Would this help at all?
it would lead to more low level GA's with long duration, which is not good at all
Comment has been collapsed.
True. Could be a sliding scale? Maybe 10% of the users at a particular level. So for a lv5 GA if there are 10000 lv5 users and above you need 1000 entries. and lv1 GAs with 100k users would require 10k entries.
Doesn't solve the flash GA problem though :/
Comment has been collapsed.
No, if game gets exploited for CV it should go on bundle list...
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not exploited though. The value of Just Case 3 today isn't $1 it's $35+.
Gifting something on SG worth $35 for $60 in CV is not exploiting anything.
Everyone's happy (except amazon :P)
Comment has been collapsed.
I can show you GAs I made for bundle games that can be purchased for less than half dollar on the grey market that had over ten thousand entries, because it was set up to attract practically everyone who just clicks on everything or uses scripts/bots to enter everything.
Comment has been collapsed.
My cheap bundle game from DIG bundle received 1k entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
To me if 1000 people enter the game has value to people. You should be rewarded.
Maybe 1000 entries is too low. I dunno
Comment has been collapsed.
I think most people's definition of value might be different than yours.
people just want free stuff. they don't care what it is as long as it's free
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair call.
There is a limited number of points though. People can't enter everything. But there is probably plenty of people that just start clicking at the top until they run out of points.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 most level 0 GA get 1 000 entries depending on the time lapse.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was) 15% of original price. Not really fair to hear from me since I'll never can afford buy game for 60$ (even 20$) but I like idea if ALL GA will receive only 15%. But current situation is fine by me)
Comment has been collapsed.
The only way I can think off, when game would get unbundled would be if it's base price would drop to 15 - 20$, so noone would be able to get 60 CV for $2.
But game would most probably end up in some bundle, during time necessary for it to hit that price mark (most probably at least 2 years). So meh.
Comment has been collapsed.
Personally I would base it on number of GAs that exist/recently existed for it... So, JC3 in theory could have been abused but I did not see that big of an increase of it being given away so it could say pretty much the same... That would maybe also help bring back games that were bundled ages ago and are not really given away all that much any more...
Maybe modified by how many people enter it or rather something like how many people COULD enter it/don't own it or enter public GAs for it or something...
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. I think the main thing is it needs to relatively simple to understand for users and simple implement, not database intensive.
But some way for the site to decide through their actions which games they would like more of (Full CV) and those they've had enough of and are now only enter for the sake of winning something (15% CV)
Comment has been collapsed.
I actually seen a game that was in a flash bundle almost 2 years ago, not in any bundle since then and the dev himself said he won't bundle it for a long time, and it's still on the bundle list. I think the current system is not bad, but it has some problems.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's stuff on the Bundle list from the early days of Indie Royale and Groupees, that sold maybe 1,000 copies total, and have never been bundled since.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think entries per hour that a giveaway is open for would be a better measure than total number of entries if this was something to be implemented.
That said, I'd think it likely that quick giveaways for reasonably deisrable games would get more entries per hour than the same game being given away in a giveaway lasting a few days as quick giveaways make people prioritise where they're spending their points.
Maybe it could only apply for giveaways open 24 hours or more? (slighlty random number pulled from my backside) if popularity of a game was to be the deciding factor.
Comment has been collapsed.
how would you weigh in the effect of average user activity on different times of the day?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I did mention the possibility of only doing it for giveaways open for 24 hours or longer, so that would reduce that factor somewhat but it wouldn't eliminate it. Different days of the week almost certainly see different amounts of traffic too, so that would be another concern.
Tbh, I'm happy with the way things are. Was just bouncing off the OP's idea and coming up with stuff off the top of my head. I still would think something more accurate than total number of entries would be desirable as a barometer of popularity if changes were to be made along those lines, but I'm not desperate to see any changes to the site myself.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed, whatever the case though, adding a game to the bundle list because of a 5-10 minute price glitch is insane. Especially when it's Triple-A games.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
Completely counterproductive. The phrase chopping off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, because you'd then be forcing people to set a certain level (that they may not wish to set) to achieve that number of entries in order to get the full CV for the game.
Also, as Filipousis stated, they could simply make it a four week GA and get an easy 1000 entries.
If you did it for one game, you'd have to do it for all games, even bundle games, and that would not be fair to people paying full price for other games. Any game can get 1000 entries if you set the level requirement low enough and set the GA to the longest possible duration.
Yes, sometimes bundling doesn't seem fair, and yes it sucks to lose CV (I just dropped back under level 7 a few days ago, right after making a GA thread for hitting 7), but it's part of the built in "inflation" system on the site, and really the only way to deal with people exploiting a $60 game they picked up for $2 on a price glitch. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You should be able to set a level based on duration and lv requirements. 1000-2000 is just an arbitrary example. I don't really pay attention to lv0 public GAs.
My main issue is people thinking that someone giving away a $60 game that they got for $2 is exploiting the system. It's not!! The community want this game to be given away. If a user of the community can get a great game cheap and give it away within the community the community as a whole wins. The person could (and I say should if the system stays as it is) sell or trade the game for much more than the $9 value the system puts on the game.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm saying I'm fine with it the way it is now. Your ideas requires a complete restructuring of the bundling system (and the entire GA system for that matter) and invites people to exploit bundled games for far more CV than they're getting now (which is already too much imho - and this is coming from someone who gives away primarily bundled games).
Bringing up trading doesn't change anything -- if someone wants to trade the game for more, then power to 'em. Then they can trade it.
If a user of the community can get a great game cheap and give it away within the community the community as a whole wins
And so does the GA creator - by getting undue CV. I stand by what I said. Your idea invites way too many possibilities for exploitation.
For instance, one user was bragging he was able to get 10 of those JC3 keys, for a total of right around $25 I believe? Is it right he gets $600 CV for $25 while someone else has to spend at least $150 on -75% games to get that same CV?
Comment has been collapsed.
For instance, one user was bragging he was able to get 10 of those JC3 keys, for a total of right around $25 I believe? Is it right he gets > $600 CV for $25 while someone else has to spend at least $150 on -75% games to get that same CV?
The same argument that be made in the opposite direction of the person that buys JC3 at 50% discount and only gets $9CV. There are discrepancies everywhere.
The main point again is that the value of a game(as with anything in life) is not what people paid for it. It's what other people are willing to pay for it. If CV is meant to reflect the fair value then it's clearly wrong in this case.
My idea doesn't require any restructuring of the bundle system, which is why I think it would improve things. Bundle system stays as it is. All that gets added is a flag on a GA when it closes. Some determination whether the GA was popular (valued by the community). Popular GAs don't get the CV restricted whether bundled or not.
Then the system encourages GAs that are popular with the community. Which is what the bundle list was designed to do in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
The main point is that if you allow one price glitch to get full CV, you have to let all price glitches get full CV. Then you have to let ALL bundle-priced games get full CV by the same token. You can't just pick and choose.
Letting the system encourage GAs that are popular with the community would require an entire revamping of the GA system, and it still does nothing to prevent people from exploiting price glitches for CV, which the current system at least alleviates in some regard.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can't just pick and choose.
No that's exactly what I'm saying. We can pick and choose. As any democratic community.
If a GA is popular then the community has decided that the GA is highly valuable to them. It's no change to the GA system at all really just a flag to determine if the GA was popular. If it was then it's exempt from the %15 CV rule.
Because the community is so large 100k+ people. 1 person, 5 alts or even a group of people can't really change the final outcome. It's similar to forums that have a topic flagged as HOT when people are posting alot in it. The flag can even be visible on the GA page. If there are dodgy games getting flagged as hot it would be pretty easy for everyone to see who it was.
Comment has been collapsed.
The idea of measuring value of certain item is dubious at best. One can put the worst kind of shovelware game and easily get over 1000 entries just because people like winning free stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree that making the giveaway last longer would greatly increase the amount of entries. The only people that would join so early (before the end date) would be those searching for it. Most GA's get most of the entries on the last day, where it shows up on the menu(?)
Comment has been collapsed.
Most GA's get most of the entries on the last day, where it shows up on the menu(?)
I got 785 entries on a one day GA here.
You're telling me I wouldn't get more by setting it to one or more weeks? 1000 would be cake.
And honestly, I didn't think anyone would want that game .....
Comment has been collapsed.
The level of 1000 isn't something argue about. CG has access to all the stats in his DB. He can easily design a query to pick the correct inflection point between regular GAs and hugely popular GAs.
Comment has been collapsed.
And then what about level-restricted, whitelist, group, puzzles, and sgtools GAs?
Should they get less CV simply because their GAs are made available to fewer people?
In order to make a "popularity" system fair, any kind of entry restriction would have to be removed, and I'm pretty sure quite a great number of people might not be too appreciative of that. Probably a lot more people than are affected by price glitched games being added to the bundle list.
Like I said, the current system isn't always fair to everyone, but it works for a lot more people than it doesn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I think some of these things have come about because of problems with the system.
Like I said, the current system isn't always fair to everyone, but it works for a lot more people than it doesn't.
Personally I think the opposite is true in these particular cases.
But looks like the poll is 58% saying to quit whining. :)
So I'll leave it here
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes and when did that GA get most of it's entries? And no, I'm not telling you that. At all. I'm saying you wouldn't get a huge amount until it's within the first 2-3 pages.
Also that's a pretty strange example. Did you advertise on the forums or anywhere? Anyway, 1000 entries was just an example.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope, it was one of my first GAs here. I didn't even post on the forums until over 2 months later.
Level 0, public 1-day GA and (what I thought was, at least) a game no one would want. Imagine how many more entries I could have received with a little advertising.
Oh, that's another thing about the "popularity" system -- you'd have everyone and their brother (and probably 5 alt accounts) spamming the forums for every single GA they create in order to get more CV for it ....
Comment has been collapsed.
Alt accounts aren't that easy to make, and I highly doubt that many people have them. And if GAs were advertised as such, it'd be easy to spot what they're doing, thus most people wouldn't.
Comment has been collapsed.
I used alts to stress how much spamming there would be .... that's all.
I wasn't implying there are many alts.
The point was about the accompanying forum spam for a "popularity" based system. Thought I had made that clear enough -- my apologies if I hadn't ...
Comment has been collapsed.
Most GA's get most of the entries on the last day
the longer a ga lasts, the more entries it gets. it's not my opinion, it's how it works.
check a public ga for the same game and at the same level, you will notice that the ones that last 2 days have way less entries than others with 2 weeks.
Comment has been collapsed.
What are you even trying to argue with that quote? "Most GA's get most of the entries on the last day" isn't debatable, it's a fact. And as for your first statement, I'll repeat myself, I never said GA created earlier wouldn't get more entries, I quite clearly said they just wouldn't get many more.
Why is this? Because unless advertised elsewhere, giveaways past the first few pages only get entries from people who manually searched for the game or had it on some sort of list. I've also said this.
Comment has been collapsed.
how is your opinion a fact?
did you take data from sg servers and calculated the average entries in 50,000-100,000 samples?
Comment has been collapsed.
"how is your opinion a fact" Lol. No, it isn't my opinion. Because it's a fact. I thought that would be made pretty clear by me saying it "isn't debatable, it's a fact".
Isn't debatable = It isn't an opinion. :P
And no, I took "data" from my own two eyes and some common sense. Public giveaways have a huge rise in entries in the final few days, when it appears on the first few pages. (The ones most people look at!).
Comment has been collapsed.
ah so if i say that something isn't debatable, it means it's a fact?
wow, the lie i have been living for years!
hey, i'm lv10, it's a fact.
i'm millionaire, it's a fact.
i'm the president of USA, it's a fact.
damn, i feel so awesome today. thanks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha, no. If you say that something isn't debatable, I think most people would be able understand it's a fact to you and not an opinion. Why you couldn't understand this when I said it is beyond me though...
Comment has been collapsed.
Facts don't work that way. It either is or it isn't. "It's a fact to me!" is called an opinion. Please don't use words if you clearly don't know what they mean.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice. Trying to take what I've said out of context!
You're right, facts, DON'T work that way. And if Mullins did say that, she'd either be right or wrong. But what is still, definitely clear, is that SHE thinks what she said is a fact. (Which it may very well be). That's the point I tried to get across...
Please don't try to argue with someone when you quite clearly don't understand what they've said, or what point they were trying to make.
EDIT: Here's a simple example for you:
I say that: elephants are gray is a fact! - Here, I am RIGHT about it BEING a fact.
I say that: the world is flat, and that's a fact! - Here, I am WRONG about it BEING a fact.
Understand now? In both instances, I still say they are facts. And to me, they are. Now you can agree or disagree with me on them, but there's no point arguing about if they're my opinions there.
Comment has been collapsed.
Once more, quit using fact to describe your opinions to avoid actually defending them. If you're going to do that, why are you even in this thread? You made a claim and were called to defend that claim. You failed to do so and got pissy and said it's not debatable or "It's a lolfact to me!"
Don't make claims you can't or won't defend. If you want to contribute to a discussion, contribute and defend your position, otherwise you're just wasting everyone's time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Believe it or not, but there was an original argument I was making, before the focus became on just one point. And I have defended it, plenty actually and all I need to. Sadly, if someone just flat out refuses logic, there's only so much you CAN do.
"Once more" did you even read what I said? You come in here at the end of an argument, skim read what you want to see (confirmation bias, I presume?) and then try start a new one, why? Again, I defended it plenty, and if you actually read what's been said (other than this last, childish discussion) you'd get that. :/
What I find humorous though, is that you talk about "contributing to discussion" and yet you've come here and done the EXACT opposite. I contributed my fair share to the actual discussion here, but you? You're just trying to start yet another argument within an argument about a fricking argument. Please just go.
Comment has been collapsed.
I read the whole thing at at no point did you back up your claim about "most entries happen in the last day" as you were called out on. Since you STILL won't back that up with ACTUAL data and, y'know, facts, I'm done here. It's clear you have no actual basis for the claim and thus nothing valuable to add.
Let us all know when you have something to base your argument on other than your opinion. /blacklist
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, Dagnabbit, I'd totally go do my own peer reviewed study (because let's face it, that's what it'd take...) to try prove three people on a Steamgifts forum discussion something they could easily see within a minute, with their own two eyes. (I have given the instructions on how to do so, though!)
You really are funny, you know that? And blacklisting me? That's fine. But do you really feel the need to say it? Pretty sure that's implied by default mate, because you were on mine from the get-go. ;)
/Oops /Sorrynotsorry /Whatisthis
Comment has been collapsed.
"Most GA's get most of the entries on the last day" isn't debatable, it's a fact.
Where are you getting your "facts" from? I keep seeing you use that word with nothing to back it up.
Can you guarantee that if I buy two of the same game, make two giveaways - one with a 1 day duration and the other with a one month duration - that i won't get 2x as many entries on the 2nd giveaway? ;)
Because if I do ... you're wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, I've used that word once? And it's "fact", not "facts".
As for where I got it from, I got it from not being ignorant. We're talking about public giveaways here, and people will join them when they see them. Go look at the giveaways on page 1 and then those on page 5+ and tell me if you see a difference. Which do you think will get the most amount of visitors? Better yet, ...why are we even arguing this?
I'm sure you know there's difference, because you've created public giveaways yourself. And as for that last statement, do us both a favour and stop using straw man please.
While I really don't want to "guarantee" anything, I'm willing to bet if you had two separate accounts and posted one giveaway with a duration of 4 days and another with a duration of 2+ weeks there wouldn't be a huge difference between the final number of entries. Not that this would do anything to argue my point anyway, public giveaways still have the biggest spike in entries in the final few days.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't get your panties in a bundle there.
The "fact" is, you can't and haven't proven anything. You've given speculation and opinion as fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, what a reply and what an argument. I shouldn't need to prove "anything", if you've got half a functioning brain and an ability to be mature and see another's points, what I've said should be abundantly clear.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then you should be abundantly able to prove it.
if you've got half a functioning brain and an ability to be mature and see another's points,
Tsk, tsk, let's not get all hostile and riot or anything. You're obsessed, Keep calm. Get some sleep.
Comment has been collapsed.
A taunt for a taunt, don't really see anything wrong or surprising with that, but there we go.
"Then you should be abundantly able to prove it" I'm sorry, didn't we just go through this?
I shouldn't need to. And other than giving you the words, I won't. I'll start copying and pasting this if you want.
Comment has been collapsed.
how much experience do you think you have with less than 500 replies, 41 giveaways, being 2 months here... compared to us with way more interaction with the community???
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, well isn't that a common fallacy! It shouldn't take more than a day here to understand something so logical and simple honey.
Comment has been collapsed.
no, it's not a fallacy, it's called experience.
and it isn't logical, you have no proof of how things work.
Comment has been collapsed.
He called you honey.
You may as well quit now, Mullins, as he has clearly outdone you by the sheer power of his masculinity alone.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice childish attempts at trying to provoke/mock me. Really supporting yourself and your claims right there!
Comment has been collapsed.
Nice childish attempts at trying to provoke/mock me
Kinda like you calling her honey?
Stop being so transparent.
If I wanted to provoke you, I'd simply call you an idiot.
Comment has been collapsed.
Calling someone "honey" is hardly aggravating, and definitely not mocking. But yet I could quote at least three instances of you saying things that are, not including the fact that you're trying to enter my discussions with other people now, instead of the one I was actually having WITH you.
Comment has been collapsed.
Calling someone "honey" is hardly aggravating
Is that another one of your "facts"?
Comment has been collapsed.
Still using plural I see? And no, I'm sure you'll be pleased to know that's my opinion.
Comment has been collapsed.
and definitely not mocking
That looks like a fact? Am I hot or cold?
Comment has been collapsed.
You're spot on. Definitely DOES mean for definite, and calling someone honey is not mocking (unless there's a history with the word and those people).
You're getting better Tzaar! Well done. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
You do realize that that is a matter of perspective, right, "genius"?
Kinda like how me calling you genius doesn't make you one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why the quotation? Or is that another word you've imagined me saying? :P
And no, definitions and facts aren't a matter of perspective. They are what they are. Whether you choose to accept them or not may be a matter of perspective though. But, whether the world is flat or not isn't a matter of perspective. Just like whether public giveaways have a spike in entries in the final days isn't either.
Comment has been collapsed.
It most certainly is a fallacy, bringing things as irrelevant as the amount of giveaways you've done, or the amount of years you've been here in an argument of logic, solely because those are things you DO have over me right now. See argument from age fallacy, it's just a slight variant from that.
It's similar to an old person, who is stuck in their beliefs and refuses to listen to their uni educated grandson because, unless presented with concrete evidence right in-front of their eyes, they have the scape goat that is the extra years they've been alive to save them from being wrong.
Now age does bring some benefits and some wisdom, just like being an older user on here would, but it is of NO relevance in a matter of logic and reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1
and we don't need more suggestions about the bundle/cv system. it worked fine so far...
Comment has been collapsed.
No man, will be unfair and if u miss a bug price (than me) you only can cry and wait for another oportunity :)
Keep positive
Comment has been collapsed.
If a public "bundled game" GA receives more than 1000 or 2000 entries for example then the user gets full CV since it's likley still in high demand by the community.
No, no, no... If you implemented this, you could easily buy a cheap 2$ bundle that would give 100-200 CV$. All you'd have to do is put no level requirement and put it up for a few days (or more). It wouldn't be hard to cheat your way to the top.
Comment has been collapsed.
ok. Sounds like 1000 is the wrong level. It could be a gradiated system. 8k entries for lv0. 4k for lv1. 2k for lv2 etc
Or whatever the the current GA statistics would determine as popular.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's an example: I giveaway "X", paid 0.25$, I get the required entries and say it gives me full CV of 20$. People see this and start spamming, putting more stress on the site. It's like free games, once a game is free people spam in attempts to earn CV they don't deserve. It's blatant cheating. This idea will never be implemented, because there will away be people looking for a way to exploit the site/CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
This example sounds great.
Just change "X" for Just Case 3, change "0.25$" for "$2" and "$20 CV" for "$60 CV".
People start spamming the site with JC3 and we as a community should be upset?
It's not cheating. I don't see how a person getting a copy of JC3 for $2 and giving it away for $60CV is cheating. It's just lucky for them they were able to get the great deal. And it's lucky for the person that wins it and doesn't have to pay $60 for it.
Everyone comes from different circumstances. Some people on here are millionaires and some are solo parents on a benefit or kids with a paper run. Some people get to sit on the internet all day deal hunting. Others are busy and would rather than pay for it.
The only thing that stays consistent is the communities desire for the game. That is how the value of a game should be measured as all assets in the real world are. Once a game is bundled it becomes cheaply accessible to everyone and the desire for that game drops, so we want less of those GAs so it goes on the bundle list to discourage it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sound more like you're just pissed about JC3 and not seeing the bigger picture.
With you're logic, that like say AAA non-bundle should give more CV too then? Say I put a giveaway up for FO4, it get a ton of entries so I should get more then 60CV right? Its high valued? The community really wants it! Why should I pay 80$ CDN and only get 60CV? I mean if you get 60CV for a cheaply acquired game I should get triple that for a non-bundle!!!!
You see how silly that sounds? We can go on all day long, but when it comes right down to it, you just need to accept life is not fair and never will be.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not hung up on JC3 or CV.
My only point is why is the site discouraging people from giving away JC3 and other games that people want?
It's bad form to answer my own question I guess :). But I think the only reason it's discouraging it is an attempt to make the system fair.
Comment has been collapsed.
The only thing discouraging people is themselves, if people weren't so worried about CV there would be no problem. In a prefect world they'd only focus on giving and not gaining. But I don't see that magically happening any time soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
Think about it. We should be encouraging the people that got JC3 on a price glitch to give it away here. Rather than discouraging them?
Comment has been collapsed.
The bundle list must grow. That is the purpose of the list.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it can grow for sure. But should JC3 be on there at the moment? Whats the benefit?
Maybe rather than automate popular games. The community can vote once a week or something on a single game to remove from the bundle list to encourage GAs for that title.
Just some why to reverse the worst case scenarios that can occur. I think we as a community should be able to decide this with intelligence.
Comment has been collapsed.
The benefit is the consistency of the rules. Current system has it flaws but making exceptions opens a can of worms.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, that's the only benefit really it's easy. With a little thinking we can make things better.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not really easy. There have been many discussions regarding bundle system with multiple options given. They have all been shot down. The majority of the (active) community likes the current implementation and wishes no changes.
Comment has been collapsed.
yes making a change isn't easy. But doesn't mean we shouldn't.
I don't think the majority likes the implementation. It's more the majority can't agree on a better implementation so we remain status quo.
Does't mean that a great idea might not come along. This might not be it. But lets keep trying, thanks for being a part of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can try and I wish you good luck but I do not think there will be any change. I believe that the bundle system will only be updated when the current one breaks. This requires some major level event like Russian store having major price glitch and bundling hundreds of games at once or most the Steam items getting into bundle list over time. Only after that there is enough demand for a change.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think the majority likes the implementation
According to your poll, you're wrong. ;)
And that even disregards the fact that your poll is biased -- claiming anyone disagreeing is calling you a "whiner". The poll option would have been less biased had it said "No, I prefer it like it is" or something similar.
Comment has been collapsed.
Funnily, I think people like calling others "whiners" so it might be the opposite bias to click on it ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well I for one don't (unless they're actually whining, and the OP doesn't seem to be), but the phrasing of it made me hesitate before selecting that as my choice.
Regardless (and you've more or less proven my point), a less biased option would be preferred. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, I agreed with you, just thought it's funny how it can go both ways :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, this is a great idea. Can it be abused? Yes. But compared to all the craptastic ideas thrown around here, this one is rather innocuous.
Comment has been collapsed.
What about making a just cause, dirt and F1 keys stay as bundled and make gifts of those games still not bundled?
Since most of the bundled games, developer giveaways and price glitches are all keys right?
Comment has been collapsed.
No solid method to accurately separate which one the user is giving. Gift doesn't always mean non-bundle status e.g. Russian Steam store sales.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah but from russia it will not be region free or it will not be a gift on the user inventory.
Just make some new rules like the gift need to be region free or you need to set the region where it can be used.
A giveway where the user add the winer to gift it as friend purchasing it from a russian ip is the lowest thing someone can do, or gift a russian gift but the giveaway was set as region free.
I gifted an garrys mod two or three weeks ago it had RU-cis region because someone traded it with me but i was unable to check the region... them i gifted it here since i was unable to use it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Region check is easy to bypass if required. Create group for specific region and gift region restricted games as region free. So it will not work. Punishing users for being in certain region isn't that welcome change. No manpower to check if the user has gift in inventory and no automatic system will implemented because cg doesn't want SG to work as middleman.
Also, back to the original argument. There are lots of valid game selling sites that give keys. There is no way to separate from which site the user has bought they key. So any differentiation between gifts and keys for their value is likely to fail.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not to mention someone can mark it as a "gift", and then send the key once the GA is finished. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
So you want the desirability of a game to be reflected in the CV the gifter receives, right?
Like other pointed out, people will enter every GA they can even if they don't want the game or plan to play it. So entries is a bad determinant.
Maybe a simpler solution is attaching the game value to a less fluidic value - i.e, people wishlists.
You got one of the biggest groups here which is Steam Gifts with over 30K users as a pretty good estimation to determine what people actually want. Each month, the site system takes a "snapshot" of the most wishlisted games - an arbitrary point will be set (just like 15% is arbitrary, 5 minimum entries is arbitrary and so on. You can't evade that) let's say first 1000 games. So now the only question is: does JC3 fall under a top wishlist game? yes? Full CV. Circumstances don't matter. The community wants the game and they got it.
This solution also solves the problem people raised here about groups, whitelists and other filtered GAs, which are important for a lot of people, myself included.
Is this a perfect solution? far from it. There are no perfect solutions. We should settle with those that solve the most issues while creating the least.
One problem is popular games that are constantly bundled but maintain high WL, but I think my offer actually fixes it (though slowly) - if a game is highly wishlisted but costs only few cents, waves of GAs will be created for it, resulting in the game sinking from its high spot in wishlists and dropping from "Full CV" status.
Thoughts?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, sounds like a good idea. Maybe top 5%-10% of wishlists are Whitelisted for CV. I don't think it needs to be 1000's probably just top 10 or 20.
Is it possible to see this list now? Just the top 10 for example. Just to check if it's a legit list.
It's transparent enough also that people can see exactly the reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is it possible to see this list now? Just the top 10 for example. Just to check if it's a legit list.
I've linked to it in my comment. But here you go - Steam Gifts Wishlist
10% of wishlists will be much more than 1000 games :)
Anyway, that was just an example.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry I has thought the link was to the steamcommunity site.
So top 20 is. That seems like a pretty easy whitelist to me. Doesn't even really need to be automated. The bundler could look at this list pretty easily and make the correct decision.
Fallout 4
The Witcher® 3: Wild Hunt
Ori and the Blind Forest
Grand Theft Auto V
Just Cause™ 3
METAL GEAR SOLID V: THE PHANTOM PAIN
Dying Light: The Following - Enhanced Edition
Black Mesa
Mad Max
XCOM® 2
Rise of the Tomb Raider™
Far Cry® 4
SOMA
Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel
Undertale
ARK: Survival Evolved
Pillars of Eternity
Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen
Tom Clancy’s The Division™
DARK SOULS™ II: Scholar of the First Sin
Comment has been collapsed.
Taking the top 100 from the wishlisted games.
Looks like these are the games that would be exempted from the bundle list.
Just Case 3
Dirt Rally
Wolfenstein New Order
Wasteland 2
Talos Principal
Alien Isolation
Comment has been collapsed.
That wouldn't work at all.
Personally, with how the bundle list is becoming, I think certain games, should be on a special conditions.
Maybe with price glitched games like this, you can only give it away 3 times, or maybe just once for full value.
I normally agree with most SG decisions, but I think the recent thing has been silly since I haven't seen anyone actually abuse it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it's only getting worse. Someone mentioned the current system will work till it breaks. I think we are drawing very near.
Comment has been collapsed.
no.
if users so interested in getting cv, they should check the bundle list, forums, prices before buying something, etc.
a customized cv system (that only works for public and encourages long giveaways without restrictions) isn't the answer.
we have 3 kind of users here:
- people that paid $3 for just cause 3, dirt rally, f1 2015 and got 9cv.
it's a fair deal and they should stop complaining.
- users that bought the game for $60... yeah... i never saw SO MANY giveaways for a $60 game in all my time on sg.
not saying some of those aren't real, but many are lying.
to those that spent $60 and got 9cv, forget about it, you can't do anything. don't be bitter because you lost 51cv, it's not worth being angry.
- and last but not least, there's the angry leeches that wanted those $60 games in giveaways, but now they realize it will be almost impossible to win it. *facepalm*
Comment has been collapsed.
You forgot the fourth kind.
Those people that got JC3, dirt or F1 paid $3 and realize it would be silly to give it away on SG for only $9CV
Comment has been collapsed.
for only 9cv?
they paid 33% of it's value, i think it's a pretty good deal.
Comment has been collapsed.
exploit for your idea - buy cheap game during explot, make it lvl 0 GA running for 4 weeks -> get full value. Even bundled GAs for lvl 0 get hundreds of entries minimum, long ones easilly get even more entries than flash lvl0 GAs. So all that would change is that users would make these GAs run longer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure there will be some point where a TripleA game gets more entries than a random bundled game running for 4 weeks. I'm happy to admit it's not 1000 entries or even 2000 entries.
I'm still not sure who feels exploited by someone giving away a TripleA title.
Comment has been collapsed.
not really -t all depends on GA duration - not-shovelware but also not AAA game will get plenty of entries in longer time. It's quite easy for it to surpass 1000 or 2000 entries. And it is more than even very good AAA Flash GA will get simply because far less people will notice GA running just for 1,2 or 3 hours. Flash GAs quite often ends with few hundreds entries, even for new and expensive games.
Comment has been collapsed.
tbf JC3 was also part of a recent Intel promotion where if you purchased a select i7 processor u got it for free.i got my steam key from it and was gonna give it away (not a huge fan of single player campaign kind of games and honestly trying to adjust gaming habits haha) and try to reap the CV rewards on SG. but after stumbling across this thread and seeing it's a bundle game, im just like nope nope nope.
kudos to you for suggesting a solution.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where's ArchiBoT?
I thought he would've been along to say this is how it works in Archi-Topia :)
The next shuttle leaves in 10 minutes. Check you CV and freewill at the door
Comment has been collapsed.
Why are ppl so desperate to change something ?
IF it isnt broken , dont fix it
It seems to be working fine as it is ...
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't remember Just Cause 3 ever becoming a debacle.
Comment has been collapsed.
So with the Just Case 3 debacle I had another idea of a solution. Not a perfect fix, but offers an automated solution to remove the worst cases.
If a public "bundled game" GA receives more than 1000 or 2000 (or a set threshold) entries for example then the GA is labelled as popular and the user gets full CV since it's likley still in high demand by the community.
The merits of this solution I think is
It's not a perfect solution and only deals with public GAs but I think it's lightweight and a step in the right direction.
The reason I think this is a better solution than currently because the value of a game is not the cost of it to a single person or gifter. But the fair price that the market is willing to pay for it.
The GA 64yIh - SanctuaryRPG: Black Edition
EDIT: Another good suggestion by Amorphism was to determine popular games by using the Steam Gifts group wishlist here. And exempting any games in the top X games from the bundle list.
Thanks
Andy
Comment has been collapsed.