Rentable Digital Video-Games

[Active Hoper]

Lately, I've been engaging with my local libraries more often, with one of the ways that I've been doing that being the simple borrowing of video-games from them. A title that I recently borrowed is Tomb Raider I-III Remastered, which impressively allows the player to nearly seamlessly switch between its old and new visual styles - a feature that's been pleasantly advanced from Wonder Boy: The Dragon's Trap. Yet, it lacks that balance between preservation and modernization in other areas, as seen with its absence of optional settings for auto-savings, creating an unnecessarily forced punishing atmosphere and an uneven experience.

I likely wouldn't have played and subsequently shared my thoughts on that game were it not for the ability to freely experience pieces of art these libraries provide me with. Libraries have their limits, though. They only provide physical titles, excluding a vast amount of digital-only video-games from being experienced with as much ease. That's where places like Steam can step in.

Places like Steam can provide to users an option to rent video-games for up to fourteen days for, say, $4.99, with games at that price or cheaper than it by default remaining unable to be rented. It's a simple idea, but it, or a rough adaptation of rental models from other industries' digital storefronts, can have the great impacts of increasing the number of people who play video-games and the conversations that are had about them.

[Active Hoper]

"No, they are not comparable. They are different forms of business in the entertainment industry, so what may work for one certainly doesn't mean it will work for all."

Alternatively, what may work for one industry certainly doesn't mean it won't work for other ones.

[Active Hoper]

BJWyler님이 먼저 게시:

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Not in ways that matter to this conversation.

You may not want it to, because it doesn't suit your narrative, but it most certainly does, Sonny Jim

Please explain how it does.

[Gwarsbane]

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

BJWyler님이 먼저 게시:

You may not want it to, because it doesn't suit your narrative, but it most certainly does, Sonny Jim

Please explain how it does.

For one thing, by the time a movie/tv show is up for renting, most have already made back the money it costs to actually make the movie.

Second, movies and shows are very limited in how long they are.

There is another issue with rentals of movies/tv shows most you can only play them 1 or 2 times and thats it.

There is also the fact of have you see the cost to "rent" a digital movie? Its pretty much the same cost as buying the blu-ray/4k which is the same cost as getting a subscription for 2 to 4 months, or at least it is for new movies that have just left the theater.

[Active Hoper]

Gwarsbane님이 먼저 게시:

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Please explain how it does.

For one thing, by the time a movie/tv show is up for renting, most have already made back the money it costs to actually make the movie.

Second, movies and shows are very limited in how long they are.

There is another issue with rentals of movies/tv shows most you can only play them 1 or 2 times and thats it.

There is also the fact of have you see the cost to "rent" a digital movie? Its pretty much the same cost as buying the blu-ray/4k which is the same cost as getting a subscription for 2 to 4 months.

These are differences, but you did not explain how they are differences that prove how renting cannot become an industry standard for digital video-games.

[Gwarsbane]

BJWyler actually explained why renting is a bad idea for the developers/publishers/ip owners of the games.... you just ignored the reasons...

I had something written out, wasn't going to post it but here you go...

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Places like Steam can provide to users an option to rent video-games for up to fourteen days for $4.99, with games at that price or cheaper than it by default remaining unable to be rented. It's a simple idea, but it can have the great impacts of increasing the number of people who play video-games and the conversations that are had about them.

As already mentioned, Valve can not "rent" you those games. Thats 100% up to the game developers/publishers/IP owners of the game. BUT Valve has put in a subscription feature... which would allow you to "subscribe" to a game, for 14 days at the cost of $4.99. But again thats 100% up to the developers/publishers/IP owners of the game... and there is a reason why you don't see any/most of them using it....

As pointed out by BJWyler, why would they want to rent a game out for 5 bucks for 14 days, when in that 14 days the game can be beat. Even 1 week is too long because most games can be beat in under 30 or 40 hours. When I was younger I would sometimes game for 5 or 6 hours a might when I had nothing else to do.

On top of that 5 dollars, Valve would take 30%, because they need to run the servers and other costs. So really the developers/publishers/IP owners of the game would only be making 3.5 cents per game.

Now take into consideration that the money first goes to the publishers, who then takes their much larger cut (50% or more) and sends a check to the developers.


Are you starting to see why its pretty much only MMORPGs/games that never end and are multiplayer only that you rent/subscribe for a month at a time?

[Active Hoper]

Gwarsbane님이 먼저 게시:

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Please explain how it does.

For one thing, by the time a movie/tv show is up for renting, most have already made back the money it costs to actually make the movie.

Second, movies and shows are very limited in how long they are.

There is another issue with rentals of movies/tv shows most you can only play them 1 or 2 times and thats it.

There is also the fact of have you see the cost to "rent" a digital movie? Its pretty much the same cost as buying the blu-ray/4k which is the same cost as getting a subscription for 2 to 4 months, or at least it is for new movies that have just left the theater.

The one point that has relevance without more of an explanation is the price-related one. And, to that, I say that, sure, some movies and shows are similar in price, regardless of if they are being bought or rented, but there are also plenty of ones that cost, say, $20 to buy and $5.99 to rent.

[Gwarsbane]

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Gwarsbane님이 먼저 게시:

For one thing, by the time a movie/tv show is up for renting, most have already made back the money it costs to actually make the movie.

Second, movies and shows are very limited in how long they are.

There is another issue with rentals of movies/tv shows most you can only play them 1 or 2 times and thats it.

There is also the fact of have you see the cost to "rent" a digital movie? Its pretty much the same cost as buying the blu-ray/4k which is the same cost as getting a subscription for 2 to 4 months, or at least it is for new movies that have just left the theater.

The one point that has relevance without more of an explanation is the price-related one. And, to that, I say that, sure, some movies and shows are similar in price, regardless of if they are being bought or rented, but there are also plenty of ones that cost, say, $20 to buy and $5.99 to rent.

And those are not new... they have made their money. Also there is a HUGE difference between buying a movie for 20 bucks on a physical disc and renting it digitally.

Buying it, means you can watch it as many times as you want, when ever you want without the need of an internet connection in the highest quality around.

Renting it means you can only watch it once, maybe twice with in X number of days usually, with an active internet connection, in what ever quality they want to give you, which is NEVER the same quality as on disc.

[Active Hoper]

Gwarsbane님이 먼저 게시:

BJWyler actually explained why renting is a bad idea for the developers/publishers/ip owners of the games.... you just ignored the reasons...

I had something written out, wasn't going to post it but here you go...

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Places like Steam can provide to users an option to rent video-games for up to fourteen days for $4.99, with games at that price or cheaper than it by default remaining unable to be rented. It's a simple idea, but it can have the great impacts of increasing the number of people who play video-games and the conversations that are had about them.

As already mentioned, Valve can not "rent" you those games. Thats 100% up to the game developers/publishers/IP owners of the game. BUT Valve has put in a subscription feature... which would allow you to "subscribe" to a game, for 14 days at the cost of $4.99. But again thats 100% up to the developers/publishers/IP owners of the game... and there is a reason why you don't see any/most of them using it....

As pointed out by BJWyler, why would they want to rent a game out for 5 bucks for 14 days, when in that 14 days the game can be beat. Even 1 week is too long because most games can be beat in under 30 or 40 hours. When I was younger I would sometimes game for 5 or 6 hours a might when I had nothing else to do.

On top of that 5 dollars, Valve would take 30%, because they need to run the servers and other costs. So really the developers/publishers/IP owners of the game would only be making 3.5 cents per game.

Now take into consideration that the money first goes to the publishers, who then takes their much larger cut (50% or more) and sends a check to the developers.


Are you starting to see why its pretty much only MMORPGs/games that never end and are multiplayer only that you rent/subscribe for a month at a time?

What subscription feature are you referencing? The only one I've seen on Steam pertains to EA Play, and I hardly see how EA Play is a smoking gun. Unless... Is the phrase "subscription feature" meant to be the beginning of the hypothetical prediction of how my own idea would play out? That part isn't clear.

The pricing might be worth changing in this hypothetical, but the timing should not be. The point of renting a title is to be able to experience it at a cheaper price, a price which is cheaper since you are not gaining long-term access to it.

Fair points, but they don't take into account how I've also stated that the models of renting titles from other mediums could be roughly adapted.

[Active Hoper]

Gwarsbane님이 먼저 게시:

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

The one point that has relevance without more of an explanation is the price-related one. And, to that, I say that, sure, some movies and shows are similar in price, regardless of if they are being bought or rented, but there are also plenty of ones that cost, say, $20 to buy and $5.99 to rent.

And those are not new... they have made their money. Also there is a HUGE difference between buying a movie for 20 bucks on a physical disc and renting it digitally.

Buying it, means you can watch it as many times as you want, when ever you want without the need of an internet connection in the highest quality around.

Renting it means you can only watch it once, maybe twice with in X number of days usually, with an active internet connection, in what ever quality they want to give you, which is NEVER the same quality as on disc.

I wasn't talking about $20 for physical editions; I was talking about $20 for digital editions, as this conversation pertains to digital titles, not physical ones.

[Gwarsbane]

There are also places where you could buy a "digital only" version of a movie/show and watch it as many times as you want... but again with all the other limits of digital and they charged the same amount of physical.

BUT there is also the fact that places that have "sold" digital only versions of a movie/show closed down and people lost access to the movies/shows they bought...

Same thing happened with music on some places.

Unless you are buying a downloadable DRM free version of the movie/show that can play on any media player (which as far as I know, no place actually does) you are pretty much just renting the movie/show.

[Active Hoper]

Gwarsbane님이 먼저 게시:

There are also places where you could buy a "digital only" version of a movie/show and watch it as many times as you want... but again with all the other limits of digital and they charged the same amount of physical.

BUT there is also the fact that places that have "sold" digital only versions of a movie/show closed down and people lost access to the movies/shows they bought...

Same thing happened with music on some places.

Unless you are buying a downloadable DRM free version of the movie/show that can play on any media player (which as far as I know, no place actually does) you are pretty much just renting the movie/show.

I fail to see how this pertains to my topic and isn't a transition into a discussion about physical vs. digital media, which is its own subject.

[Gwarsbane]

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

What subscription feature are you referencing? The only one I've seen on Steam pertains to EA Play, and I hardly see how EA Play is a smoking gun. Unless... Is the phrase "subscription feature" meant to be the beginning of the hypothetical prediction of how my own idea would play out? That part isn't clear.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/pricing/subscriptions

Again as mentioned, we don't see developers using them because they make more money selling a license to the game.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

The pricing might be worth changing in this hypothetical, but the timing should not be. The point of renting a title is to be able to experience it at a cheaper price, a price which is cheaper since you are not gaining long-term access to it.

The only price that makes sense for them them to "rent/subscribe" their game for 14 days would be full price... and then let people keep the game after that point....

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Fair points, but they don't take into account how I've also stated that the models of renting titles from other mediums could be roughly adapted.

And we've pointed out how those other models don't work for games. Again by the time movies/shows hit the "digital rental" market, they have already made all their money back.

An indie game could take millions of dollars and years to come to market. Most indie games don't make back their money right away.

There was a report recently about how Valve makes most of its money from the top 5 to 10 games, or something like that. Most of the others don't sell as many copies and you want them to make even less by renting it out in an amount of time that it can be beat.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

I wasn't talking about $20 for physical editions; I was talking about $20 for digital editions, as this conversation pertains to digital titles, not physical ones.

I did point out in another post how buying "digital only" can be just as bad as renting one... just more expensive.

As I pointed out, same quality of renting/steaming. Requires an always on internet connection, because you are streaming it, not downloading it. The service that sold it to you could shut down and you would be SOL. Oh ya and one I forgot to add, if anyone else is using your net connection at the time, unless you have really good fiber, you are more then likely going to have issues.

I buy physical media (DVDs/Blu-rays/4k.) Even when my net connection is down (which is not often), I can still watch them. When I travel I can bring my player along and watch them (though I usually just watch backups of them cause lots of hard drive space).

I will never buy "digital only" movies because of all the issues I mentioned with them.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

I fail to see how this pertains to my topic and isn't a transition into a discussion about physical vs. digital media, which is its own subject.

Because I was pointing out all the problems with renting and buying movies because you never made it clear you were talking about digital only movies/shows at first.

YOU are the one that says movie/show rentals could work for game rentals because they are similar. And I was pointing out how different they actually are.

[Active Hoper]

Gwarsbane님이 먼저 게시:

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

What subscription feature are you referencing? The only one I've seen on Steam pertains to EA Play, and I hardly see how EA Play is a smoking gun. Unless... Is the phrase "subscription feature" meant to be the beginning of the hypothetical prediction of how my own idea would play out? That part isn't clear.

https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/store/pricing/subscriptions

Again as mentioned, we don't see developers using them because they make more money selling a license to the game.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

The pricing might be worth changing in this hypothetical, but the timing should not be. The point of renting a title is to be able to experience it at a cheaper price, a price which is cheaper since you are not gaining long-term access to it.

The only price that makes sense for them them to "rent/subscribe" their game for 14 days would be full price... and then let people keep the game after that point....

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Fair points, but they don't take into account how I've also stated that the models of renting titles from other mediums could be roughly adapted.

And we've pointed out how those other models don't work for games. Again by the time movies/shows hit the "digital rental" market, they have already made all their money back.

An indie game could take millions of dollars and years to come to market. Most indie games don't make back their money right away.

There was a report recently about how Valve makes most of its money from the top 5 to 10 games, or something like that. Most of the others don't sell as many copies and you want them to make even less by renting it out in an amount of time that it can be beat.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

I wasn't talking about $20 for physical editions; I was talking about $20 for digital editions, as this conversation pertains to digital titles, not physical ones.

I did point out in another post how buying "digital only" can be just as bad as renting one... just more expensive.

As I pointed out, same quality of renting/steaming. Requires an always on internet connection, because you are streaming it, not downloading it. The service that sold it to you could shut down and you would be SOL. Oh ya and one I forgot to add, if anyone else is using your net connection at the time, unless you have really good fiber, you are more then likely going to have issues.

I buy physical media (DVDs/Blu-rays/4k.) Even when my net connection is down (which is not often), I can still watch them. When I travel I can bring my player along and watch them (though I usually just watch backups of them cause lots of hard drive space).

I will never buy "digital only" movies because of all the issues I mentioned with them.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

I fail to see how this pertains to my topic and isn't a transition into a discussion about physical vs. digital media, which is its own subject.

Because I was pointing out all the problems with renting and buying movies because you never made it clear you were talking about digital only movies/shows at first.

YOU are the one that says movie/show rentals could work for game rentals because they are similar. And I was pointing out how different they actually are.

In regard to Steam's Subscription service: 1. "Recurring Subscriptions is not a fully supported feature." 2. Because of that, it is not heavily advertised, in turn creating another reason for why it is not used much.

In regard to the length of rentals and how much rentals should cost: Some libraries already allow games to be borrowed for a week and have been bouncing around the idea of extending that time-frame to two weeks. The same can be done for still-hypothetical digital game rentals.

In regard to the applicability of other mediums' digital storefronts' model for rentals to digital video-games' hypothetical model for rentals, you fail to take into account situations where movies or shows do not earn all their money in their initial showings yet still offer the option to rent them. There are different situations for movies and shows, just as there are differences that need to be considered for the implementation of digital video-game rentals, differences that could be worked around with more creativity and effort and less overlooking of facts akin to how I've said these models could be "roughly adapted," not copied completely.

In regard to the subject of physical copies vs digital, that still is a different subject that has nothing to do with a topic that is clearly meant to only be about the ways users acquire digital media. As such, I will no longer be responding to responses or sections of responses that touch upon such a subject.

In regard to how I did not make it clear that I have been talking about digital media only... Stranger, I've repeatedly stated -- in this thread's title and in multiple responses to comments -- that I am talking about digital media here.

[Start_Running]

Feature already exists.
The overwhelming majority just choose not to offerb their games for rental.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Wolf Knight님이 먼저 게시:

game developers set the prices, and there is already a system in place they can use if they want to "rent" the game out, its called a subscription.

Subscriptions constantly rise in price and have collections of games they offer that frequently change.

And that is also true of rentals m8.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

In regard to Steam's Subscription service: 1. "Recurring Subscriptions is not a fully supported feature." 2. Because of that, it is not heavily advertised, in turn creating another reason for why it is not used much.

It is fully supported and dev/pubs are indeed aware of it.
dev/pubs just opt not to use it since rentals generally don't help them.

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

In regard to the length of rentals and how much rentals should cost: Some libraries already allow games to be borrowed for a week and have been bouncing around the idea of extending that time-frame to two weeks. The same can be done for still-hypothetical digital game rentals.

Dev/pubs can already set the rental period to 'whatever they want' so thats yet another decision for dev/pubs to make.

As said. Feature exists alreadl. has for quite sometime. dev/pubs just don't wanna rent.

[Ben Lubar]

Gwarsbane님이 먼저 게시:

Active Hoper님이 먼저 게시:

Care to kindly elaborate?

You "buying" a game on Steam (or any other digital service) is not you buying the game. You are getting a license to play the game. A license which, at any point can be revoked for any reason.

No, it cannot. The only reason game licenses are ever revoked on Steam is if the purchase was fraudulent in the first place, or if you explicitly request a refund.

Even if you cheat in a game and get permanently banned, you still own the license and the game developer isn't allowed to take it away from you.

Selling someone something and then stealing it back is fraud. Steam doesn't encourage or allow fraud.