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
Besides, you can always use the forums if you want to communicate such wishes. Not trying to shoot your idea down but like, it's probably not something Steam would do. The only real place you can haggle for a game is bundle websites or the likes, if any.
Most of the time I don't spend more than $30 on the game, except if there's any game I'm hyped about, like GTA VI
You say you'd pay 19.99, but they know they can squeeze 29.99 off you on the long game.
People saying "I'd buy that for a dollar" on their wishlist won't make the dev sell it for a dollar. It's not valid market research.
You could probably also mitigate unreasonable settings with a percentage per game. Like not being able to go below fifty percent or something. Just ball parking, but developers are more likely to look at wish list analytics than random forum posts saying what people would rather pay.
The proof is in the pudding. If 1000 people say hey i'd pay 19.99 instead of 29.99 and then of that 1000 say 250 actually do that's still a quarter of everyone that said they would buy it at that price. The worst that happened is you made money you wouldn't have made otherwise and in that case you may have attracted people who didn't even have it wishlisted.
I can also assure you there are plenty of people who are hardliners on not paying a certain amount until it drops.
I think this would probably help more in EA, where smaller developers would welcome what they feel others would be willing to pay. It's just an aid, nothing beyond that.
It's an idea that would be nice if everyone was honest about it. The reality is that most people won't be. People will still put in the lowest price possible, some may even put an absurdly high price too. Either way, there's no benefit to anyone
You're ignoring the overall point of averages. The developers don't care if 100 out of 1000 people put two cents. What they'd theoretically receive on their end is an analytic graph showing what wishlist averages are. Amounting to yes there are 100 people delusional or bad faith saying they'd pay two cents but the overall overage wishlist requested price is say 19.99.
Precisely this. It's just a tool that can be used or ignored depending on the developer. It wouldn't hurt or hinder anything to have it.
And not only that, we can have discussions how it can be implemented.
If a small developer can have a "scale" say from 9.99 to 199. 99 and can even get those player logs of those who have bought the game, and how much time invested (say like the reviews show), i can say i bought the game for 19.99, and put that on the scale as a fair price.
But if they see i put 200 hours into a recent 19.99 game, they can decide to even raise the price if that is the concensus. Its just a tool for newer developers.
"I wishlisted MW2 at 5.99... Why isn't the dev discounting it?"
Valve has the previous lesson of Greenlight in regards the disconnect between what people say they would do and what they actually go and do.
Have you met people? They aren't reasonable at all
Not really ignoring that point, but how many people would actually use this function to where it could be considered representative of the target audience? If a game has 1 million interested players and 1000 of them used this function and of the average price turned out to be something like $80 (where the devs were initially thinking a nice price of $30), how many of those 1 million players would actually pay that?
What would stop developers from abusing this system? They could just point to it and say "This is the average price that people said they'd be willing to pay, so we chose that".
Sorry, this system isn't a good thing, it benefits no one and I can't see it being implemented anyway.