This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

User Info: KillerTruffle

KillerTruffle
1 month ago#41
khunki posted...
Pray tell why Steam would just sit by and let ISPs cut them out of the market?

When an ISP has the option to hold traffic hostage unless each customer pays extra for that traffic, potentially generating millions in extra revenue, and each ISP can do that individually to their own customers, what exactly could Steam/Valve do about it? They can't exactly afford to pay the ransom fee to each ISP themselves, and their biggest defense - net neutrality - is being thrown out the window. So if you ran Steam, how would you actually keep ISPs from doing this?

khunki posted...
And Sam's Club doesn't let you into the store without a membership card and it's because of their prices. https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Saving-Money/2015/1013/Does-Walmart-or-Sam-s-Club-have-the-better-deals.

How would this apply to a digital market place like Steam?

https://i.imgur.com/OcCpkah.gif

Shall I remind you of your original statement?

khunki posted...
No company will charge you to use its STORE.
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23

User Info: khunki

khunki
1 month ago#42
KillerTruffle posted...


Shall I remind you of your original statement?


I forgot how pedantic you love being. A company will only charge you for using its store if you are willing to pay and the only way you will pay is if you're getting something back. Steam won't do that unless they started offering free games like Origin Access or something.

KillerTruffle posted...

When an ISP has the option to hold traffic hostage unless each customer pays extra for that traffic, potentially generating millions in extra revenue, and each ISP can do that individually to their own customers, what exactly could Steam/Valve do about it? They can't exactly afford to pay the ransom fee to each ISP themselves, and their biggest defense - net neutrality - is being thrown out the window. So if you ran Steam, how would you actually keep ISPs from doing this?


If a company was holding "traffic hostage" for Steam users then Steam users would find a different ISP. It would provide an incentive for other ISPs to push forward and advertise themselves as the preferred ISP for Steam users. If I was running Steam and had to do anything, it would be to work with cooperative ISPs; paying "ransom" wouldn't even come into the equation.
X

User Info: vlado_e

vlado_e
1 month ago#43
Biceptual posted...
Probably will make VPN service even more mandatory. And more costly.

VPN gets subscription to everything. You subscribe to the VPN. Get to access everything and mask identity. VPN price goes from a couple bucks a month to a hundie. :/

Uh, your ISP would still be your ISP. Sure, you might get to mask your traffic by going through VPN but they will know you are using a VPN. Throttling or even blocking that is not still entirely feasible - since your traffic doesn't magically disappear from your ISP. That's pretty much why they are called that, they provide your internet service.
We do what we must / because we can. / For the good of all of us. / Except the ones who are dead.

User Info: -CJF-

-CJF-
1 month ago#44
The problem is most ISPs have a monopoly on specific areas and there isn't a whole lot of choice, so it's not like users are just going to be able to change to a different ISP if one starts throttling, especially if the competition is doing the exact same thing. But I'm not going to jump to any conclusions and start worrying yet. I don't really believe it would benefit ISPs to start throttling their users or charge them more for specific things. The value of the internet is not in the service itself but the reasons why we want it. Entertainment is a big part of that reason and it tends to be a major bandwidth hog. If they make it unusable or ridiculously expensive people will raise hell until it gets changed. Personally I'd rather go back to paying for physical media than pay a premium on streaming. It's already bad enough we have bandwidth caps with some ISPs.

User Info: KillerTruffle

KillerTruffle
1 month ago#45
khunki posted...
If a company was holding "traffic hostage" for Steam users then Steam users would find a different ISP.

You must imagine that Steam users live in a magical world where they have a dozen different ISPs available to pick from. The *VAST* majority of the country is not like Baskin Robbins for ISP selection. There aren't 21 flavors. A lot of places are lucky to have two options, and half the time, one of those is satellite, with horrible latency and upstream bandwidth.

khunki posted...
It would provide an incentive for other ISPs to push forward and advertise themselves as the preferred ISP for Steam users.

This would be true... IF there were actually any sort of proper competition in the ISP market. There's not. ISPs will even go as far as to form noncompete agreements with each other, basically slicing up the market like a pie and each taking different pieces, so they can all be free to price gouge all they want, due to lack of competition.

khunki posted...
If I was running Steam and had to do anything, it would be to work with cooperative ISPs; paying "ransom" wouldn't even come into the equation.

Meanwhile, you lose your customer base, because again, it doesn't matter for crap what ISPs you choose to work with - you have to work with the ones your customers have access to, or you lose access to those customers. People can't freely switch ISPs, and Steam sure as hell can't control what "cooperative" ISPs will provide them access to their customers.

The ISPs in this equation hold *all* of the power. On both ends. Net neutrality worked to limit that some, and prevent abuse, but nope. I feel like you seem to frame all of your arguments in an imaginary world where everything is ideal, rather than looking at how things actually work. You did it in your arguments trying to show how trickle-down economics work, and you're doing it here, where you imagine people actually have the ability to choose their ISP.
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23

User Info: kobalobasileus

kobalobasileus
1 month ago#46
khunki posted...
If a company was holding "traffic hostage" for Steam users then Steam users would find a different ISP.

Haw. Haw. Haw.

This is 'Murrica, where any given citizen is LUCKY to have ONE broadband provider. "Find a different ISP" absolutely fails as an argument because there are typically no other options besides the local incumbent monopoly.

User Info: Nixemo

Nixemo
1 month ago#47
No, and that's what's great. I can vote with my wallet. If ISPs f*** over consumers, I will cancel my subscription. I can live without the internet and its various services and have plenty of other things to occupy my time. Surely you all do too?
"Staying in the same place, just staying out the time,
touching from a distance, further all the time."

User Info: KillerTruffle

KillerTruffle
1 month ago#48
Nixemo posted...
No, and that's what's great. I can vote with my wallet. If ISPs f*** over consumers, I will cancel my subscription. I can live without the internet and its various services and have plenty of other things to occupy my time. Surely you all do too?

You're lucky. I need internet access at home for more than just entertainment. We handle lots of business things online, keep in touch with friends and family, I need it for work, and I even need my WiFi to receive CAD pages properly for emergency calls, since I live in a cellular blind spot. So much today depends on internet that it really does need to be classified as a common carrier utility.

Can some people do without it? Yep. Some people can do without electricity too. But the vast majority can't if they intend to remain part of society/civilization.
"How do I get rid of a Trojan Horse?" -Sailor_Kakashi
"Leave it outside the gates of Troy overnight." -Davel23

User Info: khunki

khunki
1 month ago#49
kobalobasileus posted...
khunki posted...
If a company was holding "traffic hostage" for Steam users then Steam users would find a different ISP.

Haw. Haw. Haw.

This is 'Murrica, where any given citizen is LUCKY to have ONE broadband provider. "Find a different ISP" absolutely fails as an argument because there are typically no other options besides the local incumbent monopoly.

KillerTruffle posted...

You must imagine that Steam users live in a magical world where they have a dozen different ISPs available to pick from. The *VAST* majority of the country is not like Baskin Robbins for ISP selection. There aren't 21 flavors. A lot of places are lucky to have two options, and half the time, one of those is satellite, with horrible latency and upstream bandwidth.


So...the ISPs can basically charge you whatever they want right now, anyway? So, what are you complaining about? They could decide to charge you more and call it a "special package" or they could decide to charge you more and call it the "basic package".

Edit: Seems like your problem is not repeal of Net Neutrality but a lack of choice in ISPs.
X

User Info: steve_madsci

steve_madsci
1 month ago#50
Nixemo posted...
No, and that's what's great. I can vote with my wallet. If ISPs f*** over consumers, I will cancel my subscription. I can live without the internet and its various services and have plenty of other things to occupy my time. Surely you all do too?


This is a joke right?

The Internet provides more news than print and television combined. People rely on email and social media for communication more than the telephone. If you have a job or attend school you're basically required to have Internet access to communicate with your employer/teachers. More companies than ever will only accept resumes transmitted via the Internet.

So yeah, you can live without the Internet; you can also live in a cave and use a horse and buggy to travel into town to sell your wares, but if you want to participate in civilized society, the Internet is non-optional.
  1. Boards
  2. PC
  3. Would you pay $9.99 a month for Steam?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived