Would you pay for it?
I Agree. Sometimes it would just be cheaper to buy though
Comment has been collapsed.
Looks good on theory but most players would not buy the game after they are done with it. Since assuming rental fee would be much less than regular discounts, it will be end of Steam.
Comment has been collapsed.
How about rental on play time? The more you play, the more you pay. If the amount reach the price for the game, you get to keep it forever?
Comment has been collapsed.
Apparently you get refunds on games for a few days after purchase so you can kinda demo them?
Comment has been collapsed.
just wild thought... playtime does not record while offline right? :>
Comment has been collapsed.
What if i share library and play on other account? :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Cool Idea.I will try it on Fallout 4. Buy the game on alternate account and family share to my account ,play and refund it. You just saved me some money :)
Comment has been collapsed.
:) But i think it won't be posibile, like cs go - no online just offline mode. Maybe, don't know...
Comment has been collapsed.
There's no way they can know how much you've played the game when you go to Offline mode on Steam.. unless they're making some config somewhere, which then again you can simply delete. You can go as far as reinstalling OS, if you're that desperate.
Comment has been collapsed.
Given the mountain of bundles every week, no.
EDIT: A more interesting (but improbable) idea would be a monthly subscription that gave you access to all games at no extra cost.
Comment has been collapsed.
I thought of that too. similar to spotify with music. However this would have to be pricey maybe around 20-30$ a month. So would the typical gamer even be able to pay a price that high?
Comment has been collapsed.
Typical gamer usually affords buying games with somewhat like 50$ price tag at times. And even if there was a sub like this, I doubt it would be less than 50$, at least until some AAA projects would be excluded from the pack.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are plenty of people that feel like a few hours of play per month is worth an MMO subscription fee and justify it based on the price of a movie ticket.
I think that it could work if you were to open it up to all games that are older than 6 months. The die-hards that would pre-order to play a game upon release (or just buy upon release) would STILL buy the games they're interested in, and everything else they could play 6 months later.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can do without getting 50000 tons of FREE!!! greenlit shovelware in my library thank you very much.
Comment has been collapsed.
nope - because having massive library I'd probably keep paying for games I already own ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, cake! Never seen that one =) Happy Cake Day from me too! ^^
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe Steam has enough trash to put in your library, one piece a month, for a few years though. :3
Comment has been collapsed.
yeah, but these systems usually works "same game(s) for everyone this month" - so anyone who has a massive library would be basically screwed by it over and over again - ivf you own 1/3 of games avaiable on steam chances that this month's free game is something you already own are significantly higher that for a person who owns 15 games ;p
Comment has been collapsed.
Not interested, but that's just because I don't like spending money lol.
Comment has been collapsed.
No. No. No. No. No. If the peasants want to pay additional fees to play online and get games they most likely never even intended to play, it's their problem. It's bad enough that the PC digital market got console disk prices, even though there is no physical media to print, store, and distribute, nor mandatory hardware license fees to add flat 10 USD on every price. We don't need more of the anti-consumer ideas from the console market.
Plus I don't think giving ideas to the company who has a larger market share than all other digital platforms combined, yet spends less money on infrastructure and support than the smallest competitor, and the one who invented a system where people pay money for them for literally nothing, is anywhere close being a good thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
Or you keep the money and buy a game you really desire when it'll have a decent discount, instead of getting some random games you may not even want. The difference between Steam and PS Plus it's that you can play online on Steam without paying while you can't on PS and that's why you pay. As long as you pay they gift you something.
Comment has been collapsed.
The whole subscription things is retarded. Customers must aware that in the long run it only benefits the freakin' Developers/Publishers primarily.
Comment has been collapsed.
How about you keep the $5 and buy 2-3 games that you like every month? With Steam seals it's the same.
Comment has been collapsed.
With Steam seals it's the same.
are the Steam Seals something like the Navy Seals? A specially trained force to protect games and gamers on sea, air and land? oO
Comment has been collapsed.
I wouldn't pay for free games. I'd pay for a 64-bit client and priority Steam server access, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
As long as the premium servers are separate, along with their bandwidth– like how the Nexus does this–, it can be a viable idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
They should just let me own the games I pay for like GoG. Then I'd actually buy a game from them.
Comment has been collapsed.
if i didn't have this backlog and it was going to be fairly good games all the time, then i might go for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
The bundles already do that for less money, and you get to see what you get before you pay.
Also you know how poor quality most bundle games are. Would you really prefer Steam to choose a bunch of mediocre bundle games for you and stuff it down your throat monthly? No thanks.
Comment has been collapsed.
Voted but just wanted to point out that $5/month != free games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Could you please somehow phrase that in a way the peasants could understand it too? Because one of the common "advantages" they list for consoles is "free monthly games". I'd use the reasoning the next time they pull that.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, if someone starts in on that track with me I just move on as there's no arguing with stupid. If it makes them happy then I guess that's good for them and it doesn't effect me.
Comment has been collapsed.
If there were other benefits (like for example 10% disount on everything or something like that), I might do it, but not for the games. I'd rather save those 5 bucks and go get 5 $ 1 tier bundles (that would equal to around 20 games), since you probably wouldn't get any better. So unless there would be other benefits to it, I would not do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
All I could think of with this suggestion was Gamefly.
I would not like the subscription thing at all. What I wouldn't mind would be increased discounts based on your steam level or random giveaways or other such things based on it.
I am a function over form kinda person and I see the Steam levels as they are as kinda pointless and annoying. But if they started giving you discounts based on them all the way to the occasional free purchase if your level is high enough, then it would actually have a purpose for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Voted yes. since it's just 5 dollar and they will probably offer games more then 5$..
then i see the poll result.. ya.. i guess pay subscription = lose a lot fan..
I guess Gaben thought of everything...
Comment has been collapsed.
If steam had an optional monthly fee where if purchased you would get free games every month. It would be similar to what ps plus used to be. Maybe for like 5$ you would get 2 or three games for free sometimes good other times cheaper and not as fun. Any thoughts?
Comment has been collapsed.