Steam Subscription Service

[Clueless Goose]

I think steam should introduced a paid subscription that works kind of like Xbox Game Pass. This service should be called "Steam Preem," as in Preem for Premium. I think this is a great idea, not just because of the incredible name, but also the mass of potential behind it.

Love, The Clueless Goose

[Start_Running]

Noo need they already allow publishers to do that themselves.
Feature already exists. But shhockingly most publishers and devs would rather sell than rent

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Clueless Goose님이 먼저 게시:

Steam Subscription Service

I think steam should introduced a paid subscription that works kind of like Xbox Game Pass. This service should be called "Steam Preem," as in Preem for Premium. I think this is a great idea, not just because of the incredible name, but also the mass of potential behind it.

Love, The Clueless Goose

GabeN doesn't want to.

https://www.pcgamer.com/valve-has-no-plans-for-a-steam-pass-but-would-help-microsoft-put-game-pass-on-steam/

[SAUL]

What on earth is wrong with you?

[Lily McFluffy Butt]

Clueless Goose님이 먼저 게시:

I think steam should introduced a paid subscription that works kind of like Xbox Game Pass. This service should be called "Steam Preem," as in Preem for Premium. I think this is a great idea, not just because of the incredible name, but also the mass of potential behind it.

Love, The Clueless Goose

Why would you want this?

[FFL2and3rocks]

He's probably hoping for access to every single game on Steam for 10 bucks a month or something. Not gonna happen.

[Ness_and_Sonic]

I'd rather not have that, but if you want something like that, EA should have you covered.

[BJWyler]

Nah, the name is not that good, and neither is the idea, which has been suggested before, as a simple search of the forums would have revealed.

Valve is in the business of selling game licenses, not rental services. That is up to each dev and/or publisher to do, like EA.

[Ducks on Fire]

And you do know that Valve would have to negotiate with publishers to have games available through that service right? Outside of the games Valve publishes they have literally no rights to allow access to the games on Steam like that. And I doubt a lot of publishers would actually want to be a part of that since it would probably mean less money for them.

[Mardoc]

Rubbish name.
Rubbish idea.

[76561199502155650]

i actually support the idea that steam should do a low cost 9.95 a month premium pass for users to give them access to 100's of differnt steam games every month, allow those games to be accessed via Streaming directly to devices like the steam deck.

because the steam deck does better streaming then it does natively.

this would not only give pc steam users a chance to enjoy games before buying them, but would give steam deck users a well deserved assortment of games that are typically not accessable.

the whole stadia thing went bust because it did not have a user base, it required special hardware, and was overpriced. steam could pick up the peices make it cheap and affordable.

the real question comes down to does steam have a real user population that could profit from it, That is really the biggest question on my mind.

[Brian9824]

Please don't stop the Posting님이 먼저 게시:

i actually support the idea that steam should do a low cost 9.95 a month premium pass for users to give them access to 100's of differnt steam games every month, allow those games to be accessed via Streaming directly to devices like the steam deck.

I'm sure you would approve it, I mean who wouldn't want 100's of games for the equivalent of pennies....

Developers on the other hand like actually getting paid which is why you won't see it. If developers saw the profit in it they could offer it, as Steam fully supports the capability of offering it.

[metamec]

I am not against the idea. I am ambivalent really. It would be cool if they did it, but meh whatever, you know?

Subscriptions weren't a thing on other platforms either... until they were. Sony was in the habit of selling game licenses just like Valve is. PS+ didn't exist at all until the PS3 had been around four or five years. Now Sony is in the business of selling subscriptions as well.

Developers choose to submit games. They are not forced to do so. They negotate a deal with the platform, they get paid a large sum and they keep returning and submitting more games so clearly the concept works for them on a useful level.

Submitted titles are typically getting on a bit and no longer selling in great numbers. The subscribers who download them end up playing them and talking about them... causing a resurgence of advertising via increased word-of-mouth discussion on social networks. More non-subscribers then buy the games in subsequent months than would normally have bought them.

I suppose the only real concern is feature creep. Valve might eventually choose to make online play a subscriber only feature... just like Sony did when PS+ was about four or five years old.

[Brian9824]

Valve already supports it, any dev's can already offer it without having to go thru valve if they want. Its just most dev's would rather sell you the game then have you beat their game for $.50

[Start_Running]

Please don't stop the Posting님이 먼저 게시:

i actually support the idea that steam should do a low cost 9.95 a month premium pass for users to give them access to 100's of differnt steam games every month, allow those games to be accessed via Streaming directly to devices like the steam deck.

This could work but the only games you'd get in there are games you wouldn't pay a dollar for.
I mean its something that sounds great on paper If you only look at it from one side. On the otherside its a model that basically screws over most dev/pubs.

Please don't stop the Posting님이 먼저 게시:

this would not only give pc steam users a chance to enjoy games before buying them, but would give steam deck users a well deserved assortment of games that are typically not accessable.

Steam deck users have no accessiblity oprob,em they just have to buy games. ore play the games they already own...and I doubt anybody who got a deck didn't already have a hefty steam library

Please don't stop the Posting님이 먼저 게시:

the whole stadia thing went bust because it did not have a user base, it required special hardware, and was overpriced. steam could pick up the peices make it cheap and affordable.

Stadia went bust because the play experience was garbage. Hence why the userbase did not grow, hence why developers did not commit resources.

Please don't stop the Posting님이 먼저 게시:

the real question comes down to does steam have a real user population that could profit from it, That is really the biggest question on my mind.

The qoestion is, would it be more profitable than simply selling.

But here's a question. How many months have you been subscribed to EA Play for?