Psychochild's Blog

A developer's musings on game development and writing.

6 September, 2012

Why Steam’s Greenlight is a failure
Filed under: — Psychochild @ 7:54 PM
(This post has been viewed 11563 times.)

With much fanfare and enthusiasm, Steam announced Greenlight a way for the community to give feedback on what they would like to see. If you've been following the news lately, you might have learned that things didn't go over as well as might be hoped. To the point that Valve has been scrambling to control the damage.

But, I see this as a sign of failure. Perhaps not terminal failure, but let's take a look at what this rocky start means at least in the short term.

Let's take a look at a bit of background to see why this has been a larger issue than some business making a small misstep.

The importance of Steam

Let me say first and foremost that I really like Steam. It's been a tremendous boon to me as a gamer, because I have a library of games I have acquired for not much money. Steam sales make me feel like a kid in a candy store with a pocket full of cash. As a PC gamer (and game developer), I appreciate what Steam has done to keep PC games going when the traditional retail stores shifted their focus away from stocking PC boxes. So, this isn't some anti-Valve hate letter.

Steam has taken on a lot more importance as indie gaming has become a dominant force in the industry. Getting your game on Steam is one route toward a lot more attention for your game. This isn't to say it's a guaranteed thing; a co-worker and friend of mine has his game Eversion on Steam, but last I checked he didn't own anything gold-plated for the sake of gold plating. (Definitely check the game out, I quite liked it.) So, a lot of people put a lot of effort into getting their game on Steam because it is perceived as being a good way of attaining success.

Steam is also a gatekeeper of content. As you probably know, Sturgeon's law says that "90% of everything is crud" and that applies to games as well. For people without a lot of time to go hunting through a ton of games to find the gems, a gatekeeper is useful to separate out the stuff that they will probably enjoy from the stuff that shouldn't be talked about in polite company.

The problems with Steam

For all the good points of Steam, there are also a few problems. First, since Steam is so dominant it has a position that, intentionally or not, dictates how people react to games. Don't have your game on Steam? Some people will say it's obviously not very good, then. Others will simply refuse to buy any game not on Steam. I think it is a large part of what motivates people to try to get their game on Steam, because it lends some legitimacy to the game in the eyes of the players if it's accepted by Steam.

As I said, Steam is a gatekeeper, but it's important to remember the prior gatekeepers of games. Publishers, retail stores, and game portals. All these gatekeepers usually tried to restrict access to favor their own bottom lines. Here's that Pyrogon postmortem I love to link, where Brian Hook talks about how the business shifted in the casual game business as the portals started to exploit their position as gatekeeper.

So, remember that Valve is a business, which means they will do what is profitable for them. Since they are still a private company, they have some latitude in what they can do, but a businesses will generally pursue policies and projects that create the best return on investment. I'm not quite willing to go so far as Sophie Houlden did (warning: salty language and an amusing but rather NSFW animated picture on the page) and tell people to write off Steam, but it's important to understand how Steam's position relates to the feelings going around.

The purpose of Greenlight

The problem, as was communicated in the games press, was to open up the process for getting accepted to Steam. One has to assume that Valve got a lot of and requests for games to be made available on the service. Instead of paying people to weed through the submissions, this would Valve "crowdsource" the work to the community. Seems like a brilliant idea, as you can just as the people who would pay for the game directly if they would, you know, pay for the game instead of having people in the company making educated guesses about what will sell.

So, here we have one of the most popular downloadable game platforms which is asking for open submissions to put in front of a huge audience of game players. What could possibly go wrong.

What went wrong

Turns out, quite a bit. Of course, anyone who deals with online communities could have probably seen these issues coming a mile away. Not surprisingly, the open approvals process brought out a lot of trolls and idiots who couldn't resist being idiots in front of a huge audience. You got people posting up games that were basically wishes (such as one for Half-Life 3), rip-offs of existing games, political messages, and all sorts of other cruft like you expect from an unrestricted general community.

Of course, the people who were trying to actually find good games in Greenlight weren't amused. The spam became epidemic, and Valve scrambled for some way to restrict who could post games to Greenlight. They implemented a $100 fee (which they say will be donated to the Child's Play charity) to try to stop the flood of garbage. Which, of course, created a whole new round of controversy.

So, let's take a look at the layers of failure surrounding this.

Valve doesn't understand community

Let's start with the biggest problem first: I take this as Valve pretty much not understanding what community is really about. I don't think they're entirely clueless, but their knowledge of community is still rooted in the clan-focused world of FPS games. I've never found the "community" tab to be that useful for me, probably because I don't play a lot of multiplayer games that aren't MMOs. If I want to chat about how cool the Legend of Grimrock is, the Steam community page isn't the first place I go visit. I kinda get the feeling that the Steam community pages are mostly there because at Valve heard that community engagement can increase sales and retention. So, it feels like an appendage rather than something vital to the service.

As I said, the whole point of Greenlight was to offload the approval process to the community. But, it seems Valve either didn't anticipate this would be prime troll territory, or didn't anticipate that the community wouldn't have the patience to wade through the trolls to find the gems. Not anticipating either of these shows a woeful lack of understand about how internet communities work. To me, this is a huge failure on the part of Valve.

The $100 problem

The issue of the $100 fee for submitting a game has been making the rounds. One side pointing out that this is can be a sizable amount of money for some people. Others scoffing at this, making all sorts of claims about how $100 is easy to raise, how if you're not willing to risk $100 then it shows you have no confidence you your game, etc. Of course, we need to take a look at the people discussing this: most of them are the type that has the comfortable middle-class life that allows them to spend $60 on a game; not everyone is in that situation. Also consider that in Poland and Brazil, two countries with reasonable active independent game development communities, $100 is a sizable amount of money. Another of my co-workers discusses some of the problems with the $100 fee.

But, the discussion of if $100 is a lot of money or not is a bit of a distraction. The bigger problem is that it serves as another hurdle in a process that was supposed to be about removing the hurdles. Greenlight was supposed to be a way for people who didn't have enough clout to submit the game formally to Valve to have a shot. But, now there's just another obstacle put in the road to getting on Steam. Worse, it's a financial obstacle that affects different people in different ways depending on their means; as shown in the discussion around the 'net, $100 is nothing to some people and a large investment for others. This feels like a hasty change to try to address the problem Valve didn't anticipate.

Worse, in my opinion, it rewards people who threw up a hasty page quickly. People who already have a game posted won't be charged the fee. But, if you didn't join the gold rush and wanted to actually organize your campaign, then you will be levied the fee. Seems unfair to punish people who really did want to do the right thing and didn't jump on the bandwagon without planning.

The issues of discovery

The last issue I'll cover is one that has been mentioned in many places: the terrible organization of the Greenlight system itself. This is probably one of the reasons why the trolls were such a huge issue, because the organization made it hard to weed through the crap to find the useful stuff. People have said it's overly difficult to find stuff. This means that people who actually want to do a good job have a hard time dealing with it.

The best way to get positive votes, it seems, is to have an established base that you can mobilize to go vote for your project. Of course, if you have a sizable following already you probably need Steam's support a bit less than someone else starting from scratch. This also means that the Greenlight system is more about advertising than having a good game. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but people using the service need to understand that going in. This isn't a "meritocracy" where a project will necessarily succeed or fail entirely on it's own merits. Given that advertising and getting attention for your game is already a challenge for most indies, Greenlight is not the solution we need to make sure that great games don't get overlooked.

What I would do

Okay, now for the bit of positive discussion, where I'm helpful for a change. Let's pretend that I'm in charge of saving Greenlight from it's current failings. What would I do?

Hire a community manager. Fast. As I said, it's pretty obvious that Valve wants a community and wants to use it, but has no idea how to do so. MMOs have been using community managers for a long time with great success.

Take responsibility for moderation. This would be the first job for that new community manager. Valve has had quite a bit of success, so hiring a few hourly people to manually review and approve submissions seems reasonable. If they have moderators for their communities, then these people should be easily able to tell a legitimate game from a troll or fake.

Restrict posting meaningfully. Want to know the best way to restrict people from posting garbage? Require them to have an account and have either had an account for a minimum amount of time or have purchased a certain minimum number of games. Let's face it, most of the legitimate developers will have purchased games on Steam. Maybe after a while, allow an account with some activity but in good standing to post after a cooldown period. Limit accounts to a number of simultaneous postings based on account type. Ban people who post trolls so that they at least have to go through the account process again.

Give better tools to the community. I just checked, and there's a way to flag games. Use that. If a game gets too many flags, take it down for manual review. Watch for abuses in the flagging system, though, because people will eagerly abuse negative karma systems. Also create a ton of tags for people to use to identify their games. Let me search for 2D stealth action RPGs if that's what I want, rather than wading through alphabetical lists, whatever ends up in my "queue", or a few generic genre types.

Do NOT sort by popularity. I've seen people suggest sorting by popularity. Show things to people that have already gotten upvoted. That way lies madness, and encourages people to get an army of friends to upvote them initially, rather than letting the game's quality do the talking. This is especially important for divisive genres, like sports or visual novels, where some people have an unreasoning hate no matter how good the game really is.

Mine your data. Valve has to be sitting on a ton of data about how their existing community operates. Use that to identify important people. The trend-setters, the hubs of activity, the connections between different hubs. Identify these key people and involve them. A social "hub" person voting for a game should carry a lot more weight than a random account. Hell, look at the purchase history and see if someone is likely to actually buy a game, or just upvote a friend.

What would you do?

What do you think of Greenlight? Do you agree its a failure? If so, do you think it can recover? If so, what would you do?

--







15 Comments »

  1. "What do you think of Greenlight? Do you agree its a failure?"

    It depends on how you define failure. If the goal was accomplishment of the conceptual missions you describe, then yes, it's not looking great right now. If the goal was to sell more stuff on Steam by getting stuff with lots of fans listed on Steam, nothing that I've seen so far suggests that Valve is going to have significantly less revenue tomorrow than it did before this thing started.

    (Yes, there may be indies who boycott on principle. The average consumer shows few signs of caring, and won't ask questions about the process of how the games that do make it onto the marketplace got there.)

    Comment by Green Armadillo — 6 September, 2012 @ 8:16 PM

  2. Is Greenlight a failure? I think it's too early to tell. Valve certainly suffered from some amount of optimism about the community. But I don't think Greenlight will show its worth until it actually puts a game on the service. If more games get approved than before, I would have to declare it a net positive.

    Comment by Anjin — 6 September, 2012 @ 9:23 PM

  3. When I first looked at Greenlight, I thought it was some sort of Valve practical joke, an April Fools come early, because as you say, there was some much silliness going on (Home Fire Simulator?) that I couldn't imagine it was anything else. And there were pages and pages of it.

    So they went and undid that, added the $100 fee (which I have seen some bitching about... maybe $100 was too much, but there had to be some barrier to entry big enough to discourage the determined prankster... some people would still have a go a $10-$20), and now when I look at Greenlight there are 12 choices.

    And, of course, I had to go find Greenlight, because it was a banner on the front page on day one, but now it is hidden as a second tier selection under the community menu.

    So yes, it has fallen down and it has not gotten back up.

    I know what you mean about Steam too. I have come to trust them, which took some time after Half-Life 2... I bought retail and got banned by mistake... so I buy games from them, but I won't buy anything that isn't big name unless it is there now. And I won't use Origin (Eeek, EA!) or GameStop and so there it is. Basically, if it isn't a download on Steam or available in a box from Amazon, it is off my radar.

    Comment by Wilhelm Arcturus — 6 September, 2012 @ 9:45 PM

  4. "If the goal was to sell more stuff on Steam"

    I almost bought Trine 2 because it was just cheap and was afraid to wait another 6 months to buy it at that price. I doubt the goal is to sell "more stuff". I think they are doing awfully well with just the price drop.

    My problem with Greenlight is that Valve should have an awful lot of experience when it comes to online selling and yet they release a tool quickly followed by a $100 adjustment pretending in some way they didn't see that coming? Really?

    If they wanted an imperfect way to show games to people they should have checked Kongregate. You know just to see what's been done before ... Before I took it down my game Golemizer had a higher rating than Runescape yet never received any exposure from Kongregate. I think there's something to be learned from that. Either Runescape should have received some more attention because hey it's Runescape and they are making a lot of money compared to me (and Kongregate would have make money as well) or either they should have considered Golemizer as some game deserving some attention. Not sure what it tells others but it tells me a lot when it comes to "community rating".

    Anyway me aside I can't believe Valve didn't see coming the fake Half Life 3 posts coming. Really? I even saw a fake Mass Effect 3 post. So that system was just left in the wild and "we'll fix it as it goes?". I feel like it's me talking. Not Valve ...

    Comment by Dave Toulouse — 6 September, 2012 @ 9:58 PM

  5. Valve is and has always been a "fix it as it goes" company, so that seems like odd criticism. They were pretty clear that it was going to be a bare-bones framework that would be improved along the way. It's quite literally the Steamworks Workshop grading system applied to Indie submissions, which is exactly what they said it would be.

    I think advice to Valve to mine their data is like asking Stephen Hawking to look at the stars. It's already what they do best and why they start these experiments haphazardly, because there's no point trying to make a complex deep system until they have the data.

    That's what Valve does, they create messy experiments, sort the data and then rebuild them until they reach a fine polish. They don't tend to take established wisdom for granted, which leads me to:

    I honestly feel there are few good lessons to learn from how MMOs have done community, because I feel the MMO side of the games industry has done community systems TERRIBLY BAD. The droves of MMO players are in in spite of their community tools, not because of them.

    I may sound like a fanbois here, but Valve has a track record for ignoring what other people think is the established best way, then making a seeming mess of things at first and discovering a much better way in the process than anyone thought possible. I'd eat my TF hats if they don't figure this out to ridiculous success given time.

    Comment by Rog — 6 September, 2012 @ 10:36 PM

  6. That all said, I think criticism is one of the best ways they can improve. =)

    It's also worth noting on this part: "I just checked, and there's a way to flag games. Use that. If a game gets too many flags, take it down for manual review."

    I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Valve's system thanks people for flagging after material has been taken down for abuse.?

    Comment by Rog — 6 September, 2012 @ 10:56 PM

  7. As I've mentioned elsewhere, Apple's $100 developer fee (plus a manual review process) did not prevent the App Store from getting flooded with innumerable fart apps, both literal and metaphorical. We have a very telling precedent here, and Valve has chosen to ignore it.

    Comment by Felix — 6 September, 2012 @ 11:04 PM

  8. Green Armadillo wrote:
    ...nothing that I've seen so far suggests that Valve is going to have significantly less revenue tomorrow than it did before this thing started.

    Well, there are opportunity costs. Would the programmer hours put into Greenlight have been better invested in another venture? Probably if this becomes a quagmire for them.

    Wilhelm Arcturus wrote:
    ...the $100 fee (which I have seen some bitching about... maybe $100 was too much, but there had to be some barrier to entry big enough to discourage the determined prankster... some people would still have a go a $10-$20)

    The goal should not have been to stop the trolls and fakes, but to make them manageable. Yes, the original situation was horrible. But, that's to be expected. As I said, they could have added a requirement to have an account with games purchased on it to post. Of course, I don't doubt that people would have complained about Steam lining their own pockets in that way. But, I think that's smarter and more reasonable than an arbitrary $100 fee, donated to charity, that was obviously added as an panicked afterthought. Even just having paid moderators would have helped a lot. Instead they left the barn door open and let a bunch of shit be dumped on the community.

    And a dedicated prankster will just steal credit card info to feed into it. I had people use stolen credit cards to play Meridian 59, so I don't doubt someone will do the same for this. Then Valve has to deal with chargebacks.

    Rog wrote:
    Valve is and has always been a "fix it as it goes" company, so that seems like odd criticism.

    My point is that this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the tool they were trying to use: the community. There are some things you can fix as you go along. Community isn't one of them. Either you get it right at the beginning, or you spend way too much time and effort fixing it after the fact. Given how big a screw up they've made, both in initial presentation and the hasty $100 fee, I don't think they're on the road to a quick recovery here.

    I honestly feel there are few good lessons to learn from how MMOs have done community, because I feel the MMO side of the games industry has done community systems TERRIBLY BAD. The droves of MMO players are in in spite of their community tools, not because of them.

    Are MMOs perfect? No, but few have screwed up to this magnitude. This is newbie community management: There will be trolls. It will be worse if you have no tools to deal with them. What happened should have been anticipated by anybody who has even participated in an online community, let alone run one. MMOs at least realize that you need a community manager. I don't think Valve has understood even that basic lesson yet.

    I'm not sure if you've noticed, but Valve's system thanks people for flagging after material has been taken down for abuse.?

    I didn't actually flag anything, just took a quick look at the tools. Obviously the tools weren't effective enough if people who spotted the crap couldn't get it removed.

    Comment by Psychochild — 7 September, 2012 @ 12:00 AM

  9. Hey Brian,

    good article about good's and bad's of current Greenlight implementation. You aren't only ranting / showing the issues, but try to give constructive feedback, improvement ideas and talk about the good sides too. :)

    I have a few comments to add, in hope of improving ion your ideas:

    You have already briefly talked about adding a "Tag"-ing system to Greenlight games as improved community tools. I thing this would be the most powerful discoverability tool (as you said "2D stealth action RPG"). But it would also allow to implement such wonderful discoverability tools like "Tag-Cloud", "Related Games" / "Similar Games", which would be fairly hard to do with fixed genre classifications. (Hard to search for multi-tag / multi-genre entires, as well as too many entries per genre, tags can be more flexible)

    Quote:
    "The best way to get positive votes, it seems, is to have an established base that you can mobilize to go vote for your project."
    To me (and this is totally subjective, so I might be wrong here), Greenlight was never meant to be this "thing" that would ~~~magically~~~ fix the marketing / fan-base-building issue many new indies / games struggle with.
    My feeling is, that many people wanted it to be just that. I have to admit, I'd really like it to be just that too, but lets face it, that will never happen. Marketing / fan-base-building will always be part of publishing games, just like with any other field of ware-selling. :-/
    My view on this is, that GL will not change much in this regard, you'll still have to build your fan-base on your own (be it twitter, facebook, mouth-to-mouth, gaming-magazine, implementing a terrorist level into your game, ect.), but you'll (in addition) have to make sure, that you steer your audience toward your GL-page. So yes in the end that would mean more work for the developer, but also more importantly more self-control and transparency! (Double-edges sword... :-|)

    Quote:
    "Hire a community manager" / "Take responsibility for moderation"
    My gut-feeling on this is (again might be totally off), that they are doing this already. I mean they most probably won't have fired their existing verification staff (they will still be verifying final GL to steam transitions, but they should now have less work to do, more time to spend on other areas).
    I have to agree though, that they seem to work too much in the background, too silently / invisible. "Promoting" them openly to community managers and moderators like any MMO does have them today could have (might still) strengthen the community interaction. (Interaction is the key-word here)

    Quote:
    "Require them to have an account and have either had an account for a minimum amount of time or have purchased a certain minimum number of games."
    I think you are mainly speaking about "posting" new projects and less about troll comments on project pages, as those would "easiest" be fixed by using project-author verification before posting.
    The problem is, that this would just shift the problem to another domain and cause other issues / complains. On one hand, trolls would only need more time before posting fake projects and legitimate authors would be forces to wait if they are new to steam. (Rare case, but still an issue similar to how DRM affects legal customers more than pirates)
    On the other hand needing to buy games instead of donating (One [not my opinion!] could also than start to argue that valve would be making money this way) will just shift the investment issue.
    Yes you do get a "return" for your investment, but think about it carefully, how would you think about it if valve had announced it this way: "You need to have spend at least 50$ / 100$ on Steam games to participate in greenlight" ... :-/

    One could argue that you could always try to use Kickstarter / IndiGoGo / ect. to "fund" the 100$ for GL. Now there are definitely pros and cons to this:
    Cons: Additional time investment for the author. Possible flooding of KS with tiny projects... -> Could lead to overall faster KS fatigue
    Pros: Get some early feedback on your project before investing into GL.

    Comment by Kaffka — 7 September, 2012 @ 3:55 AM

  10. Having read through your writeup, I understand much better what the trouble is all about. And I have to fully agree: Valve seem to not understand what community is, how one works, and how you'd manage one.

    As for my other thoughts, I have summed them up here http://www.unwesen.de/2011/03/12/app-store-economies/ a while ago. I'm now re-reading what I've written there in order to find out if I've changed my mind on anything. If so, I'll add a comment there :)

    Comment by unwesen — 7 September, 2012 @ 4:02 AM

  11. I agree that Valve doesn't have a good understanding yet of what it takes to manage a community well, but it seems to me they've set up an experiment for learning that.

    What you're suggesting is that they take the conventional wisdom and lessons already learned-- from the RPG market that is so abysmally bad at community that we all cheered when GW2 resorted to public shaming of racists and sexists on Reddit. I feel that's a systematic screwup of magnitudes that dwarf Valve's stumbling Greenlight launch.

    I don't agree that MMOs have applied Community Managers to great success. They burn them out regularly by applying them like some sort of super Mom for the community. MMOs have had monetary success DESPITE squandering good people and an eager public. They've equally squandered their virtual worlds and virtual communities. If that's the bar, it's so low that it won't take Valve much to surpass it.

    The MMO market is as complacent as TV executives who think every decision is butter just because their cow supplies so much milk. (Yeah it's repeating the sentiment but I could not resist the analogy).

    Now maybe some of the same lessons do get learned, but it seems to me the better way of finding out which really work isn't to adopt them just because they seem wise, or existing experts say they are-- Because truthfully none of them have been all that great in practice.

    So I applaud an experiment that launches a too-simple system from scratch and intends to improve it gradually based on observation and data. It seems honest to me and I think in the long run, it'll work. Calling it a failure seems too soon and rather unhelpful.

    As for the existing tools, what I was trying to point out is the reporting tool has resulted in fairly swift removals, with direct feedback (at least sometimes) to the reporters. I don't recall anyone trying that before. It's clearly not perfect, but oh hell, it seems to be a working a lot better than reporting gold selling spam in any given MMO.

    Community can be done so much better, everywhere, but RPG communities have this strange situation of starting with some of the best crowds and handling them so poorly they are among the worst communities on the Internet and that's really saying something.

    Comment by Rog — 7 September, 2012 @ 5:11 AM

  12. Wow I sound harsh when I read back my last comment. It's not aimed personally, but needless to say I disagree pretty starkly that hiring a Community Manager is where they should start, because that's a magic bullet that IMHO doesn't work the way it's supposed to.

    Comment by Rog — 8 September, 2012 @ 3:46 PM

  13. Perhaps you've seen this video already, but I thought of you when I stumbled upon it and had to share it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyoWD6K9k3A&feature=player_embedded

    What exactly is the interest of Valve in working as a gatekeeper, instead of allowing all the games through and let the consumers sort it out? They could so easily transform this Greenlight project into a publicity campaign: say they open up their library, so everybody can enter... they certainly cannot frontpage everything that comes in, so they turn the Greenlight publishing service into a publicity service so that the games that receive more attention are highlighted then by Steam. If you do not get to fill up your Greenlight bar, you would still have your game available to whatever public you have garnered. Win-win situation.

    Good luck with your project, please keep us informed :)

    Comment by Milady — 13 September, 2012 @ 4:17 PM

  14. As you probably guessed from my post, I'm not entirely against sorting by popularity. You can't do a simple ranking on its own, because that leads to ridiculous positive feedback loops and a rush to get early up-votes in order to beat the system. But, I do think popularity has to play some sort of part, because on the whole it correlates with what people want to see. And on other websites it does do a good job of filtering out less useful content. StackOverflow is now the #1 go-to site for programming questions precisely because of this. So I'd say the voting has to form part of the solution, but must be handled carefully. For example, on StackOverflow it costs you something to vote an answer down. If down-votes - or in fact, all votes - were a limited resource, then people would have to use them more carefully. There's a lot Valve could learn from other systems if it stopped to look (rather than the random-blunder-then-fix approach mentioned above).

    As an aside, regarding Rog's comment on GW2 and how they "resorted to public shaming of racists and sexists on Reddit" - these were people who asked why they were banned! And they asked on Reddit - ask in public, get the answer in public. To me, this is great community management - justice was done and was seen to be done, and anybody who honestly didn't realise they were being offensive got educated in the process. Everybody's a winner.

    Comment by Ben Sizer — 14 September, 2012 @ 6:42 AM

  15. Some more discussion about Greenlight and suggestions to fix it: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/27/valve-on-steam-greenlights-failings-fixing-them/

    For normal folks, digging through more than a thousand candidates (and counting) without any rhyme or reason simply isn’t, well, reasonable. As a result, promising games are still bound to slip through the cracks – which is what Valve designed Greenlight to avoid in the first place. So what’s the next step? How does Valve give attention to deserving games while also continuing to encourage its – at least, in theory – open, developer-driven system?

    Comments are interesting, too. A few people are echoing what I've said here.

    Comment by Psychochild — 27 September, 2012 @ 4:27 PM

Leave a comment

I value your comment and think the discussions are the best part of this blog. However, there's this scourge called comment spam, so I choose to moderate comments rather than giving filthy spammers any advantage.

If this is your first comment, it will be held for moderation and therefore will not show up immediately. I will approve your comment when I can, usually within a day. Comments should eventually be approved if not spam. If your comment doesn't show up and it wasn't spam, send me an email as the spam catchers might have caught it by accident.

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, HTML allowed: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <div align=""> <em> <font color="" size="" face=""> <i> <li> <ol> <strike> <strong> <sub> <sup> <ul>

Email Subscription

Get posts by email:


Recent Comments

Categories

Search the Blog

Calendar

August 2014
S M T W T F S
« May    
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Meta

Archives

Standard Disclaimer

I speak only for myself, not for any company.

My Book





Information

Around the Internet

Game and Online Developers

Game News Sites

Game Ranters and Discussion

Help for Businesses

Other Fun Stuff

Quiet (aka Dead) Sites

Posts Copyright Brian Green, aka Psychochild. Comments belong to their authors.

Google