Also what is free? Is something you spend stuff you got from free post purchase good enough?
This reminds me of Steam Holiday Auction in 2014.
200000 giftable games there... All free for gems... And some even exploited that event...
https://web.archive.org/web/20141213013630/https://steamcommunity.com/auction
Comment has been collapsed.
I wonder how mods are going to pick games out for zeroCVing. In that Gameplay Giveaway, it seems you can win almost any bundled indie title issued before 2016 at the very least.
Comment has been collapsed.
But for some reason they have all been put on the zero CV list instead
One man's free stuff is another man's treasure... In general I've never liked the idea of "0-cving" any game.
That being said, I understand the idea of discouraging people from abusing 3rd-party GAs, I understand that reworking the CV system would be a hell lot of work (mainly, in order to requalify games), and I guess the current system, despite all its flaws, is better than nothing.
My suggestions for a better design would be something like:
- games given away for free have a 5% CV + an instant multi-copy penalty (i.e., as early as the second copy you get a further reduced value)
- bundled or discounted games (looking at you Russian shops that sell 20-bucks games for a few cents) can be put in 5%/15%/30%/50% CV categories (whichever is closest to the real price during the promo) (and yes, I'm aware this multiple-level reduced CV implies supporting multiple time points for CV evolution)
- +/- a 50% CV multiplier for group GAs (maybe not retroactive)
Comment has been collapsed.
0.95 EUR and get another 10 games on top
This would, according to the rules that have existed since I joined the site back in 2015, most certainly put every single game on the free list.
Let's start off by highlighting some key points:
- Bundled and Free are both based on bypassing certain percentages, not off of being in a bundle or being free (in the latter case, near-free is enough).
- In any situation where freebies are based on purchase, they're treated the same as bundle. The calcluations related to putting bundles onto lists is based on taking the sum total of the bundle's games (or, in the case of a selection bundle, the sum of the most valuable games) [for the specific tier arrangement, including lower tiers, if in tiers] and dividing that total by the number of games and effective discount, to get the relative percent off the sum total.
- This offer has a lot of $9.99 games available to it. Based on 1 and 2, there's no way that every single game in this bundle wouldn't be added to the free list, barring clear signs that the offer was not utilized to any meaningful degree (in terms of purchases made that're relevant to SG). Given how flooded the site has been with the games (as per the results of a quick Archive search) this exception [which has almost never been made in the past, and was almost always applied retroactively years later, when applied at all] would not apply.
As far as Lootboy and Chrono and that one G2A-affiliated site before them, any offer that is deemed to be "free with minimal effort" has always been added to the free list (free with extensive effort, like some Alienware offers, generally go to bundled or, if quantity is low, aren't affected at all). Again, sometimes exceptions were made dependent on the factors involved and, to that effect, iirc weren't many of the games in both sites put to bundled instead? In fact, a quick check made just now against the giveaway list turns up all the ones I tested as bundled rather than free.
Frankly, it's silly to argue for games <an individual> did get for free to be put up at CV, without offering an actual justification for it. Similarly, if you're arguing the matter for the sake of the site not losing access to the games then, again, adjustments are made based on the degree to which the offer was utilized. You'd basically have to be able to argue that the games don't have an exploitation factor and, that's already something staff considers when making their decisions.
If you have any specific examples you'd like to bring up, I can tell you [based on my discussions with Shobo, the original sole Bundler] whether or not the listing is, at casual glance [there are after all many factors that aren't necessarily easy to look up, such as the effect of Russian key sites or grey market sites] reasonable.
But the broad generalities you've mentioned aren't by any means new changes to the site, but thoroughly consistent with how the site has operated for at least 6 years now. Even the Humble Choice going to bundled (where previous ones did not) was a combination of the introduction of yearly offer prices and the increased overall CV value in the bundles.
(tl;dr version for the following courtesy of doctorofjournalism, available here)
Also, as a further note.. your entire thread, especially the last paragraph, comes across as supporting an extremely entitled perspective (by its scope and presentation not necessarily by your own nature). An intentionally un-firm thumb is that bundle list is 90%+ off and free is 99%+ off, with adjustments dependent on how exaggerated or understated the use of the offer is. Given that bundle listed games give 15% value, anything above 85% is already a gain to begin with, and the same general principle applies to free games.
It'd be one thing if you were arguing for the availability of the games on the site (though, again, staff theoretically still already factors that in), but you're arguing for the personal CV gains. Basically, your entire thread is an argument for exploitation, for no reason offered other than an implied "well, I don't like that I'm not able to jump on offers that look way, way too profitable at casual glance and are certain to be considered exploitative by SG, and not have that easy exploit taken from me even though it seemed obvious from the start that it would be". Frankly, you're not giving me a great impression of the intentions you're supporting, at least based off the phrasing you offered, and my interpretation of it (so do please feel free to restate things to better express your intentions (on the intentions you're trying to address), if they're different; Or perhaps consider rewording the discussion post itself, as- again- its phrasing and formatting appear to be based in expressing a certain perspective.)
Further, if the site's tendency towards adding games on lists when any hint of explotation occurs is problematic to someone , then this site just isn't for them. After all, that kind of adjustment is really nothing compared to all the "legitimate" losses many of us have had, especially when such was due to staff misdating promotion offer start times and catching unrelated giveaways by way of that (and refusing to make adjustments even after validating data was shown on the matter). There, or in instances where regional pricing or sales offers on other storefronts were unknown to us, we posted games we paid well above exploitation threshold for, and got a pittance on the CV return.
And y'know what? While the staff aspect in particular is rather annoying as it comes across as unprofessional on their part, the overall losses are fine. After all, we decided we wanted to buy and post these games. If our sole interest was in gaming the site, then all we'd need to do is buy "safe" bundles with extremely high CV returns. Basically, we decided to take this path, and we determined (or should have determined) from the start whether we would be satisfied with the results, whatever they may end up being. Basically, if an individual is not new to the site, they don't have much grounds to argue on CV returns.
Similarly, if an individual is going to buy things, then it needs to be for the sake of the games in question. After all, an individual can hold on to keys without posting them to SG. If they're buying a bundle just to put it on SG for the CV return, as you seem to have made clear was the intention for particular bundle (within the topic of discussion), then that individual is already openly admitting that the CV exploitation was their sole goal. Else, they just had to hold on to the keys, and then find a more favorable spot for them elsewhere, if they didn't find the available SG options favorable.
If SG is the end goal from the start, then one needs to adjust their mentality to SG for the purchase. If oneself is complaining over the CV, and they know SG aims to avoid CV exploitation, then.. well, that speaks very poorly to their intentions towards the site. But making a thread complaining about things on top of that? That just speaks bad to one's character. In summary, while the underlying mechanisms behind the site's "lists" can be confusing and it's reasonable to enquire on those, the implied mindset behind this thread, given its stated purposes, is extremely questionable, given its unclear association to the topic of CV exploitation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bundled and Free are both based on bypassing certain percentages, not off of being in a bundle or being free (in the latter case, near-free is enough).
That's false. Even 40 dollar base price games available for 10 cents are usually put on the reduced CV list, not the free list. Same goes for dollar bundles that can have up to 20 real CV for 1 dollar spent ratios.
In any situation where freebies are based on purchase, they're treated the same as bundle.
Also false. If you read back the senior mod joining the discussion clearly stated that the giveaways are treated and judged separately even when they are closely linked to a purchase.
This offer has a lot of $9.99 games available to it. Based on 1 and 2, there's no way that every single game in this bundle wouldn't be added to the free list
If you check what people reported as getting usually like half of their pulls were 10 dollar games at most. Real CV gained would have been less than 10 for basically everyone participating. Compare this to say https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/1OYvQ/fanatical-dollar-neon-bundle where everyone got 13x 11 USD games for a staggering 20 real CV for 1 USD spent. And those didn't make the freebie list. This deal's offerings didn't make the freebie list for the reasons you state either. But becuase the giveaway was judged to be a separate offer from the initial purchase.
Comment has been collapsed.
40 dollar base price games available for 10 cents are usually put on the reduced CV list, not the free list.
The primary reason for that is generally a lack of excessive exploitation. It could also be a factor of the fact that some of the current staff members lacked any knowledge of the expectations set for the lists by Shobo, and may perhaps still be unclear on certain factors (or, even, it may be that the given staff members may have intentionally chosen to ignore past considerations- but that'd be reflective of individual staff considerations, rather than an overall policy change. And more than that, reflective of the chaotic handling cg has presented for lists ever since Shobo retired).
Shobo always put the couple cent games on the free list, in the past; Similarly, I recall bundled games eventually being subject to the same standards (thanks to a community push following gamemaker-type bundle exploitations). Clickteam's current 2011 free list dating heavily supports that recollection.
Also false. If you read back the senior mod joining the discussion clearly stated that the giveaways are treated and judged separately even when they are closely linked to a purchase.
If we're talking off my understanding of established approach for list inclusions, Eefrit's claims are an extreme enough deviation from expectations that I feel inclined to call Bullshit on it [as per the card game :P] (Moreover, I don't recall ever seeing this individual on the site before, nevermind performing in a support role in any capacity, so it's hard to guage if they even have any established credibility as far as speaking on such matters.)
It could however be that they're referencing a new policy, and just being weirdly firm, aggressive, and dismissive in how they're presenting it, which is giving an incorrect impression that they're holding the indicated guidelines as being more long-standing than they actually are.
Simply put, any free-with-purchase has always, always, always been considered part of the core purchase when determining valuation. If you buy $50 AAA game for $10, and get another $50 AAA game for free on top of that, the two games'd be considered to have a 90% discount. Again, if Eefrit is intending to state that that has not been the case in the past, then either I was misinformed by (actually recognizable) staff on several occasions, or they- and this wouldn't be the first time we've had a staff member do such- are deliberately speaking nonsense.
Again, by my strong recollections, there has always been a clear list division between "free" and "free with purchase", in that the latter has always considered all components to be paid (as is purely logical), with past threads having staff emphatically clarify that point.
Frankly, if what Eefrit is stating is a new policy, it comes across as an absolutely idiotic one. Now you've got a game with great promotion that won't hit bundled due to a technicality, despite meeting all the expectations of such, and yet you've got a bunch of randomly selected games that'll go free for literally no coherent reason whatsoever other than the fact that you might have possibly gotten them included with another game you paid for.
It very much goes against the aims of the list system (in that the point is to avoid exploitation, not to arbitrarily assign labels, which is why we have the % based criteria to begin with, rather than just bundling anything that's referenced to as a bundle), and is profoundly counter-intuitive and bewildering, which would make it a significant abberation among SG's historically very grounded system of rules and expectations.
Note that Shobo used to solo the Bundler role. I discussed things with him in depth, giving me a fairly strong grasp on his guidelines. Among staff, Khalaq is a fairly definitive source for anything related to site rules. For any other staff member, given cg's apparent poor education of new staff members and the ability to edit lists being fairly unfamiliar to general staff to begin with, there may be some holes when it comes to their grasp on Shobo's framework (and, as noted above, they may intentionally be moving to a different concept or concepts than what Shobo worked with).
All things considered, probably not best to rely too much on a completely random staff member that came out of nowhere, that made a point tthat got everyone calling them out for being wrong on, and who is being petulant and unreasonable in their replies to those comments. If they eventually make a reasonable explanation to support their points, that'd change things, but right now they might be a less reliable source to reference than some random hobo off the street. Which, again, I'm not entirely sure they aren't already.
To reiterate: I can't speak to the current staff approach to lists, not without first poking the handful of staff members I'm reasonably likely to be able to easily get a hold of. I can speak reliably to what Shobo, nevermind in many cases other staff members on top of that, informed me of in the past. I can also say that Eefrit's entire presentation on the previous page is quite poor. Everything beyond that is just working with the knowledge I have to the best I'm able. It may not be perfect, but it does tend to accomplish more than just yelling "False" blindly, and trusting in sources without checking if there's any possible issues with their veracity (not that I'd blame you for trusting in someone labeled as site staff, if you didn't already have the understanding that on SG that label has always been a bit inconsistent in reliability).
This offer has a lot of $9.99 games available to it. Based on 1 and 2, there's no way that every single game in this bundle wouldn't be added to the free list
While it would require staff to round to only the best picks, this current offer'd have a potential 98% decrease. Which is within extended considerations for the"free" range, if staff decides it warrants for such placement. Beyond that, any determinations'd need to be discussed with staff directly. However, yes, all the rest does seem to be attributable to either incoherent policies or flagrant staff incompetency as, as you noted, the discrepency between the two promotions is utterly nonsensical and contrary to the aims of the lists.
But becuase the giveaway was judged to be a separate offer from the initial purchase.
Again, that may be judged by Eefrit, but it's RADICALLY different from years of established site expectations. Rather, if the intention of your thread is to call out the discrepency in approach by staff on the matter, you have my full support. All the moreso now, given that none of the key arguments Eefrit has made thus far are sustainable under scrutiny, and several arguments have been pretty straightforwardly questionable. Nevermind how there's the feeling that they keep changing their argument each time they get called out on making an unsupportable one and, as of this moment, appear to have been caught without the ability to reply to the most recent logical counterpoints offered (as they invalidate previous claims by Eefrit). It's not a good look at present, so hopefully those interactions get a chance to improve.
Comment has been collapsed.
Like 90% of the established users also agreed with Eefrit's explanation. The huge majority of replies here claim this was obviously a separate giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just read your edited in paragraphs. You are like the 10th person accusing me of exploitation in this thread. You all can't even bother to read. For the record I didn't even get this deal which would have given a very modest real CV in line with other bundles at reduced CV. I mentioned this in the OP. So what did I make clear I was doing?
And I have never bought a single bundle solely for gifting, ever. Not even those very enticing dollar bundles. My giveaways are from Feudalife and Lootboy keys (which will be zero CV retroactively) bundle leftovers from bundles I bought for myself and hand picked interesting games I'm gifting directly on Steam. Plus a few keys I traded for on barter and ended up not activating myself.
If SG is your end goal from the start, then you need to adjust your mentality to SG for the purchase. If you're complaining over the CV, and you know SG aims to avoid CV exploitation, then.. well, that speaks very poorly to your intentions towards the site. But making a thread complaining about things on top of that? That just speaks bad to one's character. In summary, while the underlying mechanisms behind the site's "lists" can be confusing and it's reasonable to enquire on those, the implied mindset behind this thread, given its stated purposes, is extremely questionable.
And things like this speak extremely poorly of this community. You are just the last among many who mixed in baseless personal attacks or accusations into their replies in this topic. I'd like to thank those who gave me a serious reply even if they strongly disagreed with me, I've learned from several of them. For the rest this was a good lesson to avoid going into discussions on this forum.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just read your edited in paragraphs.
Strictly speaking, they weren't edited-in, the site just glitched the initial post and I had to repost it. which somehow updated it properly. It was incredibly weird. But yes, that's just a technical nuance from my side of things.
You are like the 10th person accusing me of exploitation in this thread. You all can't even bother to read.
All I did was highlight the logical points supportive to that interpretation, which you could have argued. Similarly, I was addressing the logic you were presenting, rather than looking into surrounding data or assumptions. Which does lead to a rather overfocused response, especially in terms of character attributions [which were intended to be associative, rather than directed, but I'm not really in a good state for ensuring that what I'm writing is perfectly clear in intent, atm] and could certainly present some issues because of that. I'm not in the state of mind to review things at the moment, but I can attempt to do so later on and apologize if necessary.
That said, you've given a particularly poor impression in this thread yourself as far as "bothering to read", so perhaps reconsider pursuing that approach. Nevermind that that particular claim is a rather bizzare one to make against me in particular. Try "failed to read properly", it's a more inclusive option, as that doesn't make assumptions on effort. Or just don't pursue the matter at all, unless there's a clear point to it, so that those you're talking towards don't need to stop giving benefit of the doubt on innocent misinterpretations themselves.
And things like this speak extremely poorly of this community. You are just the last among many who mixed in baseless personal attacks or accusations into their replies in this topic. I'd like to thank those who gave me a serious reply even if they strongly disagreed with me, I've learned from several of them. For the rest this was a good lesson to avoid going into discussions on this forum.
Despite my present lack of clarity, I can say that quoted section looks mostly fine. With the exception of the initial sentences not being clear in making use of a disassociated "you" or "your", the rest is properly disassociated [eg, "one's character].
In short, there's not a single personal attack in that section, aside from some initial misleading vagueness on intent, and anything you've come up with yourself. That said, the more you write, the worse your actual impression gets. From considering my comments "not serious" just because you didn't like them [despite your own comments being incredibly superficial, no less], to playing the victim card at the drop of a dime rather than properly addressing the points made..
Whatever, I've wasted too much time on this mess as-is. The one thing I can say confidently about you is, you weren't worth my hard-struggled effort to begin with. Not in the least.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't consider your comments not serious. I considered them absolutely serious but mixed in with baseless attacks.
If you're buying a bundle just to put it on SG for the CV return, as you've made clear you were doing with this particular bundle, then you're already openly admitting that the CV exploitation was your sole goal.
Maybe my English is extremely poor and this was indeed not directed at me but a general 'you'. But it certainly didn't read like to me at all. No matter how many times I reread it to me it still reads as a direct attack.
Whatever, I've wasted too much time on this mess as-is. The one thing I can say confidently about you is, you weren't worth my hard-struggled effort to begin with. Not in the least.
Oh, thanks for turning it back on me. You like insulting others but apparently don't like getting called out on it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, minor note, that's not part of the above quoted section, so your reliance on the general you that was being referenced in that section is extremely faulty.
And no, that's not a shift in intent, or a change in the use of general "you", but a misphrasing on my part. I meant to write "If one is buying a bundle just to put it on SG for the CV return, as you've made clear was the intent for this particular bundle in regards to how it fits into the topic under discussion, then one has already openly admitted that the CV exploitation was one's sole goal.
Basically, the intent there was to reinforce focus on the present topic, and then address that it was covering a topic with dubious merits.
This all said, I'm not making attacks on you (intentionally) because they're not necessarily warranted, but because it's neither in my nature to attack where there's not constructive benefit nor to make assumptions on such as being needed. Objectively speaking, I can't really fault anyone who would attack you personally, since your presentation is so messy, and your only real argument against "well, this isn't about ME exploiting CV" is your claim to have not bought the bundle, and that really doesn't actually clear up anything, as it's taking you at your word on both your purchase and your intent behind not purchasing.
In short, while some users on the site are inherently toxic, sometimes to extremes, any negative feedback you're getting is likely based in the fact that you made a topic with a very vaguely formed intent, formed with poorly structured English, with dubious merits, and then basically pulled a "my friend told me" on us, all before responding very argumentatively to our replies.
In any case, let's just do this: for the fact that I'm incapable of writing clearly at the moment [I put as much time in proofreading this as normal, as I always do to avoid such issues, but I'm in a particularly bad state this morning], and for any possible issues that may exceed coverage under that excuse: I apologize. Edit: Those were literally the only two misphrased sections.. -.-; They've been corrected, now.
That said, you are difficult to deal with, I really don't have a good impression of you by this point, and you haven't addressed any of the actual points I worked hard to present, so this very much will be my last post in this thread. Edit: And your edit is just exceptional.
Comment has been collapsed.
And no, that's not a shift in intent, or a change in the use of general "you", but a misphrasing on my part. I meant to write "If one is buying a bundle just to put it on SG for the CV return, as you've made clear was the intent for this particular bundle in regards to how it fits into the topic under discussion, then one has already openly admitted that the CV exploitation was one's sole goal.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this sentiment. To some people here (not neccessarily you) basically everything is CV exploitation except for giving away unbundled games purchased at modest discounts and giving away higher quality bundles. People are basically being shamed for wanting to gain CV. If you buy a dollar bundle, you are an exploiter. If you buy an unbundled game at 90% off, you are an exploiter. And so on. If the games in this offer did give reduced CV then people would gain like 3-8 CV for their purchase which is not better than any other bundle. So I fail to see how this could be an exploit in any way. It's a hypothetical exploit you'd gain nothing from.
Objectively speaking, I can't really fault anyone who would attack you personally, since your presentation is so messy, and your only real argument against "well, this isn't about ME exploiting CV" is your claim to have not bought the bundle, and that really doesn't actually clear up anything, as it's taking you at your word on both your purchase and your intent behind not purchasing.
I stated in the very OP that I didn't buy this. I would have never bought this even if it gave reduced CV. I started the topic because I saw a deal which to me seemed like a pay-to-get deal yet put games on the zero CV list. And it got me curious for the reason behind the decision. I don't see how you can assume me to have a secret agenda when I would have gained nothing from this deal even if I bought it and got reduced CV for the games. This is clearly not about anyone exploiting CV because this deal under no circumstances would have been a good one for exploiting CV. This topic was borne from my confusion about a paid deal putting games on the zero CV list.
In short, while some users on the site are inherently toxic, sometimes to extremes, any negative feedback you're getting is likely based in the fact that you made a topic with a very vaguely formed intent, formed with poorly structured English, with dubious merits, and then basically pulled a "my friend told me" on us, all before responding very argumentatively to our replies.
That said, you are difficult to deal with, I really don't have a good impression of you by this point, and you haven't addressed any of the actual points I worked hard to present, so this very much will be my last post in this thread.
I didn't pull a 'my friend told me' on you. I cited a senior mod who most likely has access to this decision making process. He was very firm on the reasons for these games becoming zero CV so I believed them. It's conjuction but the vast majority replying here agreed with their interpretation. I obviously don't know the old mod you referenced and you can very well be correct about how it was in the past. But it's not how it works currently it seems. Apart from the 'mod told me' I also gave you an example of extremely deeply discounted Russian keyshop keys that have been conistently put on the reduced CV list lately and also an example of high-gain dollar bundles which provide further counter-proof to your claim about how the bundle and freebie lists work. I tried to address your points as best I could.
I'm sorry to hear that you have a poor impression of me. I also apologize for wasting your time.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you buy a dollar bundle, you are an exploiter. If you buy an unbundled game at 90% off, you are an exploiter.
I strongly assume that it is a bt more complex for the most ones.
For me it is how much $1 bundles someone give away, or if he give each overpriced shady russian store game give away and how many copies. One $1 bundle no problem, 5+ hello blacklist, a few low price shady ru shop games ok, the complete cataloge with 5 copies+, hello blacklist. Easy as that.
When i were really active to report different overpriced shady ru store games, i had my daily routine to look into 5 or 6 profiles from everyday the same users to see which ones are fresh on that front and need to be handled.
But i don't have that time anymore, i don't want to invest so much time anymore and last but not least, from me are still around 500 add game tickets open, so the support have work for months, mayb years, till they handled all of them.
Ps.: I don't read the rest, i am much too sleepy, it was a exhausting and long day.
Comment has been collapsed.
Could a mod please explain the rationale behind this decision? This seems to go against the basic CV rules of the site. If even an event where you have to spend to get the games triggers the freebie-alert then my confidence in earning CV reliably is reduced to zero. People can already lose CV retroactively several ways but if even paid deals can get ruled too good (and this deal isn't even good for earning real CV) and get games zeroed that's a real kick in the nuts.
There is a lot of discussion on this thread and I unfortunately don't have a ton of time to respond to all of it, so I'll try to focus on this part.
To be clear, I am the one driving most of the gameplay giveaway and other recent retroactive CV reductions. There may be other mods who contribute, but I don't monitor changes by others and can't say how much others are adding themselves.
When changing the CV value of any game, we should be more or less in line with one another, but there are some cases that are fuzzier than others. For example, a gleam giveaway of 1.000.000 keys is obviously a straightforward freebie to be added to the 0 CV list. In this recent case specifically (Mirror), there's contention among many of us (all users of this site) as to whether this counts as a freebie or not.
This seems to go against the basic CV rules of the site.
I was not a user of the site when the current CV system was developed and implemented. I have/had in the past read through some discussion on the changes, but the reasoning is basically irrelevant for me. The site was what it was when I joined - that's that. When I was a newer user (and still to this day), the concept of CV is to reward those who give to the community. Steam GIFTS would not exist without users GIVING things away. The CV/level gains provide an incentive to those who would keep that going.
Originally, 0 CV games were not allowed to be given. In fact, one could be warned or suspended for it. Many older User Report tickets in the system are for that. The basis for this was that giving away something you received for free rewards some users "unfairly" when they did nothing to "earn" that reward.
After some time, a compromise was made (I believe at the request of the community, but my memory is fuzzy, and I'm not looking for the thread at the moment) to allow games to be given. Some people had batches of keys they had obtained for free, but couldn't give away here and were essentially laying away useless. When these free games were allowed to be given, the compromise was to allow 0 CV so the "unearned" CV would not be gained.
Regarding the retroactive adjustments, there are some guidelines we use to generally determine whether something gets 0 CV or not. As an example, a giveaway by a developer of 10 keys to garner attention for that game will generally not be added (if that is the only instance). However, in cases where thousands of keys for game A are given to promote a new game B, then game A will be set to free.
In the case of the IndieGala and some others, the giveaway is not as discreet or finite, and as such it is harder to track. If you can win game A via these methods, it is usually not clear if that stock is limited to 10, 100, 1.000, or... 100,000,000.
Originally, these seemed to be lower volume and not subject to the reduction. Over time, however, it has become clear that some of the options end up having somewhat significant totals that seem to show up here on our site. Can I tell you the exact count? Can I state with certainty that any key given here was sourced this way? Unfortunately, no, but the fuzzy outcome is that some users are (intentionally or not) gaining "unearned" CV for these giveaways.
I said "some of the options." There may very well be some games given this way that are much more limited in scope, but since we can't determine the full scale of the offering, it is in my own opinion best to set anything from here to 0. Since this determination has been made only after the initial offering, the only way to address it is to back-date the CV reduction to the first known instance.
For this Mirror event specifically, the developer/publisher specifically noted the volume of 1.6 million keys (later updated to 1.85) to be given away. This is being presented as a event with a chance to get (chance dependent upon stock availability). Had there been a promise to all to give these keys upon purchase, that would have worked like a bundle. As it is, the stock has been exhausted, but the event is ongoing, and one can still pay for the singular game without received the added freebies. Part of this same event is also a chance to win a Nintendo Switch, apparently.
In other words, entrants to the contest have a chance to win physical hardware as well as some keys (or both?), but neither are guaranteed, and exhaustion of stock has not ended the event (as may sometimes be the case in a bundle sale). For all intents and purposes, I see this as a giveaway/contest, not a bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks a lot for taking your time to write this very detailed reply. Very informative and useful for those like me who want to understand the nuances of how classification works.
And a special thank you for handling my tickets.:)
Comment has been collapsed.
"Originally, 0 CV games were not allowed to be given. In fact, one could be warned or suspended for it." <- wow. Glad that not happened. Just curious, sometimes games can be delisted from steam, or just no more selling on Steam for various reasons, but still has keys that flow in internet and they work. So what reason to restrict them? Or set to 0CV, it is just kills opportunity to spread them, because not all that games is bad. Yes, this thing need to be checked, but why not?
Reduced VC is more that enough to give them second life.
Comment has been collapsed.
wow. Glad that not happened.
Free games were simply included along with beta keys, guest passes, and non-Steam keys among things you couldn't post onto SG, and therefore treated similarly in terms of rule enforcement. Ultimately, the fact that free games WERE fundamentally different from those other options, was a factor that seemed to play heavily in the eventual adjustment of free games into their own category. Even more notable, Staff labor in regards to managing free giveaways was a huge hassle, and on top of that, free games were permanently removed from SG's giveaway creation selection, meaning many games were no longer available on SG at all, even if they'd only had a fairly limited free promotion. Basically, the change to how free games were handled was just a massive improvement all-around.
So what reason to restrict them? Or set to 0CV,
Since SG pulls price data from store pages, when games get delisted from Steam the games return a value of $0, which thus automatically sets SG valuation to 0 CV/P. This is fundamentally different from games on the 0 CV list, which've been permanently given a 0CV override by SG staff. In the case of games removed from Steam, staff may (if they feel circumstances warrant it and they have the time to spare to do it) manually update the games back to their last-recorded value using a manual override specific to that listing. This is mostly used for games removed directly by Valve (as that's an inherently permanent removal), as it's a hassle for staff to have to keep track of removing the override for games that might return to Steam.
Hopefully that properly addresses your question. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
In the case of games removed from Steam, staff may (if they feel circumstances warrant it and they have the time to spare to do it) manually update the games back to their last-recorded value using a manual override specific to that listing.
Only cg can adjust game value in the database. All moderators can do is mark game as bundled or no CV. Because of it there are games with wrong value that were pulled down from Steam. SG recorded last inflated price (say 50CV for game that was normally 20CV), game is removed from Store, SG doesn't have point of reference to fix inflated price and it stays like that. LIke haunted đť
Comment has been collapsed.
So, if I'm reading your last paragraphs correctly, your points are:
- This is a free-with-purchase
- This is NOT a bundle (which'd share cost distribution), but a giveaway/contest (which would only have a binary check against a purchase or other prohibitive requirement in terms of determining whether a free adjustment is needed)
So according to your logic, none of the "free" games from this promotion should be added to either list (as that would be the standard and rational response from SG to a purchase-based promotion without bundle-like valuation, as you've further emphasized with the Switch association).
That, or you're somehow arguing that "if they're free but you might not get them, then we'll treat them worse than if you're guaranteed to get them". Which, I mean, would follow with the dubious sensibility presented by Eefrit's previous arguments, but it really raises eyebrows to cartoonishl degrees.
Side-note, not sure where you're getting "chance to get" in the first place, as it relates to keys, since I'm not seeing any indication in the promotion thread that the 10 keys weren't guaranteed at the start. After all, it wouldn't become "chance to get" because they ran out of keys or intermittedly run out of keys, it'd simply be a break in or pause in the promotion [ie, "guaranteed to get, but no longer active"]. But perhaps I'm overlooking some clarifications in that thread.
In any case, this entire thread is ridiculous for reasons beyond the weirdly unfocused staff responses. After all, there's nothing different from this and any previous Sakura free-with-purchase promotion (aside, perhaps, from quantity of keys), so all staff needs to do is crosscheck previous Sakura promotion threads (and there were many, as I recall), check how the games in question were or were not affected at the corresponding dates, and then simply quote precedence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Side-note, not sure where you're getting "chance to get" in the first place
I suppose I could have used some better phrasing/clarity, but it still seems only a "chance" to me.
Point 1: Buying (+playing) the game does not guarantee delivery of any extra keys. It is only to the first x who made the request.
Point 2: The specific games delivered appear to be random, so there is a chance that you can get one thing but not another.
This is a free-with-purchase
Not quite true. If one had purchased the game at the onset of the event, but didn't participate further, they would have received nothing else. The additional actions are required and are not a purchase (though accessible/contingent upon a purchase).
Comment has been collapsed.
Same as ANY promotional event EVER. Yet every other such type of event hasn't been market as 0 CV. Even Fanatical "free with purchase" have in their terms very clearly stating WHILE STOCK LASTS. And you also don't know what you are getting or the total stock (oh sorry.. here you knew, 1.600.000 keys and +250.000 added in secrecy).
Comment has been collapsed.
May I ask you as the most senior staff member active here for a stance upon games given away by hardware manufacturers? They seem to follow exactly the scheme you are presenting.
Initially they used to give keys in promotional packages, later they started giving away promo codes, but now more and more often you only get the bonus if you register the hardware purchase during the promo period(and meet some other limitations)
So basically you buy some hardware(even a mouse in the referenced example). If you additionally register it on a specified portal you can get some games. Failing to do so grants you nothing. This looks as if the technical change in how bonus content is delivered in such cases makes all such promos to now fall under the free category, as the distribution is no longer strictly tied with the act of purchasing the main product
Original comment can be found here
Comment has been collapsed.
I had thought of bringing this up, actually, but worried it might muddy the waters. Since you asked, though, I will try to address.
First off, I agree that the logic I've outlined elsewhere in this thread would indicate these games would be free as well. But I think it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.
I don't know of any specifics with regard to volume of game keys distributed this way, but I imagine the pools are large, with a smaller percentage of that pool actually being utilized/redeemed. Hardware is typically significantly more expensive than a few dollars, and fewer people are apt to buy the hardware to redeem the promotion. And as you pointed out, there are usually more restrictions on who can and can't redeem. Direct activation, rather than a key that can be given away or sold elsewhere, is also a factor. If the "free with purchase" reward was delivered directly to your account, then the conversation would be moot.
Long story short, availability of keys != utilization. I would say these scenarios typically would require additional review on a case by case basis before a decision is made.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for the clarification. Actually the way @Sooth presented with calculating the value gained/value paid seemed intuitive, the current interpretation focused solely on gaining A for owning B not so.
I've actually seen a few games from those promos here(even won one) and majority of them was never considered free. This was probably less problematic when those promos were limited to top grade CPUs/GPUs and the scale was minimal, but some of the recent promotions are targetting much cheaper parts as well. The UK page shows that bonuses start with parts worth ~100USD while both games total to 90$ so at least for some people this might already become a noticeable factor. I think It would be good to have a clear way to determine when such deal will be considered free. Vague availability factor is open for interpretation and may lead to questionable decisions
Comment has been collapsed.
Not quite true.
If you're going by drunk logic, I guess. "Free-with-purchase AND additional actions" is still Free-with-purchase. There's still a mandatory purchase prerequisite to any subsequent components. Traditional SG listing practices were based on <paid> and <unpaid> as the core criteria. Again, this is the only rational way to approach it, as well. This weird "you paid but you didn't actually pay" approach is incoherent. To be clear, "free-with-purchase" in this context does not mean "only-with-purchase", it means that purchase is a prerequisite, and therefore the free items are not actually free (and thus cannot typically be treated as such by SG's listing practices).
Notably, the extra layer of additional effort on promotions like this one can apply the same exceptions that apply to standard promotions, in that if the additional efforts are excessive they reduce or remove the list effects that would otherwise apply. Ergo, matching to the first paragraph following the bullet points in my preceding post, wherein I attempted to seek clarification if this was the approach you were supporting. This reductive approach is a reasonable one, but you've thus far yet to clarify if that's the intended approach, if it would apply to this current promotion and why, and why there's a contradiction to the current (and bizzare) arrangement presently in practice.
Again, you're talking addition, where current practice is subtraction (see the second paragraph following the bullet points in the previous post). The relevant topic still has yet to be addressed- why the paid component is being ignored [again, remembering that a paid component changes free to free-with-purchase and thereby applies a reduction effect on listing placement] because MORE effort is required.
The additional actions are required and are not a purchase (though accessible/contingent upon a purchase).
Yes, that's exactly the point. Again, currently the games provided by the promotion have been listed as "Free" on Steam, due to the promotion. But to get the games, you needed to first purchase a game, then commit to several tasks, and then also hope that promotional quantity is still in stock (not that that last one is at all relevant, since it's already covered under the quantity-access asssement under the standard listing considerations and, given that fact, I'm wondering what kind of framework you newer staff members are actually running with).
So, to reiterate, the games should be considered as a bundle (this'd be the normal approach, restricted quantity has never excluded bundle considerations anymore than limited time has, so long as the quantity-access assessment [ie, confirmation of exploitative opportunity] is positive) or, as you've repeatedly asserted, they shouldn't have been affected at all (which, again, isn't at all unreasonable given the circumstances).
Honestly, it's getting rather weird how multiple staff members in this thread have now responded with a peculiar circumvention of the direct topic, all while at the same time making plenty of points that actively support the consideration that there is currently an issue with how promotions are being handled. I'm starting to feel like we're having translation issues or something..
Also:
Buying (+playing) the game does not guarantee delivery of any extra keys. It is only to the first x who made the request.
I wouldn't even call this drunk logic. It's not only lacking in immediate relevancy, it contradicts how all previous promotions have been considered. On a pretty significant amount of fronts, at that. Perhaps there's an issue with the phrasing you used? Because, putting aside that it's yet another argument in favor of confirming that there is an issue with how bundles are being handled, that's just a typical play promotion. Those have always been factored under quantity+effort, same as any other promotion. More importantly, your phrasing is inaccurate, as I understand the promotion: This is a play-time task, not a play task (as with that Goblin Coins game, which does require actual loading and play of the game). As idling is considered a low-effort task, and given the quantity involved, this woudldn't (historically) meaningfully affect how the present promotion is considered, at least not on the initial assessment.
The specific games delivered appear to be random, so there is a chance that you can get one thing but not another.
This wasn't ever considered relevant in high-quantity, even-spread promotions, given how the assessment process is supposed to work, as the games ultimately end up being a CV average. (And, just a reminder, when there are special considerations like these, free games'd typically go to the bundle list rather than be excluded from adjustment entirely.) There can be times when it'd be a relevant consideration (generally speaking, this relates more to factors of probability, quantity, and purchasing limit than to the randomization itself, however; In short, rarer games would be excluded from any list adjustments). From what I recall, and from what I know of the promotion, this wouldn't be one of those exceptions. As a result of that standard, putting randomization as an absolute exclusionary criteria would additionally contradict how countless previous promotions were handled.
Comment has been collapsed.
So according to your logic, none of the "free" games from this promotion should be added to either list (as that would be the standard and rational response from SG to a purchase-based promotion without bundle-like valuation, as you've further emphasized with the Switch association).
That, or you're somehow arguing that "if they're free but you might not get them, then we'll treat them worse than if you're guaranteed to get them". Which, I mean, would follow with the dubious sensibility presented by Eefrit's previous arguments, but it really raises eyebrows to cartoonishl degrees.
No. I have said a few times now, this is not a "with purchase" scenario and should not be treated as a bundle, because nobody is promising 10 keys with purchase as would be the case in a legitimate/standard bundle. It is a limited offer of a reward for those who own the game.
If this exact promotion was offered under all the same terms a year after the release of the game (meaning open to the first x owners who played for y+ time who visit z page), I don't believe you would be making the same argument you are now. And yes, the promotion is being offered with the release of the game, but that is completely beside the point here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't believe you would be making the same argument you are now
I would, and that's how it was handled in the past. o.O
And yes, the promotion is being offered with the release of the game, but that is completely beside the point here.
And now you're discussing totally random things that weren't ever brought up at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would
So you own a game today. One year from now, the dev of that game offers to you 10 free keys to you, provided you connect to their site and prove you've played their game, you don't think those 10 keys should be flagged as free? I doubt that, but I cannot speak for you nor do I know what is in your head, so I suppose I must take you at your word.
If you don't agree with the case I've laid out, then you do you, but I have explained my rationale for you.
that's how it was handled in the past.
In similar previous cases, I do feel this is how it should be/have been handled. Are you only agreeing to the decision based on precedent, merits, or some of both? If largely based on precedent, then should we go back to disallowing any "free" games? I agree we should be consistent when we can, but if the situation changes, so should how we address it.
And now you're discussing totally random things that weren't ever brought up at all.
Yep. I was trying to pre-emptively quash an argument making a case based on the difference, being that it's the only difference in the scenarios I posited..
Comment has been collapsed.
so all staff needs to do is crosscheck previous Sakura promotion threads (and there were many, as I recall), check how the games in question were or were not affected at the corresponding dates, and then simply quote precedence.
I missed this on my first read through. I agree these older ones should likely be handled the same and may need adjustment if not already marked free.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shobo put a lot of work into things and, while I may have not always agreed with each and every end conclusion, I respected how he got to them. Meanwhile, I don't see any reason at the moment to respect the approach indicated by present staff members, especially given the absolute madness of what you've just stated you wish to do, following the contradictory arguments you've just made, and yet you're presenting the ego to tromp all over years of hard effort, despite the fact that that'd be exhaustive amounts of work and would lead to countless inconsistencies for a while, and would have no clear benefit whatsoever? Nevermind you'd have to dig up countless records to try and see how the base game in the promotions would have to be readjusted, which is going to lead to potential oversights, and.. I mean, good gtrief- does staff not have enough work to do, or something?
Honestly, at this point it kinda feels like you just want to watch the site burn. I really do hope that's a misread. And if you do have an argument for a change, then that's a discussion to have. But "these are all the reasons we shouldn't do it this way, so let's do it this way" is just.. ccccurious?
Also, if intentional, your "agree" would be a pretty rude bit of phrasing. Saying you "agree" while taking my statement of checking precedence so as to confirm foundations, and convoluting it into an intent to undermine foundations (with something that is, at present, still being presented as being completely batshit) isn't exactly polite (again, if intentional). It'd kind of be like me saying "We should ensure those orphans can survive on the streets." and you responding with "I agree, we should ensure those orphans get on the streets." There's nuance, and then there's something else. I mean, it's one thing if I hadn't been arguing this one singular point this whole time, sure..
Comment has been collapsed.
following the contradictory arguments you've just made
Where are my contradictions?
yet you're presenting the ego to tromp all over years of hard effort, despite the fact that that'd be exhaustive amounts of work and would lead to countless inconsistencies for a while, and would have no clear benefit whatsoever? Nevermind you'd have to dig up countless records to try and see how the base game in the promotions would have to be readjusted, which is going to lead to potential oversights, and.. I mean, good gtrief- does staff not have enough work to do, or something?
Absolutely, there is plenty to do. I am not strictly a bundler, but a good portion of my moderation time goes toward correcting CV. I don't know why you assume that I am making any changes willy-nilly, without consideration for the details.
I agree these older ones should likely be handled the same and may need adjustment if not already marked free.
Rephrasing for you: I agree that similar cases should be handled in a similar way. Given my current take of the circumstances, I believe the older promotions may (not having the details in front of me) need to be reviewed and amended. You don't have to agree with me, nor do I intend to strictly dictate that "this is the way it is, so deal".
I'm not sure I understand why you are taking this discussion so personally/aggressively. I have not claimed that you are "mad", "batshit", "drunk" or anything else. Rather, those are your words toward me. I am trying to express my opinion on the matter and to clarify when you and others have asked me questions. I never once said anyone is explicitly wrong or stupid or anything else derogatory. We may disagree, but I'm offering my time and effort to help you understand me better. I'm not here to make you happy - I know that I can't succeed in life trying to - but I'm also not trying to be detrimental to anyone, either.
If I am in the minority in this case, which has happened plenty of times in my life, I am happy to capitulate. The fact of the matter is that at the moment, a decision has been made, and I am explaining my perspective of it to you. For what it's worth, I am not the one who actively altered the CV value for this promotion; I just happen to agree with it.
Comment has been collapsed.
not sure where you're getting "chance to get"
Well, go and get it. Game is still on sale, and cost exactly the same. If it's not a chance to get - you should have no problem getting 10 games right now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have the time now to analyze all of your points (or the points above your response). I'll try to do so a little bit later when I return home.
Until then, I would like to point out that no response so far has been the tinniest bit satisfactory in addressing ANY issue. You are repeating known things but the logical links between them don't exist (I will point those out too later).
The 0 CV concept and the "we have CV to give incentive to gifters" falls apart the second you all start talking about it.
If the reasoning is to gift why not allow something? You changed it you say and now everybody falls is "abuse" category as some pointed out. There is a problem of the overall thinking behind this idea.
Masafor's solution is actually better. Go against abusers and not "burn the whole village for 2 flowers".
0 CV has to be something absolutely free and also with 0 value whatsoever. Everything else should be reduced or have a base minimum flat CV (if you want to keep the current system as it is)
All else happen for a selective few and not "the general public" and it's for no one's good will but "lottery traders" (aka specific rules comes to mind) and this is why most are annoyed.
I can't go to details now over those stuff as I really have to go but before this there is 1 major concern for me.
For this Mirror event specifically, the developer/publisher specifically noted the volume of 1.6 million keys (later updated to 1.85) to be given away. This is being presented as a event with a chance to get (chance dependent upon stock availability). Had there been a promise to all to give these keys upon purchase, that would have worked like a bundle. As it is, the stock has been exhausted, but the event is ongoing, and one can still pay for the singular game without received the added freebies. Part of this same event is also a chance to win a Nintendo Switch, apparently.
In other words, entrants to the contest have a chance to win physical hardware as well as some keys (or both?), but neither are guaranteed, and exhaustion of stock has not ended the event (as may sometimes be the case in a bundle sale). For all intents and purposes, I see this as a giveaway/contest, not a bundle.
I can't format like others but I'll try to be crystal clear.
This WAS a 10 random [from a set pool of keys - publisher past games and later and dlcs] keys BUNDLE (meaning of bundle is x games combined in 1 tier/sack/bag/promotion/purchase/anything you can name and I forgot). A GUARANTEED for the FIRST 1.600.000 (later with the dlcs 1.850.00) keys aka [divide by 10] 160.000 PURCHASES.
There is no if and there is no but. It's a bundle being BOUGHT W-I-T-H a PROMOTION, but a bundle non the less. Unless bundle suddenly means something else.........
This makes it free WITH purchase and not FREE.
Side-note: Sg cannot know sales of other stores
Despite all of this there is 1 huge issue arising by defining it either as me or as you. What about those free mystery keys fanatical gives with purchases? (either timed promos or those special in the cart). They are mass and available to all. They are the EXACT definition you gave on "In other words... apparently". And this is only 1 example. There are many more just like this one (ig tickets free with purchase and so on)
Those aren't 0 CV.
Why?
Comment has been collapsed.
I apologize, but I'm not sure I'm following you 100%.
If the reasoning is to gift why not allow something?
We do allow gifting of 0 CV games, but with no CV reward.
A GUARANTEED for the FIRST 1.600.000
Not true, as I pointed out in another comment. Had one been the very first purchaser, but did not meet any of the additional requirements, they would have been entitled to nothing and nothing over and above your purchase would have been delivered.
What about those free mystery keys fanatical gives with purchases?
These are delivered at the time of purchase, no other actions required.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fanatical free with purchase games. Those gifts you get for carts above x amount (and also many times as promo within the cart itself). One of those picks is the "mystery gift". This is exactly the same thing as here. Why aren't those all 0 CV?
This makes it more clear? If not, what you don't understand well?
Not true, as I pointed out in another comment. Had one been the very first purchaser, but did not meet any of the additional requirements, they would have been entitled to nothing and nothing over and above your purchase would have been delivered.
Not true. Same can happen to any promotion. Say Fanatical free with purchase. X game/reward/choice might go out of stock before you redeem it. Also, you may get your "coupon number" but not redeem it to something before the end of the event thus losing it.
What's the difference?
These are delivered at the time of purchase, no other actions required.
Wrong. You get a coupon to redeem what choice you want. You do it or not it's another issue or what's gonna be left in it by then. Promotion ends -> coupon void -> no reward even if you were first buyer (same with spin the wheel -> they have a time limit)
Edit:
(I keep failing text format :/ )
Comment has been collapsed.
Your formatting looks fine (not sure if you edited it). Just in case, are you aware of this guide?
You get a coupon to redeem what choice you want.
Yes, whether a coupon, a key, or something else, it gets delivered, either via the storefront or email, when purchase is completed.
In this case, one gets nothing other than the Mirror game at the time of purchase.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your formatting looks fine (not sure if you edited it). Just in case, are you aware of this guide?
I did edit it as I failed it xD I've read it but it's still confusing me so I take it 1 step at a time :P
In this case, one gets nothing other than the Mirror game at the time of purchase.
At the time of purchase you are granted access to the platform that gets you exactly this. Your ticket number.
The only different is that Steam as a store doesn't allow a way for this kind of ticket to be sent so you have to do it externally. Which is why both links existed in the announcement of the promo. This is failure of steam and not of the event.
Regardless, you could open the platform to check the event state at any time during the promo's length. When keys ended, it got updated stating just that.
Same argument applies to coupons. "I bought it to get X" -> "here is your coupon" -> "I go redeem" -> "oops, we are sorry, out of stock"
It is the EXACT same thing. The only difference is just how this can be handled within Steam Store vs externally.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't mean to be splitting hairs, but perhaps it is necessary here.
At the time of purchase you are granted access to the platform that gets you exactly this.
One doesn't gain access to the platform upon purchase. I have access right now, but I did not buy the game. I do not have access to any reward on the platform, however.
Further, upon purchase, one also does not have immediate access to the reward. One must play (or idle) the game for at least 2 hours before that becomes available. I completely understand the reasoning for this to prevent refund abuse, but that is irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion.
Something (semi)tangible is delivered with Fanatical when the purchase is complete, nothing is delivered here at that time.
Edit:
I know in this instance the event was coordinated with the release of the game. Had this been done a year after the fact, with the same reward/requirements, then the free items would have been marked as 0 CV. I see the choice to mark these as free now as being consistent in that regard.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is because there are 2 promotions and from how the accessing platform was built upon. Seeing it and having access to the promo rewards are 2 different things.
This is matter of how something like this is possible to be built for steam. And what capabilities and abilities the hosters have.
It doesn't have to be delivered simultaneously. Prizes and free rewards can be delivered at a later time and systems to redeem things might not work. In ANY event.
The Fanatical redeem page you can always see. And?
To one you have a number to input
To the other you need 2h 20min to do the same
So?
And no.. This isn't hair splitting.. It's something more..
Comment has been collapsed.
What I'm getting from all this is that this promo is no different from any other giveaway where you have to complete a series of tasks to enter, like:
- Join group X on steam.
- Play game Y for Z time on steam.
- ???
- Profit!
Just substitute "Join group X on steam" with "Buy game Y on steam" and you have this promo, but because in this case one of the actions involves a purchase, people seem to be getting confused to no end about this...
Comment has been collapsed.
1 is 100% free the 2nd not at all.
Substitute 1. of your logic with buy bundle (and 4. Being card or ga or trade profit)
And what on earth is 3.??? ?
Properly structured arguments.. Gotta love those.. 0 logical fallacies..
Comment has been collapsed.
1 is 100% free the 2nd not at all.
Yes, I already stated that's the only difference between the two and is what is confusing people about this whole issue, hey even I was confused about this, at first when I saw this discussion I thought "hey they seem to have a point", upon further inspection I see that is not the case.
Substitute 1. of your logic with buy bundle (and 4. Being card or ga or trade profit)
I have yet to see a bundle that requires you to play a game in order to claim your keys, but I don't really buy bundles so what do I know.
And what on earth is 3.??? ?
That's stand in for whatever other actions that may need to be completed, you see, I haven't actually checked this particular promotion, so I don't know.
Properly structured arguments.. Gotta love those.. 0 logical fallacies..
You do realize we are talking about games, right? I don't think there's any need to be upset?
Comment has been collapsed.
I have yet to see a bundle that requires you to play a game in order to claim your keys, but I don't really buy bundles so what do I know.
To be fair, when buying keys from a 3rd party, you typically aren't allowed a refund once the key has been revealed/used. In this case, the developer is preventing a refund based on Steam's rules limiting refunds after a certain amount of play time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ok, so they are trying to get the same effect as 3rd party bundle, without actually creating a bundle at all... so I asume they get some kind of benefit doing it this convoluted way rather than an actual bundle...
Comment has been collapsed.
It is possible they are trying to game the Steam system by getting more in-store buyers for their game. Steam legitimizes to a small degree games that sell some quantity on their store vs external sites. That legitimization includes the allowance of trading cards. When a user buys a trading card via the Steam market, even for pennies, both Valve and the developer/publisher get a cut. That's not to say it's ultimately worth it - I have no idea the total cost/profit of all this, but that is a theory.
Also, reviews posted by key-activation users are not used in total review scores for games, so people reviewing this way may show a larger interest in the game to would-be buyers.
Edit:
That doesn't really address the point that they could just make the bundle on the Steam storefront? Perhaps it's intentionally to get some users to buy without having to provide anything else extra (see: exhausted key stock).
Comment has been collapsed.
They are already established publisher. Pretty much they get insta trading cards on release.
Nobody was asked to leave a review or anything similar was said.
The sales part of this has been covered by.. I forgot.. But it's in the promo topic his/her name. How it was "advertised" in China, what happened with Mirror 1 and so on.
All of them are off topic
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah but if they have any knowledge of this site might be worried that now if they do have games in other sites such as indidegala or fanatical - it won't be worth nearly as much
Comment has been collapsed.
Read what the promotion is.
And the above comments.
It is getting kind of late for me so I'm tired to re-write everything so extensively but pretty much every single on those points has been covered.
And when tiredness kicks in mistakes in expressions happen :P
Comment has been collapsed.
In the end, after Eefrit came a second Mod along, more as in my thread were i wanted responsses of Mods to something.
A higher one in this case -or i can say one of the Nr. 2s after cg (and as far as i see it, the most active from them)-, he write detailed answers and you come, after the 34534 message, still along with the same stuff about bundles because you don't like the direction of his answers, that have in general the same drection as the one before from Eefrit.
Sorry in my mind are to that many many many facepalms.
He really invested a lot of time, i in his shoes gave up earlier because in the end, they aren't around to make people happy. Special not the ones that want changes but aren't willing to do something by themself, from the things they can do to help/adress something/bring something into the focus of the mods.
He could easier think "Not my problem if it is liked, thats how it is done, finish". Good luck finding a mod that is above him and double good luck that cg move to do something (maybe that will happen when you kill his ads or you find a other way to hit his earnings...)
Comment has been collapsed.
The "good luck" part is cringe worthy.. So we have to feel blessed the moderators/admins do what they are supposed to do?
"It is what it is, take it or leave it" remember this the next time you ask/report anything
As for second mod comments.. I'm not even starting on this madness. Others addressed it already better than I could (given they know the history better than me)
So.. This comment is what exactly? A "I'm bored to read you all" statement?
Comment has been collapsed.
The "good luck" part is cringe worthy
No, it is honest because you got from 2 mods the same direction of answers, that you dislike. And because one of them can be seen as Nr. 2 you will not get a other one, that you maybe still would dislike, on the same matter.
"It is what it is, take it or leave it" remember this the next time you ask/report anything
The extreme big difference between us are that i try to change stuff as best as i can (limited on the rules and other things).
And because more as the half open add game tickets are from me i would say i do a lot.
As for second mod comments.. I'm not even starting on this madness.
To be honest, i think "this madness" only exist in your head.
I seen the answers as very detailed, friendly and absolute clear.
Comment has been collapsed.
This isn't about if I like an answer or not.. But telling me I should feel "lucky" we got any response at all it's.. I can't even find the word. I'll go with funny.
This is a response that I would expect if we were talking about steamtrades.. That's been abandoned. I don't think it's the same treatment here.........
The extreme big difference between us are that i try to change stuff as best as i can (limited on the rules and other things).
And because more as the half open add game tickets are from me i would say i do a lot.
You're trying to patch, not fix.
You're sending the most and half your tickets are unopened. Pagan mentioned it's been 8 months.
For others it's never.
It's of no interest what might happen after 1-2-3 years.. It's too late.. (for each game)
The site has moderators. We are not them. It's 1 thing to miss 12 things and another to miss 80%+..
To be honest, i think "this madness" only exist in your head.
You'd be very wrong in thinking this but I was talking for all answers (and stuff are still unanswered when it got hard) not just the latest ones.
I also spoke a lot only on Mirror 2. Had no time yesterday and I might not even have today (as it is my birthday so it will mostly mobile phone [I hate it xD] again..) to comment on the rest.
We try different things. You want to keep patching.. Fine by me.. But for me that's not the solution
Comment has been collapsed.
This hasn't even been addressed yet and we are moving to the next answer..
Comment has been collapsed.
It sounds like some sort of semantic trap: if they had an explicit 1 dollar bundle with all those games it would probably fall into Reduced, but since they labeled it as a Buy 1 get 10 FREE, that F-word made it a whole new scenario, falling into the Zero family. Could it be?
Comment has been collapsed.
If it WAS a bundle - yes. But it was not, at least I've never seen any other bundles that:
- You are not guaranteed you will get all games after purchase
- You need to perform some further actions to get more games
- You can still buy it after it's ended, but you will get only one game
- You will get one guaranteed games but other will be random, even if you will get them.
- Etc.
If it were bundle - people would be upset as fuck, and probably will curse towards seller and will not buy it. But when it was called a "promotion" it's quite different. So, it's not only semantics.
Comment has been collapsed.
- It is (while supplies last -> 1.600.000 that got upped to 1.850.000)
- Same as many free with purchase (including Fanatical promos that you need to activate your coupon to something or spin the wheel and so on)
- You can't even buy it after it's ended except each game it was included 1 by 1
- Same as any mystery bundle, hidden tier, hidden gift, extra whatever
- Etc.
So, it's only semantics.
And even that is a big IF. I'm still waiting an answer on my last reply :)
Learn to read for the 2345345 time :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Not trying to fan any flames here - I'm genuinely curious that since Mirror 2: Project X itself wasn't among the list of games being given away through the event, why was it marked as being 0CV?
Comment has been collapsed.
40% discount should not even merit bundle list.
Also there is not single giveaway... https://www.steamgifts.com/archive/search?q=Mirror%202%3A%20Project%20X
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it should either be full CV for the main game and zero for the rest if the giveaway is treated as a separate event or an equal reduced CV for everything if it's treated like a single promo event. This has to be a mistake.
Comment has been collapsed.
That may have been an oversight - we're human, after all. I've removed that from the 0 CV list.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you, it should not go to 0CV list.
Unfortunately I cannot see the history of changes in the reduced/free lists here, so I cannot tell 100% who and why did put it there.
I've just removed from the list of free games, it should be full value now.
I believe it was just a honest mistake, sorry for the inconvenience and thank you for pointing that out.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's alright :) There's no inconvenience, really, I just spotted it and thought I should ask.
Comment has been collapsed.
According to recent discussions it's the long term plan of the mod team to put all games on the zero CV list that haven't been part of classic mass giveaways but can be obtained for free by other more convulated / time intensive means. They have already started to put all Indiegala Feudalife drops on the zero CV list and with time probably all possible Lootboy drops, all games once available in the Chrono.gg coin shop, possibly all games available on GameTame for points will be zero CV. And probably there are several more such sites where you can get games for doing tasks. With time a massive amount of bundled games will be put on the zero CV list rectroactively backdated several years. It is what it is and I don't agree with it but I decided to start this topic as two days ago something even more unexplainable happened.
There is this event running currently: https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/CG9kx/steam-mirror-2-project-x-buy-the-game-and-get-10-other-steam-games-while-stocks-last
You buy one game for 0.95 EUR and get another 10 games on top if you play the first for 2+ hours. Essentially it's a dollar bundle with one guaranteed game and 10 random ones (from a short list). There is absolutely no way to get these games for free at all. They are also mostly very low base price games and DLCs so if they went on the reduced CV list this deal would provide real CV at about the same or even lower rate than normal bundles. Like 3-6 real CV for 1 dollar spent depending on what random games you get. But for some reason they have all been put on the zero CV list instead. Why?
Could a mod please explain the rationale behind this decision? This seems to go against the basic CV rules of the site. If even an event where you have to spend to get the games triggers the freebie-alert then my confidence in earning CV reliably is reduced to zero. People can already lose CV retroactively several ways but if even paid deals can get ruled too good (and this deal isn't even good for earning real CV) and get games zeroed that's a real kick in the nuts.
(Disclaimer: I didn't get this deal so I'm not directly affected.)
Comment has been collapsed.