Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
This topic has been locked 
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
People are already buying games they want on Steam. Why should Valve cut into their profits to encourage people to do a thing they are already doing?
nah.
if a game of 100 euro is sold.calce takes 30 euro.. and the dev gets 70 euro.
you as customet also reciece 10000 steam pointss.
so basicly every steampoint can only excist cause steam already made profit.
0.3 dollarcent per point created.
well now say steam did a 1% cashback program.
than the rate would be like 150000 steampoints to buy 5 dollar steam credit
to get that many points the user will havr had yo have spend 1500 euro to get 5 euro cashback to spend.
when that 5 euro is spend on a game it means stram owns tbe dev 70% of that or 3.50 ..
which would lower steams profit.. they made 450 euro profit (30% of 1500 eurp) on the initial purchase and than have to give up 3.5 euro leaving them still with 446.5 euro in profit over the whole thing.
but the customer might increse apending much more than that amount making it worth it.
you could even tie it to a spending tear unlocking better exchange rates od points for credit for those who spend 100, 1000, or 10000 on their steam accounts
A "buy 300 get one free" system is not particularly appealing, and it wouldn't really attract any extra customers (but it would cost engineer time to implement and maintain.)
Steam isn't really in that situation. Most of its own 'competition' still keeps their customers within their service (You buy a game key elsewhere? You still are in Steam) And for the cases it doesn't they can't really make a thing about (When the game isn't in Steam well, they're not going to buy it here anyway)
That's why the points shop mostly suffices to them. Because all they have to achieve is an incentive for people buying on key shops to buy here, while not really competing against key sites.
Most loyalty point systems have atrocious rates of exchange once you try exchange them for actual money. The '$5 voucher for 5000 Steam points' situation only happened because points had a very short expiration date (they basically lasted the Steam sale).
Now we have a large amount of people hoarding tens or hundreds of thousands points. Points that will all go towards vouchers the moment that's possible.
That's an avalanche of 'free money' waiting to happen. That's why if it ever happened it'd have a ridiculous exchange rate.
Steam and the developers have the actual sales figures, so they know how many people wait for sales and who doesn't. How many people buy their games elsewhere and who doesn't.
Of course, there's always the individual vs. the average.
For myself, it might work to some extent: I buy a lot of games from other shops because Steam does not give me the best price. Think about it this way: Steam takes 30%; other shops cannot afford that so they take less. If the publisher puts a discount somewhere "in the middle", they can get more out of the purchase than they would on the Steam store, while still giving people an incentive to go to that other store because of a lower price. Customer pays less, publisher gets more: win-win. Not sure about the store, though, but they have been around for a while so it can't be that bad.
However, I'm also an extremely bad customer because I only buy games that are on an exceptionally good discount. So, I actually try to keep my business on the very low end.
As such, I'd really have ask myself: why would Steam give benefits to millions of people that would buy the game in their store anyway, often at what I'd consider a horrible price point, just so that a handful of people such as myself buy some massively discounted game in their store that only leaves them with pennies anyway? Especially if it's tied to points: that massively discounted game isn't going to give me a lot of points, so I'll run out soon enough and whatever "business" my tiny purchases provide will still go elsewhere.
And sometimes, publishers only sell on Steam -- in those cases, I don't need an "incentive" to buy the game in the Steam store. Steam even has an additional thing going for them already: for some publishers such as Ubisoft, better prices elsewhere don't matter since I want my stuff on Steam, and every other shop sells UPlay-keys, not Steam-keys.
Regardless, Steam does not have this kind of customer-loyalty program -- so, whatever arguments we can come up with one way or the other, I'm sure their marketing experts have discussed them. And they decided to not have a customer-loyalty program.
Buy a couple steam decks.
Just buy your games elsewhere, problem solved. Many key stores have a cashback program.
Yes, it'll never be a thing because Steam already has a legion of fans that don't mind getting zero benefits from hundreds, sometimes thousands of purchases. Otherwise, they would have to do something to look more attractive.