Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Hozzászólási szabályok és irányelvek
Hozzászólás jelentése
Either that, or the users would spend the next 3-6 months spamming support, because they paid for something they won't get and their money is gone for the next half year. During this time there will be at least one summer/winter sale, and many other opportunities to spend the money they no longer have that will have to wait another few months after they do get their money back.
There's sincerely no way this is going to work out in a good way for either of these parts. It's the kind of thing that Valve would try for a week tops before undoing everything due to the massive backlash, like it happened to paid mods some time ago. And I'm not even talking about the risk and huge loss that Valve would have to deal with because of this.
I also didn't mean buying the version of a game elsewhere, I meant stopping using Steam as a whole. There are a lot of places to buy your games from, even if you are buying a key to be activated on Steam. We don't have to buy games from the Steam store for the best discounts anymore. People would simply refuse to do business with a company like that.
Yes, there is. Up to the point that people can start getting a refund.
Look at EA games. Users want a refund even six months after having the game, simply because the game wasn't funished yet. I would hate to see how people would be for a game not even released for their platform. Humans are an impatient species. Why leave money sitting there when they can get immediate satifaction now, buying a game already available?
And why should a developer count on money that they may never get? That is the same as it is now with people saying they want a Linux port and promising to buy it. The only diffrence is the user would be handing over money now, with most refunding it latter on. Money transferes cost a company. If a refund isn't done in a short period of time, they have to pay fees for the return and 3-6 month out is well past not having to pay them. It could easily cost Valve money, not make them money.
@Elly Why would people no longer want to buy at steam? What changes for the normal user? That's something I still don't get?
And why would a developer feel forced to port? He doesn't feel forced to port if I ask him personally as well. I currently don't buy any games that are not available on linux as well. I would if they were. I've even told some developers about that. They don't care. I don't really see a problem here.
The only difference between keeping my money at home & giving it to valve is that developers would have a guaranteed amount of sales if they ported their game. Which they don't have right now. Which means a lot of risk for them.
@Totoro You're assuming that all people buy the game at the same time. But that will hardly be the case. Purchases will happen over time. It cannot happen that all buyers will get their refund at the same time ;)
Are you running a business? Yeah apparently not. If you think there's 'not much risk' for holding money for customers on a future promise that may or may not happen that you have zero control over? this on top of the trnasaction fees that you have to pay for every transactio nmeans that you LOSE MONEY if a dev doesn't do something. WHy on earth would Steam want to magically throw money into a burning pit of fire?
So now I'm giving money to steam, and if the developer cant magically do something that I as a consumer don't get all my money back?
You do not see the gigantic problem here?
Because a post on a site is not binding. A monetary transaction IS.
OP. You are making no sense.
Last I checked nothing actually stops you from buying say a MAc only game when you're on a PC. And generally, from what I've observed when games get new platfiorms added. those who purchased it prior did not have to rebuy the game.
I know when a bunch of games added linux support a while back I didn't have to rebuy them. Of course there will be those that don;'t sicne the dev is free to list the port as adifferenty product if they wish. Though they are advised against that.
As for refunds. You buy a game. You have 2 weeks to refund it. If you're hoping the game will get a port for your system then here's a though genius.
WAIT. FOR. THE. PORT.
Seriously. Anyone who's had experience with portss actually knows enough to wait about a month before buying a freshly ported game.
So again. This is a pretty pointless suggestion. It won't hasten the release of a port, nothing actually stops you from buy aing a game for a system you don't meet the requirements for. It would just be another bit of paper shuffling.
So. System is already in place.
You can already buy a game for a platform you don't support. Buying a agme for any platform will generally grant you access to any future platforms added at no extra cost anyway. Otherwise, it would not be possible for Valve to sell a product that does not yet exist. In the sense that the publishers/devs have made no indication that they are working on it.
There are tools to estimate based on the percentage of people using a given platform. They generally add support based on the market share of the platform also based on the difficulty of porting. It's why games tend to get Linux ports before mac ports. macs may have the larger share, but there are more difficulties and hurdles to porting to the Mac as opposed to Linux. Heck even in the hardware.
So in short. YOu wouldn't really fix anything. If a game does not support your platform. DDon't buy it amnd wait for it to suipport the platform.
No. My intention is to help linux get out of the chicken-egg problem. I'm willing to pay the price. I'm willing to help Valve on this mission ;) You don't? No problem at all.
The deal is not that bad after all. If I'm lucky, I get a port of a game I want for my platform. If I'm not, I wasted 10% or something of that games prices in money. It's an investmeht. You can't always win ;)
It would not be a regular transaction. It would be a transaction with conditions, that give the developer the freedom to make the port and get the money, or not make the port and not get the money.
@Start_Running Luckily, all your questions have been answered before. You just have to read them. I don't think it's necessary to go all over it again.
You consider those answers?
Well that's sorta highlights the problem now doesn;t.
Apparently you are so convinced of your own brilliance that you can't recognize a bad idea when you have it.
Yes there iss. Because any COnsumer affairs commission will ask, what the customer was charged for. Something has to be transacted, otherwise you're holding credit and there are regulations involving that.
What problem. Linux has been steadily growing in userbase over the years. And ahs already been making significant inroads with devliopers looking to unchain themselves from Microsoft's revolving door.
Look at the major game devlopment engines out there. Most have support for linux now.
It would not be a regular transaction. It would be a transaction with conditions, that give the developer the freedom to make the port and get the money, or not make the port and not get the money.[/quote]
You seem to misunderstand how much it costs rto port a game properly. heck the joke is you can if you want emulate a windows enviornment on linux and run the game from that if you want.
Yeah 'no risk' from 'screaming customers who have not received a product they paid for?
Again why even bother with said risk. Dont offer money for something that doesnt exist.
Do you honestly think Steam would incurr such massive financial risk then not 'pressure' devs to create the build that people are pouring oney into?
Again why create this inherent conflit of interest in the first place. Dont collect money
If you want a Linux build ofr a game go yell at the dev.
Steam is not a publisher.
Others will not be. Why should Valve incur massive financial risk of refunds, chargebacks, transaction fees, for little to no benefit on their end.
Yes, steam is not a publisher, it's a marketplace. The job of a marketplace is to collect offers and requests and to connect sellers with buyers.
So steam is the perfect place for this.
We can toghether bid an amount of money for something (a port of a game) we want. There's no guarantee that we'll get what we want. The developer on the other hand also has no guarantee that someone will buy their game.
That's how a marketplace works.
If you want to buy/sell bitcoin for example, it works exactly the same. You give make an offer & a seller (in this case the developer) can accept it.
But since you don't like my original proposal, I have another, simpler one:
What if you could mark a game as "would buy if it were available for my platform". And in order to do so, you'll have to at least the amount of money on your account that the game costs. If your balance falls below that amount, that mark automatically gets cancelled and you have to do it again, after you have recharged your account.
But what does such a mark do?
It's an offer to the developer: It tells him, "if you promise me to port the game to linux in the future, I'll buy the game". So, when a lot of people mark a game this way, the developer can see that X people will buy the game if they promised to port it.
And then, they at any point can say "OK, I promise". At this point, they'll immediately get the money from the peoples accounts, but will have to start working on a port. And as soon as they publish the port, people will automatically get they copy of the game in steam.
After that, the regular refund terms apply.
What do you think?
And lets give two unrelated things, one that actually reinforces the point
And guess what you give money with the explicit expectation of future content.
That is NOT what the OP is asking for. Thus this example is not only not related but explicitly shows the risk involved in promising content for something that doesnt exist AND you have no control over.
Note you get a product AS IS. As in YOU GET AN ACTUAL PRODUCT.
Not you get absolutely nothing in the hope that something may happen in the future we have no control over.
That doesn't matter that much. You can use the money to buy another game. Yes, only on steam, but that's the case in other stores as well.
You cannot spend Wallet money since you can't claim that as revenue. That money also has to be paid out to other developers when a customer buys say GTAV with it.
Steam Wallet is not money held in escrow either. Those rules follow entirely different kidn of thing as such Steam does not 'hold' money for you like that.