Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
All I hear in this is stupidity, and I'm not even trying to be toxic, this is legit criticism of your words. I didn't see a single thing in there that even tackled the situation or the "why" of it. Your antiquated ideas of "stop complaining about the price" is literally stupid. You do know these companies invest let's say a triple A game like Borderlands 3, around 140 million dollars, that's A LOT. I mean, A LOT. Colonial Marines sold 1.3 million copies, forget about what happened after release, just remember that they made 65,000,000 dollars selling a broken game. Would you pay 60 for it? Don't talk about wages of the developers, they are fine and they would be fine if the game sold at $30.
This company is backing on the idea that Left 4 Dead fans will flock to it, and that if they pay off all the streamers and make them play it while they're doing alpha/beta/release then they'll get more sales. Which is TRUE without a doubt, they will get more sales. They'll make their invested money in the game, but this game can potentially die out quicker than Left 4 Dead ever did.
We're tired of this format they're pushing, I've played games like this. This is legit a Left 4 Dead developer making a Left 4 Dead clone. When I say a Left 4 Dead clone, it feels like ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ World War Z with some fancy things. (Granted, it's more fun than World War Z.)
I will make a prediction and say this game will either
A. Release with WAY more content/mechanics and people will play it a lot for awhile. (Like Fall Guys) and it will fall off, but they've made their money from the original sales and then some so they're fine.
B. Release like it is now, fixing the obvious T-Posing stuff and polishing the game ofc, but it will release as is with no extra content from the beta and fail within a week. Still recouping the original investment, by abusing the Left 4 Dead hard-on people. This is still okay, but at the end the hype for it will die.
The argument isn't: I'm broke I don't want to spend $60!
The argument is: This game isn't worth $60, and we're tired of being sold games like this for $60.
I quit playing within 3 hours, got bored and I had a full team of friends with me. Why wouldn't I just play Left 4 Dead and have fun with mods? I played it until all the new ♥♥♥♥ lost it's "wow, this is new" I felt like I was playing a Left 4 Dead clone, that was all.
Your argument is basically on the premise that the product is legit worth $60, let's compare it to making a product. Let's say you make a $60 product like God of War, or Dark Souls. Those games are clearly worth the price point. So you take the effort and transfer it to price? Just because a company makes a game doesn't mean it deserves to be $60, I have no issues with money and I literally have said to people: "I'd get the game if it wasn't $60." I'd have to buy it for my wife and my 13 year old son, which is $180. Something much worse.
I mean, cool that you're tired of being sold $60 games thatyou don't feel are worth $60. The solution is: don't buy them. I'm not trying to be flippant, it really just is that simple.
You've seen/played the alpha, feel like it's a L4D clone and stopped playing, so GG. That kinda sucks, I'm sure you were hoping for something else. Good on you for not pre-ordering before you've even seen gameplay. That's more than most, and the gaming world would be oh so much better off if people thought before they bought.
Meanwhile, while you've dismissed B4B as a clone, the dude to your left feels like it's nothing at all like L4D, and like he's been robbed, and watch out, now he's smashing stuff.
Then there's me, someone who liked the alpha:
Dark Souls 3 $60 - playtime: 53.7hrs = WORTH
L4D2: $45 - playtime: 1,735.6hrs = OMGWTF WORTH
Now let's spitball and say B4B turns out only HALF as good as L4D2. Let's be honest, L4D2 was basically lightning in a bottle, and I'm not sure I could ever count on even the original dev capturing that exact magic formula again. But, I liked the alpha. And anything can happen, sure. So we'll go with "only" half as good, ballpark. Let's be generous and say half the quality doesn't equal half the playtime, let's say it's a quarter.
1,735 divided by 4 is 433.75.
Therefore if $60 DS3 with 53 hours = WORTH...
Then $60 B4B with 433 hours is.... wait for it.... *checks notes* yeah, pretty WORTH.
Now, anything can happen, right? I've played the alpha and it seems promising to me, but an alpha isn't the full game, aliens could invade, what if what if what if. I'm not interested in wearing tinfoil and stringing yarn across a map of downtown NY calculating eventualities for 6 months waiting for release. We'll see when it releases. If I'm at all doubtful, I will pretend to be a sane person and wait and see what the full release is before buying it. And I'm also not going to complain about a game I'm not going to buy because that sounds like an even greater waste of time than expecting sanity on the Steam forums.
Oh yeah, the point of all of this: VALUE IS RELATIVE. If you don't think something is worth the price, don't buy it. But complaining about it like it's objective fact is kinda clueless and self-centered.
This is where I get called "what's wrong with the gaming industry" for actually liking the alpha and theorizing that spending hundreds of hours in a $60 game ISN'T me flushing my wallet down the toilet, meanwhile we're all going to pretend like we don't enjoy $60 games with significantly less playtime (like DS3) because reasons.
https://i.imgur.com/l07J8pY.png
So, I wouldn't say PUBG is worth even the $30 it's selling at, especially since Warzone/Fortnite is FTP.
I'm complaining 'cause I would like to buy this game, but only at a price that would make sense. I can go buy a slightly downgraded variation of this game almost for free. Also, you're comparing a STORY game to something I'd probably call a "live service game" that defines itself on keeping you playing a constantly repeating game that doesn't really change. Also, you used hours in Left 4 Dead, I have slightly less hours than that but that's also because... They came out with mod support THREE YEARS LATER. Without that, I wouldn't even have half the hours in it. I had stopped playing L4D2 prior to that, probably late 2010.
So with your theory you hope they patch totally new content that completely changes the dynamic of the game?
It's also the story vs multiplayer experience. If I spend 60 bucks on a story game and play it for 50 hours, you think it's worse than spending 60 bucks on a multiplayer game and playing it for 1,000 hours. A story game is investing in the STORY, is the STORY worth $60? That's subjective, now you get into subjective arguments. A story game can objectively not be worth $60 too, which is easily defined as the quality/price/saturation. Multiplayer/live service games? That's much much easier to dictate what the price should be. Sure, you might say it CAN be subjective in the end, if you follow the "If people like it, it can't be bad," sure.
By the argument above you made I could make a game with a moving pixel on a screen that goes from Point A to Point B, and then says "You win" when you get there and sell it for $30 and you objectively can't say it's not worth that if people have bought it and enjoyed it, even if it was for a meme? That's why your antiquated ideas are flawed, the L4D model isn't worth $60 anymore, sorry to say.
Let me ask you this: Is Left 4 Dead 2 fun to play only solo? If you can truthfully answer yes to that, sure, you win. You got me, I guess it is worth $60. If you say no, perhaps think about this whole thing more. Think about what it means to spend $60 to play with your friends who also spent $60, you have to have a lobby where everyone collectively spent $240. Even for me who have bought a group of friends FFXIV so we can all play together.
I doubt you'll actually legit respond to that last part, and even if you do I bet you'll say it is fine single-player or something, which we all know is just not true. So now you gotta spend $60 and have a stable internet connection just to have fun with that $60.
Also, your argument on "If you don't like it, don't buy it," is totally ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ retarded. Have vegetarians stopped meat production? They only get anywhere when they're active, and not the "pour blood on a woman who wears a fur coat" active, more like actively contributing to the cause of CHANGING it. Forum posts would count as well, I think you hate on forum posts too much. They can make a huge difference, but you are right. Most of the community is toxic garbage who is just waiting for an excuse to blow up on someone. You might say that is me too, which is fine. I don't mind the sentiment.
I also get that my responses are aggressive and say things are "retarded" or "stupid" and I respect you for not even responding in the same aggressive tones, that's just my stupid way of saying I grossly disbelieve in what you're saying. I'll apologize for my words, yet I know that means little as I'll still be doing it if we continue.
Nah, I'm not hoping they change the dynamic (what little I've seen), so far so good - for an alpha. I have no idea what PvP looks like, which is likely where most of my hours will go. 6 months before release, and I've seen two days of gameplay. More info will prrrrobably be unveiled in that time.
I'm not sure why you'd doubt I'd address your final point - it's not a gotcha or some smoking gun? No, L4D isn't as fun solo, and no, I wouldn't pay $60 for a game, with virtually no story, that was built around MP but didn't have MP...?!?!?
This idea that if a lobby consists of 4 people, therefore the true cost is actually $240, and they're pulling a fast one on us by making us have fun TOGETHER instead of individually experiencing story content etc, and therefore it's less valuable is... what...? This is a very interesting, combative viewpoint that somehow manages to confuse production cost/complexity with consumer value and enjoyment.
If two companies make hats of equal quality, that you both enjoy, but one company can produce them cheaper, you know they don't owe you the difference... right? And this is assuming online play doesn't come with it's OWN challenges, hurdles, servers and costs etc. We have to pedal the bike, and ALSO buy it? What is this?!?
A very interesting perspective, friend, but I'm not sure where else we can go from "The customer determines the value of a product, not the hypothetical production cost, which isn't even information that's available" and that developers *don't* owe us money for making online games? Surely I must be missing something here. Oh well. This has been fun.
I mean your entire post is entirely missing the point. Your argument I assume is based on the fact that "developers have wages" which is just a lackadaisical way of saying "I think we should spend more so the developers are paid their wages." Do you think the devs of these triple A titles that go for $60 aren't paid until they make money on their game? That's not how it works, if it was we wouldn't have games like we do now, they'd all still be Undertale-esque. The publishers pay developers a salary per usual, or on negotiated terms, usually when they meet a certain requirement for their game, etc. Your argument is trivial in it's pursuit of debunking my side of the debate, as lowering the price of the game does nothing but pay them for what we deem is valuable.
Also, your argument about hats is INHERENTLY flawed, ridiculously so, just because of real life. You see this with Supreme, and Gucci, etc. At first it might seem to agree with your side, but no. Supreme sells a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ logo for absorbent prices. I'm using an extreme here so the meaning behind it lands, btw. So Supreme sells normal products with their logo, I say normal as in I think they're at least decent quality, which I've heard. The idea is that buying Supreme is basically buying a logo, sure it might be decent quality but you know you could go buy that same shirt for half if not even more than half the price. Use your head, if you can go get a shirt half the price minus the logo, why get the shirt that is higher priced? The issue is that you might like the logo and all, but know that buying it is a gross waste of money. Just because other people do it, makes it completely fine?
I guess your idea is: "If people are stupid enough to do it, ♥♥♥♥ them for being stupid enough to do it." Instead of maybe solving the problem, you go, "Well that's capitalism, that's coo'." There's a line that should be drawn, B4B isn't on that line, no. I think it's whatever if they sell it for $60, I won't buy it, so they get nothing from me. I would just say that they'd make more money selling it at like $35-40, asking $60 for a L4D clone is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ sickening. I'm not the only one who is saying it's a clone, look at Twitch, or reviews.
Again, sorry to say, the whole Left 4 Dead concept is no longer worth $60, just like how battle royales aren't worth paying for anymore.
Also, where do you get this "owe" thing? You legit are making arguments for sawdust in your cereal. I'm not even going to go further into arguing how selling a lesser product for the same prices as other products is a negatively charged business strategy, I can't understand how you don't see that your argument protects so many ♥♥♥♥♥♥ things happening in so many industries. I'm not trying to tinfoil hat or anything, just saying that your consumerism is showing.
One more thing, you're narrowing your vision on the broad scope. I play with the same 6-8 people in my Discord constantly, tight knit friends. So yes, if we all wanted to play versus together we'd collectively have to spend $480. Asking friends to buy a $60 game that is just a repetitive shooter that basically looks like it's going down World War Z paths in doing a progression system? That's a hard ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ask, even if it's L4D3.
Instead of editing my post again, I want to comment one more thing on this. You took the argument as if I'm saying you'd be playing a multiplayer game without multiplayer. The argument was simply: I pay $60 for a game I can't play without other people. That's a bit too steep for a L4D clone with very little changes to the game. Same concepts, go here do this, wait here, swarm, etc.
A business does not inherently cut customers in on saved production costs, unless it's to undercut the competition. I'm not saying this is ideal, Comrade, but it's literally how virtually every business works. You not seeing value in B4D is the core of the issue, and that's subjective. The fact that you simply cannot grasp that your opinion is subjective is what makes this a pointless conversation, bordering on insane. All the bizarro talk of the true cost of a lobby of 4 people, factoring in internet, comparing that to a story game, ignoring the fact that online games have server costs etc - I'm not sure anyone in the world has time for that, friend.
But, I do wish you well on whatever quest you're on. You come off a bit like the dude at the traffic light with the cardboard doomsday sign, and somehow it kinda works for you. I hope, unlike literally everyone else who spends hours on internet forums berating gamers for perpetuating the oppressive system and lamenting the corruption of the gaming world, that you actually make a difference.
also basing value on time spent is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. That's probably why so many games these days are full of grind and collecting to inflate your time and trick u in thinking that your purchase was worth it.
how can people defend this when games like vermintide 2 were released for half the price.
I mean, not at all. The only part that seemed that way was my consumerism line, which is why I said that. Don't take a single statement I said and translate it to my entire argument. You also taking that and equating it to everything else I said is another bad practice in arguments, it feels like you have no legs to stand on at this point.
If there are products that do the same thing for less, objectively the price of something that does the same should be less. I don't see how you can't get that idea that everyone else gets? You really do feel like someone who just consumes, as your arguments are all for companies literally pegging you. Though you'll say "Nuh-uh! I'm different, my argument is for the developers and the little guys!" Okay, poggers my dude. You won society, kekw.
So if you wanna keep bringing subjectivity and objectivity into this all, then you can always argue that anything is subjective, you can spin that argument on anything perceived as objective easily. Solipsism at it's finest. :)
But that's fine, keep buying your Anthems, and your Marvel's Avengers. I'll be here saying that "Some games that are $60 should not be $60." and this is another one, not for my wallet, but for the game's success in my eyes. If you argue that the game will probably be successful, let me remind you that Anthem made over $100 million in digital revenue, and that was last year.
Again, this comes down to you not feeling it's worth $60, which is fine. And again, the bizarro mental gymnastics involving the cost of a full lobby and internet has no basis on anything (seriously, what even is that...? I should've listened to the red flags, honestly, haha) - you are still left with only feeling like this game isn't worth $60, which is peachy, but only your opinion.
I'm saying if it's not worth it don't buy it, and IF the game looks good in 6 months, I'll consider it, because I got literally thousands of hours out of L4D, so a few hundred on something similar for $60 is a steal, I don't care if you don't personally agree, it's not about you, friendo.
Associating an undeniably balanced "wait and see" approach with industry-damaging consumerism and a desire to be pegged...? Or maybe it was because I mentioned how businesses tend to work, merely stating facts? Fascinating. Yeah, that's not the gatcha victory you think it is, but it sounds like you might need a win, if only in your own head. Have at it, friend. <3 It was interesting. A bit too much of both weird *and* lowkey aggressive to justify another hour of my time, but more importantly, I think it's clear there's no sharing of ideas going on, that mindset of yours is a bit too extreme to see my viewpoint as anything other than a detriment or misguided, plus I kinda had you slotted as a crazy cardboard doomsday sign guy, and that hasn't really changed. XD We have to agree to disagree, that super inconvenient thing that boils down to your opinion being subjective after all.
Since you see this as some kind of activism akin to vegans reducing meat consumption (?) if that ever becomes anything other than bored dudes arguing with undecided buyers on the Steam forums and patting themselves on the back, let me know. I've been seeing it for around 10 years now, and I'm still waiting for change. I'm holding out hope that it's not just an excuse for an outlet for homelife frustrations and boredom. Maybe this time, it will be different! Cheers. o/