Support NeoGAF

[Felessan]

No, you misunderstand. One massive advantage of GAAS is that it encourages innovation and punishes sameness in a way the old model didn't.

You can pump out clones of games using the old model because the old model entertained players for a week or two before they moved on. You can make the same game with slightly better production values because players are left in constant states of starvation. You can't do that with GAAS. It's why all the innovation in gaming recently has been found in the GAAS space. SP games are for sequels and pretty graphics. GAAS is for new concepts.

From personal observation - GAAS start to innovate ONLY when they becomes hits/mega-hits. Before that they try to be "the best craft" aka the most polished other's widely popular ideas. And only when they got a money (a huge lot of them) they try to make something different.
Look at WoW - it started as a classic MMO of that time, carefully crafted and adding some insightfull changes, but nothing breakthrough. Only when it became a behemoth it started to add innovative things that really pushed whole gaming further (battlegrounds that later evolved to moba, skill-based combat with semaphors, zoning etc which is now everywhere etc). Early vanilla was very plane, pretty much oldchool bullet sponge "raise&run" bosses, world gank-pvp, excessive grind as raid prerequisites etc as core gameplay. Most of these were discarded later.
Look at Genshin - it started as high production value BotW gaas clone, it was quite bland and straightforward at launch. Only when it stabilize at high revenue numbers it significantly upped production value and start to expand and experiment.

This is actually how Mihoyo produce stable success - they make a game with known formula (BotW, turn-based JRPG, Persona with Honk3d combat) that pretty sure will attract enough people for it to be successfull.
And then they start to do experiments what people might like, and add success stories to all future games.

 

[yurinka]

GAAS doesn't rely on shallow concepts like art style. PUBG, Roblox, Lethal Company, Valhiem are all ugly as sin. They succeeded because they meaningfully innovated in some particularly important ways. Art style looks good in magazine pictures but it gets old fast.

One of the marketing tasks I did when working on F2Ps was ASO (app store optimization). This is, to analyze things like the percent of people who watches the store page of the game and clicks to download, and to keep iterating its texts, screenshots, tags, search results, videos or game logo icon with different A/B tests to first increase the amount of players who reach to the game page with a search and also to improve that conversion percentage. All that also studying what the other games did and what did work or didn't for them.

ASO and SEO were considered even for deciding the name and subtitle of the game. And not only in my company, this is pretty common.

In case of the store conversion, the key are the screenshots and videos. In case of the same game, just improving the screenshots and videos chosen, chosing better what they show and explain, how they do it etc., that reached improvements of up to 30-40%.

The game icon/key art are also very important, specially for when a player discovers the game randomly in the store maybe because it appears in a store featuring, sales promotion, ranking, etc. or in a search. That conversion also can be bumped up to around 30-40%. There's a lot of iteration of icon and key art and tests made with players both before and after putting them in the game. Even subtle changes in the image make a difference.

In the early stages of preproduction, there's also focus testing/playtesting made with the artstyle of the game with many people from the target user showing them mockups of store screenshots of the game with different artstyles or artstyles variants to take note of what would work better with that player type. There's also important differences there.

Same goes with paid ads, there are huge differences on click conversion depending on the preview image. Or with normal videos, depending on the thumbnail or what's in the video itself there are big differences on click rate or completion % of the video.

I mean, game visuals and artstyle are key, to the point that they heavily influence even if they click or not in an ad or store, or how quickly people stops viewing a video. It's something scientifically proven.

Regarding GaaS normally not having high end visuals, it is because they aim to reach the biggest amount of players possible, so need to make sure they run well enough in lower end PCs/mobiles/consoles. Because most people play on low/medium end devices, not in a 4090. Going for high end visuals means in most cases leaving many devices/players behind.

Lot's of commercially successful GAAS hits that pushed creative concepts in their design.

Most GaaS, like most non-GaaS games, are creatively basically clones of other games or mixes of them. This includes most of the commercially successful GaaS and non-GaaS games. Most really innovative games are ignored or frequently even hated.

A vague platitude that ignores the uniqueness of GAAS. People try to muddy up, and downplay how special Live Service is (because they don't like it) but it has very real advantages that are pushing gaming forward.

No, it's just their definition, which covers the many times of GaaS that there have been all these years. GaaS/live service games are what they are: games designed to have (more or less depending on performance) post launch support to evolve over time.

To have or not post launch support/content has nothing to do with uniqueness or not. To have or not post launch support has nothing to do with being more or less innovative. Specially having over two decades of thousands of GaaS of many different types.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

One of the marketing tasks I did when working on F2Ps was ASO (app store optimization). This is, to analyze things like the percent of people who watches the store page of the game and clicks to download, and to keep iterating its texts, screenshots, tags, search results, videos or game logo icon with different A/B tests to first increase the amount of players who reach to the game page with a search and also to improve that conversion percentage. All that also studying what the other games did and what did work or didn't for them.

ASO and SEO were considered even for deciding the name and subtitle of the game. And not only in my company, this is pretty common.

In case of the store conversion, the key are the screenshots and videos. In case of the same game, just improving the screenshots and videos chosen, chosing better what they show and explain, how they do it etc., that reached improvements of up to 30-40%.

The game icon/key art are also very important, specially for when a player discovers the game randomly in the store maybe because it appears in a store featuring, sales promotion, ranking, etc. or in a search. That conversion also can be bumped up to around 30-40%. There's a lot of iteration of icon and key art and tests made with players both before and after putting them in the game. Even subtle changes in the image make a difference.

In the early stages of preproduction, there's also focus testing/playtesting made with the artstyle of the game with many people from the target user showing them mockups of store screenshots of the game with different artstyles or artstyles variants to take note of what would work better with that player type. There's also important differences there.

Same goes with paid ads, there are huge differences on click conversion depending on the preview image. Or with normal videos, depending on the thumbnail or what's in the video itself there are big differences on click rate or completion % of the video.

I mean, game visuals and artstyle are key, to the point that they heavily influence even if they click or not in an ad or store, or how quickly people stops viewing a video. It's something scientifically proven.

I think you're confusing the mobile market with the console/PC market. Visuals might be important in Match 3 games, but there are too many ugly successes in the console/PC space for that to be true, at least to the same degree.

Regarding GaaS normally not having high end visuals, it is because they aim to reach the biggest amount of players possible, so need to make sure they run well enough in lower end PCs/mobiles/consoles. Because most people play on low/medium end devices, not in a 4090. Going for high end visuals means in most cases leaving many devices/players behind.

All games try to reach the widest possible audience. That's how money is made. The reason why GAAS doesn't is because the players don't demand it the way SP gamers do. Multiplayer gamers are design and mechanics oriented. They are a deeper breed. Visuals are largely a superfiscial aspect of gameplay experience and don't benefit the player after the first 15 to 30 minutes. High end visuals exist to get you to buy the game, not enjoy the game.

Most GaaS, like most non-GaaS games, are creatively basically clones of other games or mixes of them. This includes most of the commercially successful GaaS and non-GaaS games. Most really innovative games are ignored or frequently even hated.

That's always been true. I'm talking about the vast majority of creative, innovative successes released over the last 10 or so years mostly coming from the GAAS space.

No, it's just their definition, which covers the many times of GaaS that there have been all these years. GaaS/live service games are what they are: games designed to have (more or less depending on performance) post launch support to evolve over time.

I was referring to your position that people like to play games they already know.

To have or not post launch support/content has nothing to do with uniqueness or not. To have or not post launch support has nothing to do with being more or less innovative. Specially having over two decades of thousands of GaaS of many different types.

This is incorrect. Post launch support is connected to titles that hit in the market. Post launch support generally does not come to inferior products that slot next to better titles (See: Concord). That's one of the reasons why GAAS is such a force.

 

[yurinka]

I think you're confusing the mobile market with the console/PC market. Visuals might be important in Match 3 games, but there are too many ugly successes in the console/PC space for that to be true, at least to the same degree.

I'm not confusing anything, visuals are one of the most important things to sell a game in any platform. Most people runs away from games that look like shit.

In stuff like the recent Steam Next Fest, when people discovers new games, if in a few seconds don't like what they see they quickly move away and skip the game just because they don't like its genre/subgenre, theme/setting, art style, color palette, visuals, performance, animation, character design, etc.

This is incorrect. Post launch support is connected to titles that hit in the market. Post launch support generally does not come to inferior products that slot next to better titles (See: Concord). That's one of the reasons why GAAS is such a force.

As I said, post launch support in GaaS is tied to the game's performance. If it performs well enough, they continue developing more as long as the numbers of the game keep allowing it. If it doesn't perform well enough they reduce the scope of the post launch support or even cancel it. If it performs under certain red line it even gets shut down, sometimes even before the final worldwide release (when in case of Early Access or F2P game they make soft launches in a few countries before launch).

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'm not confusing anything, visuals are one of the most important things to sell a game in any platform. Most people runs away from games that look like shit.

In the traditional SP space, yes. In GAAS multiplayer? Well...

GAAS succeeds largely based on "Is it fun to play", not "Does it look fun to play?" Big difference.

In stuff like the recent Steam Next Fest, when people discovers new games, if in a few seconds don't like what they see they quickly move away and skip the game just because they don't like its genre/subgenre, theme/setting, art style, color palette, visuals, performance, animation, character design, etc.

Successful GAAS benefit more from word of mouth than random storefront discovery.

As I said, post launch support in GaaS is tied to the game's performance. If it performs well enough, they continue developing more as long as the numbers of the game keep allowing it. If it doesn't perform well enough they reduce the scope of the post launch support or even cancel it. If it performs under certain red line it even gets shut down, sometimes even before the final worldwide release (when in case of Early Access or F2P game they make soft launches in a few countries before launch).

We agree on that. My main point is you can't succeed with being average in the GAAS space like you can in the SP space.

 

[cireza]

It is mainly the publishers actions that rendered AAA unattractive as they are constantly making remakes, remasters and low risk games. Pretty sure that brand new AAA games can still succeed and attract a lot of people.

 

[tommyleelynn]

Well, maybe if you could let all your signature studios keep releasing games in a reasonable pace, there wouldn't be any shrink.

“Keep” is a strong word considering this has been the norm for them for the past 7 years.

 

[SportsFan581]

Try not to jump up and down too hard there @ Men_in_Boxes

Devastating news if true.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Try not to jump up and down too hard there @ Men_in_Boxes

Devastating news if true.

We're going to Mars. We're watching the caterpillar turn into the butterfly.

SP gaming got us this far. Live Service is the next stage of the medium.

My theory seems to have been right this whole time. I am a God.

 

[SportsFan581]

My theory seems to have been right this whole time. I am a God.

Any ideas on the upcoming lottery numbers this week?

Unfortunately, the tide does appear to be moving in the direction of GaaS, at least as far as future investment from the biggest publishers

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Any ideas on the upcoming lottery numbers this week?

Unfortunately, the tide does appear to be moving in the direction of GaaS, at least as far as future investment from the biggest publishers

My superpower only comes from knowing the future of the video game industry.

I am the lamest X Man.

 

[ArtHands]

maybe the PS fans are buying full priced games on other platforms?

 

[yurinka]

In the traditional SP space, yes. In GAAS multiplayer? Well...

GAAS succeeds largely based on "Is it fun to play", not "Does it look fun to play?" Big difference.

Successful GAAS benefit more from word of mouth than random storefront discovery.

We agree on that. My main point is you can't succeed with being average in the GAAS space like you can in the SP space.

There's no difference in SP and GaaS: in both cases if it looks good enough and if it is fun enough to play it are the two most important questions.

Same goes with word of mouth: it's important to both because in terms of marketing the most powerful one is when someone you trust suggest you to play a specific game. This is way more effective than any ad, trailer or anything the dev can put in th game page.

Regarding being average, many average games have been successful. That's the case of most successful games that aren't big hits independently if GaaS or not. There are also many average game that tank, too. Being a great game gives it more chances of being successful, but not 100%. Again, independently if GaaS or not.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Im sure they do, I mean look at their PS5 output. It’s barely been anything. No surprise they are going balls deep on service games.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

There's no difference in SP and GaaS: in both cases if it looks good enough and if it is fun enough to play it are the two most important questions.

Nope, there's a massive difference. Successful SP games earn the bulk of their money in the first few weeks on the market. They spend an inordinate amount of dollars on marketing pre release because the psychology behind the sale is if they can get players to imagine having fun with their product. "Oh Spiderman looks so cool. I bet I'd have fun swinging around that game." The other model generates revenue on consistent play and if people see their friends constantly playing the game.

Fancy visuals benefit the first model significantly more than the second model because it's a shallow gimmick. All that needs to be done is to get the player to buy the game. They don't care if you play the game. One of the reasons 30fps sticks around in the SP space so long is that it looks good in images, but isn't fun to play.

Same goes with word of mouth: it's important to both because in terms of marketing the most powerful one is when someone you trust suggest you to play a specific game. This is way more effective than any ad, trailer or anything the dev can put in th game page.

Wrong again. Word of mouth benefits MP much more than SP. You only need to look at the marketing budgets of MP games vs SP games to see that as well as the long term revenue performance of games in both models.

Regarding being average, many average games have been successful. That's the case of most successful games that aren't big hits independently if GaaS or not. There are also many average game that tank, too. Being a great game gives it more chances of being successful, but not 100%. Again, independently if GaaS or not.

Can't be average in the Live Service space. You either have to be one of the best in the genre or you have to create a new genre. Mediocrity only works in the short term (SP). Long term engagement requires a higher degree of excellence.

 

[Felessan]

Nope, there's a massive difference. Successful SP games earn the bulk of their money in the first few weeks on the market. They spend an inordinate amount of dollars on marketing pre release because the psychology behind the sale is if they can get players to imagine having fun with their product. "Oh Spiderman looks so cool. I bet I'd have fun swinging around that game." The other model generates revenue on consistent play and if people see their friends constantly playing the game.

Successfull gaas games get the biggest MAU increase in the first few weeks. If game fail at start - it's very hard to turn things around, same as with SP games.

Wrong again. Word of mouth benefits MP much more than SP. You only need to look at the marketing budgets of MP games vs SP games to see that as well as the long term revenue performance of games in both models.

Marketing budgets are higher on MP front

Can't be average in the Live Service space. You either have to be one of the best in the genre or you have to create a new genre. Mediocrity only works in the short term (SP). Long term engagement requires a higher degree of excellence.

You can. Even a mediocre game will have it's fans and if budgets structured properly - they will be enough to keep the game afloat.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Successfull gaas games get the biggest MAU increase in the first few weeks. If game fail at start - it's very hard to turn things around, same as with SP games.

That's false. A high percentage of successful GAAS games grow months and years after launch. That basically never happens in SP.

Marketing budgets are higher on MP front

False.

You can. Even a mediocre game will have it's fans and if budgets structured properly - they will be enough to keep the game afloat.

Nope.

 

[Three]

I think you're confusing the mobile market with the console/PC market. Visuals might be important in Match 3 games, but there are too many ugly successes in the console/PC space for that to be true, at least to the same degree.

Are you saying PC/Console players care less about graphics than mobile players? Wtf

 

[Felessan]

That's false. A high percentage of successful GAAS games grow months and years after launch. That basically never happens in SP.

Sales (total) of SP games also grow every month. But single month gain structure is similar whether it's a copies sold for SP or MAU gained for gaas

False.

Yes. GaaS marketing budgets are huge and can get up to 80% of total budget.

Nope.

Yes. If you don't follow close gaas games doesn't mean less famous games not exist.
Like Tower of Fantasy considered "average" game (there are a lot of love-hate about this game). Nowhere near Mihoyo games in terms of fame or income generated. But it still operational and mildly successful.

 

[yurinka]

That's false. A high percentage of successful GAAS games grow months and years after launch. That basically never happens in SP.

Like SP games, GaaS in most cases have their biggest DAU or MAU in the launch peak. You can double check it in steamdb for the Steam games.

It is true that -due to post launch content being added and in most cases also for being MP or having a very long progression- the GaaS have a longer user retention, meaning the players play on average during a longer period of time than in SP games.

In some very rare exceptions, not in the case of all successful GaaS at all, there has been cases where their retention is so good that time after launch, the amount of new players lost is smaller than the ones acquired, so they grow their DAU or MAU at that period.

There's also similar very rare exceptions in SP games, where after launch they have a peak higher than the launch one due to being a somewhat unknown title until discovered by some big youtuber/streamer and its sales get skyrocketed, or because some bit sale or price cut, some update that fixes the game, etc.

Wrong again. Word of mouth benefits MP much more than SP. You only need to look at the marketing budgets of MP games vs SP games to see that as well as the long term revenue performance of games in both models.

Lol.

I worked almost 20 years in games and worked in over 40 titles (some GaaS, some not) in different areas, one of them being marketing in a AAA publisher, as an example I was the head of my area in my studio and had weekly meetings with the rest of teams to share best practices and ideas and we shared with each other our numbers. Or another example, I was part of what was internally called the 'E3 war room' of the publisher.

I worked in GaaS games -in case of a PC/browser one- that achieved things like over 50M players, over 3M DAU or in social media communities of a game I've been in charge of growing them from to zero over 8M followers.

As part of my long career I have a lot of friends or former coworkers in many different studios of all kinds, from indie to top AAA or top mobile studios from many countries and we often talk about stuff.

As an example, next month I'll host a round table in a small local industry event I coorganize, with panelists like studio heads of Larian, IOI or (this guy ended as First VP) King, who had been in some other important companies before.

Let's say I have a well informed idea of how game marketing and metrics work. I even lectured in multiple universities and events about this topic.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Like SP games, GaaS in most cases have their biggest DAU or MAU in the launch peak. You can double check it in steamdb for the Steam games.

Successful GAAS make the bulk of their revenue past launch.
Successful SP make the bulk of their revenue at launch.

Also, most of todays top GAAS games have significantly higher MAU today than they did at launch as well. Again, this shows the superiority of the GAAS model. It's more organic and player centric than the old model.

It is true that -due to post launch content being added and in most cases also for being MP or having a very long progression- the GaaS have a longer user retention, meaning the players play on average during a longer period of time than in SP games.

Right.

In some very rare exceptions, not in the case of all successful GaaS at all, there has been cases where their retention is so good that time after launch, the amount of new players lost is smaller than the ones acquired, so they grow their DAU or MAU at that period.

In the GAAP (Platform) present, and future, it happens more than you think. Platforms slowly grow over time...like Fortnite, Roblox, Minecraft, DotA 2 etc...

There's also similar very rare exceptions in SP games, where after launch they have a peak higher than the launch one due to being a somewhat unknown title until discovered by some big youtuber/streamer and its sales get skyrocketed, or because some bit sale or price cut, some update that fixes the game, etc.

The rate of occurrence are significantly different. The only real examples I can think of are in the indie space for SP games and possibly certain Nintendo games. It's much more common in GAAS as those games improve over time while the old model does not.

Let's say I have a well informed idea of how game marketing and metrics work. I even lectured in multiple universities and events about this topic.

Please stop trying to tell people there's no difference between SP and MP then.

 

[yurinka]

Successful GAAS make the bulk of their revenue past launch.
Successful SP make the bulk of their revenue at launch.

It depends. In case of GaaS that manage to last for a long period of time yes, the ones who stop their support in the first year nope.

Regarding SP, this was true in the past. Nowadays, having multiple discounts or price cuts around half or more is made outside the launch.

Also, most of todays top GAAS games have significantly higher MAU today than they did at launch as well.

No. As I said you can double check in places like steamdb that this isn't the case (looking at CCU, that isn't the same than MAU but helps you to follow the active userbase of a game and if it's bigger at one point or another one).

The peak in most cases is the launch, and most players leave the game in less than a month. As I said there are several exception for games with great user retention and user acquisition, but normally the userbase peak is at the launch window.

Please stop trying to tell people there's no difference between SP and MP then.

There are several -and important- differences between SP and MP, or between GaaS and non-GaaS, in different areas, or between the different platform types (console, PC, mobile, browser, VR etc).

Even several ones regarding each area (production, development, marketing, player behavior etc).

But in other things, like the ones I mentioned, they are pretty much the same.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It depends. In case of GaaS that manage to last for a long period of time yes, the ones who stop their support in the first year nope.

No one is trying to make a GAAS game that stops support in the first year. The reason GAAS are made is because long revenue tails are extremely enticing to businesses.

Regarding SP, this was true in the past. Nowadays, having multiple discounts or price cuts around half or more is made outside the launch.

Still not honest to say the long term performance between GAAS and SP are "exactly the same". That's a crock.

No. As I said you can double check in places like steamdb that this isn't the case (looking at CCU, that isn't the same than MAU but helps you to follow the active userbase of a game and if it's bigger at one point or another one).

CSGO has higher MAU today than it did at launch.
DotA 2 has high MAU today than it did at launch.
PUBG has higher MAU today than it did at launch.
Naraka Bladepoint has....I could go on but you get the point.

The peak in most cases is the launch, and most players leave the game in less than a month. As I said there are several exception for games with great user retention and user acquisition, but normally the userbase peak is at the launch window.

Most of todays top GAAS games have higher MAU today than they did at launch. Check SteamDB.

There are several -and important- differences between SP and MP, or between GaaS and non-GaaS, in different areas, or between the different platform types (console, PC, mobile, browser, VR etc).

Even several ones regarding each area (production, development, marketing, player behavior etc).

But in other things, like the ones I mentioned, they are pretty much the same.

You claimed visual appeal is just as important in GAAS as it is in SP. That's just wrong.

 

[yurinka]

No one is trying to make a GAAS game that stops support in the first year. The reason GAAS are made is because long revenue tails are extremely enticing to businesses.

True, GaaS (outside the yearly series like EA FC, NBA2K or MLB) are made to hopefully last for years.

What I mean is that many of them are killed/their support ends within the first year because the dev/publisher sees they don't have good enough metrics to continue alive. In fact, there's a percent of them that get cancelled/killed before the final worldwide release because of bad numbers in soft launch or early access.

Still not honest to say the long term performance between GAAS and SP are "exactly the same". That's a crock.

I didn't say that.

CSGO has higher MAU today than it did at launch.
DotA 2 has high MAU today than it did at launch.
PUBG has higher MAU today than it did at launch.
Naraka Bladepoint has....I could go on but you get the point.

Yes, as I said there's a tiny percentage of exceptions whose active user base grows over time. As an example, in the case of fighting games there's Tekken 7 as example of that.

Most of todays top GAAS games have higher MAU today than they did at launch. Check SteamDB.

No, the active userbase in almost all GaaS decrease over time. As example in fighting games, every single one that is GaaS except Tekken 7.

You claimed visual appeal is just as important in GAAS as it is in SP. That's just wrong.

Not only for GaaS, I claimed it is for all type of games. I also explained how it is scientifically proven and how it gets improved in companies.

If players think the game doesn't look good enough or that isn't fun enough for them they'll skip it. These are the two main decision points for a player to join a specific game, or to leave it.

I didn't mention it before but there are also countless surveys made about this, many of them public. It's one of the many questions often asked in playtestings or focus testings.

Another one is the (marketing) channel that convinced the player to get the game, or games in general. Which as I mentioned, as I mentioned before the most powerful one is the suggestion from someone that the player trusts (a friend, a specific streamer, a specific journalist/reviewer, a specific user from social media etc): the word of mouth.

 

[KungFucius]

That was the prediction for CY26 before.
Now it's a predicted 50% drop in the games market. From $15b to $7.4b. The games industry is struggling and weirdly people are oblivious or cheering it on.

Its not just a predicted drop, they are projecting people moving to GaaS shit and bullshit addons. They are trying to say hey, we don't need to make as many games because the real money is in microtransaction bullshit. I am hoping in 2025 they see this was a mistake.