Should Steam Offer Steam Subscription?

[pjedilord]

Hello my friends

Has Steam Considered offering monthly subscription fee where you play certain games from
Steam subscription free?
Would Steam Subscription work? Are you interested in Steam subscription? if Steam offers?

Does Steam offer this Super feature? Would you like Steam Subscription?
Some company's are already using this feature and surely must be working?
Is Steam losing out to other company's not having this feature?
If users are paying monthly to other sites, which would mean they would not buy those games on steam? So Steam loses out to them?

Do you pay monthly? does that mean you wont buy that game on steam cause you played already?

Steam has more games to offer than other company's, so in the long run steam would win more users cause steam has more games to offer, which would mean, some users joining Steam insted and steam would get more sales in the long run selling more games.

I think a company last year starting offing subscription fee, forgot company name?
They was famous for making games where you play a guy in the game where he runs a lot.?

Lets look forward to Subbing to Steam Subscription, you know you want to.
Does Steam Subscription sound Cool?

What would you call insted of Steam Subscription?
Maybe Steam can offer small wallet prizes to the user with the best name?

If Steam did offer Steam Subscription, i would be interested, play some games and think,
I enjoyed that game, that would be worth buying, As i like to have many playthoughs and own the game on Steam.
I love steam look, and not interested in Subscription with other sites, It feels great to be loyal to steam and i feel Steam cares about us like pets, and we have so many great users here that think the same, and we all debate steam greatness and want to improve steam to be the best of the best.

[Chesmu]

endrsgm eredeti hozzászólása:

we should all just do what he says.

Yes you should. ;)

[Count_Dandyman]

endrsgm eredeti hozzászólása:

the point isn't to nitpick over a game or series. the point is that there would be plenty of game makers, aaa and top titles included, that would be willing to do participate. they are participating on other platforms, not just Microsoft store.

sorry you missed what I stated - game pass is NOT JUST CONSOLE. I have a beta pc offer, same games as console list, but on pc for same 5 euros. hence Frostpunk isn't struggling at all on pc, nor is mutant year zero. console idk, but I'm talking apples to apples comparison with pc games.

I can think of precisely TWO games in 15 years that were so 'wow' i raced and bought them right away, paying top price. the rest i ALWAYS wait a year, two, 5. who cares if YOU played it this year, that doesn't make me enjoy it less in 4 years. kwim? I don't think most games are worth 40, 50, 60 euros. so I wait and pay less. lots of people are similar to both types - get it now at top price or wait and pay less.

hellblade, kingdom come deliverance, resident evil 3, city skylines, tomb raiders, tc. age of empires, europa universalis 4. they have good games on the list. not the 2 euro hentai porn trash. many of those games are RIGHT NOW in the steam charts. I just checked

i wouldn't buy the subscription personally, although for different reasons than tito shivan gave I buy games with heavy repeat playability. then I flog that game for years. a subscription means games change, come and go, and that would take away the games i want to focus on. I'm not sure 60ba euro to have a parade of games come through is worth the 60 euros I could have spent to find some games that were keepers and to focus on them instead. both have advantages and I can see why one person might prefer one system to another but for me I prefer less but okay them more

but this 'it isn't possible' or 'we only get trash games' arguments aren't true. it is possible. Microsoft is doing it with pc games right now, even with major aaa titles and some that are new and on the charts still. that proves it is possible and with good games.

imo when this was 'just' the xbox it was easy to snear. consoles. many types of games don't play well on consoles. need xbox gold and then pass = more cost than it looks like. but now? now it's pc. imo this will change the industry. steam won't be able to ignore this.

I have both Xbox and PC and saying its the same games on both is a barefaced lie there are plenty of games available on the Xbox that aren't available on the PC GTA5, DMC5, the Batman games, Borderlands Handsome Collection being some notable cases.

[endrsgm]

the Microsoft game pc pass doesn't have same games as xbox version?

That I didn't know. not knowing but assuming after a quick look (I'm not going to get it but was curiopus enough to look) does not equate to a 'barefaced lie'. your saying that, however, does equate to you being a jerk for accusing me of being a barefaced liar. besides which, I was making the point they had good games on the pc pass. not thst they were the exact same as the xbox pass. did you address the main point or run off on a tengent with insults?

i will comare the lists later between them and see. sorry if batman slipped my notice, I already own the recent batman games and the handsome collection so didn't focus on what I already had. but I'll look later to double check. Hard on a phone to compare 100 things accurately and easily....

[Count_Dandyman]

endrsgm eredeti hozzászólása:

the Microsoft game pc pass doesn't have same games as xbox version?

That I didn't know. not knowing but assuming after a quick look (I'm not going to get it but was curiopus enough to look) does not equate to a 'barefaced lie'. your saying that, however, does equate to you being a jerk for accusing me of being a barefaced liar. besides which, I was making the point they had good games on the pc pass. not thst they were the exact same as the xbox pass. did you address the main point or run off on a tengent with insults?

i will comare the lists later between them and see. sorry if batman slipped my notice, I already own the recent batman games and the handsome collection so didn't focus on what I already had. but I'll look later to double check. Hard on a phone to compare 100 things accurately and easily....

Yeah not like there is an official list page at https://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox-game-pass/games available where you can easily see listed the 273 games available on Xbox and 188 ones available on PC and have each game marked by where its available at all.

[endrsgm]

Count_Dandyman eredeti hozzászólása:

snip because its not relevant at all

1) the argument was the game subscriptions would be expensive
microsoft did it for FOUR euros (11.49 every 3 months)

2) the argument was that the games would all be their games or trash games or past their prime
microsoft has tons of AAA games from many different publishers and developers.
many of the games are on the steam charts RIGHT NOW

these arguments arent valid.

that it doesnt include batman isnt that big a deal either....

like i said earlier i wouldnt be getting something like this because i prefer games that i spend YEARS playing.
civ, eu, hearts of iron, galactic civ, vermintide, etc.
a stream of games that will be constantly replaced as time goes by to keep it always fresh is more or less the exact opposite of how i game and the types of games that i like to play. even tho many of these games are in the subscription i would want to still be playing these games long after the subscription is no longer (maybe) interested in carrying them as part of the subscription.
also, a subscription imo isnt the wisest of ways to get games because as soon as you drop the subscription its gone, all gone.

BUT
i can see a huge allure. i can see why people WOULD want something like this. and ... imo ... this is something steam cant ignore.

talking about batman and other specific titles is honestly just nonsense and nitpicking to avoid actually addressing a core point.

[Start_Running]

And the profit split would work how? This is the problem. As it is publishers can already offer subscriptions to their own catalogs but we don't see many doing so. Care to consider why?

[endrsgm]

what does

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

As it is publishers can already offer subscriptions to their own catalogs but we don't see many doing so. Care to consider why?

have to do with anything.

another side tangent of NO value to the points made. care to consider why?
spoiler---_>
a single publisher only has THEIR games in a subscription. a platform such as microsoft or steam would be able to get MANY publishers into a subscription.

but i dont know how a profit split would work. but evidently it can. because microsoft has proved that. 4 euro a month for a slew of games. many of which are AAA, some of which are on the steam charts for sales NOW, etc.
so it CAN be done. the proof is right over there on the other platform...

maybe microsoft thought "why not" and figured out how to have a subscription service with top games for a reasonable price and how to split the profits which is a HUGE threat to its competition. and then it pitched the idea to tons of different developers, publishing houses, game companies, etc and got MANY of them to agree to whatever % or whatever payments. and suddenly its actually happened. THATS how we know its possible. its already happened.

i can just imagine the wright brothers flying their plane and people pointing and saying "its flying" with amazement and you saying "we never managed to fly before and it wont work now. care to consider why". that "care to consider why" argument will ALWAYS leave you on the wrong side of history. ALWAYS.

[Start_Running]

endrsgm eredeti hozzászólása:

what does

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

As it is publishers can already offer subscriptions to their own catalogs but we don't see many doing so. Care to consider why?

have to do with anything.

another side tangent of NO value to the points made. care to consider why?
spoiler---_>
a single publisher only has THEIR games in a subscription. a platform such as microsoft or steam would be able to get MANY publishers into a subscription.

And then you would have to get those many publishers to agree on a revenue split.
Can you see the problem there?

but i dont know how a profit split would work. but evidently it can. because microsoft has proved that. 4 euro a month for a slew of games. many of which are AAA, some of which are on the steam charts for sales NOW, etc.

so it CAN be done. the proof is right over there on the other platform...

And how it gets done is the question. You are for example assuming that MS is actually making a profit on this, that what it pays out to the publishers is based on what the consumers pay. You are assuming that MS is not taking a Loss leader strategy to make an intital attractive offering. You are assuming that there aren't othr deals MS signed that gave them more power over publishers ...There's lots of little back room details that are quite the devil.

maybe microsoft thought "why not" and figured out how to have a subscription service with top games for a reasonable price and how to split the profits which is a HUGE threat to its competition. and then it pitched the idea to tons of different developers, publishing houses, game companies, etc and got MANY of them to agree to whatever % or whatever payments. and suddenly its actually happened. THATS how we know its possible. its already happened.

And again you are assuming that MS isn't paying out of pocket for this and incurring a loss. REemember MS made a point of selling every X-Box at a loss just to get into the console market. This company is well versed in the art of eating millions in losses just for a gain...but the question of the game will be measured not currently but wherther or not they can sustain it. EPic proved that you can Give out a game a week, does that mean it was an effective and profitable strategy?

i can just imagine the wright brothers flying their plane and people pointing and saying "its flying" with amazement and you saying "we never managed to fly before and it wont work now. care to consider why". that "care to consider why" argument will ALWAYS leave you on the wrong side of history. ALWAYS.

Actually no. It tends to leave you on the right side of history. The wright brothers succeeded because they considered why everyone else before them failed. and they addressed the issues. Keep in mind how many others tried the flying thing without taking the considerations into account.

Also the first manned flight was made Joseph-Michel and Jacques-Étienne Montgolfier in 1793. and it lasted 10 minutes. a solid 9 minutes longer than the wright Brother's . Vive le France!

[Sazzouu]

greenraven22 eredeti hozzászólása:

Guys this is obviously a valve employee using an alternate account (or maybe a family member of a valve employee) stop responding to the obvious troll bait.

Valve employees do not operate on alternate accounts without any indication of being a Valve employee. Reason: literally any post about "Being scammed"

[endrsgm]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

And how it gets done is the question. You are for example assuming that MS is actually making a profit on this, that what it pays out to the publishers is based on what the consumers pay. You are assuming that MS is not taking a Loss leader strategy to make an intital attractive offering.
REemember MS made a point of selling every X-Box at a loss just to get into the console market.

this a valid point. its entirely possible microsoft is losing money on this.

there are gamers out there that have tons of cash to drop into their games (or maybe its their parents cash, idk) but most people tend to have limited budgets. but whether they have tons of money or not almost all of both groups want their game dollar to go as far as possible.

whether or not microsoft is losing money on this deal is not of interest to them or of any concern. doesnt matter. what matters is that its a cheap monthly subscription to get tons of good quality games. for many people this is a HUGE point.

whether its making money or not doesnt really matter because microsoft can literally afford to do this as long as they want and lose money while doing it without any concerns at alll about the money.
for that matter steam could lose quite a bit of money for a long time and frankly probably not really "miss it" either. steams doing VERY well for itself. steam doesnt partake in the risk portion of designing or making a game and steam gets paid regardless of which game gets bought on the market. sure they have expenses with servers, etc but steams expenses are MUCH smaller than almost any other business in the entire world that has the revenue they do, their profit margin is immense compared to say an automobile manufacturer who has to buy parts and arrange supply chains with warehouses, has a huge labor force, many factories, and wont get paid until a car is bought.

the fact that microsoft may or may not be losing money just doesnt matter in the sense that the program is sure to be popular, is a direct challenge to steam, and ignoring it isnt going to make it go away. that microsoft may be losing money ... its a red herring. who cares if it loses money if microsoft doesnt care if it loses money?

at the end of it ... cheap subscription to get tons of good games ... it will do well. the question isnt ... will it do well, because there is no way it wont do well. cheap subscription with tons of good PC games. repeat that out loud. a cheap subscription with tons of good pc games. what part of that sounds bad? its that simple. it will do well.

as ive said, i wouldnt use it BUT i bet i am in the solid minority on this. i bet MOST people arent averse to having something like this. netflix proves that.

the question is what will steam do when it continues to do well and starts stealing market share. will they offer their own subscription or just continue on with what they are doing? i suspect they will have to offer a subscription too. something to compete.

[Alex]

Count_Dandyman eredeti hozzászólása:

there are plenty of games available on the Xbox that aren't available on the PC GTA5, DMC5, the Batman games, Borderlands Handsome Collection being some notable cases.

what? since when gta 5 dmc 5 batman games and BHC arent on PC? lol

[endrsgm]

he meant on the microsoft gamepass for pc. the console xbox game pass has more games than the pc version of the game pass.
tho borderlands is 5 years old, gta5 is about 7 years old, and the batman games are 5-9 years old.
which is funny because he disparaged plague tail: innocence for being too old (and that most people who wanted it would have bought it) despite it being like a year old and those games being half a decade old or older. tho they are all classics....

[Alex]

endrsgm eredeti hozzászólása:

he meant on the microsoft gamepass for pc. the console xbox game pass has more games than the pc version of the game pass.
tho borderlands is 5 years old, gta5 is about 7 years old, and the batman games are 5-9 years old.
which is funny because he disparaged plague tail: innocence for being too old (and that most people who wanted it would have bought it) despite it being like a year old and those games being half a decade old or older. tho they are all classics....

ew microsoft

[Start_Running]

endrsgm eredeti hozzászólása:

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

And how it gets done is the question. You are for example assuming that MS is actually making a profit on this, that what it pays out to the publishers is based on what the consumers pay. You are assuming that MS is not taking a Loss leader strategy to make an intital attractive offering.
REemember MS made a point of selling every X-Box at a loss just to get into the console market.

this a valid point. its entirely possible microsoft is losing money on this.

there are gamers out there that have tons of cash to drop into their games (or maybe its their parents cash, idk) but most people tend to have limited budgets. but whether they have tons of money or not almost all of both groups want their game dollar to go as far as possible.

And a subscribtion doesn't really do that since what you gain can be lost via a simple change in the line up.. Purchasing games on the other hand. Well... I still have them even if steam stops selling them :-).

You do not need a massive budget to enjoy gaming as a hobby. You just need to be able to budget at all and honestly prioritize. people build up massive libraries over time, not in one gargantuan shopping spree. I mean simple math. Which will bring you more entertainment value. One $60, two $30 games, three $20 games, four $15, six $10 ganmes, or twelve $5 games.

Just from that you can easily see its very easy to get lots of fun games with just a $60 budget as long as you aren't trying to buy every new shiny on launch day.

whether or not microsoft is losing money on this deal is not of interest to them or of any concern. doesnt matter. what matters is that its a cheap monthly subscription to get tons of good quality games. for many people this is a HUGE point.

And when the service is pulled for being unsustainable and unprofitable after a year. What do you have to show for the $48 you spent? See this is why you always need to consider the sustainability of the model because it speaks to the stability and longevity.

whether its making money or not doesnt really matter because microsoft can literally afford to do this as long as they want and lose money while doing it without any concerns at alll about the money.

Yeah No. See, believe it or not, billion dollar companies do not remain billion dollar companies by flittering away money. EVery dollar spent is seen as an investment that needs to make returns. Microsoft considered the loss leader strategy with the original X-box a worthwhile strategy for the return of getting a solid foothold in the console market. If it hadn't made sufficient returns there would have been no XBox360.

for that matter steam could lose quite a bit of money for a long time and frankly probably not really "miss it" either. steams doing VERY well for itself. steam doesnt partake in the risk portion of designing or making a game and steam gets paid regardless of which game gets bought on the market. sure they have expenses with servers, etc but steams expenses are MUCH smaller than almost any other business in the entire world that has the revenue they do, their profit margin is immense compared to say an automobile manufacturer who has to buy parts and arrange supply chains with warehouses, has a huge labor force, many factories, and wont get paid until a car is bought.

You don't really seem to have an idea of how businesses work. Let me spell it out. Scrooge McDuck is fictional. Reality works a bit differently. You don't get to be a billion dollar company or remain one with your mindset. Your mindset is what has many startups burning to the ground in the first 5 years.

the fact that microsoft may or may not be losing money just doesnt matter in the sense that the program is sure to be popular, is a direct challenge to steam, and ignoring it isnt going to make it go away. that microsoft may be losing money ... its a red herring. who cares if it loses money if microsoft doesnt care if it loses money?

Popular isn't always good. AA hundred free hookers at event would be popular...but the murderous case of crabs and clap everyone has after the event will dampen the spirits I can tell you that.

at the end of it ... cheap subscription to get tons of good games ... it will do well.

Cheap and Good seldom work well together. This is one of the foremost truths of life. As the saying goes. CHeap, Good, Fast. You can have any two, but not all three. And if you find anyone saying otherwise, that should be the first warning siren on your BS detector. It's like someone peddlinge a drung that's effective and has no side-effects. The latter excludes the former.ergo the seller is lying on at least one of those counts. ANd if he says its cheap, it's most certainly a lie.

the question isnt ... will it do well, because there is no way it wont do well. cheap subscription with tons of good PC games. repeat that out loud. a cheap subscription with tons of good pc games. what part of that sounds bad? its that simple. it will do well.

Yes repeat it and you'll realize that the math doesn't add up. If you have a good game, then that you can ship tens of thousands of units a month at $60 dollars...why would you put on a subscription service to get a fraction of $4 a month? See how that works? even if you were getting the full $4 you'd still be traiding down. You'd need 15 subscribers for a month to equal what you'd get from one sale.

the question is what will steam do when it continues to do well and starts stealing market share. will they offer their own subscription or just continue on with what they are doing? i suspect they will have to offer a subscription too. something to compete.

We'll see. When that actually happens. First it actually has to happen, and so far it has yet to show any high-level long term sustainability on a multi publisher platform.

You don't have to be rich to enjoy gaming. You just have to be reasonable.

[Alex]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

One $60, two $30 games, three $20 games, four $15, six $10 ganmes, or twelve $5 games.

who would buy games for full price? i buy games when theyre $10 dollars or at least 75% cheaper