We all know that while the CV system on Steamgifts is kind of a double edged sword; While as it does incentivise some users to make giveaways (gotta get them levels), it can also do the opposite. Games that are bundled, given away, or made ridiculously cheap at any point end up on a special list which makes them give reduced or no CV at all. The purpose of this is to discourage users from buying cheap games in bulk just to level up, however games that end up on this list are basically there forever. While as a game may have been bundled or very cheap at one point, years later it may be expensive and highly sought after, however giveaway creators that are generally willing to pay the higher prices will avoid those games despite the demand due to reduced CV.

So, this topic is aimed at asking the question: What games, if any, do you think should no longer be on the reduced/no CV list? To be clear, there is precedent for removing highly in-demand games from the list years after being added ("Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition" probably being the most infamous example).

Personally, I think Crosscode should be removed. It's in rather high demand, was only bundled once 4 years ago (Dec 2015) back when it was in early access, and since then hasn't had any major discounts.

1 month ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

Should games be on the reduced/no CV list for eternity after being added?

View Results
YES
NO

I would like to see Underrail, among others, removed from the bundled list.

But as keys do no usually expire, there might still be some "traders" that got a couple (of tens, hundreds) keys left and might use them to level up. There would be abuse for sure.

Even if you would go along and say un-bundle games that have not been in a bundle for X time, you would have to check all places that sell really cheap keys. Too much work for the limited SG-team in my opinion.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

True, but would it really be so bad if they flooded SG with in-demand keys? Users would be happy at the chance, and remember the more copies of a game you give the less CV is received per-copy. Also, the more in-demand a game is the more likely they are to sell it instead of give it away.

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Isn't Underrail properly bundled [outside of its original Groupees Greenlight bundle] now, though, as of the 2017 Humble Very Positive Bundle? That's a rather brief duration for removing a game from bundled status after a [high purchase] Humble Bundle, and such a standard would probably see the majority of the bundled games on SG removed from the bundle list.

The main issue with this topic is the need for the site to hold to consistent standards, and so far [in the various threads on this subject] noone has really presented any clear foundation for a stable, alternative perspective. Unless we're pushing to remove the lists altogether, and that'd cause its own issues.

So even if we push the "the community probably prefers potentially getting more giveaways of certain high-demand games than they do worrying about exploitation" perspective, it can't actually go anywhere currently, since our only current alternative is the scrapping of the bundle/free lists or the hiring of a sizable number of dedicated staff members to oversee the kind of extensive list management that semi-arbitrary* removals would require. *That is, as opposed to the current system of removing games solely if they're deemed to no longer be exploitable.

What those in favor of such a change need to do, is to offer possible solutions for that aspect, if they want to see that kind of change occur.

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You are correct. I forgot about the Very Positive bundle. Underrail is just stuck in my mind as not being bundled for a long time.

I do not have any possible solution how to make it work, so I think the leaving games on the list forever is the best way for now.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Like Oppenh4imer mentions as well, because keys don't expire, no matter how long you wait until you take it off the list, am sure there are enough people that save keys for years before they make giveaways and so if, let's say, you take them off after a few years, enough people will just wait a few years before making giveaways to get the most CV out of it, which kind of ruins the whole purpose of the list to begin with and actually encourage people to sit on their keys longer just in case.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

tbh, I don't think they would wait let's say 4 years just to abuse the system.
It's way faster to buy these 1€$ Bundles or games for way less on some russian sites.

I mean these people want to win fast a lot of games... They don't want to horde keys for 4 years with the risk that they got revoked or anything.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes, the $1 bundles are a whole different story all together.

But yeah, I mean, there are people that do that, most won't bother, but there will always be people that do.
Problem with that list is, that even though I can understand people aren't happy, I don't think they should change it because whatever you do, it will always be abused by some people, that's sadly how the world works.
Same as that we talked about the CV system all together before, it's nor perfect, far from, but no matter what you change, enough people will complain and some will abuse it in another way again

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Agreed 100%

It's not outside the realm of possibility for the sort of people who already make multiple accounts on multiple sites just to gather multiple copies of freebies to give them away here. If they waste their time doing that, surely this would be nothing to them. Instead of seeing 1000's of copies of games being given away here during the free period, we'd see most of them being held onto, knowing that the 0CV had an expiry. This would probably be too late for past freebies, but it would set a precedent for future abuse. =(

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's actually happened before, albeit a few years ago now, IIRC (perhaps someone else will even remember the game).

There was a freebie for a popular game, and eventually it was removed from the giveaways list. Within moments of it being added back to the giveaway list, dozens of giveaways popped up. It ended up being removed again (from the giveaway list) shortly after.

Edit: edited for the sake of clarity.

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Wow, so it's already been tested.

That's actually pretty sad to know that even now there would be people ready to exploit this. This is why we can't have nice things.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I'm shocked as hell anyone could understand my comment. Lmao. But yes, and it's happened more than once but those were to a much lesser degree (the games weren't as popular).

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I knew what you meant. "removed from Zero CV list." =)

There is one scenario where it would be okay to remove a game from bundled list. A much-loved game that was only ever bundled once as a Humble Monthly. Those bundles are fairly expensive, to begin with, so couldn't see too many people exploiting that one just for CV on here.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Those bundles are fairly expensive, to begin with, so couldn't see too many people exploiting that one just for CV on here.

You didn't notice people buying multiple monthlies or spamming keys purchased from grey market sites? It's why they were added to the bundle list. $200+ CV for $12 (or less with the coupons, I guess) or $1-$2 for a $20+ game on the grey markets is awfully tempting for some people.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sure, the lower value games in Humble monthly sell really cheaply. But try getting a copy of Slime Rancher, Civ 6 or Armello at those prices. You wont. =)

EDIT: Actually, all of those are not marked with an asterisk on here already, just checked. All were in Humble Monthly. Maybe SG mods already keep an eye on that.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And there you have it. They do keep an eye on those things. ;)

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

But lets say I already got a bunch of keys from some mediocre games no one's ever gonna hear of again cause they're from 2012. Should I be able to abuse that?

Not saying that I do, but if someone does, lucky them time to exploit over every new person giving away games that come in a bundle even tho originally they gave away bundled games too? If they gave that game away in the past, does their cv just go up all of a sudden? Why yes or why not? There's good arguments on both sides of this. No matter how we look at it, once bundled forever bundled is a better strategy imo.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I gifted my UnderRail copy just 3 months ago and I have more than 300 keys left from up to 2011. While I didn't do this for some kind of profit it still would feel wrong to change the rules.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I have my doubts anyone would purposely sit on keys (which they could sell / trade) for half a decade or more just on the off chance they might one day be able to farm some CV from them.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think not, those who save keys for years, generrally do so for the purpose of trading, reselling and making profit and not to give away valuable games for free to some random strangers, usually the same greedy sharks selling removed games from Steam for dozens of CS:GO/TF2 keys.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't see how that would be a problem. If someone wants to sit on a bunch of very cheap keys in the hopes of them recovering in value they won't have much success. It happens too rarely for that. Also in this situation what matters is the opportunity cost.

Let's say in our hypothetical situation this rare occurance happens and a game rebounds in value. If it's worth 20 dollars now then you are giving away 20 dollars of value even if you got the keys 5 years ago for 10 cents.

And as for people sitting on keys, I think that could be a positive thing altogether. Right now Steamgifts is flooded with games that are in a cheap bundle right now. If people sat on keys more then we could have a more balanced and varied list of games up.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Are there games I'd like to see removed? Yes.
Are there games I believe should be removed? No.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't think it will happen but from my point of view:
game was only bundled once, it's more than 5 yrs ago and the game is still in the top100 wishlist on steamgift: make it full CV (I'm sure that there are not that many games where this would even be a thing).

But as I personally don't care about CV I can't even name one game.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The ammount of possible games that not really got a lot of free keys, it must be more as 1k+ to land on the free list, or better 1x and then years not again, is very tiny.

99,9% of the games should be doomed forever in the no cv hell :-D and there should land much more of the free games -the staff haven't the time to check all free ressources-

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think games should be removed from the bundled or no CV list a year after they were last in a bundle or given away for free.

Is it possible that someone might abuse this to gain CV? Yes. Is it a realistic concern? Not really.

Why would anyone get multiple copies of a game to hold onto for a year, in the hopes that it won't be bundled or given away for free again, just to get some CV? That's the least effective way to get CV. If someone wants to get CV then they can abuse $1 bundles, buy keys for dirt cheap from grey-market resellers, get free keys from devs for being an "influencer", etc. There are already many much more effective ways to gain CV that are allowed and don't require waiting a year in the hopes that something will be taken off the list in the future.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

i think they should add all games to the list and make bundled cv worth 1% instead of 15%.
then remove all levels, and last, remove sg. 👍

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yes, please take SUPERHOT off the NoCV list. Then the flood of GAs from hoarders will begin and I'll be happy.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Probably the worst example of why games shouldn't be taken off the list ;-)

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's a coincidence- I was just planning on getting a copy of CrossCode to giveaway. Knowing full well that it is in the Bundle List. Because I like the game and wanna share it with people.
If you wanna give a game away, then it shouldn't matter if it's in the Bundle List or not. ;)

On the more technical side of things- removing stuff from the lists is pretty open for abuse. Heck, right now there are already people who hoard lots of keys they got dirt cheap or for free under the incentive that they might resell them in the future for profit. This would just add another reason for them to do so.
Also wouldn't this over-complicate the system in general? Right now it's pretty straightforward- if a giveaway is made after the game got bundled/free'd it's affected by the lists. Now imagine if games got "removed" from the lists after 1 year and we have a game which goes into a bundle every year and a half or so. Then keeping track of when it's "bundled" and when it isn't would be a nightmare. And we'd probably get more posts on the forum about why their "value" went down (well, even more than we get now that is). It's also mildly annoying from a programming standpoint- you have to keep a database of periods when a given game is considered "bundled" instead of just a database of games and their bundle/free date and I'd imagine it would be pretty annoying for the person handling the lists too.

All in all, not only do I not see that happening, it really shouldn't happen. Well, in my opinion, of course. I don't need a "CV" incentive to giveaway a game, nor would decreasing the "value" lead me to wanna make less giveaways (people not playing their wins and my paranoia are doing that job very effectively though). :3

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Shameless plug, but I think you'd be perfect for this group. :)

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If you wanna give a game away, then it shouldn't matter if it's in the Bundle List or not. ;)

This.

THIS.

THIS

+9001, no, +∞ to this.


Too many users are making too huge of a fuss about CV: CV here. CV there. Where is my CV?
Pardon my bluntness, but they should just STFU and go back to trading or grey markets if they have no intentions to give games for the sake of giving them, but expect to receive some sort of return of investment instead.

This is Steam Gifts.
Not Steam Profits.

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

On the other hand, you see people blacklisting others left and right and restricting them from entering giveaways if their CV is "too low". The high level/rich users themselves make this huge fuss about other people's CV, creating the enviroment in which CV is all that matters.

They should note that this is Steam Gifts.
Not Steam Glorified Trading.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

On the other hand, you see people blacklisting others left and right and restricting them from entering giveaways if their CV is "too low".

Unless you make all public level 0 giveaways, you're effectively doing the same thing.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

there is precedent for removing highly in-demand games from the list years after being added ("Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition"

I can't speak to the current, seemingly disorganized and decentralized staff approach to the lists, but back when Shobo was in charge, the reason you saw reversals was because his approach [by his own statements on the matter] was "hit fast to avoid issues asap, and then remove from the list if the exploitation wasn't as bad as expected".

In other words, games weren't arbitrarily removed, nor were they removed due to considerations related to the individual games or their present state, they were removed because all keys expired [as with certain Humble promotions where they didn't only mask the keys after a duration, for example] or the initial exploitation simply wasn't deemed to have been as exploited as first presumed.

So no, you probably can't reasonably use any removed games as basis for the kind of argument you're making. In theory they're all either the result of overturning an initial determination and doing so with careful consideration, or they're the result of a more recent disorganized staff approach that has already seen poorly received arbitrary decisions by certain staff members [and thus, any individual action wouldn't necessarily be reflective of any sort of cohesive staff outlook].

From my understanding, the Dark Souls deal had 10,000 keys, and official statement was that they'd expire after a month. Presumably, that'd be the reason for that game's free list duration having an end-point. If it was removed entirely, then that's a bit peculiar, and would need some staff clarification. Again, presumably it wasn't because of the game itself, however, especially given the arguably more noteworthy, smaller stocked, and older-in-age promotion games that haven't been reversed.


As far as your broader topic, you're not presently making note of the considerations made in previous offerings of this recommendation.

None of what you're saying offers a clear arguement in favor of making any kind of change. Rather, most of your thread is just you clarifying why the lists exist and offering the highly subjective* perspective of "high demand means a game shouldn't be considered as heavily for matters of exploitation". *Which isn't a criticism, but a note that it only works as a valid argument if you can express some degree of majority support or a similar foundation.

The exception to that is in your last sentence, which offers an "adjustment by date" consideration. Of course, such a consideration has been previously brought up multiple times, and was already decided against in previous deliberations, as staff didn't want to reward people who simply had the commitment to have a stockpile saved for a certain duration. On the other hand, if you address that concern directly, that changes things:

Foremost, you could argue that there's a certain number of years, or years-relative-to-stock, that should give the games consideration for removal. I'm really not seeing a way to limit such matters to "AAA", given how unclear that is to begin with and how arbitrary such a class system assignment would be, but maybe some system of determining "high demand as it affects sales that would limit the appeal of exploiting SG CV" could be figured out. Most likely, however, the only feasible system would be a static cut-off that certain games (due to their high or continued exploitation) wouldn't qualify for.

Of course, that point of limiting-by-a-set-date was previously considered too problematic, since it gives clear guidelines for exploiters as to how long a key needs to be held on for. Possible counter points to that would perhaps be that the risk of bundling or loss of alternative profits makes up for such things, in situations where games are unbundled or otherwise weighted towards being readily resold, or that countering explotation offers less benefit to the community than encouraging such games to be posted on the site does.

Outside of that consideration, and given the low trade/resale value of many previously free games, allowing those to regain bundled status would be a bit more problematic. Hence, it'd be a lot of effort by staff to monitor any kind of limit-by-date arrangement- which, as always, is a key arguement against suggestions such as these.

Of course, when faced with such arguments against limit-by-date you could instead counter with a more elaborate suggestion, such as to let users vote to remove a single game from the free list each half-year, or the application of a similar gimmick.

There's ways to approach the matter that'd validate the utility of the thread, but any kind of emphasis on "I don't like this because these popular people aren't getting special treatment" in place of clear arguments just.. ends up presenting an awkward sentiment, even when it's applied to games rather than people.

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

From my point of view - if once bundled game is valuable again (no promotions with 90% discounts, high prices on grey market) it should be removed from bundled list. Some of you are saying, that someone can keep keys, and then "abuse system". Of course they can. But would it really make a difference if they instead trade it for non bundled game or just sell it on grey market and then buy another game? If they want to gain cv from those keys they will. It only prevents others from making giveaways with games that are pricey again.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The problem of such request, which I understand perfectly, is not related to the key expiration (as we have numerous example of revoked keys and now limited time keys), but more what should be rules under which a game would be taken off that list.

I would like to give an appropriate example of game that should definitely be taken off the reduced CV list: Flat Kingdom Paper's Cut Edition. This game has been bundled twice but the unused keys on BOTH bundles have been revoked. It's not like the fact the keys have been revoked is unknown, it's on the list of revoked keys and even have it's steam discussion. This game should be taken off the reduced CV list because those who hoarded the keys cannot use them.

Now I believe that Flat Kingdom is an exception, so is Dark Souls: Prepare to Die Edition as someone told you already that it was a limited amount of key and they had a limited duration. Again, the problem is to know what should be the rules differentiating a game that should be taken away from the list to another AND making it so the staff taking care of Steamgifts can make the task possible. Keep in mind that it's easy to add 10 games every day to the list but it's harder to take off 2000 or even 100 following a set of specific rules.
If you can at some point define a set of rules and it's possible to make a script to facilitate the staff work when it comes to take the games of the reduced/no CV list, then yes, of course there should be some games taken off that list, the thing is to define the rule and to make the script after, those who take care of the website aren't paid and it shouldn't become a burden to take care of it.

PS : I still believe that all the game which bundled/free keys have been revoked should be back on the normal CV list. Who can abuse the system with revoked keys after all ?

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Thank you for being the only person so far to actually suggest a game to be removed.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't necessarily agree with the double asterisk for games that had a limited free giveaway (e.g. Euro Truck Simulator 2).

I think marking ETS2 as CV-free probably suppresses the number of giveaways for it, as some people will deliberately avoid giving away CV-free games -- ETS2 has had 607 giveaways, compared to 778 for its cousin American Truck Simulator -- and that's a shame, because it's an awesome game, and would benefit from more giveaways.

But this is not a big deal, and the overall volume of CV-free games is not high enough for me to really support any changes to the list. It's logic-based and I can support that.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

With the deluge of games that are being given away every single day and which nobody really gives a damn about, this post prompts me to momentarily entertain a fantasy in which all of CV farming is extinguished in one fell swoop, through the removal of CV, ofc. There would be a bunch of other highly amusing consequences, too.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I have an overly-complex solution that MIGHT help...

Instead of granting value as a percentage of the retail price, what if we had a "sliding scale" where value for a game went up or down depending upon how many copies have been offered on Steamgifts recently? (Past month, year, two years, ???)

The more frequently a game is offered, the more likely it's due to some sort of "deal", and it offers less and less CV each time.
The less frequently, the more value given.

A different idea might be to connect CV given to the number of entries. You get X% of the value in CV for every Y number of entries in the giveaway. The idea here is that any games that are cheaply bundled or not "worth" it would receive fewer entries anyway...

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Two proposals:

  1. Make CV dependent on current game value. Let the game devaluation itself be the judge instead cutting an arbitrary percentage, and make it non-dependent on a manually updated list.
  2. Make CV dependent on the times the game has been given away (optionally: vs the number of whishlists).

Edit: @ddayton idea, just before me, it's quite similar to number 2 here. I was in the process of writing my post and did not see that before.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Make CV dependent on current game value. Let the game devaluation itself be the judge instead cutting an arbitrary percentage, and make it non-dependent on a manually updated list.

This is already in place, your CV will drop when game drops in price on Steam.

Make CV dependent on the times the game has been given away (optionally: vs the number of whishlists).

What about developer giveaways for hundreds / thousands of copies?
People would be less willing to make GAs for non-bundled game, just because developer decided to do one-time promotion on SG with thousands of copies. And other game, of similar quality / genre / price on Steam would give way more CV, as there simply was no developer giveaway to promote it.

It would also mean that for example regifting your win would be more "profitable", if not many copies of this particular game was given away earlier.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Unfortunately, I don't really think, that the system can be significantly changed.

Generally, I would prefer, if the GA value was based on price, demand and SteamDB rating (number of folks wishlisting the game), than on price and being bundled or not.

The system could be pretty well automated then, except marking the games given for free in large numbers, giving some basic CV based on Steam price, when GA is made, and then a few months later additional CV based on price multiplied "remaining demand" and rating (so, if it was bundled or sold cheaply at the time of GA, the demand would have enough time to get adjusted; also to avoid high multiplier for games with ratings artificially inflated at launch).

The problem is, that this would be a very different system. Besides the fact, that it's untested (currently still unpublished and probably junky OMON Simulator keeps 79th place on community ratings, because on quite a few sites giving away free games you need to wishlist it - I think, this would be kept in check by ratings part of multiplier), there would be a big issue of converting acquired CVs to the new system.

Unfortunately, any minor adjustments of the current system seem to me to be very likely to encourage people to sit on their keys, and to significantly reduce the number of interesting GAs, so I think, that it pretty much needs to stay as it is.

The only improvement, that I could currently see, encouraging folks to make GAs of higher quality games, would be a bonus (extra 50% of CV?) for games, that have high (80%+?) SteamDB rating, also applied retroactively to all past GAs (which shouldn't be that hard with a script).

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

My problem is the retroactive dumping of CV from your account for old giveaways. You should never level down, that puts a damper on wanting to create giveaways. I think if there was a way to have recorded in the system for individual giveaway creators, ok the game was this specific value when you gave it away, and later on if the game gets bundled, well it was still this better value when you gave it away, and that's where it stays for you. Only with new people buying the game to give away should the reduced CV value take effect. Harder to accomplish I'm sure, but that'd be a more perfect system.

Alternatively, maybe if someone gives proof of purchase how they bought the game to SG support they could potentially get more value for it? A game could have been in a $5 bundle on Fanatical for example, but if it's a $20 game on Steam and someone buys it in a Steam sale after the bundle ended, and shows proof of buying it there...

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The CV you get won't go down if let's say you gave away a game and months later it goes bundled, the only 2 reasons that it goes down is:

  1. it got bundled/free/very cheap and you gave it away but Steamgifts found out let's say 2 days later and so they change the CV for everyone that made the giveaway AFTER the time/date it got bundled/free/very cheap
  2. the USD price on Steam goes down, so game was always $40 and now changed to $30 so you lose CV, but same thing when a game goes up from $30 to $40 you gain free CV

A game won't just go down in CV if something happened with it months after you made the giveaway, they will check your giveaway moment and the moment something happens with it so you won't get 'punished' for something that happened after the giveaway is made.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh thanks for taking the time to explain it!

What I meant was when the main price on Steam goes down, that retroactive reducing. That's a big deterrent in my mind. But thx, that's good to know about games that get bundled later.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You're welcome, glad to help!
But yeah, I can understand why it changes, because they use the price the Steam Api tells them, so if Steam changes it, it auto changes here as well, not sure if it would be easy to lock it onto the day of the giveaway or not, but I assume if it was that easy, they would have already done so?

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I can see why too, but understanding doesn't make me like it. Also, yes I'm sure there's the possibility of a Steam game you gave away actually going up in price on Steam, but it seems to me that'd be a rare happening, most games are more likely to go down in price than up. I'm sure the people who run SteamGifts don't intend it to penalize us giveaway creators, but it sure feels that way.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, the only good thing is, that most games don't go lower in price, unless you give away a very expensive game I guess? I never really notice a price drop to be honest, but I guess if people would give away a lot of such games, it can be annoying.
At first I was very focused on my CV, after some time I noticed it was going very slow, it didn't give much benefits and well, I kind of stopped caring about it, makes it all much easier, but it took me some time to get to that part though :P

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Of course the reduced CV games should get removed over time.
So what if someone got the keys cheap? Y'all keep saying how CV doesn't matter, well if that's the case, then what does it matter to you if someone is gonna get full credit for an already bundled game?

And those people can blacklist me all they want, I'm sorry, this is how it is. Users here are kind of pressured into farming CV because otherwise they'll get exluded from groups and giveaways because "their CV is too low, those filthy leachers".
It just genuinely saddens me to see that a website originally created for the purpose of giving attracts this much elitism and sometimes downright hostility.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I was on the "CV does not matter, so leave it as it is" side of the fence, but you make a great argument. If it truly doesn't matter, nobody should really care if someone else speeds to level 10 via previously low CV games.

Excellent post.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

We all know that while the CV system on Steamgifts... does incentivise some users to make giveaways (gotta get them levels), it can also do the opposite.

Giving games on a site called Steam Gifts shouldn't need to be "incentivised".
Either you want to give games just for the sake of giving them, or you trade/sell them if you expect a return of investment.
CV should be a bonus, not the goal.

Games that are bundled, given away, or made ridiculously cheap at any point end up on a special list which makes them give reduced or no CV
...giveaway creators that are generally willing to pay the higher prices will avoid those (bundled) games despite the demand due to reduced CV.

Giveaway creators who are willing to buy games to give them away will keep doing so anyway with no regards to CV or price drops.
Everybody else will just keep giving away bundle leftovers and/or discounted games as usual.

The purpose of this is to discourage users from buying cheap games in bulk just to level up, however games that end up on this list are basically there forever.
While as a game may have been bundled or very cheap at one point, years later it may be expensive and highly sought after

You're severely underestimating the ability of certain users to hoard keys just for the sake of abusing the system as soon as possible.
Removing games from the free/bundled list would be the equivalent of opening the proverbial Pandora's Box.

What games, if any, do you think should no longer be on the reduced/no CV list? Personally, I think Crosscode should be removed.
It's in rather high demand, was only bundled once 4 years ago (Dec 2015) back when it was in early access, and since then hasn't had any major discounts.

That's because it wasn't supposed to be bundled in the first place.
That was, if I recall correctly, the result of miscommunication (or lack thereof) between dev and publisher, and got removed from the bundle pretty quickly.

Yes, this is a great example of a game that should be removed from the bundled list, because keys from that bundle should be gone by now.
And even if some do remain, that shouldn't be a problem, as nobody did know the whole story until it was too late, thus nobody could have purchased that bundle just to exploit this game, they probably deemed Crosscode as "bundle trash", and either sold/traded it for cheap, or activated it for a +1.

Keeping it on the bundle list devalues it as "bundle trash".
Even though it's one of the highest rated games on Steam.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Giving games on a site called Steam Gifts shouldn't need to be "incentivised".

Shouldn't, but unfortunately for many (most?) people on the site that incentive is necessary. Selflessness is a virtue, but its all too rare.

You're severely underestimating the ability of certain users to hoard keys just for the sake of abusing the system as soon as possible.
Removing games from the free/bundled list would be the equivalent of opening the proverbial Pandora's Box.

Long-term key hoarders do exist, but removing a dozen games from the list every year or two isn't going to collapse the system. SG doesn't give full CV for mass giveaways anyhow so abuse on the scale you're probably thinking of would be next essentially impossible unless huge numbers of games were removed.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That was, if I recall correctly, the result of miscommunication (or lack thereof) between dev and publisher, and got removed from the bundle pretty quickly.

And even if some do remain, that shouldn't be a problem, as nobody did know the whole story until it was too late, thus nobody could have purchased that bundle just to exploit this game, they probably deemed Crosscode as "bundle trash", and either sold/traded it for cheap, or activated it for a +1.

Oi. That was a thing? I didn't even notice that entire affair, and ended up getting Crosscode in a trade that was already slightly favorable to begin with. Now I feel I ripped the trader off, even though they were the one to initiate the trade.. >.>

Even putting aside that supporting evidence to your perspectives on it, Crosscode actually sounds like something that'd already qualify for a potential removal. Games are already removed from the lists in situations where it is deemed they aren't exploitable. The most common consideration to that effect is in there being a limited number of copies released by the promotion so, if it got removed fairly quickly, that could make for a reasonable argument for its return.

The lists are already designed to allow for some exploitation in favor of not hindering a game's release on SG, which is why small free promotions will typically see a game added to the bundle list rather than the free list, and why unbundled games are often removed from bundle status if it is deemed the game didn't release enough copies to any single user enough times for it to warrant listing.

So, given that it already falls within the framework of the current system, that's something to bring up with staff for them to deliberate on, rather than having it serve as a supporting element for a system change.

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Alright, turns out I was wrong about the game being removed from the bundle, probably mixed up the info with some other game.

As for the "controversy", I checked back and found (from the game's Steam Community hub) a link to the Twitter chain where the whole situation was explained, it played out like this: it started from a user (probably a backer?) wondering why it got bundled so soon, to which dev Radical Fish Games responded "neither do we (know why)", then it turned out they had just missed an e-mail from publisher Deck 13, who defined it a "one time promotion to increase visibility".
Seems it kinda worked.

And cases like this -games bundled only once a long time ago, and never receiving huge discounts afterwards- would totally make for a decent exception to the rule.
Possibly with the aid of grey market pricing, since they tell a lot about the balance between supply and demand.

Difficult to exploit, since you'd need to have precognition powers to know what will happen in the future.
Or be a compulsive hoarder, I guess. But I think they're more likely to choose profits over CV.

Not that much of a hassle to do, as it would only affect a handful of games.

Makes gifters more willing to give them, compared to other "bundle trash".
Yeah, I know I just said that "gifters shouldn't be incentivised to give games", but what can you do, when that's how it works?

And of course, more giveaways = more chances for interested users to win it, while also increasing visibility (a nice side effect).
Nevermind about scripts, bots, and collectors, they'd be a factor anyway...

1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

hoarded keys now have a very high risk of price reduction, rebundling, being revoked, and removed or mass freebied for no CV status
suggestion: 15% CV for 1 year + 1 year per times bundled (served consecutively), subsequently followed by 30% CV for an identical period on parole, then 50% CV thereafter as an ex-con 😁

personal preferences like game rating, ranking, reviews and wishlisting have to be kept irrelevant to ensure unbiased rules
if a bundled key has been revoked, then that's an issue between you and the supplier, it's still been bundled 🤷🏼‍♂️😔

View attached image.
1 month ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Remove levels and CV, problem solved.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

View attached image.
1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Part of me agrees, but I think if you removed that incentive there would be way fewer giveaways which would not be a positive outcome overall.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just removed 'em after the bundle is X years or months old.
I dunno, 3 years, 5 years?

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Any game that has had its keys revoked should be removed from the reduced / no CV list for obvious reasons, I guess? Assuming all unused bundled / free keys have been revoked, anyway.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

There are a lot of "free" games that still are on the list costing points to enter, for example beast blaster. All games that were free in massive amounts should be removed forever.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.