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
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
This has been brought up before. I suggest you use the search function to look up those threads and the pros and cons of such a thing on Steam.
Thanks for your feedback! :)
No, subscriptions aren't likely.
So say in a 30 day month, I happen to play 15 games (1 game every 2 days). The devs would get a grand total of 66 cents per game... no wait, thats wrong, cause well Valve needs their cut... thats 46 cents a game...
Hmmmm get 46 cents for their game, or get 7 dollars for their game.... Hmmmm.....
Now I'm not expert on this, but it seems like devs/publishers would much prefer the 7 dollars.
Lets say its 10 games, or 1 game every 3 days. Ok that means they get 70 cents per game....
Hmmmmm again no expert here but 7 dollars vs 70 cents seems like the better choice for the devs/publishers to make.
This "might" be an ok choice for games that are only worth a dollar or 2 and not selling many games per month. But anything worth more then that, and/or selling more then a couple of games per month would not be interested in this.
No this is not a good idea. It was not a good idea when it was brought up before and will not be a good idea when its brought up again.
First off, Humble monthly while you do subscribe to it, you get the games and keep them forever. So they are not like any of the other services. Also pretty sure most of the games show up there for "tax write offs". They can claim they are giving to charity or something like that. if their games are not selling as well, or not selling well anymore.
Geforce now, how may games does it have? 80? 100? Steam has what, 15,000 or more? I have no idea what games are on geforce now, but somehow I doubt its the latest greatest games, or FPS type games, because its all streaming. Pretty sure you need the geforce shield to play the games too. There was suppose to be a beta for it on PC but it has yet to show up.
Also don't you have to own the games already or what was that another service?
Geforce now also a streaming service so its not like you download and install the games, so its gonna be laggy and not good for games you need quick reactions for. My guess is its mainly aimed at casual games.
As to Playstation and xbox pretty sure they own most if not all the games that they put in their subscription services. Also don't they only have like 4 or 5 games a month each for their services. Not sure as I don't know either and I don't actually know anyone who owns one. And for xbox at least, you need to pay extra just to play online...
Except no where does the OP mention anything about microtransactions. In fact the thread starter specifically mentions starting with Valve games, well the only Valve games that I know that has microtransactions are Dota 2 and TF2, which are free to play, so do you think it would help or hurt a game to go from f2p to requiring 10 bucks a month to play it? And CSGO which is what 20 bucks now? and its a buy once. Again do you think it would hurt or help a to tell people, well you can access your stuff that you bought with microtransactions but only if you pay 10 bucks a month....
If the games in the subscription service have microtransactions, then why bother having them in a subscription service? Heck why bother charging for the game in the first place, after all its going to make FAR more money if people first don't have to put any actual money into it to play, and will certainly make more money if people don't have to keep paying for it to get the items that they can sell else where or to other players or what ever.
I personally would NEVER buy a game that has microtransactions that there to support the game. I would also NEVER pay into a subscription service for games that have microtransactions because those microtransactions should be paying to keep the servers up and for the decs/publishers to put more content into the game.
But here is the issue. 10 bucks a month for lets say access to any of 100 or 200 games is GREAT for the players. But it sucks for the devs/publishers of the games, because 1 single sale of say a 10 dollar game, would be 1000 times better then 1 person renting their game for a month. Because if you are subscribing for that kind of money, you are going to be playing more then 1 game, heck you are going to more then likely going to be playing 10 to 20 games, even just to try them out so you unless its automatically split between all 100 to 200 games (which would be even worse for the devs and publishers) the 7 dollars is going to be split between all the games that you play that month. So again 7 dollars, split 10 to 20 ways is not a lot of money.
So again, a subscription service is aimed at a different demographic than you and me, and relying on 10% of the subscribers to bring 90% of the profit. If we look at EA Access, the games are either old, so there's not much loss in sales, or it's relatively new, but heavily peppered with microtransactions or DLC (Dead Space 3, Dragon Age 2).
Making the main game available for free lowers the barrier for people to try it, and if they like it, they might even spent money on the additional content. Done at the right commercial stage of the game, such a strategy leads to increased revenue, not lost. You're staring blindly at a lost sale that was never going to happen in the first place.
And before you say they could just make it free to play, that doesn't quite work. When people pay into something, they value it more, and try to get their money's worth. The trick of a subscription service is that people effectively pay themselves an incentive to play as many games on it as possible.
TL;DR: A subscription service can be used to increase revenue on the mid and tail-end of a game's life, and is perfectly viable there.
And just for the record, that would never happen. The DLC are the cashcow that make the system viable.
It's not like you're on the internet and could look for yourself instead of basing your arguements on ASSumptions ...
No, the do not own most of the games. As a matter of fact lots of new indies join PS+ the month they release. And you don't have to pay extra for online. It's the same subscription that includes the games.
Well then feel free to look up just how the revenue split works out and get back to me.