Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Also who these others that already done it are you refering to the community, or what? Not many, or nearly no other platform on Windows side wanted to support Linux, by far GoG, and Steam been pro to Linux users than anyone else.
And what specific developers are asking that?
You got a quote for all the ones that fall under "Any that are going Epic exclusive?". And yeah, I mean actual sources.
Try again
from WWZ developers
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/345477/World_War_Z_has_topped_700000_sales_on_the_Epic_Games_Store.php
That is the complete opposite of "I truly don't understand, this is supposed to be a better split so why am I making less profit".
Publisher/developer comments on sales always needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Success begets success. Few will pick up an MP game considered "dead" (which incidentally is why SteamSpy is arguably harmful).
Course we've gone over this before and you always love the PR version more..
Feel free to provide evidence of this "I truly don't understand, this is supposed to be a better split so why am I making less profit" actually happening. I provided that statement since that statement is the exact opposite of what Ness was claiming.
Also provide evidence that the developers of WWZ are not being honest in their statement.
Do you actually understand the role of PR?
In other words, you can't handle the truth, so you have to make up something they didn't say so as to still make it seem like the developers are not happy. Ok.
Being timed only insures it's a monopoly control of that product's distribution during the period of the exclusive is absolute as intended. Try to appreciate what the monopoly is in regard to and not some generic amoebic notion of monopoly you assumed was meant. I've been specific and that's reflected in the top line you left out of citing me to make this rebuttal against overbroad use which I didn't do.
These other models you mention generally didn't demand an immediate and direct transfer of money for the "purchase" of the product (or license of use thereof). You bought other products advertised and then these advertisers paid for a broad brush broadcast that you can change the channel from.
If someone, whether investor or not, is looking forward to a specific product in a specific way that they were even told would be the case, but then that doesn't happen and the product's distribution is restricted to locations they do not wish to use or do not appreciate the additional charges related to purchase therefrom and/or other inconveniences, the exclusivity bars them from making other choices, but one: NOT BUYING IT.
Sure that's a choice, but it's not the one the customer was wanting, looking forward to, paying for, nor the investor investing to achieve, and due to a monopoly over distribution.
Publishers in all these industries want broad access to their product unless it rises to a level that picking one specific distributor will achieve the same or better results. Results that are just about money will be easy for a paying Exclusive Monopoly Distribution Agreement to gain all rights to, whereas results based on customer saturation and other factors that the Publisher is trying to achieve, that well include Customer Satisfaction will deny making any such moves to any exclusive distribution. All the industries and products you mentioned function on these premises because they have to have the affordability to weather the conversion or know there shall be none to weather.
That is not what Epic has done here and your confusion, or intentional effort to paint a picture that isn't the case by what appears purposeful and intentional exclusion of terms that assure clarity will not help make what I've said inaccurate.
Hand waving everything you don't like as being "PR" is a weak argument. Either they stated the truth, or they didn't, it is as simple as that, cause if there was anything in that their statement that was not true, then it makes it an untrue statement. Either they are happy with their results, or they are not happy with the results.
So you got anything to prove that they were not being honest in their statements?
Nailed it! :)