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
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
But if a company can't maintain business with a subscription for one title, how would it be able to sustain itself for thousands of games on Steam? The system "could" work for a handful of games in the Steam platform but keeping the subscription rate reasonable for the customer while hundreds of companies profiting from such system seems unlikely.
the bank now seems to be mainly DLCs
An MMO is a completely different kindof beast than a traditional game. You need the server infrastructure and maintenance and need to balance and add content regularly to bind players.
A traditional game is paid for once it's done and after 4 weeks the main selling period is over and the majority of gamers will have moved on.
Massive failure.
Yeah, you pay what 10 bucks-ish a month for Netflix. Netflix has deals with major distributors who own the IP. Steam has thousands of games with thousands of developers/publishers who are going to want a lot more than 10 bucks divided by X for their games.
So let's say you get this all-access pass for Steam. It costs 15 bucks a month. It gives you access to 200 games from 20 different developers/publishers. That means every publisher is getting a whopping 75 cents a month so you can have access to all of their games. I'm pretty sure they'd rather just have the 9.99-59.99 instead.
It's a better model.
Earlier I thought paying lik €25 for a game was expensive but now I'm spending $1000+ / year on games.
I would had thought a €100 / month subscribers fee to Steam was expensive even if it included all the games but considering my short-term behavior it seem to be the better choice.
I know that when I buy games, I don't necessarily play them immediately. I buy them so that I can have them on hand, whenever in the future I want to play them.
That's because I don't know when I'll have time, nor do I know when I'll feel in the mood for any particular game.
The people who want a subscription service are those people with substantially more free time on their hands than I do, and on top of that, probably care less for any particular game than I do.
Seem to be for children comics and was far from all of them, just a small selection here and there ..
"If someone would had offered that for $10 .." - they likely offer it for less. I still bought it.
I act so illogical!! At-least to those who don't care.
This seems like a pointless business model because as a consumer you lose tons of money if you consider this for games with lots of content and as a company you lose a lot of sales if you give away short but full priced titles for 4 bucks a month.
It's actually not a bad idea especially if you want to "demo" some games before purchase and they even offer a discount if you decide to purchase the game. In the long term though, you have to wonder how many games will be added throughout the period of your membership.
For example:
a) Buy each game on demand (control your expense)
b) Pay $50 per month for unlimited access to 90% of Steam's catalog.
c) pay $80 per month for unlimited access to 100% of Steam's catalog. (That last 10% are new releases or DLC or EA or some other perk).
It was reported almost a year ago there were 6000 games on Steam. That number has obviously grown since then but let's just use that number for now.
If you pay 80 bucks a month for unlimited access to Steam's catalog (woo, sounds like a lot!) then each developer/publisher will get 0.01 cents for every game. Wow, if enough people subscribe to this full package developers/publisher could easily be raking in almost a whole penny! And in the long run...pennies even!
See a problem there?
Sure it's about what I pay now but now I "own" the content (Valve think different but I don't agree with them.)