安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Maybe it will be part of the curator 2.0 update.
Adding what amounts to a near pyramid scheme to steam...really doesn't improve anything.
You create a storefront, featuring games your audience may like. If people buy from your storefront, you get a cut.
Not exactly rocket science.
Taken from a speach of Gabe Newell himself.
... Please don't make me look up the video.
Maybe wrong
Maybe these?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeYxKIDGh8I
I think it's not that... i am pretty sure it was dev days
SO here's how I see that working. Have a tip-jar.
IUf someone buys from a CUrator page have a little popup that asks if they want to give the curator a $2 tip.
The purson buying would have that $2 added to their purchase price and Valve would take a 50% cut. So the money the curator gets would come from the people buying from their list pages.
cant see them adding to the price or most will just buy it on the official store, and the system will break pretty fast with users not interested in working on it when they earn nothing (like the system is now with the groups O.o)
In which case there was no value added by the curator was there. So why then pay them anything?
See that's the thing. If the consumer, the one who the the service is provided tooestensibly does not see enough value in it to pay so much as $2. Why should Valve pay as much as $6 for something when you won't pay even $2 for it.
See the curator thing doesn't really matter to Valve. They get money either way as is. And the Publishers already have marketing deals with their own chosen people. You think it's a coincidence that every time there's a new FNAF book, or web page update MattPat does a FNAF theory that seems to suspiciously mention the new item a lot?
So. Curators supply no actual value to Valve. As said. the sales come back to them anyway. The publishers already have their own vastly more effective agreements. So the only one who might benefit is the consumer.
And?
You want to make moiney like that. STart up your own website. where you keep uyour curated lists. Put up some Adsense and other such banners on the site. Promote and build the sites userbase then you'll rake in some dosh. Or make youtube videos and collect on ad revenues.
Money goes to the people who expend effort and work. Not the people who just list the most popular games and hope someone sbuys it from their store front before seeing it on the dozen or so other people who have the same idea.
Hence my Tip jar. It's a service provide3d to the users. so let the users pay for it. I mean come on. It's $2. That's pocket change.
sometimes i have a feeling people think money just magically appears out of nowhere the way they expect businesses to just give free handouts because why not.
Dude come on really?
First you really honestly want to tell me you think that MatPat is been paid to say the name of the item a lot? really?
Sound to me like a complete conspiracy mate
Anyhow they do add something, they add advertising, something mind you that is under Publisher and Valve to provide at these time
They are unlikely to take it from developers, simply as there is a store, and what kind of developer in his right mind will give up on extra cash when they can use one of many many other stores around
Users will not pay extra and I mean the majority some likely will, if they are aware of it or not is something else, but dude really, your argument makes so little sense, just take a moment to think about it
If you so wish lets take something pretty similar to the matter at hand Skyrim paid workshop, the maker (the modder) taken most of the %, Valve taken a small amount for the platform and the game maker taken some % as well
Obviously here it's not the same exactly as the amount of work given
Valve provide the platform, Publisher provide the content Corator provide the advertising, and user provide the cash
If a developer can sell elsewhere and get more they will likely do it, so Valve is unlikely to take from the publishers cash
Thing is giving up on like 10% or even maybe 5% of there profits for the curator that give the advertising, is really not that bad of a deal for them, they get to sell, everything, users do the job of picking what is seen and what not
They are adding the advertising and can take some % of it, i don't think it will be high, but i don't think Valve will take it off the users, that will just be silly, on sooo many levels, let's just say what happens if the user buys from his own store? dose he gets 2$ off? so what blocks me from maknig my own store, looking at someone else store for games, then buying it by my own account
Your logic completely baffles me mate, I just can't see any what so ever since in it, and again Valve gets that 30% or if I am right to let's say 25% or something off ever sale, 5% for them is a big number? ya it is, but in the end, not that much, as they don't have to curator at all, they let others do it, and even more its likely even to be something like 1% or 2%, I mean you don't even need to give that much to pull users to do it
Saying all that i think its kind of unlikely as of the amount of spam something like that will create like every referral system
Sometimes I have a feeling people live ina their own Steam bubble.
I guess the referral programme of Amazon and all the affiliate programmes of other stores are creating money out of nothing then?
Valve can easily afford giving 10 % cut to the curator. Many customers complain they don't find ♥♥♥♥ on the store and Valve knows that it is a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ and admits discoverability is rather bad. Getting 20 % of a sale is better than getting 30 % of nothing.
Just saying and many have noticed that every time Scot Cawthorne puts out a book or game Mattpat does a video. And the last couple have really been thinly veiled excuses to publicize the books.
Agreed but again. Publishers already have relationships with youtubers, streamers etc to such effect.
Never mind when they are already using some time and cash for the exact same thing. So agreed. The publishers have better things to spend their money on. Any game that sells for less than $10 any amount would be a significant cut into the revenue and any game over $10 is already being marketed by the publisher, and if its good, has likely alkready been covered by lets players and other gaming outlets.
And if those who would recieve the greatest benefit would not pay soi much as a dollar, is there really any value in the service?
A mod is an actual product that can be consumed. Being shortlisted by some random nobody is not.
And yees I said Nobody. Any youtuber/streamer of any actual talent or noteriety is already making dosh covering games from their channels and their own websites. These peoiple could actually just put out weekly top 5's and get the adsense revenue. They doin't need Steam to help them or pay them.
Devs and publishers are already advertising though and advertisements from nobodies don't really mean much. When a company pays for advertising they judge that advertising baseed on metrics.
Hardly anyone takes an advert in a paper that has no readership metrics.
You know whatelse would do the same thing and cut out the middleman. a sale.
5% for something that they don't need?
Every inche oif the steam web page and client is advertising.n DO you really think valve needs some podunk nobody to advertise?
Look. The logic is simple. If the one who is served does not see any value in the service. The service has no value.
You speak of Valve giving up 5% but trhe idea of you.. the perrson actually benefiting paying 5% more is unreal. Why is someone else giving up something on your behal;f more reasonable than you giving up something in exchange for the added benefit?
Amazon only pays 1% actually. Plus it's a fair bet they account for that in their mark-up.
The question is not whether or not they can afford it. It's whether or not they have any other equally effective options for the same or lower cost. ANd the simple truth is. They do.
People who can't find ♥♥♥♥ are usually people who have no idea what they're actually looking for.
Here's the thing. We all no curators would simply just start curating the sure seller games . The games that are selling for $60.. They're not going to devote space to the $5 and under bracket where the bulk of the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ exists.
Those would be games that are the least likely to see a lot of purchases anyway, and are most likely to be ♥♥♥♥♥.
And again. If you want to make that sort of money you'd actually do better making a youtube channel and collecting the ad revenue there.