Support NeoGAF

[brian0057]

Games are products, not services.
Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar and should be ignored at all costs.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

I have no problem with GaaS, i do have a problem with how some (most really) are executed. Fortnite in particular is a bad game whose main appeal comes from social elements, and whose whole monetization is based around dark design and fomo. Its not the worst offender but its certainly still an offender.

That I can understand.
But truth is, a good GaaS would be mostly dependent on the social elements. Lots are f2p, so they have to get their money somewhere. And in case of f2p, buying microtransactions is optional.
Or like Fortnite you can buy a BP for like €10 and you can even earn enough Vbucks to buy the next pass.

I honestly don't see what's wrong with that and if anything, in case of Fortnite, it might be considered bad business practice, but the game itself isn't anywhere near bad. Objectively speaking.

Then there's also games like Genshin Impact, which are singleplayer. Don't know much about that game, but that too doesn't seem to be a bad game at all.

GaaS can easily exist next to Singleplayer releases without a need for all the knee-jerk reactions.

 

[Guilty_AI]

But truth is, a good GaaS would be mostly dependent on the social elements.

Not true. We have examples of successful GaaS with minimal to no social elements. Euro Truck Simulator 2 is a great example.

Lots are f2p, so they have to get their money somewhere. And in case of f2p, buying microtransactions is optional.
Or like Fortnite you can buy a BP for like €10 and you can even earn enough Vbucks to buy the next pass.
I honestly don't see what's wrong with that and if anything, in case of Fortnite, it might be considered bad business practice, but the game itself isn't anywhere near bad. Objectively speaking.

If you dwelve into how these are executed, you start seeing the dark design patterns, and the main issue. Like the use of premium currency and selling that currency in packs that are just not enough to buy certain things. Or how you can 'earn' enough premium currency, technically, but not practically.

Then there's also games like Genshin Impact, which are singleplayer. Don't know much about that game, but that too doesn't seem to be a bad game at all.

It uses gambling mechanics.

GaaS can easily exist next to Singleplayer releases without a need for all the knee-jerk reactions.

It can, but the negatives impacts are still felt on the other side. Like taking studios that made great SP games and forcing them to develop GaaS because its the new trendy thing. Thats why people hate them. And honestly its not even an issue with GaaS itself, just its modern iteration.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Not true. We have examples of successful GaaS with minimal to no social elements. Euro Truck Simulator 2 is a great example.

I never heard of that game, but that's probably the kind of game I was talking about when I mentioned Genshin Impact (GI might have been the wrong example apparently).

But I don't think Euro Truck Simulator is even comparable to something like Fortnite or Warzone.

If you dwelve into how these are executed, you start seeing the dark design patterns, and the main issue. Like the use of premium currency and selling that currency in packs that are just not enough to buy certain things. Or how you can 'earn' enough premium currency, technically, but not practically.

Yeah, but I think that's on the consumer.
And an entirely different discussion.

It uses gambling mechanics.

So? This is ultimately also on the consumer.

It can, but the negatives impacts are still felt on the other side. Like taking studios that made great SP games and forcing them to develop GaaS because its the new trendy thing. Thats why people hate them. And honestly its not even an issue with GaaS itself, just its modern iteration.

I wonder if "forcing" SP studios to create GaaS is an actual widespread problem and not the fear within a certain group of gamers.

And clearly going by the success of games like Fortnite, Warzone, Apex Legends, Genshin Impact etc the average consumer doesn't hate them.
It's just a vocal minority within the core gaming audience (which is a minority itself).

 

[Guilty_AI]

I never heard of that game, but that's probably the kind of game I was talking about when I mentioned Genshin Impact (GI might have been the wrong example apparently).

Est2 has been among the most played games on steam for almost a decade. Sure it doesnt compare with the top of the top in popularity like warzone or CS but that doesn't make it small.

Yeah, but I think that's on the consumer.
And an entirely different discussion.

So are hard drugs, but they're still illegal, for good reasons.

I wonder if "forcing" SP studios to create GaaS is an actual widespread problem and not the fear within a certain group of gamers.

Happened with Eidos, happened with Arkane, happened with Bioware, happened with many studios that got dissolved and put to work in other projects.

And clearly going by the success of games like Fortnite, Warzone, Apex Legends, Genshin Impact etc the average consumer doesn't hate them.
It's just a vocal minority within the core gaming audience (which is a minority itself).

The gaming market isn't small, neither are the people complaining about the current state of gaas going by the backlash games like Overwatch 2 and Diablo 4 received, or by the looming threat of regulation that started off from lootboxes.

GaaS is currently in a lot more of a precarious position than someone like Men_in_Boxes would like to admit. Be from the many critical eyes on some of its practices to oversaturation of the market, one that thrives on people's time investment on the game in the first place.

 

[Wonko_C]

Looks at poll results...

 

[Jigsaah]

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Gaas = trash wasn't the point I was addressing. You said there is no reason to fear gaas taking over the industry, when I illustrated some pretty good reasons. Want more examples? Konami, bungie, rocktar, epic games, valve. All single player catering studios that have divested resources mostly to gaas.

Epic...Fortnite's a great game, not pay to win. Rockstar, classic case of being too big to fail, but they also delivered onthe single player experience in GTA 5, I imagine the same will happen with GTA 6. Online is a whole other story. Bungie fell from grace. Destiny 2 is a great game, plagued by the remnants of Activision's ideals. Marathon I think is going to be free to play, so I am a bit worried about this one. Valve, what have they released. CS2? An upgrade of a 20+ year old game? Who cares? Konami, what are they releasing that's GaaS? I'm not aware of anything to be honest.

If GaaS does not always equal trash then why would you fear it in the first place? It's true, these studios are adopting GaaS strategies, however I don't think they will take over the industry. You have your bad actors...EA, Ubisoft, Bungie, Activision, various Korean publishers, I'd even throw WB in there just for Shadow of War, but you also have Larian. Even Bethesda did try with Fallout 76, we all know how that went and Starfield isn't GaaS. From Software, to my knowledge has never done GaaS, in over 20 years. I'm seeing that if some of these publishers do GaaS, its mainly where it belongs, in mobile.

Sony just gutted Naughty Dog of it's contractors. Some think this is so they can pivot from trying GaaS in TLOU. I say all this to be clear that I think both types of games will always have a place. So no, I don't fear it taking over the industry. I look at the games I bought this year alone. Lies of P, no Gaas. Baldur's Gate 3, GaaS free. Starfield GaaS free (for now, fingers crossed). Lords of the Fallen 2, GaaS-less. Spiderman 2, though I can't buy it...no GaaS. Armored Core 6, GaaS, where you at? Resident Evil 4 remake...GaaS? My point is that making GaaS games is not automatically a golden goose for all publishers. I think publishers know that.

Beside that point, even if GaaS were to become more and more prominent, I'd be more worried about games that do it wrong. Like Battlefront II wrong, Black Desert wrong, Honkai Star Rail and Genshin Impact wrong.

As I've said before, there are those who do it right. Warframe. Path of Exile, Fighting Games...to an extent, Valorant, New World, FFXIV. I don't even mind it in PubG or Apex Legends. Warzone treads a thin line but ultimately it's fine. Would my gaming experience be worse off without these games. You bet your ass it would. So no I don't fear GaaS games "taking over".

I don't see evidence of this being the case. Sony said they wanna do 10 games as GaaS offerings. You know what I think when I see this? Good luck, hopefully you do it right. I trust Sony enough to give them the benefit of the doubt to experiment. Let's see what happens.

 

[Tams]

Go shove your GAAS up your ASS.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Be from the many critical eyes on some of its practices to oversaturation of the market, one that thrives on people's time investment on the game in the first place.

If you were interviewed by Sony to become the next PlayStation CEO and said the above, you would be asked to provide data that supports your hypothesis.

There's simply no data to support the "oversaturated" argument. If anything is oversaturated, it's the traditionally priced game. This whole conversation wasn't a thing in 2010 or 2015 because SP games still dominated the market. This conversation is a reaction to the rising tide of Live Service.

The "GAAS is saturated" argument sounds good to people who don't want to see data. "Everyone already has their one game. No one is going to leave their one game because they've already invested so much. Look at this GAAS failure on the market. See, my hypothesis is right."

These claims are never backed up by data. They're only backed up by wishful thinking.

 

[Guilty_AI]

If you were interviewed by Sony to become the next PlayStation CEO and said the above, you would be asked to provide data that supports your hypothesis.

There's simply no data to support the "oversaturated" argument. If anything is oversaturated, it's the traditionally priced game. This whole conversation wasn't a thing in 2010 or 2015 because SP games still dominated the market. This conversation is a reaction to the rising tide of Live Service.

The "GAAS is saturated" argument sounds good to people who don't want to see data. "Everyone already has their one game. No one is going to leave their one game because they've already invested so much. Look at this GAAS failure on the market. See, my hypothesis is right."

These claims are never backed up by data. They're only backed up by wishful thinking.

The i ask you, where is this add-on money coming from? 3-4 games. Even on recent leaked documents it became clear a large portion of this content in the Playstation came from Call of Duty alone.

The reality of GaaS is that very few of them actually bring in the insane amounts of money these publishers are aiming for, the vast majority that tries to emulate them fall-flat, even ones coming from big publishers. Thats why the current GaaS market is doomed to fail, because unlike with SP games, they keep trying to eat into each other's market, so only the large fish are left. Eventually they'll fester, and everything comes crashing down.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The i ask you, where is this add-on money coming from? 3-4 games. Even on recent leaked documents it became clear a large portion of this content in the Playstation came from Call of Duty alone.

The reality of GaaS is that very few of them actually bring in the insane amounts of money these publishers are aiming for, the vast majority that tries to emulate them fall-flat, even ones coming from big publishers. Thats why the current GaaS market is doomed to fail, because unlike with SP games, they keep trying to eat into each other's market, so only the large fish are left. Eventually they'll fester, and everything comes crashing down.

You know what? We actually agree here. Hallelujah!!

However, I feel like I'm seeing the picture with 20/15 vision and you need some coke bottle glasses.

Look at the top graph I provided you. SP game revenue is stagnant. It's stagnant in a world of ballooning budgets. You're essentially in the movie Interstellar with Mathew McConaughey. It's getting harder and harder to wring profits out of SP games (see: The crash of the AA SP industry) and the only hope is to find a new earth in the stars.

The mission is dangerous. Many will fail. But everyone sees the incoming drought and those who make necessary preparations can thrive. Those who don't will die of thirst as budgets continue rising towards their revenue ceilings. If you look at the biggest gaming companies on the planet, more and more of them are multiplayer focused organizations. That trend ain't slowing anytime soon.

Every time you say "Fortnite is a bad game", it's actually an endorsement of the GAAS future. If Fortnite is a bad game, imagine what a mediocre game could do...or gasp... a good game?

We've seen study after study released showing how important socialization in games is with Gen Z. As millenials phase out of the industry, Gen Z is going to take up a bigger and bigger piece of the pie. Why would you spend 6 years of your companies time catering to the wrong group?

BTW: The idea that only GAAS games compete with one another is false. 10 SP AAA releases in one year will not generate 10x the revenue of 1 SP AAA release in one year. SP gamers have a finite budget too.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Look at the top graph I provided you. SP game revenue is stagnant. It's stagnant in a world of ballooning budgets. You're essentially in the movie Interstellar with Mathew McConaughey. It's getting harder and harder to wring profits out of SP games (see: The crash of the AA SP industry) and the only hope is to find a new earth in the stars.

All that means is budgets will recede, already are in a way. And where you're getting that the AA industry crashed? Its still thriving, in some ways more than the AAA SP industry.

The mission is dangerous. Many will fail. But everyone sees the incoming drought and those who make necessary preparations can thrive. Those who don't will die of thirst as budgets continue rising towards their revenue ceilings. If you look at the biggest gaming companies on the planet, more and more of them are multiplayer focused organizations. That trend ain't slowing anytime soon.

Every time you say "Fortnite is a bad game", it's actually an endorsement of the GAAS future. If Fortnite is a bad game, imagine what a mediocre game could do...or gasp... a good game?

We've seen study after study released showing how important socialization in games is with Gen Z. As millenials phase out of the industry, Gen Z is going to take up a bigger and bigger piece of the pie. Why would you spend 6 years of your companies time catering to the wrong group?

You're just assuming that what comes afterwards are more GaaS games on the style we have now, which isn't necessarely the case. Even Epic themselves understand this, which is why they keep investing in things like the Epic Store... or even Single Player games.

The only aspect of GaaS i see spreading and remaining in the industry are game updates and early access, but this is just a side-effect the web, and will keep existing for as long as the internet remains as is. But other things like monetization? The form of the games? All of these can, and will, change. Not "evolve" as you like to put it, merely change, possibly spread and divide. There isn't some epic dynamic online MMO waiting to replace Fortnite, or there may be, and we don't know when or where its coming from.

Its an uncertain and nebulous future. You know what isn't uncertain and nebulous though? SP buy-and-play-once games, there's always a market for those. Its not as profitable as a largely sucessful GaaS, but its safe. A guy in his basement working on his spare time can put out a great product that'll bring him revenue. Even mediocre games by larger corporations can make profits if the business model is done properly. Thats why they will never be replaced by any type of MP game.

BTW: The idea that only GAAS games compete with one another is false. 10 SP AAA releases in one year will not generate 10x the revenue of 1 SP AAA release in one year. SP gamers have a finite budget too.

You're talking about money. I'm talking about time. GaaS are much larger time investments than SP games, and nowadays the main thing most people in this market lack is time.

One person can buy and play these 10 SP games in a year, and then 10 more on the next, and the developers who made those will all get their money. However, a person cannot realistically play 10 service games at once, much less invest money in all of them, they'll end up staying with 1 or 2, because these games are designed to take up your time and make you keep playing at any cost.

What happens to the 8 other developers? Especially when the vast majority of people keep choosing the same games? And when even more people choose to flock to said games due to herd effect? Doesn't it get especially bad if these games are designed around player-to-player interactions to begin with? Thats the issue with the current GaaS market.

 

[Felessan]

GAAS gives anyone with empathy a bad taste.
By playing GAAS you support planned game addiction and the preying on ”whales” —addicted individuals whose problematic addiction supports the whole shebang

It's like saying that buying Ferrari or other luxury items is a "problematic addiction". For some they truly are, when you go outside your means, but mostly it's just a way to show off your money power.
Vanity is a core element of human nature, you can call it addiction, but than you need to call every basic human desire (good food, sex, etc) an addiction.

Games are products, not services.
Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar and should be ignored at all costs.

Ok, TV series, especially a very long ones, does not exists. Yeah, sure.

So are hard drugs, but they're still illegal, for good reasons.

Gacha games are not drugs. And even not gambling. Almost all modern gacha games have fixed guaranteed chance to get what you want.

The reality of GaaS is that very few of them actually bring in the insane amounts of money these publishers are aiming for, the vast majority that tries to emulate them fall-flat, even ones coming from big publishers. Thats why the current GaaS market is doomed to fail, because unlike with SP games, they keep trying to eat into each other's market, so only the large fish are left. Eventually they'll fester, and everything comes crashing down.

Around 10 of them brings more than 1 billion per year. Around 100 brings more than 100 million per year. It's a huge market - like 99% of mobile, 80-90% of PC and 25+% of console revenue are from gaas now.

 

[brian0057]

Ok, TV series, especially a very long ones, does not exists. Yeah, sure.

TV shows, apart from being art, are also products. Same goes for movies and music.
Remember that the next time you cheer for the death of physical media.

 

[Felessan]

TV shows, apart from being art, are also products. Same goes for movies and music.
Remember that the next time you cheer for the death of physical media.

Show running for 10+ years is hardly a product. It's ongoing service. You don't get finished product, you get a stream of small updates that constantly expands your show.
The concept behind "game asa service" is the same - you get regular updates (new series of TV show) those keep you hooked up to particular game.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Gacha games are not drugs. And even not gambling. Almost all modern gacha games have fixed guaranteed chance to get what you want.

Psychologists disagree, game designers too in fact.

Around 10 of them brings more than 1 billion per year.

Thats still very few.

Around 100 brings more than 100 million per year.

Thats the equivalent of a traditional game selling 1-2 million copies. Good for them, but not super impressive in ther larger picture.

In fact, i fully believe these smaller GaaS markets will live on very well, as they must have high turn-over rate and focus on niches with dedicated fanbases. What is doomed is the big GaaS market that clings to casual players and tries to milk them dry for all they're worth.

EDIT: On a side note, i request sources for these numbers.

 

[Danjin44]

Gacha games are not drugs. And even not gambling.

 

[Felessan]

Psychologists disagree

You have a proof? Some solid research on current era post-regulation gacha games?

Thats still very few.

It's much more than the classic games in the same category. CoD, FIFA, AC (and that's already a stretch, it took almost 1.5 years for Valhalla to reach 1 bil), probably 1-2 sleeping hits like Elden Ring/Hogwards/GTA near release - and that's all.

Thats the equivalent of a traditional game selling 1-2 million copies. Good for them, but not super impressive in ther larger picture.
In fact, i fully believe these smaller GaaS markets will live on very well, as they must have high turn-over rate and focus on niches with dedicated fanbases. What is doomed is the big GaaS market that clings to casual players and tries to milk them dry for all they're worth.

It's super impressive in the larger pictures. I doubt that every year even 30 normal games sell more than 2 million copies.
And this market expands for the last 20 years, and it's expansion is much faster than gaming market overall.

 

[Guilty_AI]

You have a proof? Some solid research on current era post-regulation gacha games?

Better, you can hear it from the mouth of developers themselves. Their very designers are thinking about this stuff when they make these games.

It's much more than the classic games in the same category. CoD, FIFA, AC (and that's already a stretch, it took almost 1.5 years for Valhalla to reach 1 bil), probably 1-2 sleeping hits like Elden Ring/Hogwards/GTA near release - and that's all.

It's super impressive in the larger pictures. I doubt that every year even 30 normal games sell more than 2 million copies.
And this market expands for the last 20 years, and it's expansion is much faster than gaming market overall.

Before we go on with this, i want receipts. Where did you got these numbers?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

All that means is budgets will recede, already are in a way. And where you're getting that the AA industry crashed? Its still thriving, in some ways more than the AAA SP industry.

I've heard numerous leaders in the industry say "rising development costs are an increasing problem". I haven't heard anyone say "Rising development costs will recede." I'm not sure you have much of a point here.

You're just assuming that what comes afterwards are more GaaS games on the style we have now, which isn't necessarely the case. Even Epic themselves understand this, which is why they keep investing in things like the Epic Store... or even Single Player games.

So Epic Games is investing more into SP today? I don't see that.

The only aspect of GaaS i see spreading and remaining in the industry are game updates and early access, but this is just a side-effect the web, and will keep existing for as long as the internet remains as is. But other things like monetization? The form of the games? All of these can, and will, change. Not "evolve" as you like to put it, merely change, possibly spread and divide. There isn't some epic dynamic online MMO waiting to replace Fortnite, or there may be, and we don't know when or where its coming from.

If you're not seeing patterns and evolution throughout the history of games, you're not paying attention close enough. Games are matching up better and better with human nature. It's a slow process but we are traveling to a specific destination.

Its an uncertain and nebulous future. You know what isn't uncertain and nebulous though? SP buy-and-play-once games, there's always a market for those.

True, the market for those games continues to get smaller and smaller relative to the multiplayer market.

Its not as profitable as a largely sucessful GaaS, but its safe.

It's safe like the sinking Titanic was safe before it submerged. As costs continue to rise, profits will continue to shrink unless developers can figure out new revenue streams. Epic Games sold the Gears of War franchise to Microsoft back in the day because they noticed this very trend. Smart move.

A guy in his basement working on his spare time can put out a great product that'll bring him revenue. Even mediocre games by larger corporations can make profits if the business model is done properly. Thats why they will never be replaced by any type of MP game.

I'm not saying SP is going away. I'm saying the marketshare will continue to dwindle. We're about 3 - 4 years away from Live Service multiplayer constituting around 80% of the market. Companies will still make money swimming in the 20% pool. Just not the big ones.

You're talking about money. I'm talking about time. GaaS are much larger time investments than SP games, and nowadays the main thing most people in this market lack is time.

Money and time are finite resources. We can see that SP has reached saturation because the revenues have flatlined. Flatlining revenue with increasing costs is a bad sign.

One person can buy and play these 10 SP games in a year, and then 10 more on the next, and the developers who made those will all get their money. However, a person cannot realistically play 10 service games at once, much less invest money in all of them, they'll end up staying with 1 or 2, because these games are designed to take up your time and make you keep playing at any cost.

No company makes decisions using this logic. The reason PlayStation doesn't produce 10 AAA games per year is because the market can't sustain it. When SP gamers have too many options, the less exciting AAA games struggle. The SP market is saturated because the data shows us so.

What happens to the 8 other developers? Especially when the vast majority of people keep choosing the same games? And when even more people choose to flock to said games due to herd effect? Doesn't it get especially bad if these games are designed around player-to-player interactions to begin with? Thats the issue with the current GaaS market.

The nature of the market is changing. It's not 2005 anymore. The companies making games for an aging + dwindling market will struggle. The companies that make games for the growing + social market will thrive.

 

[Blade2.0]

GAAS will eventually fail. People only have so much time in a day and you'll eventually get to a boiling point. It's why so many GAAS games have already failed. You might get lucky and be the next fornite, you're more likely to be the next hyperscape, though. It's why investing in lottery tickets isn't considered the best way to have a successful future.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I've heard numerous leaders in the industry say "rising development costs are an increasing problem". I haven't heard anyone say "Rising development costs will recede." I'm not sure you have much of a point here.


So Epic Games is investing more into SP today? I don't see that.


If you're not seeing patterns and evolution throughout the history of games, you're not paying attention close enough. Games are matching up better and better with human nature. It's a slow process but we are traveling to a specific destination.


True, the market for those games continues to get smaller and smaller relative to the multiplayer market.


It's safe like the sinking Titanic was safe before it submerged. As costs continue to rise, profits will continue to shrink unless developers can figure out new revenue streams. Epic Games sold the Gears of War franchise to Microsoft back in the day because they noticed this very trend. Smart move.


I'm not saying SP is going away. I'm saying the marketshare will continue to dwindle. We're about 3 - 4 years away from Live Service multiplayer constituting around 80% of the market. Companies will still make money swimming in the 20% pool. Just not the big ones.


Money and time are finite resources. We can see that SP has reached saturation because the revenues have flatlined. Flatlining revenue with increasing costs is a bad sign.


No company makes decisions using this logic. The reason PlayStation doesn't produce 10 AAA games per year is because the market can't sustain it. When SP gamers have too many options, the less exciting AAA games struggle. The SP market is saturated because the data shows us so.


The nature of the market is changing. It's not 2005 anymore. The companies making games for an aging + dwindling market will struggle. The companies that make games for the growing + social market will thrive.

And all of what you're saying is relying on the assumption SP games are dwindling. All you brought us was some projection Sony made and revenue split from a 3 year period chart that barely changed and was taken in the middle of covid. You need a lot more data to back you up when so many SP games have been hugely successful this year and the last.

And some corpo saying rising costs are a problem while simultaneously having record profits making single player games doesn't sound convincing. Or rather, this is just thrown around when they want to justify $70 prices.

No company makes decisions using this logic. The reason PlayStation doesn't produce 10 AAA games per year is because the market can't sustain it.

I'm not talking about X specific company. I'm talking about the market as a whole. Its 10 companies making 10 different games and coexisting. Thats how a healthy market works. A single company sweeping the table with a game that must be played "forever" does not create a healthy market enviroment.

When SP gamers have too many options, the less exciting AAA games struggle. The SP market is saturated because the data shows us so.

Again, where the hell are you taking this "data" from? We had 3 large scale rpgs launch just one month from each other and they all sold pancakes.

 

[brian0057]

Show running for 10+ years is hardly a product.

It is when you like having property rights.
I'll buy the seasons on DVD or Blu-Ray and short of the studios coming to my house and breaking my kneecaps for my copies, there's nothing they can do about it.

It's ongoing service. You don't get finished product, you get a stream of small updates that constantly expands your show.
The concept behind "game asa service" is the same - you get regular updates (new series of TV show) those keep you hooked up to particular game.

Are you framing this as a good thing? Because it's not.
Miss me with that Sword of Damocles of studios/devs/publishers being able to either change or remove the products (yes, products) I paid for, for any reason they see fit.
Buy physical (the real kind, not the "a Steam code on a box" kind) and stop rewarding this behaviour.

 

[Hero of Spielberg]

If popular games that can be played as a single player receive ongoing support, content and options to play with others and I'm not forced to play with others or buy MTX then I really don't mind.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

And all of what you're saying is relying on the assumption SP games are dwindling. All you brought us was some projection Sony made and revenue split from a 3 year period chart that barely changed and was taken in the middle of covid. You need a lot more data to back you up when so many SP games have been hugely successful this year and the last.

You realize your lack of any data whatsoever compares unfavorably to the data I provided right? Also, consider the following...when a GAAS studio struggles, certain SP gamers rejoice and call it proof that the market is saturated. Why don't they do this when Volition closes or the studio who made Immortals of Aveum closes? There's a numbers of high profile SP games that flop every year, but for some reason, the anti GAAS crowd never attributes those failures to "market saturation". Ask yourself why.

And some corpo saying rising costs are a problem while simultaneously having record profits making single player games doesn't sound convincing. Or rather, this is just thrown around when they want to justify $70 prices.

Is it just "corpos" saying it or are a variety of people surrounding the industry saying it? Again, I ask you to look at the AA bubble that burst over the last 10 years. In todays world, the only SP games making money are the big AAA tentpole releases. That's not a healthy model.

I'm not talking about X specific company. I'm talking about the market as a whole. Its 10 companies making 10 different games and coexisting. Thats how a healthy market works. A single company sweeping the table with a game that must be played "forever" does not create a healthy market enviroment.

You'll never convince me that forcing players to buy games that get stale fast, and games with dismal completion rates are healthy for the industry. FOMO hype marketing preys on player psychologies. These are dark methods.

Again, where the hell are you taking this "data" from? We had 3 large scale rpgs launch just one month from each other and they all sold pancakes.

What 3 RPG's released one month from each other that sold pancakes? Surely you're not talking about Starfield with no sales data, and the DLC to 2077 of which we have no sales data?

Don't even respond to all that. Just tell me when you think the GAAS market became saturated and what data you're working from.

 

[jayj]

I think live services is going to be a trend for the most part, people just don't have the time for a multitude of games like that, which makes everything very trend dependent, and trends have a tendency of dying out and changing quickly.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Don't even respond to all that. Just tell me when you think the GAAS market became saturated and what data you're working from.

Just try and think about successful new GaaS games from the last 2 years and you'll get your answer. And i'm not refering to mid-sized stuff that barely makes as much as a traditional SP, i'm refering to big players, the kind of money-bringer that justify all of your ascertions that its the only logical path for any company to follow.

Also, try thinking about the most recent de facto successful cases of that type. Stuff like Genshin Impact or Honkai Star Rail. How does that compare with your notion of "evolution" of GaaS?

 

[8BiTw0LF]

I love GaaS! Can't wait for XDefiant, Off The Grid and The First Descendant to release.

If Helldivers 2 has a 3-5 year plan it could be big. That's the whole idea of live service games - content for years to come. If there's content there will be a community - if it's free content, the community will be even bigger (look at Fortnite, Apex, Genshin, Warframe). I'll be happy to throw a couple 100 bucks at skins, for a game that gives me free content for years.

But I also live in one of the most communist countries in the world where I pay 70% of my salary in taxes (when all expenses are combined), so I get the idea behind "paying it forward". I'll happily buy stuff for a free game, so it keeps getting content and so poor people also can play on the same terms as me.

F2P Live Service is the future!

 

[RoboCain]

I don't play multiplayer other than for the rare achievement hunting here and there. I don't think multiplayer is the problem, but the shit load of executives trying to push new and innovative ways of taking money from the weak minded. This means duller games and more companies budgets wasted chasing trends and so on. Needless to say, if studios come up with good ideas, that's good. If they don't they fail, and maybe single player games will be back.

Luckily for us, this hobby is full of passionate people who never let things go. Just like physical format, single player games are the heart of gaming and will be produced even if it means play AA or Indie games.

Also, if you are like me and hate being nickel and dimed by these companies, just by a PC. No online fees, maximum backwards compatibility, almost 100% peripheral compatibility, you can back up your own save files, no need for subscriptions, you can choose your hardware, etc.

 

[Griffon]

Just like when every dev wanted to make an MMO after wow, the gaas genre can only work for so many games at once.

There's already been quite a few bombs (high budget ones), and it's only gonna get worse.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Just try and think about successful new GaaS games from the last 2 years and you'll get your answer. And i'm not refering to mid-sized stuff that barely makes as much as a traditional SP, i'm refering to big players, the kind of money-bringer that justify all of your ascertions that its the only logical path for any company to follow.

I guess I would respond by asking you two more questions...

1. So you believed that GAAS was UNDERsaturated ~2020, 2021? Do you remember if you entered threads like these defending the future growth of GAAS at that time?

2. What games released in the last two years did you think looked like modern multiplayer hits, but fizzled on the market due to oversaturation? I think it's fairly obvious at this point that multiplayer titles greenlit before the BR explosion in 2018 were going to struggle in ways that modern multiplayer games won't.

Also, try thinking about the most recent de facto successful cases of that type. Stuff like Genshin Impact or Honkai Star Rail. How does that compare with your notion of "evolution" of GaaS?

I don't understand your question here.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

The i ask you, where is this add-on money coming from? 3-4 games. Even on recent leaked documents it became clear a large portion of this content in the Playstation came from Call of Duty alone.

The reality of GaaS is that very few of them actually bring in the insane amounts of money these publishers are aiming for, the vast majority that tries to emulate them fall-flat, even ones coming from big publishers. Thats why the current GaaS market is doomed to fail, because unlike with SP games, they keep trying to eat into each other's market, so only the large fish are left. Eventually they'll fester, and everything comes crashing down.

All Sony needs, are 1 or 2 GaaS IPs that become a hit.
They're planning on having 10+ GaaS IPs out and they have very talented studios, not to mention Bungie.
They have a high chance of succeeding in getting the added revenue they seek.

At the end of the day, the GaaS IPs are meant for added revenue in order to keep their strategy of releasing their AAA-titles going without running their company into the ground.

Even Nintendo came out recently basically stating that development time and cost keeps growing.

You can't expect Sony to just start pushing traditional releases, likely lowering the overall quality and ruining their biggest strength.

 

[Felessan]

Better, you can hear it from the mouth of developers themselves. Their very designers are thinking about this stuff when they make these games.

There is no explanation for your thesis about "being a drug". Yes, MP games at large and service games in particular (not only f2p, but paid as well) use psychological knowledge to optimize their revenue by catering to basic desires and thus making game more enjoyable and attractive. Corps use cognitive psychology tricks almost everywhere where there is a contact with consumer, and not all of them destructive (though some of them are, and it's a role of regulator to be a watchdog got those).
But this is not a drug - restaurant next door do the same - they try to optimize their food to better cater to carnal pleasure (being delicious) so you came more often and spend more money. Girls do the same against guys (and vice versa). Like everyone do the same - there are million examples, often unconcious ones, where people use standard gaps in human behavior to get better deal. But there are no physiological or psychological dependency, it's just catering to already established behavioral human patterns.

PS. These particular videos are so oldschool and entry-level (practices described are from mid-2000). You can make a quick cash-grab game on them, but you will struggle make a big game. Things like p2w and p2survive are value destructive.

Before we go on with this, i want receipts. Where did you got these numbers?

For usual AAA SP and MP games data is public and regulary announced. Western-centric gaas numbers are known/easy to derive. For eastern-centric gaas you can get mobile revenue estimation at App Annie. Don't use SensorTower - they are completely inaccurate outside US.

 

[Danjin44]

At the end of the day, the GaaS IPs are meant for added revenue

That heart of my problem with GaaS games, they are not meant to give players better experience but rather is meant to make more money for devs.

All I want is a full game from get go that I can play completely offline and maybe one or two story DLC, I dont even need expensive graphics, Armored Core VI graphics no where near "high tech" and yet it one of the most fun game I played this year.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

That heart of my problem with GaaS games, they are not meant to give players better experience but rather is meant to make more money for devs.

All I want is a full game from get go that I can play completely offline and maybe one or two story DLC, I dont even need expensive graphics, Armored Core VI graphics no where near "high tech" and yet it one of the most fun game I played this year.

Fair enough.

I don't mind GaaS at all. Any business can do whatever they want.
If I dislike something, I just won't buy it. So I don't really see the problem.

 

[Danjin44]

Fair enough.

I don't mind GaaS at all. Any business can do whatever they want.
If I dislike something, I just won't buy it. So I don't really see the problem.

I personally just avoid them all together, especially the ones that don’t let me play them offline.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

I personally just avoid them all together, especially the ones that don’t let me play them offline.

That's an option too.

Since it's that easy and there are still more than enough singleplayer releases, it all seems like a whole bunch of nothing.

Maybe if your favorite franchise turns into Gaas, sure, it would suck.
But the way I see it, is that everything is replaceable. There's always something else to play.

 

[Danjin44]

That's an option too.

Since it's that easy and there are still more than enough singleplayer releases, it all seems like a whole bunch of nothing.

Maybe if your favorite franchise turns into Gaas, sure, it would suck.
But the way I see it, is that everything is replaceable. There's always something else to play.

As long as I get my proper offline SP games then I dont care about GaaS existing, same way I dont care about sports games.....But if most games turn in to GaaS games then that would just kill entire gaming as a hobby for me.

 

[devilNprada]

We've seen study after study released showing how important socialization in games is with Gen Z. As millenials phase out of the industry, Gen Z is going to take up a bigger and bigger piece of the pie. Why would you spend 6 years of your companies time catering to the wrong group?

I don't disagree with this; you have a huge and valid point... My Gen Alpha (12 year old) spends easily as much annually on fortnite, as I do on all my games combined. He cannot play SP story driven games (unless I co-op with him) he has to play social games with his friends. So it only gets worse after Gen Z.

Having said that though.. He's still in school, has friends from sports teams, cousins, etc. that he can play with.... What happens when they all grow up and move on. I think gaming habits change with age as does the social aspect of it, and your example group is too young to say this is their future... I agree it's the gaming future of "young" people sure, technology has allowed it to be like never before... But Gen Z will not always be young people.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Having said that though.. He's still in school, has friends from sports teams, cousins, etc. that he can play with.... What happens when they all grow up and move on. I think gaming habits change with age as does the social aspect of it, and your example group is too young to say this is the future... I agree it's the gaming future of "young" people sure, technology has allowed it to be like never before... But Gen Z will not always be young people.

That's always been true though. Make this post in 2000...2010...2015...today etc...

The tide towards social multiplayer games has risen dramatically over the last 20 years. My question to you would be...what's going to make the tide recede?

The reason social multiplayer gaming has taken over is because technology and design have finally broken out of their cages. Human beings are the most social being on earth and this medium is FINALLY able to exploit that. Multiplayer is not shackled to 56k modems and small arena sized levels anymore. The cap has come off.

 

[devilNprada]

That's always been true though. Make this post in 2000...2010...2015...today etc...

The tide towards social multiplayer games has risen dramatically over the last 20 years. My question to you would be...what's going to make the tide recede?

The reason social multiplayer gaming has taken over is because technology and design have finally broken out of their cages. Human beings are the most social being on earth and this medium is FINALLY able to exploit that. Multiplayer is not shackled to 56k modems and small arena sized levels anymore. The cap has come off.

Oh I agree there is no going going back... but I would ask you, because I really don't know...
When my kid is 40 will he be playing the latest social multiplayer game with other 40 year olds, or with 12 year olds?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Oh I agree there is no going going back... but I would ask you, because I really don't know...
When my kid is 40 will he be playing the latest social multiplayer game with other 40 year olds, or with 12 year olds?

If humans are the most social animal on earth, your 40 year old kid will (statistically) be playing a social game that appeals to 40 year olds. The need for social interaction may wane as we get older but I doubt at any rate that doesn't give social games a huge advantage over non social games.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I guess I would respond by asking you two more questions...

1. So you believed that GAAS was UNDERsaturated ~2020, 2021? Do you remember if you entered threads like these defending the future growth of GAAS at that time?

Who cares what i thought then, that doesn't matter to the conversation now.

2. What games released in the last two years did you think looked like modern multiplayer hits, but fizzled on the market due to oversaturation?

Oversaturation of the GaaS market comes from the fact a single game can eat up most of a player's time, and every big publisher tries to follow trends and emulate previous hits, meaning you get many games of a single type that directly compete with each other for the player's full gaming time. BR is a great example of an oversaturated segment. Everyone tried to do BR at some point as it was a proven concept, how many succeded? How many succeded recently?

The only ones that have any chance to begin with are the ones that do different things. And the ones that do different things may found some success because they carve out a niche, but will hardly grow to the level Fortnite of CoD unless they catch a lightning in a bottle.

I don't understand your question here.

Your ideas of evolution for live service games do not fit what actually has been gaining traction. You always try to convince us the next hit will need to step up in terms player-to-player interaction or some huge dynamic complex online enviroment.

Now, i'll give you one example of recent success case for a GaaS, as in a big hitter, since you seem to lack the knowledge of those despite trying to pose as some specialist on the topic: Diablo Immortal. That was Blizzard's most profitable title launched in recent times, made $500 million in 11 months from its release year in 2022.

Its a game that plays exactly like it did 20 years ago and has none of the complex bullshit or "evolution" you keep trying to sell. Thats why the current iteration of the GaaS market is doomed to go, its clearly headed away from multiplayer when you look at whats actually been successful on the segment in recent times.

Ironically, you actually may be correct, the "GaaS revolutions" may very well attract single player gamers, because the future of GaaS is single player games to begin with, social elements taking a secondary role. I still won't play them if they enforce online connection though.

 

[devilNprada]

If humans are the most social animal on earth, your 40 year old kid will (statistically) be playing a social game that appeals to 40 year olds. The need for social interaction may wane as we get older but I doubt at any rate that doesn't give social games a huge advantage over non social games.

So you are saying he will simply have more gaming peers than adults today...
Would you agree that more adults do not play video games than do? (not including mobile that's another topic)
And if you do; do you think that will continue be the case in the future?

But getting back to GAAS... I am saying as we age and get busy lives (and jobs that actually pay) there is less demand for subscription services.

Fortnite skins work really well as rewards in motivating my kid to do better in other outside activities like school and sports, or as gifts, but as a parent would not want to see that become a normal everyday monthly expense to having a child somewhat like Netflix and Disney have become....

 

[Danjin44]

the "GaaS revolutions" may very well attract single player gamers,

 

[Guilty_AI]

I mean, you play Monster Hunter. As long as the game doesn't enforce online connection nor is on your face with the monetization you'd probably play it if it interested you.

 

[Danjin44]

I mean, you play Monster Hunter. As long as the game doesn't enforce online connection nor is on your face with the monetization you'd probably play it if it interested you.

But one thing is great about SP games is that it end with satisfying conclusion, I dont want a game keeps going with consistent update. I loved MH Rise's Sunbreak but fell off of that game because I couldn't keep up with all updates, because Monster Hunter is not the only game I play.

Again all I want is proper SP game that I can play offline and "sometimes" give me 1 or 2 story DLCs.....thats it!

 

[Guilty_AI]

But one thing is great about SP games is that it end with satisfying conclusion, I dont want a game keeps going with consistent update. I loved MH Rise's Sunbreak but fell off of that game because I couldn't keep up with all updates, because Monster Hunter is not the only game I play.

Again all I want is proper SP game that I can play offline and "sometimes" give me 1 or 2 story DLCs.....thats it!

Well, you wouldn't have to keep playing even if it kept updating anyway. You'd still play it at some point however, possibly come back to it in a year or two if they released some big expansion that worked as a sequel.

I feel the biggest point of contentment isn't GaaS itself but how obnoxiously the game presents itself. There's a huge difference between a Single Player game that respects your time, your experience and also happens to sell you expansions and other extra content - to a Single Player game that throws an add-on store on your face, forces you to be constantly connected and is designed around stretching out your playtime as much as possible.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Who cares what i thought then, that doesn't matter to the conversation now.

The reason why I asked is because I'm trying to get you to self reflect. You're saying "The GAAS market is oversaturated" but when I ask you to think about when it was undersaturated, your thought process becomes hazy. This spotlight allows us to see if your position is actually informed by data or it's more simple in nature.

Oversaturation of the GaaS market comes from the fact a single game can eat up most of a player's time

We've gone over this repeatedly. This statement of yours was always true. It was just as true 20 years ago as it is today. In that time, GAAS has become the dominant form of gaming. You need to progress your thinking here.

The only ones that have any chance to begin with are the ones that do different things. )

Yes! You read the OP!

Your ideas of evolution for live service games do not fit what actually has been gaining traction. You always try to convince us the next hit will need to step up in terms player-to-player interaction or some huge dynamic complex online enviroment.

Now, i'll give you one example of recent success case for a GaaS, as in a big hitter, since you seem to lack the knowledge of those despite trying to pose as some specialist on the topic: Diablo Immortal. That was Blizzard's most profitable title launched in recent times, made $500 million in 11 months on its release year in 2022.

The difference between our thinking is that you seem to be cherry picking specific examples while I'm looking at the larger trend.

Diablo Immortal is a mobile game. Steamcharts reached a concurrent player record this year. If GAAS became oversaturated over the last 2 years, as you say, why are more and more people playing GAAS?

Ironically, you actually may be correct, the "GaaS revolutions" may very well attract single player gamers, because the future of GaaS is single player games to begin with, social elements taking a secondary role. I still won't play them if they enforce online connection though.

Humans are the most social animal in earth's history. Nothing we do is by ourselves. Good luck competing against social multiplayer games by isolating the player.

So you are saying he will simply have more gaming peers than adults today...
Would you agree that more adults do not play video games than do? (not including mobile that's another topic)
And if you do; do you think that will continue be the case in the future?

But getting back to GAAS... I am saying as we age and get busy lives (and jobs that actually pay) there is less demand for subscription services.

Gamers have always preferred multiplayer on the whole. The limiting factor was technology and design. Now that we can create huge worlds with a variety of things to do, multiplayer can slingshot past SP in terms of adoption. It already has but the lead will grow considerably over the next 10+ years.

 

[Guilty_AI]

We've gone over this repeatedly. This statement of yours was always true. It was just as true 20 years ago as it is today. In that time, GAAS has become the dominant form of gaming. You need to progress your thinking here.

And you still don't get it. Many GaaS are designed around taking up all of your time, making sure you play nothing but that. It leaves less times for other GaaS that try to do the same.

SP games do not, you can play multiple of them per year.

The difference between our thinking is that you seem to be cherry picking specific examples while I'm looking at the larger trend.

There are more. Genshin Impact, Honkai Star Rail, both released in the last few years, thats 3 already. Can you think of a single fully MP GaaS that reached the height of those released after 2020? I can only think of one and it still wasn't as profitable as those others.

Diablo Immortal is a mobile game.

Because GaaS is vastly most successful in the mobile space than on console/pcs. More suckers there. Its impossible to talk about it without refering mobile .

Here, since you seem to love charts

Steamcharts reached a concurrent player record this year. If GAAS became oversaturated over the last 2 years, as you say, why are more and more people playing GAAS?

And they're all old-ass games. Its saturated precisely because no one can properly get in with those there, taking up all players and their time.

Humans are the most social animal in earth's history. Nothing we do is by ourselves. Good luck competing against social multiplayer games by isolating the player.

Yet the most profitable form of gaming involves staring at a tiny screen and matching figure patterns by yourself.

Gamers have always preferred multiplayer on the whole. The limiting factor was technology and design. Now that we can create huge worlds with a variety of things to do, multiplayer can slingshot past SP in terms of adoption. It already has but the lead will grow considerably over the next 10+ years.

And where are those games? And why are they losing to the likes of Genshin Impact, a game you can play entirely by your lonesome self?

Through this entire discussion you've yet to cite a single successful MP GaaS released after 2020.