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
讨论规则及指引
6 
举报此帖
Ask Valve why they made the Half life games free on their anniversary.
Even then the better question is, why would people buy multiplayer only games for no one to play them?
Not necessarily but that'd be for Valve to decide. They can always update gold source to add micro-transactions but I don't think anyone is in a rush to play Richochet, much less buy it these days. It's why I say it's kind of redundant for them to sell a multiplayer only game when their other multiplayer only games like TF2 and CS2 are free to play.
TF2 was absolutely destroyed
But nobody plays these games and they're already cheap.
So Valve has no reason to give up that Monetary value..
They earn more money in a year from one person buying one of those games than a million people playing it for free.
I have first hand experience that giving people the option to donate $1 because they like the game you're giving them for free doesn't result in many donations. I'm pretty sure the engineer time at Valve needed to set that up would be worth more than the amount of money it would ever return, especially because Valve aren't volunteers in the first place.
What could Ricochet, a game with near-zero customizability, possibly sell?
Making a game free to play also changes player expectations. TF2, Dota 2, and CS2 all get frequent content updates (even though TF2 doesn't name theirs anymore). Just look at how many people are disappointed that Dota Underlords isn't being updated anymore.
They already have. Get out your wallet.
So no one is going to rush to play those games, then what's the point of doing a lot of work of adding microtransactions that aren't going to make money?
Other games existing, or new versions of games using different business models isn't some argument that older games have to do it too.
This is literally a non-issue and your internal need for some kind of imagined consistency is wholly your own invention.
And if no one buys it within the year, it's worth as much as it being free to play.
Again, that's not up for me to decide because that'd just be hyperbole.
What does Richochet sell... in general? I think you're getting the wrong idea. I'm not saying, change the game to appeal to people. I'm just saying, the game doesn't sell and will never sell and won't work if no one plays it so whats the point of selling it? Just make it free.
Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it champ?
Also making it F2P not going make it better how you're expecting it to be, proof look at thousands of other F2P games, and history to prove my point.
Lastly these games go dirt cheap on sale often, look up steamdb.info it shows you history of sale.
They get nothing out of it regardless if they sell it or make it free because no one plays them or are willing to buy them anymore. It doesn't matter how cheap they are, it's not showing sales data based on how much they're selling as of now.
If money a problem, then none of the multiplier games that cost snything should have players right?
There's no reason to sell them. The most making them free to play would be that some players would check the games out, not many but maybe a few hundred. It worked out for Half Life 1 and 2 when Valve made them free. They didn't have to make them free but they did. Who knows, maybe making the games free to play could spark some interest in a Richochet 2 or a Day of Defeat 2.