Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
This game did not generate that much revenue by itself.
Again we can´t really count Xbox Gamepass users as Starfield revenue, since over 25+ millions had it before Starfield was announced and later (on released) gifted to them on the pass.
As for PC gamepass, the same logic applies, you can´t contribute subs to Starfield alone, there are over 100 games there and while it did had a little hike at Starfield release, its down to avarage again.
On steam Starfield generated around 50m gross revenue.
Some analytics predict Starfield to have mean between 150-240m gross revenue by now.
To find net profit (that is the important thing) you have to take the gross revenue and then subtract the development cost (450m) and then subtract taxes and then subtract additional things such as valves cut (if we talk steam) that is 30%
As you might notice, this is not really going anywhere near its development cost, its in the reds... why is it worth it? well.. it made Xbox players happy and some people did try out the gamepass, if you have tried the gamepass, you are more likely to do so again in the future (store familiarity) this is why we use steam as well, familiarity and being safe about it.
Same way i havent been able to trust steam reviews whne it comes to getting a gneral idea of the game and end up using youtube to watch the game play.
since all i see is either empty reviews, or reviews by people that burnt out and now suddenly the game is bad.
there isn quality control, and people can post whatever they want. and imtalking about all types of games.
if i where to base myself on steam reviews. i would have never played greedfall, technomancer, deathloop, mad max and many other gems. since they got review bombed when they got out.
heck when Days gone came out on ps4 , the game got a really bad reception and people ♥♥♥♥ on it massively. years later its a cult classic.
so yeah the game is doing well. again the ammount of player broeaked peak record on relase, and still has over 200k players world wide. and subscribed numbers of player actively engaged on the game does matter. specially whne that very game spikes the ammout of players using that service.
so the net profit is there, and in the long terms, will prove to be a more successful investment.
if not microsoft would have issued an apology to gamepass users by now if the game was bad. but on the contrary, the game is that amazing.
way to show a respect towards Todd, starting his name with a capital letter.
i won't play it, but i care to an extent.
even outside of gamepass it did fairly well. numbers of those who actually bought the game likely resulted on profits and even if they didn't, starfield being more of an investment would justify itself over time.
Read and cry:
https://www.dexerto.com/starfield/starfield-among-highest-earning-steam-games-despite-mostly-negative-reviews-and-game-pass-2448481/
https://www.thegamer.com/starfield-steam-best-sellers-reviews-2023/
https://store.steampowered.com/sale/BestOf2023
this is the first game in the series, give them a break, they are doing just fine.
They are outdated
Steam reviews are hyper relevant, from bad optimisation to just mid game.
Then you can investigate about a game.
But steam reviews never failed for me.
When I try, negative or even mixed reviews game.
I regret it every time.
Its an AAA game, that cost 450 millions to develop! Ofc it will sell well on hype and novelty alone, that is why there is so many negative reviews, because people bought the hype and got disappointed.
As for earnings. on Steam Starfield only made 50 million in gross revenue during release (to get net profit, you have to deduct development cost, tax and valve´s cut in this case)
Anyway.. after all the months, there are many projections to gross revenue, lets look at them and then look at other AAA titles (remember that these cost a lot less)
Here is a list. (I will take the one that favours Starfield the most, to prove the point!)
vginsights + steamdb
Starfield
4.45M owners
$241.9m gross revenue
61.3% positive reviews
9,329 players right now
As you might see, by this marker, it sold a total of around 4.5 million copies and made 242m in gross revenue (remember, you have to subtracts development cost, tax and valves cut) If we do this, the game is in a big red
Lets take another example from the same analytics sites.
Baldur´s Gate III
13.21 M owners
$628m gross revenue
96.8% positive reviews
164,501 players right now
As you might notice, this game have "atleast" 3x the amount of owners (despite being a niche genre in modern days) it made a lot more revenue and is very positively recieved and look at the players..... people still play it enmasse (unlike Starfield)
BG3 had a development budget of 100m. With subtracts of that + tax and cut, it nicks a good netprofit and this is steam alone (it sold well on GoG as well) we only talk PC here.
Should we take another exmaple? Maybe another console game ported to PC to make it fair for Starfield (that is also a console game ported to PC)
Hogwarts Legacy
7.45 M owners
$344m gross revenue
91.8% positive reviews
21,256 players right now
Again. Doing fairly well. It had a development budget of 150m. It still attains players higher than Starfield, has a good review score.
Now.. Revenue can be used for many things and gross revenue can have insights for large businesses.. but it makes no sense to only look at that, since the important factor at the end is your net profit.. you could have a gross revenue of a billion, but if your cost exceed that, then its not a good thing, unless you can lower those or keep the revenue coming.
In Starfields case, its ofc silly to talk about sales, since it was not meant for actual sales after MS bought Bethesda/Zenimax. Starfield is a game developed for console and with console in mind. This obviously leads to limitations, unlike games that do vice versa (BG3, CP2077 ie)
But after MS got Bethesda (to piss of Sony and try and snatch a GOTY, that is what they think Bethesda games usually do) they used it as an appeasement and lure.
Let me explain deeper.
Xbox is in a pickle, players have been angry and they had said that if nothing changes (they pay for gamepass a year in advance in most cases to just play online!!) they will shift to Sony (the competitor).. Xbox users complain, that they don´t get good AAA games on the pass, that they feel forced to have..
Over 25 million people have subbed to gamepass (xbox) and its a rather vital revenue for the xbox games division. Without it, it would not be worth it and cost of hardware would rise significantly (MS sells an Xbox with a deficit, their revenue comes from subs, games and extras such as controllers)
Now MS gifted Starfield (wow look a new Bethesda AAA title, that is sure to be GOTY) to them to appease them.. this have been a huge success.. the "I wanna go to Sony" have died down and Xbox players seems happy with their "free toy"
Now with that out of the way.. MS wants something more. The PC gaming revenue is poor.. its not doing well, their store have no traffic and the gamepass PC is not giving a large net profit, infact it might go in the reds, due to getting or developing AAA games are expenssive (licence is not cheap) and when they do buy or put their own stuff on, then people go and use it for a month, then leave again.
MS wants players to sub for a year, for consistent revenue and they used Starfield as a lure, they think players will come and stay there now, instead of buying on ie. Steam.
What happens is, people try it a month or two, along with some of the other games they never bought, but can be completed in 10-20 hours, then unsub. (we see this already, the Gamepass PC user hike from Starfields release is back to avarage user amount again)
On Steam, MS wanted to charage a premium for this game.. its not in their interest to sell on steam, but if they can´t lure you to gamepass, they can atleast get paid a big amount for it.. this failed a bit.. since many refunded in Early Access, some ofc did sub to a month of gamepass afterwards.. but overall.. its been.. lets just sell to sell, then they might buy the DLC. So MS have reduced the price and had Starfield on sale 4 times, in the last 3 months (crazy)
They do this because, now people have settled, people that wanted to pay full price did, people that wanted to go gamepass did.. now they want as many as possible, so they can sell the DLC for 30 euro...
The same tactic for Xbox where it was gifted, they want all the hooked users to buy the 30 euro DLC.
In conclusion.
Starfield is not well recieved on PC and most people dislike it. They wanted something else, feel disappointed and well some are tainted by other great games, so they might have expected to much of Bethesda´s outdated gameplay loop.
Starfield is in the reds on PC, but it made a great impact on its primary platform (the Xbox) and it seems to have lured a large amount to atleast try gamepass PC.. so that is a positive.
Overall however, its nowhere close to the other big AAA titles on PC, not in revenue, not in playerbase and not in reception.
Its abit tricky to talk active players if we include Xbox, since the game was gifted to 25m (yet not even half of those downloaded and tried the game) so I will stick to PC.
Overall.. the revenue and more importantly net profit, is not really feasable to talk about individual games, as they are all part of MS´s Xbox Games Division and what matters is that the Xbox Games Division, has a net profit that is accepable and it does, by a long mile (again this includes all hardware sales, games, subs, extras, like controllers, etc)
That is what is important, you can hit and miss a lot.. as long as its overall a profiable business and it is.. with Xbox and Mobile/table taking the large haul.. (PC gamepass is actually such a bad business, that Phil have talked about removing that aspect..)
Too bad the game sux tho. XD
https://www.vgchartz.com/article/458619/todd-howard-starfield-is-designed-to-be-played-for-a-long-time/
Okay, so when you read this do you think it's unreasonable that your average buyer expects them to "go big"? And after having the likes of Star Citizen and No Man's Sky on the market, regardless of what you actually think about both games (I'm not a huge fan of either), it sets an expectation of scale?
They talk big and deliver small knowing full well what they're doing and then when places like Steam hold them accountable as they have no control over the discussions on here their fanboys apologise for them, it honestly is that simple. That's literally the marketing technique they use as a triple A studio. It boggles the mind this happens every damn year and people not only lap it up, they pay for the privilege of defending it
If Steam is bad business for huge titles then I think that's absolutely fantastic. If you're an indie dev with a small team wanting to make a piece of art you can make a fortune. To me this is how it should be. The bigger a dev gets, the more money men take over and they go down the same route as Apple; Slowly cutting corners and trimming the fat whilst peddling the same "innovative" marketing spiel, actively and knowingly skirting the line between truth and lie to make the most bang for buck. Stop defending this utter nonsense.
♥♥♥♥ Phil if we're not shovelling him enough money. Heard it all before anyway and they all come crawling back. The fact that these companies actively threaten their consumers every other year literally shows how abusive a relationship they want to have with us. Do the healthy thing, say "treat me better or ♥♥♥♥ off." No-one asked them to devour every small talented studio in the last 30 years into one huge amalgam to sell a "mega" game they can hide all sorts of tomfoolery and laziness in. Shareholders did; Not artists. Look past the triple A nonsense and gaming on Steam, nay, PC gaming is healthier than ever. It's like trying to diagnose the health of music as a whole by reviewing the top 10 pop tunes on the radio. Read half a dozen ship descriptions for a game like Starsector, run a small economy on a piece of jank such as X4 Foundations, play a bit of BG3, get into the worldbuilding of Kenshi or the atmosphere of Barotrauma. The bar is so unbelievably low anyone defending it in my eyes just doesn't know there's more out there.