Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
Let's face it, you are not here to have a conversation. You are here to feel good about yourself by highjacking a thread which people are trying to share their point of view. What can i say, be proud. I am no longer willing to feed an entitled troll like you.
Again why would they do this while they can easly increase their numbers from steam left overs. You all are missing the point after the production of the game there is little to no cost for that game anymore sure they still have to pay their emploies for the next projects but abondoning a market at some countrys because they must sell them from a cheap price will only hurt them. Because there is getting low revenue from that countrys and there is getting 0. Idk i think with your logics getting 0 is better. Surely they wouldnt lose money either way.
And they clearly said this was because region hoppers. They compleately ignore to finding a real solution and decided to abondon this markets.
"What I can say is that we saw a huge increase in sales in your countries last year, but no increase in the number of players. Something like 85% of sales coming "from Argentina and Turkey" seem to be coming from people playing in other countries - people who are chasing the lowest possible price on Steam. This is apparently a widespread problem on Steam, which is why Steam is recommending an especially large increase in your regional prices."
Ubisoft already ditched Argentine peso in favour of USD - https://www.ubisoft.com/en-us/help/purchases-and-rewards/article/accepted-payment-methods-for-the-ubisoft-store-argentina/000102708
Because when someone has a different opinion abt something, it always means that person is trying to highjack the thread 👌
(The inflation itself is not even an opinion)
Yea clearly you are not the one living in the inflation to know what can and cant be affordable still im totaly fine with my position since i have majortiy of the aaa games. Weird thing is my gpu is more expensive then my brand new motorcycle right now.
Developers decided that old prices in our countrys for only we can afford it and add some more revenure to their pools. it turns out %85 of the steam players is abusing region change to steal from them and some of them are acualy more angry then us. Its basicly pirating from a legit way.
So as a Turkish citizens we have right to be upset at Steam. There is no excuse of our infilation and there is also no excuse that Steam decided to do this instead of finding a real solution.
We tell you about devs complaining and give you proof, and your answer is that one dev doesn't represent the majority. Are you expecting us to link, to this thread, each and every dev that has complained about hoppers? What can i expect from someone who has 2900 games in their library, you obviously dont have a clue about what it feels like, having one of the few things we can use to escape the harsh reality of where we live become completely unaffordable.
Point out where they say that Steam is no longer available in either Turkey or Argentina.
I will say that at least these threads are refreshing as they are no longer all about Windows 7. However the premise is the same, people blaming Valve for something that they did not cause.
Theres no point in this discussion anymore, cos we're goin on circles here (its really funny how you think i'm accusing you of region hopping).
The biggest irony here is you actually are still getting regional pricing, but you're lumped up with LATAM (for ARG) and MENA (for Turkey)
"So, you want companies to adjust their process for failing economies?"
Regional pricing has existed for a long time. It's not a concept I just made up, or that customers are demanding to be a thing, it's something the very companies came up with and has been applied for years in those regions. And it already is part of most gaming companies process. I mean, Valve themselves have their system to determine the suggested prices, based on a country's economical situation, and companies can use it(or not, it's literally their call) to determine what's the most profitable pricing for them, according to what they see is their potential number of customers in such regions.
"Companies cannot continually sell their products for less than it cost for them to produce"
We're talking about digital products here, and this is the key component of the equation to understand why regional pricing works in gaming industry:
There's no costs involved with mastering, manufacture, transport or storage. There's no limited supply of physical copies, so your game can sell indefinitely with no need to invest in reprints. Steam has very small incremental costs per copy since they are distributing digitally. Essentially once they have set up the game for sales (non-recurring cost), they are only paying bandwidth costs to distribute additional copies.
-
If selling a 60 dollars for less than that in specific countries at launch, could imply selling at loss, and to a point they could go bankrupt, then why do games go on sale only after a few months all around the globe? Why do companies sell their + few years old games at deep discounts(talking 5-15 bucks at best in the most expensive regions), if it meant they are selling it for less than it'd cost them to maintain the product in the market?
Are companies selling their(virtually infinite amount of DIGITAL) PRODUCTS at loss each time a Steam user buys their games at any % discount? (And counting the % Steam takes with each sale).
-
"Would you think so if you were one of those companies?"
My point is that, if the numbers add up, selling more for less can be more profitable than selling less for more. That's it. It's just about what's more profitable.
What number is higher: 200 x 60 or 1000 x 30?
And hell, even then they can still choose not to, stick to standard price and deal with whatever consecuences that creates. I just said it a million times, it's their call, not mine(nor yours... for the record). And all I'm doing here really is just talk a topic of discussion that interests and involves some people more than it does others. Was I not allowed to do that neither?