|
[Original Post]
When we decided to port our critically-acclaimed and award-winning title, Mutant Mudds, over to the PC I looked at the library of games available on Steam to get an idea of pricing and genres available. Based on the games that are available on Steam I expected that Mutant Mudds would not have a problem getting on Steam. Not because I think Mutant Mudds is oh-so deservedly so, but because the library of games available on Steam ranges greatly in genre and quality. It does not give the impression of any strict guidelines.
My development experience with Renegade Kid has primarily been with Nintendo platforms. When we submit a game to Nintendo they test the game to ensure it does not crash or have any major bugs that impede gameplay. If the game contains any issues in this regard Nintendo sends us a report that explains why the game was failed. We fix it and resubmit. Nintendo works with developers where needed to isolate issues and correct them.
Valve is a successful company that is reportedly in good financial shape. With this in mind I assumed they would have a robust team in place that provided a similar submission service as Nintendo. I was lucky enough to be introduced to a Steam team member via email thanks to a friend. The Steam team member sent me a friendly email with a link to the submission form and said they look forward to checking out a playable build of Mutant Mudds.
I filled out the form and uploaded a playable PC build of Mutant Mudds with the hope of opening up a dialog about the game to see what features they would like to see supported on Steam, such as achievements, etc. I received an email from Steam about 10 days after submitting:
Thank you for submitting "Mutant Mudds" for potential Steam distribution. We have taken a look at the information provided and determined that Steam is not a good fit for distribution. It is our company policy not to provide specific feedback on a submission but we would like you to consider Steam distribution for your future products.
I was shocked. Like most developers, I never truly know whether one of my games is good or not, but due to the high review scores and fan reaction we received for Mutant Mudds on the 3DS I assumed the game was at least above average and at least on-par with the quality and genre of games currently found on Steam. Steam’s rejection of Mutant Mudds made no sense to me. And, to boot, their policy is not to provide feedback. That’s helpful.
Soon after this, news of Steam Greenlight was heating up and offered potential for Mutant Mudds on Steam – and possibly offered an explanation for Mutant Mudds’ rejection. Did the Steam team want to include it as a relatively ‘well-known’ title in their new Greenlight system? Maybe. Many folks tweeted me saying as much, and I wanted to believe them. I felt fortunate that the Steam team wanted to include Mutant Mudds with the launch of Steam Greenlight. That was awesome.
And then, it quickly seemed as though the games that were being received well on Greenlight were either first-person games, contained zombies, and/or were supported by a built-in PC community or a unique publicity angle. Mutant Mudds could not find its audience. Greenlight is, after all, a popularity contest. Some seem put-out by calling it this. There is nothing wrong with it being a popularity contest. Isn’t that the point of asking a community of thousands to vote? It is what it is. But, now do I need to launch a dedicated PR campaign to get my game(s) noticed and accepted on Steam? I respect and commend those teams that have had their games greenlit. Nicely done, ladies and gents!
Mutant Mudds sits at #82 on the Greenlight list right now. It has hovered around there for some time now. It was at around #40 or so at one point. About 30,000 folks have voted either yes or no for Mutant Mudds to be included on Steam, with a 54% / 46% split in favor of yes. Yep, those numbers pretty much sum up what the Greenlight community thinks of Mutant Mudds: polarized. At this rate I can’t see how Mudds will ever be deemed suitable for a Steam release.
It is puzzling though. How can a game that has been accepted with open arms on one platform be shut out on another? It is truly a fascinating case study. The 3DS audience is more-than-likely very different than the Steam audience, which is one factor for sure. I suppose Steam’s original rejection of Mutant Mudds is somewhat justified now that the community itself has also not accepted the game. Perhaps this means that a game like Mutant Mudds is not suitable for Steam. But, hang on... there are games like VVVVV, Offspring Fling!, Capsized, Beep, Braid, Serious Sam Double D, Super Meat Boy, and even Commander Keen available on Steam right now.
How is Mutant Mudds not a good fit for distribution? I wish I knew. I briefly chatted with a Valve employee at PAX East, who asked for feedback on the Greenlight process. I was not expecting to be chatting about Greenlight at that moment, so I had nothing to offer. Perhaps I should have told them that it is my “policy not to provide specific feedback”, but that would have been rude, right?
***
Please cast your vote for Mutant Mudds on Steam Greenlight here.
Only you can make it happen.
Thanks so much.
|
There's quite a few now, but all I use is Steam and Desura/ModDB.
Apparently, all of those outlets - combined - represent only a fraction of the active audience on Steam today.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/186940/
GOG was orders of magnitudes better, but still dwarfed by Steam, like everything else.
Mutant Mudds is a pretty sweet game, I really hope it makes it through. Greenlight seems like a broken system.
Surely with iOS and Android success it's obvious at this point that the age of creative game concept approvals is over?
Also I think a lot of people misinterpret the voting percentages. "No thanks" for most people doesn't mean "I actively dislike this" or "this is bad and should not be on Steam"... instead I believe most - and the wording encourages this - use it as "This is not for me". So someone who isn't into platformers might vote no on your game even if they think it looks solid and deserves to get Greenlit, because the button asks specifically "Would YOU buy this?" not "Do you think other people would buy this?"
Apparently, the NO votes do not count against a games' standing on Greenlight.
I was also bothered by this, there is no way to really "abstain" or to say "yea its ok, maybe I would buy this depending on the price".
WHY could not rather Steam check my steam account and see that I have bought lots of strategy and sim games and a few indy games - and only present me with games in those categories?
Then the Greenlight process would automatically ensure each game was judged by its RELEVANT AUDIENCE - people who would know and who would care how a game really compared to the competition...?
Automatic queue filtering based on your Steam library could be interesting.
- The "Yes" votes gauge how much interest there is in purchasing the product and how actively purchased the product will be.
- The "No" vote is, more than likely, a tool to instead gauge the target audience of the game in order to predict the major target audience of the game more accurately rather than solely basing it around genre.
Quoting Jools, "Apparently, the NO votes do not count against a games' standing on Greenlight." I think reinforces the concerns when matched with reasoning as to why it exists rather than leaving people saying "well if that is not the case, why does it exist... I don't believe you.".
Hopefully this helps developers to look at the "Yes" and "No" votes and the Greenlight system in a less negative light. As someone has already stated, don't look at 54% / 46% as being polarized, you have 54% percent of the active Greenlight community saying they want to buy your game, that is still very impressive; no game truly reaches 100% of all audiences so close to 100% should not be an expected outcome for any game.
Do you have a Linux port? Perhaps having that would help you on Steam as the Linux library is still relatively small and adding it to the potential Linux library could give it a Greenlight boost. Just a thought on my part.
With Linux pulling 15-20% of Humble Bundle Sales, I would say there is a strong demand for Linux versions of most games. Why I think this could help with Greenlight is that the current Linux library of Steam games is pretty much limited to Humble Bundle games that most Linux users would have. So the prospect of bringing in more Linux games that they do not have could give a boost in Greenlight if the developer promoted it as such.
My comments seem kind of rambling there. I hope that helps. But let me try to rephrase that anyway.
Basically, the majority of Steam Linux titles are games featured in the Humble Bundles. A large number of Steam Linux users already own them from Humble Bundles. The Prospect of non-Humble Bundle Linux games would make Linux Users happy and supportive of those games' developers. That support could translate to higher Greenlight scores.
It is true that I have got a number of supportive linux posters in my greenlight comments, since I've announced linux was in active development. Perhaps an actual release will bump up that support.
What is the experience like for submitting a game to GOG?
Getting Mutant Mudds on GOG took a little work, but we got it on there without too much trouble. They do have a review process, so it was not an automatic shoe-in.
Now our yes/no votes are split roughly at 50%, which is on par with the top 100.
Don't dismiss the value of critical feedback.
I would encourage you to not take the 54%/46% split as meaning that the community is polarized - rather, that's the percentage of people who've seen your game who have said they would buy it - that's pretty fantastic actually!
Also, I'd love to know how you got the actual ranking stat. Is that something that unlocks once you're in the top 100?
We feel your pain. Imminent Games also got the same exact rejection letter when we first submitted our game "Drip Drip" to Steam (way before Greenlight). Now that it is out, Drip Drip is getting about the same response on Greenlight as it seems Mutant Mudds is. Even though the press seems to love our game, mostly getting between 80 and 90 review scores, we got many negative comments from the Steam community. And they can be brutal. But it sure does feel good when people up vote it and say they hope it makes it to Steam. Ours is about 50/50 for the good and bad on Greenlight. At this point we are just waiting for Greenlight to die and the store fronts to go up (if that is still happening). Good luck with Mutant Mudds, and keep plugging away at it.
I really would like some more "control" on what I see at Greenlight type set-up. Like seeing no RTS or Platformers as I hate voting them down as they're not for me. :|
The audience for Saturday Morning RPG exists and I think we'd sell well on Steam - I just don't think our audience is the kind that spends time filtering through games on Greenlight. We're primarily targeted at 25 - 35 year old gamers - I fall in that range and when I sit down to game, I sit down to game, not to vote for stuff on Greenlight. I'm making an assumption here, but I think most gamers in that age range don't have the ample free time required to sift through Greenlight. I'd like to see a breakdown of what kind of users are actually using Greenlight. What age are they on average? What are their genre preferences? I truly don't think Greenlight's userbase is representative of the entire Steam userbase.
Also, in order to hit the top 10, you currently need roughly 40,000 "yes" votes. That's a number that will be insanely hard for niche games to hit - especially if they don't have any kind of name recognition.
I can understand instantly how the game would have been appreciated on other platforms, however from what I have seen from Greenlight the community seems generally more hostile towards 2D platformers. I believe Mutant Mudds to be a good game but from what I have seen from the videos on Greenlight it could have caused voters to shrug it off as just another platformer.
I assume that many of Greenlight users are quick judges since they have such a large catalog of games to go through, so striking visuals or at least baiting the users interest to watch more are the second priority next to getting popular people to try pull votes for you.
Edit: I would also add that flash games are very common platforms so many PC gamers could possibly be desensitized or more negative to platformers.
If you need Steam to be successful then your game will have problems getting on it. But if your game does not need Steam, it WILL get on Steam.
Frankly I cannot imagine these games not _easily_ getting accepted to Steam. And that same sexy exterior that gets them on Steam I think also allows them to succeed (albeit not as easily) without Steam.
In any case, I'm not declaring any immutable law. I only looked at Mutant Mudds briefly and at first glance it looks like an adequate and competently crafted Super Mario Bros style platformer. But "adequate" is almost a four letter word.
Why is Steam not accepting more games that are merely adequate is maybe the question Jools should be asking?
p.s. Earlier I did miss the bit in Mudds where the player is able to jump into the background of the world and play there as well. That is a novel element that makes it more than "merely adequate" in my book.
Anyhow, I bought Mutant Mudds awhile back on Desura and have loved it. I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to tell you so directly.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/189180/Nintendos_indies_guy_tel ls_you_how_to_
get_your_games_approved.php
- released just prior to the launch of greenlight
- has a very similar split of yes/no votes
- was in the process of steam submission when greenlight launched (I never got a formal acceptance or rejection, and I guess they abandoned the submission when greenlight launched)
Salvation Prophecy is closer - I've hit a high-water mark of rank 17, and that's where the game stands currently. But each cycle, I keep getting passed by games which often have these sudden huge trajectories upwards in the rankings. (The private dev stats show you graphs of the #20, #15, #10, and #5 game.)
Agreed with Josh, 40k-45k yes votes seems about right for breaking the top 10.
Looking at games which get greenlit, many of them have either thriving communities, strong launch hype, or successful crowdfunding campaigns to push views to their greenlight page. So pushing traffic to your greenlight page seems key. Of course, that can be hard to do with already released games. Everyone on greenlight likely gets a similar number of people who just browse through the games and vote. To rise to the top, you need an extra push.
Publicizing your game, and building a community has always been important. And most indie devs (myself included) are bad at this. Before greenlight, I would have said that making a great game was more important than publicity. Now, with greenlight guarding the gate for the major PC distribution channel, I think the opposite - publicity is now the #1 factor in the financial success of your game.
I'm trying to figure out what it is. It kinda is my thing but not sure. Kinda hard to figure out from my quick look at work. Will have to explore more when I get home. :)
I don't want to hijack this thread to talk about how my game plays, but if you have any questions, just drop by the forums James.
Guess what? If you agree with any of this drivel of an "article" no publisher would give you the time of the day.
As well, the Humble Bundle team will NOT reach out to you, you'll need to contact them.
With such a tiny percentage of Greenlight games being greenlit, and probably more indie titles still bypassing greenlight than struggling through it, I find the system quite insulting to developers. It's a real shame that the PC, with Valve's near-monopoly on game distribution, has now become one of the most indie-hostile platforms out there. There's something quite wrong when you can get a game out on a Nintendo platform, but are kept locked outside of Steam's tightly locked gates.
There are some obvious red flags that you want to avoid:
It's a really bad idea to use the same trailer for PC as you use for iOS/Android... If you can't even be bothered to make a PC-specific trailer this does not bode well for how much effort you are putting into porting.
Cover image thumbnails that look like iPhone icons are unwise also, because the initial reaction is likely to be "Oh, shovelware", justified or not.
It's also worth noting that most bite-sized games on PC are freeware...
* putting aside the fact that a downvote isn't really a downvote etc etc
I am glad I could help with my vote all the greenlit games and, when I vote 'no' is simply because I don't want to play it, not mean I think it should not get onto Steam. Ad I think most ppl vote just that way too.
At other side of the moon, I have a concept page there too. It drives not even close traffic as for the real race there. My project has just entered production and all I have there are a few screenshots. Game is sitting now at 93% positive votes and 4-5 stars rating.
No video, just a bunch of screens and description, so I don't think they do blind vote... Voters really actually WILL read all descriptions and check what others are saying about it and also will investigate about you and your project.
And most of the time if the game is a port or LOOK like a mobile game they'll vote no.
But I desagree about the iOS thumbs, I did it just cause I like the round borders. Once they see the page they know it has nothing to do with a mobile game.
But I understand Valves reasoning. They simply cannot deal with everybody. And a new account means a lot of work for them. So the alternative is to skip greenlight and go with established accounts. There are fair folks out there that dont offer traditional and unfair royalty models.
It might be having trouble because the gameplay experience does lend itself better to the 3DS than to a monitor... but that doesn't stop MM from being a nice throwback in time anyways!
The old way of doing things on Steam had its downsides, we got emails just like the one you got for why they wouldn't accept Al Emmo and the Lost Dutchman's Mine. You'd often get a vague non-answer for why they didn't want your game-- apparently things like strong Metacritic scores and favorable reviews across the board didn't matter.
Then enter Greenlight. It sounds nice in theory-- the fans decide what they play and see on Steam, right? In practice it's like nailing Jello to a wall.
The downvote feature is just pointless. If someone isn't interested in a game, logic would dictate they wouldn't vote on it. But for some reason you can not only downvote, but there's an "Ask Me Later" button. Again, what's the point of that?!
Like Dave Reed said above, the most active Greenlight voters also tend to vote for only a few types of games/subject matter. Thinking of the indie games that got their breakout *because* of the viral exposure received via Steam like Analogue: A Hate Story and The Binding of Isaac? I'm more than willing to bet those games and many other titles that managed to slip through the cracks in the old days, would be languishing in Greenlight like many other great games.
And what about the incomplete games whose Kickstarters failed...mine got almost 200% of its goal (six figure range, too) and yet we're still basically told our game's not good enough??
And most of all, a majority of indies are small teams. We typically don't have dedicated marketing people trying to rally votes 24/7 and get more exposure to the game. We're spread so thin as it is-- yes, devs must pimp out their games, it's all part of the rules. But the extent to which you need to do it in Greenlight is just ridiculous. Then you get the votes and for what? More games to show up and bury yours so you're back to square one. It's just plain horrendous for discoverability and I am BEGGING da G man to make it a Red Light!
Trust me, you're not alone in this!
For instance I don't do platformers or RTS but I'd say that up front so if you were following my store you wouldn't see those games and hence hopefully vote up more games you wouldn't have seen otherwise?
Also Which Kickstarter did you do? (I do try to keep up with them all as it is what my blog is about. :) )
-style-adventure
It was a long and awesome thrill ride that was a HUGE learning experience for my entire team.
There's some other Kickstarter successes that were Greenlit, like Asylum and the Leisure Suit Larry remake. But I find it very odd that Death Inc and Interstellar Marines both had failed Kickstarters yet got Greenlit. Mage's Initiation was relatively close to their final numbers too-- over 3,000 backers and $125K-- big difference was our campaign ended in successful funding.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing but well wishes for those devs and I hope they get to make the games they set out to make-- but I gotta be honest, it feels like a huge slap in the face to see that. We have the funds to make our game now! Almost twice what we asked for better yet, so we can now ensure Mage's Initiation to is going to knock your proverbial socks off Up To Eleven, and our team is comfortably fed with enough money for our kick-ass merchandising. So...to see games that made less than half their Kickstarter goals, not receive any funding in the process, then get Greenlit? While a near 200%-er languishes at 35% of the necessary votes needed just to get into the Top 100. Once again, all due respect to those devs, but it boggles my mind. Is it because our backers just didn't vote while theirs did? After all, we had roughly the same amount as those campaigns I mentioned; including on even keel with Asylum who also succeeded! Or are/were there too many submissions ahead of us so we keep getting crushed in that race to the Top 100? We may never know.
The storefront API option has some excellent points which I'd hope would resolve these issues, providing that the same security and convenience are kept in check; and that customers don't get the plug pulled on them if the storefront goes defunct or what have you. And yes, catering to a genre, subject matter type, etc. would be a great way to expose games to the right audiences (like an adventure-only storefront for instance.)
Steam needs SOME curation-- mobile market type anarchy isn't the answer, but while the old way of doing things was frustrating for devs all around? You could get in through the backdoor if you were lucky (or an IGF or BAFTA winner.) Greenlight may have had good intentions, but was horrifically executed.
That said yeah, WTH is up with Greenlight when a project like yours don't get Greenlit but failed KSers do?!?
Indeed, Greenlight makes absolutely no sense and the Kickstarter aspect just boggles the mind. Taking Asylum for instance (which BTW, is going to be an awesome game!) they got 12 more backers than we did, and their Kickstarter was also a success. Did 12 extra votes make the difference for getting in? I hear from other devs that other things are supposed to factor in, like the amount of favorites and how active your comment section is. According to the Mage's Initiation Greenlight stats, we've been languishing there for 61 days and have 10% of the average followers of the Top 50 and more no votes than yes votes. (And this is in spite of many adventure games both new and old already being prominently available on Steam.) That's...encouraging.
This is why there needs to be an adventure shop on Steam! There's so much that could be done for the genre if we could just freakin use it.
No worries, I know exactly what Kickstarters go through. In fact I'll be starting one myself soon. :)
That said I do hope the stores help. I'd love to see an adventure game store and a "Roguelike" store and the like. More Genre and taste specific like a Sci-fi or fantasy theme as well. :)
Interstellar Marines are building community for the last 7 years or so.
Kickstarter results shouldn't dictate the system, but given how many Kickstarted games got Greenlit or are sitting in the queue: wouldn't a successful campaign mean higher likelihood of a finished game that will make Steam money if that's what Valve is concerned with?
And, about Valve's concerns, I really don't think their interests with Greenlight are about money.
Greenlight came to life simply because they had to stop wasting time and resources on games submissions. It is not the 'real business' on Steam you know. Valve pretty much see it all as a charity move helping feed a little the dreams of small devs, just to have them feel better about themselves.
I do think there is a large and growing audience for these types of games on PC though, and I do hope you break through eventually. The fact Valve sells Offspring Fling! but not your game is a little strange.
You're avatar is say... Billy. Billy has nothing to do today. But Billy's brother has come home from a trip to Gonzola and has a bright idea. He decides today he's going to follow you (Billy) around and make you topple turtles and walking mushrooms (or whatever). Billy doesn't want to but his looming, towering big brother demands it. I don't know how it plays out. Billy is toppling all these turtles and mushrooms and the big brother is always there with him.. watching... threatening... "making" him do these awful things in the peaceful land of Kroopala.
Anyway kind of puts a different slant on the notion of killing baddies in a typical platformer to save a princess\the world. And maybe some novel mechanics can be created revolving around defying the ever persistent watcher/enforcer/driver character.
Subject matter is probably too dark. lol. But hey, there was the Binding of Isaac! Maybe someone can come up with a clever way to portray this sort of big brother bullying / pressure in a way that is not too depressing and dark and in the process inspire some younger persons to follow their own bright guiding lights.
p.s. you've probably guessed what incited this particular idea.
Current stats:
#92 Of 1,200 (lowest rank 70)
Total Unique visitors: 34,018 In 232 days on Greenlight.
'Yes' Votes 15,589 (54% of total). Good percent of yes votes but low visitor count.
The system obviously does not work well.
Apparently Greenlighters hate adventure games, despite 4 prominent ones getting Greenlit that I am aware of, not to mention the entire Daedalic catalog up there for sale and they don't have to suffer the indignity of putting trousers on an elephant, I mean, submitting a game through this godawful service...
I was skeptical of greenlight when it was first announced and sadly valve disappointed me yet again :(
I'm eager for the Wii U port of MM, as I don't own a 3ds but have been wanting to try it out.
Every individual posting in this discussion is firmly convinced that their game deserves to be Greenlit. This is a good thing- one should have confidence in the work they are doing. However, every game creator on Steam Greenlight feels the same way. It bears remembering that being on Steam is not an inalienable human right. A game being sufficiently good does not contractually obligate Valve to add the game, and I think sentiments that Valve has somehow "wronged" someone by not putting them on Steam is a bit baffling. It is Valve's party so to speak and they can invite who they want. They can be as selective or open as they deem fit. (Though given being on Steam is often the difference between financial success or failure, this is decision that carries a lot of weight.)
This doesn't mean that the current implementation of Greenlight is good, nor is this meant to dismiss the issues here. Valve themselves have talked about a future state where they are no longer the gatekeepers. Steam is the only portal many folks look to for games, and if the PC audience at large is missing out on great games that Valve is letting slip through the cracks, fixing problems with the system helps everyone. Valve gets more money, game creators get more money, consumers get more good games. Win, win, and win.
The sticky wicket here is this: the current success of smaller games on Steam does not necessarily scale as more games are added. Being a new release on Steam or being a daily deal guarantees sales. What happens when instead of a game or two each day, there are fifty? If you are the only indie platformer released in the month of May, you can expect some decent sales I wager. What if instead of one there are twenty? I have to imagine that will have an impact.
I think the perception (not ill-founded) is that getting on Steam is hitting pay dirt and guarantees a certain financial success. However, it is quite possible that that easier getting onto steam becomes, the less true this will be. It is interesting food for thought.
Thinking of the first round of games that got Greenlit, they included many unfinished games and free mods. Ie, stuff that can't make Steam any money right away and in the case of the latter-- *at all*. Why would they pick those over finished games that could be making them money?
And not just finished games. Finished FUNCTIONAL games. Himalaya/AGDI's games are virtually bug-free. Yet how come I keep ending up with these glitchy messes in my Steam library? Ones containing glaring bugs yet that were too big even for the toad in my profile picture! It's an insult. An insult, I tell you.
Then letting unfinished games get Greenlit seemed to be okay by the crowd, as many more both with and without Kickstarter or Indiegogo campaigns went on to get Greenlit. I mentioned in my comments above that two games had failed Kickstarters yet they got Greenlit. The Mage's Initiation Kickstarter got around the same numbers as theirs, yet we didn't get Greenlit-- big difference is that our campaign ended in successful funding; meaning that we have more likelihood to have a finished game than the ones whose campaigns failed. Ie, a much bigger chance to make Steam money in the near future.
Steam needs some curation. But it has to be better than this godawful system that makes going to the DMV look like a day at frigging Astroland, or the old way of making distribution decisions which I can only compare to that episode of South Park where the manatees push balls around in a tank to write Family Guy episodes. I think the storefront solution, providing customers still have security and convenience, would probably be the most diplomatic way about this.
Your game has it, too. It's the three planes. I'm sure you know that. On the 3DS, with a 3D display, that mechanic was really interesting, and made for a fun game! But you can't just take a game whose core mechanic relies on 3D... remove the 3D... and expect it to perform just as well.
Our game gets about 20 views a day now on Greenlight.
The only way to really get voted on now is to drive a large existing customer base to vote for your game, or do some serious marketing.
New games get a little more exposure, but to the average indie still trying to get on, there is minimal exposure.
Steam should put some featured random Greenlight games in the daily feature window, to give some more exposure.
Take casual games for example, a category available on Steam. What you see in the Greenlight comments for these games is very often "oh not yet another mobile game, do not deserve to be on Steam". Well by these standards I doubt Bejeweled, Angry Birds, Cut the rope and other similar games would have make it to Steam. I can see how these games might not be the top sellers on Steam but yet they are there because there's still a market for these game and still money to be made. Not every single game on Steam can be top sellers but they can still pay for the work they require to manage.
So what Greenlight creates is a bottleneck controlled by a minority of players who are only preventing players who might be interested to buy rejected games (average game gets about 100,000 Greenlight views for about 4 millions concurrent users http://store.steampowered.com/stats). The interesting yes/no votes would be from the crowd who usually buy these games. Not the hardcore FPS enthusiasts who think puzzle games are an atrocity.
For full disclosure yes I do have a game on Greenlight and yes it's a puzzle RPG. But even by forgetting about my own involvement there are still nice games out there that would bring something nice to Steam's offer but that will never make it because of this.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/186168/
Overall, yes, Greenlight is not a perfect system, and Gabe Newell admitted it in the interview, but it's a lot better than it was before. I don't think Greenlight will stay the way it is right now, but I still see it as a step in the right direction.