Zainstaluj Steam
zaloguj się
|
język
简体中文 (chiński uproszczony)
繁體中文 (chiński tradycyjny)
日本語 (japoński)
한국어 (koreański)
ไทย (tajski)
български (bułgarski)
Čeština (czeski)
Dansk (duński)
Deutsch (niemiecki)
English (angielski)
Español – España (hiszpański)
Español – Latinoamérica (hiszpański latynoamerykański)
Ελληνικά (grecki)
Français (francuski)
Italiano (włoski)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonezyjski)
Magyar (węgierski)
Nederlands (niderlandzki)
Norsk (norweski)
Português (portugalski – Portugalia)
Português – Brasil (portugalski brazylijski)
Română (rumuński)
Русский (rosyjski)
Suomi (fiński)
Svenska (szwedzki)
Türkçe (turecki)
Tiếng Việt (wietnamski)
Українська (ukraiński)
Zgłoś problem z tłumaczeniem
You make a good point.
To be recognized in the mudhole that makes the ever growing number of generic Early Access games, the developers who come up with something that is both new and has a high production value are having a hard time to actually get the attention they deserve.
They also say: "It doesn't need a master chef to know that a roast is burnt"
No, it is not as simple as that as well as this answer is pretty much narrow minded.... It is about an economical miscalculation which leads to a shrinking diversity of quality products all the while quantitatively this effect isn't recognizable and therefore hard to see!
A lot of indie developers themselves are complaining about the flooded market, as it is not making it easier neither for them, nor the customer!
As referrence, read some of the discussions on gamasutra.com , you can see a lot of indie developers themselves having this topic there on their top agenda everyday! For example, take this indie develper quote from there:
"1) Will my Games not be discovered any more because of the mass of new games published?
You're forgetting one key very important part - before the algorithm can recommend your game to anyone, it needs to collect data. And if hundreds of new games are released every day, most of it garbage, players will be reluctant to even give new games a try if they haven't heard of them before, which means steam will have a much harder time to even learn about your game enough to decide if it's worth recommending or not. In addition, the system will simply be unable to give all these new games the "trial visibility" that games get today.
As for external sources? That's far from the majority of players, the majority of visits come from the discovery queue and main carousel, which are based on recommendations.
Last, even getting youtubers interested in your game will be much harder with 100 of new steam games every day. Right now, having a steam key by itself helps you get influencers attention (obviously not always, but it helps).
2) Ratings will get more important - get good Ratings :)
My point above applies. Without the initial player base (which may be severely reduced due to inflation of garbage game releases), you will not be able to get ratings at all (except for friends and family of course)"
I for myself am convinced that it is of utmost importance as well for the developers as for the customers to move and work with Valve on this issue to improve the market situation.
But yes, of course, if I don't like it, I won't use Steam..... Thank you for this qualified contribution to the discussion!
"This reminds me of the Great Video Game Crash of '83: What caused it? Unreliability in quality. What fixed it? Reliability in quality."
The real issue is that indie studios SUCK at marketing. The current situation only accelaretes the issue. If Steam was to only release 5 games a month - those five games would not compete with each other, but still the entire catalogue. You'd get more visibility, but that only holds for so long anyway. And a popular game now will have around the same time span on the popular new releases list as before.
Incorrect on both terms. What you're referring to was the Northe American Console game crash of 83. Arcade games experience a boom in the same period and pc games were unaffected, also didn't really register in japan or europe.
Because it had nothing to do with quality. It was not a crash that was created by a fall in demand. It was a fall in supply. Demand for video games was as high as ever in 83, that's what the NES and MS took off the way they did.
It's one of those popular mistellings of history people do because it's easier to repeat a fact you've heard as opposed to research it. Right up there with Napoleon was SHort and Columbus discovered america or columbus figured the earth was round.
And unfortunately - like in any other industry - the ones who make the highest effort to develop a great product, tend to neglect the marketing aspect and fall behind those who might have an inferior product but made marketing the #1 priority.
For better or for worse, the times are long gone where an innovative and well-designed game with good critiques from a handful of media outlets and a decent word-of-mouth recommendation was enough to make it a top seller.
Nice discussion here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raIef6QXu0E
The fantastic games I have been exposed to over the last 3 years has been better by a large margin then literally ALL the games I have ever gotten going back to about 1987.
I have been gaming for that long and by a HUGE margin the games that are out now over the last 3 years make this era of gaming by a LARGE margin the best in history.
I can provide you a list of examples if you like. I think my list has 1 maybe 2 non-early access titles
I'd like to see the list. Can you do it with hyperlinks to the Steam store pages ?
S.x.
actually lets do this it will be easier for both of us.
Look at my game profile, sorted by most hours played.
I was worried you weren't the real Tux until I saw your play list.
Didn't you like GTA V ?
I've got a feeling you'd really like Tropico 4 - should be pretty cheap next sale.
S.x.
I really didnt care for GTA 5, same for GTA 4 and 3 for that matter, san andreas was not too bad as long as you played with cheats but not really a lot of staying power that game either.
then again, I am older then 14