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
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
If you want to keep dragging it on by all means, keep going, that was repeatedly explained....
For totally free games, devs don't pay steam services with store cut, they pay with the original submission fee. But that case doesn't make the case #1 irrelevant since most games on steam aren't free.
If "For totally free games" can use same features that not paying sale cut, that means you're not paying sale cut to use features, what was unclear?
Valve needs to keep you on the platform to feed their greed, and that's the reason behind everything.
It isn't abnormal, it's simply the nature of the beast.
Yes.
But that doesn't make the service itself is free for developers. Because devs have to pay it with either $100 or sales cut or both. Was that clear?
Yes, as in you realize sale cut has nothing to do with using feature?
Now read what was said, which any of my post quoting only to you did I talked about saying it being free up front? Only you kept going on about it, not me, you ignore what was said, repeatedly, as again sale cut has nothing to do with using said feature.
You paid $100 up front to be dev on platform to list your product, that was the gate, that was it, the contract deal is you get $100 back if product sold $1000 worth via Steam, that not $1000 out of your pocket keep in mind if don't understand what the deal was from the start, and if want to get technical, you get your $100 when made sale around $145, which around $45 is steam sale cut, and if want to get technical about $1000, you do your math wrong from the start when said $300, you get $700 + $100 you paid up front back = $800, which means $200 for Steam on sale cut, if want to get technical about it.
If you want to be biggest clown, by all means you done a great job, making a fool out yourself refusing to read from the start I repeatedly said go read because clearly you refuse to do so.
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/10/4932019356823272805/?ctp=4#c3421061982925885480
I mean, he explains it in the original post...
Here I fixed it for you :
And I didn't ignore you. I disagree with you for using incorrect statements. And I'm fully aware of what you try to accomplish here. You want me to admit that $100 is all developers need to use all steam features? Not gonna happen because it isn't true in most cases.
Steam features can be paid with either $100 fee only if you are willing to give out your game for $0 aka free OR with sales cut for more profitable outcome.
And yes both scenarios will grant the developers the same features but they don't have to pay the same amount.
As in I know the cut is not the only way for devs to get access to the same services.
Again, I'm not ignoring you, I disagree with you. I mean I can say the same that you ignore my statement about two options where devs can pay for the services.
If steam can talk, it will say "you want my services for a flat $100? Sure but make your games free so you won't get any profit because I won't get any either. OR you can make your games not free and you'll get 70% and I'll get 30%".
Now it doesn't sound like sales cut is irrelevant anymore does it?
Just because steam is the one who receives money directly from customers, doesn't mean developers didn't pay for the services.
Developers / publishers are supposed to receive 100% from sales. But they're obliged to forked that 100% value in exchange for the services they got from third party, like steam. So yes, devs have to PAY for it even in this case.
Wrong again. The $100 is devs money to begin with, it should not be part of calculation of the store cut. Steam refund that money in exchange of the bigger payment from store cut. Developers get their money back in exchange for the bigger profits but bigger losses as well.
Resorting to insult just because you can't convince me? Lol pathetic.
This is the first time I've heard anti epic and steam cult member say that 30% has nothing to do with the service that valve's provides for developers. I mean if that's even remotely true, where does the money go? How steam still operates with just $100 per game with the option of losing it if the game reach $1000 in sales?
Also I thought you hive mind epic haters are all agreed that steam give "better services" for developers to justify the 30% cut against epic 12%? Was that different in this case? Or you just want to argue?
2. You did ignore, because you kept talking about $100 up front fee, that wasn't being talked about from the start what I have said as I only talked about sale cut, not up front cost to list on Steam, hence with the amount of reply. That on you.
3. Sale cut has nothing to do with using said features, that is repreatedly explain why it's not relevant, because it's not a requirement, nor obligation, you're given access as soon you're reg as a dev after paying up front $100, that was it.
4. You just made it clear why it's irrelevant to using feature, and prove my point once more, you can choose to disagree, but it doesn't make you right by providing misinformation for how things worked for using features that has nothing to do with sale cut, full stop.
5. Devs pay the $100 up front, that was it, there is no other cost, anything made from sale is actually income, not debt, not dev paying, that income earn. If dev make sale of $145, that $100 back in dev pocket, anything else is profit.... PROFIT.... NOT PAY STEAM MORE AFTER $100 up front cost to list product.
6. No not wrong, you choose not to understand what was said, and that not my problem if you disagree, or refuse acknowledge what was said, you will be called out for misinformation, hence the point of explaing repreatedly to you.
And sorry, but you wanted to act dumb about it deliberately, so it seem correct IMO to call you a clown after you 13 posts you made, and kept playing dumb about it, so no the one more pathetic is the one that wanted to keep dragging, and keep making bad argument was you.
If this is new to you, then you now know, since day one the features are not gated by sale cut period, they are offer the moment you become dev on platform to list product for the up front cost, that was it, there no other cost to using Steam features after the up front cost hence why sale cut is not relevant to using features...
There no argument about sale cut between Steam, and Epic gap, it's you deliberately providing misinformation, which I called you on if you actual read from the start, or else this wouldn't have carry on for over 26 posts, let that sit with you for awhile since you couldn't firgure out I was strickly only talking about sale cut has nothing to do with using features to get acceess, that was it.
And why you don't want me to bring that up? Yes that's right, because your whole statements will fall apart. That's the reason why I refuse to fall into your word traps.
And I also said, repeatedly, that steam will refund the $100 after $1000 sales. That's where the upfront payment becomes irrelevant and store cut is more relevant.
I said store cut is irrelevant for free games but that doesn't mean it is irrelevant at all. Because in most case games aren't free and that's where the store cut becomes more relevant.
Even valve said the same thing. The company repeatedly said that 20% - 30% is the value that they provide to game developers. Which means devs pay for that value with the store cut. Value is the service that steam provides. I'm right for disagreeing with you.
For free games, that was it. But for non free games that was not.
If Valve is never involved in funding or developing video games. It is considered as third party from devs/publishers perspective. Third party provide services that should be paid by game developers. And in steam case, they pay it either $100 or store cut.
And no, I refuse to use steamboys perspective. It's too stupid and hypocritical. I use game developers perspective and retail business in general.
Not really, I fully understand what your intentions but I refuse it because it simply not true. Heck you can't even answer how come steam is still sustainable if not for the cut they took from game developers? Because relying from $100 per game will definitely not work.
And I'm not the only who disagree with you. Here's what valve said about how relevant the store cut (revenue share) is with the service they provide to game developers :
https://store.steampowered.com/news/group/4145017/old_view/1697191267930157838
You may disagree with me. But can you disagree with the company you defend? Stop doing mental gymnastics just to argue with this. You absolutely can't win.
By all mean explain yourself. I didn't say remotely not bring it up, I said was talking about sale cut, and that on you for talking about something that isn't sale cut. And there no word traps again that just you, if you want to play dumb about it, not my problem, you're only one dragging on something that wasn't being talked about.
And I repeatedly only talk about sale cut from the start, you kept talking about that, I clearly wasn't talking about it, because I repeatedly said sale cut... That on you again.
It is irrelevant, because it's not a demand, not a requirement either in order to use said features. You keep giving misinformation, that why you're getting called out. And I really don't care if you disagree, it doesn't make you right to provide misinformation.
Free games that not doing any sales, they're not getting $100 back because no sales, that was it, if they want $100, they have to do sale, that was it.
Games that doing sales, they can get $100 back overtime when they make enough sale there no dead lines, it whenever.
Even if happen to make game go free to play from being paid, you don't lose access to features, you keep access regardless if selling, or not, because sale cut does not block you from using it, hence why it has nothing to do with it. If sale cut was needed to use features, free games wouldn't be able to use said feature as the paid ones, hence your logic flop, as you claim sale cut is needed to use feature when not. Multiplayer, workshop, sdk, etc...
Now explain where it state you must use sale cut in order to use feature, by all mean, I suggest read it what you link. This talks about chaning their sale cut system, has nothing to do with using features that already given from moment from up front pay may it be free, or not. Even if game stop selling, or delisted dev don't lose access to the said features, because has nothing to do with sale cut. The only time it involve sale cut, is... drumroll... SALES wow, as if when you do sale, there sale cut. Crazy, but still have same features that has nothing do with sale cut that free games also using crazy...
As you quoted, none of it said can't use api multiplayer, workshop, sdk, or etc between free, paid games, they both have access to same features, as has nothing to do with sale cut.
And, I will disagree with you, and me explaing things, so what, I'm calling you out for a reason, and yea in this case I'm defending them in this misnformation you're pushing. So it doesn't matter, I call you out, you don't like it, too bad. This isn't a contest, I'm calling you out on misinformation, that was it.