My description of Steam.
I use the term "glorified game rental service" when I should have said "non-transferable term license service", with the "term" of the license being tied to the length of time that Valve is in business or is operating Steam in its current form (which I concede could be an indefinite period, but then again, maybe not).
Anyway, acquiring a non-transferable license to play said game using Steam is something less than ownership, which is why I will not be acquiring the game at the original stated offering price.
If you like Steam and value the benefits that come along with playing a game on that service, than you should a pay a licensing fee that matches that value. If that is the stated offering price for said game, then that is what you should pay.
I see a lot more value in games such as ME2 or Dragon Age that work out of the box without online activation. I know when I pay for those games I have the option to (i) play the game in the future (which for Steam games is only guaranteed for length of time that Steam is around and in its current form, rather than the amount of time I maintain the game disk in playable condition), and (ii) sell the game in the future (which can not be done on Steam).
Since I see diminished value in acquiring a license to play said game on Steam (or GFWL, BattleNet, or any other similar "service" being used for games these days), my price is going to be a lot lower. I know the trade-off is that I have to wait a while longer to play said game, but I have a backlog of games I need to play anyway. The market will meet my price eventually.
I think of myself as a very reasonable gamer.
I am willing to pay full retail to "own" a game, but if the publisher wants to sell me a license linked to my Steam account the terms of which can be modified at any time, I am going to pay a lot less.
What I resent is a product that is required to be linked to Steam. I don't see why publishers can't offer something similar to to the way they sold Dragon Age. You like Steam and you bought the game on Steam. I prefer owning physical media, and bought the game on disks. It appears we are both happy with the purchase. It just doesn't seem that difficult.
I don't hate Steam, I just don't trust that the terms of use won't change. I think it is useful for what it is. I have a Steam account with both major releases and indie games. Where I see trouble for the industry is that the games I have bought on Steam, Borderlands ($10), Bioshock ($5), Red Faction Guerilla ($5), I would have paid full retail for if they had reasonable DRM or they had not been linked to Steam.
You may joke about my enjoying waiting for "eventually". What publishers need to understand is that I (and I am assuming a lot of other gamers) have such a backlog of games that I can wait out "eventually" very easily. Any game purchase I make is a discretionary purchase, because I have literally dozens of games that I need to play that are probably every bit as much fun as said game.
I would be willing to meet publishers half way. I understand that publishers make more on digital distribution than on physical distribution, and I would be willing to pay more to own a physical copy of a game. I also don't have a problem with a publisher doing digital distribution first (to maximize profits), and then following that up with physical disks later (as I said, I can wait). For example, I don't understand why the Borderlands Game of the Year edition that was released did not have more reasonable DRM. I would have thought it would have been a great opportunity by the publisher to pick up sales they may have lost because of the original DRM scheme.
It just seems to me that any situation where a customer is willing to pay $40 or $50 for a product, but is instead paying $5 or $10 for the same product because of a lesser means of distribution (at least in my opinion) is flawed.
You have a customer who was ready to buy your product at retail price who instead will buy it for $5 due to the means by which you chose to distribute the game (having a Steam requirement that is). I guess any time you can frustrate your customers so that they are only willing to pay a small % of your original retail price, you have to do it.
I use the term "glorified game rental service" when I should have said "non-transferable term license service", with the "term" of the license being tied to the length of time that Valve is in business or is operating Steam in its current form (which I concede could be an indefinite period, but then again, maybe not).
Anyway, acquiring a non-transferable license to play said game using Steam is something less than ownership, which is why I will not be acquiring the game at the original stated offering price.
If you like Steam and value the benefits that come along with playing a game on that service, than you should a pay a licensing fee that matches that value. If that is the stated offering price for said game, then that is what you should pay.
I see a lot more value in games such as ME2 or Dragon Age that work out of the box without online activation. I know when I pay for those games I have the option to (i) play the game in the future (which for Steam games is only guaranteed for length of time that Steam is around and in its current form, rather than the amount of time I maintain the game disk in playable condition), and (ii) sell the game in the future (which can not be done on Steam).
Since I see diminished value in acquiring a license to play said game on Steam (or GFWL, BattleNet, or any other similar "service" being used for games these days), my price is going to be a lot lower. I know the trade-off is that I have to wait a while longer to play said game, but I have a backlog of games I need to play anyway. The market will meet my price eventually.
I think of myself as a very reasonable gamer.
I am willing to pay full retail to "own" a game, but if the publisher wants to sell me a license linked to my Steam account the terms of which can be modified at any time, I am going to pay a lot less.
What I resent is a product that is required to be linked to Steam. I don't see why publishers can't offer something similar to to the way they sold Dragon Age. You like Steam and you bought the game on Steam. I prefer owning physical media, and bought the game on disks. It appears we are both happy with the purchase. It just doesn't seem that difficult.
I don't hate Steam, I just don't trust that the terms of use won't change. I think it is useful for what it is. I have a Steam account with both major releases and indie games. Where I see trouble for the industry is that the games I have bought on Steam, Borderlands ($10), Bioshock ($5), Red Faction Guerilla ($5), I would have paid full retail for if they had reasonable DRM or they had not been linked to Steam.
You may joke about my enjoying waiting for "eventually". What publishers need to understand is that I (and I am assuming a lot of other gamers) have such a backlog of games that I can wait out "eventually" very easily. Any game purchase I make is a discretionary purchase, because I have literally dozens of games that I need to play that are probably every bit as much fun as said game.
I would be willing to meet publishers half way. I understand that publishers make more on digital distribution than on physical distribution, and I would be willing to pay more to own a physical copy of a game. I also don't have a problem with a publisher doing digital distribution first (to maximize profits), and then following that up with physical disks later (as I said, I can wait). For example, I don't understand why the Borderlands Game of the Year edition that was released did not have more reasonable DRM. I would have thought it would have been a great opportunity by the publisher to pick up sales they may have lost because of the original DRM scheme.
It just seems to me that any situation where a customer is willing to pay $40 or $50 for a product, but is instead paying $5 or $10 for the same product because of a lesser means of distribution (at least in my opinion) is flawed.
You have a customer who was ready to buy your product at retail price who instead will buy it for $5 due to the means by which you chose to distribute the game (having a Steam requirement that is). I guess any time you can frustrate your customers so that they are only willing to pay a small % of your original retail price, you have to do it.
