Should Steam Offer Rental and Subscription Services?

[The Brown Hornet]

I previously posed the question "Should Steam Allow Game Trading?" and was met with staunch resistance from users and gamers predicting the collapse of digital gaming industry as we know it! Whereas I don't think it would hurt to allow account holders to convert a few titles a year into items more useful, others lament Valve losing income on something we already paid for.

So I move on to a new question...

Should Valve include a rental or subscription service as part of Steam?

I don't know about you but in my estimation it makes less sense to purchase digital games at full price. As others have asserted in my previous thread, "we don't own the game, it's just a license to play it!" Well if it's just a license, a pay to play arrangement and nothing else, then why are we being charged a full-priced ownership fee (promotions and sales withstanding)?

Back in the day downloading games directly to your PC was a new and fresh concept; instant and convenient...wow, no longer must we visit a store or await a retail item in the mail! In the current market however digital content and downloading is common, par for the course in music, film, TV, internet/web...in short, all forms of media!

Due to this high volume of media and digital consumption many gamers have reduced the amount of time spent in-game. In contrast gamers of the past generally put completionist amounts of time and effort into every title they bought. Today it seems we buy more but play less...this trend can be observed just by looking at player achievements, in game time and completion stats which Steam duly tracks.

Therefore does it make sense for Steam to expand from only selling licenses locked and tied to accounts to offering a selection of game rentals or subscription services? After all we don't own the games we purchased here...right? If we don't own then by default we are renting or borrowing, so shouldn't we be charged rent-level prices?

[J4MESOX4D]

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

brian9824 の投稿を引用：

Steam already offers it and has offered it for years. Most developers aren't interested in it - https://store.steampowered.com/subscriptions/ea

Its up to developers to list their titles as Steam is not the owner and cannot list other people's titles for rent. They have to list them, just like EA Play already has.

I'm not talking about EA Play or Ubi or Gamepass, I'm taking about Steam and any game sold on Steam. Of course a petty dev would be fickle about including or excluding their games but a Steam subscription service where rather than pay for individual titles users may access the larger selection of games offered on this store.

Why the hell would developers put a game into a pass and get about $0.15 per download when they can recoup the full asking price in a single sale? Also how does Valve determine which games are cherrypicked? There's literally 50,000 games on Steam and at that rate, developers would probably get one tenth of a percent of a single cent for a download if the pass covered every title.

Like I said in your other thread, you first have to know and understand how Steam operates as a business before producing such ideas that wholly conflict with the existing store front model. Just because other stores do it doesn't mean Valve can replicate it accordingly. Microsoft's game pass and EA's mainly consist of in-house games so they can implement such a model you probably think Valve can just add some games, users pay and everyone gets money from some magical tree or something. Doesn't work like that.

[Brian9824]

J4MESOX4D の投稿を引用：

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

I'm not talking about EA Play or Ubi or Gamepass, I'm taking about Steam and any game sold on Steam. Of course a petty dev would be fickle about including or excluding their games but a Steam subscription service where rather than pay for individual titles users may access the larger selection of games offered on this store.

Why the hell would developers put a game into a pass and get about $0.15 per download when they can recoup the full asking price in a single sale? Also how does Valve determine which games are cherrypicked? There's literally 50,000 games on Steam and at that rate, developers would probably get one tenth of a percent of a single cent for a download if the pass covered every title.

Like I said in your other thread, you first have to know and understand how Steam operates as a business before producing such ideas that wholly conflict with the existing store front model. Just because other stores do it doesn't mean Valve can replicate it accordingly. Microsoft's game pass and EA's mainly consist of in-house games so they can implement such a model you probably think Valve can just add some games, users pay and everyone gets money from some magical tree or something. Doesn't work like that.

Or steam would have to pay BILLIONS to license the games to offer them, then those licenses expire and games are removed just like on gamepass.

[Nx Machina]

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Yeah a good sale price for one game and only one game. Subscriptions yields access to more than one game for a limited time. We are constantly reminded that we truly own nothing purchased on Steam do remove the veil of buying games here and call it what it really is...full price rentals that allow access so long as your account is active.

If you are unable to pick good games then the issue is not something Valve nor anyone can solve for you.

Secondly you own nothing on ALL PC clients including your beloved Epic yet oddly you seem fixated on Steam and that is why your argument fails.

And finally you are not renting games, you actually licence them to access the content, a licence you agree to on ALL PC clients.

[J4MESOX4D]

brian9824 の投稿を引用：

J4MESOX4D の投稿を引用：

Why the hell would developers put a game into a pass and get about $0.15 per download when they can recoup the full asking price in a single sale? Also how does Valve determine which games are cherrypicked? There's literally 50,000 games on Steam and at that rate, developers would probably get one tenth of a percent of a single cent for a download if the pass covered every title.

Like I said in your other thread, you first have to know and understand how Steam operates as a business before producing such ideas that wholly conflict with the existing store front model. Just because other stores do it doesn't mean Valve can replicate it accordingly. Microsoft's game pass and EA's mainly consist of in-house games so they can implement such a model you probably think Valve can just add some games, users pay and everyone gets money from some magical tree or something. Doesn't work like that.

Or steam would have to pay BILLIONS to license the games to offer them, then those licenses expire and games are removed just like on gamepass.

Yep, Microsoft and EA's passes ultimately operate at a loss but they can afford to do this and cover any deficits through other arms of the business. Valve would lose an insane amount of money per month against what the pass owners spend - let's say a pass is £15 a month consisting of 15 games and the average demand cut is above £1 per game; that instantly puts Valve at a significant operating loss.

Microsoft can get away with it because it's mainly their own studios fronting the pass or they do an Epic and pay developers a lump sum to feature and maybe an additional $0.15 per install. Losses are then mitigated against other parts of the business i.e getting consoles into houses and Xbox Live costs.

[Brian9824]

J4MESOX4D の投稿を引用：

brian9824 の投稿を引用：

Or steam would have to pay BILLIONS to license the games to offer them, then those licenses expire and games are removed just like on gamepass.

Yep, Microsoft and EA's passes ultimately operate at a loss but they can afford to do this and cover any deficits through other arms of the business. Valve would lose an insane amount of money per month against what the pass owners spend - let's say a pass is £15 a month consisting of 15 games and the average demand cut is above £1 per game; that instantly puts Valve at a significant operating loss.

Microsoft can get away with it because it's mainly their own studios fronting the pass or they do an Epic and pay developers a lump sum to feature and maybe an additional $0.15 per install. Losses are then mitigated against other parts of the business i.e getting consoles into houses and Xbox Live costs.

Microsofts probably makes money just because the number of people they have, but its hard to say. They also have a lot of big name games from studios they own which cost them nothing though. It's also hard to say what they lose from potential sales of their first party titles which is something that's very difficult to quantify.

It will be intresting comparing launch day sales of Starfield to Fallout 4 as i doubt starfield will sell as well since people (including myself) will just play it on gamepass. Even more skewed when i buy years of gamepass for $4 a month like many others instead of $10 a month retail.

[The Brown Hornet]

Nx Machina の投稿を引用：

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Yeah a good sale price for one game and only one game. Subscriptions yields access to more than one game for a limited time. We are constantly reminded that we truly own nothing purchased on Steam do remove the veil of buying games here and call it what it really is...full price rentals that allow access so long as your account is active.

If you are unable to pick good games then the issue is not something Valve nor anyone can solve for you.

Secondly you own nothing on ALL PC clients including your beloved Epic yet oddly you seem fixated on Steam and that is why your argument fails.

And finally you are not renting games, you actually licence them to access the content, a licence you agree to on ALL PC clients.

Again I'm amazed at how negative and opposed our very own Steam Community has become towards innovations that would improve the overall gaming experience. The right answer is YES, Steam should offer rental and/or Subscription Services!!

[Mad Scientist]

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Again I'm amazed at how negative and opposed our very own Steam Community has become towards innovations that would improve the overall gaming experience. The right answer is YES, Steam should offer rental and/or Subscription Services!!

You've said something of the sort many times, because people don't agree with you, and point out why. You can try saying it's good for Devs to be shot in the foot, you can try to paint it as "innovative", in the end; they get best results from how they currently conduct business.

Instead of going on a crusade, perhaps go to another store - if any exist - that cater to what you want. Valve has made it known competition is ok and healthy for the market. You want something specific? You shop where that thing is. As another said, if it doesn't; there's likely a very strong reason why.

[The Brown Hornet]

Mr. Gentlebot の投稿を引用：

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Again I'm amazed at how negative and opposed our very own Steam Community has become towards innovations that would improve the overall gaming experience. The right answer is YES, Steam should offer rental and/or Subscription Services!!

You've said something of the sort many times, because people don't agree with you, and point out why. You can try saying it's good for Devs to be shot in the foot, you can try to paint it as "innovative", in the end; they get best results from how they currently conduct business.

Instead of going on a crusade, perhaps go to another store - if any exist - that cater to what you want. Valve has made it known competition is ok and healthy for the market. You want something specific? You shop where that thing is. As another said, if it doesn't; there's likely a very strong reason why.

You are more concerned with explaining to me how Valve/Steam works and operates. But my question is not How, it's Should. The question of should means we are free to explore the possibilities rather than resign ourselves to the current and established business practices.

[crunchyfrog]

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Start_Running の投稿を引用：

S others have pointed out The feature already exists. Any pub/dev or collective of pubdevs can create a subscription bundle for a set of titles at any time. MOst don't. This is not something most see as beneficial to their business.

Rental is the same thing. The feature existed back when steam did movies and I doubt the frame work has vanished. TStill there in all likelihood but again, devs would rather make a sale than have a one off weekend. Never mind that many games go on sale for about what you'd rent the game for a weekend.

Yeah a good sale price for one game and only one game. Subscriptions yields access to more than one game for a limited time. We are constantly reminded that we truly own nothing purchased on Steam so remove the veil of buying games here and call it what it really is...full price rentals that only allow access so long as your account is active.

Except it's not that. You keep not listening to what people are telling you.

Licenceses only differe in that you can't sell them on. That's the only difference to physical games.

You keep asserting they're much similar to rentals. They are not.

They exist as long as as you wish them to or the service lasts, and so far in most cases that's about as long as many people have games. I have my first purchases on Xbox 360 still activa and still playable. I played some yesterday.

Of course if this bothers you, that it can go away tomorrow then it's stilla YOU problem in that you should use that and buy accordingly.

Here on Steam, I knew from day one that they could go aaway if the service disapppears which is why I NEVER EVER pay anywhere near full price for games.

So if this is how you think, why aren't you doing the same?

[Nx Machina]

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Again I'm amazed at how negative and opposed our very own Steam Community has become towards innovations that would improve the overall gaming experience. The right answer is YES, Steam should offer rental and/or Subscription Services!!

Because you are looking for affirmation of your flawed suggestion and skirting around, avoiding, skating past why Epic cannot do it.

Was that part of the brief? Subscription service on Steam but not us. Signed Timmy.

Or is it merely on Epic every game you have is free.....

Blog = affirmation.

Discussion forum = differing opinions.

[The Brown Hornet]

Nx Machina の投稿を引用：

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Again I'm amazed at how negative and opposed our very own Steam Community has become towards innovations that would improve the overall gaming experience. The right answer is YES, Steam should offer rental and/or Subscription Services!!

Because you are looking for affirmation of your flawed suggestion and skirting around, avoiding, skating past why Epic cannot do it.

Was that part of the brief? Subscription service on Steam but not us. Signed Timmy.

Or is it merely on Epic every game you have is free.....

Blog = affirmation.

Discussion forum = differing opinions.

Why are you bringing up Epic, if anything EA Play, Ubisoft, Gamepass, PS Plus are the better comparisons.

[crunchyfrog]

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Nx Machina の投稿を引用：

Because you are looking for affirmation of your flawed suggestion and skirting around, avoiding, skating past why Epic cannot do it.

Was that part of the brief? Subscription service on Steam but not us. Signed Timmy.

Or is it merely on Epic every game you have is free.....

Blog = affirmation.

Discussion forum = differing opinions.

Why are you bringing up Epic, if anything EA Play, Ubisoft, Gamepass, PS Plus are the better comparisons.

So what?

You keep asserting these flawed ideas and assuming YOUR ideas extend to the whole. That's not how it works.

And again, there's no evidence Valve would be interested in this, as Gabe Newell has already stated.

[Nx Machina]

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Why are you bringing up Epic, if anything EA Play, Ubisoft, Gamepass, PS Plus are the better comparisons.

Because you sang the praises of Epic on your other thread so answer the question, why can Epic not do it.

Secondly why focus on Steam when you DO NOT own any game on any PC client after all quicksand is not a good foundation to build your argument on and not owning games is the premise of both of your threads.

[crunchyfrog]

Nx Machina の投稿を引用：

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Why are you bringing up Epic, if anything EA Play, Ubisoft, Gamepass, PS Plus are the better comparisons.

Because you sang the praises of Epic on your other thread so answer the question, why can Epic not do it.

Secondly why focus on Steam when you DO NOT own any game on any PC client after all quicksand is not a good foundation to build your argument on and not owning ganes premise of your thread.

I still don't understand why anyone would make the argument that digital distribution is flawed and we really don't actually own games, then claim they need to pay full price for the games?

I never have.

[The Brown Hornet]

crunchyfrog の投稿を引用：

The Brown Hornet の投稿を引用：

Yeah a good sale price for one game and only one game. Subscriptions yields access to more than one game for a limited time. We are constantly reminded that we truly own nothing purchased on Steam so remove the veil of buying games here and call it what it really is...full price rentals that only allow access so long as your account is active.

Except it's not that. You keep not listening to what people are telling you.

Licenceses only differe in that you can't sell them on. That's the only difference to physical games.

You keep asserting they're much similar to rentals. They are not.

They exist as long as as you wish them to or the service lasts, and so far in most cases that's about as long as many people have games. I have my first purchases on Xbox 360 still activa and still playable. I played some yesterday.

Of course if this bothers you, that it can go away tomorrow then it's stilla YOU problem in that you should use that and buy accordingly.

Here on Steam, I knew from day one that they could go aaway if the service disapppears which is why I NEVER EVER pay anywhere near full price for games.

So if this is how you think, why aren't you doing the same?

That's also my take, I don't buy many full price games on Steam for the same reasons you stated. Lots of people do though, they even preorder. Again, I don't have an issue with the business model back when it was the cutting edge of PC gaming. It made sense back then, it was a new way to play. All I'm arguing is it's outdated and unnecessary to buy digital games at "these" prices today. If gamers generally average only 30-60 hours total in most games played on Steam...why is it necessary to "own" it? Renting makes more sense.