Same with Riptide, because of how much one had to pay to get the games (that is, plenty more than $5), so neither needs to be added to the list
Comment has been collapsed.
Copy and pasting this:
I know about Dead Island Riptide not being in the bundle list. The problem with using the "stop people abusing CV" argument is that there are plenty of bundles in which the games could not be abused and yet are still on the bundle list. See Indie Gala Mobile - only a single Steam game (Turba) and it was in the BTA tier, so you needed to pay more than $5 to get it. Apparently paying more than full price for CV is "abuse"?
How about the Indie Games Pack - Summer Six? Two Steam games (Aztaka and Bob Came in Pieces) for $10. $10 for $20 of CV. Is that really abuse? Like I said before, the Steam store itself gives higher discounts.
How about the Indie Royale Alpha Collection #1? It was a typical IR bundle, so probably like $5 for a single Steam game (Towns). This was for $15 CV. Once again, Steam has sold Towns for much cheaper than this bundle.
If you use the "stop people abusing CV" argument, you have to be consistent across the bundles and not only apply it to a few games because they are expensive. Seriously, that's the only reason they actually aren't on the list - because they are "expensive". What this expensive line is, I have no idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
Even though only one game from a bundle is on Steam, you're still buying the entire bundle. Taking IG Mobile as an example, you bought 7 games in the BTA bundle. The fact that only one of them had a Steam key doesn't change that. That game is still one seventh of the bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
Take the new Humble Bundle Weekly - you are still buying the entire bundle even if you pay $125. You are still getting like $900 worth of games for $125. The fact that you only get a single Steam key doesn't change that. Any one of the games is still like 1/30th of the bundle.
Comment has been collapsed.
It seems like a sorta interesting idea, but ultimately it might be difficult to implement, not to mention it would complicate CV calculations even further which I'm not sure a lot of people would be much of a fan of.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haha yeh it would make the calculation harder for sure! I've never worried about calculating my CV personally, I just let the site decide what I have and I'm good with that :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with your original post, but also with lancestarr. Unfortunately we always get questions about CV and this would surely complicate things more. However, I do agree that treating BTA the same as $1 purchases is a little out of whack.
But how do you draw a distinction when a BTA contains more than one game? If the BTA is $5 and contains two Steam games, first you have to subtract the minimum $1 (you can't just ignore the other games they received) and then divide by two. In that scenario, they only truly paid $2 per BTA game, so should it really count in your new rule?
I just think it's not black and white, while they have ensured not to include the truly high priced bundle games like the aforementioned Dead Island Riptide and Prison Architect.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would keep the system of letting bundle games add only a bonus for non-bundle CV.
I'd increase CV of the BTA bundle game bonus to 30 or 35% (instead of 20% for every nonbundle game).
Comment has been collapsed.
that woulf be a goog start. i think the bundled games must Count more!
i dont see problems with this. when i give away something it is only fair that the numbers in my Profile go up.
i can look at those and Feeling good about them.
the giveaways in the future would get higher cv-requirements but that don´t interest me :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm with you on this. Anything in a bundle = 0 CV and all of these games are renamed GAME_NAME-ZeroCV eg, "Saints Row 3 - ZeroCV"
Comment has been collapsed.
I made a similar thread about the matter a while back, suggesting BTA games could be removed from the bundle list, but the feedback was largely negative. I do like your idea though - just look at how little Eador and Ittle Dew giveaways there was in the recent days comparing to the non BTA games of BM9, it's clear that nobody would exploit the higher tier games.
EDIT: found the topic
Comment has been collapsed.
5-10% and just for the first giveaway of that game, extra giveaways of the same game would not give any CV. Done.
This way anyone who want to contribute with a extra bundle game, or just spend a buck or few bucks to share the games still get anything back, and it avoid someone buying 20 one buck bundles to make CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's two issues with this:
First, it's complicated, which means staff would have to spend a bit more time handling it (especially updating old bundles.)
Second, it's still not always so simple. Some games offer a ton of things for BTA.
(That said, I believe that anything that's listed as a "reasonable fraction of the full price" BTA doesn't get listed -- the $125 tier for the Paradox Bundle didn't get things listed, say, nor do the $25 tiers when they appear. So there's some precedent.)
Also, regarding the fact that there are few giveaways for BTA games, I don't think that that has anything to do with CV. The reason is because people buy the full bundle for the BTA games, then already have (or don't want) the lower-tier games, so they give them away. If they already had or didn't want the BTA games, they just wouldn't pay BTA price, so you don't see giveaways for them as often.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is very little worry about abuse as well, since 20% of a game's value would still be less gain than any 75% Steam Sale. Even taking the CK2 example above, beating the average (about $6) would only net $8 CV.
But more gain than 75% off in another store that already has 50% off.
Either way, you will always be able to get flaws.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you beat the average on a bundle, that $6 bucks for example, you get seven games about $.85 a piece.
Then you get $8 CV for 85 cents, effectively getting the game 98% off.
You either fail at common sense and math or are manipulating numbers for your own personal good. Go away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Only an idiot breaks the total cost across all games. The values of the games is:
ALL Under Average Games: $1
BTA Games are worth $5/(# of games in BTA).
So, if you take a bundle with 5 Under Average games and 2 BTA games then the under average games are worth 20 cents each and the BTA games are worth $2.50 each. You wouldn't say each game is 85 cents as the tiered pricing revalues the content. Please use common sense.
Also, even if you we're correct (which you're not) $8 CV for 85 cents is ~90% off, not 98%. Steam sales go to 90% off sometimes are are not added to the bundle list. Please use math.
The fact you failed at both common sense and math (or were manipulating the numbers yourself), while accusing me of the same is the most laughable part of your comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
Heh, serves me right for posting in a CV discussion thread.
I do have to prop you for posting your opinion in an apparently coherent and organised manner, if even if it is just to disguise what inherently is a "no, you are" statement.
You're right, I had never thought of separating BTA and non-BTA games in my "calculations". Maybe it's because I never pay under BTA, maybe I think of a bundle as a single unit, or maybe it just depressed me too much thinking about all the other games that would effectively become $.10 to $.20 a pop then.
Maybe I just snapped at another person not bothering to elaborate and implying they were talking about getting $8 CV for spending $6 bucks. Maybe I should've just assumed…
Even then, though, that magical $2.50 would only apply to this one particular bundle. Many bundles have 4 or more games in the BTA tier with less than $5 requirement, making the game still cost less than a single glorious dollar. 98% off in my post applied to the game, not CV. One could've got CV for 90% off "sometimes" before, but not all the time - those are the rare exceptions. There's always several bundles going on, way more common than 90% discounts, and they often last longer.
In the end, bundle game value revaluation is really about rewarding demand and curbing supply, not keeping to some magical "fairness" in the CV numbers; the latter are just that, numbers, nothing else.
Perhaps I shouldn't really comment on topics like this, my mindset being too damn different.
Comment has been collapsed.
+1 this all makes sence to me, if a bundle costs you $5 then the maximum CV you should be able to get from giving away one or all of those games is $5, and even then I don't think thats fair, I dont think you should get any CV at all. No one buys a bundle unless they want at least one of the games in it, if you don't want the rest of them, cool, give em away, but don't expect anything in return, you still got something for that money you paid. Now if you buy a complete bundle as a gift for $5 and give that away... then you should get $5 CV.
I've got no issue with how it is now, I wish people would stop complaining, technically most of the time its a donation to charity really that gets your games, if you donate $5 to world famine and they give you a "thank you" sticker to wear but you dont want it, do you then give that sticker to your mate and ask him for the $5 you donated?
Comment has been collapsed.
fully agree with this.
You don't buy a bundle unless there's something in there you want. The rest is just icing on the cake.
The current system prevents you from profiting from this icing in a way that makes ONLY bundle-games a reasonable means to up CV.
While giving away whole bundles gives you the CV they are worth.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sorry for being snappy in my response; you're initial post was a little combative though :)
I know there are wildcards in bundles, but the value of the games changes quite a bit as well. However, the 20% cap I'm proposing would keep the CV rather controlled as well.
When thinking about CV, keep in mind that the standard "Steam Sale" rate of 75% off applies to many of the giveaways we see on SG, meaning that most $20 Non-Bundle giveaways we see are bought for $5. Using this as a base, we can see that most of the time someone trying to gain CV would still be better off buying games on Steam than using BTA games under my proposed rule change.
Example: Bundle has 4 BTA games, two worth $10 each, one $20, one $30. If they gave them all away they would only get 20% of each; so $2 + $2 + $4 + $6 = $14 CV. Considering they would have spent $5-6 on the bundle in order to BTA, this is less CV per dollar than a standard 75% off Steam sale would give. Just look right now, Natural Selection 2 is $6.24 and it nets $25 CV if given away.
I think my proposed idea is quite fair and also quite difficult to abuse. Also keep in mind that encouraging members to buy BTA bundles more often than they normally would also benefits charities and more needy indie devs :)
Comment has been collapsed.
only, as owwlll so aptly pointed out:
If you buy Natural Selection 2 and give it away, you are left with nothing. You bought the game, you gave it away.
If you buy a Bundle with 10 games, 3 of which are better than average, you can easily decide that you want 3 of the 1$ tier games and one of the BTA games for yourself, then give away all the others.
In the concrete example, 2 BTW games giving 20% of their net value. Using your figures of 10$, 20$ and 30$ again, you could already have the 30$ game, decide to keep the 20%, and are not interested in the 10%.
So you give away games worth 8$ CV, keep one worth 20, give away a couple more under normal bundle-rules(upping that 8$ to about 11$, and keeping some more(with regular prizes between 3-10$.
So you cherry-pick and keep what you want, then give away the rest. Thats a lot different from "buy one game and give it away".
Also, don't get me started on happy-hour buyers on indie-gala. I bought my copy early, then wanted 2 gifts for friends later and didn't even check on happy hour...ended up with 12 gift links or so. Oh, great, they have like 6 games in their highest TIER. So....72 games to give away for instant CV value at an expense of about 10$...
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand what you're saying about someone getting $8-11 CV from the bundle games they decide what they don't want, but keep in mind this is not a very high amount considering the full bundle cost $5-6. There have been $1 games (Ignite/Death Rally/Sniper: Ghost Warrior, etc) that were not bundle games which gave $10 CV (90% off).
Even if you gave away half the bundle, that would effectively be $3 for $10 CV; again no different than a normal 75% off Steam Sale where $2.50 gets you $10.
As for IndieGala or any other deal, the admin who does the Bundle List can decide if the games are High Value or Low Value bundle games. If they're are too many games in the BTA, or if the bundle is too cheap (IndieGala Happy Hour, etc) those games could be classified as Low Value and would be treated exactly how they are right now.
Comment has been collapsed.
When a bundle has tiers, the value scaled to the tiered pricing. If someone could get 5 games in the under average for $1, those games will always be worth 20 cents each. Their value doesn't rise if you BTA since anyone could just pay $1 and get them for 20 cents each.
If you decide to spend an extra $5 to BTA, those BTA games (and only those games) are valued at $5. ie: 2 games in the BTA would be worth $2.50 each as you bought the 2nd tier just for those 2 games.
Think about it like this: if I offered to sell you 10 donuts for $1, but if you paid me $11 I would add in a coffee; would you say that the donuts and the coffee are worth $1 each? No, it's ten 10 cent donuts and a $10 coffee (since you could have just bought the ten donuts for $1).
Also, please refrain from calling me arrogant when I was simply defending myself from the attacks made in the post I was replying to. You can read my OP and see I was not being combative until I was accused of manipulating numbers and called a "fail".
Comment has been collapsed.
I will not discuss this further with you since we did that already in several other topics about that. The simple fact that you open this again and again and again pisses me off.
I was calling you arrogant because you think that your opinion is "common sense"
Comment has been collapsed.
+1. What you pay for the BTA tier games are the average price minus the minimum for steam keys, which is usually one dollar. So the BTA games for the Paradox bundle cost 4.80. That's what people are paying each time for them if they were to try to farm them for CV. Divide that in half and you get 2.40 per game in the BTA tier. Like I said in my post above, perhaps it's a bad idea for bundles where you get multiple BTA games, but if there's just one game in the BTA tier (e.g. Brutal Legend or Dustforce), then your method would be very appropriate.
Comment has been collapsed.
maybe... we should just get rid of all giveaways! then nobody has to worry about CV!
Comment has been collapsed.
Aren't games that could be obtained for free considered just exploited?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, only if it's the abusal of a glitch. Otherwise it's just a bundle game. A few like Metro 2033 were completely taken out though.
Comment has been collapsed.
i actually prefer dead (and roast) chickens to live ones. interestingly enough, you still need a live chicken to make a dead one. further evolution is really not needed though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not sure how I feel about the idea because I can't think at the moment so didn't really read it.
But I always thought that it was unfair that BTA gamess/Indie royale were grouped in with humble bundle/cheap indie bundles. Though changing the system would require a major overhaul and a lot of work I imagine.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, as much as I would like bundle games to be worth more when used in give-aways, keeping them at a low CV is the best thing in my eyes. You have to remember that these bundles can literally go for $1, and then end up broken into individual titles. This is just me and my morals here but really, a lot of these bundles aren't made for sheer profits, but for charity (and yes, sometimes exposure for newcomers in game development). Increasing the CV would feel to me like just wringing an already dry sponge, y'know?
I can understand wanting an increased CV value on bundles where there is a 'high average' of something like $30 for an additional, recent title, but quite often the BTA on bundles is below $7 and is still essentially giving you each individual piece for $1 an item or less. Regardless of which you keep, which you gift, and which you give away, you have to appreciate that pack splitting can have the effect of stopping others from making that measly $1 contribution themselves. Even if all they wanted was a single game in the pack, it's still another tiny thumbs-up to the bundle organisers, and to the 'bundle culture' in general. I'm sure a lot of these bundle sites expect some degree of pack splitting, and if they felt it too much of a threat, would add agreements/click-throughs to legally hold people to not trade/gift them out, as a deterrent, but wringing out the bundles like this over a matter of a single dollar, is perhaps one of the best ways to endanger the entire premise of these bundles. Adding CV value would be like rewarding an undesirable behaviour, I feel.
I mean, I still have to blink in disbelief sometimes. The titles they add to some bundles are great. Remember back when this all started, and they initially offered just a single game for "pay what you want"? I think the first was World of Goo just on its own? Yeah. People were amazed to the point of even wondering if it was legit or somehow a crippled copy for advertisement. Don't get me wrong, I don't think bundle sharing is particularly 'evil' or immoral either (and admittedly there is a tiny bit of cognitive dissonance going on here), but more CV is like rewarding a negative behaviour. I just fear that will harm the bundle groups, regardless of what they are knowingly allowing.
Hell, they often even trust you with free access to a DRM-free EXE copy too. That says a lot about their ethics towards customers. Risky? Definitely. But I think their open attitude towards us needs to be rewarded, even if all that means is a second dollar on the occasion you think someone could use the other half of the bundle you don't want. I'm all for freedom and observing the rules/law the same way companies apply them upon us, but think about what they're doing with this stuff. These bundles are throwing a gigantic middle-finger in the face of typical modern DRM on our behalf (while often offering steam/desura copies for those who like the digital backups scene), and also giving a slice to charity while they're at it. I hate to sound dramatic but we're kind of living in a golden era for videogames right now. We should try to prolong it while partaking, not milk it dry.
Sure, some game contributors do it for profits on low-exposure or dwindling games, or to gather up new users (in EA's case), but they are still contributing, and I think that these positive steps in the gaming industry should be rewarded. As you know, most companies only speak the language of "money". If you keep paying while they strangle you with DRM and half-finished products, they take that as a big "Keep doing it!", if you stop purchasing half-assed products with terrible customer treatment, they hear that as a "Stop that". In the case of the bundles, we need to show them that we appreciate this effort, but not taking it as an easy chance to screw them the same way the industry can tend to screw us. It's a big industry out there, but the ones that give a shit about us are more likely to participate in these things. Hell I was surprised when EA of all people got involved. Yeah, they likely had selfish reasons for doing it initially, but I'm certain that the results will give them some mystifying things to consider as far as customer service / pricing / DRM Rules are concerned. You know what's better than grumbling about EA? Converting them to better ethics and practices. (I can dream, can't I?)
Fuck it. I'm just babbling. Despite how I sound, I'm not judging anyone on their choices. I don't know your financial situation. I don't know which games you're in it for. I don't even know what you do with your keys. Just consider how things go down behind the scenes, and how the way you use your bundles may be a tiny pixel of contribution or detriment of the 'bundle culture'. Sure, it's just one dollar, but that's just one dollar on a cosmic scale of growth or collapse. I just feel an increased CV might promote a negative trend is all.
Comment has been collapsed.
43 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by Myklex
1 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by lostsoul67
71 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by lostsoul67
76 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Reidor
765 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by grimfandango8888
43 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by Qnemes
12 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by orono
419 Comments - Last post 15 minutes ago by Myklex
4 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by ngoclong19
537 Comments - Last post 20 minutes ago by Serebix
69 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by OneNonLy
498 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by Cleverman
1,252 Comments - Last post 47 minutes ago by ProphetFinagle
6,335 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by lext
Quick idea for splitting the Bundle List into 2 categories, one for Low Value and one for High Value bundle games.
To clarify; High Value would be any Bundle Games that the member would have had to spend around $5 or more in order to obtain the Bundle. This would include BTA Games, Indie Royale games, etc. Low Value would be the games that could be obtained for $1, 95% off, free, etc.
The idea is the Low Value games would be calculated exactly the same as they are now, no change to the vast majority of the current list. However, High Value would instead give 20% of it's value as CV right away (ie: Crusader Kings 2 is worth $40, user would get $8 CV).
There is very little worry about abuse as well, since 20% of a game's value would still be less gain than any 75% Steam Sale. Even taking the CK2 example above, beating the average (about $6) would only net $8 CV.
This would reward users a little more for beating the average (thus helping devs and charities as well). Thoughts?
Comment has been collapsed.