安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文(繁体中文)
日本語(日语)
한국어(韩语)
ไทย(泰语)
български(保加利亚语)
Čeština(捷克语)
Dansk(丹麦语)
Deutsch(德语)
English(英语)
Español-España(西班牙语 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希腊语)
Français(法语)
Italiano(意大利语)
Bahasa Indonesia(印度尼西亚语)
Magyar(匈牙利语)
Nederlands(荷兰语)
Norsk(挪威语)
Polski(波兰语)
Português(葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙)
Português-Brasil(葡萄牙语 - 巴西)
Română(罗马尼亚语)
Русский(俄语)
Suomi(芬兰语)
Svenska(瑞典语)
Türkçe(土耳其语)
Tiếng Việt(越南语)
Українська(乌克兰语)
报告翻译问题
People playing on gamepass isn't quite as valuable as sales maybe.
But just using sales is unfair too. If one million people bought Starfield and 15 million signed up for gamepass to play it, you can't just claim it sold poorly at only one million.
10 people buy it for 100
vs
1000 people play in subscription for 10
For mediocre games, subscription is better. Same with Netflix, most of the shows there are low cost and crappy enough to keep you hook until the next big title comes out.
2. the moment you do unsub you lose the games and might have to reconsider resubbing or buying the game it is a win win for the company
But there is the fact that of the 1000 people who subscribed for 10, 500 remain subscribed for one or several months, so it is already a success for the service and for the game.
1 dollar is just the first month
US\$ 19,99 Ultimate Xbox Gampass
US\$ 11,99 PC Gamepass
and yet their one chance to save this game was to sack their art director for the stuff he has said, and yet they have kept him on, there are many many players that will never buy this game because he is still there..
I can only assume they are going to use him as a scapegoat when this game fails.