Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
Well ridiculous hyperbole might seem slick on a forum. But you know businesses actually know what they're doing and if the reality was in anywhere close to your hyperbole they obviously wouldn't do that.
What if the reality was closer to 300 * 70 vs 400 * 40? Well that's a horse of a different color now ain't it?
Plus it's not as if that's the end of the story. How much does the game sell over a year, after a few sales? All those people only willing to spend $40 will just wait for a sale. OK so the publisher makes that $40 later on. The point is people still buy games. Some will pay the full msrp, and other people will wait for sales, which has been the status quo for ages now.
Oversimplified FUD isn't going to change that.
No one forces anyone to publish games on Nintendo consoles. But it's often a very large market, so there's clearly an appeal there to businesses and IP owners who want to make money.
At any rate it's not some kind of morality situation that you seem to be angling toward. Nintendo protects its IP very carefully which is why stuff like Mario and Zelda games are very strong IP even after 40 years. Microsoft and Sony haven't done the same, who are their respective mascots again?
At any rate, despite your criticisms, let's not forget that Nintendo has been in the business longer than anyone and have been successful at it for 40+ years. They seem to know what they're doing which kinda causes most of your criticisms to fall flat.
You should maybe think about not dismissing everyone who has different preferences than you. Or projecting your values onto everyone and everything else. It looks a little foolish given the the length of time and size of the market you don't seem to think counts in a discussion about video games...
Your games release quality was significantly higher. When games released, they were actually finished.
Today, you wouldn't be able to compete in that market. Time has gotten more expensive.
The vast majority of regular people? Who aren't buying/not buying a game due to an Agenda (whether pro: fans/stans, "I will buy everything from <dev>/<franchise> NAO"; or anti: "all DLC sucks, I refuse to buy games with them"; this game is DEI/SJW/SBI/etc trash; gaemz xpnsv, everyone who buys are sheep). People who have a reasonable entertainment budget, and who stay within it and are fine with buying things they want?
Normal people. /shrug
Personally, I buy like 0-3 big/new games in a year. +$10 on them, which I'd been expecting to happen for years before it did (because I understand inflation, economy, and historical price changes), isn't a big deal for me. I was never on board the "ZOMG, $60 is too expensive!" hate train in the 20teens, either.
People who buy multiple new games a month have a spending problem, but it's not due to the "high" prices of games. They'd have a spending problem if they were $40.
edit: I also don't buy new/top-end GPUs every year or two. That by itself means I could afford the price increase on many more games than I buy. Now *there's* an area in which prices have gone insane. With the forums full of people who think spending $1k+ on a GPU is fine.
People keep saying this. I don't think they know their history as well as they think they do. And I don't think they appreciate some of the ways things have evolved.
Like games were often much smaller, and shorter, limited but the technology of the day. A lack of information about the game itself during development means you don't know what finished means. How many games had content just cut out because of a lack of time to finish it? And in decades past that content was just gone. Now it can still be finished and added in. That's not something I feel compelled to cry over.
I mean not everything is perfect, but for every criticism people have I do see some benefits for how things evolved. There were lots of great games back in the day. But it wasn't some utopia, people still complained incessantly just like they do now. Games were still buggy, incomplete, you just weren't keenly aware of every detail that occurred in development, and it kinda seems like an ignorance is bliss situation to me.
Many people already make a choice to not purchase new games because they are increasingly poor quality and expensive, they are not purchasing new consoles for this game reason, the shift on consumerism has started and because of the high profit deduction the industry has , mainly with online selling with platforms like steam, it has driven customers to find alternatives or to forsake the games they want in favor of more needed material objects.
the main thing to remember is steam can charge developers whatever they like and developers can charge consumers, however the consumer doesn't need to buy the product and failing game studios shows they aren't.
Steam can lie all it likes about its profits and sales, however keep in mind if there was money to be made making games and selling them valve would of had a whole line up of new games being released, they don't cause they know how poor the sales really are.
They went head first into the shallow pool with the Steam Deck and a headache is a nice way to put cracking your skull open when diving into the deepend of a low demand product.
Not sure what games your playing but almost every game I buy at launch is finished. Sure some have bugs, but the games are also far more convoluted and are incredibly more difficult to troubleshoot
This is an interesting read about bugs in a AAA game - Final Fantasy (3)6
https://finalfantasy.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Bugs_in_Final_Fantasy_VI
Tons of bugs including major ones like the evasion stat doing nothing at all, and magic evasion dictating evasion for physical and magic.
Sadly those bugs never got fixed where as if they were released today a patch would address it.
Nintendo never has sales.
Many people consider nintendo to be profitable while sony and microsoft has questionable profits in the past 10 years.
Ignorance is bliss is a true statement, how information was handled is much different. This is true.
Well... giving a no-name indie developer access to one of the largest markets in PC gaming isn't nothing. For a $100 a developer gets access to a platform and features that would cost them orders of magnitude more than $100 to build for themselves. That's not nothing either.
I mean when's the last time you've gone to an indie game's website and bought the game right off their site, direct from the developer? Is that how gamers shop for games these days?
There's a big different between selling 50,000 games off your website and selling 500,000 games on Steam. And from where I sit 100% of 50,000 isn't going to be greater than 70% of 500,000.
Plus let's not forget no one is being forced to sell their games on Steam. Developers choose to because it actually makes them a lot of money. And it does often seem like developers sell more units on Steam than all the other PC platforms combined. And and all the other stores, on PC or consoles take a percentage. Don't kid yourself.
Also let's not gloss over the fact that it's 20%-30% for the revenue split. If you game does well Valve's cut goes down. And if you're selling millions of games and not making money that's not Valve's problem. It's not outrageous or much different compared to other stores/platforms.
Also back before digital distribution developers were making quite a bit less as there was more overhead for physical sales. Steam became successful in part because 30% was a great deal compared to legacy physical sales. Without that to compare it to people just seem to get mad Valve's platform has a cost. Which is a bit silly.
They do. But for a Steam user they feel very limited in comparison. And Nintendo's first party titles rarely get significant discounts. It's a different ecosystem and it works for Nintendo, they've been very smart in how they manage their products.
Although there's lots of 3rd party games that do get significant discounts regularly.
That's all irrelevant. Rich or poor, people gonna spend money as they deem will provide the greatest returns.
Kids might not have any shoes or schoolbooks but you best believe there momma gonna have her hair and nails done.
And this is where you show that you coming from the rich side of the spectrum.
And again you think parents just gonna run out and buy it?
You really be living ina white bread world meng.
I mean consider that parents are apt to have significantly less disposable income than non-parents.
Bad faith argument as its far more then just marketing, forums, workshop, anti cheat, bandwidth, updates, payment processing, etc are just some of the features Valve provides with that 30% cut which also goes down to as low as 20%.