Indie Game StandEdit
A new indie PayWhatYouWant platform
I just found out about Indie Game Stand, it launched the 26th September. Basically, every 4 days you can pick a DRM-free indie game for $0.25 (minimum fee) or more.
Beating the average gives you bonus content/games, while paying a set price (like $10) will turn your purchase into a bundle of the currently sold game + the 1/2/3 previous games.
Probably no point in trying to keep updating its currently active offer (4 days being too short, unless the wiki recruits more editors), but I think that adding it in the list of other platforms would be okay, so people can find out about it :)
- since this is only one game at a time (as far as i can tell), it doesn't qualify as a bundle, but it might be worthwhile to link to it from the bottom of the front page or something.
- misterhaan (talk) 17:58, October 26, 2012 (UTC)
I've added a stub for this since they have offered a couple "real" bundles. We can see what interest is like, and if anyone wants to keep it up to date. (Redlenses (talk) 04:54, October 30, 2013 (UTC))
Currently too Steam-centric Edit
The separating of bundles into "Steam Focused" and "Non-Steam" is not only strange, but inaccurate. You have the $5 for 5 Bundle in the Steam focused list. Seriously? Delve Deeper was the only game you could redeem on Steam. You could redeem all of the games on Desura and download all of them DRM-free. Surely that makes it DRM-free (or Desura) focused?
I also find the definition of the Humble Bundles as Steam focused questionable. If anything they are (or were until recently, thanks THQ) DRM-free focused. Yes, they included Steam keys (from the second bundle onwards), but not all of the games are always on Steam and it's certainly not the focus of the bundle.
IndieGala = Steam focused
Humble Indie Bundle = DRM-free focused
IndieRoyale = Desura focused
184.108.40.206 06:27, December 9, 2012 (UTC)
Steam-focussed is a bit of a misnomer, what is really trying to be communicated is whether the bundles include Steam games or not.
I've updated the Bundles menu to "Inlcudes Steam" vs "Non-Steam"
So, the main feature of one of the threads I visit (http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2981458) is the direct links to all the games if they're on Steam or Greenlight.
This wiki doesn't quite have that.
The only place there's a direct link to the game is on the game page itself, if it even exists. This means we have to click each individual game and then click a link that brings us to the store page for it, provided the game even has any details.
Otherwise, we have to search for it manually, which voids the point of an easy one click list.
I strongly recommend changing over the system so the icons of the distribution sites bring you directly to the page of the game, preventing the need to do manual digging and giving everyone an easy one-click browsing experience.
Charlie's Games Mega Pack Edit
I noticed that Charlie's Games Mega Pack has been on the front page for a while. So I clicked through and... it seems to be basically a permanent fixture rather than a time-limited bundle. It's been running for many months already and it's not ending any time soon. That's OK by me, it is an indie bundle, but I guess what I'm wondering is what is the actual qualification for being included on the front page?
There are packs of games regularly sold on store interfaces (Steam, GreenManGaming, GamersGate, Amazon, etc) that seem like they'd meet the requirements. Like, Amazon has 50% off the Joe Danger + Joe Danger 2 bundled pack right now. Is this an Indie Bundle? It's time limited. The games are independently developed. It's got multiple games.
What are the actual rules for stuff appearing? There's no requirement for games to be DRM-free, there's no requirement for bundles to be PWYW, there's no requirement for a charity listing, there's no requirement for them to being time limited, given some of the publisher-centered bundles there's no real requirement for them to be independent. There are one-offs listed so it's not like it needs to be an ongoing thing.
My instinct would be that the bundles being limited-time is a kind of crucial component, but that would remove Charlie's Games Mega Pack.
220.127.116.11 18:45, October 18, 2013 (UTC)
I'll try to give my best answers to your questions. These are my opinions, I didn't start the wiki and while I help out administrating it, I don't set policy.
The current bundles are just that - what's available right now. You are absolutely right about Charlie's Games and the Bagfull Of Wrong do not have an end date (so far). If enough "on going" bundles happen, perhaps we will put them on another page and just have a link to them on the front page.
I think where we currently draw the line on the bundles we track is that they are offered by providers that are primarily focused on indie bundles and/or that they are offered on a periodic basis. Big retailers (Steam, Amazon, etc) don't really fit that definition - yes they are "bundling" indie games, but they also sell those games all the time, so it's more like they are on sale (they also usually don't have PWYW, bonuses, etc). This is the same approach that many other sites take such as SteamGifts, IGB, etc. A practical part of this demarcation is that it is a struggle to keep the wiki up to date with the current set of providers that we track.
There aren't really any rules that are set in stone, what we track has evolved from what people are willing to put the time in to contribute as well as what people really find useful. So far those two things have resulted in what I described above.
Found some more bundles that are offered indefinitely. Decided to create a seperate page for bundles with no time limit that can hold bundles like Charlies's Games after they've been on the front page for a month or two.
Is that spam or did you guys move? I'm confused since both pages look similar.
- Some of the members left to form a new wiki. In doing so, they have illegally stolen material from this wiki, in violation of mine and everyone else's copyrights. The new wiki has a foul license and is run by people who have been banned from Wikia. I suggest you not visit the other site, and certainly do not contribute anything to it unless you want your contributions stolen and used for bad purposes. Also, in leaving, the members that left spent a lot of time destroying this wiki using automated bots in an attempt to make this wiki permanently broken. I would never work with people that are so spiteful. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:45, January 1, 2014 (UTC)
- Rkev - yes the admins decided to move to a new host. The majority of the contributors to this wiki (more than 90% of the content) decided to move the wiki off of wikia in response to complaints about wikia's pervasive advertisements. As all content is covered under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License 3.0, the general public can re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely for any purpose. Certainly the people who actually wrote the content can decide to take it with them to a new host. I believe the intent of the bot was to point people, who are looking for accurate information, to the new host which will be maintained, unlike this dying site. As far as Odie's comments, he just joined this site, doesn't feel the need to follow the conventions used for content including using templates, and is now outraged at being stolen from, draw your own conclusions. My only interest here is in having a source of good, maintained, up to date info - if the wikia site isn't going to be the home of that, I'd want to know where to get the info. As a contributor, I'd also like to know where to put my efforts and not waste time duplicating that effort. (Redlenses (talk) 02:54, January 2, 2014 (UTC))
- Just wanting to point out that what you said above is not exactly true.
- You can license your own content in any way. However, the CC-BY-SA license here is irrevocable and so will also apply to any content taken from Wikia. Any content that is not yours, including derivative content, cannot be re-licensed in this way. The copyright holder of that content (the person who wrote it) may protest at its reuse outside of the original license. The new wiki says the license is "MyWikis License", you may wish to get an expert to read that license and check it's validity (you may also want to read it very carefully yourself).
- In short, no, it cannot be re-distributed and re-used freely. The license must remain in tact. You can read more about the CC-BY-SA license here and here (namely under restrictions). Rappy 16:58, January 3, 2014 (UTC)
- MyWikis has decided to introduce a new deviation of the MyWikis License, called the MyWikis License (Migrated). This means that any content from Wikia is bound to the CC-BY-SA, but any pages created after December 23, 2013 will be under the MyWikis License. I believe this is fair and legal. This way, the new contributors are not "stealing", and Odie's content is safe. --RAMdom (talk) 05:16, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
- The owners seem to have put a lot of thought now into respecting the existing license and integrating it with the new one. As contributors help to create the content, it seems fair that their contributions should be respected. I am glad to hear this change. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:19, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
New Layout for Current Bundles Edit
I was thinking of a different layout for the current bundles on the main page. User:Odie5533/mainpage1 is one mockup I came up with. If anyone has any other ideas I could try to mock them up as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:07, January 5, 2014 (UTC)
- I like the idea of the end dates - for the template you may want to use the ifexpr function instead of ifeq and expr, expr (that's what I'm using on the other wiki). If you are going to change the layout, I think the first one looks cleaner. PS: The preloads now work on here, kinda nice for adding templates to pages. You could add one for the Current Bundle template if you want to avoid cut and paste errors (just create Template:Current_Bundle/preload and add Current Bundle to Template:Stdpreloads).