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.

Microsoft can’t even handle one console, what makes you think they could handle two?!

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 .... 

Wii U was incredibly underpowered for 2012, barely more powerful than Sony and Microsoft’s previous gen consoles, while the Xbox One X is currently the most advanced console on the market. There’s a huge difference. 

I do think it’s certainly possible for mobile tech to catch up to the original Xbox One by 2021, or at least 2023. After all, the Xbox 360 was ten years old when the Switch’s Tegra chip, a mobile chip capable of surpassing the Xbox 360, was first released. But the Xbox One X? Nah. Definitely not.

It's not even an argument here. PC gamers rejected GFWL and being charged a sub fee. That's not an argument, but a fact that happened years ago.

It's not even a point of making "absolutes". You've seen it happen multiple times in the past to see where it went on PC. Magically thinking it will objectively be a massive hit and allow PC to gain sub fees all around is just plain silly, and that alone doesn't hold water, based on past and current evidence. 

No, I mentioned taking their "good pages" from what Steam has been rolling with over the years. MS takes the good features, and what people like using Steam for, then MS adds on top of that with unique and good ideas of their own. They need to catch up to Steam, but going all in on their own methods isn't working out for them currently, and this isn't going to be another one of those "give it another decade" kind of ideas either.

I never said Steam was perfect, but it seems we're putting a large focus on just the bad things Steam has done, vs the good, which honestly isn't backing up the argument, but only points out that you're letting one side slide more over the other for little to no reason.

You don't have to be a "snob" to like Steam. I prefer using it over other clients because 1) it has features I'm actually interested in and consider QoL, and 2) It has all the games I want being sold from the store, and 3) It has mod support via the workshop, which I value quite highly as I like to mod my games whenever possible. 

@Bold

You assume everyone loves renting games more so than owning them. Again, there is little data on PC to suggest that 90% of PC gamers will love paying a sub fee monthly and never buying a game once ever again. Paying a few extra dollars just leads to a slippery slope, with no end.

Their DRM has already been cracked, and recently we've found that they used 5 layers of DRM for one of their games, 5 layers...

Going through a "checking" booth of sorts via MS just serves as a way to kill the modding community, because you'd be going through what the company thinks is good vs what the community actually wants. You don't try to control the modding community, even Bethesda knows better than to control their entire modding community (hence why Nexus is still around and still widely used more than Bethesda's "modding club").

The concept is interesting to you, because you have nothing to lose from it being executed. I however, would rather not see an experiment being conducted in a space they've already proven their worst in. I especially have something to lose if they try to screw around with games, let alone their OS in the future. I'd rather they leave things as they are, and instead appeal to the interests of those that want a good storefront and client, not what they think is best for me.

As far as things are going, there is no solid all around amazing competitor to Steam, because no one else is bothering to try taking all the pages. Everyone takes one or two pages and calls it a day. To learn how to beat your competitor, you have to study what good they are doing, as well as the bad, and simply adding onto the good and giving your own unique spin (and I mean unique, not a half arsed job).

Study the PC ecosystem a bit more, and you'll learn more of what makes it tick. Those that don't study it well seem to think mods don't matter or should be restricted in some form or another (when they really shouldn't, as people always find a way around said blocks).

You're right, it's not an argument. I'm not going to entertain a false equivalence because you think subscription services are all the same. They aren't. Nothing worth discussing about if you're just going to keep hammering home the Xbox Live comparison which doesn't even make a whole lot of sense. Humble Bundle is a subscription service, but it's successful. And if you say "that's a false equiva-" yeah , that's exactly my point... There really hasn't been a lot of subscription services based around delivering games for a low cost. The one I can think of that was a massive flop was too early technologically for it's own good, and died out because it was based on streaming rather than digital downloads. 

Ah, well if you just mean taking the good parts of Steam and not literally competing as a purely digital download storefront then I agree. Which is why I more or less said that ... 

"I never said Steam was perfect, but it seems we're putting a large focus on just the bad things Steam has done, vs the good, which honestly isn't backing up the argument, but only points out that you're letting one side slide more over the other for little to no reason."

I literally listed ONE problem with Steam. Maybe two? Talk about exaggeration...... obviously if someone is a competitor to another service they need to show which ways that service can be improved. I don't even understand how you can say I'm only focusing on the negatives of Steam when I listed original ideas on how Microsoft can make a good service. If someone makes an argument for how a competing service can be made and they just list the negatives of the existing predominate service than they aren't making an argument. That's why I didn't do that.

"You assume everyone loves renting games more so than owning them. Again, there is little data on PC to suggest that 90% of PC gamers will love paying a sub fee monthly and never buying a game once ever again. Paying a few extra dollars just leads to a slippery slope, with no end."

How did I assume that when I literally said that my  preference is owning them ... ? Doesn't make a whole lot of sense. People who talk from a very one-sided perspective and make broad sweeping judgments on peoples preferences are generally in favor of the preference they are speaking about. That's why they aren't level-headed and make bad arguments, because they think everyone will want what they want. But in this case my preference isn't even renting games so obviously I wouldn't assume everyone else would want to as well...

This doesn't even make sense from a logical perspective. 90% of the PC market isn't being a competitor to Valve, it's literally being the main driving force in the PC world. My point was never that Microsoft should capture 90% of the market, that doesn't make sense. I was just saying that there should be a COMPETITOR to Valve, because we really don't have one right now ...

The point about the "slippery slope" for paying a few extra dollars is just illogical. How is it a "slippery slope"? You want to play the game offline, purchase it for a few dollars. How is that a "slippery slope"? It sounds like you just threw out a phrase to invalidate an idea.

In general your point about Mods and DRM is a big nothing burger. Again, the comment you originally responded to was simply saying the idea would be interesting.  Then, you took a hypothetical and replied to it in a purely negative perspective. So I replied from a positive one because it would be more interesting. Obviously, if I'm entertaining the idea of a positive hypothetical from Microsoft .... then a free modding community and less DRM would be a pretty good start. I'm not stupid, I don't need to "study the PC ecosystem" (do you really think it's hard to study an ecosystem with one main digital storefront and like four significantly smaller somewhat legitimate subdivisions? What's complex about the PC community ... the mods?). I'm simply saying that if I was to be an optimist, and thought that the Devil could change their ways and do something positive for the community ... the program I outlined would be a pretty good start. 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Since you are making a big stink about this, let me do the work for you. My idea is too optimistic. It could happen, it's not as unrealistic as a world of nothing but peace and love. But it's pretty damn close. If you want me to be realistic, then Microsoft's DRM policies as well as Mods would make it nearly impossible for them to be a good competitor. They could do it, but that would require them to be less stubborn. And that's assuming they're even going to be making a subscription service .... 

By the way, please stop trying to pigeonhole me into the "doesn't care about mods! doesn't know PC ecosystem" thing.... I literally use mods all the time. It's a hypothetical for a reason, it isn't a realistic outcome.

1) You call them false, but they remain the same. You pay a sub fee, you get to play said games that come with said sub fee, that's how it works.

2) Yes, because that's how you learn from your competitor. You find what good they do and you build on top of that. if you want to do a complete 180 and not do a thing they've done, then it might work, or completely backfire and set you back even further, allowing more competitors to learn from your setback and gaining further ground, thus taking the good pages is usually the better route to take (which Steam didn't have the luxury of doing when it first launched, but MS has got years worth of data to study from).

3) It's not really an exaggeration, considering as to how you listed some bad, and didn't put in the good to balance it out.

4)You wanting to own a a game has nothing in relation to others paying a sub fee to rent their games. The rest of that paragraph is steering away from the sub fee crowd part.

5)You have other storefronts out there, but hardly any of them are trying to actually compete for the larger crowd. Steam is at the top because Valve worked on building up the storefront and client since they launched it. Being a competitor to Valve means enticing users from Steam's storefront to MS's. Just like how GoG has enticed some folk to stop using Steam and instead heading over to GoG (Quake, a user on these forums is a living example of this).

Being a competitor to Valve means being on their level, otherwise you may as well become another Origin and Uplay, where you sell your own titles and gain little of a following.

6) Because the way you talk about paying a few extra dollars entails that it can go beyond that. What's a few extra dollars more?, couldn't be much can it?. Pay a few extra dollars for this, a little bit of that etc. It doesn't have a fixed point when you say "just a few extra dollars more". Why do you think you see ads with "only 29.99", rather than "29.99, and a few extra dollars more for this and a few more for that".

7) Again, you think mods and the like are worth nowt, but that shows how little you know of the modding community on PC. You try to make it sound positive, but it's really not. I gave you the example of the Bethesda modding club and look how that turned out. Restricting mods doesn't automatically make it far superior and positive over just allowing modding in general. less mods isn't automatically better than just modding the game. No amount of spinning it is going to change the outcome of that discussion.

8) 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.

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".

I'm not even making a big stink out of it I'm just trying to point out to you that in the past, charging a fee to rent games on PC hasn't worked with MS, charging for online hasn't worked either. That's how it's been for years and the gamers on that side have been very, very vocal about it. 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.

9) 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?.

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.

Nintendo finally decided to merge their hardware together, so Microsoft splitting their hardware would be an interesting choice

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. 

I don't really think there is any other way to sum this up other than "you're wrong, I'm right, stop bashing me".

At this point we'll probably be better off going our separate ways from here on out, because it's obvious that 1) We don't agree on the subject, and 2) It's clear that I'm wrong all the time (apparently).