It was purchased disabled, not removed. There is a slight difference between the two, but until it gets removed properly or is purchased enabled, you will receive 0 cv for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
While it would be good to have the same CV for expensive games forever, I can think of two reasons why it's not done. One is that keeping a database of all price changes would be more bandwidth intensive than just fetching value from Steam store. The other is glitches: I'm sure you've seen things like Deponia being listed as 100$ game, it would be more difficult to clean up the mess after something like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
The biggest problem is that CV is apparently dynamic, and that its fetched and updated everyday based on current day prices. But wouldn't it be easier to set CV in stone for a particular GA after say, 1 month? I assume that would be the max time for a bundler to to add said game to bundled list if it is ever bundled. As for price glitches, again, this depends on dynamic pricing. Could someone who worked on the site clarify this?
Comment has been collapsed.
+1.
The database would become extremely bloated over time, and would have to query the Steam db then the SG db for every game. Plus, like you said, it would create a lot of extra work for the (volunteer) mods, not only with correcting pricing, but with all the complaint reports about incorrect CV ...
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a perfect system, but the CV inflation makes it so people can't stay at the top tier forever without continuing to contribute. It's sloppy that they don't keep track of user libraries, or use real game prices that they can correct, but what can we do about it? They decided a while back to work off steam's imperfect API, and there's no real motivation for them to change it now.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, it's not-that hard to become top-contributor who never has to contribute ever again.
Not many 5+ year old games lose their value...
But then, top contributors become top contributors because they just like to giveaway and make people happy.
Or are in "trade giveaways 1:1 ratio groups".
Comment has been collapsed.
Technically this would be quite difficult, how would you determine whether the price dropped due to steam api acting up (for example all those 100 p Deponia) or a permanent drop in base price?
The other point is the system the way it works today gives a certain incentive to users that are active right now. I rather have those people in the higher ranks that are active right now instead of people who have leveled up years ago and don't do any giveaways any more.
If you think of CV as a real representation of how much money someone spent in real $$ (It clearly isn't) then your suggestion would only be fair! If you look at it as a System of how active and "generous" someone is here at SG it is definitively not necessary. There are other aspects that should be taken into account long before that. (Splitting up CV from private giveaway groups that more than anything work like a big game swap community)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not asking for the CV system to not be dependent on the Steam API at all. Let the system continue as is, but after say a period of a month, the CV given till then should remain in stone, and not be calculated again.
However, I also see your point. Active contributors in the present would no doubt have to climb a longer ladder than contributors in the past, who may not be contributing anymore. Its more of which mentality people want : Fairness vs Activity.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly, if you make it dependent on the Steam API you run into a lot of problems. The 100p Deponia is just one example. There are several packages that when on sale for a cheaper price than one of the games in the package will return the package price instead of the price for the single game And there have been several occasions where these packages have been on sale for multiple weeks. Therefore it is not predictable what the price will be that is set after a given time after the GA has ended.
Also this system can never be fair (as in representation for what people have spent for a game) anyways since one cannot tell where someone bought the game they are giving away and how much someone paid. (for example a game that was in a bundle years ago, but doesn't get good sales anymore or someone paid 2 $ for a 8$ game and someone else paid 2$ for a 20$ game)
That said, the aim for the system must be to have a system that
Since the actual system provides all that, I don't see any need to change it if it means it can get worse. And I believe with your suggestion it wouldn't turn out better but would require a lot of work to work out some system to set a fixed (and fair) price for every GA.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was envisioning more of a system like this.
However, I do see your point. The system is not broken. And it would be best if left as is.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't agree.
Most of the people who spend a lot of money on Fallout4 etc... don't really care about levels\cv, etc...
at the end of the day they are paying the full price for a 60 bucks game that will for sure go down relatively soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
(I could be wrong, but) that's what happen when a game is removed from steam.
the removed game is manually added to the database with a custom price.
So I guess that the:
would have to query the Steam db then the SG db for every game.
already happens.
Anyway the big deal is that for every price cut, someone has to do a lot of stuff, like binding every past giveaway to a custom game with it's old price.
Comment has been collapsed.
CG himself has explained why the system works this way and will not be changed. I'd link to the topic, but it would be a pain in the arse to find.
Its easy enough to deal with lowered value anyway. Do more giveaways, problem solved. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I know, its easy to get back the CV you lose, by simply being active. I only brought this up because I felt like this is a conflict of interest. This problem curbs the incentive to do giveaways around launch, for those who wish to gain CV, which goes against the spirit of the site. Of course, you could argue that true GA creators won't care about it, but they are people that aren't as rich to not care.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they aren't as rich to not care, they can min-max their gibs and work with bundled gibs which should have values pretty solid for an extended period of time. If they really have problem doing the release price giveaways, then they shouldn't really be giving away games that cost money that isn't expendable income to them.
GA creators are of course aware the values will drop after a while and address the problem like delta said, by doing more giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
If it affects everyone equally, does it really matter?
Comment has been collapsed.
It means it makes a lot less sense to give away good games. It's much smarter to only give away games that have a low value and will affect you less. It likely has the effect to reduce the number of AAA and other currently expensive games that are available to win. If people know they will get to retain credit for a very generous giveaway, they're more likely to make them.
It hurts everyone equally though, you're right.
Comment has been collapsed.
46,826 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by FranckCastle
67 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by Tuxerito
15,407 Comments - Last post 3 hours ago by BargainSeeker
2,066 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Megamind9
11 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by Chris76de
1,340 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by LuckyStrike1305
367 Comments - Last post 7 hours ago by Vodeni
102 Comments - Last post 6 minutes ago by TrevorGoodchild
50 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by Cjcomplex
108 Comments - Last post 9 minutes ago by someonequeer
60 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by Nickymow
761 Comments - Last post 36 minutes ago by crunchysoup
66 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Peiperissimus
104 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Naviis
Its as the title says. Let's say someone gave away Fallout 4 right now. He/she would get 60$ CV on completion of said GA. However, we all know that after a few months/a year, Fallout 4 will be worth way lesser due to Steam reducing its price to probably 20-30$. In fact, any AAA game usually ends up being 20$ after a while. What I can't understand is why Steamgifts reduces CV for the contributors who finished their giveaways ages ago. It really is sad that said person gets the same amount of CV as the other person who did a GA on it after it being reduced in price.
Shouldn't those who giveaway AAA games on launch be getting more CV than those who give it away later?
Just my Uncrowded.
Comment has been collapsed.