| Chazore said: |
1 ) They're false because when used in an argument they don't make sense. PC gamers weren't creating a backlash against a subscription service because it was a subscription service, they were creating backlash because it offered them nothing of value .... this honestly isn't complicated and no matter how many times you say they are the same you're not right. You can say they are the same basic model, but that's such a bad argument, because then someone could say that Uplay and Origin have the same model as Steam ....
2 ) What are we even disagreeing on? I already said that Microsoft should learn from Steam ....
3 ) Because i'm not reviewing Steam. This isn't Yelp! I'm making a case for the fact that Steam has some issues and Microsoft could step in and be a competitor by offering new ideas + a way to fix some of Steam's issues. You're really going on a bit too much about how I didn't talk positively enough about Steam even though this entire thing comes more from the perspective of a devil's advocate seeing as how I disagree with the image some people around here like to give Steam .... It's a great service. Also, I don't know how you could say i'm not being positive enough to Steam when I basically said that Microsoft should copy their interface. Imitation is a form of flattery.
4 ) You might consider it a worthless tangent but it's kind of important when you're insinuating that I just believe the majority of PC gamers want a subscription based model ... I explained it pretty well and I'm not going to explain it again. It doesn't even make sense because subscription models for new games is a pretty new idea still , sure it's been tried before but that service was a streaming service and it was absolute trash.
5 ) What are we even arguing with? Lol. This doesn't seem like a rebuttal to anything. This is obvious.
6 ) The ironic thing about this is that it's almost a non-point. If you pay 10$ for a subscription service, and you love a game on the service, then you buy the game for how much the game is worth ..... what's wrong with that? If Steam has a game for 30$ and you want to buy the game to play offline than you just pay 30$. What's the problem? If you're going to say "The problem is that you paid for that and the subscription service!!! ..." then let me stop you right there ...
THAT IS A TERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRIBBBBBBBBBBLEEEEEE ARGUMENT! The point of the subscription service is that you get a lot of content for a little amount of money. So it's not 30$ + a 10$ charge. It's 30$ for full access to a game even without internet, and then 10$ for the hundreds of other games on the platform. This service would also make buying online games, probably the most popular type of game on the platform, nearly pointless. That would make it a really popular platform. And, not only that, but I have a hard time believing that buying the game would be worth the same amount as the game's actual retail copy. When you make a subscription service that makes multiple games free, those games are already losing out on the initial profit of millions of copies sold. So already Microsoft is looking at other ways to make profit, like a monthly charge and a smaller entrance fee, rather than just a big whopping 60$ price tag. If they're already looking for other methods to make money, why shouldn't we believe that the entrance fee for a full copy would be significantly smaller than a retail copy? Digital games already cost less to produce and since it's Microsoft's platform at the very least their games would probably benefit from a lower price tag. Even if that didn't end up being the case, this isn't even adding the fact that if Microsoft wanted to compete with Steam seriously they'd start utilizing sales more often...
7 ) This conversation is interesting and pretty chill but if you're going to keep making comments that basically add up to "wow you're ignorant about mods!!! and pcs!!" then i'm not going to participate. I respect that you probably think that from reading my outline of how Microsoft could make a subscription service ... but if I made my outline as unrealistic as possible you'd just dismiss it as unrealistic. It's a lose lose. It's not that I don't think Microsoft should limit mods. They shouldn't. But if Microsoft found out a mod was basically allowing players to play the game offline or without a subscription, then I could see them limiting that mod until you pay for the game. EVERY OTHER MOD should absolutely be allowed. But I already stated that when I said earlier that they should take a page from how free and open Steam's workshop and community section is ... but you seemed to completely ignore it. But ok , I guess i'm ignorant for trying to be a little bit realistic in what is already a pretty unrealistically good service. But again this is kind of a non-point, because I'm basically saying "Every mod that can be used without stealing a game from Microsoft's subscription service should be available" and you're interpreting that as "Microsoft should only allow 5 mods". No.
8 ) You basically just contradicted yourself in two sentences : "You act like you know it inside and out, more so than myself, but you seem to apply what outside lookers say when talking about the ecosystem and what goes on within it. I also never said PC gaming wasn't "complex" to understand."
If it's not complex, then please tell me oh so knowledgeable one where my "outsider" view comes from? We've already established that you're misrepresenting or at least misinterpreting my views on mods, we've basically established that no matter how many times I say otherwise you think i'm being literal with this subscription idea. What is the "outsider" view I have? Every time you've tried to make an argument about how I'm ignorant on the platform you've basically come up with nothing relating to me. It's like you're arguing against a completely different person(or just forgetting that this is hypothetical, a scenario in which Microsoft do something unique AND consumer friendly while being competitive, which seems virtually impossible for them).
Just stop misrepresenting or misinterpreting shit and half your text wouldn't be the equivalent of "Yeah i'm master pc man around here and you don't know how unrealistic and lacking in knowledgeable you are kid". There's already many users here who are far more knowledgeable than me on this site and you're one of them, but it's not like we're talking about something very complicated or abstract ... this has more to do with what logical ways Microsoft can get back on track with the PC community than it does understanding the nuance of the PC environment....
"You thought that the "devil" would change it's ways?. You mean after nearly 2 decades, you think it finally wants to change it's way?. Sure if you want to ignore all the history behind them and remain blindly optimistic, then yeah, they can totally do good and no wrong, but I'm looking at it with the history and actions that were taken over those years and applying a realistic outlook. You can totally turn around and "invalidate" it by calling it unrealistic, but then you're going to call taking data in and looking at a company's actions as "unrealistic"."
"Yeah, considering one of their games contained 5 layers of DRM, you'd think they'd support the modding scene by not using 5 layers that disrupt the modding scene right?."
Holy shit. Are you even trying to be genuine in how you portray me 
? You literally quoted the last paragraph where I said that I don't think any of this would happen. How can you seriously write these big paragraphs about how I should know better when I was the one that summed up my reply as "Yeah Chazore your arguments aren't great, but you're basically right on the basis that Microsoft is just so fucking retarded they're going to fuck any good idea up..." while using their history of DRM and other shit to support that? I mean come on man... you literally say that I consider looking at company's actions as unrealistic when my entire basis on why my service idea could never happen is Microsoft's history ....
"I think it causes more of a stink to hear that not everyone shares the same ideal that you hold for MS taking another shot at charging a sub fee on PC."
I mean considering you're still taking something I never expected to happen and bashing me over the head for thinking it could happen when I never thought it could .... yeah .... not really.
" You use mods all the time, but from the sounds of it, it's not worth much time to look or reflect back on in a positive light, because you suggested them to be "checked" first. I've used mods and tweaked games for years. The difference between you and me on that subject, is that I don't want mods being checked at all. Mods are mods."
I already addressed why you're taking this criticism way too far so there's no point in readdressing it, as frustrating as this may be. I will say though that even if we assume your analysis is correct and I literally wanted the mod support for a non-purchased game to be about ... let's say half ... of what a game's mod support is on Steam there's one thing you're completely forgetting. Being a competitor isn't about having the same exact market share, or more market share, or being as good or better than the competition in every way. I'm pretty sure that if Microsoft or some other company made a service as good as Steams, the service would balance out. It would be better in some ways and worse in others. I'm pretty sure that a company with serious drive, serious motivation and a genuinely good service could get 35-45% of the PC market ... and that's assuming that only half the mods of a game work on this service. Because you're still getting a great value, you're still getting the ability to mod, and you're still getting the ability to use all mods if they don't break the DRM( the whole "only 50% of mods!" thing is completely artificial to try and give you a point to stand on, even if you don't really have one).
And again, none of this is taking into account that no matter what I say it's a lose lose situation. If I try to add some realism by saying that Microsoft will probably check the mods to make sure they don't conflict with the streaming service, you will say that I'm not respecting the mod community. AS IF I want mods to be parented. NO! I'm doing it because that's what makes sense for a subscription service. Stop acting like I'm writing about my wet dream of a service ....... I'm not, this has nothing to do with me respecting the mods! It has to do with what a subscription based service would actually allow. I don't want mods to go checked, but they would be. It wouldn't even conflict with most mods. So stop making into a personal thing of "IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE YOU RESPECT MODDING VERY MUCH" ...
I think a lot of people would be willing to take that sacrifice. Maybe not now but in the near future I could see that being a reality. Sorry Chazore but PC gaming is certainly not just about you. I find it quite ironic that my whole attitude this time has basically been "Yeah ... I'd prefer Steam and it's a great service, but wouldn't it be cool if Microsoft tried to actually give a shit ..." and your actions are basically "I WANT STEAM ONLY STEAM STEAM GOOD!". Pretty much antithetical to the point of being a PC gamer ... I don't like restrictions but part of the platform is choices. And sometimes those choices are ironically more restrictive. Steam is more restrictive than GOG but not a lot of people prefer GOG ... slippery slope yes but you get the point. It doesn't have to be Microsoft, theyve got a terrible track record. It can be anyone else.
