Common Sense Support ending - Resell me my Future Purchases as Remastered content

[76561199502155650]

So let me get this straight, Steam users no longer support common sense and have been tricked by a business to spend spend spend on high priced games that eventually become incompatible with current operating systems.

I Think Common Sense is needed for Majority of the people who have lost and in the future will lose tons of money for video games and hardware purchases that are never fully enjoyed.

Remember in 10 or 20 years from now all of your current purchases will be rolled back over into the same content games and resold as Remastered content on the new/current OS

Thanks for taking the time to have a little common sense and understanding.

[Nx Machina]

引用自 D. Flame：

I didn't attempt to discredit your argument by attacking your character. I told you to reread the point you missed or ignored. Doubling down on your misunderstanding isn't helping you, lol.

Oh but did hence:

引用自 D. Flame：

Learn to read, kiddo:

Which is definitely an insult and an ad-hominem (Attacking a person's character or motivations rather than a position or argument). And you through in another ad-hominem.

引用自 D. Flame：

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/what-difference-between-revenue-and-profit.asp

I already know (i run my own profitable business) hence why i posted:

引用自 Nx Machina：

REVENUE is known as the top line because it appears first on a company's income statement before expenses (tax etc) are deducted, therefore it is not a static number.

NET INCOME, also known as the bottom line, is revenues minus expenses (tax etc) after deductions are taken.

PROFIT is generated when revenues exceed expenses.

NOTE: It is not illegal to make a profit irrespective of the size and no business needs to set prices based on your wants, needs, desires. Profit is how businesses GROW. Secondly i can guarantee if you ran a business you WILL try to maximise those profits and justify doing so.

And finally and more importantly a point you completely miss.

YOU can buy a game at FULL price or on SALE and only YOU make that choice.

[nullable]

引用自 D. Flame：

I don't care what you were addressing or not. I am talking about the facts. Record profits means they don't need to increase prices.

Profits = revenue - costs
record = higher than every before

You do care, which is why you're trying to flex and deflect by trying to be condescending. You're just bad at it, and it makes you look weak.

引用自 D. Flame：

This isn't rocket surgery.

Then why is this discussion so difficult for you?

[Mad Scientist]

引用自 D. Flame：

So even if my point was not 100% on the semantics, my underlying point does remain unchanged. Record profits = they don't need to raise prices.

If the prices have largely remained the same across the board except for lack of currency value or a few games pushing over standard prices, what prices have been raised in majority?

You're trying to paint a scenario that hasn't happened.

As for the rest, record profits by being able to digitally distribute helps alleviate issues with other currency, in addition to changes in cost of living over the years. So, being digitally distributed highly reduced the overall costs, but cost of living has gone up in many 1st world areas, but prices are primarily identical if not the same depending on the game type & quality.

What you're asserting doesn't seem to be happening and is otherwise balanced out by the potential total reach of digital distribution.

[D. Flame]

引用自 Nx Machina：

Secondly it is not illegal to make a profit irrespective

And now you are trying to move the goalposts, lol.

[D. Flame]

引用自 Mad Scientist：

引用自 D. Flame：

So even if my point was not 100% on the semantics, my underlying point does remain unchanged. Record profits = they don't need to raise prices.

If the prices have largely remained the same across the board except for lack of currency value or a few games pushing over standard prices, what prices have been raised in majority?

You're trying to paint a scenario that hasn't happened.

As for the rest, record profits by being able to digitally distribute helps alleviate issues with other currency, in addition to changes in cost of living over the years. So, being digitally distributed highly reduced the overall costs, but cost of living has gone up in many 1st world areas, but prices are primarily identical if not the same depending on the game type & quality.

What you're asserting doesn't seem to be happening and is otherwise balanced out by the potential total reach of digital distribution.

See:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/what-difference-between-revenue-and-profit.asp

Revenue is the total amount of income generated by the sale of goods or services related to the company's primary operations. Profit, which is typically called net profit or the bottom line, is the amount of income that remains after accounting for all expenses, debts, additional income streams, and operating costs.

[Nx Machina]

引用自 D. Flame：

And now you are trying to move the goalposts, lol.

Every shot i have made is on target, hence your ad-hominem's, and snipping posts.

[D. Flame]

引用自 Nx Machina：

引用自 D. Flame：

And now you are trying to move the goalposts, lol.

Every shot i have made is on target, hence your ad-hominem's and snipping posts.

I am snipping posts people cause trying to reply to individual points on Steam forums is a PitA.

The point being discussed was that they are posting record profits, and therefore, they don't "need" to raise prices to stay afloat, as was claimed.

Then you attempted to shift the goal post by saying "it's not illegal." Legality was never the point of debate.

[Mad Scientist]

引用自 D. Flame：

引用自 Mad Scientist：

If the prices have largely remained the same across the board except for lack of currency value or a few games pushing over standard prices, what prices have been raised in majority?

You're trying to paint a scenario that hasn't happened.

As for the rest, record profits by being able to digitally distribute helps alleviate issues with other currency, in addition to changes in cost of living over the years. So, being digitally distributed highly reduced the overall costs, but cost of living has gone up in many 1st world areas, but prices are primarily identical if not the same depending on the game type & quality.

What you're asserting doesn't seem to be happening and is otherwise balanced out by the potential total reach of digital distribution.

See:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/what-difference-between-revenue-and-profit.asp

Revenue is the total amount of income generated by the sale of goods or services related to the company's primary operations. Profit, which is typically called net profit or the bottom line, is the amount of income that remains after accounting for all expenses, debts, additional income streams, and operating costs.

You still need to pay all parties, even with record profit and as stated games are about the same costs categorically & quality as they were 2 decades ago, where is the changed prices other than some AAA Devs charging more for a few select games or special editions/variants?

Shouldn't games be an average of 80-120 if your assertion was true?

[TheStoryteller01]

That is exactly why from the start on I used Steam exclusively to play my online/multiplayer games (which all eventually die anyway) and for games from 1$ bundles (for which I either dont care or I can get again for a few bucks after a decade)

The rest went to GOG.

[D. Flame]

引用自 Mad Scientist：

引用自 D. Flame：

See:

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/122214/what-difference-between-revenue-and-profit.asp

You still need to pay all parties, even with record profit and as stated games are about the same costs categorically & quality as they were 2 decades ago, where is the changed prices other than some AAA Devs charging more for a few select games or special editions/variants?

Shouldn't games be an average of 80-120 if your assertion was true?

*face palm*
Are you even reading before posting?

Profit is the money they have AFTER expenses. Paying all the parties IS PART OF THE EXPENSES.

[Mad Scientist]

引用自 D. Flame：

引用自 Mad Scientist：

You still need to pay all parties, even with record profit and as stated games are about the same costs categorically & quality as they were 2 decades ago, where is the changed prices other than some AAA Devs charging more for a few select games or special editions/variants?

Shouldn't games be an average of 80-120 if your assertion was true?

*face palm*
Are you even reading before posting?

Profit is the money they have AFTER expenses. Paying all the parties IS PART OF THE EXPENSES.

Again, where is the change of prices? The games are the same prices as they have been for a long time.

[D. Flame]

引用自 Mad Scientist：

引用自 D. Flame：

*face palm*
Are you even reading before posting?

Profit is the money they have AFTER expenses. Paying all the parties IS PART OF THE EXPENSES.

Again, where is the change of prices? The games are the same prices as they have been for a long time.

Expansion Passes, DLC, Season Passes,$5 Multiplayer Pass, On Disc DLC, Microtransaction, Loot Boxes, etc.

[Start_Running]

引用自 D. Flame：

引用自 Start_Running：

Never miond that economics is biased towards growth. So you have to keep making more and more.


And lets be frank. COmpare the games you pay $60 for now, against thegames you paid $60 for 20, 30 years ago

The ones from 20 years ago were better. This is why they are still being resold or remade today.

See: Metroid Prime Remake vs Metroid Dread.

Yuh Huh. Might want to take off the rose tinted glasses. SOme of rthem were greats yeah. But much like today, Most of them were crap. For ever Deus Ex there have been about 3 Daikatanas. And even the games people laud as good were really only mediocre. Like say Half Life. And for every Baldur's gate or never winter Nights.. there's about 5 Ultima 9's.

But we collectively tend to forget the crap and only remember the good ones because.. its a shorter list to remember. ;P

But what i waas talking about is the scope and polish of the game. I mean lets be frank The graphics weren't great, and the size and scope of mechanics were quite small by today's standards.

[Nx Machina]

引用自 D. Flame：

I am snipping posts people cause trying to reply to individual points on Steam forums is a PitA.

You are snipping because no one forced you to add RE4 Remastered to the cart and confirm.

引用自 D. Flame：

The point being discussed was that they are posting record profits, and therefore, they don't "need" to raise prices to stay afloat, as was claimed.

Then you attempted to shift the goal post by saying "it's not illegal." Legality was never the point of debate.

But It is because it is NOT illegal to make a profit. It is you wanting prices frozen based on your wants, needs, desires and the reality is YOU and only YOU make a choice to pay FULL price or DISCOUNTED. You are not being forced to buy a game, it is voluntary action, a choice you make.

[Mad Scientist]

引用自 D. Flame：

引用自 Mad Scientist：

Again, where is the change of prices? The games are the same prices as they have been for a long time.

Expansion Passes, DLC, Season Passes,$5 Multiplayer Pass, On Disc DLC, Microtransaction, Loot Boxes, etc.

So the base game prices are about the same, the expansion prices are still around the same - even the late 90s had expansion packs.

The rest isn't really different, so where's the change in prices? Cosmetic DLC/in-game cosmetic microtransactions & Supporter DLC are strictly optional and doesn't affect the price of the base game. Where's the big change in prices?

The base prices I see for games haven't changed, the expansions typically have not either. Optional things have had similar prices for a long time or can be bundled. So, I still don't see where your assertion is credible.

Not to mention due to digital distribution, it's incredibly easy to get games on discounted prices during sales, rather than an always the same price shelf product.