Skip to main content

On Sale: GamesAssetsToolsTabletopComics
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(10 edits)

Thanks for the update! Have you considered a Verified role system? The verified roles is like x system. "User Name" ✔ [Verified Developer]. So you can protected the users from malware, and reduced your workload.

A user becomes “Verified” after meeting basic criteria, for example:

  • Account is at least XX days old
  • Clean track record (no reports or violations)
  • Has published a few pages that people actually downloaded or played
  • Their game is already available or promoted on other trusted sites

Then the flow is simple:

  • Verified user → auto-approved for indexing. No manual work for admins. BUT IF IT GOT CAUGHT CHEATING, PERM BAN
  • Not verified → goes to the review queue. Admins check if the game or app looks legit. Obvious spam or malware can be auto-rejected.

For extra filtering, unverified users could contact support if their game isn’t indexed, using a quiet support channel rather than a public announcement. This way, only people who really need help would reach out.

Admins would then spend their time only on risky or unknown accounts, trusted devs get indexed right away, and publishing stays free for everyone. And Itch io will be leading market. I think steam is doing like this

If you dont trust, you can copy and paste to the claude my text, what good and bad for this rules happen, what best should i do to reduces staff workload, and reduces users from malware. make the scenario

Admin

We already do have the concept for verified roles for developers but it is for very specific cases and not something we'll offer to the average dev. Thanks

While reading Haremsoft’s post, I was actually thinking that, for instance, Double Fine must have had (and rightly so) some kind of “priority lane”, and I imagine other high-profile developers did too. It also seems pretty normal to me, after all, just as it makes sense not to extend this possibility to absolutely everyone.

Fair point, @Simpl_pseudocode, and I agree a priority lane makes sense for studios like Double Fine.

I’m just curious how “high profile” is defined in practice. Is it audience size, or is it trust (clean history, verified identity, a track record of safe downloads)? Raw traffic alone can be gamed, and it would leave out small developers who are perfectly safe but simply new.

@leafo, if there’s a written or even rough criteria, it would help developers understand what to aim for. If it’s case-by-case, that’s understandable too. Thanks for the clarity either way.

I think it’s rarely down to just one single metric like raw traffic or account age. Rather, it’s a confluence of multiple factors: established reputation, track record, legal/corporate entity status, and overall history across the industry.

All these elements together demonstrate that you’re dealing with a serious, consolidated entity rather than just an individual account. The main issue with automated or purely threshold-based verification (like “X downloads” or “clean history for Y months”) is the risk of a “Trojan” scenario: a bad actor could build a legitimate presence with a few small projects just to gain automated access, and then slip something malicious through once manual reviews are bypassed.

For a team like Double Fine, the reputational and legal stakes are massive, making the risk profile completely different. So I imagine Itch’s criteria are inherently holistic and handled case by case.