|
Chazore said: PC gamers rejected paying a subscription to XBL years ago, and they also rejected GFWL. They are currently rejecting the Windows store in it's current form, so I'd imagine them outright rejecting the second attempt at getting PC gamers to pay a sub fee, on top of having less features and no mod support.
If they want to truly compete with Steam, they have to take all of the good pages from what Steam has done over the years. |
I don't really think your argument holds up well. PC gamers rejected Microsoft's advances based on quality, Xbox Live was more of a scam on PC than it was a "service" so acting like it's equivalent to any Microsoft subscription is a slippery slope, Games For Windows Live was awful, had a terrible interface and shitty DRM. And the Windows store is extremely limited and, again, has a terrible interface.
Basically what i'm saying is ... in order for your argument to hold water you would have to believe 1 ) the false equivalence that every subscription service is the same and 2 ) that this theoretical subscription service would be bad before it's even made. Even though the entire point of my comment was that it would interesting to see how gamers react to it ... so there isn't a point in making absolutes to refute the possibility. It's as useless as saying "If Steam 2.0 is bad then people won't like it" - like duh, obviously. However, I am way more interested in how this would turn out if it was well received, so let me chime in on a few things.
Trying to compete with Steam by copying Valve isn't a good idea. Steam already has a strangle hold on PC software sales and doing the exact same thing as them isn't going to drive competition. In addition, Steam already HAS done some bad things that have really effected the platform for a while now. Steam now has a terrible store front as it doesn't weed out much of the bullshit. Steam isn't perfect, even though i'm not enough of a snob to really not love it. But the mere idea of paying say 10-15$ a month for a huge selection of games is enough to entice a lot of people especially when you consider that most PC gamers are connected to the internet 24/7. If they plan to play the game offline, they could just pay a few extra dollars to access it in offline mode. I imagine that this service would have it's own HUB like Steam where you can add friends, make clans and communities, and post art etc. As good as Steam's HUB is compared to the shit that is Origin, Uplay, or the Windows Store even it's not perfect. If Microsoft should copy anything it should be that HUB and it should just make it even better. Microsoft might worry about Mods if they have a chance of unlocking the DRM for a game, so what they could do is have their own "workshop" where mods that go through Microsoft's check can be installed in a game that you are paying a subscription for. It might limit the amount that goes on their front but it really shouldn't ... I don't know of many mods that have security issues ... As long as Microsoft doesn't try to limit speech and actions on their userface and keep it relatively free like Steam's workshop and community section, I don't see the issue.
There's a lot of issues with the idea of a subscription based service and i'm not even necessarily a fan of it (I don't see why the concept of just buying a game should be discarded just because it's expensive). But it would at least be interesting to see how it would pan out, things could be fixed as they go on, and it would at least give Steam a competitor. Of course if i'm rooting for anybody it's not Microsoft, we really should get a different company competing in the games industry on PC ....
