DLC Content Vs Subscription

[Savageclam]

I would much rather pay a monthly Sub to a publisher/provider of games than be lured with a discounted base game when a DLC is on the horizon

After playing many MMORPGs in my life a Subscription that provides income to the developers /servers and new content updates that are free should be the go to for Future gaming

I am so tired of seeing a cheap game then you see a dozen DLCs you could get to 'enhance' your game costing over 100 dollars or more

It is even worse paying 60-80 for a game that has a linear story of 30-40 hours. I have so many expensive games I played for less than 10 hrs

Yet I have many Sub games I have played for many years. The game industry needs to actually ask long term gamers what keeps them coming back to a game. And it is not Micro transaction or the game of lottery loot. Its the social experience, the Real chance of getting good loot to enhance your character, the option to Opt in or out of PvP not get ganked as soon as you reach that level or zone ( many games that has caused me to leave the game for good. In fact the Battle grounds introduced in DAOC was a great experience. One for low/mid and high lvl with your gear alterd to create a fair experience and not compete against overpowerd Guild collected geared toons.

Steam nees to stop feeding us BS games and start supporting real games and Developing games Itself.

Free to play is not the answer, a good gamer has at least the Sub fee of 12-15 dollars a month to contribute. In fact even 30 for Multiple games

Food for thought, ASsk the gamers what they want instead of churning out what the Industry thinks will earn a buck. Longevity is more profit

[Chompman]

It's not something steam can or should control and you as a consumer need to decide it but microtransactions and a ton of dlc's has been the way to go for awhile now over the monthly cost that mmorpgs used to have 10-15 years ago when that was more popular.

Either adjust or vote with your wallet and that can mean missing out on a lot of games if they go that way as a lot do.

[Eldin]

I'd rather pay more for a game and have ability to play it whenever I want than having to pay monthly subscription for a game that I'll maybe play once or twice in a month.

Though, I wouldn't mind having an option to pay monthly subscription and have access to game and all in-game content while you're paying the subscription.
But only if we still keep ability to purchase games/DLCs we want and keep them forever.

Subscription should be just another way of paying to play the game, and it would be up to developers to decide do they want to add subscription as the way of payment.

Valve could only make it easier for developers to set it up by adding options to store page to "Buy the game" and "Pay monthly subscription"
Description of what subscription includes, system that automatically charges user for subscriptions each month and stuff like that.

[rawWwRrr]

Originally posted by Savageclam:

a good gamer has at least the Sub fee of 12-15 dollars a month to contribute. In fact even 30 for Multiple games

Yeah, no.... I'm paying a monthly subscription to play a game. You can take that idea and file in the trash.

Originally posted by Savageclam:

I am so tired of seeing a cheap game then you see a dozen DLCs you could get to 'enhance' your game costing over 100 dollars or more

It is even worse paying 60-80 for a game that has a linear story of 30-40 hours. I have so many expensive games I played for less than 10 hrs

Then shop the sales more often. If you're dropping that much money on all of your games then you're buying into the inflated hype and doing exactly what the game publishers want you to do which is paying full price for their games and their DLC. Be smarter about your money and shop with your wallet.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by Savageclam:

It is even worse paying 60-80 for a game that has a linear story of 30-40 hours. I have so many expensive games I played for less than 10 hrs

Then don't pay full price for a game?

Originally posted by Savageclam:

Yet I have many Sub games I have played for many years.The game industry needs to actually ask long term gamers what keeps them coming back to a game.

What makes you think that all long term gamers think the same way as you do? Personally I've never had a Sub and I don't want one either. Yet I've been playing some games for more than a decade now.

Originally posted by Savageclam:

Steam nees to stop feeding us BS games and start supporting real games and Developing games Itself.

Steam is a storefront, it doesn't "support" games. Valve does make games, currently HL: Alyx is in development.

Whatever you consider BS games are real good games for other people. Funny how personal preference and taste work in entertainment.

Originally posted by Savageclam:

Free to play is not the answer, a good gamer has at least the Sub fee of 12-15 dollars a month to contribute. In fact even 30 for Multiple games

Whatever you can spend per month on games has nothing to do with "being a good gamer".

Originally posted by Savageclam:

Food for thought, ASsk the gamers what they want instead of churning out what the Industry thinks will earn a buck. Longevity is more profit

The gamers already have spoken, they spend money on stuff like MTX, DLC and such things. It's the gamers that have shown that such practises are acceptable, so it's best to look at your fellow gamers instead of "the industry".

[Waryth]

Subscriptions are the worse. Its like you're being taxed for the game you like playing.

DLCs are just literally expansions. They keep the game alive through adding content. Its the same as movies. If it sells well, they'll add a sequel which is can be good or bad but at least the content doesn't end there. Its your choice to buy the rest but watching the "COMPLETE EDITION" is a turn off to most people which makes you feel like you've been ripped off but that's the logic behind it.

I have nothing against subscription, its good for a developer's side. If I were to be a developer I'd go for it as a means of living. Its a huge turn off for most of the player base when I could have gotten more potential players using the other.

In the end, developers won't stay on one project forever and if they had enough with their project, they'll stop making content to make for a new project.

This is why I find subscription just a money making machine on their side and care less for their games in the long run using subscription method compared to DLCs in which they'll continue it when they feel like it.

Note: I'm talking about DLCs that doesn't contain microtransaction but rather an expansion for the game. Command & Conquer series is a good example for it.

[AmsterdamHeavy]

Yeah, I disagree with the basic premise entirely, mostly because "sub based" games tend to be of certain genres.

OP: How do you explain games that have both of these models side by side?

Dungeons and Dragons Online is a perfect example. I havent played in years, BUT that was a retail MMO that went free to play, but retains the subscription based model. I played for the first few years, and as far as I know its still going along quite well for the people who play.

So no, not every game needs to be or should be "sub based". Youre conflating quality with a business model and they arent even close to being the same things, though one can certainly drive the other, but not every game or even genre would benefit from this.

I have many, MANY games that would never fit this model. I love Train Valley 1 & 2. I think the devs are great. I like Playway and their games.

I would never in a million years pay a monthly fee for any of them, EVER. In fact, it would really really piss me off if companies tried to switch to this model.

[Start_Running]

Yopu don't have to buy the DLC . You can just stick with the base game. And MMOs are kinda the worst case scenario. You still have to pay for those major expansions,.

[Pocahawtness]

Originally posted by Savageclam:

I would much rather pay a monthly Sub to a publisher/provider of games than be lured with a discounted base game when a DLC is on the horizon

After playing many MMORPGs in my life a Subscription that provides income to the developers /servers and new content updates that are free should be the go to for Future gaming

I am so tired of seeing a cheap game then you see a dozen DLCs you could get to 'enhance' your game costing over 100 dollars or more

It is even worse paying 60-80 for a game that has a linear story of 30-40 hours. I have so many expensive games I played for less than 10 hrs

Yet I have many Sub games I have played for many years. The game industry needs to actually ask long term gamers what keeps them coming back to a game. And it is not Micro transaction or the game of lottery loot. Its the social experience, the Real chance of getting good loot to enhance your character, the option to Opt in or out of PvP not get ganked as soon as you reach that level or zone ( many games that has caused me to leave the game for good. In fact the Battle grounds introduced in DAOC was a great experience. One for low/mid and high lvl with your gear alterd to create a fair experience and not compete against overpowerd Guild collected geared toons.

Steam nees to stop feeding us BS games and start supporting real games and Developing games Itself.

Free to play is not the answer, a good gamer has at least the Sub fee of 12-15 dollars a month to contribute. In fact even 30 for Multiple games

Food for thought, ASsk the gamers what they want instead of churning out what the Industry thinks will earn a buck. Longevity is more profit

I think they do ask the gamers, but the gamers are often very unrealistic. A large number seem to think all games should be free or they prefer a one-off charge. Like you, I prefer subscription. The simple fact is that these games cost a fortune to write and support over the years, and on no planet is that ever going to be free! I really do think the unrealistic wants of gamers has contributed to the decline of the genre.. the gamers are effectively shooting themselves in the foot, demanding something that just isn't possible.

[Wraith99]

Originally posted by AmsterdamHeavy:

I would never in a million years pay a monthly fee for any of them, EVER. In fact, it would really really piss me off if companies tried to switch to this model.

Tried? They're doing it. Uplay+, Origin Access, and Microsoft Game Pass are all subscription services that grant you access to their entire current and future library of games. It's going to be really hard to justify shelling out 100+$ for the next ultimate edition of some Ubisoft game, when i can get a one year sub to Uplay+ for the same price that grants me access to everything currently in the store, including the ultimate edition of the game in question, as well as anything that is released during that time period.

I don't know how they're making money with this model, but clearly they are since all the big players are getting in on the action.

[Start_Running]

Originally posted by Wraith99:

Originally posted by AmsterdamHeavy:

I would never in a million years pay a monthly fee for any of them, EVER. In fact, it would really really piss me off if companies tried to switch to this model.

Tried? They're doing it. Uplay+, Origin Access, and Microsoft Game Pass are all subscription services that grant you access to their entire current and future library of games. It's going to be really hard to justify shelling out 100+$ for the next ultimate edition of some Ubisoft game, when i can get a one year sub to Uplay+ for the same price that grants me access to everything currently in the store, including the ultimate edition of the game in question, as well as anything that is released during that time period.

You're assuming it will remain as 'everything'. ANd you don't have to imagine a lot to figure ways that can create a tiered subscription model.

I don't know how they're making money with this model, but clearly they are since all the big players are getting in on the action.

No. All the Big players are 'hoping' to make money.

[Savageclam]

Its really awesome to hear some you your opinions on the Subject.
Appreciate the effort to reply and discuss
Sub for multiple games is a great way to go for future in my opinion, as you say, games fade and new ones appear so to keep the money flowing to developers is the main thing. Games are the movies of the future. We will only get more interaction with them as technology progresses and eventually they will be an alternate Universe to submerse in.
What better way to occupy the mind while on a long space voyage for example.
We used to spend 3 or more months traveling by ship to new lands. That will be the future too, travelling to other moons in our own solar system.
Food for thought

My life has been gaming since Commodore 64 , I will see it through until my demise

[cSg|mc-Hotsauce]

Originally posted by Savageclam:

Steam nees to stop feeding us BS games and start supporting real games and Developing games Itself.

Steam is a program.

Valve is still developing games.

[SMIFFY]

A subscription would make me pay more for gaming than I do now and turn it into a chore.
No thanks.

[sage2001]

Games with DLC go for cheap and offer enough content on their own.

For example, The Division 2 went on sale for dirt cheap recently. Odds are I'll stick to the base game and if I want more I'll just buy the DLC.

[White Knight]

Is someone at Valve testing the waters here, or are there actually people whining about not having subscriptions? This is the second "I want subscriptions" thread I've seen this morning.

Only competing game platforms could possibly want Steam to change its business model to something that obviously self-destructive. Or maybe they just want Steam users to think it might happen?

Asking to pay more for less choice seems kind of...peculiar to me.