ติดตั้ง Steam
เข้าสู่ระบบ
|
ภาษา
简体中文 (จีนตัวย่อ)
繁體中文 (จีนตัวเต็ม)
日本語 (ญี่ปุ่น)
한국어 (เกาหลี)
български (บัลแกเรีย)
Čeština (เช็ก)
Dansk (เดนมาร์ก)
Deutsch (เยอรมัน)
English (อังกฤษ)
Español - España (สเปน)
Español - Latinoamérica (สเปน - ลาตินอเมริกา)
Ελληνικά (กรีก)
Français (ฝรั่งเศส)
Italiano (อิตาลี)
Bahasa Indonesia (อินโดนีเซีย)
Magyar (ฮังการี)
Nederlands (ดัตช์)
Norsk (นอร์เวย์)
Polski (โปแลนด์)
Português (โปรตุเกส - โปรตุเกส)
Português - Brasil (โปรตุเกส - บราซิล)
Română (โรมาเนีย)
Русский (รัสเซีย)
Suomi (ฟินแลนด์)
Svenska (สวีเดน)
Türkçe (ตุรกี)
Tiếng Việt (เวียดนาม)
Українська (ยูเครน)
รายงานปัญหาเกี่ยวกับการแปลภาษา
กฎและแนวทางปฏิบัติในกระดานสนทนา
รายงานโพสต์นี้
So basically the question becomes. whyshould we as a community give up the sales applied to an unlimited supply, for a relatively small discount applied to a very finite supply.
And why would the devs sign on to something that is literally tailor made to screw them out of revenue from day one?
Basically it screwsDevs and Valve out of revenue, and screws consumers out of decent discounts.
If Steam is selling it for $10, they will pirate it. Because they already pirated it.
If a user is selling it for $10, they will pirate it. Because they already pirated it.
You should ask yourself, if game is selling on Steam for $60, why would they let users sell it for $10 bucks?
If someone is going to pirate the game, they are going to pirate it BEFORE anyone sells it for 10 bucks. They won't wait the 6 months to a year or more to pirate.
This does not respect the work of the developers. Because you are telling them "you shouldn't get what you are asking for the game, you should get less because I want a cut."
Also this does not make the game easier to get, if anything it will make games harder to get because of DRM and subscriptions that will be piled on top of the game, that is if the Developers don't decide to leave Steam and move to another store or create their own launcher.
Do you like the idea of having 1000 different launchers... I know I don't. I'm annoyed by the 15 or 20 different launchers (some of them are launched by Steam) that I already have.
No, 60 dollars is not trifle to me. I don't buy 60 dollar games, I wait till the games are 75% to 90% (or more) off. I look for them on bundle sites where they can be as much as 99% off.
And its all by the developers choice. They get what they are willing to drop the price to. If they never lowered the price of their $60 game, I would never buy it. Just like I never bought $60 console games. I had an NES and SNES, I only ever bought games when they were on sale, basically final sales before they were removed because they would much sooner sell it for at least some profit vs having to send it back because that cost money.
I would find games used now and then for a decently low price and get them but very rarely in my area was there used games. (I didn't live in or near a large enough city)
But I also already pointed out why used physical media for games had a used market.
Limited number made.
Low numbers in stores.
Degrades over time.
Takes up lots of space.
Takes lots of money to ship it somewhere.
Take lots of time to ship it somewhere.
In my area there wasn't many used game sellers at that time. There was a bunch of stores that did however rent games. Another market the developers got no money from but had no ability to close down. Also at that time there was no internet to speak of to be able to try to find used games else where that I could get shipped to me.
Something I forgot to add, digital only games that you don't play anymore, don't take up any physical room and don't take up any room on your hard drive because you can delete them and get them back later.
1) No one would force anyone to buy a copy from the user. I hardly believe at all that the appearance of the secondary market contributed to the destruction of the publisher's sales or the appearance of discounts in the same Steam. For some reason, this is how it often works with physical copies. Example. When I used the PS4, I was interested in the Naruto trilogy disc. On the secondary market, it cost much more pleasant than on the market (not only in the Playstation Store, but also as a physical copy of the game). Then the publisher decided to make an incredible discount for the New Year: all four parts (it was about a trilogy, and the bundle included 4 parts) for $ 15, or something like that, maybe a little less.
Explain, did the presence of a second market prevent the publisher from benefiting from me as a potential buyer?
2) One of you said that physical copies differ primarily in that they have a physical body, are made of natural materials, etc.
Question: so maybe it was much more logical to make physical versions of games disposable?
Why not, because with the release of discs, damage is done to nature?
All developed countries today raise this issue.
3) You all say that the appearance of a secondary market will throw a potential buyer away from buying a particular game and deprive all users of discounts.
On what basis are your assumptions correct?
I don't think I should explain to you that the secondary market does not work as intended by a potential seller. If, for example, he wants to sell some "Assassin's Creed II" for $ 15, his offer will remain unclaimed.
You should not get hung up on the example of the "Elder Ring", the figures that I mentioned are only indicative. In reality, they may differ. I have sufficient experience in the secondary market to assert the inability of people to correctly set prices for goods.
As in the example of the Naruto trilogy, the publisher will either have to resort to an "offer that is difficult to refuse", or be defeated and trust the secondary market.
I have a question: have any of you thought about the fact that the sale of the game through the second market to the second person will contribute to the further sale of new numbered parts of the series?
The principle is very similar to the potilica from Sony.
Why are you currently seeing Playstation exclusives on the Steam marketplace?
This is a very clever move to lure you and make a profit.
I smoothly move on to the fourth point.
4) You are all against the appearance of a second market on Steam, right?
Look at the situation with "The Last Of Us". In my region, the game costs $ 50. People who have paid for the game cannot play it normally for at least the first two hours, which is already enough for one of the conditions in the refusal to spend funds provided for by the Steam policy.
I think it's cool that publishers, using actually fraudulent schemes, have benefited, but you can't give a damn about end users, right?
I think this is wrong.
I have a "Fall Guys" game on my account.
The situation here is not the same as before, some people bantered other people a la "well, it's only been 1000 years, and the game has become free, you need to return the money."
Approximately a year has passed. One year! I understand that some publishers use tricks, for example, they distribute game currency to those who have already bought the game, etc.
But! Then what is the point of buying any game at all if it potentially goes into the "free-to-play" system in a year?
I think that with the advent of the secondary market, the game could survive with a large number of online players for a long time.
Analyze the situation and try
to give me a competent answer.
Please keep baseless accusations and polarizing "us vs them" rhetoric out of it.
If someone makes a choice to buy a game at the offered price, they are not entitled to a refund if that game later becomes free. The person got exactly what they paid for, under conditions they agreed to. Ironically, you picked an interesting example with Fall Guys, as I would rather pay for the game and have it on Steam than get it for free outside of Steam.
In any case, the industry has hated the used game market even with second-hand sales of discs and cartridges going back decades. Every used disc Gamestop sells is a sale where nothing goes to the studio or developers. When you buy a game on Steam, you aren't actually buying the game but a license to play the game. Said license is non-transferable, specifically to prevent the things you suggest. Unlike physical media, a digital game doesn't degrade over time or suffer wear & tear, so there would be literally no reason to ever buy a new game if you could find it used at a discount. This would essentially cut off the main source of income for most studios. It's simply not going to happen.
Resale of digital content has been confirmed as within consumers' legal rights in the EU since the Usedsoft vs Oracle case and the ECJ reached its landmark decision on interpretation of the EU copyright directive back in 2012.
It's just incredibly hard to meet the requirements to legally be able to sell on the content, as you need to prove exhaustion - i.e. need to prove that you, as original owner, will lose any and all form of access to the content in question.
That's pretty much impossible to achieve without the platform holder playing ball.
And here comes the stinker:
EU legislation only says the rights holders are not allowed to interfere in resale of a license. It doesn't say they have to facilitate it.
And they can perfectly stop it cold by simply not facilitating it.
The French tried to put a stop to that by classifying such intentional refusal to facilitate resale; as knowing and active interference. They sued Valve over it in Paris. And iirc they lost that case on appeals.
When you buy a physical copy of a game you get two things; a license to the game and the physical medium the game is on. You aren't given the right to sell the license, but you can sell the physical medium and since that's all you need usually to play the game that is why you can sell physical copies. When you buy a digital game you are only being given the license which you still have no right to sell. That is why comparison to selling digital goods to physical ones doesn't work.
There isn't much money in it for the publishers in a secondary market. You seem to think games exist for their own sake rather than to make money for the people who make and sell them. That's why the "we should be able to sell our games" ideas are always doomed to failure. You fail to understand that one of the main reasons why Steam and digital download in general are such appealing options is that it gets rid of the secondary market almost entirely. That's what the gaming industry has wanted pretty much since the beginning.
1) Personally, I did not play TLOU on PC, I successfully passed it in the old version on PS4. Where does the information come from? Reviews of the game on Steam. It's scary to think that if I had seriously decided to buy it, most likely I would have been repelled by such reviews from buying the game. And yes, the game time is counted even when loading shaders and in general the game as a whole.
2) Maybe my statements are a little harsh, but they are quite justified.
3) I can give an example just with poor optimization. I bought an anthology of the Prince Of Persia game series. I wanted to remember my childhood and go through all the parts. I started playing "Sands of Time" and got stuck at a certain level, I couldn't pass it because of the control curve (maybe I just needed to buy a gamepad, not the point).
It is simply impossible to play other parts. It is implied that buying an anthology, a person will go through a series of games from the first part to the last, right?
That's what I did. Only after 5 hours played by me in the first part, despite the fact that I could not go through it to the end, I installed other parts that either have critical errors or are so bogged down that it is impossible to play.
I made a refund request, referring to the complaint.Yu also suggested: "In connection with the time I have played, I ask you to return me the funds for all parts, except for the Sands of Time, according to your policy."
I got rejected. Will you continue to insist that Valve has thought everything out perfectly?
4) I agree that physical media wear out over time, but my experience shows that if you don't "ride on a disk", then it will live no less than a digital copy, on the contrary, even more, since a digital copy can be taken away from you at any convenient moment for the publisher.
Don't forget that.
This is not the case in the EU.
In the EU the license and any services attached to it (incl. online services; cloud storage; the availability of updates; etc.) and the optional bearer medium are both treated as ancillary components to the actual product itself: the copy of the digital content. And the fact that a license is marked non-transferable holds no weight, since it runs directly counter to a given right and law trumps contract there.
You are allowed to sell the whole bundle of it on. In both cases, both the case where there is a physical medium, as well as the digital-only case. Both, provided you as first owner can prove exhaustion; i.e. can prove that upon selling the content you yourself lose all access to it.
For a physical medium that used to be quite simple:
you simply lost the disc, which was the means to authenticate access to the software using disc-based DRM.
That's not the case for digital-only purchases tied to accounts.
In fact; you can't sell those on without the platform holder assisting in it.
They'd need to facilitate moving access to the license from account A to account B, and preventing account A from further access if any locally installed copies of the content.
And it's perfectly legal for them to not facilitate that, and thus effectively prevent consumers from exercising their legal right to resell.
It's a loophole the French tried to plug, but failed.
The problem is that the best minds in the world work in such reference companies as Valve, Apple and others.
I refuse to believe in the fact that the resale of digital versions is a priori impossible, it's just that someone doesn't want to work with their head once again and get extra income, which is very strange for multinational corporations.
I didn't say that games exist on their own, developers have to make money on it, the question is that they themselves subconsciously miss the benefits.
Now microtransactions are in half, if not most of the games.
No. It's the fact that they are working with their heads which does get them extra income.
Facilitating resale on Steam means copies pass between users at a lower price than the nominal sales price. Even if Valve would take a similar commission on market place resale of licenses vis-a-vis selling fresh new licenses; that still means the cut they'd take results in a net loss compared to selling a new copy directly from the publisher.
And of course; it'll sour relations with their real customers - the publishers - as well.
The consumers are just the rabble and sheep, after all. And placating them is something of a necessary evil.
And like so many you fail to show any proof that this leads to more money for publishers. It's just a "If I say that then my idea sounds better' sort of thing.
But you know what. I don't know anymore about any of this than anyone else so whatever. Maybe yours will finally be the the post that convinced Valve to abandon their current business model and let people resell licenses, which apparently they have to do according to E.U. law even though they don't actually do that as far as I know in Europe or anywhere for that matter.
Thank you for communicating!
Nevertheless, sooner or later it should still happen, like the introduction of a single USB Type-C wire standard, for example.
Yes, the topic is a little different, but the principle is the same. Apple will potentially lose some of its revenue.