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
I'm just giving a more fair and likely pricing scheme if it were to happen, then what the OP did. Besides, many of those you mentioned don't even have stores of their own like Steam, so we are assuming things remain the same in that aspect.
It is only meant as an example.
I pay the subscription and then I feel forced to 'play the money worth of it' just because I've paid it. Makes gaming feel like work pretty fast.
It's $1
https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/pc-games
yea.
Only for the first month.
... but i guess i can see how that would be a bad deal for some publishers...
Thatws why the need then also to charge 70 USD+ per game. Also if they make less then 1-2 millions copies sold they would lose money and have to cover there income with other games in case a game should flop.
Now assume you have a person that pays 10$ per month to paly all their games for free when a single game cost them 50 million to develop and sale, where would they make then profit? Tehre is no reason for the sue to buy the game, he can play it through. and after that they play other games and wouldnt need to buy the game either as they wills till own the pass for the other games. Means if you take the 30.000 games on steam into account they would have to sell the game practically for less then 1 cent instead of 70 USD
- Monthly GaaS fee (20 bucks or something) to Valve for Steam access + Valve titles (Prime eligibility example)
+ Publisher specific rental fee per title (It could be a rolling fee for as long as you wish to
continue playing it, or a standard 10 bucks for a week or something.
That said, I don't think it's workable for the majority of Steam gamers.
You are talking about Spotify and Youtube music but for games. The way they pay the artists / publishers is based on how many people listen to which songs, how long, and how often. That is how they divide the money.
Steam would need to charge approx 60-80/month. And no, it wouldn't just divide the amount equally among all game publishers. But your 80/month would go respectively to the game developers based on which games you play, how much, and how often (after steam takes their cut of course).
There is a flaw in this of course , which is different from music. Most songs are approx 3-5 minutes long. In music streaming, first 5-10 seconds are ignored for payout (they assume you are browsing, skimming, or looking for appropriate music). After that they being counting seconds for payout. If you listen to full song, recording artist gets full amount (eg: $0.20). If you listen to half the song, they get ($0.10), etc. The more people listen and the more times you listen the more they get paid.
If you have a favorite song, I bet you listened to that same song 50 times. Probably 20 times in one day. That is easy because song is 3 minutes long. But what if about your favorite game? How is that counted? Especially if a game takes 300 hours to complete and what do you consider a game to be completed? What if the game doesn't have a completed status. What constitutes a game developer getting full payment?
You can't use same standards for game as you do for a 3 minute song. They would have to define what constitutes just browsing, searching, or skimming means in each game to justify the point when the developer can now start getting paid. And you can't pay a developer based on length of time spend playing game because you are penalizing short games and rewarding long games. Do you really want developers to focus on making horrible, boring 500 hour long games just to get paid more rather than short 3 hour amazing games that penalizes them with less money?
If they work out those issues then yes, you could have a "spotify-like" subscription service for gaming. But just like spotify and other music streaming services, not all publishers would be willing to sign on and you would find that your gaming library would mysteriously change, dissapear randomly as games you were in the middle of playing would suddenly get removed due to publishing agreements.
i think simply splitting the monthlyfee(after steams cut) between the games you played based on playtime of each game is fair. no need to measure "completion".
in the end better(more popular) games get more money because more people play them.
grindfests have so much playtime globaly because they are "something to do", not of fun or quality. im positive that most people would go ham on a massive library of "new" games they just got access to with the "steampass"(or whatever it would be called) and rather quickly forget about the grindgame.
doesnt matter if its a 10buck indigame, or a 60buck AAA-Title, where i spent my gametime, that is where my money should go.
im sure im not the only one that regretted a crapy AAA 60buck game after 1hour or spent 10s if not hundreds of fun filled hours on a tiny 10buck indigame.
both of these just feel wrong.
thnx for the necro btw. ;)
I canceled my Humble Bundle legacy plan as a result of Game Pass, it's just a better deal. And I think it's probably the future. But I don't think every store needs to implement it either.
I've gotten to try out and play a bunch of games I was interested in, but not interested enough to buy, even on sale. And mostly I found that the those games are fine, but my instinct was right so and being on subscription it's a bit easier to walk away because I haven't committed to buying them.
If your Steam library is big enough already. If you only play games through once and owning them perpetually isn't the most important thing for you. Game Pass is hard to beat right now.
That being said I don't think I'd buy a game from the MS store.
And one way Game Pass doesn't screw developers aside from games being rotated in and out is most of the time (that I've seen) the base game might be on game pass, but the DLC is not. So if you want it you have to buy the game and the DLC.
And I'm not sure how the revenue from the subscription is split up, or if it's just some sort of loss leader. I mean it did get me to use the MS store which I was never going to use as a standard store. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. And at least some of those people will buy games from MS too.