Thanks. So now they're bundling games that get sold for cheap on grey sites. At first I wanted to say that's bullshit, but after seeing Splasher and Aviary selling for as cheap as 30 cents I really can't get mad at them for adding them to the bundled games list.
I just wish there was announcement regarding this that would explain how this is going to work.
Comment has been collapsed.
The problem is they don't know how it's going to work, at the moment they're basically just making it up as they go.
Comment has been collapsed.
True. Though an "explanation" coloumn in the table could be useful - with bundle name, site name + discount, or just "cheap on gray markets" note
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it's a really old rule that if some game sold somewhere with a price cheaper than 5% of original price, it's added to bundle list. It also includes regional prices, so if something sold in steam with about 85% discount, it also hits this limit because regional price is cheaper than 5% of original US price.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am well aware of that rule, however that rule was only applied to official stores and never to grey sites until now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, it happened before. Support not always notice those gray sites though, so it mostly happens when a lot of giveaways for a certain game created in short period of time.
Comment has been collapsed.
Traditionally games aren't to the bundle list based on the lowest price on grey sites (sensibly as there might always be a scammer selling GTA V keys for $2), but I'm sure I can remember at least a few games from last year that were added to the bundle list after large numbers of very cheap keys were sold on G2A or whatever and then large numbers of giveaways started appearing here on SG and it became clear people were exploiting the CV system. It's a new attitude towards Humble Monthly but grey sites certainly haven't been ignored in the past.
Comment has been collapsed.
not really, there's been cases of games going for big sales en'masse on G2A or unofficial russian sites and being bundled, rule of a thumb for Support has been 'if something gets exploited it get bundled', what changed is how they look at 'exploited' - if there was a cheap sale on russian site for game XYZ and suddenly the very same day dozens of gAs appeared on SG, while befere that there were hardly any, it was not hard to assume that 99% sure all these GAs come from this sale and people exploit it to gain CV, here situation is different - sure people are exploiting grey market to get CV for Monthly games but at the same time dozens of users buy Monthly fair and square for normal value so a lot of GAs are bought for usual price. So in the past they were bundling grey market only when they were pretty sure most of GAs are exploitative, now they bundle grey market even if they know only some of GAs are coming from exploit and that many people are not exploiting.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is not the whole story though. Quite often humble monthly itself does not reach the discount needed for games to be added to the bundle list. What's happening here is that the games are being sold incredibly cheap on grey market sites, and the CV-abuse of it is widespread enough for mods to view it as a problem, and thus they add them to the bundle list. That's why only some games form the bundle got added to the bundle list.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just dislike that the one staff member is indicating that they're using "multiple copies were given away" as their core premise, regardless of how many of those were either gotten from people who have multiple monthly accounts or were traded for from such users, and are just highlighted 'cause the featured games (as always) are instead redeemed, sold, or traded off at higher valuations than the indie games.
If there's legitimate basis that high quantities are being sold somewhere cheap, then it falls under the purview of existing rules, but "hey, we weren't aware of this before, but seeing how multiple copies had been given away, it had to have been exploited" is not only dubious, but it unfairly attributes grey-market use to those of us who have never once used such sites, thus being needlessly insulting.
In addition, 'high quantities' has typically referred to thousands of copies available from a single source, so I'm wondering if the grey market (which I'm given to understand typically handles closer to double-digit quantities?) is really having the impact this change suggests of it.
Moreover, there's the fact that monthlies seem to be exclusively targeted by this, despite having being considered a single bundle tier; While it's presumably less likely to see exploitable numbers out of normal bundles, the current impression we're being given is that they're not being reviewed for such [as relates to grey market sites] at all.
Beyond that, we still have the far more heavily exploited and more significant exploitation of trashware and multi-copy bundles that hasn't been addressed in any way. Likewise, this current implementation seems totally erratic- while I can't attest to grey market site pricing in any way, if trading values are anything to go off of, then they're hitting less devalued games while skipping over more devalued ones.
In short, regardless of if the change in approach was itself warranted or not, it was stealth-implemented in a manner that seems careless, and then given vague and unsupportable excuses, all suggesting a haphazard approach which certainly reflects poorly on site management.
Anyway, we commit to potential CV drops once we decide to give away a game, so that's really nothing to stress over but, in turn, staff should have committed themselves to basic communication of site rules and, if they're not doing that, then that might be something to complain about (since the lack of communication really changes the dynamic into a 'haha got you' one, in place of coming across as something more legitimately grounded).
Comment has been collapsed.
staff should have committed themselves to basic communication of site rules
This, absolutely!
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 they are adding what seems to be under 100 of copies of HB Monthly games on to the list, while they still aren't adding Thousands of copies of few cents games sold on cheap Russian sites that users are exploiting and getting full CV for by giving away dozens of copies, which I myself don't have time to go through myself and report to the staff each time.
+No notice of this or any other solution then bundling all giveaways to the date bundle was released, instead date they were sold on gray market, or a more effective solution such as bundling for more than 2 copies given away for example.
All this is not to be excepted from the staff in the least and Highly nonconsistent to previous bundling methods and if I may say for shame even. Makes me question the sites integrity and being on it anymore.
Comment has been collapsed.
which I myself don't have time to go through myself
Did you consider we might not always have time either ? A bunch of these games from russian websites or DIG marketplace get bundled, but there are new ones everyday, we can't keep up on our own
bundling for more than 2 copies given away for example
Not really against that but it's just not possible at the moment, it requires cg implementing a bunch a new features
Comment has been collapsed.
Why don't you tell us where you got your 7 Shiness and what you paid for it, and then we'll see if Support was right in it's judgement call?
I lean towards "yes".
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never used a grey market site, at least as the term relates to the modern application to sites like G2A [versus, say, Ebay], in my life. Rather, if I had, you would notice a rather different trend to my giveaway history. Moreover, note that my giveaway was one of two that were posted a day before Tempete indicated keys were delivered to G2A.
Now that my limited real world funds have dried up, I mostly get funds through offer sites. Using sites like swagbucks, I acquire steam gift cards, which I then offer to traders in exchange for games (I used to mostly activate them and use the funds for gifts, but Steam's changes in policy in regards to region restrictions and gifting created a shift in my approach). [If you require further support of the validity of this claim, note this thread, which I made with my habits in mind.]
I spent the equivalent of $20 on the 8 keys which, if my calculations are correct, is close to 92% off, so still a bit below the usual cutoff.
Either way, I'm fine with receiving 0CV for the games, so you're rather missing the entire point (especially as I've actually supported the change in my comments, while exclusively criticizing the approach and implementation). But then, seeing as you started a dialogue solely to make accusations about a matter I had already openly acknowledged in this thread, and then further emphasized it with unnecessary detractions against my overall reputation, I'm pretty sure your intent was never to get the point in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
Gotta love blacklisting for just asking a question... Guess I can remove this whitelist I had on you, that's quite pointless now.
But yes, doing such to get Humble Bundle keys to giveaway never would have come up to me myself, so thanks for making me aware of that method anyways.
(Also, yes, that Steam inventory change was the worst. Well, not the worst. I personally boycot them over their stupid mobile authenticator that makes my inventory unsellable and untradeable with the 15 days protection I never asked for, and apparently aren't allowed to get rid of "for my own good"... F you Valve. Then I guess I'll just protect my money against you too.)
Also they really should add like a "latest news" flash at the top of the giveaways. Then again I'm not really sure if a CV-change for a few games would fit 'major news' considering how often that happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
You'd already removed the whitelist, I checked beforehand (because I was surprised by the seeming contradiction in viewpoints).
I assumed that the removal was a firm indication of an antagonistic intent behind your previous comment and that implication was a foundational part of my decision to blacklist you. And your question, no matter how rude, would have been tolerable, without the added emphasis at the end. Maybe next time add a ":P" to soften the impact?
There are only three topics I don't take well (and am particularly [over?]sensitive toward), and accusations against my honesty is one of them (there's a reason my forum name is what it is). I acknowledge that technically you didn't actually do that, so it's not as if I've any real complaint against you. Rather, I simply made an assumption off the data on hand; One that I was willing to correct if necessary. Good thing about blacklists, they're very much neither serious nor permanent in effect.
So, is the sum of the matter between us miscommunication, overreaction, and unnecessary rudeness, or one of you having an actual issue with me to the point of assuming abusive habits for me? :P I've unblacklisted you, message me privately when you feel like it, so as to not tangent the thread.
And ugh. Even CS:GO keys have a trade hold now, even with authenticator, which really put a chokehold on part of my trading method (as I can't exactly give away gift cards for smaller purchases, so CS:GO keys are useful for that). [In other words, it means that I have to pre-store keys for 15 days now, rather than getting them as-needed. In turn, that means I need to pre-activate a gift card if my wallet gets low..]
Then again I'm not really sure if a CV-change for a few games would fit 'major news' considering how often that happens.
Well, if we're talking typical sensationalistic news headers, then the announcement would be "Shobo no longer solo-handling bundlelist. Wild west dynamic implemented. Tempete takes charge. Monthly games affected. As always, drama in the forums!" :P
Comment has been collapsed.
"so as to not tangent the thread."
Have you scrolled through this topic? It's quite the mess of branched dialogues here and there. I doubt one more to the mix does any harm XD
I would assume overreaction and unnecessary rudeness on my part are to blame yes... I don't actually have any issues with you. My un-whitelisting came primarily from going through your giveaways and finding the last public one was 11 months. Personally I prefer to give most of my WL to people who give freely and publically. Not that I create that much WL-giveaways in the first place.
Sure it shouldn't be "Top 10 reasons Steamgifts is dying: CV edition"? And when isn't there drama on the forums. Any forums?
Comment has been collapsed.
No, the overreaction was on my part, I thought. :P
And, well, I don't want to ADD to the tangenting, though. :'P
And no, I've stopped making public giveaways (though part of that gap was due to my inability to afford making any giveaway for like half a year, there). There was just too much stress and too little gain, compared to making the giveaways elsewhere. Of course, my invite giveaways are all open to the forums as a whole (other than an SGT filter and occasional puzzle), but that's not quite the same thing. They're a lot more fun, though, with a real "community participation" vibe to them, so there's no real reason for me to switch back to publics.
If you can refrain from the sort of allegations you made above (as personal attacks of any sort can potentially be a breach of the group's guidelines), I make most of my giveaways for Positive Thoughts, which does have open recruitment, and you seem to qualify for. I haven't really focused on anything but puzzle giveaways and PosTho for a couple years now [so if public giveaways are part of your whitelist criteria, then definitely feel free to exclude me (and, like, add Talgaby twice, since that's totally their shtick) ].
Similarly, I use PosTho and two other groups as a substitute for whitelist- so while some users are grandfathered into my whitelist and get access to PosTho giveaways that way, I don't technically make whitelist(-exclusive) giveaways either.
And when isn't there drama on the forums. Any forums?
True, but how often do forums make drama-filled threads discussing the drama on the forums. SG feels awfully meta in that regard, as of the past couple of years. Before then (for the additional year or so I was on the site), as far as I noticed we were mostly having issues with certain staff behaviors and staff's limited moderation of extremely negative forum behaviors [matters which resolved well, thankfully], rather than having a drama-fixation.
The forums definitely seem to be less positive and active of late, though, so it's not something to disregard out of hand. It's totally worth teasing the current overemphasis on abstracts, though. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
While I agree this needed to be "fixed" in a way. (Maybe it was better to do all monthly as bundled or just 1 copy of a game give you full CV for those who dont exploit the system)
But in the end I totally dont like the lack of transparency or official post saying this is gonna be done. Especially since someone bumped the CV tread today saying it is till correct :/
Comment has been collapsed.
IMHO one simple rule for every monthly would be much easier to understand. For example first copy of monthly game giving full cv and every next copy treated as bundled.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think variable number of copies for full prices is complicated...
I would just count all games in Monthly bundles as bundled.
Comment has been collapsed.
Absolutely, the lack of transparency is not ideal.
As another user noted above, I suspect the lack of communication has to do with the fact that they're just making stuff up as they go... but honestly, I think most of us would prefer an official post explaining what they're doing, and why, and that they may decide to take additional action later. We would understand.
But staying quiet about it... that's hard to understand.
"Over-communicating" is better than "waiting to communicate until things get clearer."
Comment has been collapsed.
I suspect the lack of communication has to do with the fact that they're just making stuff up as they go...
Given that the only response we've had so far is from the one staff member who has previously given an impression of making up site rules on their own (the only other staff member to do that that I'm aware of got removed from staff at some point, apparently), I wouldn't put it past that. :P
But staying quiet about it... that's hard to understand.
Right. Other than the occasional newer user, we all are aware of the risks of CV loss when we make giveaways, and accept those. We're not used to staff changing policy (from "only significant quantities will hit bundle list, and monthly is treated as a single tier" to "lower demand monthly games can be bundle-listed if enough users give them away with multiple copies") without notice.
Likewise, as my phrasing above suggests, even when we did get communication, it was a less than reassuring glimpse into staff motivations and the quality of their research efforts.
"Over-communicating" is better than "waiting to communicate until things get clearer."
On a side-note, that's a truth that I wish developers (especially for online games) would get firmly into their heads. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
the one staff member who has previously given an impression of making up site rules on their own
Given the recent bullshit some of us had to put up with, I really wouldn't recommend throwing accusations around if you can't strongly back them up because my patience on that is exhausted
Comment has been collapsed.
You're well aware of what I'm referencing. Staff can't abuse power in the way you're indicating you'd like to, nor do you have any rule-based grounds for complaint with my comment. Your patience is always exhausted, with everything. Please stop attempting to create drama.
I've refrained from my usual lengthy response for the sake of not escalating things. Please consider ending this here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Really, I'm the one attempting to create drama when you're the one making allegations about making up rules. I have no problem ending this here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also I should probably add, I had posted about it in the staff forum, so other staff members could give their opinions and we could discuss if it was the right course of action, but so far there hasn't really been any disagreement
Comment has been collapsed.
That actually matches perfectly to my expectations on how this came about.
Comment has been collapsed.
To me that reads as:
so far there hasn't really been any disagreement so I went ahead and did it and we'll conveniently gloss over the fact there wasn't really any agreement either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I went ahead with it, but it's not like it can't be undone if needed.
there wasn't really any agreement either.
Not everyone has expressed themself yet but on the poll I made so far everyone voted to do this.
Comment has been collapsed.
But it's nothing really new, it's just more visible because this time it's Humble Monthly games rather than cheap asset flips on shady russian shops, but adding heavily discounted titles to the bundle list has always happened
https://www.trackame.com/shiness-the-lightning-kingdom-steam-key-global-i10000036103002
Comment has been collapsed.
So..if I'm reading that right, then what seems to be 74 copies got added to G2A and then very slowly sold down 24 copies. Is Shobo not doing the bundle-list anymore? 'cause he explicitly stated in the past that such considerations don't count for bundle-listing.
Comment has been collapsed.
74 copies
I don't really understand how you counted that
Is Shobo not doing the bundle-list anymore? 'cause he explicitly stated in the past that such considerations don't count for bundle-listing.
I don't think he has done it in a while now, it's mostly moderators nowadays. Can you link some statements he made ?
Comment has been collapsed.
I had him on Steam chat for a while, which is where I got most of my perspective on how he handled the list. Incidentally, the end result of our conversations was the removal of Alien: Isolation from the list, so I felt I had a passable grasp on his outlook. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
6 existing copies prior to the bundle, with a high of 80 after.
Unless the numbers are reflective of a per-month addition rather than a cumulative total, that means 74 added copies (outside of any give-and-take that may have occurred, but we can't make any assumptions off that, as that negates the entire purpose of utilizing firm data), with a decrease down to (48+6) copies by the 1st, where it stalled for a few days until a single copy was purchased again several days later.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think I see what you meant with the copies, but keep in mind that 74 sellers != 74 keys. A lot of these sellers have thousands of completeled transactions, sometimes in the 50-100k range, and if you look through their recent evaluations, you can see some games come up easily a dozen times or more over the course of a single day
Comment has been collapsed.
Alright, and thanks for the clarification, but that still means the chart you provided isn't providing any sort of meaningful data on its own, which was the point I was making.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you mean we don't know exactly how many copies have been available at these low prices, isn't that pretty much the same for everything ? Whether it's the shady russian sites, DIG marketplace, ... we have no idea how many copies they have available
Comment has been collapsed.
The chart shows that a $30 game has been readily available for under $1 for the past two months.
Which makes adding it to the bundled list a reasonable response.
Comment has been collapsed.
Which makes adding it to the bundled list a reasonable response.
Not according to past rules as they relate to bundle-listing, which requires significant quantity and fact of exploitation both.
Hence negating any claims that policy hasn't changed, if that's the sole premise for the bundle-listing.
Shobo, for whatever criticisms I had of him, never bundle-listed off blind assumption, except as a stop-gap for further review.
With more careless individuals in control of the bundle-list now, it's certainly important that any new expectations be established publicly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shobo is more than welcome to give his input and he definitely has more weigh than other staff members on this, he'll have a notification since the post about it is in a thread he created but for now he hasn't been online in a few weeks
Comment has been collapsed.
Not according to past rules as they relate to bundle-listing, which requires significant quantity and fact of exploitation both.
You're mistaking the "current sellers" number for an available quantity. And the whole thing that started this was staff noticing a pattern of exploitation.
Comment has been collapsed.
The chart tidbit was already cleared up and ultimately irrelevant to anything, and your second statement has no bearing to any of the topics at hand.
We're discussing what premise (ie, the pattern of exploitation) was involved, which neither the chart nor anything else has thus far clearly provided (rather, comments have been made suggesting that no clear premise in fact existed), and involved staff right now has only been indicated to consist of one individual without special designation (which limits the 'officialness' of the policy change), and whatever basis for implementation they may (or may not, given lack of clear premise) have had is entirely separate to how they're presenting things, which is the foremost topic. In sum, your reply isn't addressing any of the topics that have currently been brought up.
Again, the single individual who was responsible for the bundle list up till now had very clear policies in place. Those have changed, seemingly at the consideration of a single other individual, who didn't feel the need to publicly announce the change and, even now, is instead trying to excuse the matter as falling under previous guidelines, despite all evidence being expressed to the contrary, rather than addressing the matter in a more straightforward manner.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess let me try again.
Firstly, can you please link me to these past rules?
Not according to past rules as they relate to bundle-listing, which requires significant quantity and fact of exploitation both.
Secondly, the premise. My understanding of the current situation:
- 'Staff/Moderators' noticed a lot of users giving multiple copies of B-list games from past Humble Monthlies
- These games are consistently, and currently, available very cheaply from grey market resellers, G2A, etc.
- 'Staff/Moderators' started adding select Humble Monthly games to the bundled list, retroactive to the bundle release date
Are all these pretty accurate?
I already mentioned several times yesterday that I disagreed with the haphazard nature of the implementation, and the decision not to clearly communicate it to site users.
But why are you so mad?
EDIT: I wrote my response before your additions.
So your actual problem is you think TempeteJoachim has exceeded his authority by adjusting the bundled list outside of official guidelines, and then not bothering to tell anybody?
Fair enough. I see your point emotionally. But, I think it's currently hard to make a logical argument for it, given how little of the bundle policy is publicly available as official documentation, and not just SG dogma.
Comment has been collapsed.
it's just more visible
I guess what I'm saying is, the additional visibility is worth some communication. I think this is proven by the amount of discussion that's going on currently.
Honestly, more transparency around the bundle list would not be a bad idea, whether or not Humble Monthly games are involved.
Is there even a link to the bundle list anywhere? I have it saved as a bookmark, but shouldn't it be linked somewhere on the site? The FAQ mentions the process that's used to adjust the CV, but there's no link to the list.
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/bundle-games ?
I seem to recall finding it through the site at one point, but yeah, I've been going off bookmark as well :P
Comment has been collapsed.
If you use Mully's SGLinkies Script, the link to the Bundled list is under the Giveaways tab.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a way to do almost everything via script. My request is for the site to publish that link internally, and not rely on an external script.
Comment has been collapsed.
You'll either need to file a support ticket or submit a Bug/Suggestion about it, because it won't be accomplished buried in another thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agree in general -- but if the thread includes a Moderator, I'd like to think it would be raised for discussion among other support members, if it seems like a good idea.
To put it another way: I find it hard to believe that support would read a fantastic idea in the forums and then say to themselves "man, that is SUCH a good idea! It's too bad it wasn't submitted as a support ticket or a bug/suggestion thread. Oh well."
:)
Comment has been collapsed.
You know what they say about the word "assumption", right? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmm there was a link to the bundle list in the FAQ but I don't see it anymore, maybe cg removed it by mistake when he edited the FAQ (but I agree it wasn't very visible anyway).
What do you expect concretely, as communications about the bundle list ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Beyond the bundle list being linked somewhere, I would love to see a sticky / pinned thread showing when games are added to the bundle list.
I think everyone understands that there will be a delay between a game being bundled and it being added to the list, since it's a manual process. But it would be nice to actually see the results of the manual process.
(To prevent spam, perhaps the sticky / pinned thread could be locked so that only support could reply to it).
Comment has been collapsed.
ok, I'll see what other staff members think about it, and cg too since only him can pin a thread (or he could just post an announcement thread instead), I'm not sure he can't easily restrict the comments though
Comment has been collapsed.
Restricting the comments was just a thought.
Thanks for being part of this conversation, for clarifying the situation with the Humble Monthly games, and for taking my idea back to rest of the staff. You are appreciated!
Comment has been collapsed.
Adding the bundled games link back to the FAQ would be great.
The "95% rule" also isn't in the FAQ right now, and I can't find it in any of the Announcements.
Some explanation about how regional pricing can interact with it would be great too. :)
The FAQ currently has a clear explanation of how CV is calculated, and how the different tiers of value work, but no specific information about why games would be on one list or another.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sì, la comunicazione è molto importante!
:)
This site has not always been the best at communication, though, just due to the nature of how it's set up (with a single person making all decisions).
Comment has been collapsed.
isn't that * and ** while creating giveaways enough, as needed info?
The issue here is games being added to the bundle list months after the games were bundled. Updates for the bundle list have always been slow and as such its only really useful when giving away games that were previously bundled. It won't be particularly helpful when trying top determine why you've lost a level/CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see the point in the trying to do something about the flood of "filler" games that were given away. Problem is, games are added retroactively from the beginning of the monthly which is just outright insane. I do appreciate the fact, that it is still a concern of the staff members and cg that the CV abusing people are not rewarded for their behaviors.
But doing this as a collective punishment for people who have got their spare games from monthlies and just gave away a copy, or even two - not at all. See, that's what turned me down on this site lately, there is room for CV abusing things like $ bundles, that have been brought up again and again and again (no feedback at all) - on the other hand there are modifications that hit a ton of good, active people here not abusing anything. I'd say you victimise a lot of people who were playing by the rules, just to get some of the "abusers" punished too. It comes with a price that you aren't even communicating it well. Since Splasher + Aviary Attorny are not the only games added to bundled status as stated here.
I'm disappointed once again how things were handled and I'll be sure to overthink giving away games on this plattform again.
Comment has been collapsed.
I had hoped for third level, now I am close to getting under the second one...
Now I wonder, if I get back on first level will I be kicked out from level 2 giveaways? O_o
Sorry, if its already answered somewhere.... :3
Comment has been collapsed.
As I recall you won't be kicked, but the creator can request a reroll if you win and you are not sufficient level.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, okay. Then there is still some hope. ;)
Thank you for a quick response. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
You won't get kicked out of the giveaways you already entered for. I can confirm that right now because I dropped to level 5 but I still have entries in several level 6 giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for a quick response!
Well, I hope there wont by another drop down in CV anytime soon...
Comment has been collapsed.
You won't be automatically kicked out but if you win, the giveaway creator might ask for a reroll.
Comment has been collapsed.
if you drop down a lvl make sure you win something before hand. i was level 5 for a couple of days. won a lvl 5 giveaway before dropping down. be a ninja and take all the games! but yeah i can confirm what others are saying i still had all my lvl 5 entries.
Comment has been collapsed.
i was a nice ninja though i gave something back to the group but you dont have to be a nice one :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I try to be nice all the time, ninja or geisha! ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
question what is your profile picture. is it by chance princess nightmare because it sure looks like it. unless franken has a secret twin
Comment has been collapsed.
O_O
You are right. I am speechless. XD I never thought someone would recognize or know it! ;D
Comment has been collapsed.
yes sadly i never tried the ps2 version to see the extra paths but ive played it on my laptop in fact got it downloaded now which i hope to replay again soon. only problem i had was ill deal with the damn timing but i couldnt find my save data. so once i played it i can never play it again unless i get a new computer.
Comment has been collapsed.
I have played just the PC version too. Few years back I got some old psp, so maybe one day I would stumble upon ist version... Now I want to replay it too. ;)
Oh, thats cruel...
Comment has been collapsed.
"Games typically receive no value or reduced value when they're featured in bundles, heavily discounted, or available for free in online promotions." - FAQ
That doesn't appear to have changed. If they haven't enforced it before then they should do it retroactively for all other games that were sold a the heavily discounted price. But then it is difficult to track each and every game and know about them all in a timely manner. Free games aren't listed at no value, or previously removed from the site, simply because they are provided free at retailer sites.
Comment has been collapsed.
Monthly bundles were exempt from that rule, except in very rare cases where the bundle value was so large that all of the games in it were added to the bundle list.
Now they're picking and bundling specific games out of monthly bundles according to their prices on grey sites.
Comment has been collapsed.
Where was it stated they were exempt from that rule? That any game lucky enough to be in the most Holy of Holies the Humble Bundle Monthly would be exempt from ever entering the bundle list from its released until the heat death of the universe, even if it were to be sold at 99.99999999999% off or even given out free of charge.
The monthly bundle games typically weren't added simply because they didn't qualify. The "so large" cases were the rare few that reached the threshold of at least 95% off. And since the monthly games were rarely in any other bundles or sold at deep discount they rarely qualified individually either.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said that monthlies would never be added to the bundle list. Of course they were added to the list if they would get bundled in cheaper bundles later or sold for really cheap in official stores, and to the list of freebies if they were given for free.
HOWEVER when that happened, their bundle value would start from the date they were bundled in the cheaper bundle or sold for really cheap in the stores and NOT from the date of the monthly bundle. So those who made giveaways with their monthly copies during that time would keep the full CV. What they're doing now is making them bundle value from the date of the monthly if their price ever goes cheap on grey sites.
Do you get what this is all about now?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well you did say "Monthly bundles were exempt from that rule" indicating they couldn't be added to the list. If they are adding the games to the list prior to when they were sold cheaply then yes, that is a problem. It should be dated as per the time they were sold cheaply enough to qualify. Though I did not see that problem listed in the opening post, nor in your first response to me. The supposed problem was the new inclusion of prices of gray sites, which does not go against the stated rules and is fine with me.
Comment has been collapsed.
It should be dated as per the time they were sold cheaply enough to qualify. Though I did not see that problem listed in the opening post
From my post:
Once they decide to add a humble monthly game to the list, they set the bundled value date to the one of the bundle itself. That means that if you make a giveaway for a monthly and get full CV for it, if the game eventually ends up selling for cheap on grey sites your giveaway will count as bundled and you will lose CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was not very clear, it sounded like when it reaches bundle status its that date they use and if you got full CV you could lose it at a later time which was always the case. Then you continued with the gray sites.
Comment has been collapsed.
In summary:
- The conditions for bundle-listing have changed, as very precise guidelines were in place before now. Now, things such as requiring a certain quantity to be available and actively acquired is no longer being required, only a personal assumption of exploitation by any staff member.
- Humble Monthly, unlike other bundles, now seems to be tracked in a special way (instead of being treated as a single tier bundle), which means even things such as basic game trading may end up affecting its listing status. [While rare, some tier 3s have traded for cheap, but they were never bundle-listed].
- Implementation has thus far been erratic, applying to games that don't seem to qualify for bundle-listing even under new considerations, while skipping over games that would far more easily qualify. Given that Monthlies are an easy-to-reference list, this suggests the change was rushed out instead of carefully pre-assessed. More notably, so far we've been given no indication to the contrary.
- The change in policy- because yes, that's what it is, since again, we had predefined guidelines before now, even if not every user was aware of what they were- was not in any way publicly announced, despite it being obvious that such should be done, and all implications are that a single staff member pushed for the change on their own, rather than first arranging for a collaborative backing of staff members (versus just casual attempts at discerning disapproval), which undermines the validity of the change.
- The timeline for bundle-listing has changed, indicating that games may now randomly be bundle-listed, even if they were put up well before exploitation occurred. While we've had limited occurrences with this in the past, in regards to multi-day promotions being set to the first day of the overall promotion, we've never had it applied so freely before.
This is a massive change, with heavy implications about the future policies of the site, in regards to the power of individual staff members, to the responsibilities of staff members to communicate, and to the reliability of giveaway lists. You may feel the topic can be addressed in a serious manner, but that doesn't automatically invalidate the merits that the conversation does have.
Comment has been collapsed.
What has changed, since Shobo has also over the years bundled certain games available on grey market based on similar assumptions ?
Comment has been collapsed.
Perhaps nothing, but that's up to you to clarify when we ask for it, no?
The highlight here the topic of of us feeling communication could be better, most of the rest is extrapolation off of what has actually been communicated.
You also seem to be skipping over the other highlighted considerations without addressing them; We've pretty clearly detailed why we feel this is a change of policy, in point-by-point presentation. We all want you to come out of this looking good, so don't feel any hesitation in addressing things with appropriate detail for our sake. Reread the first bullet point above as "the conditions for assumption seem to have become a lot less based in clear concerns", and then consider the list for reply.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I should use an example.
Shobo bundled Avalon Lords: Dawn Rises because it was available on G2A for $0.01. Date was chosen based on when the influx of giveaways started.
Communications could be better, I won't argue against that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shobo bundled Avalon Lords: Dawn Rises because it was available on G2A for $0.01. Date was chosen based on when the influx of giveaways started.
Right, but Shobo always verified a clear risk of exploitation, and then followed through to make sure the risk was actualized. There's no clear basis for the current listing, thus far. Also, there's concern about the date of the current games being bundled not matching to the date of any potential exploitation.
Likewise, very few users seem to have participated in anything potentially untoward, and at least some of those can be soft-cleared (with solid indication of a lack of exploitation or grey market use within their giveaway history). Meanwhile, a far more massive number of single and double copy giveaways have been affected by the change. As such, it seems the matter is more one of how SG handles multiple copies than of mass exploitation.
Mind you, I'm not in any way arguing against the action itself, under reasonable basis; In fact, I laughed it off when I first noticed it. It's the presentation, with the uncertainty and heavyhandedness and clumsyness and restraint in detail, that creates an concern and, in contrast to arguments that miss the point, invite emphasis.
Of course, given Shobo's incredible reticence in communication of any sort, perhaps it's unfair to hold you to strict standards of communication- but then, Shobo was a reliable, long-term base for us to reference. Obviously, when you upset longstanding foundations (or at least, appear to do such), then that invites deeper and more critical inspection, along with concern over the nature of the change.
Communications could be better, I won't argue against that.
Comments like that are how you "win" "against" me, by the way.
Comment has been collapsed.
As TempeteJoachim said, what has changed? You say perhaps nothing, yet you clearly state there is a change. I don't recall trading values ever being a consideration for the site's bundle rules, could you provide further information regarding this? What games were added that shouldn't have been? If you know of games that should be added and aren't, have they been successfully reported?
My replies were only based on the OP and his first reply to me, that the issue was with regards to the inclusion of gray site prices as a criteria for bundle consideration. To me, this should have always been the case and have assumed it was always treated that way. One of the replies to me states the FAQ implies that authorized sellers such as HumbleBundle and IndieGala should never be considered. Is this true?
If they are incorrectly adding the date of the bundle as the date the bundle went live and it was only sold cheaply months later, then yes that is a problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
what has changed?
There is. A bullet list. A. Bullet. List. :(
If further clarification is needed, that's fine, but please, no more replies that suggest that I haven't already presented my perspectives. I have enough existential crises already without having to reaffirm the existence of my forum postings. :'P
To me, this should have always been the case and have assumed it was always treated that way.
It was in fact already factored in, but it used to only be for blatantly exploitable matters. For the current batch, at least some of them don't seem to have presented strong indications of exploitation either on the site or in grey market sales; the concern isn't in that, however, but in the implication that staff will now bundlelist based off of unsubstantiated impressions, versus the previous bundler's [seemingly] deeply data-driven approach.
This'd be resolved with some assurances to the contrary, but so far the staff member who seems to be single-handedly driving the stronger enforcement doesn't seem to be offering such, and noone else has chimed in. In the end, the issue boils down to one of communication- though, for some users, I'm sure it's the vagueness that bundle list considerations have had in general [as not every user has had the time or inclination to chat at length with staff members, or the benefit of briefly having the bundler available on Steam chat to ask questions of].
Rather, if we're seeing a change in bundler, it's a damn good time for the policy of vagueness to change along with it, rather than for more uncertainty to be added into our expectations toward bundle-listing.
If you know of games that should be added and aren't, have they been successfully reported?
This change (which, again, isn't that grey market sites are considered at all, but that such presence is far more likely to lead to a bundle-listing than before) was only just implemented and we're still trying to understand it, so it's unlikely. Moreover, while I'm deeply familiar with trading quantities and values, I don't ever use grey market sites, so I can't actually commit to any sort of report in that regard, especially months after the fact.
One of the replies to me states the FAQ implies that authorized sellers such as HumbleBundle and IndieGala should never be considered. Is this true?
I'm not sure what you mean? Humble and Indiegala both exclusively use USD, I believe, which prohibits the usual "95% off in any region" consideration, but otherwise there's no special treatment for any salefront (including grey market ones, though I've had the impression that they typically haven't had quantities to justify their inclusion).
If they are incorrectly adding the date of the bundle as the date the bundle went live and it was only sold cheaply months later, then yes that is a problem.
This isn't actually the case for the ones I checked (other than a one day addition which, while it affects me personally, is completely excusable), so I actually added that one off of comments like Chibi's. I can't actually back that one myself; as such, don't take that factor too reliably for now. The real concern is that staff hasn't yet addressed that factor, and the overall uncertainty toward bundle list dates that such an element creates. I'd love if most of the concern in this thread boiled down to nothing more poor communication and flawed assumptions.
Comment has been collapsed.
It really shouldn't matter if its exploited or not, did these games meet the criteria for being bundled or no? Do you have evidence to the contrary that these games were in fact not sold at reduced prices? How did you determine that the staff was only reacting to unsubstantiated impressions? If they do provide the assurances you require does that make your previous statements the same unsubstantiated impressions you accuse them of?
To simplify matters I agree the policy should change, any bundle no matter its discount should be added to the bundle list. To be fair, this would actually meet the existing requirements set in the FAQ as no 95% rule is stated there. Or we could just get rid of CV altogether and simplify things even more so.
So because Humble and Indiegala both use USD when they sell a game or bundle at lest 95% off they are exempt from being put on the bundle list? Seems odd to me that they are exempt because they use US currency.
Comment has been collapsed.
did these games meet the criteria for being bundled or no?
That's what we asked, and seemed to get a negative answer to..
Do you have evidence to the contrary that these games were in fact not sold at reduced prices?
We're asking staff if they were, the one staff member relevant to the matter was the one who gave the impression that the games weren't properly vetted..
How did you determine that the staff was only reacting to unsubstantiated impressions?
Staff indicated that themself, and then didn't refute it afterward..
If they do provide the assurances you require does that make your previous statements the same unsubstantiated impressions you accuse them of?
No, because they're topics up for discussion that were researched to the best of my ability, which is a distinct difference from actions taken off seemingly improper data collection. All data, even in established science, has some degree of uncertainty. The degree to which we emphasize our data-collection and the care with which we take actions off of the data that we have is the sole difference that distinguishes the quality of our approach.
Moreover, while I may need to apologize for overemphasis in some places, I've tried to be quite clear that my impressions were just such [versus taking action on those impressions being true- say, by making more extreme allegations toward staff]. Likewise, the issue isn't one of staff acting off impressions alone, but the uncertainty that such approach creates for forum users, and the fact that it's beneficial for us to know if such an approach is in fact being applied.
Again, stealthily enforcing an arbitrarily-determined change in policy (if such did occur) is completely different from what I was presenting, regardless of how meritorious (or not) my own presentations actually were.
To simplify matters I agree the policy should change, any bundle no matter its discount should be added to the bundle list.
"Bundle" is thrown around pretty carelessly by sites, so that wouldn't really work. You'd be bundling most every game out there. Heck, even Steam uses 'bundle' as an official term now, for complete-your-collection packages. It's not exactly an uncommon term as far as game sales go.
Or we could just get rid of CV altogether and simplify things even more so.
That has repeatedly been offered as a suggestion, and the cons have seemingly outweighed the benefits, at least by the presented considerations of both management and community members. Moreover, CV is so factored into community considerations (such as my group's requiring a maintaining of a 1:1 ratio, or CV emphasis in SGT filters) that its removal would have impact even beyond more directly affected elements.
Besides, user concerns are primarily in the CV system being inconsistently implemented and enforced, not with the CV system itself; the latter complaint seems to be restricted to only a very small number of users. Even in this thread, the concern is with uncertainty toward a facet of the system, toward whether staff has changed their approach toward something or not, not with CV existing at all (I mean, other than that one thread and a few comments that do seem to be fixated on the CV component of things).
So because Humble and Indiegala both use USD when they sell a game or bundle at lest 95% off they are exempt from being put on the bundle list? Seems odd to me that they are exempt because they use US currency.
The rule is "95% off in any region", with USD being the comparison point for other currencies.
There's no special rules for any storefront, it's just that storefronts which exclusively use USD don't have any risk of the game being cheaper in non-USD regions (ie, Russia/CIS). Typically, a game runs the risk of hitting 95% off in lower-value-currency regions when it hits 75-85% off in USD; With USD-exclusive offers, you can run the discount a lot closer to the cutoff of 95% (though technically it's "approximately 95%", so anything 92%+ tends to be at risk) with less risk (and more potential gain) than from other retailers.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the problem is not gray sales. But the number of humble bumble subscriptions being at the same time members of the sg community.
Comment has been collapsed.
Certainly for the multi-bundle purchasers, yeah. Both my trading partners and several of my friends are multi-subbers.
I count at most 28 suspicious giveaways in the archives and, while the 10- and 20-count ones are certainly notable highlights, one has to wonder just how many of the individuals actually are utilizing exploitation in any way.
Comment has been collapsed.
Answer yourself. How many people buy multi-bundles, how many people have subscriptions. How much copy appears in the gray area. I'm guessing that there are few beams, copies of the game a little more, and a lot of bids.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, I can't make any sense of what you're trying to say, nor am I sure how I could answer myself. I mean, I've already confirmed a couple of the users as likely exploiters and a couple as certainly not being such, but others are a bit more uncertain, meaning a clear answer would take some effort to acquire.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get why i'll get reduced cv even for games gifted before being bundled. It's just a deterrent from making decent giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games are put on the bundled list manually so they put a date at what the bundle was. So even if it is put 1 month later you will get reduced CV when it gets put on the list (since the date will be b4 you crated the GA).
Again this is in place cause there is limited people doing so and is done manually so it takes some time.
So lets say you make game on the 1st of Jan and it ends on the same day and there is a bundle on the 2nd of Jan you will NOT GET reduced CV. But if there is a bundle on the 1st of Jan and the list is updated with it on the 3rd you will GET reduced CV on the 3rd.
I hope all is cleared, if not just ask :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I know the story, but i'm still not that convinced. i lost CV multiple times because of this rule even though i made the giveaways BEFORE the games being bundled.
I know for sure that, unless i really have extra money to spend, i won't do unbundled giveaways for fear that my value will become the same of a trash dollar bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sry but you shouldn't lose any CV that way. If you did lose and know for what game contact the support..
Or you can manually check the game and the date it ended (since that is important as far as I know not the date it was created) and check the bundled list to see the date it was marked as bundled. If there is any inconsistency pls say so here and contact the support!!!
Comment has been collapsed.
While there's an issue where staff trends toward setting multi-day (changing per day) promotions to the start of the promotion period even though noone knew the deal existed until the day itself, and even sometimes mistakes the start day of a promotion by a touch, I've never seen them apply the start day of a bundle period without some sort of reasonable justification backing their process (typically, the basis is 'what is the earliest that someone could have known about this promotion', which is a key point of note for Groupees preorders).
Sometimes price glitches will sneak in a surprise bundling, but you shouldn't ever get a retconned CV without cause. Likewise, I believe staff adds a bit of time to the start time of the bundle-listing, so cutting it too close may put you at risk.
If you want to list the games in question, perhaps we could solve the puzzle for you. In any case, unbundled giveaways are always a risk, so it's one we have to acknowledge and accept before choosing to do them (free status for bundle games is a similar, but far less notable concern, especially given that free promotions are typically very publically noted on SG; the exception seems to mainly be in sketchy Russian gleam.io style giveaways, and I don't think they ever do any decent games to begin with).
There's no shame in deciding that you're uncomfortable about giving away something, for any reason [I mean, other than "I want to leech, screw you all", that's pretty shame-worthy], but- barring the current uncertainties within this thread- unbundled games typically won't surprise you in changing their status. Rather, a more typical CV concern is that retail price will drop, sometimes to half or below half the original list price.
Buying from a site that allows for refunds within a couple of weeks is a good bet, as that gives you time to see if the original sale will catch the game. Past that, surprise bundlings are just part of the risk- unfortunate, given how very much more beneficial it is to farm CV via bottom-barrel games, that means that rather than feeling like 'part of the process', the risk insteads becomes active encouragement (for those invested in CV) to focus on giving away junk. There's definitely some odd prioritization going on with SG's handling of CV at the moment.
I think, if CV became balanced more in favor of unbundled games, the risk would become more acceptable overall (though certainly, some people would never be agreeable to it). Either way, it doesn't really matter what anyone gives away.. as long as it can legitimately be called a game (or otherwise stand as an example of functional, properly developed software) upon examination. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree.
I don't know exactly what are the games interested in bundling reduction, but i don't really care, i didn't lost a level, just a few points. Either way i'm gonna recover them with a few giveaways. It's just that the current system doesn't encourage me into giving unbundled, decent games as there's always a risk that they will get bundled or get a price drop (i remember happening with Assassin's Creed 2 to me, for instance).
Comment has been collapsed.
For various reasons I'm not much concerned about CV myself and feel this is all a bit of a storm in a teacup, but your last paragraph certainly touches on a few issues that concern me. Are attempts to crack down on the minutiae of CV exploitation becoming more detrimental to the site as a whole than the problem of CV exploitation itself? Is SG becoming more of a system of perverse incentives than ever? Will my opinions always eventually be found on the wrong side of history?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I haven't thought about CV at all since I hit level 2, aside from keeping track that my RealCV ratio doesn't get too imbalanced (which is kinda key for reasons beyond basic consideration, seeing as I probably shouldn't co-lead a 1:1 ratio requiring group if I can't maintain such a ratio myself).
While I was affected by this pass (being one of two users to post a multi-copy giveaway of Shiness the day before it hit G2A) my won CV was reduced from the pass as well, so it's not like it didn't balance out (in terms of the values that are actually of any consideration to me). So really, absolutely nothing to complain about and, at the start, I wasn't actually concerned with the matter at all.
However, since getting insight about how both backend and frontend seem to have been carelessly handled on the matter, I can't say I care for the implications as far as how they relate to site policies and staff behaviors. As you noted, there's some more general concerns as far as site management on the whole which are being brought up by this matter, and those are useful for more involved site members and staff to take under discussion.
Honestly, proper communication would go a long way..
Comment has been collapsed.
With regards to proper communication I'm sympathetic with the site authorities in the sense that attempting to fully clarify their reduced CV decisions would likely only lead to a stampede of folks using the information to identify and exploit loopholes followed by u-turns and revisions and in turn even more complaints and drama than ever.
On the other hand it's been a long time since CV mattered to me in any meaningful way and even I'm still grumpy over a few bundling decisions that I have never fully agreed with or understood - so I can certainly sometimes at least empathise with the grievances of others.
I think a better compromise than currently exists could probably be found.
Comment has been collapsed.
Considering how many people throw a fuss over $1 fanatical bundles, I actually would think many would want even HARSHER limitations, not actually less.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a funny thing - I often notice people wanting harsher restrictions on CV exploitation, but strangely only on the unethical and unacceptable ways that other people are exploiting CV...
Comment has been collapsed.
Because you can get those games super cheap before being bundled, and abuse the CV system, before being bundled? The whole reduced value thing is there to prevent CV abuse with games that are available for cheap.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am going to bed so I just came here to say good night ot you all. Good night!! :zzz:
Comment has been collapsed.
dont wanna be strawman but with this logic we may as well put games on the bundle list based on what prices they are going on group buy and so on and so forth
In my opinion this is a rather risky slippery slope which jields bad blood and frustration while not necessarily stopping CV exploits on substantial level.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just can tell you this: I'm never ever gonna give my next Humble Monthly high valuable (mostly) games for few points here.
And I gave a lot of them before.
Now it all goin to be sell on mentioned "shady" sites.
Think this would be common outcome of this insane and unfair decision.
Comment has been collapsed.
You took my points from games like SteamWorld Heist. Kentucky Route Zero and Subterrain?
Theft and nonsense-I could earn 6-10 $ for them!
Comment has been collapsed.
Theft?
Please do me a favour: Go to your local police station and file a report for theft. Your CV was stolen by CG. He lives in Canada, so better file your complaint directly to Interpol.
Comment has been collapsed.
So you don't give away games so other people can enjoy them? You do it only because you want points? Well okay then, I guess generosity really does have a price.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm giving valuable games (those games that I can actually sell for 2+ USD somewhere), solely for level up myself.
Worthless games that I already have will be still in the giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
And why do you want to level up? What is your goal with it?
Comment has been collapsed.
To reach the max level so the game is finished, what other goal is there?
Comment has been collapsed.
Heh, so this is not WoW, where the actual game starts once you finally hit max level? =)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't do hard drugs so I wouldn't know. Does it have some sort of system like Paragons in Diablo 3 where you still get more stats or just grinding for better items after max? Also doesn't WoW level cap get raised all the time with new expansions? Either kind of system would do wonders here too giving a reason to continue other than all the free GTA Vs one can get at max level. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
We need a DLC for SG with increased level cap, new areas and bosses to beat!
Comment has been collapsed.
And at level 7 you still imagine they somehow get better at higher levels?
Comment has been collapsed.
Da, znam dovoljno engleski a i jos poneke jezike pride.
Poducavaj gramatiku u skoli a ne na internetu.
Comment has been collapsed.
For me as well but then I checked FromIwoJima Steam profile and when you set it to Serbian the translation stays pretty much the same. Apparently there are a lot of similarities between Croatian and Serbian.
Comment has been collapsed.
Google probably needs a longer piece of text to distinguish between some Slavic language branches.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a same language, Serbo-Croatian which was official name before we decided to fight each other in civil war.
It's just this grammar nazi with his repeated comments.
Ok I'm not native speaker, but it wasn't point here now.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was joking anyway. There's a meme that when it's gibberish, it's Polish.
Comment has been collapsed.
I see. I'm a meme rookie. I just know One does not simply... and a couple other very common ones that are hard to miss when you're on the internet :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Strange notion, considering that on your level, you already see 99.06% of all giveaways. Spending money to see a few dozen more giveaways for a 1:100 chance to win does not sound like a financially lucrative idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was curious, but it's probably not worthwhile.
Now completely out of my reach with new rules here.
So case is consluded I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
Tbh I prefer there being no points and levels in the first place. So people don't have to worry and complain about such things and just give away what they want.
Comment has been collapsed.
My question was if you think it can only be one of those things. I think it is absolutely ok to want to be generous and want people to enjoy your games, and at the same time you like getting points and seeing your level rise. It is like that for me. Pretty sure it's like that for a lot of people.
A comment on your statement: I understand where you're coming from, but I prefer having the points system in place. I am certain we would see a lot less giveaways if there was no sense of progress for the GA creators. It is a powerful motivation, and that benefits the site greatly. I probably would not have given away nearly as many games as I did without that system. It is not my main incentive to do GAs, but it is a relevant factor.
Comment has been collapsed.
And I also like seeing numbers go up too. My main comment to the one who complained is that he perceived his bundled games becoming bundled in status as a 'theft' of points, probably one of those people abusing it by giving a lot of copies of the same 'unbundled games' so he can gain $50 worth of CV for a measly $4 worth of actual expenditure and becoming pissy about it when those $50 CV dropped to $8.
So thus my statement of his generosity having a price. And that price is greed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course I exploit system a bit and why not.
But point is they souldn't retroactively downgrade value of games, that's unfair.
I'm mostly pissed of because of my valuable games from Monthly bundle, which I decided to invest in leveling, and after few months some genious convert those euros into cents.
All those games were unique, from my bundle and not from G2A.
Now I learned this and I'm just saying I am done with giving those nice marketable games here.
Exploit was relatively small, but damage now to games portfolio will be significant.
It's unfair because it's retroactive-ok if they say from now on Monthly is bargain-let me know in advance.
And stop you few millionaires to play generosity games, we all know of what material rich men are made, and mostly how they earned fortune.
This site is not about generosity, it's a place to adopt your spare and/or unwanted games and to gradualy improve your level and be in opportunity to grab better games.
Comment has been collapsed.
But point is they souldn't retroactively downgrade value of games, that's unfair.
It happens the same for everyone, so it's not "unfair" in that context. You may feel it's unfair on a personal level, but you're not seeing the results it has on everyone else is all.
If you expect your CV to never drop, you're simply going to be disappointed. That's how the site works. Pretty much anyone who's given away any number of games here has seen their CV drop. If you'd prefer to trade or sell your games elsewhere, that's definitely an option for you.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's against Natural Law, rules of the game cannot be changed retroactively.
it's ok to say: From now on (Humble Monthly is bargain or not, will depend solely on good will of our administrators), and ok-we are aware.
But this...
I came here just to send message to site stuff and ones who are making decissions like this one.
And as always, more or less people thinks the same, which will be noticed in the future giveaways (in a bad way-lesser quality games) I'm sure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Rules were not changed. You would know that if you've read them.
Games typically receive no value or reduced value when they're featured in bundles, heavily discounted, or available for free in online promotions. Their values are adjusted this way to better represent their true value. Keep in mind, the asterisk icons are just for reference, and the value of a game can be backdated if we need to make retroactive changes
You've gambled your exploit will work. It didn't. You can blame only yourself for your failure.
Comment has been collapsed.
Let's be fair here. Even if he was aware of the Bundle rule and the 95% percent threshold for discounts (regional prices included) grey market prices were never taken into consideration for determining Bundle status. That is a significant change in how the rules are handled that is not covered neither by the rules nor the guidelines.
Still no use complaining about it but the rules or rather their interpretation was changed.
Comment has been collapsed.
But sellers other than Valve were. Even those obscure little known ones. Gray marketplaces are all but small and unrecognizable. It was natural to include them along major sellers for price-tracking.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not saying they shouldn't be. I'm just saying the interpretation of the rules was indeed changed in a rather major way.
Comment has been collapsed.
What has happend is support at last got the constantly repeated "gray market is legit" message. And so bundling intensified. Not every win is a success )
Joking aside, rules haven't changed. afaik it's still around 95% off. Freebies get to no cv list no matter where those are given away as long as amount is substantial. Same was for bundle list - what mattered was price cut and amount available. 2nd hand market went from incidental barter deals to store-like amounts and cash. It shouldn't surprise anyone when it was included in price tracking. It's surprising it took so long.
One more thing to consider is what a CV really is: a measure of how much money one spent on giveaways. If you remember that, bundling can't be surprising at all
Comment has been collapsed.
I was aware about 95% discount rule, but grey markets are new thing on this site.
What hurts me most, are my few premium games from Monthly wasted this way-and they were from the bundle and not G2A.
For some more shovelware games I bought there (and gave them here), I don't complain-those were kind of gamble.
But you see, probably a lot of people didn't gamble at all, they just gave their unwanted or duplicate games here, and mostly to level up because it's in the human nature, and it can (well not much), paid off with better giveaways in higher tiers.
And then Steamgifts lowered value of those games to bargain.
In the future, I believe, this will result in more games given directly to friends (my habbit before I found this site), or sold for a cheap on grey market.
And we all lose here as a result.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've given your comment a day's thought. It was both insightful and sparked a great deal of thought on my part.
Generosity is a word too easily thrown about on this site, and for all the wrong reasons, in my opinion (too often I see people using it to describe themselves, and that's just cringe-worthy). I don't have time to go into all of that, though. Plus, its not terribly relevant to my point.
To keep it as succinct as possible -- the reason(s) for which someone makes a giveaway(s) should be irrelevant -- especially if your sole concern is that the winner will enjoy it. The winner may still enjoy them and appreciate them, regardless of the reason they were given away.
So do the reasons for making the giveaway really matter at all? The winner isn't going to care. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose the winner won't care and that's fine if the giveaway creator doesn't mind that. I'm just mostly annoyed at that guy complaining about his 'lost' CV points and stating the only reason he gave away those games was for the price they paid him (in levels).
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not annoyed at all by his remarks. In fact, I'd say most people on SG make giveaways for the same (or similar) reason, but will tell you differently if you ask them. I have a saying -- "We're all leeching something on SG, and only some of it's games."
At least this fellow's honest, and I can respect that (despite not approving of his tone). shrug
Comment has been collapsed.
Can respect that, everyone has their own opinion on things. It's mostly the way he's complaining that annoyed me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sounds like you're getting GIFTING and TRADING mixed up.
I know myself that if I see special worth in a game, I will often put it on my Tradeslist.
IF you feel like your games are worth something, why are you giving them away?
Yes, it can be unbearably slow to level up on this site nowadays, and it sucks when people find loopholes, but that shouldn't be your focus of giving stuff away.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure how trading work here...do we have trading on Steamgifts?
Valuable games I gave solely to level up my account.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, trading isn't allowed on Steamgifts. What MayaYingu meant, is that you're expecting something in exchange here (CV, higher level to gain access/chances to win more/better games). This is an expectation as if it was trading, but the main motivation for giving away games on SG should rather be pure gifting to make other community members happy by enjoying your leftovers or even extra bought games. Pure gifting, without expecting something as a reward other than a "Thank you.".
Comment has been collapsed.
So you only give away games to gain a personal benefit from it, be it in the form of CV or else. You don't do it out of generosity or to make other people happy.
Worthless games that I already have will be still in the giveaways
How generous of you!
Please delete your account and never come back to this site.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, nobody would giveaway anything if it didn't personally benefit them. If it didn't make me feel good buying a game and giving it away for free to a complete stranger, I'd either have to hate myself or have a serious mental problem to keep on doing it :P
The reason somebody gives away a game shouldn't really matter unless it was for nefarious purposes, if they give away a game then that's in the spirit of the site imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
First part:
Yeah, sure, if you're wording it like that, you're right. My personal gain is to (hopefully) make my winners happy, just like yourself. But that is not what I meant and that is not what he is doing ;)
Second part:
If someone only gives away games to level up so that he can enter giveaways for "better" games and/or to have a better chance at winning, it is solely egoistical and his giveaways are just a byproduct, a means to an end for him. In my opinion :)
And i do think SG would be a better place without those people.
Comment has been collapsed.
I live in a country your airforce was bombed back in 1999, we work for 400 EUR here.
So, high value games that I can sell for 2+ EUR will now ALWAYS go on market and won't be given for pennies here.
I'm giving games I already have and can't sell for atleast 2 EUR.
Simple as that.
My Blacklisted One.
Comment has been collapsed.
*it should be "bombed" or "were bombing".
You can pick whichever you prefer.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess the benefit of knowing that the person who won the game will possibly/likely enjoy it is a personal benefit. Doesn't really give me anything tangible, or necessarily make me feel good or better about myself though either.
Its kind of like recycling to me. You don't really know if your recycling is going to actually get recycled or just thrown in another garbage heap unless you go the distance.
Comment has been collapsed.
Should I delete mine as well? Why should I care more about feelings of random people I have never and never will meet than my feelings of seeing some pointless stat go up and maxing out my level?
Comment has been collapsed.
You are generous?
Guy who gives games ONLY to friends from Whitelist?
Rich son with 13000 games.
Be ashamed, someone works hard for living, which your kind cannot imagine.
You are so far from generosity, much further than I am.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you care how other people spend their money?
Seriously, think about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
He care about my generosity, super rich kid from premium country, premium parents, 12000 games and level 9 here, achieved solely through Whitelist giveaways.
And I'm just saying that after this unfair arbitrary downgarading new rule here, I'll never again gave up my premium spare games.
Because I could earn cash from them-astonishing 2 or more Euros. Which is more than pennies here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why single this guy out, when they are both doing the same thing?
Comment has been collapsed.
Certainly wasn’t my intention to single out. The question could easily be directed at anyone in the discussion.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why do you care how other people spend their money?
Oh really now? Let's think about it.
https://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/e5Utv2B
Comment has been collapsed.
Apples to oranges. That comment described how certain people misrepresent their finances for personal gain. My comment here, in this thread, was asking why a person would care how someone spends their money for giveaways on this site. The difference couldn’t be more clear.
Next time, consider context before crying foul.
Comment has been collapsed.
Apples to apples, in fact.
You're both judging other people's finances according to your assumptions and expectations. If you're truly bothered from FromIwoJima's indiscretion -rightly if i may add- then you might want to reconsider your previous rant back there. Or not, since you seem to know our finances better than ourselves. 🙄
Comment has been collapsed.
I judge those that falsely represent their finances for selfish gain. I explicitly stated as much.
From the comment you are referring to:
Naturally, this discounts people who actually get by with little to no income. I'm simply shedding light on why you seem to hear people say this so often. Crappy people have taken cues from those truly without, and have learned that people will not pry into their finances if they refute having any to begin with.
You're free to disagree with this view, that's your prerogative. However, there's nothing in it that contradicts what I've said here. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous, and goalpost shifting at best.
Comment has been collapsed.
..but you can't know someone else's financial condition unless you've been told or have inside information. Isn't that simple? You're just devaluing others for not acting as you're expecting them to do. You're judging according to your assumptions, just like our aforementioned friend above.
Also this, for the quoted part:
Naturally you say, yet you've blacklisted me after a few hours, for my comment back there, naturally because you're not valuing people by your standards but instead you're targeting people left and right for not perceiving financial status. I don't mind really, i never entered any of your giveaways.
Anyway i think you got my point by now, let's keep it on topic. 😉
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't get your point, beyond being petulant over the fact that I blacklisted you. Again, both of my comments stand unopposed to each other. I don't claim to know anyone's financial condition, but that doesn't preclude me from forming an opinion about it. Nor, does such a situation hinder me from asking the question I did above. You're trying to hold me factually accountable to a standard that doesn't exist. The validity of my opinion is present in itself.
Not to mention, you're completely disregarding that I represented both sides of said argument. I denounced those falsely representing themselves, while also allowing room for those who actually exist in such financial situations. It's the same as deriding professional panhandlers in favor of the legitimately homeless.
And for the record, I didn't blacklist you today:
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah i thought that when i wrote blacklist you'd stick to that. Anyway, i know exactly when you've blacklisted me and why, that's not the point here. Any why would i want to be petulant, i never entered any of your giveaways. If i wanted that I would respond in the appropriate thread, i'm not afraid of communication as you may notice.
The point is that, on the one hand you claim you are eligible to express your opinion about other people's financial status and budget while you admit you're just assuming their budget. Right, but on the other hand here, you seem upset when you read inelegant opinions about financial status of others. Again, here's your latter question:
Why do you care how other people spend their money?
Seriously, think about it.
So my question is:
Why did you care back then?
And why does anybody care about other's financial status, in general? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
So my question is:
Why did you care back then?
The question "back then" wasn't about how people spend their money, but how they represent their finances. I specifically only spoke negatively against those that falsely represent said finances (see: panhandling/homeless example).
And why does anybody care about other's financial status, in general? ¯_(ツ)_/¯
I can't speak for "anybody." As for myself, I have explained it here in-depth. I decry those that lie about their financial status to avoid giving, whilst supplying themselves with non-essential creature comforts. You seem to think this means I deem myself judge of such to each and all, which simply isn't true (I can hold a principle, but still believe innocence until guilt is proven). If someone is actually giving away things on this site, I don't think anyone other than the giver should dictate the terms-- which is what I was saying. I suppose I could have been more specific and added, "...on this site," but the implication is clear if you are reading it within the context of this thread (instead of extending to broad generalities as you did).
Comment has been collapsed.
That's just creative wording, I'll give you that. XD
The real culprit here is that both of you are judging other's finances without having factual information. The context is irrelevant, although i would pleasurably agree with you for being thorough and elaborate in your point of view.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure you can be generous without giving to everyone, or giving to your own detriment...
Comment has been collapsed.
I am generous more than that rich hypocrite with my 400 EUR monthly payment.
Beside, we talk here about super unfair model this site introduced-arbitrary downgrading achieved level (Important here-we are not all super rich with 12000 games, like you who complains here...Like: Levels, what's that, and you are all mostly lvl 9 or 10).
Comment has been collapsed.
You have more games than me.
And I'm not the one complaining.
You should calm down a bit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, I ONLY give games for my WL. That's why i gave games worth ~ 2000$ in real CV in public giveaways. Yup, sure, makes sense :D
Everything else is factually so far off, it's just laughable.
Comment has been collapsed.
FromIwoJima you're (partially) wrong, you've given too much credit on meaningless stats.
You should try giving what you can afford and pleases you, not a penny more, for any stupid reason. Furthermore as talgaby mentioned, leveling up doesn't give you these great advantages you possibly think, only a couple of dozen more giveaways.
How did you get the impression that SG can be an investment to get more free games? It's not!. Simple math & statistics and your 2 years of experience should have taught you otherwise.
Try to have fun. 😉
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I didn't notice almost any improvement of my level 7 than, say, level 5 before.
I mostly get pissed because of few premium quality titles (Steamworld Heist, Subterrain and Kentucky Road Zero), which i decided to waste for pennies, instead giving them to my real life friends, which was an option back in the day.
Because price was very dumped on G2A, and that site is always my first option for duplicate games.
Then comes real life friends, and last in line is Steamgifts as final adopting solution.
Comment has been collapsed.
And you give away the games you can't use to +1 your account, and then only in whitelist giveaways.
Should people bash you for that?
Take a big step back.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, there you are. I was waiting for you.
Before I removed you from my WL, you were very happy for those WL giveaways and always thanked me for making them. And you had no problem winning some of them.
And yup, you checked every single giveaway. Too bad you missed the public giveaways I did worth ~ 2000$ in real CV and too bad you missed that sometimes I buy bundles or nun-bundled games just to give them away although I already own everything. Just to (hopefully) make someone happy.
No more comment neccessary.
Comment has been collapsed.
You removed me when you rudely berated a developer for making an achievement spam game, and I posted a screenshot of you owning a couple dozen of them in your Steam library. It was within moments of my comment and me removing you from mine for being rude to the developer. But hey, whatever you gotta tell yourself. ;)
Winning games will never be more important to me than my moral compass, pal. At least not enough to lie to people like you on the internet.
And yup, you checked every single giveaway.
Nah, just back the last 7 months, while you were still entering and winning public giveaways, after you bragged on the forums how you were only making white-list giveaways from now on. Then again, I'm not the one swinging my dick around telling people to delete their account and get off the site, either. Maybe you should consider putting yours back in your pants. It's really not as big as you think it is. ;)
Edit: Ooooo, went right to the personal insults like "stupid". Mmm, classy xD
2nd edit: Decided to check, mostly for shits and giggles, and I've never won a whitelist giveaway from you. Try again.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because odds weren't in your favor but if you did enter still them..
Comment has been collapsed.
And he entered mine, while I also made public giveaways and didn't tell people to delete their account and get off the site while preaching to them what "generosity" is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for the interference but only wins count, whereas, ifs buts and maybes don't.
As a sidenote,
gifting to 💙s and 7️⃣+ while constantly fishing from the public pool, is definitely not called generosity. Even worse is acting surprised and asking people why they don't spend more hard earned $ for public giveaways, while forgetting stating your own -obviously well established- finances, and finally, forgetting the fact that you get one (or many?) free keys/gifts from developers for review and promoting purposes on your channel(s).
Comment has been collapsed.
I got AmanoTc blacklisted (think because i returned the favor, then again his only whitelist thing and behavior would have been enough of a reason for me too) i am not calling it generosity at all either. Nor trying to attack or add fuel here either.
Personally i just find if Tzaar is against it or just the fact if he would have won how that would suddenly change the issue, he shouldn't have entered them or adressed that part then.
Comment has been collapsed.
I haven't entered them for ages (and particularly when I noticed that's all he made) -- and even then, only a couple over the course of years prior to that. I have nothing against people who make whitelist giveaways -- but I do have something to say about people who make only whitelist giveaways while telling others to delete their account and leave SG while patting themselves on the back and waving their CV around like some carte blanche to say/do whatever they like on SG. I find that sort of thing deplorable.
TLDR: My beef isn't with the giveaways. It's with the behavior.
Comment has been collapsed.
GENEROCITY
GENEROSITI?
GENEROUSITY?
how to spell it?
Comment has been collapsed.
wish i could give you all the reps that exist over the internet for it
That being said I still scratch my head about this whole thing and i will have to defend gifters in this case: why exactly is it relevant if xy game is being sold for this and that on g2a/ kinguin/etc?
I dont agree with using this kind of price prejudice, at all. I have no problem with games value scaled to bundled value and whatsnot, but this is borderline ridiculous.
Like whats next? every games you can give away on steamgifts will be valued retroactively over the cheapest price on every keyseller sites and retroactively updated whenever there is an even cheaper copy? game prices scaled over group buy prices?
Comment has been collapsed.
It was gene-rous-ity but evils of gene manipulation have made it one-rous-ity.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know everything about generousity. I will help you out with this incredible problem of yours, for a correct price obviously. /s
Comment has been collapsed.
Very much text here, let's take Splasher as an example how much CV is it worth now?
Comment has been collapsed.
steamgift is a real RPG game, so level is important. sigh
Comment has been collapsed.
Fell down a level and it seems like one of the reasons for it was due to Splasher and I can't find anything else.
Anyway, apparently Splasher and Aviary Attorney (which I didn't giveaway yet) are added to the bundle list with "Bundled effective since" set to Mar 02, 2018, which is the date HB's March Monthly came out.
However Lost Castle and Dark Souls 3 from that bundle aren't added to the bundle list so I'm a bit confused.
EDIT: Given the discussion that followed after creation of this thread I changed its title.
Anyway, moderators are now adding humble monthly games to the bundled games list based on their prices on grey sites. This is a change in how things work that was never announced, but was sneakily done instead.
Once they decide to add a humble monthly game to the list, they set the bundled value date to the one of the bundle itself. That means that if you make a giveaway for a monthly and get full CV for it, if the game eventually ends up selling for cheap on grey sites your giveaway will count as bundled and you will lose CV.
Comment has been collapsed.