Do people generally only host their game in one spot? Like if it’s on Steam, not on Itch or GameJolt? Or do you guys put it where ever you can?
You can host your game’s where-ever and on as many platforms as you like. Steam is probably a no-no for very small projects due to the cost of submissions. I’ve used Itch, GameJolt and IndieDB, though I prefer using Itch.
If it’s good enough to show, then you should try and get it everywhere you can manage.
The more people see it, the better.
but I’m a firm believer that not every game you make needs an audience 
If you’re trying to make money - Steam. If you just want other people to be able to see it, itch.io or Humble Store.
You might be wondering why we haven’t got our own games on itch.io yet - mostly because it means doing more builds. The more games you have x the more places they need to be distributed = one monumental headache every time you do a general release. As only Steam has ever made a measurable amount of money for us compared to anywhere else (Humble Bundle notwithstanding) that’s the only one we take seriously going forward but we are increasingly aware of Steam’s despotic benevolence and this will eventually lead us to support itch.io fully.
Cas 
Yeah I’m not trying to make any money on it. So I’ll definitely put it on Itch, GameJolt, and I’ll look into the Humble Store. Thanks for your responses!
I’m not convinced this is really the way to go anymore. Unless the game is really really good I don’t think that $100 fee is worth it. Furthermore, if the game is really really good it would be pretty easy to advertise it and gain a following in the first place.
I’m not trying to make any money, because it’s my first real big one and I know other people will find other bugs that I wouldn’t have caught. And the graphics aren’t too good. I think I would get eaten up alive on Steam anyway. To be honest I’m just glad I finished it, and to my knowledge so far since the release, there has only been one bug. Well actually 2 cuz of the stupid linux shell script I tried to make that wouldn’t launch. dammit. but thats fixed as now it’s just a jar.
It’s dead hard to make any money at all on Steam now. It’s effectively been nerfed over and over and over by Valve to the point where it may not be worth it for many of the games on there. TBH Valve should probably increase the entry fee to $10k which would instantly remove 90% of the titles being release and leave only the serious contenders; everyone else can rightly and sensibly go to itch.io, which tbh is better than now Steam anyway.
Cas
Or, and here’s a wild idea, Valve could invest on an actual moderation team.
It’s getting silly how many problems automation is causing for the likes of Valve or Google… But I guess it’s still worth it for them.
As for a higher entry fee, the problem with money being the only barrier to entry is that, as usual, those with better funding will get the market, regardless of quality (cue jab at the “AAA” industry).
There are no perfect solutions.
“Millionaires think both” - default the $10k entry fee, everyone else gets in line to await moderation by the moderators who have been newly employed by Valve with the $10k entry fees to salary them…
Cas
But if entry fees pay their salaries, then the moderators would have an incentive to approve all applicants! :o
As I said, there’s no simple solution really. :
As with any globally defined fixed fee, that $100 (and that $10k) is worth a different amount in the local region of the dev or team.
$10K is OK for you, because you live in a filthy rich country (congrats!), but for others around the globe it’s probably the same as if you were asked for $100K. Now that’d be in the ‘not so funny’ category. Valve has been against regional pricing for practical reasons, and sticks to their globally fixed fee. The proposal to increase the barrier of entry to $10K feels a bit like asking for a penalty that is as high as possible, so long as you can manage it - a big studio would ask for a $100K fee (to weed out non-AAA), and a poor kiddo would ask for a $10 fee (to weed out the poorer kids).
The nice thing of $100 is that it seems manageable for most - and weeds out most jokers. The bad quality games (like all other games) would supposedly be regulated by the community.
Valve gave up their role as gate-keepers for quality games on Steam (5 years ago?), as the process was too arbitrary (or they simply calculated it hurt their bottom line), so they opened the gates. As they have done nothing since to constrain the influx, I fear it’s unlikely to change. And what’s so bad about an ‘open market’ economy for games anyway? It drives competition, prices fall, survival of the fittest kicks in… and if the end result is that the quality of the games (per dollar spent on it) suffer, then that indicates that game quality is not as important as it once was. If shoving drivel for $1.99 leads to more profit than pushing high quality games for $4.99, then maybe, just maybe, don’t polish your new game to the point of it being a skillfuly crafted masterpiece. :emo:
That reminds me of the (old) joke of what a jazz musician would do if he won a million bucks in the lottery: tour the country until it’s gone.