Should Steam start a paid membership program?

(a.k.a PS+/XBLG)

A lot of companies are now seeing some value in these membership programs. EA started something like this on Xbox One and many others are sure to follow.

What should the benefits be on a Steam premium membership? Early access to games before release? Monthly free games? Priority beta entries? Custom themes on big picture mode? 10-15% off all new releases.

Obviously this would not effect non-subscribed members in anyway like locking them out of online play.

Steam is great as it is, I'd rather them not add any sort of premium membership.

NO. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? ABSOLUTELY NEIN.

I doubt it would be profitable for them, therefore I doubt it would happen regardless. So... no.

The front page is essentially a spammage of advertizements under the guise of "news". They don't actually have anything news worthy or interesting enough to justify paying money from what it seems. Something like Eurogamer (which is a great website) I would consider supporting for a few goodies.

Pretty sure they're earning more then enough money from the model they are using right now, having you pay to use the program at this point would make many turn away from Steam.

I imagine Valve could get away with such thing, but do they really need to? The reason subscriptions models exist is to make extra money on the side to either do cooler things or use it continue trekking on, help pay for expensive things (like servers for examples) and expand one's market. With the amount of money Valve makes, they don't really need to do that.

While on the topic of subscription plans, Rock, Paper, Shotgun just started one a couple weeks ago. If I had a job and earned money, I would easily subscribe right on since they a lot of great writers. One of the best gaming media/journalism sites out there by far. :)

Value have ful control over all the games you lease from them do not encourage them be any worse.

I don't really see the point. If you've gotta lot of time and money for games so be it.

But they DEFINATELY shouldn't make a compulsory membership fee. That would REALLY suck.

First of all steam cant do anything premium unless the developers agree to it. Steam is just a delivery platform nothing more and they do not have anything to do with the games.

But i wouldn't be surprised if a premium service came but it would take some work particular getting developers to agree and im sure the reason why we havent seen it yet is because the cost outweigh the gain.

Actually no they dont. All they have control over is your access to using steam as a platform, which is what the EULA also states. It would actually be quite illegal for steam to claim ownership over the games you have bought since they do not own them or have any rights to them.

No, you did not buy anything. You paid for the right to play the game. They have the right to give those rights out. If they or those thatown the rights want to they can revoke your rights to use that software.

@wiouds: To be fair, doesn't every EULA from every major publisher include a "we can revoke your rights at any time" clause? You always only have tenuous legal ownership of games. That's just part of the industry.

its the same for all physical media you buy.

You are 100% wrong in that assumption. You pay for the right to use Steam, Steam has no ownership or legal rights to any other game than their own.

What they do have the right to do is remove your right to use Steam nothing else, you still own the game.

But do please show your legal expertise and not just something you heard on the interwb, i mean its not like we have laws right?

No they don't because they have no right to do that.

Most consumerlaws make sure that once you buy something its yours not someone elses, and since steam is just a digital distrubtion platform athey do not own or have anything major to do with the games that is on there

Please no.

I am guessing you have the same amount of legal expertise and just want to think that the law skew your way.

Nah.

Then you are guessing about as accurate as your statement about steam. But do please point to that law or place in the steam user agreement that states they own the games and you do not.

Also claiming something is true without having any legal education is just bad Wiouds, you are claiming something that is utter false and is just a myth that is made up by people who dislike steam for one reason or the other. Steam again is just a distribution platform, they do not own the games, if you buy a paradox game or a ubisoft game, you buy a paradox or a ubisoft game, you do not suddenly buy a steam game. Steam is nothing but a shop, so they have the right to deny you the right to use their service but they don't remove the ownership of the games you bought.

And a good advice go read up on the oracle case in EU court, where EU luckily isn't political like the us supreme court and actually recognizes the ownership when you buy software and the rights following that, like reselling it.

@Jacanuk:

Few things:

(1) I actually read through a whole bunch of my EULAs a couple of years ago, and they mostly said the same thing. Even GOG, which is hailed as the champion of DRM-free digital distribution, had basically the same clauses as Steam.

(2) Keep in mind that we're talking about intangibles here. When you buy a game at a store, you own the disc, box and manual. You don't really "own" the intangible material contained on that disc though - it's licensed to you via EULAs and whatnot. All of those that I've seen restrict your usage of that software in some way - and one of the common ways is to include a clause saying that they retain the right to revoke your access to that software.

Please note that Valve don't own most of the stuff on Steam either. They'll have distribution rights, sure, but the game publishers are typically the main rights holders here.

(3) Whether consumer laws will help anything is...uncertain. Up in the air. Local consumer laws may require Valvr to act in certain ways through the provision of their services. That might stick. But applying other consumer laws to digital goods that you only have limited rights to under contract? It's trickier, will depend heavily on local laws, and...well, who knows.

(...and no, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice. I have a law degree, sure, but I'm not actually qualified to give advice, and all of this is off-ths-cuff informed guesswork anyway!)

I wouldn't subscribe. Steam cuts good deals already and if they offered free games, they've got so much stuff constantly flooding Steam that I would worry that it could go months or a year with basically nothing I'd want to play being given away.

You have a law degree , which one?

But again i suggest you and Wiouds go read up on the EU Oracle case which actually opposite to the US supreme court found that once you buy "software" you own it and by such have all the rights that follows. That is what made Steam change their TOS to be subscription based

The key though is that you of course own the rights to all the games or any software you have bought, that was put 100% clear by the eu court.

So the only thing steam can do is bar you from their service and use of the steam platform they cannot since they do not own or have rights to any games but their own, bar you from continuing to use the games you have bought.