monthly subscription for full access to all games

[Venatos]

maybe its just me, but a monthly subscription to have unlimited access to all the games on steam sounds like a good idea to me.
while you wouldnt "own" any of the games, it would also save you from spending 60bucks on a game that you play for 5-10hours and loose interrest, practicly wasting your money.
this way you spend money to play what you like and have access to all the games to find the ones you enjoy.(including new releases)

something around 30bucks a month would be worth it for me tbh.
that would be a "gaming as a service" i could get behind.
i personaly might even go up to 50/month just for the convenience of it.

but how would you get the money to the gamedevelopers?
splitting the monthly fee between the devs based on playtime could be an idea, you know, like youtube red/prime.

[Start_Running]

You would not be able to afford the subscription because the payout to the literal hundreds of developers & publishers would need to get a share that would be enough to compensate for the loss of sales.

And I can tell you that's not gonna be $30. Maybe $30 per publisher catalog but even then.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

HAHAHAHA $30 bucks is whatd you pay, eh?

Not enough.

[Crazy Tiger]

Seriously OP? You want to pay 30 bucks for access to around 30.000 games?

[Gwarsbane]

BAAHHAHHAHAHAHAHA 30 to 50 bucks per month for access to tens of thousands of games..... ya thats not going to happen.

Lets just say its 100 bucks you pay a month, and that there are only 10,000 games on steam (there is double to triple that). The 100 bucks would need to be split 10,000 ways but only after Valve takes their 30 percent because they still need to run the servers. So 70 dollars divided by 10,000 is .007 cents per game per month, not even a full cent per game.

Hmmm sell a game for 99 cents all the way up to 80 bucks and get 70% of that, or get 70% of 1 cent..... hmmmmm well I don't know about you, but thats a tough call.....



So we found todays ones....

[Radene]

Not just you, OP, but you lose points for even considering "games as a service" is a good idea.

[Venatos]

just for those that dont understand english: splitting the 30-50 per month among gamedevs per playtime would split it between the 3-5 games you play regularly in that month.
and that every month, for every player, it would be like they buy the game every few month again and again and again as long as they keep playing.

i just guessed the monthly prize based on what i suspect your average steamuser might spend per month on steam today, so steam still gets the money. the user on the other side, gets nothing, if he ends the subscription, all the games are gone. you just trade ownership of a number of titles against access to all titles. makes no difference to valve.

[Start_Running]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Venatos:

just for those that dont understand english: splitting the 30-50 per month among gamedevs per playtime would split it between the 3-5 games you play regularly in that month.

And that would basiucally make it pointless for most publishers/devs ergo they would not sign up for it. Before you consider such things mayhaps you should speak to those who actually work under syuch schemes...

and that every month, for every player, it would be like they buy the game every few month again and again and again as long as they keep playing.

And why would a dev sign up for that? Never mind that it could be something easily abused by unscrupulous devs and pubs.

I just guessed the monthly prize based on what i suspect your average steamuser might spend per month on steam today, so steam still gets the money.

Not they actually get lesss money. If thats what you assume people are spending per month on average, then reall that's a burn for the dev/pubs.

the user on the other side, gets nothing, if he ends the subscription, all the games are gone. you just trade ownership of a number of titles against access to all titles. makes no difference to valve.

And why would any dev/pub sign in for that. WHy split $30 5 ways when you can just sell them a $30 game?

[Brian9824]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Venatos:

just for those that dont understand english: splitting the 30-50 per month among gamedevs per playtime would split it between the 3-5 games you play regularly in that month.
and that every month, for every player, it would be like they buy the game every few month again and again and again as long as they keep playing.

i just guessed the monthly prize based on what i suspect your average steamuser might spend per month on steam today, so steam still gets the money. the user on the other side, gets nothing, if he ends the subscription, all the games are gone. you just trade ownership of a number of titles against access to all titles. makes no difference to valve.

So I release a brand new game, you get to play it and games from 4 other developers for a month and get to beat 5 games that cost $60 and instead of getting $60 I get $10?

Also if you play 20 different games dev's only get paid for 5 of them? Meaning any other dev participating had their game given away for free.

Not to mention steam would take 20% of that up front, so even if it was $50 that means there is only $40 left to split. The logistics to try to come up with a fair system to pay out based on playtime is just crazy. You just punish anyone who makes a game that can be beaten in a short period of time and reward those who fill their games with grinding to stretch out the hours.

[Venatos]

dont overthink it, its a simple split proportional to playtime per game.
i for one, can not finish 5 or more games per month, there just arent enough hours in the day.
and i want my money to go where my playtime is, if a dev makes a good game that keeps me coming back again and again, i want them to get paid accordingly. there are several indy games that i bought for a steal and got hundreds of hours out of. thats just not fair.

on the other side, there are 60buck games that i loose interrest in, not even halfway through.

this way, the devs that make the games i like and play, get my money yearround, not just once on a -50% sale or something.

[Brian9824]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Venatos:

dont overthink it, its a simple split proportional to playtime per game.
i for one, can not finish 5 or more games per month, there just arent enough hours in the day.
and i want my money to go where my playtime is, if a dev makes a good game that keeps me coming back again and again, i want them to get paid accordingly. there are several indy games that i bought for a steal and got hundreds of hours out of. thats just not fair.

on the other side, there are 60buck games that i loose interrest in, not even halfway through.

this way, the devs that make the games i like and play, get my money yearround, not just once on a -50% sale or something.

Again, no one would do it. It basically rewards people who play a lot of games, encourages accounts to be shared, and costs them money. Instead of selling a game for $30 or $60 they would get $5 with their split instead

For one thing you'd need every developer to agree to it which they won't, otherwise their titles can't be included.

[Start_Running]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Venatos:

dont overthink it, its a simple split proportional to playtime per game.

But you're kinda underthinking it.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย brian9824:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Venatos:

dont overthink it, its a simple split proportional to playtime per game.
i for one, can not finish 5 or more games per month, there just arent enough hours in the day.
and i want my money to go where my playtime is, if a dev makes a good game that keeps me coming back again and again, i want them to get paid accordingly. there are several indy games that i bought for a steal and got hundreds of hours out of. thats just not fair.

on the other side, there are 60buck games that i loose interrest in, not even halfway through.

this way, the devs that make the games i like and play, get my money yearround, not just once on a -50% sale or something.

Again, no one would do it. It basically rewards people who play a lot of games, encourages accounts to be shared, and costs them money. Instead of selling a game for $30 or $60 they would get $5 with their split instead

For one thing you'd need every developer to agree to it which they won't, otherwise their titles can't be included.

Funnily I can see this working ona dev/pub by dev/pub basis. Say for example KLEI or TEAM17 puts a subscription pass that allows you access to their entire library for $30 per month. Or even $10.. But then again They have large catalogs and make games wortyh buying so yeah it makes more sense that they'd sell.

Perhaps a viable option for thos ddev/pubs who produce most VNs, or low budget bundle fodder.

[Brian9824]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Start_Running:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Venatos:

dont overthink it, its a simple split proportional to playtime per game.

But you're kinda underthinking it.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย brian9824:

Again, no one would do it. It basically rewards people who play a lot of games, encourages accounts to be shared, and costs them money. Instead of selling a game for $30 or $60 they would get $5 with their split instead

For one thing you'd need every developer to agree to it which they won't, otherwise their titles can't be included.

Funnily I can see this working ona dev/pub by dev/pub basis. Say for example KLEI or TEAM17 puts a subscription pass that allows you access to their entire library for $30 per month. Or even $10.. But then again They have large catalogs and make games wortyh buying so yeah it makes more sense that they'd sell.

Perhaps a viable option for thos ddev/pubs who produce most VNs, or low budget bundle fodder.

Yep, its definitely feasible on a developer by developer basis, but again its up to the developer to opt in. Some already do it like EA with their own subscription services. Definitely wouldn't work across every developer or even multiple developers.

[Andrei]

i can see something like that comming to Steam like EA access maybe other big publishers will do this in the future.

[Spawn of Totoro]

I really dislike the idea, tbh.

If it were to happen, then it would likely be like Amazon Video though, where you pay to access the games (say, $10/mo, all to Valve, includes access to all Valve games) and each developer charges for their catalogue as a secondary subscription (developer gets 100% of this) that can range from a few dollars to over $100, depending on the developer and what they feel is fair (eg: Warner Bros. Interactive would be say.... $20 a month and EA would be $15 in addition to the $10, for a total of $45/mo for access to all WB, EA and Valve games).

With the amount of games on Steam, a flat fee would not work out.

[Andrei]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Spawn of Totoro:

I really dislike the idea.

If it were to happen, then it would likely be like Amazon Video though, where you pay to access the games (say, $10/mo, all to Valve) and each developer charges for their catalogue as a secondary subscription (developer gets 100% of this) that can range from a few dollars to over $100, depending on the developer and what they feel is fair.

yeah but i see that comming with big publishers Square Enix Bandai Namco Capcom Activision THQ Nordiq and all other big ones i bet they are going the same route like Electronic Arts since Valve allowed EA to bring EA access on Steam its only a matter of time big publishers are creating something like that as EA.