you have to buy in. so it's no longer a free community. It'd be a pay for community.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a world of difference between buying in and contributing to a community. This would be a perk for those people (like you) who contributed. It'd make it a lot more likely that you'd win, unless everyone was a contributor (which would be wonderful since it'd increase the amount of giveaways tenfold).
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree. Some will leave if they have to buy in to have an increased chance. That would lead to less. Others may buy in, eventually causing it to even out because they will only have to buy once to count and flat-line after that. You would see less high costing games and more low cost games like fortix,(while a great game that I'd recommend to everyone) at 99 cents. You would be creating a boom and bust cycle that would be constantly crippling the user base.
Plus are exploitable games being counted?
Comment has been collapsed.
Lets not move into fallacies. I could say "you're making this out like it's going to save the site". It's not a great point to rest a whole thesis on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
The line of thinking isn't that bad, but making it so only people who give away stuff seems like a bad idea to me. Don't you think it'd be better to give people who give away some kind of bonus, instead of giving the people who haven't given away some kind of penalty? If we just make this an option then we're just opening the whole community to become one whole 'you have to buy stuff to win stuff' deal. Putting in a required pay option is no where in the spirit of this community I believe. Would be much better to do the idea suggested a few times before and just give the person who does a giveaway extra points once the winner verifies they received their game. It'd naturally encourage people to give gifts since they'd be able to sign up for more than 10% of the games on the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is great. Only members who have gifted before can win certain games. That will ensure everyone who's given something will have a chance to win instead of giving free loaders a chance to win and they won't give anything in return.
Comment has been collapsed.
Solution! Make a private steam group of give-awayers. Invite giveawayer's to that group and then you guys can post the private links to the group.
Same end result without making different classes of users here on steamgifts.com.
Sort of doesn't make sense for a give-away site to require prior contribution to be able to be eligible for prizes. I mean, if I really want a certain game that bad I'll just buy it. That doesn't mean though that if I happen to win that I won't consider giving back, as I probably would.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really agree with this... Mainly because of my financial situation, so this is subjective, though I believe there are some other people like that. (and of course +90% people who are not like that)
For example, I would be able to gift one game each month tops and the game wouldn't be very costly until I find a way go make some additional money.
As I understand the purpose of this site, it gifts games for people who cannot buy so costly games for themselves. They gift back something occasionally, make the people who paid more happy.
If it would be gifts for gifts - it would be partially like trading, and there wouldn't be a point to do that. If you would want a game, you could just buy it for yourself. Of course you would get points and all that, but the chance of winning the gamble is not so high, rather low.
It would be trading/gambling instead of giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you not everyone can afford games thus the point of this site. Segregating the user-base between "haves" and "have nots" is a horrible idea. People who give away games should be rewarded by something that doesn't alienate the other members of this site. "Haves" giving more games to to other "haves" is not the point of the site.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think a better solution would be to give those who give away games extra points, depending on the monetary value of their offer.
Comment has been collapsed.
Don't they give everyone 10% of the game's worth + 1 point = 1 dollar for the games you give?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but what he means if that the person who sets up a give away should themselves receive more than 10% of that game's value in points. There was a question if something like this could be abused to give someone a lot of points and them not following through with the giveaway, but that could be avoided by only giving bonus points to the giveaway creator after the giveaway has been completed and the game has been reported as received by the winner. I think that a system for giving people who start giveaways more points would have an overall more positive effect on the community than simply placing a forced buy-in.
Comment has been collapsed.
Shouldn't the people who don't give away the game they are supposed to give away be dealt with somehow in the first place? Other people spend points on their giveaways, if it's only a downside for them for not receiving the points, other people, especially the winner should feel a bit frustrated.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can agree with that, but I wager the mods have a way to keep an eye on people who have done false giveaways and will send warnings to those who don't pay up. Chances are you'll eventually see people with a standing record of fake giveaways having their steam ID banned from the website.
I'd like some way though for a giveaway to be flagged as not received and all the points spent be refunded back to those who spent them, but that might just be a bit much to really matter.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, that's what I meant. A refund system would be great. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
There was a time where I was for this, but the more I think about it the more it seems like a bad idea. People who do not gift will complain about it. It may have the opposite affect and drive people away from the site as more giveaways are "gifters only." Also, what if a gifter already has the game being put up; then the benefit would not apply to them. Not that I think there should be, but if there is a gifters' benefit it should apply evenly to all gifters.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think it'll drive people away from the site so much as encourage them to create giveaways in order to enter into the other "gifter only" giveaways. Which will, of course, drive the site's giveaway level far higher and therefore better the site.
Man, I don't need (or I don't want) 99% of the games on offer. I'm just here for that 1%. :p It's not much different now and if this happens.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you want to encourage people to create giveaways, why not create a way to encourage people to create giveaways? Instead of trying to make a situation where if someone wants to get into a certain giveaway they literally have to make their own giveaway. Why not make it so that people who create giveaways get extra points from that giveaway as I've mentioned above? It seems like a cost-for-admission deal if you create a 'giveaway-er only' category, as opposed to a 'Thanks for starting a giveaway!' addition of extra points. There are a lot more ways positively reinforce the action of starting a giveaway than simply forcing people to do it.
Examples include: Bonus Points, Option to spend 3 to 4x points for two entries into a single giveaway, higher cap to save points with based on games given away, a special gold star next to your name wherever you go on the website, etc
Edit:
Do note that I'm still arguing under the assumption of the initial post. I do agree that there should be some sort of mechanic to prevent someone from signing up and getting tons of games for free without putting any effort into the community, but the method described above will only force everyone to give away a specific dollar amount regardless of economic standing. The website is about giving games away, not making people buy games to give away. Though I will agree if someone's won a significant amount of games but not given anything back to the community, that should be looked into.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think giving away any games should qualify as an entrance. I agree on the whole "completely stratifying the userbase is stupid" concept, but it'd be nice to create a giveaway without any chance of it going to a person who has "Signed up for 1 month, contests entered: 200, contests won: 4, Giveaways created: 0".
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, and like I said I'd get behind mechanics meant to prevent people with no giveaways from getting obscene amounts of free games. But I don't see any harm in letting someone with 0 giveaways get 20-50 dollars in games and then having some kind of action occur. After all if you make people buy in then they're forced to buy in for a 'chance' at winning, and me personally that doesn't sound that great of a deal.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think its a good idea. This may drive leechers away, but I wont miss them. I'd fair. Leechers arent a plus for the community but a minus. This encourages different kind of people to join and people that are already in to create giveaways. If giveaway-ers want to make public giveaways they always can.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hmmm... here is a good idea. Not making it a option for every giveaway, but a special event. There are probably several details that would need to be worked out, but I really like this idea.
Also, imho "gifters" is much better than "giveaway-ers"
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd like to see 3 options:
1) Public
2) Private (not that i'd use this one but some would)
3) Contributors for the last X days.
And I'd like to be able to block the scum who are selling their invites from any giveaways I do. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
This is probably the best idea so far.
I will go one step further to suggest that only games valued at $15 and above can have an option to be only open to people who have done give aways. This is to ensure that non-give away member still can take part.
Again, this option is entirely up to the gifter to choose.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have to remember that there is a steam account buy-in limit. If alt accounts become a problem then the account value limit can be raised from $30 to something higher. But at the same time the way invites work themselves prevent account-spam since you have to also spend 50 points per invite
Comment has been collapsed.
0 Comments - Created 3 minutes ago by sensualshakti
46,879 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Zolivv
18 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by devotee
15,478 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by ricardobrat
70 Comments - Last post 19 minutes ago by philipdick
1,097 Comments - Last post 59 minutes ago by Choco316
60 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by anditsung
48 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by fernandopa
5 Comments - Last post 7 minutes ago by Masafor
15,269 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by Agaster
98 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by Xeradan
7,998 Comments - Last post 25 minutes ago by FranckCastle
62 Comments - Last post 31 minutes ago by ceeexo
59 Comments - Last post 33 minutes ago by SyrslyTwitch
We have too many members and I don't even bother registering for games I want because I'm always seeing 200+ people already in there... so yeah.
Like from the old site, we should have a contributors-only giveaways... when you make a giveaway, atm you can make it private (for invites only) & public (for everybody)... we're missing a few option, 1 of them should be: "giveaway-ers" only (ye, the name needs work).
giveaway-ers = people who have given away at least 1 game
....we can even work on that and later have classes of giveaway-ers.. 50$+ 70$+ 100$+ ranks...
...just an idea.
Comment has been collapsed.