It could just be me but my last keyboard was a Corsair K70 and the LEDs died within 2 months and I didn't even use them heavily. It really made the keyboard look ugly and I really hated that. Those were Brown switches in case you wanted to know and they feel really good and don't make a whole lot of noise which is something that I like. My old G15 lasted 7 years without a single light dying.

I am currently using a The Logitech G910 Orion Spectrum and it is a god send compared to the Corsair one cause if nothing else, the RGB Leds have yet to die and knowing Logitech, they probably never will. It uses Romer G switches which while doesn't have the satisfying click the reds do, they are still really good. It also has this docking thing sorta deal where u can put your smartphone in and download the logitech app and use your smartphone as an LCD display like the old keyboards.

So that's my recommendation. The key with the Logitech G910 is that there are two versions. One where all the keys are weird and the other one where only the WASD/G-keys are weird. Not uncomfortable but they aren't the shape of the normal keys. You will see what I mean if you take a look at the pictures but the Logitech G910 Orion Spectrum is the one you want to get if you go for logitech.  Certainly try out the Romer-G switches before you buy it though!

Some not so good news. Activision has removed some games and DLC associated with them from Steam.

Transformers: War for Cybertron
Transformers: Fall of Cybertron
Transformers: Rise of the Dark Spark
Transformers: Devastation
The Legend of Korra

A shame they didn't give a warning in advance, I was interested in Fall of Cybertron and Devastation. 

Sadly, rising the fee to $250 wouldn't solve it. Many of those garbage games exist for the sole reason of achivements and cards, which people use to earn more money from the market.

If they want to keep things under control, Valve should use a scale system. Something like publish a game, pay $100. From game 2 to 10, pay $500. After all, if you come back with more games it means that you've had success so you can pay that higher fee. From game 10 to 25 pay $1,000, and so on.

Of course, there needs to be some balance to that scale, and it can be something as simple as time. If you only publish one game or less per year, then the fee could be kept at $100, but if you publish more than 10 games per year (imho, a clear sign that something smells fishy), then rise that fee to something like x2 or more.

At the end of the day, what Valve should try to do is, if not reinforcing their system to try to keep the garbage out of the store, at least make it harder for those publishers to make money from their "games".

Pemalite said:
So my trusty Logitech G19 keyboard decided to give up the ghost and now I am using a $5 keyboard from Kmart. *Shudders*.

Just wondering what keyboards are other people are using? Pro's and Con's of it?

*snip*

So many choices on the market.

Rhonin the wizard said:

*lots of useful info*

The problem with scaling the price upwards is: it could create a level of uncertainty with legitimate developers.
When designing a system to choke problematic developers, you need to be careful to avoid harming desirable ones.

Having a flat fee, helps to create trust, reliability and predictability.
As a developer you can, with ease, say: "I know exactly how much it will cost to put this software on Steam".
Remember: Valve has been making steps towards movies, TV shows and general purpose software on Steam; Valve needs to keep that in mind when dictating prices.
You don't want to encourage developer to place their asset flips under software to avoid monstrous fees; you don't want to punish developers who can legitimately produce content quickly.
A balance must be found.

A flexible payment scheme sounds beautiful, but: if you look at the real world implications and complications it starts to fall apart.
Valve offer a way for developers to recoup the cost the gate fee when they have made enough money on Steam; a flexible payment structure could result in too many moving parts.
The system should aim to be uncomplicated yet highly effective; efficient systems are things worth admiring.

Most respectable publishers and indie devs/publishers only launch a few games every year, usually less than half a dozen, so that scaling fee wouldn't be much of a problem for them. But the important part here is that those shady publishers that flood Steam with garbage launch dozens of games every year (some of them even every month!), so it's them who would get punished the most because that has to be the ultimate goal, to make it impossible for those kind of games and its publihsers to make money from them, thus making them end their actual business scheme.

Also, in my example of a scale, I already said that Valve could implement some ways to balance the fee so it doesn't become a problem. And I'm sure Valve wouldn't want to make big publishers angry, so I doubt they'll be forced to pay any extra fee (if at all).

I think scaling the prices up is completely beside the point. What it should do is scaling down. While there are publishers who put out a huge amount of games at once, most of them are just one timers who are looking for a quick buck. So the very first game should be the highest fee. My proposition is 1000$.

If you're serious about making games and want to earn a living with them, then 1000$ is tiny. Not to mention, Steam will refund this sum if your game sells a certain threshold. If you make a good game and it still fails to sell, there was probably another issue with it and you can either try again or hang up your dream or try to use other outlets. For example creating a free game and publicize it on itch.io to gain some fame beforehand. Making games is a business and it's absolutely fine to undergo huge risks when trying to create a business. Everyone else does that too and it weeds out people who shouldn't run a business in the first place.

I don't even think you would need a fee for more games if your first game was a verifiable success. But if your first game bombs it seems fair to demand the same amount of capital for the second.

I do not believe any developer who is passionate and serious about starting a business will be deterred by a small entry fee. And those that are not deterred are the ones that will in the end make the good games.

This seems much better than scaling upwards.
I do think 1000 may be a bit too intimidating.
250, 500 or 750 USD seem a lot smaller, much easier for a small dev to swallow.

If a developer cannot afford the gate fee, they could just contact Valve directly.
Show a prototype off to a Valve employee, and be let in without a fee.

I am not sure removing the fee for successful developers really changes anything.
Assuming your games have done well in the past, 1000 USD should not be an issue at all.

I think scaling the prices up is completely beside the point. What it should do is scaling down. While there are publishers who put out a huge amount of games at once, most of them are just one timers who are looking for a quick buck. So the very first game should be the highest fee. My proposition is 1000$.

If you're serious about making games and want to earn a living with them, then 1000$ is tiny. Not to mention, Steam will refund this sum if your game sells a certain threshold. If you make a good game and it still fails to sell, there was probably another issue with it and you can either try again or hang up your dream or try to use other outlets. For example creating a free game and publicize it on itch.io to gain some fame beforehand. Making games is a business and it's absolutely fine to undergo huge risks when trying to create a business. Everyone else does that too and it weeds out people who shouldn't run a business in the first place.

I don't even think you would need a fee for more games if your first game was a verifiable success. But if your first game bombs it seems fair to demand the same amount of capital for the second.

I do not believe any developer who is passionate and serious about starting a business will be deterred by a small entry fee. And those that are not deterred are the ones that will in the end make the good games.

I think $1,000 is too much, specially for small indie games developed more because of passion rather than business. I doubt we would have had games like Stardew Valley, Banished, Axiom Verge, Cave Story, etc. if such a fee were in place.

The fuck? The creators of the games you mentioned could put up easily that fee. Again, ever heard of loans? We're not talking about a million dollars here. We're talking about money that's above teenage pranksters and way way below what actual developers spend to create a game.

In the context of building a game and selling it on the biggest storefront there is $1000 is nothing. It's only a barrier when you don't care to actually make a game, which is where all the trash comes from.

It would be fine if there was a program for developers to let Valve review their game beforehand and lower if not scratch the fee for them. But we're talking about Valve actually proactively doing something and that's just not physically possible. So "money barrier of entry" it is.