登录
|
语言
български（保加利亚语）
čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
English（英语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Français（法语）
Deutsch（德语）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Italiano（意大利语）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语-巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Español（西班牙语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
繁體中文（繁体中文）
ไทย（泰语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
帮助我们翻译 Steam
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Read this: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showpost.php?p=33811431&postcount=36
Other than that.. I don't really understand that message at all.. Well only other thing I can understand is that support takes too long to reply in your opinion (or case).
Also, one does not simply get a VAC ban like yours.
Well, most of them here are vulenteer moderators, people who spents their spare time on this.
Afterall without them the discussions here would be a big pile of mess xD
Firstly given that ALL ANTI-CHEAT mechanisms use this methodology, PB, ESEA, nProtect, Warden, etc, you would have to claim that all such systems are 'money making schemes'.
Secondly let us look at the claim itself. It is predicated on two factors
1) Cheaters re-buy games
2) That generates revenue
Let's look at these one at a time
1) Cheaters re-buy games
If your business is based on re-buying of games, wouldn't you make more money by banning frequently and often? It makes little sense to devise a business strategy around infrequent intervals of your 'customers' buying stuff. You should be forcing them to buy games much more often. A delayed system is fairly contrary to the goal of 'making more money.
However let's say you say "you need to make it delayed so that cheaters don't give up buying the games" which is somewhat of an odd argument. But let's say we accept that. However you have the other side
2) That generates revenue
Indeed re-purchasing a game does increase revenue.
BUT FOR WHO?
Steam? Are you sure about that? Cheaters can buy games from anywhere. Steam, GG, GMG, Amazon. More likely cheaters would be buying games from cheap cd-key shops instead.
Now your plan to 'generate revenue' doesn't even correlate into an actual revenue stream, because games activated via retail DO NOT generate revenue for Steam. this is a very very poor business scheme if banning users doesn't correlate directly to a user giving you revenue. Especially given that cheaters are probably by and large purchasing their games from cheap cd-key shops, given that many infamous sites are plastered with ads and 'reviews' for said cd-key shops, you're not even making any money by banning a user.
Instead you are LOSING money due to:
1) Increase costs in maintaining a larger and larger steam database of users since users are never deprecated from the system
2) Bandwidth wasted re-delivering said content to user
3) Staff to maintain VAC and the APIs associated with it
You don't even make money on VAC itself since it's free and doesn't have any per-user/server/ban licensing where infrequent bans would generate revenue.
So no revenue is generated either on the client side, nor on the back end side charged to the publisher/developer.
As noted an cursory analysis of 'vac is a money making scheme' falls apart dramatically once you look at HOW it's supposed generate revenue and how it fails to do that given the current implementation.
If you want to argue about VAC's effectiveness that's fine. But to call it a money making scheme is intellectual laziness.