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
10 years developing mostly the storytelling mechanics and some RPG atribute systems, while close to clone totally the whole visual design of Prison Architect...
You people talking like the visual aspect would be something seen on pilars of eternity or similar... lol that would justify such pricing... You also ignoring that this content can be copied with no aditional cost so actually is the same to sell 4M copies at high cost or sell 10M copies at lower cost.
I believe now they are on a point where they push such price so people that will go in, and dont like it will most probably ask for a refund given the value of it, and thus their negative review (if done) will get not counted on the steam page.... while having it cheaper could cause more people to create negative reviews but not asking for a refund, what would lower the rating of the game because it will be counted.
I already played the game a couple of times in the past, I know I could easily get 100h of it... I am however not really that much interested on the DLCs aside a couple of things... I have been waiting 6+ years to play in deep to the game when I can adquire by a reasonable price yet this seems like it will never happen.
Also ludeon studios must be like 20-24 people... In the best case if you take a look on their linkedin...
I dont believe digital games are really "forced" to get super-low pricing overtime if they are good enough, but by the same rule I also do not accept a game having 10 years being unable to lower its price on reasonable way... even less if adding DLCs doesnt gets reflected on making the base game at least a cheaper entry...
I understand for a super niche fanbase the price will be perfect and you could invest 3000h on this game... but unless literaly you only like this kind of game It is just too easy to find better deals.
So you have been waiting more than 6 years for the game, just to save around 10 - 15 bucks on a sale? That seems wild to me, I would either just buy the game or stop being interested.
Also unclear to me what you deem a reasonable price, if 30 bucks for at least 100 hours are unreasonable. (to be clear, talking about the base game)
Yes, you got it. Apart from your wording about "super niche", that is basically why the game is able to ask this price: In its genre no other game comes close to what it does, so it makes sense to not sell it for cheap.
Ofc you can find "better deals" if you are into other games. This is true for every game ever. If you happen to be into browser idle games you actually can play all day for free. Nothing can ever beat that deal, not even Witcher 3 for 1 cent. (or any other 10/10 game everybody raves about).
If you don't care as much about the aspects of Rimworld that it does exceptionally well, then yeah, another game will actually be a better deal for you. If you like, list one or two games that are a better deal tham Rimworld for you, would be interesting.
I don't know what the 'you people' are talking about, but I'm certainly not talking about that.
I've been buying games since the early 90s. In literal dollars, games are cheaper now than they were back then. In relative terms, they are much cheaper now. Yet games back then were simpler and often took less time to develop. Whilst it's true that they came in a box with a cardboard sleeve, a game manual, diskettes or a CD-ROM, they didn't come with any ongoing support. Few, if any, patches or updates. No server costs. No forum mediators and community engagement officers.
Developing an indie game is a significant financial risk. A dev can spend years of their life and make no money. If we want talented people to take that risk, there has to be a fair chance of a commercial return. How much would you expect to earn after years of your effort and not getting paid? What would be fair compensation for your skill, dedication and risk?
It's okay to say that a game can be sold as many copies, but that's only relevant if a game is successful. What about for the solo game developers who only sell 1,000 copies of their game? What is a fair price for their years of effort? Is it appropriate to expect that they will earn the equivalent of a few cents an hour for years?
If you think Rimworld should be cheaper because it's a bestselling game, you're punishing it for its success. That also goes against the basic principles of free market economics. Price is where supply meets demand. If demand is strong because a game is popular, then the price may rise. The price should not be expected to fall due to a game's unit sales or over time, as the costs of developing that game have not fallen. The price may fall if the developer wants to increase sales, but there’s no obligation for them to lower the price.
If you want games like Rimworld to keep being created, then indie game development needs to be supported. That means paying a fair price for games. Don't be cheap. Else you're damaging the industry and encouraging other pricing models like pay-to-win games. Indie game development should be a viable career. If we want the best, most original games, then indie developers should not need to work second or third jobs (or be independently wealthy) just to be able to finance game development. We should be paying them a fair price for their time. If you value quality games, how can you argue otherwise?
Also from the marketing director's recent speech they say they do put the game regularly on sale for more than 20% just not on steam. You're gonne have to look elsewhere like fanatical.
They'll only do 20% on Steam for a long while. Maybe they will change this when the new DLC will drop in probably 3 to 6 months tops and offer some combo discount or something but I wouldn't bet too hard on it.
I'd strongly recommend watching a lets play of it and see if you like this sort of gameplay before buying it. Then just decide to buy it on the next 20% off sale you see or wherever it is cheapest.
You're never going to get it cheaper than 30% off in any case and never any lower than 20% off on steam.
And granted some people in this world will be spoiled a bit, who better? The Duke of Sussex?
Each has its own way to value one game...
I did not invest on rimworld mostly because as I tell I found I could get other games Im interested on What I feel fits better personal preferences.
The whole premise of rimworld is great, but it also relays a lot on semi-procedural systems that gives as much variation as repetivity on long-term... It certainly goes deeper than most competence and that is why I has a great rating on the genre It is also the reason im interested in the game... but at the end the reply would be "but not for that much" playing 200 or 2000h on some genres are not always that related to quality...
I can see for example on cities skylines (1) a 2000h game investment aswell in general being also top rated in its genre and where in general all their characteristics felt up and even ahead the standard, yet still having much better offers just to cite one example...
If you believe the pricing is reasonable its ok, I find the game ages more than the price lowers to keep it atractive for a bigger playerbase.. this also would help promotion for an hipotetical second part, if anytime it gets developed.
Bro, you've got like $18k in bought games on steam, many you've never even played, but you'll wait 6 years to save 20 bucks on a 35 dollar game?
That is a flawed stance. Why would a company reduce the price when its still selling well.
Should the game be dying slowly and no new content comes out, then i'd say that the price should reduce. But not while success is still there
Also, why would you want to have a game that can last you a full decade with periodic DLC to add more content at a lower price when you can demand a new full-price game come out to add the same content?
I've been saying this for years. They should make this game base price 80 bucks and put it on sale for 50-60% the majority of the time and watch all these sale hunters buy it up because of how much they're saving.
They're like those chicks who go shopping and only needed 200 dollars of stuff but they got 1500 dollars of stuff because they saved 600 dollars doing so, so they'd be stupid to have not done it.
For me it was totally worth it but I've been there from before ideology dropped and I've purchased each DLC individually and was able to justify each purchase as buying a new game in terms of how much playtime I've had with it.
New players don't have that justification, they just see the game with all its DLC as one game.
Either way the marketing / sales team can do what they want, I just think it'd be smarter to offer proper discounts on the base game and the older DLC as sort of bundle programs to lure in new players who will in the long run buy the new more expensive DLC anyway if they enjoy the gameplay loop.