Potentially nice offline, dickheads when online.
Comment has been collapsed.
Man all this talk of leeches reminds me of bioshock ("What is the difference between a man and a parasite? A man builds. A parasite asks "Where is my share?" A man creates. A parasite says, "What will the neighbors think?" A man invents. A parasite says, "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God...")
I do agree with your idea of setting the giveaway limit to the value of the game though, that makes sense, its when it goes beyond that that I find it somewhat irrational
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is NOT in the giveaways themselves (you can do what ever you want with your money), it's with the feel of superiority that comes along with it. I mean, it's ok when a 500+ contributor sets a threshold of 250 or so, but what's up with guys, who've just entered the 50 club and already make 50+ contributor giveaways? Do they now feel they are so much better then just a week ago?
Comment has been collapsed.
A week ago I had given away around $45. Now look at my total, what's the maximum I can make the threshold before looking like I feel superior. :(
Comment has been collapsed.
Bragging about your total already makes you look that way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just to be clear: makes you look like you feel like you are, and not: makes you look like you are.
Comment has been collapsed.
Aww, but how can I feel superior over these non-giving plebs now that my clearly patrician self isn't as superior.
(Just to be clear, I don't actually feel that way. I was genuinely curious as to what your opinion of me "crossing the line" would have been.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, now seriously, without being mean: why set the minimum at a level you've just achieved, so you wouldn't fit in such a giveaway just a few days earlier? It does look like you feel a member of a different club because of a few more dollars spent recently. I'm genuinely curious of the reasoning.
Comment has been collapsed.
That one, was purely because I thought it would be fun to set a high total and after quick consideration I decided that $400 was a good total because I've noticed that the contributor giveaways skip from $300 to $500. It was either that or $600 and I think that although $400+ is becoming more common, $600 is still far too rare and I want at least 2 people to join it. (Gotta get that dollar on my value.)
I've yet to really see much of a contributor circle jerk so far, probably because I'm "New money" if you will. (Either that or there's no real circle jerk.)
Comment has been collapsed.
It would have more sense to me, if you made a giveaway "out of your league" to thank only the biggest contributors. But it seems, that fitting in your requirements (even if only just) means a lot to you.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've explained my reasons above, but there probably was some impact of me believing I should at least fit into the standards I set for others. I don't quite see why that is a problem though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've read your reasons, I was just thinking about that high total you were looking for. And judging others by our standards is in fact the cradle of all intolerance, so if it's a general rule you apply to, it can be quite a problem (no sarcasm, just giving you something to think about).
Comment has been collapsed.
As someone who studies business, I believe that we all need to meet and surpass standards to grow in life. I place standards in all of my giveaways and if people meet them, then they gain access to them. It's quite simple.
Comment has been collapsed.
i dont no where u sarcastic or not. but im sure that yes thats the point in here in many cases. sure, there are exceptions, like with everything in life. i am also poor, according to my countrys lifestyle. and thats why im still not able to make some giveaways, although i certainly wanna make at least one giveaway in the future. becuse i have won a game in SG.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have a slightest problem with people not being able to create giveaways. That is the purpose of this site after all, to give to those who can't afford it. But when someone who is here for a half year, never creates a giveaway (not a problem), doesn't say a single "thanks" (alright), doesn't participate in any discussions (your choice, fine by me), and now suddenly s/he can't enter those 10%-20% giveaways due to the value restriction (no matter how absurd it is) starts to complain. THAT is what I hate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Anyone else noticed that all those in favour have almost no giveaways or wins?
Whiners be whining. Haters be hating.
And those who are in opposition have been generous and have given away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Guess that means both sides are arrogant and/or ignorant to see each others views? :P
I would certainly like to make a giveaway when there is a feature where I can exclude giveawayers and abuse-users away from my giveaways!
(It's all in the fun, be happy!)
Comment has been collapsed.
Make a private one and give the link to those people.
Comment has been collapsed.
Creating a giveaway is selling your soul? The devil should be overstocked then...
Comment has been collapsed.
That doesn't automatically make one side right and the other one wrong, though. It just means one side is content with the status quo while the other is not. There's really no need to flame about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everyone votes in their own interest, shocking! Ever heard of politics?
Comment has been collapsed.
Some people earn less than $400 per month, feed the entire family with that, and manage to create a giveaway or two - and american fat ass students who have at least three times that just for snacks are too poor to create one giveaway in a year... Well, forgive me for not crying over your first world problems. If you don't like contributor giveaways, create one yourself and make it open for everyone.
btw, Nothing against really poor people leeching - those that have 0-50 games on steam, but when someone with 200+ games starts crying how he's too poor to make a giveaway, but wants to win something... well, that's rude.
Comment has been collapsed.
You infer how much money I have, you pull "facts" out of your ass, you infer where I am from and insult me for holding an opinion and opening it up for discussion, you then ignore my argument completely and fail to add anything constructive to the conversation, and instead do the forum-post equivalent of shitting all over everything. This thread was not started to discuss my profile, that should not be how you judge an opinion, it was started to discuss the merits of high value contributor giveaways
Comment has been collapsed.
That's blatantly insulting and fairly anti-american. If you can't be civil, step out of the conversation.
edit: you also are assuming a lot of things. You don't know every individual's situation. And it's really arrogant for you to believe you do.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see what your trying to say, but you said students? So you are implying that all American Students are fat. Thats completely false not all Americans are fat, not all waist money on snacks. We are just as active anyone across the world, making me and you not very different, and not all Americans are rich just 1% are. Now i know the person that made this thread is in the wrong for making this thread, but by adding anything political for example like "country", religion, ethnicity that puts you in the wrong as well. There was no reason to add that line. adding or talking about anything political is against forum rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
Voicing your opinion is not wrong, by all means is better to speak out than being quite. But this line "Contributor Giveaways and Why You Shouldn't Make Them" and you your self said "Ok, maybe the title goes a little too far". That title is to much and most people will take offense by that for no one likes being told what to do. Be careful with your wording in the future, and your choice of tiles because they can easily lead to some bashing by many forum users.
Comment has been collapsed.
honestly it was to draw attention to the topic, if I made the title "well guys maybe you like shouldn't make contributor giveaways sometimes, but like I guess they are ok other times it really just depends" it wouldn't generate much interest haha
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the dominating point of view here, and I fear it won't change so long as the stats remain viewable to everyone
Comment has been collapsed.
Granny is giving away apples and saves some apples to people who are giving away apples. You have a chance to get an apple for free, but you ask why is she giving them to people who themselves are giving their apples away.
There, a little bit more balanced. (Now, of course, there may be very rational reasons, for example, each apple might be unique, and they are collectors, but I guess you get the message -- the stance is simply not as radical as you might like it to seem, and it's definitely not "attacking".)
Comment has been collapsed.
No, attacking the children, who have 2 grannys and love only the one, who gives fruit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Its an easier view to argue than I give away how I want.
That's why its the argument of choice against the other view: make everything public.
One is for gifters and the other is for leechers.
Quick question, why are leechers bad? (Think about the answer to see why we need contributor giveaways.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would have been mad if it wasn't Fortix /sarcasm
Who doesn't love Fortix
Comment has been collapsed.
You say most contributors are companies, but that is false this site lives and runs because individuals that give games in the spirit giving. all these individuals aren't rich, they are like me and you hard working individuals or students. We sometimes blow our budget just to share. So if a contributor decides to create a contributor giveaway with a high limit they have the right, because they are the ones gifting, those who enters to win should just be grateful that people out there are still willing to give something for free. You say that you are not complaining, but you are. I'm sorry if you take offense by my last words, but you cant expect anyone to read any other way.
Comment has been collapsed.
why should you care? its my money my game i want to spend it however i want
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. OP has been civil, and a bunch of the "nice" contributors have come in and ripped him a new one. SO NICE HUH GUYS, BET YOU FEEL PROUD YEAH? It's pathetic and disgusting.
Comment has been collapsed.
"They (top contributors) have shown they can afford the games they want and have some to spare, so chances are if they do not have the game you are giving away they are not that interested in it, and wouldn't appreciate it as much as someone who wants the game, but can't afford it."
Comment has been collapsed.
From Now on all my Giveaways Will be $200 Contributor giveaways cos some of you people dont stop qqing Its so pathetic !
Comment has been collapsed.
While I understand the point OP is trying to make and agree with it; you still should remember that the giveaways are made by people and those people have the sole right to decide who they want to receive the gift.
The latter takes priority, and rightly so.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had no intention of saying that one should be forced to do anything, of course the contributor option should remain as it is, I merely gave my opinion as something to think about when creating high value giveaways. At this point I'm just repeating myself over and over as new people see the thread but don't bother to read what has already been said.
Comment has been collapsed.
36 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by VahidSlayerOfAll
49 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by Axelflox
138 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by UnbakedBacon
15 Comments - Last post 10 minutes ago by GCTuba
803 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Ikkimura
901 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by sensualshakti
37 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by NeStric
340 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by gegeru
247 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Lugum
3 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by Axelflox
19 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Prosac
185 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by DeliberateTaco
35 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by Kokkol
94 Comments - Last post 55 minutes ago by CultofPersonalitea
Ok, maybe the title goes a little too far, I understand the logic behind consumer giveaways with a threshold of up to $50.00, they are to show appreciation for those who participate in both giving and receiving in (somewhat) equal amounts. However, anything above that is a complete waste. The point of steamgifts (in my opinion) is to allow those who can afford to buy games help out those who can not, and when you make a giveaway exclusively for highly valued contributors what's the point? They have obviously shown they can afford the games they want and have some to spare, so chances are if they do not have the game you are giving away they are not that interested in it, and wouldn't appreciate it as much as someone who wants the game, but can't afford it. Not to mention that many of the contributors are companies/websites rather than individuals.
In no way is this post meant to detract from the top contributors, you guys are awesome, generous people. Each of you deserve a medal.
Comment has been collapsed.