You can sign up to get a daily email of our articles, see the Mailing List page.
We do often include affiliate links to earn us some pennies. See more here.

Talking Point: how about a monthly Steam Game Pass from Valve

By - | Views: 31,554

Subscriptions, they're everywhere and more seem to appear all the time. So, what IF Valve were to announce their own Steam Game Pass to give you access to a great many games?

Let's be realistic here though - Valve doesn't need one. Steam is and will be for a long time to come, a money printing machine because of the user share they have across PC platforms (Linux, macOS and Windows). However, Valve do have competition increasing all the time. Not just from the Epic Games Store but thinking more on the likes of the Xbox Game Pass Ultimate - which includes a ton of games along with upcoming game streaming support too. That has proven extremely popular for Microsoft and services like that absolutely will pull people away from buying more games on Steam. Why would you, after all, if you can get 100+ (and growing) AA/AAA and indie games often close to release in a single subscription?

It's something I've been thinking on for a long time, and I've probably mentioned it in some previous articles. I speculated a little back when the subscription and rewards features for Steam leaked out. Although that turned into the points shop and allowing the likes of EA Play and the Crusader Kings II - Expansion Subscription. So now Valve allows other developers to use subscriptions but what about Valve directly though? Are they going to bring out their own, should they do it and would you actually use it?

Many questions! Some of which I posed to our Twitter followers (#1, #2) with the results being quite surprising. A small sample with the majority thinking Valve aren't doing one but 50/50 for people who want it versus not wanting it. I actually expected the question of people wanting it or not to swing quite hard one way which it clearly didn't.

For gamers, it might work out to be more cost effective to have a subscription. Thinking on the cost of these subscription services, it can work out at the price of 1-2 AAA games a year to gain access to tons. You would have to play quite a few of them to actually make it worth it - but a lot of people would probably forget about that part. Even if you're only interested in a few of the games, it could still work out as reasonably good value. For a store like Steam, compared to streaming services, being able to choose between outright buying and subscribing to have access gives the best of both worlds (compared with the likes of Stadia, where it's streaming-only and if it's gone, it's gone even if you "buy" it).

The drawback for developers though is monies. It all depends on the revenue split of each subscription, likely based on how much time is put into each title which could end up being worse for smaller developers who often struggle on Steam as it is. There's a lot of different angles like that to think on. What sort of levels would the subscription have? It could be interesting with different selections like Indie Gems, AAA classics and so on. Could even be an additional bit of marketing for developers as people might spots games from the lists they want to actually buy from it. Also, as a reminder, you don't actually own what you buy on Steam, as per the Steam Subscriber Agreement you get a license to play it.

A Steam Game Pass would probably be quite popular if Valve actually did it though, but will they?

Over to you in the comments: what are you thoughts on if Valve actually did a Steam Game Pass system?

Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Tags: Editorial, Misc, Steam
12 Likes
About the author -
author picture
I am the owner of GamingOnLinux. After discovering Linux back in the days of Mandrake in 2003, I constantly came back to check on the progress of Linux until Ubuntu appeared on the scene and it helped me to really love it. You can reach me easily by emailing GamingOnLinux directly. Find me on Mastodon.
See more from me
The comments on this article are closed.
38 comments
Page: «3/4»
  Go to:

elmapul May 24, 2021
i think those services are an bad idea in general.
dont get me wrong, they may be an great cost-benefit for consumers, but the cost for it is: companies deciding for us what we gonna play and who will be funded.
that is especially bad if consumers get so used to this model that they refuse to use any other (as many people refuse to watch something if it isnt on netflix, convenience and low price at all costs)
now think about it: the gaming industry as a whole move 100 billions of dollars a year, if we have 1 billion of gamers world wide that means each player spend an average of 100 dollars/year, if we start to having to spend less money in order to get more games, that will mean that this overal value (100 bilions/year) is reducing instead of increasing, this may sound good if you take into account that big companies earn ~10x more than they spend, that could mean that consumers will pay less and their margin for profit will shrink, but do you REALLY think they are the ones who will be affected by that? of course not, the small ones will.
and gamers will get so used to pay a little ammount of money to get acess to almost everything that they will start to refuse paying for stuff that arent on those services because "screw greed developers".
WorMzy May 24, 2021
No thanks. My library is already full of games that I'll never get around to playing without paying a subscription to bulk it out further. I also have serious doubts that Valve would take platform choice into consideration, making the bulk of any subscription games Windows-exclusives, which I have no interest in supporting.
kaiman May 24, 2021
Seems the answers so far pretty much echo my own sentiment. On a personal level, I expect that the majority of games I do like playing will likely not end up as part of such a service. So it would be of little use. Even if Steam offered something like different channels for different tastes, and there would be a "narrative indie game channel", I'd rather get a perpetual license to the games I do play instead of having a constantly changing bouquet of content where games I hold dear may at any time get replaced by ones I do not care for.

More generally, I fear what would become of the vibrant gaming ecosystem if subscription services become the norm. It would install new gatekeepers when at least Steam right now is open to pretty much any developer (others already not so much). And in doing so it would likely narrow the types of games remaining viable, and affect even their gameplay to better match the affordances of a subscription model.

So no, even though it might be the inevitable future, I'm neither interested nor thrilled.
libgradev May 24, 2021
The main issue I have with these services is content vanishing from the sub as my playtime is so erratic these days due to other commitments...

With the current model at least I can come back in 6 months and be, for the most part, sure the game will still be there.
benjamimgois May 24, 2021
I would love it... I think that's the way the industry is going and Microsofft is attracting lots of users to Microsoft store with Game Pass
slaapliedje May 24, 2021
Here's another example why subscriptions are bad: MMOs. You spend your time and money on them. Then they decide that they aren't making enough so they switch to F2P and gimp all of your stuff, and try to get you to buy loot crates. Or they just kill the game off altogether and all your time / money is gone. Games that go free2play you know have done all the calculations to see if dropping subscription support and going with loot crates / pay2play is more profitable.

This discussion is making me re-think subscribing to channels on Amazon Prime though. I mean I do that instead of getting cable. But I also have a large collection of movies on physical medium still. Thinking I should just go with that, it's weirdly cheaper in the long run to just buy series on disc instead of renting an episode for 1.99...
STiAT May 24, 2021
I do not like subscriptions, even though I do have one for EA since I figured it will be cheaper than actually buying the titles I wanted to play, and since they do not have a huge replay potential it's good value for money.

But I prefer the traditional model. I fear that subscription models would end up hurting the smaller developers in favour of the big players on the field.

And while a huge success on certain platforms for sure, I can not see them actually generating more money for single devs with a lets say 10 dollar subscription. I think most gamers spend more than 120 dollars / year on games. I do, and I do not count myself as one who plays a lot.
no_information_here May 24, 2021
Quoting: libgradevThe main issue I have with these services is content vanishing from the sub as my playtime is so erratic these days due to other commitments...

With the current model at least I can come back in 6 months and be, for the most part, sure the game will still be there.
Good point. My family watches Netflix, but I don't watch much passive TV. I might notice a movie I want to watch but I don't get around to sitting down at the TV for 3 months, but by then it is gone off the service.

Games would be much much worse. I have a session of New Vegas I need to get back to from about 2 years ago.
Purple Library Guy May 24, 2021
Quoting: CSharp
Quoting: HoriI like Steam a lot but I also have all my games here, so even if I wanted to, I couldn't just up and leave without basically throwing away a load of money.

I like this point here. If I don't own the game anyway, why should I pretend to own it. If steam shuts down my games are lost regardless
Well, yours might be, but mine won't. My internet is fairly reliable, but there have been enough exceptions and enough times playing games on my laptop away from wi-fi, that I can say generally I can play Steam games offline. It squeaks that it can't find Steam and asks plaintively if I want to play in offline mode. Then I do. I can't see how that would be different if I was online but Steam no longer existed.
Purple Library Guy May 24, 2021
Quoting: no_information_here
Quoting: TheSHEEEPMy biggest fear with subscription services is that I'm not sure if it is actually viable for smaller developers.
Exactly. Ask smaller-name musicians how much money they make on spotify or other streaming services.

Streaming only benefits the platforms and the big names. Everyone else loses.
As I understand it, at this point there almost is no indie music as we used to think of it. Rather, there's amateur music. Independent musicians mostly make so little money they're no longer living on a shoestring doing gigs, rather they're living on a shoestring waiting tables while doing music as best they can on the side for basically nothing. Of course Covid made all that even worse, but the prospect of making a living as a musician had pretty much imploded in the last 20 years even before that.
While you're here, please consider supporting GamingOnLinux on:

Reward Tiers: Patreon. Plain Donations: PayPal.

This ensures all of our main content remains totally free for everyone! Patreon supporters can also remove all adverts and sponsors! Supporting us helps bring good, fresh content. Without your continued support, we simply could not continue!

You can find even more ways to support us on this dedicated page any time. If you already are, thank you!
The comments on this article are closed.