What if Steam became a Monthly Subscription service?

Shiminay

I was just thinking about this after pointing out on the Sim City thread that EA are hardly likely to ever release any more titles via Steam as it's just handing their competitor free money.

But the thought struck me, what if Steam or Origin or UPlay or any of these other sorts of Gaming DRM manager's started to charge a monthly fee? It'd bring them in-line with products like XBox Live Gold accounts and Playstation Network Plus.

It's not free to keep all that vast a back catalogue available for download at all times, nor is running the supplementary and complimentary services such as the Leaderboards, Friends Lists, Community Forums etc.

I guess it's the whole "gaming as a service" rather than a "product" scenario.

But if Valve announced tomorrow that in 3 months time, they're going to be charging for a new "Steam Plus" product that would allow you access a similar feature set that the console equivalents and that it was removing these features from regular Steam accounts, what would you do? Let us suggest, for argument's sake that the new service will allow a single download of any game in your library and your ownership of those games would never be in question. Subsequent downloads might be charged on a one off "data usage" basis or would be free to Subscribers.

Subscribers may also get a free game or two every month as is now the fashion with these premium services on console.

Here's a killer - what if subscribers are the only ones who get access to Steam Sales! :eek:

I guess the question I'm asking is "would you pay for Steam and what would you expect from it if you did?"

Grumpypants

If steam did it? It would be hailed as the future of gaming.
If Origin did it? It's the devil.

ahnowbrowncow

Shiminay wrote: »

I was just thinking about this after pointing out on the Sim City thread that EA are hardly likely to ever release any more titles via Steam as it's just handing their competitor free money.

But the thought struck me, what if Steam or Origin or UPlay or any of these other sorts of Gaming DRM manager's started to charge a monthly fee? It'd bring them in-line with products like XBox Live Gold accounts and Playstation Network Plus.

It's not free to keep all that vast a back catalogue available for download at all times, nor is running the supplementary and complimentary services such as the Leaderboards, Friends Lists, Community Forums etc.

I guess it's the whole "gaming as a service" rather than a "product" scenario.

But if Valve announced tomorrow that in 3 months time, they're going to be charging for a new "Steam Plus" product that would allow you access a similar feature set that the console equivalents and that it was removing these features from regular Steam accounts, what would you do? Let us suggest, for argument's sake that the new service will allow a single download of any game in your library and your ownership of those games would never be in question. Subsequent downloads might be charged on a one off "data usage" basis or would be free to Subscribers.

Subscribers may also get a free game or two every month as is now the fashion with these premium services on console.

Here's a killer - what if subscribers are the only ones who get access to Steam Sales! :eek:

I guess the question I'm asking is "would you pay for Steam and what would you expect from it if you did?"

Not a hope I'd sign up to it. I don't know how or why steam get such an easy time with the gaming community.

There's a few things that bug me about Steam. They only give you one refund even if the games they sold aren't fit for purpose or as described, according to them we are leasing games off them rather than purchasing them despite us clicking on the purchase icon when buying games, can't play a lot of games without updating them (maybe I don't want to download 15GB worth of updates before I play a game). There are a few other things with Steam that are sight annoyances.

I'm not even bothered about steam sales as you can normally get games cheaper from different sites. I probably wouldn't use Steam if games didn't require it.

Agricola

I'd normally be dead against paying for something like it, but Steam is where I have the majority of my games, anyone I met through online gaming is on Steam (I don't have one friend on PSN), I love the sales, its so handy and just works.....
I think unless it was crazy money, yeah I would probably sign up for it.

Sarky

If Steam started charging a monthly fee, I would stop using it* and give the money I normally spend on Steam to GOG. It might fly on consoles, but on my PC? That dog won't hunt monseignieur.

*I'd insist on being able to play the games I bought from them, whatever that takes.

Rezident

Steam is great most of the time but I would probably not pay for it and they would lose most of their customer base.

Mickeroo

Yeah, I wouldn't use it anymore simple as.

jaykhunter

Hmm. I'd need access to every (but can only install like 5 at a time) to pay a monthly service. I've enough of a backlog already. If they threatened to take away the games I purchased after clicking the purchase button they've have a class action lawsuit waiting.

It'd be iffy if it was limited to games only over a year old or more

Eoin247

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

Not a hope I'd sign up to it. I don't know how or why steam get such an easy time with the gaming community.

I never understood this either. Admittedly i don't use steam that much since a lot of the games i play don't use steam. While it allows some good indie developers to get their game out, it also encourages the creation of crap-ware. There is a ton of rubbish cheap games in the steam library.

My main problem with it however is that people are letting steam head down a road to monopolize game distribution. I see a lot of people who refuse to buy some great games simply because they aren't on steam. This trend is worrying to me.

Edit: Notch shares my feelings.

''As much as I love Steam, I do somewhat worry about the PC as a gaming platform becoming owned by a single entity that takes 30% of all PC games sold. I'm hoping for a future where more games can self-publish and use social media and friends to market their games. Perhaps there's something we could do to help out there? I don't know. If nothing else, we might work as an inspiration for people to self-publish.''

http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/07/25/notch-on-why-minecraft-still-isnt-on-steam/

Robert ninja

What would they be charging you for? They don't really do what consoles do except be middle men between you and the publishers. It's not like PSN or XBOXLive, they don't host game servers (other than their own and a handful of others). The users often make their own dedicated servers for games on PC (hence why the games never really 'die', Forged Alliance Forever for example). I will commend patching without charges though.

IF it happened, I simply wouldn't subscribe to it and I think there's WAY too many legal issues if they tried to lock you out of your games you already purchased... and even if they did do something so foolish it's nothing beyond quickly downloading a cracked launcher and still deploying your game, a thing a lot of PC gamers do when they want to bypass heavy DRM on their purchased games. From a business standpoint, that's not where Valve are going with Steam at least, not in the slightest just look at their recent business ventures with SteamOS.

As for why Steam gets no criticism. I don't know where you guys hang out but I see a LOT of criticm about steam all the time, especially in their own forums. There's no proper friend invite system, you can't see who you played with last without some effort to remember steam IDs and names (a thing consoles consider a very basic feature). The profile management is awkward and the client its self runs horribly. It's much better to run steam through your browser, preferably using Enhanced Steam and only using the client to list and launch games.

Outkast_IRE

But steam do charge, they get a nice cut of every game sold on there. Hence why loads of the indies ask you to purchase the game directly off their website rather than steam, as its cheaper for you and they get a bigger cut.

Dravokivich

We're already subscribers. There is just no subcription fee currently set.

I dont want to pay to use a store, so if they bring in a subcription fee, I'd be wanting to know what that means in line with my game and apps lists as to charge me or prevent me from using something I already "purchased" would not be too dissimilar to extortion.

Eoin247

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

But steam do charge, they get a nice cut of every game sold on there. Hence why loads of the indies ask you to purchase the game directly off their website rather than steam, as its cheaper for you and they get a bigger cut.

Indeed. 30% in fact.

''There were 20,755 pre-orders for CoH2 registered through Steam from September 2012 to 24th January 2013. That generated revenue of $1,345,301.29, but, as is standard, Valve takes a 30 per cent cut of Steam sales, leaving publishers and developers with 70 per cent - in this case $941k.''

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-07-10-sega-sues-bankrupt-thq-for-630k-over-company-of-heroes-2-pre-orders

Polar101

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

I don't know how or why steam get such an easy time with the gaming community.

I seem to remember reading (here on Boards too!) they are the evil gods of DRM, who have also increased the price of games by 50%, and how anyone who buys a game on Steam is a fool.

I'd say Steam has had it hard enough.

---

Re: the question - I thought PS Plus was a stupid idea, and laughed at people who paid for it. After they started to introduce games I actually wanted to buy, I subscribed, and now they give me more (awesome) games than I have time to play - just like Steam sales! I'd be interested in giving 'Steam Plus' a go.

Robert ninja

Polar101 wrote: »

After they started to introduce games I actually wanted to buy, I subscribed, and now they give me more (awesome) games than I have time to play - just like Steam sales! I'd be interested in giving 'Steam Plus' a go.

This is a fair point, PS+ is great in that everyone wins. SONY gets regular money and subscribers get a huge list of 'free' games. However, I'm pretty sure it's still better to just buy the game fully (on PC) when its got a ridiculous sale tag on it.

I believe I own 42 steam games and handful of non-steam games and after doing some math I payed on average €3.20 for each of them (using sales from multiple online retailers) - I don't know if that's as many games TOTAL that's been on PS+ (certainly larger than the dozen or so Instant-access games) but I'll tell you one thing... they're games I WANTED - not happened to get by luck of the draw. PS+ is great but it's also a weird gamble if you think about it. They have a good selection now but when it started all they released was shovelware nobody wanted, much like XBOX's attempt at the free games right now. They've (PSN) improved but there's no saying if whether they'll get lame again or have a string of months where they offer you no games you'll enjoy and there you are paying to just have access to them. For now though, it's what any regular playstation user should have. My PS3 is just a TEKKEN machine so I have no use for it.

Grimebox

It would be the beginning of the end of steam PC gaming for me. I would go elsewhere.

Reekwind

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

But steam do charge, they get a nice cut of every game sold on there

Which is a producer tax. As a consumer, I'm fine with that. So are the vast majority of games developers as, in exchange for that fee, Steam provides an unparalleled sales channel

Monotype

Robert ninja wrote: »

you can't see who you played with last without some effort to remember steam IDs and names (a thing consoles consider a very basic feature).

That is a feature. It's been there for a very long time. I'm not going to look for which menu it's under, but it's there. Shows who you played with, how long ago and which game.


I respect valve's push to repopularise PC gaming, especially in simplifying the process so that there can be little complaint about how the consoles are so much easier and more convenient. I especially like their straightforward invite system to setting up co-op games and it works well with the likes of their own L4D2 (but sucks with Counterstrike GO).

I've had some major gripes which only very recently have been resolved - picking install directories and limiting download speeds. I expected these as the very basics of the service, so it's nice to seem them implemented and I recognise the efforts to improve the service.

However, DRM is DRM. They have control over the games and if they decide to change their policies, they have quite a lot of power to do so. People will most likely complain about big changes, but in the end, take it up the ass.

I buy DRM free games whenever possible, and will pay extra for it - the freedom even just out of respect and support for the companies doing this. I never buy anything but the very rock bottom priced steam games so in reality, I can afford to lose them (not that I want to and am not asking for an account lock!). I also don't buy any new releases any more from companies who force Steam DRM. Even if it's relatively cheap in comparison to consoles, you're not getting my money when I'm essentially checking out my games from a library. A lot of companies can get stuffed for trying to force it on.

If there was a subscription service added on, I reckon that a lot of people would buy it. Look at the badge system. Some have gone crazy over it. Yeah, I reckon games could move more towards subscription. DLCs are smaller and more frequent, the switch to subscriptions wouldn't be a big step. Alternatively, they could have a system where you can choose from any game on their system if you pay €15 a month or something. Yeah, I could see people opting for this too. Great if you have a small library and play a lot of games. However, with the low price of games, it's easy enough to fill up a reasonable stack of games - of slightly older ones at least.

danthefan

You pay Valve every time you buy a game. They'd be charging you to charge you for things, it doesn't really make sense.

nesf

A Monthly Subscription Service for what? Just to play the games you own/have bought or buy? No, but this would go right against Valve's ethos of "sell as many to as many" and is in no one's interests, Microsoft only do it because they have a hardware monopoly for XBox and can enforce XBox Gold for Multiplayer at consumer and developer level. Valve are not in the same position (and probably happy that they aren't).

An extra subscription service where you get to install and play games from a menu? I'd have absolutely no problem with this so long as the current store/client set-up remained in place. A kind of sideline Spotify for Games wouldn't be offensive to me though so long as like music I can still buy the "CDs/mp3s" if I prefer to do that.

SeantheMan

Robert ninja wrote: »

There's no proper friend invite system, you can't see who you played with last without some effort to remember steam IDs and names (a thing consoles consider a very basic feature). The profile management is awkward and the client its self runs horribly. It's much better to run steam through your browser, preferably using Enhanced Steam and only using the client to list and launch games.

There is a system for friends recently played with.
Go to your profile on STEAM,..top Right....your username,
On the dropdown - 3rd one down is 'Friends' - click this
Now you should see 3 tabs. All friends - Blocked Users - Users recently played with

You can also ALT-TAB during a game of ...let's say L4D2. And the people in your game will show up as current users. You can then check their profiles, add them as friends, block them etc.


Very interesting Topic, made me take a look at the EULA

The Steam client software and any other software, content, and updates you download or access via Steam, including but not limited to Valve or third-party video games and in-game content, and any virtual items you trade, sell or purchase in a Steam Subscription Marketplace are referred to in this Agreement as “Software”; the rights to access and/or use any services, Software and/or content accessible through Steam are referred to in this Agreement as "Subscriptions."

2. LICENSES

A. General Software License

Steam and your Subscription(s) require the automatic download and installation of Software onto your computer. Valve hereby grants, and you accept, a limited, terminable, non-exclusive license and right to use the Software for your personal, non-commercial use (except where commercial use is expressly allowed herein or in the applicable Subscription Terms) in accordance with this Agreement, including the Subscription Terms. The Software is licensed, not sold. Your license confers no title or ownership in the Software. To make use of the Software, you must have a Steam Account and you may be required to be running the Steam client and maintaining a connection to the Internet.

So is that to say...already, we don't and never did actually OWN the games we bought ?

BizzyC

It would be a terrible move.

Another website would come along, like GOG, and take a massive chunk of steam users.

Antar Bolaeisk

I'd join the Boycott Steam steam group but actually boycott steam.

I wouldn't pay a monthly subscription for the service in the op, I'd just look elsewhere for my games.

A subscription service to access all games on Steam a la netflix would be a different matter. That I probably would sign up to.

Nody

danthefan wrote: »

You pay Valve every time you buy a game. They'd be charging you to charge you for things, it doesn't really make sense.

And you think the Gamestops sells their game for free with out any profit? Or Play? Or Amazon? Or any other seller?

Chairman Meow

I think OP is missing the point a bit. Steam is just a shopfront, that'd be like amazon charging you a sub just to visit their site.

Dravokivich

"SeantheMan wrote: »

Very interesting Topic, made me take a look at the EULA




So is that to say...already, we don't and never did actually OWN the games we bought ?

There was a thread in the steam forum abiut a game which has been removed, with an article refercening licensing. The only thing is liscensing and leasing are 2 complete seperate things and the steam eula does not appear to recognise that as in the eu, you are the owner of any software liscence you buy. which makes it a bit short sighted considering you"purchase" from the cart instead of "lease."

_Puma_

Don't really understand what you think Steam would be charging for?

Access to steam sales? Wouldn't that be a counter productive move as sales rely on as many people as possible purchasing the item that wouldn't normally, to make a profit. Limiting access to the sales would go completely against this.

As for accessing your library, if they were to make a change to their Terms of use that access to your library can now only be done after you subscribe, they would be opening themselves to legal challenges that they would lose. When you sign up to steam a contract is made and this cannot be changed retroactively to make a profit for the company. If a new service was created that has the restriction to my linked library with a subscription, say steam+, why would I use that over the traditional steam?

I think you are kinda missing the definition of what Steam is, it is simply a Publishers platform where people and companies can find their games in one place and manage their libraries easily. Valve make their money by taking a nominal cut from developers to use their service. That is the business model and is very successful for them. In the same way Origin is EA's publishing platform but has simply not being a hit with 3rd party Developers like steam is. This is mainly down to Steam having a stranglehold on the market.

The PSN & Xbox Live service are a little different as they are used for other services and the marketplace is one of many functions of it. Should they be Subscription services is another question.

landsleaving

Robert ninja wrote: »

I will commend patching without charges though.

Does anywhere charge for patches? That seems absurd. I wouldn't be congratulating anyone for fixing their games.

Blazer

Not a chance I'd pay for Steam..I only use it because some games you can only get through it or have to play through it..ie Left 4 Dead etc.
Steam games are way overpriced so essentially I'm already funding those functions anyway so screw em.

gaynorvader

I probably wouldn't pay for Steam+ even if it did give 'free' games. I pay for PS+, but I get more than just games for that, cloud backups and scheduled updates being the main benefits for me.

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

But steam do charge, they get a nice cut of every game sold on there. Hence why loads of the indies ask you to purchase the game directly off their website rather than steam, as its cheaper for you and they get a bigger cut.

70% is pretty decent for a games company. The profits taken by consoles, games shops, etc is far larger. Usually a developer would be getting around 15%. Of course, that goes up to nearer 50% if you include the publisher's portion.

Shiminay

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I think OP is missing the point a bit. Steam is just a shopfront, that'd be like amazon charging you a sub just to visit their site.

But they do charge you a sub to use their Prime service, so I'd see it as being akin to that.

Steam is far, far more than a shopfront. There are the supplementary functions like Friends lists and game invitations between same. It also handles the voice coms should you ask it to.

It's a social media platform with members having individual profile pages with all the rigmarole that goes with that. Internal messaging, comments on screen shots, capture and hosting of the shots is yet another function. Every game has a community page. Their forums are hugely active.

Let's not forget Steam Workshop - imagine if that was subs only? All those Skyrim mods that people use cause they can't figure out how to NexusMod?

I was just wondering what people thought were this something that Valve introduced down the line. Sony did it with the PS4 just now - you have to have PS+ for the multiplayer element which brings them in-line with Microsoft's policy. Valve is trying to take a swing at the console market now, may as well start expecting them to adopt some console standards.

Someone went through the license agreement above, it has always been the case that we don't appear to own the games we buy or play through Steam, we merely own a license to play them. This is pretty much the standard for all software - you own a licence to use it, not the product itself. There's been talk that the EU courts will be stepping in to address this and are of the opinion that the customer has paid for a product and a product they shall have. The customer should also have the right to do with that product as they please when it comes to the issue of trading/lending/re-selling.