Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
You claimed digital games become outdated and inferior based on their age and newer games coming out.
That speaks like someone who sees games as an investment, not entertainment. There's a reason 'classic' and 'retro' packs are popular.
Go look at the subscription offer for this. What the OP suggests would lead to all games adopting this model instead of being sold. You'd be paying non stop monthly subscriptions and the game itself would be free or cheap, but all the content is locked behind a subscription you can't sell or transfer.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
No.
If that is the only revenue stream available to dev's then they will have no choice, hence why idea's like this area always shortsided.
Why did the price grow when expences went down? (box, discs, manuals, shipping, printing, storage, limited shelf space)
Why doesn't steam family share feature kill companies?
I'm not a dev. I'm just pointing out fact - where have I said I AGREE WITH THIS?
Informing you of how things work and why does not say ANYTHING about my feelings for the matter. That's not how logic works.
Read the previous posts, friction reduces the impact of physical copies and the damage. Also the price of games haven't grown. They have remained steady over the last 30 years. Based on inflation games should be $150+, but you are paying the same prices for modern games that you were paying for SNES and N64 games still.
That's because things aren't linear sadly.
Economies don't work like that. Plnety of things stgnate for years while other things grow.
It's because there's largely ONE major thing that sets the prices for things - WHAT THE MARKET CAN BEAR.
What this means is that you WILL get products that will sit there at roughly the same prices for DECADES and not shift, all because there's no need to move it and such a move might affect gross income.
Take something I'm intimately familiar with - record collecting. I started in the late 1970s. But mostly in the early 1980s really. I would trapse round record fairs and learn about issues like promos, demos, white labels, different masters and pressings, imports, exports, mispressings and so on.
The point is here that just in general over the counter, record prices were about 35p for a single in the late 1970s (around 65 cents) and albums on vinyl clocked in at around £3.99 - £4.49 or $5.70 ish (I know because I still have the data and receipts).
Into the 1980s we had some pretty harsh inflation thanks to our government but that changed or was mitigated by the fact we entereed a boom economy right up to the late 1980s before a recession that hit really hard. And yet, prices for singles had increased from that 35p to 50p in the earyl 1980s and by the mid 1980s they were 99p. You can see how it kind of tracked with the boom somewhat.
Of course around this time CDs happened too. So vinyl albums sales teetered off and the first CDs were priced around £11.99 once they settled down and hit the market properly. They stayed EXACTLY this (though some stores did bulk deals and would offer chart CDs at £9.99) all through the recession and into the 1990s. Despite the cost of CD manufacturing MASSIVELY dropping.
Having studied audio engineering I knew in the early 1990s that getting a small run of 500CDs made up cost about £3 each with sleeves and printing. Within a few short years that dropped to under £1 each. Then 50p and the last I remember was 25p each. In a few short years, showing how production costs were going drastically down.
And yet the retail price was still high at £11.99 and people noticed this. So by the time Napster came along things hadn't shifted and loads of excuses were made by the industry as to why the price shouldn't drop. But of course once the ability to pirate downloads happened, guess what happened?
CDs dropped to around £6.99 each. An arms race for pricing went on.
What this should show you is that it has bugger all really to do with inflation or what anything else is doing. It's purely down to WHAT THE MARKET WILL BEAR UNDER ITS CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME.
It's a vague statement but it's true.
HAHAHAH
AAA games are almost always the same price, with potentially +$10 for super hyped games, Indies can be $5-$25, low end easily made games that still sell a fair amount are $1-$7.
That seems dishonest, the minimum wage can still be really low depending on the area one lives in which automatically has an associated low to high cost of living accordingly, which this is mostly created by people voting poorly and making uninformed decisions which have consequences to everyone in the area. So if one state as example has an absurd cost of living, but another has a super low cost of living, obviously the first is doing everything wrong. There are consequences to decisions that can affect others, like trying to push for resale which will most likely just drive more high-drm subscription models, as an example of people making decisions which can negatively affect others.
But you dio have the right as a consumer to choose whether or not ta product, its price, or the terms under which that product is offered are to your liking. If they are, Then you buy. If they aren't then don't buy it. You do without the product and the retailer does without your money.
So no antui-consumer here. The consumer has the ultimate power in the equation here.
And you clearly do not work in an industry that relies on creative talent.
Y9ou really nver paid attention to the laws and conditions you purchased under either otherwise you'd know, that's been a thing since the late 70's.
Simply putyhe only thing that has changed is that the companies actually have the means to enforce the terms now.
The sad truth is the price of labour will always trend down simply because there are always going to be Waaaaaaay more workers than jobs. Talk to anyone in HR , ANyone who's posted a job listing.. YOu post a listing for 1 job and you'll get dozens of applicants. literally dozens.
The only time this trend reverses is when there's been some event that greatly diminishes the available worker pool, or there is a colonization push to settle new territory.