Instale 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 (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Este tópico foi trancado 
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
The thing about how EGS does it is that its basically trying to fight with nmoney, not product. If you have the superior product you say, let the market decide. The fact that EGS launched with and still remains an inferior client with fewer offerings doesn't help.
GOG made a bad move of removing their fair price program. Honestly i was hoping they would keep expanding by adding more regional currency regional payments & cash cards to bring in more users but nope :(.
Has for DRM the drm that gave me problems are Starforce & Securom. Denuvo far hasn't give me any issue.
I did wish publishers would remove DRM after 2-5 years after the game has been released.
Little questions like that are very important to ask. And I also guess they've had to divert some amount of funds towards Cyberpunk's development... and they have to absorb the losses of Gwent...
DRM doesn't give most people any trouble. Its only people who try to use the software in ways that violate the EULA that tend to run into trouble.
On the other habnd it shows that publishers are more and more seeing their games as long term income worth oprotecteing and are more likely to continue development and additions.
SO its a net gain for us as gamers I think.
I agree, I would even say that gamers don't give a dam about DRM. I don't believe have I spoke to anyone in the real world who is even remotely bothered about DRM in games. Only once me and a mate spoke about it and none of us really cared.
Anyone who is really against DRM in any shape or form has a very limited catalogue of games to choose from. And anyone on steam who moans about DRM shouldn't even be on steam as this is DRM in itself.
The DRM debate is a non-starter because we all buy and use DRM games.
Epic.... does not. They have to pay publishers quite large amounts of money to even consider the store and are massively in the red - they lose money with the shop and only keep on doing that cause they know at some point Fortnite will no longer generate that income and they need a different source of income and they hope that (and have even openly said so) by using birbes and locking publishers to their store they can continue making money in the future.
Basically worse then Apple.
Great joke.
Oh wait - you mean this seriously? let me point and laugh at your ignorance.
DRM in almost every game is un-noticable. The only time it really creates a problem is when its implemented improperly. Like I remember one game using denuvo who miscoded how it was used so it was hitting the authentication server thousands of times a minute. They fixed it and now its fine.
The biggest risk of any DRM is if the service shuts down and the game can no longer authenticate, however almost all modern games have an easy way to alleviate this now.
There isn't always a need to reply to post if they quote you. I often use quotes to give my piece a bit of context. ;)
But yeah, I do not agree with the Epic way. Competition is good for the consumer because it gives incentive for better service or other ways to get you as a customer. And don't get me wrong on this, free games is a great one. Buying exclusivity is not. Running a shop at a loss because you can subsidise just to ruin your competition is although not something I agree with.
I don't agree with everything Steam does ... well, not they are doing much. The community and point shop for example are meaningless for me. Some of the stuff in there I do oppose. I often call it a freemium community because quite some features are behind a paywall. Understandably in some cases, but not really customer friendly.
In another post you said it's a pitty that GOG stopped their fair pricing policy. Well, that was a direct result of Epic threatening their business and they getting into financial troubles.
That's why I can't support them. They make the market as a whole worse. And it might be because I am a cynical arsehole, but they do it under the guise of being customer friendly and doing it "right" when in truth they play a weird mixture of long game and short term gains.
'Good Old Games'
It started as a niche concept: 'Recover old games so they can work in modern systems' From there it built up to a 'DRM-Free' Storefront Idea, which is still catering to a niche audience.
The problem with GOG is its niche is dragging their ability to grow up. If they want to get BIG they have to drop their DRM stance to get the big names to sell in the store and their niche customers might see that as an act of 'treason'
Not a joke though. For the average gamer Joe all the subjects that fill pages of discussions and gaming articles are mostly non-existant to them.
I work in a enviroment where one finds a lot of 'people who plays games' (Not to confuse with 'Gamers') and it's funny how I never see the subjects one reads here when they discuss games.
That includes:
-DRM: I've never heard anyone even mention Denuvo
-Client Wars: 'I grabbed Subnautica for free the other day at Epic. Cool game!'
-Microtransactions: Well, no. They actually speak about them. About which skins they got at Overwatch or the cards they got at FIFA.
Most of the people just play games.
Or they just stay as is I mean not everyone has to be one of the big stores. They carved a niche and appear to be successful. That doesn't mean they need to challenge others to try to upsurp them.
^^ now were talkin'
Yeah. In circles. Exclusivity is bad. No matter who does it. A customer should be free to decide which platform they buy a product on. Preferrable the platform that has the best service or incentive to buy the game on it.
What do you think will happen if stores start bidding wars for the right to sell products? Do you really think that the customer will benefit from it in the long run?
I agree.
But, I am selfish and I'm tired of waiting for games that end up on Epic. It is nothing against them. I just want my library here on Steam.Epic is not going to stop and I don't want to wait. This leaves buying rights before Epic get's them the only solution.
Yep, exclusivity helps no one and its why Epic has backed themselves into a corner. Their platform still sucks, and Epic has been finding most of their "users" are only there for free games or the 1-2 exclusives they care about.
Epic can't maintain the pattern of buying exclusives, and instead of developing a platform people want to use, they are putting the money into the unsustainable practice of exclusives. They haven't been able to convert their "free" users into paid users and have been dipping into Fortnite profits to cover the store loss.
Combine that with their Apple ploy failing and Fortnite revenue numbers dropping and they are in a very dangerous spot right now. They gambled with Apple and it hasn't paid off with Apple calling their bluff and banning them.
Now even the US Federal government is investigating them for their ties with China, so they are being hammered on all sides right now.
I don't think we'll go down that route. It's easier to instead buy the developers and boom you get their games in your platform. Like Epic did with Psyonix, what EA has been doing for decades or like Microsoft who bought not only Minecraft but the whole Bethesda.