As "requested" here

I could post my opinion, but let's focus on the poll instead of insulting me for what I think about this. ^^

Here's some trash giveaways for you to waste points and idle cards have some endless hours of enjoyment. <3

https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/ej4Ra/the-shrouded-isle
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/KnAv4/scanner-sombre
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/Agalj/dark-egypt
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/qKxWx/garshasp-the-monster-slayer
https://www.steamgifts.com/giveaway/ed5aG/dreadout

View attached image.
View attached image.
2 months ago

Comment has been collapsed.

MAXIMUM cost of giveaways should be:

View Results
50 points (no changes)
100 points (rollback to previous value)

Since I'm the one who suggested it to CG, you know how I'm going to vote.

I'm still struggling to understand why $60 AAA releases, $100 game collections and a $50 game should all cost the same to enter. I'm not sure I like the point cap on entries at all now, especially if you're convinced they'll get into the hands of people who want them more often. If someone really wants a $100 game collection, for instance, they should be prepared to fork over 100p for it IMHO.

Oh, and thanks for sparing me the pain of creating a thread.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

you're very welcome! ^^

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

that's a good point, people will prioritise that which they want more, so not having a cap isn't an issue

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Also, with a 50p cap on more expensive items, they'll prioritize minimum investment vs maximum return. Aka, they're getting more $$$ per point entering $60+ giveaways.

With a 100p cap the point per dollar cost is almost always 1:1 (with some exceptions).

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'd go as far as expecting unbundled ones or new releases to have a higher point count if the point is to prevent people who would just idle them from entering those.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But generating as example 100p would take 5 hours.
When anyone make such a GA with under 5 hours you have a problem.
Yes for sure you can save points for such situations but since the point change you have never "enought" points.
Or i am sooo special ? Since the pointchange i can't enter 10% of my wishlist GA's (thats are often the last that i join because nearly all jump now on the AAA titles). My wishlist is at ~350. A good bunch are DLC's. I am sure it give much people with a, much, bigger one.
I must explain it better...

I set a few parameters too. As example Wishlist games shown up at lvl2+ because all on lvl 0 and 1 are infested by bots, autojoiners, extreme leechers and whatever. So waste of points.
I think that made it much clearer that my "all" is not similar to other ones "all" :o)
And when the entries go over a maximum that i set me i revoke the points and spend it at a other GA (it's very hard when i really want a game but i am strong :DDDD).
I play "strategical point spending" :D

And on the other side.... how often Games come up with more then 50 P ? ..... only the games from HB monthly or HB Bundles reach that normaly. Did you really think it is possible to make such GA's expensiver ? Last seen by the RPG Maker Software Bundle how the people push there sg levels with peanuts in real money spending for the CV gain (a very bad joke in my eyes). That Bundles costs in points (100 cap) 400+ (i am too lazy to calculate it excatly... maybe 600P) .... for sure not worth and for sure not on the same level as, example, ONE GA of the new Mordor Game. So THERE must be made a change to support the generouse people that spend such great games.
One single GA from the new Mordor Game is a complete different thing for me to the HB Bundles/HB monthly (in reak money worlds between it too).
So maybe it should give a different rule for BUNDLED and NOT BUNDLED expensive GA's

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Many of us has / had close to no giveaways for wishlisted games for weeks, months. Compared to not even having a chance to get a wishlisted game, not having points to join every possible giveaway so not having "max" chance is a laughable problem. Quite enviable :)

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

EDIT: More exactly i can join mabye 10%.
AND i set a few parameters too. As example Wishlist games shown up at lvl2+ because all on lvl 0 and 1 are infested by bots, autojoiners, extreme leechers and whatever. So waste of points.
I think that made it much clearer that my "all" is not similar to other ones "all" :o)
And when the entries go over a maximum that i set me i revoke the points and spend it at a other GA (it's very hard when i really want a game but i am strong :DDDD).
I play "strategical point spending" :D

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Deleted

This comment was deleted 1 month ago.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But generating as example 100p would take 5 hours.
When anyone make such a GA with under 5 hours you have a problem

How long it takes is irrelevant, since everyone generates points at a fixed rate. And so what if you miss a giveaway? You miss them all the time unless you're running a bot, and if you're out of points and want the bigger giveaway so badly, pull points from giveaways you don't want as badly.

And on the other side.... how often Games come up with more then 50 P ?

Just about every big AAA new release and game collection. You may not see them in the public feed as much, but they're given away regularly in many groups.

The point of creating a 1:1 point to dollar entry cost is to maintain consistency across giveaways. Under the current system, the more a game costs beyond the $50 ceiling, the more value it has (to the winner) per point used to enter. i.e. for a $50 game, you're getting $1 per point spent, and for a $100 game, you're getting $2 per point spent. That devalues games that cost more than $50 by lowering the point to dollar ratio to enter.

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

For me it is not irrelevant ...
Each one should at least have the opportunity to join in. If he/she do that stand on a other paper ;o)

I can say for myself, i miss a lot of GA's. Not interested on "all", not enough points, not enough energy and Will to sort all to the tinyest out or use a batch of scripts and stuff (i know it would save time....). Since the pointchange i use sg around 15% from the time before (ok i am iller then normaly since a few days too, that multiple that a bit). I am not really unhappy with that. Grab a, hopefully good, book and sit in the sun, meet friends (as examples) are always the better opportunities :o).

I had normaly saved the points tp jump into ONE 100p GA. So that's not the problem. But it give not really a "fair" chance to join in a short GA with the fact of lesser points and lesser use of the site.
From the "cheaper" (only from point sight) GA's give it more so the chance to join in such a GA is higher.
I hope with that i made clearer what i mean.
(hard to explain ill and in english :D)

When you need 30h to join in to a software + dlc's (that costs the contributor 12€) and you can join with the same points 10 AAA titles (that costs the contributor much more) is anything wrong^^. From my thinking is the contributor of the games underrated or the software contributor overrated (or both).

How much games over $50 that are not bundled given away ?
I sure see not all... i am "new", i am a little one with lvl 3 (near 4) ... but i don't think that much go around that is not bundled stuff or the monthly from Humblebundle.

The hb software bundles have fictional prices (other high priced stuff too) and so i can't follow your $1 / $2 per point spend calculation.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Each one should at least have the opportunity to join in.

You do, if you're online and willing to fork over the points. Like I said, pull points from giveaways you don't want as much. That's a lot of the reasoning behind these changes - to make people more selective. Also, it takes 5 hours to earn 100p - and it's not like you have to do anything to earn it, so I'm not sure where you're getting the 30 hours from.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The 30h was a extreme example with the RPG Maker Bundle (Prog + DLC's... please calculate it exactly by yourself i am to ill to do it exactly... but as i hided them i seen it short and can remember mostly on the points... so the calculation should be good enough and enough to show the gigantic difference between this ones).

And yes you have the opportunity WHEN you log in each 59 min.. But that was not the thinking behind the point change.
It should made the people use lesser time here.
You can do this with the not so high P stuff, because when you miss a few/a part of the GA's it give enough other ones. But when you miss a few/a part of the higher ones you have it not so easy because it give not so much from them.

And not to forget .... normaly that stuff would be made as GA's all nearly the same time (hb bundle comes out, bundle stars bundle come out...) so a lot of the big GA's are at the same time and you can't revoke "enough"/much points from other GA's and your (maybe?) 200 P that you had saved last not long when 60 - 100P GA's pop up like mushrooms :DDD

I say good night and answer tomorrow when any answer is needed :o)

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And yes you have the opportunity WHEN you log in each 59 min.. But that was not the thinking behind the point change.
It should made the people use lesser time here.

That doesn't change anything I've said. You can pull points from other giveaways you don't want as much if you really want a 100p giveaway. You decide which you want most and make it happen. It's always been like that for people who spend all their points, even under the old system (though much more difficult to blow all your points).

Missing giveaways? That's always been a thing here for everyone who doesn't use a bot, but I'm not sure why that's relevant. We're discussing point cost to enter, and it appears as though you're discussing the 1 hour giveaway time limit. It also appears as though you're not seeing that everyone gets points at the same rate, at the same time -- so those 100p giveaways for which you're shelling out your points will have fewer entries, depending on how many there are. You don't need to enter them all to "increase your odds" - because if you can enter them all, so can everyone else. Pick a couple with the best odds.

Perhaps we're simply misunderstanding each other due to a language barrier or something. I'm guessing your first language isn't English, so forgive me - I'm doing my best to follow you. And goodnight. Rest well.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thanks for the rest well.
Yes English is not my native language. That is german :). But i think my english is ok (when i set it in relation to other written stuff in the forum :DDD) and exchange thoughts and opinions should be possible.

Still ill (fever and stuff) ... so i make it short

I think we understand us not completly but good enough.
We look from 2 different points on it.
You see only that part of the picture
and i look on a bigger part (or maybe the complete picture?).
When you change anything it affects more than only that thing.

Sure each one get the same ammount on points but wenn the 60 - 100p stuff came from humblebundle than you must have more points then the people that joins "only" the 10 - 20p GA's. You can't wait, partly, long enough to join in one (more). Because you need as example 60P (=3h) before you can join one (more). After a very short period of time the GA's are gone so a "do it later" not work too. In the same time the other ones with smaller GA's can join in 1 or 2 GA's because they must not wait so long to get enough points to join in.
And again, not all high priced stuff is really the same worth (on the paper yes but i am sure nobody will say that the RPG Maker Software Bundle is the same REAL worth as 4-6 copies of the new Mordor Game)
I remember on the pervert extreme example with the RPG Maker Software Bundle.
I hope you understand what i. mean because at the moment my english is not the best

The RPG Game Maker Software Bundle is the best one i had seen in 2 month to catch all the bots.... throw -prefered- the DLC's in the open for all lvl 0 and 1 pit and look closer on each one that joins ..... (only my thoughts when anyone want really catch bots and other ones that work in that direction cg cg cg cg have a look)

i am off again... so next answer after a longer sleep.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Definitely

View attached image.
2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I want 500p giveaways so I can feel like a poker player and go "All in".

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i almost added a 500p option for expensive games like Codemasters Collection ($600+), but i don't think it would get many votes and it will steal votes from the 100p option.

View attached image.
2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Seriously though, I'm all for an "all in" option like TheChack suggested. Actually, I would like to take that approach one step further, as suggested here by Monukai last year.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh, can I change my vote for this instead of 100?

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Keeping the cost lower at 50 just encourages even more people to enter them than would otherwise. Especially since the cap is now 500 instead of 300 I don't believe there's any good reason to artificially reduce the price of entry for these GAs.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's how I see it and precisely why I didn't create a thread about it.
I felt more people would vote to "get more for less", and that would be discouraging to giveaway creators.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It should go back to 100p for maximum. Aside from the rare huge game collections, most of the big ones are probably bundled software and if people want to spend their points on that, so be it.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If it had been lowered to 50 with the max cap being 300 I feel it'd be aight, with 500 as the cap it doesn't make sense imo

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Imo there should ether be no cap at all (so things like VEGAS Pro would be 200+ points to enter) or cap at 60 (because that's the most common AAA price). Nether of those options is in the poll, so meh. I voted 100 points though, cause 50 is just weird. I would be fine with 60 though (or no cap).

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1 no cap.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Since that's actually what I would prefer -- no cap at all.
Agreed.

You want the big payoff, you pay the big price.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1.
I would like to see no cap at all. 1$ = 1 point. So if the superduper hypermega deluxe edition including season pass and all bazillion DLCs costs 100$, it should cost 100 points to enter. If the CoD-collection costs 500$ it should cost 500 points to enter and so on.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1 to no cap and 1:1 (P==$)
btw, atm only Codemasters Complete Collection is > $500, currently $640

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Collections like this are not an issue, since those are /bundle which can't be gifted at all. Only /sub and /app are giftable.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

thank you for correcting me 🙂

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Agree with no cap. Currently there's no item on steam worth more than $500, so the cap makes no sense. But even then, it should be at 500, just to avoid having to come up with another solution.

Ok, there are some bundles worth more than that, Call of Duty Definitive Collection is almost $1k, but those are "new style" bundles so I;m not sure if they're even giftable.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

/bundle can't indeed be gifted at all (not just on SG but even via "purchase as a gift" on steam directly). Only /sub and /app are giftable.

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

There are two kinds of new bundles. The "complete your set" type cannot be gifted (I think), but the "must purchase together" type have a "purchase as gift" option, like http://store.steampowered.com/bundle/3042/The_Talos_Principle_Gold_Edition/ - did I don't know... Haven't tested it myself.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh I didn't know that there were differences in between the /bundle kind. Never saw the purchase as a gift button on those till now. But still, it doesn't seem that "The Talos Principle Gold Edition" is on the "Select a Game" list when trying to create a GA out of it here, so it might be that SG just doesn't accept all the /bundle packages regardless of variances.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Reducing AAA games cost to 50p is counter-productive to the rest of the update.

View attached image.
2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, normally 100p cap would be ok, there are not many games that require 100p points except a few big collections and most new AAA games are 60p... But, some bundled software or overpriced games can cause problems if we rollback to the previous value 100p. If that happens, most people won't enter those giveaways thinking about saving their points, creating giveaways for those games/(awesome software no one will ever use) will be a pain in the neck because of finding entries and CV farming effectively will become harder oh no :D

Anyway, I'm actually fine with the 500p cap, it makes it easier to check the site with long intervals aka no longer sleepless nights! :), 50p cap could have been 60p like Tzaar suggested but 100p is a bit too much for the new point system probably, also 50p cap actually prevents point banking to some extent.

TL;DR If the cap is changed to 100p, more people will use those high point giveaways for banking points...

View attached image.
2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

aaa games are $60, but deluxe versions are $80+ so it's *unfair* for expensive games. 👍

software... if people won't enter for 100p products, it's because they only wanted to +1 their libraries and don't find that price a good investment. anyone that would take advantage of such software would gladly pay 100p, like Vegas pro.
honestly, how many people ended up learning and using clickfarm clickteam fusion? it's just a dead entry in their libraries.

and i don't think cg ever cared about "bankers". they only play with the point system to their advantage without using exploits to maximize their chances. they avoid entering giveaways for 4 days, store their points, and then enter everything when X bundle is released. 🤷

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The world is unfair, it shouldn't be unfair for only cheap games, expensive games should feel the unfairness as well :D Good thing, it is still fair for humans assuimg they are not bots they will still get full CV for those 50p capped games.
Of course, people who actually want and need those fusionfarm click software We must have at least 1k+ game makers in SG community by now would glady pay 100p, but would they be able to pay actually? You can get 100p in 5 hours which means you won't have enough points to enter most of those expensive games/software gibs if there is a price bug or bundle somewhere providing those for a fair price of 1$ or less Who would have thought of actually paying for them?!
You can't enter even 5 of those 100p capped giveaways in a day with the new point generation system, this is why I think a 50p cap can work better for people who don't like to put their points in banks...

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The odds to win that game don't change (despite what people seem to think), just the cost to enter. Points banking is irrelevant - it's going to happen regardless of the cost ceiling. They'll simply enter twice as many giveaways at a 50p cost.

With one days points banked -- at 50p cost, you (as a non-banker) can enter 10, they can enter 20. At 100p cost, you can enter 5, they can enter 10. With 2 days points banked, you (the non-banker) can still enter only 10 and 5, and they can enter 30 and 15. Etc, etc. Your "ratio" of entries isn't dependent on cost, but rather on how many days worth of points the bankers have banked.

The point of creating a 1:1 point to dollar entry cost is to maintain consistency across giveaways. Under the current system, the more a game costs beyond the $50 ceiling, the more value it has (to the winner) per point used to enter. i.e. for a $50 game, you're getting $1 per point spent, and for a $100 game, you're getting $2 per point spent. That devalues games that cost more than $50 by lowering the point to dollar ratio to enter.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

but expensive games already suffer xD
GA creators get less cv when it drops its price in the store, and making them cheaper only makes things worse.

devaluating the cost of a giveaway only because people want to enter more giveaways is wrong imo.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think that people that want to bank points will bank points whether the cap on giveaways is 50 or 100.
The new hard cap on regen already soft-counters bankers, as they're still limited to those 20p/h like everyone else so it's not as "bad" as before.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Honestly I don't see why a limit below maximum points so it is possible to enter even existed in the first place so sure rollback to 100.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I thought the max cost decrease was to deal with the well-known "Daedalic bug,"* which has a larger impact with the new scarcity of points. If there was a decent work-around for that issue, I'd be all for 100p max. As it is that's a harder question.

* For those who don't know, the "Daedalic bug" is a problem with Steam's API. It reports the full price of a game as being the full price of the current cheapest package containing that game. When a collection is on sale for a price lower than one of the included games by itself, as Daedalic Entertainment likes to do, SG ends up with an inflated value for the game, which is why you might have seen Memoria or Deponia for 100P.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

As far as I know, the old entry cap was an arbitrary number chosen to represent a cost ceiling.
I'm fairly certain it wasn't put in place to address issues with a single game (package).

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I am pretty sure the poll will be in favor of 50P rather than 100P Cap.
When user see it they will only focus on 50P vs 100P rather than 50P cap vs Real value with 100P cap.
I am in favor with the Point being equivalent to the Real Value of the game. Voted 100P:rollback.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you want "real value" you need no cap not a 100P cap ;)

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes, I am in favor of point being equivalent to the real value with no caps. But since we don't have option for it. I chose real value with 100P cap.
Real value with no caps has positive impact against CV farming like Clickteam Fusion apps, now because of limited points available to the users. Users really have to consider spending their points on such apps; almost 20% of allocated point per day for a single entry.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It should stay 50 because now we get less points. That's my opinion, anyway. If you give us less points, make us spend less points.

Either way, even with the 50 cap I still can't enter as many giveaways as I used to. Increasing it to 100 again just feels like a punishment at this point.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

'bout

tree

POOP

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

drop the cap and implement tracking of trade values, so sgit like Alien Isolation goes for 4p, and Rimworld goes for 30p in comparison. also drop the bundle list tracking, so CrossCode that was bundled a long time ago goes for a full 7p and not 3p like it does now, both entry and CV.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

How do you track trade values of all games? Is there such a listing somewhere?
Also, only 5 to 10% of all giveaways are full value rest are either bundled or no value giveaways and even most of full value giveaways will have less trade value with that system. It can solve a lot of CV farming issues but everyone will be able to enter everything, probably will be even worse than before the change due to almost all games having trade values under 10p... Not to mention reaching high levels will become impossible for most people.

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

by tracking g2a's listings with some minimum sample size and recency, or maybe asking them for an API tracking sold listings anonymously.

your argument about undermining entries is invalid because point regeneration could be adjusted to fit.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Do you really want to officially associate SG with g2a?
I'm sure a lot of people won't like it...
My argument was based on the current point generation rules, I didn't think you were talking about a completely different system. If that's the case, I think previous system with a little change/decrease on point generation could be better. Having proportionate point generation to the amount of created giveaways sounds more logical to me than a fixed point system.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

dynamic point generation is bad, because it means hitting the cap more quickly on Humble Monthly release days, which is undesirable. entries for those games' spam shou;d be selective.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I preferred the old system for points, but even with the new system, I think the costs should remain what they were.

Thank you for the giveaways, Mully.:)

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I would rollback to previous value or even no cap, but along with that it makes more sense to me for points to be tied to giveaways. With fixed points and a high influx of GAs, there may be more giveaways than one may want and be able to enter; when GAs are slow incoming, one may have more points than they know what to do with. Of course that's just one scenario. Not everybody's going to use their points the same way.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Don't mean to hijack the thread, but was there a valid, justified reason ever provided why the maximum entry tax was reduced from 100p to 50p? I tried several different searches and going through the comments on the Points Discussion announcement but can't find anything and ultimately gave up. I don't see how this change fits into the reasons behind the other major changes that have since gone into effect.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't think cg has ever provided the reason behind the 100p-50p cap change.
I assume he did it because everyone is getting fewer points now, you get 100p in 5 hours, it is a lot more devastating to enter a 100p giveaway and lose it compared to before the change. And maybe he wanted a round number that people can enter 10 max point giveaways daily instead of just 5 using all their 500 points.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Understood. A very unnecessary change with flawed reasoning if this is the case. Thanks for the explanation.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Probably the facts that if you start from zero then you can't enter more than 4 100points giveaways per 24 hours (since you only get 480 points per day) while 4week long 100p giveaways would be great for banking points when you really need them.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

being that most stuff that is more than 100 dollars are software that i dont tend to care about... thats my answear, i dont care, still the cases in which giveaways are made for this sort of high priced things arent that many... so either is fine, it doesnt make a lot of difference to be honest

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View attached image.
2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

100, it seemed to work fine before.

Key drop because I don't see it in the giveaway list. https://www.humblebundle.com/gift?key=nZ42nC4MqswNBaXR

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

redeemed by a mute one :o(
but thanks for the chance :o)

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I personally think either a 250p cap, or 500p cap. I voted 100...

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Voted, thanks for the poll

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I voted 50P because I'm curious to see how it works. Same thing with the other changes. I don't see any issue trying new ideas, as long as effort is put to analyse their impact and course correct.

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

voted 100, but i think we don't need cap (no option in poll). If software costs $199, make it 200 points here 😱

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i told chack above i was going to add a third option but i don't think it would have worked at all.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.