How would SteamGifts be affected if the default setting would be "Everyone" and "Level 1+"?
So your theory is that a lot of people make Level 0 giveaways because Level 0 is the default and they are too lazy to change it?
I'm not so sure about that.
I think you could make the default whatever Level you want, and it wouldn't change much.
EDIT: my understanding is that you mean "it will still be possible to make a GA for Level 0, but the default is Level 1." In that case, I don't see a big change.
If you mean that it would no longer be possible to make a GA for Level 0, then I think that's a pretty bad idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, no way would I ever recommend removing the Level 0 giveaways. They are important. But it is true that there are people who prefer clicking less, so they would rather do a "Next -> Next -> Next" program install over a customized one. And this way of doing things is applied to other user interfaces they interact with - which is normal, and not a bad thing.
But reaching level 1 is quite easy anyway, and having more people sharing would be nice, of course. Which is why I wondered if switching the default to 1+ would improve things here.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm like 90% sure that a lot of these lvl 0 giveaways are done from either not understanding the level system or just pure laziness.
When I made a bunch of random giveaways for lvl 4, I accidentally also made 2 lvl 0 giveaways because it was the default.
I don't agree with OP's idea, but I also think that that's the reason why there are so many lvl 0 giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's pretty sad, if that's the case.
Easy solution, though:
Set up the "Contributor Level" section the same way the "Region Restricted" and "Who Can Enter" sections are set up. There should be no default value; instead the giveaway creator must make a selection in order to continue with the giveaway.
Comment has been collapsed.
I always prefer any websites that have options to have default settings at "None" or the minimum/neutral.
In the case of SG, it means the "Who Can Enter" section is at "None" and levels at 0; anything else would feel like I'm being tricked into accidentally setting up my giveaway "as the website intends". Or maybe I'm just biased from spending years on SG and any change really annoys me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I also prefer no default settings on websites, but the contributor level is already designed with a default in mind although it can be changed to not have a default setting. Anyway, I thought about this and I was uncertain if Level 1+ would be good or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
(disclaimer: I have not made any ga's myself)
I, like you, would prefer all ga's to be level 0, unless the giver specifically wishes otherwise. if I go to a website, and see that I have to spend a whole bunch of money for the chance to win a certain game, I'd rather go and buy the game outright.
That being said, level one is only one ga, but some ppl are broke and can only afford to buy a game every once in a while; they don't have money to spend on games--especially ones that they don't personally want, and would be purchasing just to give away in order to level up to get a chance at better games. Not everyone can afford a lot/to reciprocate on the ga's they win.
Also, personally, if I really wanted to reach level 1 ga's, I would buy a bundle of stuff where I wanted some of them (but not all) for myself and giveaway the ones I and my fam don't want.
Are bots prevalent on higher levels?
Comment has been collapsed.
spend a whole bunch of money
You can reach level 1 for 1 cent... If that's a whole bunch of money, turn off your computer for half an hour, you'll save more than that on your electricity bill 😐
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd be more interested to see what would happen if the default was set to be your own level.
If it was just lvl1 then I imagine it would just lead to a lot more new users making their first giveaway be for a junk game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Based on various criteria, "junk" is relative. That's why I didn't even bring it in discussion. There's a good number of small and cheap games that are high-rated or fun and appealing to many gamers, which is why I don't think we would drown in "junk". But blacklisting works great for those who want to avoid any particular title. I blacklisted over 1200 and browsing the giveaways didn't take a performance hit as a result.
It would certainly be more interesting if the contribution level would default to the user's, although the SteamGift veterans would most likely want to change their option to a lower level most of the time. If they would keep the requirement to a high level, there would definitely be less giveaways here. But defaulting to level 1 I'm inclined to think it would boost the number of giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, I should have been more specific.
By junk I was referring to asset flips, achievement clickers, and games with very/overwhelmingly negative reviews.
Comment has been collapsed.
i don't understand what would it change, except it will make lv2+ pointless, so people instead of making high level giveaways would move to group/whitelists and public ones will be less popular.
besides, lv1 doesn't mean much. someone could share a 3 cent game and reach it, while another could donate a $60 game and go directly to lv3.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have some good points here. I don't remember how I got to level 1, but it was very easy. But even so, there's a number of people (I suspect quite a few) having contributor level 0 after they won games worth hundreds of $. Not nice, especially when it's so easy to share something - anything.
Comment has been collapsed.
This is calling out. Don't do that, because it's against the rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
You got lvl1 by giving something that wasn't free.
Lvl1 means someone found the option to create a giveaway that is not "no value". That's all. Does it means something? I don't think so. Lvl0 and lvl 1 users are quite the same. Are there more lvl1 active people compared to lvl0? According to the general stats there are 894,000 lvl0 users and 106,000 lvl1 users but probably alot of lvl0 users are inactive and just signed up.
Your idea would better works with a lvl2 (at least) default option.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although in theory a Level 1 default has good chances of increasing the number of giveaways, Level 2 could easily become problematic. A user can't reach Level 2 in a short amount of time if they are unable to spend money. So if a lot of people would use a Level 2 default for their giveaways, this site would become quite restrictive and it would spoil the fun.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't see how
Humble "pay what you want" bundles. Tier 1 is available for as little as $1, and it usually includes at least 3 games, with a retail value of at least $30.
So you can pay $1 for Tier 1, give those games away, and you'd be at Level 2 (since Level 2 only requires $25 in value).
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, but you'd only get 15% of that $30 value since those $1 games are bundled (or will be soon).
Comment has been collapsed.
Good idea.
It is a psychological fact that the first offered by a question will picked more then the followed. So why should it not fits by offering a level at a internet site and taken as "first pick" from the people (and the really lazy ones change nothing... so win/win).
Each one that don't want feed the autojoiners, scripts, bot and extreme leechers still set at minimum level 1 (i advice lvl 2+ or sgtools protection)
Comment has been collapsed.
It would be great if the SteamGifts would allow us to change our defaults, so we don't have to rely on scripts for such a minor thing. But it would still not address the default 1+ I pondered about. It probably wouldn't make much of a difference, but I think the odds are on the positive side.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the default is alright as is. Being able to set up preset/s (with which one click would fill out 5. to 8. and perhaps even 4. in terms of how long GA ought to last) would be a nice feature tho.
But in regard to "impact" on SG, I think two other ideas would make way more difference:
possibility for GA-maker to tick box for captcha requirement to enter GA (with GA list telling which GAs have captcha). This would be arguably good as an anti-bot layer (with which some GA makers would perhaps make more GAs public and/or low-level), as well as raising the odds for those willing to do the captcha challenge for a game they would like to play when many others would find it too much hassle for that +1 or few cents in occasional cards.
possibility for GA-maker to apply multiplier to points required to enter GA. Meaning that if a GA for a game that usually has 30p required to enter can be set up to have e.g. 150p as requirement to enter, such would likely mean less entries for that GA even if public low-level, but by that increase the odds for those willing to use that many points for a chance at that game (and the points they wouldn't use on other GAs would raise the odds there as well - all in all giving especially no/little win users a better chance to win at least something and by that perhaps more likely to come back now and then and eventually even make a GA themselves, such as when they have a double copy from a bundle).
Each of these two ideas isn't meant to be more restrictive as such about GAs, but on the contrary, where if a GA-maker has more options about GA they make, then arguably more low-level public GAs, especially in the context that quite a number of GA-makers seem to be somewhat fed up with bots and/or non-playing hoarders at such GAs - and option such as captcha or making hoarders avoid GAs when 3 GAs with points multiplied would take up all points for the day, such would be helpful for that. And more public low-level GAs would arguably make SG more attractive in overall (without taking away possibility for private and/or high-level GAs).
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you regarding captchas.
I don't consider myself a hoarder, despite not having yet played the games I have won. I fully intend to play them, but have very little gaming time each week, and am trying to finish finish-able games in the order I get them, so that i can uninstall them and create room for the next one. More of a "each game takes its turn before I go on to the next one in queue."
Comment has been collapsed.
Also I don't consider you a hoarder. When talking "hoarders on SG", there are level 0/1 users with dozens or even hundreds of wins and barely any play-time. And I personally wouldn't call them as some do "leechers", but I personally also don't consider it great as is to just throw them another +1 with low-level GAs for games that did cost me more than a few cents per copy, all while there are plenty of users with barely any wins. Which is why I would find more options when making GA great, since e.g. with captcha function some of the hoarding users who perhaps use script to enter GAs from list, or even bot, would have to take the time and effort to enter GA by opening page for it as most users do, and fill out that captcha - something they may find too much a hassle after all for an easy +1, and due to that odds for other users are increased.
And similarly with increased points for entering, since high-points GAs would mean that an user can enter less of those per day than amount of low-points GAs, and due to that less likely that particularly hoarders would enter GA for e.g. (looking at your wishlist) Sim City 4 when such would ask for 100p for a chance to win and doesn't have any cards whatsoever.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. I also felt a desire to give back after winning a number of games. So it also encourages people to give back. I don't like the prospect of people feeling like the have to pour money in giving away games just for an abstract chance at winning a game. I've been on this website for many many years and most of the games i've won are free-for-alls. I think a barrier to entry just for a chance at winning a game is a terrible idea and would turn a lot of people away and assist in killing the community here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why change default? People should stop being lazy and pick a level they want. It would just complicate things when it is in fact already so simple.
Comment has been collapsed.
Definitely an interesting suggestion! (yay, a newer user with a real suggestion that I haven't seen a million times over! :D)
Most of what I like find interesting about it is the psychological aspect; it creates a new (higher) socially-acceptable-for-everyone low bar.
I don't know if it fits with the original philosophies of the site (everyone having an equal chance), and for that reason I'm not sure if I'd vote for it, but everyone having an equal chance has been gone for a long while now on here (for better and worse).
Pessimistically, it might prevent normal generous people from becoming a part of the SG community as they will mostly only see trash giveaways intentionally set to level zero available to them and balk at the initial exclusivity. Meanwhile the people who already know how to game the system (getting massive CV for little investment) will already be doing that.
Optimistically, it might encourage more normal users to make their first giveaway and then they experience the warm fuzzies of gifting something to someone who appreciates a win. An optimist at heart (and pessimist in mind), I've voted for "Better" in the poll. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
https://www.steamgifts.com/about/faq
CV = Contributor Value. Certain CV levels mean certain levels (like Level 1: $0.01 - $25), so more CV basically means higher level, though with diminishing returns.
Comment has been collapsed.
ah, ok. thanks. I'm not totally clear what you mean by "diminishing returns" (as applied to SG).
I had thought there was some sort of community-driven hidden ranking that users assigned others based on a users forum contributions/giveaways etc, but hadn't realized it was the same as their rank. Thank you!
Comment has been collapsed.
Diminishing returns:
You put in X amouts of resources (in this case, money) to the system by buying more games and giving them away, but you'll get less and less use of it, the more you do it.
Notice the level differences - they aren't static, they increase with the level.
25$ will take you to level 1
another 25 on top of it for level 2 (25-50)
another 50 on top of it for level 3 (50-100)
So if you can buy a bundle that has let's say 40$ CV, your first will make you top of level 1. 2nd almost level 4. wow
I'm level 7: Level 7: $1,000 - $2,000
I need to give way that 40$ bundle fifty times to level up. On first levels 40$ is either multiple levels, or majority of a level-up, for me it's 2% of it :)
Comment has been collapsed.
to make their first giveaway and then they experience the warm fuzzies of gifting something to someone who appreciates a win
If only the reality would be anything like that. Someone winning your giveaway has nothing to do with "appreciating a win", I would say 80-90% of public giveaways are just being hoarded and/or idled. Even I have ~36% not started wins, either for regrets (only a few games), lack of time for big games or such. I know that my first giveaway wasn't that great either, but it's still unplayed after 4 years (and I played my first win after 3 years I think)
The secret on SG is to smile, be nice but expect nothing - being positively surprised is the best what one can do - both about expecting stuff from random, not known members or expecthing a win either.
Comment has been collapsed.
ET3D, check my comment below. I didn't suggest removing "Level 0" as an option. I'm unsure how things would change around here if the default contributor value would be set to 1+, but being so easy to reach there are good chances that more people would share something. And once they reach Level 1, they would be fully covered by this default giveaway setting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Removing level 0 altogether will certainly be much worse, but even just changing the default sends a message, and that message is that people are expected to give in order to get. Sure, a lot of people on the site already think so, and the level system already encourages this attitude, but it would be yet another step in the direction of caring only gifters, and most likely some time later someone would post a suggestion to default to level 2, because hey, level 1 only requires a single gift. Don't want to go there, don't think there's a good reason to go there.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it'd be a really bad idea. I felt a desire to give back after winning a number of games from level 0 GA's. It encourages people to give back after winning some things from people. I don't like the prospect of people feeling like the have to pour money in giving away games just for an abstract chance at winning a game. I've been on this website for many many years and most of the games i've won are free-for-alls. I think a barrier to entry just for a chance at winning a game is a terrible idea and would turn a lot of people away and assist in killing the community here.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wait, I didn't suggest removing the Level 0 giveaways. Only the default would be 1+, which can be lowered to 0. It's a fact that many people want to click less, so they use the defaults if they aren't (too) bothered by them, but reaching level 1 is not pouring money in here.
I found this great advice in multiple giveaways:
https://www.steamgifts.com/discussion/cVY8v/no-more-excuses-getting-to-level-1-without-spending-money-if-you-cant-i-may-have-a-key-for-you
Now considering the Level 0 giveaways would continue to exist, doesn't it make for a better community if more people would offer something back? After all, there are a lot of cheap games and sites with free keys that people can grab without spending any money. So changing the default is not at all about restricting people, but rather to make them consider the needs of others who never won anything, not even some cheap game. If 100000 people decide to share a key, that's just as many new giveaways, which is great. Being poor or unable to use a credit card still doesn't prevent people from sharing stuff.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know that, if there wasn't a level 0 give away tier, people literally would have to buy into the ability to possibly win a game. But at that point, most people wouldn't know or understand if SG is actually legit and safe.
Also "Being poor or unable to use a credit card still doesn't prevent people from sharing stuff." that's pretty entitled and privileged of you to believe that people who are poor can still afford to have disposable income to just spend on giving away games. I'm not even going to get into the can of worms you just opened. But i'm just saying, that's a really crap opinion/belief if you truly believe that.
Look, i'm not saying there isn't steps we as a community can do to help encourage people to give back to the community. But I personally don't really like this idea. I know for me at least, I don't totally care about who the game goes to. I just want my game to be enjoyed. And some people out there aren't in a financially forgiving situation or have the ability to go out and get some nice games. I don't want a community that ostracizes those people just because they aren't splashing cash.
Comment has been collapsed.
Read my comment carefully, because I said: "there are a lot of cheap games and sites with free keys that people can grab without spending any money."
I'm sure you and many others are aware of that, because those sites are crowded. So be kind and whenever you think "crap" about anyone, make sure you double-check what they wrote.
Comment has been collapsed.
"there are a lot of cheap games and sites with free keys that people can grab without spending any money."
Do you mean people are giving away a lot of cheap/free keys, or are you trying to say they should just go somewhere else to go get free/cheap games.
Comment has been collapsed.
I meant what I said, not what you think I said. And it's clear enough.
But let's just assume you only know about Steam and SteamGifts. Many people use several sources to get games and Steam keys. Some websites require you do follow some Twitter accounts, to join some Steam group, to like some facebook page, etc. And once you completed those tasks, you get a Steam key. Most of these tasks are rather annoying than anything else, but they don't require any money, nor selling any soul, or right kidney, to anyone.
And maybe, just maybe, you are unaware that keys obtained through such sites were also shared on SteamGifts. Well, now you know, and so do others. And sharing a key from another site is not wrong as long as you respect the rules of the site where you got the key from.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah. I was just trying to clarify something because what you said, y'know, wasn't clear enough. But I appreciate your ego-stroking superior attitude you're displaying. Aside from that, that problem has been addressed a long time ago. The admin made it so instead of trying to constantly catch and hide games that people get like that. They made it so people can still enter them, however it provides no CV to the user. Ultimately, I don't find that to be a problem, whenever I notice tons of copies of games like that coming in, I usually check the forums or make a forum thread asking where they're coming from. After I check obvious culprits like steam, humble bundle, indiegala, and occasionally gmg for instance.
Comment has been collapsed.
Telling me "that's a really crap opinion/belief if you truly believe that" isn't friendly at all, so don't mind me being blunt. Although I clearly mentioned "free keys that people can grab without spending any money", you could've asked for clarification, instead of replying like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
you could've asked for clarification
"Do you mean people are giving away a lot of cheap/free keys, or are you trying to say they should just go somewhere else to go get free/cheap games."
"make sure you double-check what they wrote." - kneekoo
Comment has been collapsed.
i wouldnt mind the default being level 1, im sometimes too lazy to slide the bar, and i always have issues with level 0's ive probably rerolled 40+ of my giveaways from rule breakers, cuz i used to do level 0 all the time. and its really stressful
Comment has been collapsed.
My personal opinion: steamgift should be level 0 for any giveaway without other options. I think that the spirit of a giveaway is to give a chance for those people that cannot buy a game. With level system we have just another "wall", i don't like it.
Comment has been collapsed.
People or gamers have to start somewhere and i don't necessarily mean at the bottom but Level 0 in my opinion opens up a new world to them where they are encouraged if they want, to work their way to Level 10. They will have to engage in conversations and what they get, they can give back to the community as shutting them out would simply alienate them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically you're right, but practically it's not as simple as that. I've seen users having won games worth hundreds of dollars, even over $1000, while they never created a giveaway. And with so many websites offering free keys, it's crazy to see so many people at Level 0. It means they didn't make even the slightest effort to keep this community running. it's like they are completely unaware that the point of this community is to share. If everyone was lazy and wouldn't care about offering something, this website would be closed by now.
Comment has been collapsed.
The sad thing is, in the world of the living as i would put it, and as far as games go, you see the word "free", people would automatically jump or take jabs at it which they won't ever give up. But when you have SG around, its safe to say things are under control, not like on Steam itself where its crazy which brought me here in the first place.
I'd like to assume that, to the vast majority of people that are Level 0s, they are probably young and don't have any form of employment so when they reach that stage, we can encourage them likewise and we'll see then if they contribute. To the people who have run SG and ST over course of time though, you'd have to thank them for putting up with us.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think that, by changing the default setting, the amount of level 1+ giveaways will increase. Also, I don't want the amount of level 1+ giveaways to increase, so I disagree anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
The number of 1+ giveaways would increase because not everyone changes the default contribution level. I don't have enough data to make any educated guesses/estimations, but I feel this new default would be a positive change. How do you think it would impact the community?
Comment has been collapsed.
But, as I said, I doubt that people can't notice the default contribution level. Still, I may be wrong. But the default settings are always the simplest ones, so it would be weird to set the level 1+ setting as default. Thing is, I don't think that more level 1+ giveaways would be a positive change. We don't need more restrictions. Newcomers should be able to see a generous community offering free giveaways for everyone, not people that want to give away their games only to specific people. Like, if someone would come to steamgifts and see zero level 0+ giveaways, they'd think that this is a pay-to-win site (give a game to get a game) and they'd go away. I know that the level 0+ giveaways would still exist, but it's just an example. ;P I don't like restrictions, that's all. And new restrictions can never be a positive change.
Comment has been collapsed.
You could view this change as an annoyance, but not a restriction - because we could change that option to any level. Others can view the current default (L0) as an annoyance because most of the time they don't want to make such giveaways, which forces them to choose another contributor level.
So maybe to be fair to everyone there shouldn't be a default value, and everyone would have to choose whatever they want. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, ok then, no default value doesn't sound bad. ;P
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with those that say it would go against the idea of giving, even if you say it would be to encourage them to give.
No one should be forced to give, since this is basically a place where people give games away voluntarily and someone lucky gets to get such games for free.
Also, since you keep repeating that it would be a plus, since we'd have more GAs: do you really think it will be a noticeable change?
Look at the stats:
in the past two years, we've averagely had more than 75k GAs per month;
and while it's true that there are almost 900k L0 users, how many of them do you think are still active? I don't know exact numbers but I'm pretty confident that, if you can grab data from here, many L0 haven't been active in the past few months..
Let's assume that 20-30% of them are active (and that may be even too high imho) ..they spent all this time without giving anything; do you think they care? I think they will either quit sg or grab the cheapest key they manage to find around and do that single GA that you seem to want so bad. and then we're back to square one.
Yes, we could have a spike of 200k GA in a month or two but, if you have a big library (or simply get bundles you're interested in and hide other games), you'll probably end up withouth seeing any difference anyway. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
All this "nonsense" to say that your improvement won't likely bring an improvement to the site (again, imho)
..oh, and because I've so many things to do with a very close deadline that I felt it was right to spend 15-20' doing this post XD
Comment has been collapsed.
Very nice stats, thanks! Do you have any idea why they don't show up in the menu?
Yes, the main purpose of this site is giving stuff away, not forcing people into anything. But changing a default doesn't force anyone to give something. It only makes the giveaway creators choose a different contribution level if they don't want 1+. But the fact that there are plenty of Level 1+ giveaways, means their creators changed the default setting because they don't want the default "Level 0". And SteamGifts supports the customization of giveaways.
I'm sure as well the majority of the 900k L0 users are inactive, but let's say only 2% are active. That's 18000 users, which is a lot. If only 10 of them, per day, would create a giveaway, we'd be having an extra number of giveaways going on for years. And as I can see in the stats, the community keeps growing by over 1000 users per month, which would produce a steady increase of giveaways if the new members would be stimulated to share even one game in their whole existence on SteamGifts.
We should keep in mind that it's irrelevant that members with big libraries don't see a difference. The increased number of giveaways would help others, who only have a few games on Steam. Not bad, right? And all this by stimulating (not forcing) people to share one key that has any kind of value.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're being too optimistic/naive. Long term L0 users do not care about the site nor its community, they only want "profit".
I mentioned that sudden spike of GA because I think that, the moment this change were to be announced, every L0 (who chooses to not leave sg) would run to create their single (1 hour long) GA to quickly become L1 and not miss on any potential GA, no way they would span over months/years.
Only new members would fit your scenario, and we can't possibly know how may of them would have given away also with the actual system.
Again, I fail to see how this can be an improvement and not a deterrent for new users.
And I'm also talking based on my experience with other similar sites.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am an optimist, that's correct. Naive, not really. With every change in a system hosting many users, there's almost no way everyone will be happy. Even if everyone got 1 million dollars for being a member, we might find someone asking why did the Level 0 people receive 1 million dollars, the same as the Level 10 people. :P
With that in mind, you can read an earlier comment, done by humankillerz, who wasn't pleased with over 40 of his giveaways' winners (rule breakers) and rerolled as a result - all because he went with the default Level 0 CV. I did mention in several comments, and edited my OP to reflect that I don't want L0 giveaways to disappear. It's just about what would happen if we got a new default.
I'm pretty sure those who want to create L0 GAs will adjust the contribution value accordingly, and I'm sure some of them will be annoyed that they have to do that when "before" they didn't have to touch it. But I don't think there would be a massive exodus of L0 members due to such a change. Would it result in smaller number of giveaways that my hypothetical 2%? Maybe, maybe not. At least I didn't say 20-30% as you did - talk about optimism. :))
Honestly, without a lot more stats it's hard to estimate the effects of this change, even without taking the psychological factor into consideration. But I'm glad I opened this thread, as I gained quite some insight about various things around here. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
"I'm pretty sure those who want to create L0 GAs will adjust the contribution value accordingly" -The same can be said about those who want to do L1 GA. A default value should always be the smallest one. It would restrict unintentionally the community. You want to force distracted givers to do higher level GA. A distracted person would forget entirely about L0.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's a stretch, but no - I don't want distracted people to do something they don't want. It's already a fact that distracted/lazy givers created L0 giveaways, which proves there's no perfect default other than no default. If everyone has to choose 0-10, we can only blame ourselves if we choose the wrong level. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
If you agree that the best is no default, why you want the default to be L1? You are pointing a choice anyway, and a bad one. My cellphone carrier sends me messages to accept a product that I don't want. They always send Cancel and Ok inverted. Several people fall for it (my mother, several times), with that mislead default.
Comment has been collapsed.
Occasionally there are good games that can be won in various giveaways, on various sites of good reputation. And most of those sites don't prohibit the sharing of those keys, so those who use such sites can easily add a good key here and jump to level 1 easily. No money, no shovelware. It really can be done if there's a will, so moving up from Level 0 is not a paywall.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think there is a much difference in entries between lvl 1 GAs and lvl 0 GAs
Comment has been collapsed.
As long as we see hundreds of entries (if not over 1000) even for the weirdest games, there's an obvious demand for games. Granted, many of those could be scripts/bots entering whatever giveaway comes next, but they can't all be bots. So at the very least, some people actually want to try those games. They might be worthless for many, but not to everyone.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the problem with this is that many new users are going to be naturally suspicious about the site, and will only want to create giveaways after winning something themselves so they know it actually works the way it says it does. Encouraging people to make Level 1 giveaways by default could therefore make it harder to attract and retain new users.
Comment has been collapsed.
It does present a risk indeed. But we do have constant giveaways done by developers, and many of these are run without restrictions. However, along with the ones intentionally created by the regular members for everyone Level 0+, I think we might be fine and also have more giveaways. But "think" is the keyword there, not "know". :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I think it will make a HUGE difference.
If you look at SteamGifts statistics: https://www.steamgifts.com/stats/community/users (bottom of page)
You will see that around 85% of all users are Lvl 0.
IMO this is because people signing up, and not actually participating, people only wanting to win games (without giving anything) and bots. Probably mostly bots.
Further around 10% are Lvl 1.
And only around 5% are Lvl 2 and above.
Out of almost 1,050,000 users, less than 50k are Lvl2+.
So if anything, I think default should be Lvl2.
The only problem with all the above, is that it will kill SteamGifts.
because only a few users will want to join, if they are required to create giveaways before they can access the vast majority of games.
I know I only joined because I thought this is a place to win games for free.
Only after being active for a few months, and winning a few games, I've realized that I don't really want the games I win here, and that I need to give away games first, if I want to join a closed group and have a chance to win anything half decent.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whatever the default contributor level would be, I'm sure we would still have Level 0 giveaways, because there are plenty of generous people willing to share games with everyone. But Level 2 take some time to achieve without spending money. That would surely make this site much less attractive if most of the giveaways would be 2+. The only reason I was thinking about 1+ is because it can be done quickly, without money, and even with a reasonably good game.
Comment has been collapsed.
The best thing would be a "save as default" button on the page...
So everyone can have there own default
Comment has been collapsed.
17 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by devotee
15,401 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by vlbastos
1,336 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by devotee
33 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CheeseTuber
389 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by vlbastos
1,411 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Agetime
8,473 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by MyLifeGameRU
53 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by Delisper
126 Comments - Last post 13 minutes ago by NattHS
19 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by MoonQueen3
51 Comments - Last post 51 minutes ago by noooba
35 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by noooba
705 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Arwiee
322 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Mitsukuni
Hey everyone!
I've only registered here a little over a month ago, so I don't know if what you're about to read would be a good idea. What do you think would happen if the default settings of giveaways would be "Everyone" and "Level 1+"?
Edit: Please keep in mind that I do not propose removing the Level 0 giveaways, but simply bumping the default value on the contribution value slider.
We already have good settings - meaning it makes everyone choose what they want. But I've seen comments here and there, mentioning that it would've been better that some games (of higher quality or greater demand) would be better off as "Level 1+", so people who actually shared something have better chances to win. That would be nice, of course, but it would spoil the fun for the honest newcomers. Or would it encourage them to grow to level 1 more quickly?
Sure, there is a real chance that more people will go to level 1, which means there would be more gifts in here. But the irony is that the more people with Level 1+ we have, the less chances there are for everyone at the same level or higher. :)) So it's a Catch-22 (or a chicken or egg problem). I'm sure there are also bots and scripts around, as everywhere else, which clearly reduces everyone's chances, but this is not something easily solved - if ever.
So far, it's been fun for me. I've shared more than I won (obviously, being new), although I won't deny I would enjoy better chances. But so do others. So I wonder if it would be nicer if we had more "Level 1+" giveaways as a result of a new default, or it would hurt the community. What do you think?
P.S. There's a great thread about reaching level 1: No More Excuses: Getting to Level 1 without spending money
Comment has been collapsed.