Инсталирайте Steam
вход
|
език
Опростен китайски (简体中文)
Традиционен китайски (繁體中文)
Японски (日本語)
Корейски (한국어)
Тайландски (ไทย)
Чешки (Čeština)
Датски (Dansk)
Немски (Deutsch)
Английски (English)
Испански — Испания (Español — España)
Испански — Латинска Америка (Español — Latinoamérica)
Гръцки (Ελληνικά)
Френски (Français)
Италиански (Italiano)
Индонезийски (Bahasa Indonesia)
Унгарски (Magyar)
Холандски (Nederlands)
Норвежки (Norsk)
Полски (Polski)
Португалски (Português)
Бразилски португалски (Português — Brasil)
Румънски (Română)
Руски (Русский)
Финландски (Suomi)
Шведски (Svenska)
Турски (Türkçe)
Виетнамски (Tiếng Việt)
Украински (Українська)
Докладване на проблем с превода
Тази тема е заключена 
Правила и насоки за дискусии
Докладване на публикацията
Sale cut is when want to sell via their service. Some of it is used for maintaining the service on steam. So it has to do with using said service. And game developers pay for it.
So you can bring up whatever topics you want and expect me to agree with it, but when I did the same you ignore it, then accused me of ignoring you because I don't agree with your statement? Lol at this level of nagging and you're not even my girlfriend lmao.
It is a requirement if I want to sell my games for profit. If my game price is $20 and it sold for 100 copies, I won't be able to get the all $2000 of it while keep using the steam service can I? (try to answer this one if you dare).
You do care and want me to agree with you. But that won't work, because that means I spread misinformation.
Of course the game won't lose access to steam services, because devs already paid with the sales cut before the game became free. You can't just forget about the previous sales and its contributions to steam and say "now steam services are free, horray!"
Sales cut has everything to do with devs using steam services be it from the past, present or future.
Sales cut is not relevant if I can sell my games with 100% profit for me and still able to use steam services. Tell me how can I do that?
See this is the kind of mental gymnastics I'm talking about. I never said that devs must use sales cut to access steam services. I said there two options : pay $100 and make your game free to play. Or pay with sales cut and get the $100 back after $1000 sales. And of course valve marketing won't say those facts out loud. They're not stupid.
The statement from valve is just to show how important the sales cut for steam. So sales cut is relevant for developers to use steam services. Think about this, if no developers want to pay the sales cut will there be steam services? Will steam exists? A big no.
About your the paid then free games thingy, read my previous statement. It's all there.
Cool keep lying, because I only talked about sale cut has nothing to do with using feature, it's not gated by sale cut.
No actually, I'm only calling you out, like I said you can disagree all you want, doesn't make you right to spread misinformation that was it.
Sale cut is when selling, has nothing to do with using said features, such as using multiplayer API has nothing to do with sale cut.... Are you selling the multiplayer itself? If no, then it's not relevant, that why sale cut is only involved when doing sales.
There is no 100% profit, idk why you think that because that not even what being talked about, this is about using Steam feature, and you are not require to sell, or remain selling to use said feature...
You did, that what you been arguing against this whole time, was explain repeatedly.
Sale cut is not what give you access to using steam features, it's when you pay up front the $100, and you get to use steam features, that was it, that what you have been arguing against this whole time.
And I can bring up any relatable arguments to support my statements. And you keep running from it.
Nope all I said is the truth, so I must spread it.
If sales is just for selling, then where that money goes? What benefits the developers get from selling games on steam vs epic vs selling themselves?
If sales cut has nothing to do with using steam services then devs should be able to get 100% profit while keep having access to steam services.
Nope I didn't. I said it is a requirement to use steam services while being profitable. But there is always unprofitable option.
The $100 is what gives devs access steam features initially. But then it is replaced with sales cut later since there is no way to sell games on steam and use its services without steam took 20-30% if the sales. And there is no way around it. So yeah sales cut is pretty much the requirements for 99% of games to use steam services.
You haven't actually, you only gave bad arguments, and proven my point why steam features is not gated by sale cut.
Whatever you say troll.
Sale portion goes to dev, and other smaller portion goes to the store it sold in, that was it. Point of selling product is to make profit, point of selling on store instead of running your own is getting access to display game to wider audience, means more exposure. the more stores you list, the more exposure you get.
That's not what even remotely being talked about, using Multiplayer API, workshop, etc those are not gated by sale cut. Again free to play games can use same features without sale cut, you keep trying to arguing against it for whatever reason.
No you did, you kept on arguing against what was said, that all you had been doing.
There is no replace, it's the same features, the paid games using same multiplayer api as the free to play games, same with workshop, cloud save, and so on, all the same, they're not gated by sale cut at all.
And again this is about using the said feature, that means multiplayer, workshop, etc, the only time sale cut is involved when doing a sale.
I have, you said it's bad arguments because you have nothing to counter it but copy paste statement.
Lol you mad?
If that was it then steam would not have any features am I right? Just barebone store to handle electronic transaction and nothing else. Valve employees don't have to spend any cent to add features for devs and players. Because steam is just a store and that was it.
Money must be spent on something kiddo, it must be used to create something valuable. It doesn't just disappear and that was it.
This is public discussion in the real world. You don't get to tell me what should I say.
If you expect people to just nod with whatever you say go play video games and talk to npc. It's easier life for you there.
It is gates by sales cut, because my games won't be able to access those features if I'm not willing to give a portion of sales to steam. This is a strong reason that you can't argue with.
I never say the services are different between devs who paid $100 vs devs who paid with sales cut. Different games have access to the same services but pay steam differently. One with $100 other with sales cut.
I have a feeling we're being pushed to play online for no good reason. Why do we have to be online all the time?
If a game can only be played online, I think they should be more apparent about that on the store page, in my opinion. So we can see that it can only be played online.
They should just put a large label on it that says: "This game can only be played online." Because then people are aware of that, instead of having that information buried deep within some UELA or on a forum.
Sure, you can boot up the game and be in the main menu in offline mode. But only being in the main menu is obviously not playing the game... Well, technically it is, but you know what I mean.
If it's not a "your typical single player game", then why does it say "single player" on the store page? Instead it should say something as: "single player (but only functions when online)" Because then they are being apparent about it, and not obscure.
The people are complaining about it in the reviews as well, the gamers are commenting about the complaints not being valid, but the people have valid complaints, in my opinion.
Even if have paid game that made no sale, and then made it free to play, you still have access to same feature's because that not what sale cut are for, you get Steam feature regardless, after paid upfront $100 to list product, and you keep arguing against this. Even if Steam get rid of $100 upfront fee, you still have access to steam features, hence why sale cut doesn't block you from using them.
Because that all you have been doing.
No, just you being a clown.
The only money is spent by Dev on Steam, is $100 up front for listing their product. Money being received that coming from customers that given to store then given to the dev, not the other way around, but since you believe devs are paying, and not the customers paying to buy thing with your backwards logic...
Congratulations realizing what real world is, but that still had nothing to do with what was talked about from the very start you keep trying to deny, and argue against.
Trying to change what being talked about start isn't going to change what you said was wrong from the start.
No, not expecting you to do anything, you don't like being called out is why you been acting like this.
No you still do have access to feature regardsless hence free to play, or not, or else free to play games wouldn't be able to use them that why you keep contradicting yourself.
You want to sale for profit, you sale cut,
Then why you keep suggesting there something different, and then said it replace.
Both free, and paid Dev have to pay $100 thst not optional if want to list on Steam, sale cut is not a bypass option, not a substitute for $100 upfront fee.
Where is the money to maintain steam services coming from after that? That's right sales cut. Can I get 100% profits of sales while getting benefits from steam services? I can't. Those are the reasons that makes the sales cut is mandatory for non free games to use steam services.
I never say that free games can't access steam features without paying sales cut, and said it multiple times. Yes it can. But it won't convince me that sales cut isn't mandatory because :
1. The game will lose its profitability.
2. Without sales cut, steam and all its services won't be sustainable. All steam games will eventually lose access to steam services anyway when it shutdown.
So unless you can show me how to keep 100% profit aka no sales cut for steam, while also having access to steam services, while also keep steam alive somehow, sales cut is mandatory for paid games to use steam services.
Heck I can even say it's mandatory for pure free games but the one who paid those services are sales cut from paid games. $100 is cheap and won't be enough to sustain steam forever.
And your scenario about pure free to play games without microtransactions, paid dlc, etc is stupid idea anyway. It's a very unlikely scenario that doesn't benefits developers or steam.
I'm doing better actually. At least better than you.
Clown with better common sense than you. Imagine that.
That is according to you, a consumer who happen to be a pro steam supporter. I use game developers perspective all this time.
For devs, steam is just a means to reach certain market share, not something they are grateful for. Developers/publishers is supposed to get 100% profits from each sales. But they have to split with third party like steam, payment processor, game engine provider, etc in exchange for its services.
Customers pay for the game, and that was it.
If there are extra services/features that customers get from the game that was made by the store/platform, it's a bonus for customers that developers paid through the sales cut.
You should be grateful for game developers who are willing forked out their revenue in order for you to enjoy video games with extra services, more than the store.
Umm.. Not my intention to change anything. That was me pointing how whining while expecting me to stop telling the truth is pathetic.
Free to play get access because they paid $100 upfront. Paid games get access because they pay with sales cut.
Two different scenarios, paid with two different values, to get the same services.
Not really. I can make a game, sell to customers directly and use peer to peer networks to transfer the game. That is a transaction that will give me 100% of the profit. No middleman, not sales cut.
BUT, my games won't get benefits from steam services because I didn't sell the game through steam and get the sales cut. This scenario is what makes sales cut is mandatory for me to use steam services on my non free games
I never did. You just don't care to read what I said this whole time. That's on you.
I dont know what makes it so hard for you to understand that the $100 is refunded when the game reach $1000 (and no, I'm not talking about free games). Steam doesn't even care about $100 that's why they refunded it at a very low threshold. Steam only care about making money off the sales cut. That's why they make it mandatory for paid games to enjoy steam services.