安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
此主題已被鎖定 
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
If you think they would just look at the face value and see this as a threat, then you know nothing of how companies work.
I guarantee you BEFORE Epic announced their intention to have a store, Valve knew about it, and would have already done feasability studies and so on.
In short, they would know long before whether they'd need to change or sweeten deals.
Post #348 no need to apologise
"I dont know of hundreds.... but out of all the sales i have seen....
this one is terrible from my experience..
the cards are old... you have to wait 2 days for a odd looking bird sticker...
no whacky game for us all to play.... old games with dodgey pricing
in amongst some games with good pricing and other games
not really a sale... more of pot luck keep your wits about you or you might get ripped off sale.."
Pray do explain where in ANY of that is any demonstrable evidence? I see nothing except subjective opinion.
That's the problem with publishers nowadays. Not even a dozen years ago, a game would see its price drop 1 year or so after its release. Getting AAA titles for $10 or even $5 during a sale wasn't rare.
Today games keep the same price years after their release so while they proudly lure people with a nice 75% discount, it's still $20. $20 for a 5 year old game should be its base tag, not its price during a sale.
To be honest, you can sell games only once - unless you're a real fan of a product... I bought Beyond on PS3 (Steelbook), PS4 Beyond & Heavy Rain Collection, PC on EGS and now on Steam, but that's another story - so I personally understand that developers don't want to cut the price that much, especially if the game is critically acclaimed and cost millions of dollars to make.
At some point we should accept that some games are really worth 60$ (or 20-40 if they released months/years ago) - it's expensive to produce them and if a game can't break even, there'll never be a sequel.
We already saw a decline in big singleplayer experiences and if they release, there are often tons of paid DLCs and MTAs. Yes publishers and developers also do this to make more profit, but the past (super steep discounts, only huge numbers during 5-10$ sales) is also a reason for that.
For reference:
Grounded is currently in EarlyAcces and obviously SHOULD NOT get a discount, as it's EA price already is a discount, compared to the price it will have once released!
Valve CANNOT influence like you seem to think.
They can and do, recommend a certain price point, but this is mostly for new devs who are inexperienced.
If they suggested a price that was out of the bounds of what the publisher wanted, they'd simply go "nah" and continue, or worse still go elsewhere.
And why should a publisher bow down to someone when they're trying to create some sort of parity across many platforms? That would destroy their projections and probably create unnecessary bother.
Oh in that case, I apologise. I misunderstood.
But have they actually not put in appropriate effort?
You do have to take a step back and look at the big picture here. NO company worth thier salt tries to beat each sale or event year on year - that's a recipe for suicide.
But more than this - why go on an overblown example when many people in the world are out of work currently or locked down? That includes Valve staff too.
So in that regard alone, is it any wonder really?