Agreed that pure price should not be the chief determination.

The initial idea behind the starred category as I recall it, is that it's about giving more people a shot at "high demand" games. There is some correlation to price, but the "value" of / demand for a game is much broader than that.

I agree. 2+2 makes more sense. I forgot that standard game cooldown is now two months.

You are right, this is not about what Epic, Steam or Amazon generally offer in their stores or at what prices.
I was mostly referring to Amazon Prime/Luna codes for GOG games, which regularly offer only base games or entry-level editions of games.

Especially with strategy games, the base game is often nothing more than an entry point into a game world. Publishers actually hope for continuous sales of the many, many DLCs and "seasons" to follow. With 6 DLCs already, Old World seems to be following the same path.

I'm thinking that the donor should have a first say in whether multiple titles (be they game + DLC or different games) should be split at all or not, which would determine whether people can enter like this at all. About cooldowns, 2+1 would seem right to me on the basis that the regular cooldown is now 2 months but DLCs are generally daggered, so won't even have any, but if they were considered relevant enough for the package to be starred then they could go to 1 month, regardless of price, since that's not the determining factor for starred anyway, and by definition the "market" for DLCs is limited to the owners of the base game. But can see arguments in favor of 2+2 too.

I think exactly the same.

Heh, this [date] move may make some users' hearts skip a few beats, and not the good kind...

=8-0


;´-(

Both suggestions sound good to me. It's often crossed my mind some donors might prefer to have the gift go to one person, as a package, rather than piecemeal. Also however it's monetized, base game provides the platform, DLC provides significant added value. Two-thirds, one third is a sound benchmark.

I think haggling about how much cooldown you get for only half the code goes against the spirit of the giveaway.
If you want to enter only for the DLC that's fine but you should still take the full cooldown. If you get less than the entire code because somebody else beat you to the DLC then it seems fair to take a lower cooldown because you only get the leftovers.
The distinction I make is whether you get as much as you expected.

That seems fair, yeah. If you apply for it, you get what you want. If you apply for something but then accept to settle for less, the cooldown should reflect it. And that will get rid of discussions about which part is more valuable, and how that's defined.
But the first thing should still be that the donor should have the say in whether the code can be split at all.

I would like to suggest a possibility to secure and take a starred-game in first-come-first-served manner for a substantial cool-down ( 6 - 12 months ). At least in case, when nobody has entered a draw for the game yet.

***

There were numerous draws with only one participant, anyway. Especially, who entered on the last possible day. I guess, many of them did so, because they were the only users to ask for respective games.

Technically, non-random distribution of the starred games has become common already. But with lack of certainty.

***

I would prefer to see it official and applicable to any starred games. It would be a nice feature for those, who skip randomly-distributed games out of principle. :)

I have no clear opinion on this. Some people might be disappointed if starred games get scooped up this way? *shrug*
This reminds me of the "Buy now" feature on eBay. But that option vanishes once regular bidding has started. In the same way, a lottery with active entrants shouldn't never be allowed to close early by means of a buyout.

I see nothing wrong with that particular behavior. Registering late for a lottery is a valid option, imo.
The situation with single-participant lotteries is how it is because other participants have already made their choices, are still waiting and observing or simply weren't interested and left opportunities for other people. There is no certainty nor can there be.

I'll always be for anything removing draws from the CG and returning it to first-come-first-served for all games, so whatever works...

&
Should giveaway be allowed to become a lottery, in the first place? :)

I suggest an option to access the starred games for users ( like myself ), who simply don't accept the lottery part of it. And thus never enter any draws, no matter what games are being offered.

The advantage of the lottery is that everyone has time to decide if they want to be in and everybody has the same chance. With first-come-first-served policy, some people will have more opportunities to have good games than others since, for example, they can be waiting for an update in the community giveaway list more often than others, they can also have a better timetable to see the updates, etc.

Sorry for my simple mind, but I do not see how we can mix or an easy way to mix both policies. If I ask for a starred game and I’m the only one, will I have 6 - 12 months or 3 month ? (I may not want the game if it’s 6 month cool-down). Or when I ask for a starred game, can I ask for it with the first-come-first-served policy and not with the lottery? Then, what happens if somebody else wants that game as well? Will we have a period to see if other person wants that game?. Another situation, what happens if I ask for a game with first-come-first-served policy but another person has said, before me, they want to be in (the lottery) fpr the game?