it was free, it is a game that was made just to farm CV, is instantly overpriced, or devs gave away like 3000 copies somewhere
Comment has been collapsed.
None of these apply to the ones I've had zeroed out. The most recent example is Embr, which was retroactively set to 0CV very recently with a date of Nov 26, 2024. Another is nearly the entirety of Indiegala's Huge Pixel Bundle. And yes, most of IG is shovelware garbage, but even the non-garbage has been zeroed out. I couldn't find those games being given away for free anywhere. Even with the garbage, it still feels weird to 0CV it based on a single person's opinion rather than objective criteria.
Comment has been collapsed.
EMBR? It had 4 game keys for $1 in a bundle - 25 cents cost per game that's 98.75% discount (full game price is $20)
Reduced CV is 15% value. This game was obtainable at 1.25% value.
Getting 12x more CV than you paid for would be abused. $3 worth of CV after spending $0.25 what a steal.
In case my math is wrong - the point is still there
Not gonna do research on the other games but likely similar story.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then why not zero out CV from all bundled games? Fanatical frequently has bundles where each game is $0.50 for games of a similar value to Embr. Most bundles - even stuff from HB - you get games at $1 or less each, and the games are usually priced at $15+. LEGO The Incredibles, for example, a $40 game, gets you 6CV despite essentially paying $0.80 for it. You obtain that game at 2% value. Shouldn't that be retroactively zeroed out? 6CV at $0.80 is also quite the steal. Is there an actual specific objective point in which a bundle is "too cheap," or is it still just arbitrary? We could also look at every single $0.50 Fanatical bundle and see that those games aren't zeroed out, either.
Getting 12x more CV than you paid for would be abused
Except Fanatical specifically only allows you to buy two copies of something, regardless of what it is. So at most, someone could get two packs of Embr. You also get heavily reduced CV if you give away more than 5 copies of something.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except Fanatical specifically only allows you to buy two copies of something, regardless of what it is. So at most, someone could get two packs of Embr. You also get heavily reduced CV if you give away more than 5 copies of something.
Embr 4-pack is literally sold right now for $1 https://www.fanatical.com/en/bundle/embr-4-pack. And many people run multiple accounts at the site, as one can see, when they give away 5 copies of a game that is in a free promotion :\
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't that what the point is of reducing CV even further for 5 copies being given away? If not, then why even bother with that in the first place? If one person gives away more than 5 copies of a game, just set the game as 0 CV to avoid abuse.
One of the games from the bundle I mentioned is Gav-Gav Odyssey. I didn't look into the other ones since they were set to 0 CV after I gave them away, so maybe they were given for free, I don't know. But this one I couldn't find given for free. It has reduced value as of May 12, 2023. Recently, it was set to free as of Jan 26, 2022. This makes even less sense because you'd think they'd set it to free instead of reduced to begin with.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not the question of 5+ copies, as both of us know that a 4-pack is fewer, than 5 copies :)
You could get $15 reduced CV for $1. That is a 93% "discount" even after counting as bundled, and only getting 15% value. It happens rarely, but these "superbundled" games end up as 0CV, when even the reduced value is so high, that it could get bundled again.
I don't know about Gav-Gav Odyssey
edit: it would be definitely nice to keep a little database where there would be a reason for bundling / 0 CV - things like given away in big amounts at X, free at Fanatical, featured in X bundle... bundling more or less makes sense, but there are definite outliers where the reason is just mysterious.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, that I could understand, but it'd still be nice if they were at least open about it. This only makes me worried for every Fanatical bundle I've bought lmao since I can only afford the $0.50/game ones.
Comment has been collapsed.
I imagine that "abundance" plays into it, as well. To pick up your example with LEGO The Incredibles, the most recent bundle that contained it was this one in early December; since then, there've been six giveaways for the game (not counting private ones).
Compare that to Embr, which gives 0CV starting on November 26 - and starting from that day, within just one week 32 copies of the game were given away. (Again, not counting private GAs.)
The system often may seem arbitrary, and likely is to some extent, and I get that it's annoying. There's a bunch of different factors in play, which makes for an intransparent system.
Comment has been collapsed.
which makes for an intransparent system
Even just having a reason listed would solve this. At least then I'd know for the future "if I give games away from this bundle, I'll get 0 CV"
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, or how that would work. The people responsible for setting the reduced CV don't know about steep discounts any earlier than every other user on this site, and I don't see how they would anticipate how many GAs would be created after such a discount. Any reason they state would only be available after they already reduced the CV, at which point you already have that information.
Besides that, I believe the vagueness is to some extent deliberate, to prevent people from "gaming the system". I once made a thread where I proposed some clarification of rules in the FAQ, and while I didn't get a clear answer, that was more or less what I gathered.
Comment has been collapsed.
What I mean is that, where it's shown the dates for reduced/zero CV, a column for the reason it was set to that. For example, if they set my games to 0 CV because the bundle was too cheap, then I'd know for the future that any cheap bundle will likely be zeroed out. Right now the only thing I have to go on is "if the game exists, it may or may not be set to 0 CV because reasons."
I don't see how they would anticipate how many GAs would be created after such a discount
They'd still be able to list the reason as "too many GAs."
Any reason they state would only be available after they already reduced the CV, at which point you already have that information.
We don't have that information, though, as some of their reasons are kept secret.
Besides that, I believe the vagueness is to some extent deliberate, to prevent people from "gaming the system". I once made a thread where I proposed some clarification of rules in the FAQ, and while I didn't get a clear answer, that was more or less what I gathered.
Sorry, but I don't believe that justification for something like this. Even if people do "game the system," they could just...do what they have been doing and set games to 0 CV? I don't understand how someone could possibly use their reasoning for 0 CV games to exploit it. Those cases are already covered by games being set to 0 CV. Do they exploit the currently known reasons?
Comment has been collapsed.
| Right now the only thing I have to go on is "if the game exists, it may or may not be set to 0 CV because reasons."
Right now you have the information, at least now from me, that all till -90% are safe bets to give away and the only exclusion from this are when the games are gifted somewhere for free (and you don't seen it before you done the GA) or when people abuse/exploit the regional store prices very heavily to farm cv with multiple copy GAs (which would force the sg mods to adjust the gained cv to zero^^).
All higher discounts as -90% are "in risk to be set to reduced/free".
With this it is relative clear and easy to look at.
I hope it help you.
Comment has been collapsed.
all till -90% are safe bets to give away and the only exclusion from this are when the games are gifted somewhere for free
Gav-Gav Odyssey doesn't fall into this. Others from the same bundle don't, either :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Right now the only thing I have to go on is "if the game exists, it may or may not be set to 0 CV because reasons."
In that case, I would like to refer you to the FAQ, which state:
Games typically receive no value or reduced value when they're featured in bundles, heavily discounted, or available for free in online promotions.
They also mention that the CV reduction can be backdated, so if you want to make a giveaway for a game that was recently heavily discounted (which may or may not be the reason you bought it to give away in the first place), then the CV of the game being retroactively reduced because of said discount is a possibility you have to factor in.
I also still don't really understand how your proposed "solution" would solve anything. Say they implemented that: when you visit a game's SG page, and the game has reduced CV, there's a line of text telling you why that's the case. Putting aside the question of how much additional work this would be, and whether it would be worth it... now what? Should new users visit every single game's SG page until they run into one with reduced CV, and go, "Oh, this one was reduced because it was in a bundle! I suppose that is something that might happen to games! Oh, and this one was given away for free in the past! Now I know that this can reduce a games CV!" - how would that be more transparent?
If you didn't read the FAQ prior to engaging with the site, you're likely in good company, as many user's don't care to do so... Doesn't change the fact you have only yourself to blame. And if you would rather sift through the entire site, trying to piece together every bit of information you can find in an attempt to understand how the site works like you're playing the world's most inane adventure game, and claim that this is preferable over (and clearer than) visiting the subpage specifically designed to provide this information to you in one place, I suspect that you are insane.
I don't understand how someone could possibly use their reasoning for 0 CV games to exploit it.
I'm not too sure about this, either, and I might be wrong about it after all. I've seen things like this explained about other service's; something that comes to mind is how Humble Bundle may or may not shut down your account if you create gift links for keys you got there and send them to people in other countries, as HB can register where a gift link is opened.
How many gift links are too many? Does this only happen if each gift link is opened in a different region? That's what they are vague about, and the reasoning I once read (not from someone affiliated with HB, mind you) is that if they had a clear and transparent rule, say, not more than three gift links in foreign regions per year, then people who wish to abuse their service (by re-selling the keys they got for cheap on HB) know exactly how to stay under the radar: Exactly three gift links per year, and they can't catch you.
If it's more vague, however, you'd never know if and when they will get you for breaching their Terms and Conditions, which might discourage people from doing so in the first place.
How this could translate to the rules of this site, and reduced CV, I don't know. Personally, I'd prefer more clarity as well, as I don't really see what potential scammers could have to gain from knowing, for example, the rate at which you gain GA slots (which isn't that hard to find out, anyways).
Comment has been collapsed.
-98,75% are rounded up -99%.
And -99% get set to free.
This is a fact on sg.
I don't checked and calculated the rest too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Embr was free several times & Indiegala's big discounts ~95% means 0CV as well. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
But anyways, i'm shocked that you're here to collect levelup points and not to just give me your games!
Comment has been collapsed.
The only time I can see that Embr was free was when you could claim it on Steam itself.
i'm shocked that you're here to collect levelup points and not to just give me your games
When people get extremely nasty if you don't have a good ratio, it makes sense why someone would care about something like that :)
Comment has been collapsed.
No-no, at Steam developers gave keys to everyone who asked, also there was a giveaway on discord & maybe some more. Long before Nov 26, 2024.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then why wasn't it set to 0 CV long before that date if that's the reason for it...?
Comment has been collapsed.
Im rather new here so idk how things work but heres my guess;
While it was given away at some point, the giveaways didnt spike till that date. For example if it was given free on, lets say, summer 2024 but there was like one GA per week it wouldnt raise suspicion. But then on Nov suddenly you get "100 GAs every hour" like some free games do on fanatical.
Or maybe thats just how far the mod could set the 0cv timer - I believe there are different ranks of mods so maybe some have broader set of limits than others? Idk tho :)
Or just didnt know it was given away before that. Mods dont know everything going on in the world after all :P
Comment has been collapsed.
It also depends on how many keys were given away. If there were only a 100 for example, you'd see less than a handful of giveaways here and it would not be set to 0 CV.
I think the mods use a rough guideline of about 1000 free keys to set to 0 CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
| I think the mods use a rough guideline of about 1000 free keys to set to 0 CV.
There is nothing unclear/rough.
1k free keys = set to free on sg
If from one source in one go or if from ten sources each 100 keys don't make a difference.
Comment has been collapsed.
| Or maybe thats just how far the mod could set the 0cv timer - I believe there are different ranks of mods so maybe some have broader set of limits than others? Idk tho :)
Each mod that are able to set a game to REDUCED or FREE are able to set to each date. In this details they have then no different permissions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe because none reported it and the mods don't know about it ?
Or it was, assumed that they were aware of it, below 1k keys.
Comment has been collapsed.
My point was that if that was the reason, then they would know about it. It can't both be the reason and they have no idea about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they would know about the dev giving keys etc. it would still need to reach the 1k copies to reach the free limit that trigger mod action.
Of course they can then only assume or question the dev but in the most cases are sites involved that write the amount of keys or shops were you see how long they have keys and can better calculate how many copies that could be.
And because the date, right now, hit the date when it was very cheap available in the fanatical store, i strongly assume they don't know something about the earlier date of the dev giving copies away for free in a big amount.
Comment has been collapsed.
around 95% is the mark for reduced, not 0
0 is 98-99% or so.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, it can be annoying. But your only somewhat reasonable concern is about group ratios. But just like for your giveaway, your wins are just as much affected by potentially becoming 0CV. So it's a zero-sum game for ratio, generally speaking.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean even then, it still just doesn't feel good when it happens, and just having zero trust at all when the criteria is seemingly arbitrary with zero real explanation.
your wins are just as much affected by potentially becoming 0CV
The randomness doesn't really make it work out that way, though. Looking right now, none of the games I've won have been zeroed out after I won them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, there is a minor randomness for individual users. But in total it's exactly a zero influence on ratio.
And as you argued, CV isn't irrelevant. So abuse has to be a concern. Maybe the measures are too strict in some cases of games being declared 0 CV. But in the greater context, your concerns are way less relevant than CV abuse.
So unless you come up with a better idea, you indeed should consider adopting some of the advice you already quoted. ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
But in total it's exactly a zero influence on ratio.
Except...it isn't in a practical sense.
your concerns are way less relevant than CV abuse.
If that was true, then all bundled games would be set to 0 CV in order to very easily avoid abuse. Any game shows up in the gray market? Instant 0 CV solves that issue, too.
So unless you come up with a better idea, you indeed should consider adopting some of the advice you already quoted. ;)
Literally just being transparent about it would be great. I didn't expect this to be so controversial/hated.
Comment has been collapsed.
Except...it isn't in a practical sense.
Oh please. For each CV lost on the giveaway side there is the exact same amount of CV lost on the winning side.
If that was true, then all bundled games would be set to 0 CV in order to very easily avoid abuse. Any game shows up in the gray market? Instant 0 CV solves that issue, too.
Sure, if you want SG to die that would be a great suggestion. And you have some weird expectations about staff standing ready to check the grey markets for "instant" 0 CV status. So much entitlement because of such a minor nuisance.
Literally just being transparent about it would be great. I didn't expect this to be so controversial/hated.
It is transparent. And just because you and a handful of others randomly manage to be upset about it, doesn't make it "controversial/hated".
I rest my case with.
Comment has been collapsed.
For each CV lost on the giveaway side there is the exact same amount of CV lost on the winning side.
Practical meaning for actual users.
Sure, if you want SG to die that would be a great suggestion.
That was literally my point. It wasn't me making a suggestion. It was me pointing out that what you said wasn't true. Again, if they don't care about the people giving away games, then they would just zero out all of that CV to avoid abuse. The fact that they don't zero it out clearly means they care about people giving away games.
It is transparent.
Where? It only ever states when the reduced/no CV applies. It doesn't state why, or even when the change itself was made.
And just because you and a handful of others randomly manage to be upset about it, doesn't make it "controversial/hated".
I'm not saying I'm the one thinking it's controversial. I'm saying that even DARING to mention it at all gets people seriously upset. This community really likes to pretend it's kind and caring, but the second you question anything, all that "niceness" goes out the window. It's honestly pretty sad.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dude, you literally got nice and purely factual replies when you "dared" to raise that topic. Your own thread proves that your claims are wrong. Anyway, I see that it is pointless to debate with you.
Comment has been collapsed.
How does my own thread prove me wrong? Someone claimed it was given for free, yet I can't find any evidence of that. And you don't have to believe me, but look at any thread where someone questions CV. Even you yourself are giving sarcastic and passive-aggressive responses lol
"follow your own advice ;)"
Comment has been collapsed.
| Literally just being transparent about it would be great. I didn't expect this to be so controversial/hated.
Yes, it would be great to be fully transparent in all points, as example a list of the games that got reduced/free that is always available and let you see in a fast way, as example, the last XXX added ones, but the mods are vague in some points because some people exploit each loophole as much as possible and with a tiny bit of flexibility, in the boundaries (and they really have only a tiny bit flexibility) they can hit the worst abusers/exploiters in a few cases.
And of course, and understandable, they don't want to discuss each decission about setting a game to reduced/free.
I hope my informations in the different comments, sorry scroll short through the comments and you will see them, are helpful.
I am a normal user but made over 1k "add game" tickets, so i would say i know the rules relative exactly.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm talking about the reasons for them doing so.
but the mods are vague in some points because some people exploit each loophole as much as possible and with a tiny bit of flexibility
Not sure how people could exploit something that isn't in their control at all? "We set this game to 0 CV because of this bundle" isn't going to magically make it abusable. Loopholes don't really exist in this, either. A game is 0 CV or it isn't. Users can't just...find a loophole and change how much CV a game gets.
they don't want to discuss each decission about setting a game to reduced/free.
No one said they have to? If they have an actual reason for doing it, then it shouldn't be extra effort to simply state the reasoning. Not sure why discussion would be needed for this, unless the discussion is to come up with a reason after the fact.
Comment has been collapsed.
| Not sure how people could exploit something that isn't in their control at all? "We set this game to 0 CV because of this bundle" isn't going to magically make it abusable.
Correct.
But no place exist where the mods write this information.
People are able to exploit the knowledge -99% = free, in the way to give then stuff away that is availe for -98%.
So the mods have the possibility to hit the ones with -98% too if it gets abused/exploited with X copies (i don't know the number).
Maybe they are able to hit -97% too when X copies are gifted, i don't know this.
But i hope you get now better what the mods mean when they say/said "the details are secret because if they were publicly known then members would game the system".
| Not sure why discussion would be needed for this, unless the discussion is to come up with a reason after the fact.
Nearly each time a game gets set to reduced/free someone comes along and tell the mods "but i paid for my key $XX", i don't got it for free blablablabla.
In the most cases they don't care for the reason why a key get reduced/free.
To be honest, i wouldn't want to be a mod that have such "discussions" all the time.
And i assume this is the reason why, nearly, no mod is involved in threads like this one because they are targeted in some way from a part of the users.
Of course it would be helpful when the decissions why something is done would be revealed/stated in a 100% visible and transparent way but i think this will never happen on sg.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nearly each time a game gets set to reduced/free someone comes along and tell the mods "but i paid for my key $XX", i don't got it for free blablablabla.
That's a separate issue, though. Those people know why the game was set to 0 because it was for free. Whether they individually paid for it doesn't change that. I'm talking about when games get set to 0 for completely unknown reasons. And again, clearly them not giving their reasons doesn't actually stop this from happening. You say that mods avoid threads like this one, so I don't know why they couldn't continue to do that just because of transparency? Again, I never said they should be required to discuss it. Having a reason listed alongside the dates is not a discussion, it's information.
Comment has been collapsed.
They MAYBE know that it was available for free but still nearly each one and their grandmothers discuss then with the mods that they paid money for the games/keys and don't got it for free and so it is unfair, and shouldn't happen, that they get no cv for them.
All in this direction and it is then a endless circle when mods explain something because that people don't want to listen or understand the explanations, they only want their, from their point of view, earned cv.
| Having a reason listed alongside the dates is not a discussion, it's information.
It would be good when they would do this, with a big list of all games.
I would like it too.
But it would mean a) more work for the mods (and they are already always behind the tasks) and the much more important b) cg would need to program this (and cg program nearly nothing that have nothing to do with earning more money).
So sadly, i don't see that it ever will happen on sg.
Comment has been collapsed.
What is the ACTUAL criteria for a game getting set to 0CV?
Games I give away are just retroactively set to free despite never being given away for free. It's not a good feeling to give away stuff to be then told "hey, actually, go fuck yourself." If it was actually based on games being free, I wouldn't mind, but it's just completely arbitrary with no transparency. I didn't get these games for free - no one got them for free, because they weren't given away for free.
I have to agree. There's obviously a lot of judgement involved. It naturally raises questions when certain games are set to 0 CV but then there are so many same or similar examples where they are not. And then certain members seem to make it a personal and even emotional issue to create lists and create tickets for games that THEY think should be set to zero. I began to suspect that politics is involved. If CV doesn't matter, then why do so many get personally invested in it?
A while back in the forums I asked for clarity for how this was determined. I was told that the actual details are secret because if they were publicly known then members would game the system.
IMO, it's not good. The markets don't like uncertainty and will tend to assume the worst when it exists.
And for trying to be helpful, I'll get a few blacklists.
The best advice that I can give is to just not care. Eventually most games go to zero, even AAA ones. As a result it becomes more an issue of when. Check the CV before you create a giveaway, and giveaway what makes sense for you. Don't worry about tomorrow. Hope that this helps.
Comment has been collapsed.
If CV doesn't matter, then why do so many get personally invested in it?
I always find it funny when the people that insist you're bad for caring about CV also have GAs that are locked behind a specific level lol
I was told that the actual details are secret because if they were publicly known then members would game the system.
Yeah, those people don't know what they're talking about. You can't "game" something like that.
Check the CV before you create a giveaway
I do, and it's at reduced. Only after I've given it away is it magically suddenly 0 CV because reasons. And as much as I'd love to not care, I'm a human, not a robot, and I have basic human emotions, which is frowned upon in this community, apparently, and really in society in general.
Comment has been collapsed.
| I was told that the actual details are secret because if they were publicly known then members would game the system.
| Yeah, those people don't know what they're talking about. You can't "game" something like that.
As far as i remember were it a sg mod that told boloxer this.
So it was someone that "known what (s)he talked about".
And i can guarantee you that people exploit/game the system when they know all in detail. I seen it very clearly in the 1k+ add game tickets that i made. You see over and over and over the same user names that give 5 - 15 copies away from games that are, mostly, listed as full value + with a high(er) steam price and that they buy for a few cents.
I would prefer that they suspend the 50 - max. 100 users that try to exploit the system, nearly, each day instead to handle each game one by one.
It would reduce the exploiting by the big majority, and it would reduce their work too.
Comment has been collapsed.
I never said that people don't abuse it. But if their reasons for setting games to 0 CV are actual reasons, someone can't magically exploit that unless they're the ones giving the games away/putting the game in bundles. If a developer decides to give their game away, a random SG user can't magically change that no matter how much they know.
And i can guarantee you that people exploit/game the system when they know all in detail. I seen it very clearly in the 1k+ add game tickets that i made. You see over and over and over the same user names that give 5 - 15 copies away from games that are, mostly, listed as full value + with a high(er) steam price and that they buy for a few cents.
Yes, and those are dealt with, and the reasons for those games being set to 0 CV are transparent and explicit. So, you're giving an example of a rule we know doing its job despite people knowing about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
| So, you're giving an example of a rule we know doing its job despite people knowing about it.
Sorry but this part is, mostly, wrong.
The most people don't know that this games are sold for a few cents in some stores.
So the "common/normal" sg user that don't exploit something bought a game, as example, in the fanatical store and do a GA for it.
Later this game get set to 0 cv, without that the user know why.
Best example you with different games.
And the reason are in the most cases a cheap offer in a, mostly shady, store.
But only a small amount of users know about the offer.
Comment has been collapsed.
That individual person might not know about it, but that doesn't mean the reason it's set to 0 CV is secret. Maybe it's a language thing, but I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. People knowing why a game was set to 0 CV doesn't change anything about whether or not they can abuse that game's CV. If it's set to 0, it's set to 0.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as i remember were it a sg mod that told boloxer this. So it was someone that "known what (s)he talked about".
I disagree. You're logic is flawed. With due respect to moderators, while they would know more about certain things relating to SG, this does not make them knowledgeable on all things. We've seen nothing to support this. In fact, I'm not even clear what 'gaming the system' might entail. It might even include your own efforts to gain levels.
When we don't know, we don't know.
You seem to believe that you are some form of Guardian of SG who can judge what is proper use and what isn't, and then protect us from it. You're not. You're views of what is gaming/abusive are just that, your views. And they are as likely driven by your own selfish motives as anyone else's would be. The value that you see in spending what appears to be hours to attempt to Hall Monitor this by creating lists and tickets, remains a mystery to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Remember those Hall monitors in school that nobody liked?
I understand and support your POV on this, but this has all been said and done and the likelihood of change is low. My suggestion that you not stress about it and adjust your thinking accordingly, still stands. If this means that you decide to give away less games, so be it. It's your prerogative.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's probably not the best idea to set games to zero retroactively. Or at least, there should probably be a limit to how far back they go. Most bundles and giveaways don't last more than thirty days, and thirty days is a reasonable amount of time for whichever mods handle this to set a new cv for a bundled game or game handed out for free. So thirty days would be an ideal limit.
Comment has been collapsed.
Mostly only one sg mod handle the add game tickets.
Good luck that this person is around 24/7, never ill, never in vacation, always have time to handle each game that appear etc. :-D
I can't check how many look into sites and shops to reduce/set to free.
But i don't expect masses there too^^
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Because it takes 24 hours a day to see and make cv adjustments here for the couple freebies that come up each month and the five or ten bundles that release, lol. Which somebody also always posts about here, providing easy access links and such.
Comment has been collapsed.
Couple of freebies each month?
Ohm, there are much more.
It give 348762378 freebie sites, gleam, sites you do tasks and get then trash games that are full value till someone report them, twitch streamers and their shops were you get games for free after letting their stream play/run (nearly none watch them really) etc..
Much much much more as a low number each month.
It's a daily work and i would assume 1h/day needed. Partly because they have not the perfect tools for the adding. I don't go more into details. If the mods are allowed and want, they can do this by their own.
I wouldn't do the, assumed, 30h/month work for all of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Good thing somebody has accepted that responsibility, eh? I'm sure no mod requested to be a mod simply for the title. :)
And we're also not going to accuse SG members of not being diligent in making sure members know about every giveaway and are able to claim every free game available.
But no, one hour a day is not realistic. Probably five minutes a day. But yes, thirty days is more than enough time to see and address bundling and freebies. Actually, I'd say thirty days is generous. It really shouldn't take that long.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not even five minutes a day, as new bundles aren't released daily. More likely could be done 5-10 minutes once a week. Though I remember a thread a while back where people were fuming and insisting that cg couldn't possibly make a rule more clear, as it would be far too much work for him to add a handful of words.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also the fact that SG literally advertises Fanatical. You'd think they'd know about the existence of Fanatical bundles...
Comment has been collapsed.
It does seem to be implied by the advertising and the referral links on each bundle thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
At its core, this is a low-stakes gambling site that's proven over the years to be very social and built up a committed community of users. If someone is here to "win," that person is deluding themself. The only way to come out ahead, especially if you don't enjoy the whole raffle/giving vibe of it all, is to enter everything your points will allow, practically live on steamgifts, and just revel in the buzz of seeing Spacecat and adding a +1 to your Steam collection, even when the game is garbage.
I've never given a thought to CV, only given away bundled games and the occasional decent or AAA game when I really enjoyed the game and wanted to share it.
There's one exception to that. I would think about CV every time Icaio would plaster a giant 0CV on his giveaways, and always wanted to ask him why the CV would matter to people entering a giveaway, but I never got around to it.
Then he died.
After that, my unasked question feels petty and stupid, and I'm glad I never posed it to him.
If you start feeling bitter about steamgifts, go play some games for awhile and come back later.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not here to "win," nor did I ever say that. I give away games I end up with that I know I won't play/enjoy, in hopes that maybe it'll go to someone who will enjoy it.
I've never given a thought to CV
All of your recent GAs are level 3+
If you start feeling bitter about steamgifts
Maybe I'm crazy, but I feel like normal human emotions in response to a lack of transparency is fairly reasonable. I don't get the toxic positivity "caring about anything at all is bad and wrong and you should feel bad for caring" mindset.
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is, there's an issue with level 0.. The "person" could be just a bot or someone who entered site 1 time and will never be online again... So level 3 is just that we know that person is somewhat dedicated to be online or understand how to claim a game etc.. Don't want headaches, at least that's my thoughts about it..
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, my point is that they're being hypocritical. They're claiming they don't care or think about CV, but if that was true, they wouldn't use level restrictions. The fact that they use level restrictions means they clearly do care about how much CV people have, but they're simultaneously against those people also caring how much CV they have. I use level restrictions, too. I just don't also pretend that I don't care about it.
As much as people love to deny it, CV does play a factor on this website. It determines how many giveaways you can enter, which giveaways you can enter, which groups you can join, which puzzles/events you can participate in, how people treat you, whether you end up on whitelists/blacklists, etc. If the whole CV system was removed tomorrow, a lot of people - the very same people getting angry at people who care about CV - would be very upset. Hell, we even have celebration posts by well-known members for increasing in levels. No one gets mad at that, though, because they aren't voicing dissent. You're allowed to care about CV, but only if you're positive about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean if there was an option to put minimum of giveaways created, it could be used more than let's say level 3 maybe.. All depends on the feel what could be a bot and who couldn't etc..
"they wouldn't use level restrictions", I just pointed out why you would use level restrictions instead of level 0... Smaller chance of headaches from winners..
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, and I stated that I'm aware why people would use them. I use them myself. Again, my point was that they're being hypocritical by claiming to not care, and judging me for caring. Regardless of their reasons for caring about it, they do care about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
These are fair criticisms. Let me clarify.
I've never given a thought to earning CV, because it's something that just happens over time if you give things away.
My giveaways are lvl 3+ because I hate getting bot-bombed with automated thanks and the damned bots keep leveling up.
Lastly, don't feel bad about caring. Just stop, breathe, put it in its proper perspective, and you might feel better than you do while prolonging the bad feeling by engaging with all the "toxic" replies.
And because I relish the irony of continuing past "lastly," let it be known that no one has ever before accused me of being positive, so you've indisputably come first in something.
Comment has been collapsed.
| And because I relish the irony of continuing past "lastly," let it be known that no one has ever before accused me of being positive, so you've indisputably come first in something.
Damn accusation(s) :-D -lol-
Comment has been collapsed.
I've never given a thought to earning CV, because it's something that just happens over time if you give things away.
The issue is that you're judging those same users for caring about their CV while you are also caring about their CV. You seem decent/smart, so I hope you understand what I'm trying to say.
Lastly, don't feel bad about caring.
It's hard to feel bad about caring when that's the general response on this website. People tend to have this weird superiority complex about how much they don't care about CV. To be clear, this isn't talking about you, just the general behavior I've seen in any post mentioning CV.
Just stop, breathe, put it in its proper perspective, and you might feel better than you do while prolonging the bad feeling by engaging with all the "toxic" replies.
You're assuming I'm far more upset than I actually am. At worst, I feel discouraged and annoyed, and that people are being unfair. I don't think I'm being unreasonable for feeling this way.
And because I relish the irony of continuing past "lastly," let it be known that no one has ever before accused me of being positive, so you've indisputably come first in something.
Your comment felt similar to those that are toxically positive. Sorry for misjudging you.
Comment has been collapsed.
What is the ACTUAL criteria for a game getting set to 0CV?
It's at the whim of whoever is doing the bundle/free games CV, no one really know how it works, to me it often looks like they are just winging it and hope no one notice when they get it wrong.
I have a ~2½ years old open ticket about a game which was added to the "Reduced Value" list way before it was ever in a bundle so I also really wish there was some transparency on what is going on behind the scenes.
I also have ~113 GAs that were added to the "No Value" list sometime after I created them.
tldr ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Comment has been collapsed.
You can scroll through my comments in this thread.
They explain, nearly, all.
I think "it's the best info" you can get about it.
And i collected them in ~5 years+ of experience with the add game tickets.
tldr: The sg mods must hold in 99,9% of the cases on very strict rules and have not much "interpretation possibility".
| wish there was some transparency on what is going on behind the scene
Yes, this would be great and i would like it too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Outside of group ratios there's not much to CV besides increasing your level. As you're level 4 already you'll notice there aren't many giveaways exclusive for higher levels to join. Sometimes I even look for games which are burnt (give 0 CV) because giveaways for them are rare because many members are fixated on gaining CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly, it really isn't as much about the CV as it is the bad taste it leaves in my mouth. Obviously, I care about ratio, since that's pretty important on this website, but with levels, I just figure I'll get there when I get there. I came across a lv5+ train, and went to check sgtools, curious to how close/far I was, just to see that more games were retroactively zeroed out.
Sometimes I even look for games which are burnt (give 0 CV) because giveaways for them are rare because many members are fixated on gaining CV
I don't mind giving 0 CV games away. It's when the rug's pulled out from under me that it just feels bad. Along with that, the lack of transparency just makes me lose trust in the system. If it's as arbitrary as it seems, then nothing's really stopping them from setting games to 0 CV for no real reason.
Comment has been collapsed.
Allow me a little sarcasm at your cost: according to your profile you're from U.S. so better get used to lacking transparency and absence of reliable guide lines. Joke aside I understand what you mean as I'm frustrated sometimes as well and feel not appreciated by the system. Then again I'm thinking people like you and me attach way to much importance to SG and should see the whole affair in a more playful way.
That said I'm off for now touching some grass.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand what you mean as I'm frustrated sometimes as well and feel not appreciated by the system. Then again I'm thinking people like you and me attach way to much importance to SG and should see the whole affair in a more playful way.
I agree. We are talking about games after all. LOL
Comment has been collapsed.
I can understand your desire for transparency, myself would be curious to know the precise rules that make some bundles reduced value and some not (just out of curiosity, i can understand that you can be genuinely curious). But as says hbarkas anyway once you reach a certain level, it doesn't change much after that.
And the more you gift the less you'll notice anyway that a game has been zeroed and reduced value, except obviously the users who gift 5x the same game and then repeat, then i can imagine that they notice it maybe when it's zeroes or reduced. Or not, once they reach a certain number even them won't notice.
Comment has been collapsed.
Each game that reach -95%, which the most bundles hit, are set to reduced cv.
You can scroll through my comments in this thread.
They explain, nearly, all rules for reduced/free.
I think "it's the best info" you can get about it.
And i collected them in ~5 years+ of experience with the add game tickets.
tldr: The sg mods must hold in 99,9% of the cases on very strict rules and have not much "interpretation possibility".
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah thanks for your crystal clear explanation !
I had difficulty to understand the difference in treatment between a humble bundle, a platinum bundle, build your own bundle, prestige bundle, etc. and so understand that in fact it's not related.
Comment has been collapsed.
| in fact it's not related
Yes.
The most platinum and build your bundles don't reach -95%.
If i remember correct they are mostly "only" between -85% and -92%.
Comment has been collapsed.
speaking of BYOB's... I feel they really should change how they handled reduced CV regarding them, some games in a BYOB I fully understand...
going to use this one for example
the pricy VN's are properly set to reduced with no debate... but because of those VN's the cheaper games(like spidersaurs, the last friend and my summer adventure) which are sub 90% discount if you picked them also got hit to reduced.
there any multiple BYOB's like this at various price points, IMO they should be handled where the best possible CV from it is not exceeding the threshold and cheaper games can stay full... whether we like it or not CV encourages some people to make giveaways and every single * added to a game reduced the likelyhood they will want to gift it based off the price they paid.
as it stands the only thing that matters is best possible % discount thresholds when exceeded the entire bundle gets hit(for tiered bundles this makes sense for everything, not so much for BYOB)
Comment has been collapsed.
For me, it's more about ratio than levels. I don't have the level of expendable money that I won't notice games being zeroed, especially if they're going after bundled games :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah yes groups ratio, i don't gift in groups so i forgot that but that's a good point, well i guess then you'll have to win less to balance ?
Also i understand then that it's disappointing what happened to you, but don't worry too much as i don't think that it'll happen to most games you gifted.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not even just groups, but it also just affects blacklists/how people treat you. And sadly, I can't unwin games like I can unwin CV lmao
Comment has been collapsed.
Nobody will blacklist you for a 86/39 ratio ! People who blacklist for this reason just check numbers of GA anyway, not value. Imagine the time it would take to check value for every user.
You're on the right side of the fence now why worry about it in advance ?
Comment has been collapsed.
You write as all of your gifted games got set to zero cv but in the end 10 out of 83 GAs from you are, right now, set to free.
So the "problem", if their is any, are much lower as you descripe it/let it sound.
The mods have in all cases a reason to set games to the free list. They don't make themself work without info backing it up in some way.
Of course it would be better to see such stuff before you create a GA but with the amount of games that are gifted each day, it is impossible for the mods to know in all cases that a game were available in a bundle, for free on a site/discord/stream/shop etc..
So, of course, the most stuff get retroactively reduced or zeroed.
I understand the frustration, about this, very well because i lost my level 7, 3 times, and had bought all the gifted games (More exactly "all games that weren't marked as free before i done a GA").
I tried to see it as "it harm the cheaters and exploiters, that give multiple copies of such games, much more as me with my one copy of a game that i gave away". This helped a bit.
-99% are set to free.
I seen in the first comment a chat about Embr that was available for -98,75%, which is rounded up -99%. So for this is clear why it was set to free.
-98% could be set to free.
And the chance that something is done is much higher when a lot of people exploit it, as when only 2 GAs got created for a game.
I think that should be obvious but i still list it because maybe not each one think about/of this.
Comment has been collapsed.
You write as all of your gifted games got set to zero cv
I didn't, though. And just because it isn't all of my giveaways doesn't mean that secret/arbitrary rules and a lack of transparency isn't a problem.
it is impossible for the mods to know in all cases
They should at least be able to for the websites they advertise on here, which are large enough to get their own individual discussion posts for each bundle they sell. On top of this, it has been done to games that weren't given away.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nov 26 is the exact date, Fanatical started to sell Embr as a 4-pack for $1, so $0.25 each for a $19.99 ($1.50 reduced CV) game, which translates to a 98.75% discount and thus a reduction to 0CV. If you know other games that had the same kind of discount but aren't reduced to 0 CV yet, report them to support instead of trying to use them as justification, why this shouldn't have been reduced.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't report those games because I didn't know that bundled games were also meant to be set to 0 CV, so it feels like it would just be a false report. It also makes reduced CV feel pointless if that's the case.
Comment has been collapsed.
Most bundled games don't get set to 0 CV, because in the bundle average they are not discounted by >98%. If the overall bundle discount is <90%, they don't even get set to reduced CV.
Even non-bundled games get set to 0 CV, if they are being sold in larger quantities for >98% off or at least to reduced CV if at >92% off IIRC. This includes grey market keyshops.
But of course mods don't check every game for discounts regularly. Bundles usually get checked without reports, more or less everything else is dependant on user reports. That's why it often happens retroactively.
(Don't quote me on the exact numbers, they might be off by a percent or two. We don't have an official list after all.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Even non-bundled games get set to 0 CV, if they are being sold in larger quantities for >98% off or at least to reduced CV if at >92% off IIRC. This includes grey market keyshops.
regional pricing to... if a game exceeds that 98-99% discount when converting another currency to USD a game will get hit to 0CV.
Comment has been collapsed.
| to reduced CV if at >92% off
-95% is needed that this happen
| Bundles usually get checked without reports
You wish.
A part aren't checked without reports.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ball Fall got reduced to 0CV because as I got told it was obvious I could produce as many (a lot in to 1000's) of keys for the game and maybe even get to full level 10 by do so - it was/is my sons game - so maybe that might be a reason why some get nothing
Comment has been collapsed.
that isn't a good reason to set it to 0cv, the decay of CV for extra copies is there exactly for this reason.
from the FAQ
After you give away a game 5 times (whether in the same giveaway, or in multiple giveaways), it will begin decreasing in value. The value is decreased by 10% for each additional copy. This means if you decide to give away 8 copies of a $10 game, it would add $74.39 (10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 9 + 8.10 + 7.29) to your contributor value. This has little effect on the majority of users, but prevents individuals from receiving a high contributor value from gifting a large number of promotional gifts, games obtained through pricing errors, or keys from contacting game developers.
at 44 copies a game would be worth < 1% CV with this decay in effect and only shrinks even further as more are made.
even if it was a $100 game.... would likely take tens of thousands of copies to get to level 10 with just it.... let alone a $1 game...
you would likely need into the millions of keys to get to level 10 with a single $1 game.
Comment has been collapsed.
Games I give away are just retroactively set to free despite never being given away for free. It's not a good feeling to give away stuff to be then told "hey, actually, go fuck yourself." If it was actually based on games being free, I wouldn't mind, but it's just completely arbitrary with no transparency. I didn't get these games for free - no one got them for free, because they weren't given away for free.
"But CV is meaningless and pointless!"
It isn't meaningless when giveaways and many groups are based on level/ratio. The website itself gives it a meaning.
"You should just give things to give things!"
I do it for both reasons. Not getting CV wouldn't even be an issue if it was actually communicated. Instead, I get CV just for a few days later to have it taken away for no real reason. It's not a good feeling to know that every single game I've given away could be zeroed out tomorrow for absolutely no reason whatsoever, and that every key I still have will likely receive the same treatment.
"Well it's because Hitsquad so-and-so!"
Nope. I'm in their server. I get the pings when they give stuff away for free.
It's just all very discouraging and feels like I'm being told that the games I spend money on somehow aren't good enough. Of course, I'm only told this AFTER I give them away. And again, there is absolutely zero transparency about the whole thing.
Comment has been collapsed.