• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Are you excited for the 'games as a service' future?

T

texhnolyze

Banned
Games as a service, this might be a new thing for some people. But I think that it has been a thing for more than a couple of decades. Yes, games as a service is just a new form of online games or MMOs. MMO as a genre has been in a decline in the past few years, and it saddens me. I've been a fan of MMOs, jumping from one to another since the early 2000s. And when I thought that the genre is dying, a new trend is rising. Games as a service.

This time, it looks promising, as the big devs and publishers are joining in one after another, and most of them aren't just available on PC like MMOs did in the past. Ubisoft, EA, Bethesda, Rockstar, Square Enix, even Microsoft and Nintendo have been publishing games as a service. I'm not sure about Sony, though it'll only a matter of time until they finally join and announce one.

While games as a service won't be as big as proper MMOs, they still have their own good points. Some games have failed, some others are currently savoring their success, and some others are still brainstorming how to make a successful game as a service. With the big guys already joined (or joining) the fray, and the success of games like GTA Online, Overwatch, Destiny, Rainbow 6 Siege, and even early access games like PUBG, the future is definitely bright for the fans of the genre.

I'm not saying that every game has to be a service. Even only one game as a service from each major developer would be wonderful, I think. They may sustain one or maybe two games as a service for a whole generation of console. Games that we can go back anytime we wanted to.

I am excited, how about you Gaf?
 
Schrade

Schrade

Member
Nope. Software as a Service and Games as a Service are big nonos to me. That's why Microsoft is dead to me for many of their products.
 
A

Aters

Member
As long as the services are good, why not?
Right now I see illegal gambling in the name of "micro transaction", it can fuck right off.
 
I

illamap

Member
I play games for mostly for gameplay and preferably online and not for story, so yes. In Gaas titles gameplay must be top notch for them to succeed, so it suits my preferences.
 
K

Kuroi Gogeta

Member
Nah. Really not a fan of how the industry tries to sell you things that aren't physical. I could go on all day but maybe I shouldn't since I hear there's a defense force for everything on gaf
 
O

Omikaru

Member
I'm more of a fan of single player games, so GaaS makes me worried, especially when single player games that I've paid money for try to cash in on the GaaS monetisation model. For all that it had going for it, Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, to use an example, really soured me on the experience with its microtransactions.

That said, every now and then I do like an online game. The last I played was FFXIV and I'll probably go back again one day, so I do understand the allure of them. I just hope people keep playing deep single player games; I've had three excellent ones this year thanks to Persona 5, NieR Automata and Breath of the Wild, and I'd hate to lose games like that.
 
P

ps3ud0

Member
Nope - hope any publisher that starts relying on them for most of their catalogue goes under. When so much of the cost of releasing a game is marketing, there needs to be a paradigm shift in how the industry works.

ps3ud0 8)
 
SolVanderlyn

SolVanderlyn

Thanos acquires the fully powered Infinity Gauntlet in The Avengers: Infinity War, but loses when all the superheroes team up together to stop him.
As a huge fan of complete single player packages, and someone who barely ever goes online... no.
 
I

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
no, because regardless of what these corps want to say, it compromises game development.

After FF15, who really expects SE to bother to ship a whole game anymore if they can just add onto it later and get people to pay?
 
K

Kthulhu

Member
I don't have a problem with it for multiplayer focused titles so long as they don't resort to microtransactions. As long as single player and indie games are free from it then I'm fine.
 
S

secretanchitman

Member
Not at all. I wish they would give a complete game at launch and then post-launch content is totally free with DLC being strictly cosmetic worst case.
 
B

bluexy

Member
On one hand, I hate microtransactions in games that are full-price. I hate rewards in-game that are unearned. And I hate the idea that content is cut and parsed into different forms of DLC in order to maximize profit as opposed to streamline throughput to the consumer.

That said, I do love online games that are able to provide a steady stream of content to the players in a way that makes it feel like the world is moving forward. I also understand that that kind of service requires nontraditional forms of income.

I'm a supporter of subscription fees for MMOS and expansion passes are growing more tolerable as publishers remove bloat-DLC in favor of content of substance. But as ever it feels like as consumers grow more complacent with these things, publishers decide that's the perfect opportunity to ask for more.

Am I excited about the future of Games-As-A-Service? Honestly, I don't know. As ever, I guess the good games will override the bad parts of the paradigm. But I can't say I'm really comfortable yet.
 
T

texhnolyze

Banned
GamerJM said:
No. It works for some games but I'd rather it not envelope the whole industry.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it should be the industry standard for every games. I think one game as a service from each of the big devs is a good thing for people who enjoy them. They wouldn't be able to maintain multiple games at the same time anyway. Unless if you're Ubisoft, I guess.
 
B

Bluth54

Member
I've been living with a GaaS since December 2007, playing Team Fortress 2 which is of course one of the Granddaddies of non-MMOs GaaS (and lootboxes).

I do hope we get a good mix of single player focused games and games as a service.
 
R

RedSwirl

Junior Member
Like I said in another thread, Games-As-A-Service feels like what console developers should have always been doing as far as multiplayer games are concerned. It's basically an evolved form of the PC game release model.

The problem is nobody can figure out how to get this to work for singleplayer games, at least not on consoles.
 
G

GamerJM

Banned
texhnolyze said:
I'm not saying that it should be the industry standard for every games. I think one game as a service from each of the big devs is a good thing for people who enjoy them. They wouldn't be able to maintain multiple games at the same time anyway. Unless if you're Ubisoft, I guess.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily agree with that in that respect though. For example look at GTA5 Online, I'm sure it's terrific from Rockstar from a business perspective but it's taking away resources that could probably be spent creating single-player focused experiences which is something a lot of enthusiast gamers want.

I think it makes sense for devs that make games that are already multiplayer-focused, though. For example I think basically all fighting games should 100% be games as a service, constant updates for several years instead of endless "super," editions like what ASW still continues to do.
 
T

Tohsaka

Member
Nope, no interest in any of that. Once I finish a game I move onto another one, I don't like playing the same thing forever with drip-feeds of DLC and loot boxes.
 
C

CountAntonius

Member
Constant updates for years for multiplayer oriented games I enjoy? Yes. I absolutely love this future and aside from a few indie and souls games it's all I really play anymore.
 
F

Fracas

#fuckonami
It all depends on the pricing. There have been positives and negatives in the industry's exploration of it so far. XBL and PSN charging for online play is garbage even with the added games, but things like Origin Access are great if you like the catalogue.
 
F

FlutterPuffs

Member
Not my kind of thing, but if the kids like it then fine.

Just hope there's future offline single player games for old farts like me.
 
E

Espada

Member
In a word? No.

Games as a service offers us precious little benefit versus the outsized benefits the publishers get. It's a business model concerned more with exploiting customers than providing a quality, standalone product.
 
Suburban Thug

Suburban Thug

Member
Depends on the game and if it is implemented well. Rock Band is the best (personal) example that comes to mind while something like Destiny could use some work from what I have heard.
 
T

texhnolyze

Banned
Inuhanyou said:
no, because regardless of what these corps want to say, it compromises game development.

After FF15, who really expects SE to bother to ship a whole game anymore if they can just add onto it later and get people to pay?
Click to expand...

GamerJM said:
I don't necessarily agree with that in that respect though. For example look at GTA5 Online, I'm sure it's terrific from Rockstar from a business perspective but it's taking away resources that could probably be spent creating single-player focused experiences which is something a lot of enthusiast gamers want.

I think it makes sense for devs that make games that are already multiplayer-focused, though. For example I think basically all fighting games should 100% be games as a service, constant updates for several years instead of endless "super," editions like what ASW still continues to do.
Click to expand...

I think that's a legitimate concern. But I think big devs like Rockstar should've been able to develop a new game alongside their already established game as a service, if they wanted to. Managing and updating the games aren't as resource heavy as developing new ones. If we take a look at other company like Ubisoft, they do manage it.
 
D

Dueck

Banned
I like the idea of a homogenized library, like Steam and iTunes, for the consoles. Only MS seems remotely interested in adopting this approach though. If everything became part of a subscription though, I'd definitely find a new hobby. I heard down at the malt shoppe that cup-and-ball is the bees knees. Milhouse certainly makes it look exciting too.
 
K

kromeo

Member
No, no game outside of FFXIV can hold my interest beyond about 80 hours

Never been particularly interested in multiplayer since I was a kid playing local co op with friends
 
A

alt27

Member
No.

I do like destiny a lot but that's really only the game of that type I have time for . Don't want to be flooded with similar titles and industry shifting to those type of titles . One from each publisher is fine , to give choice but don't want to be flooded by them .

Still mainly buy single player games or at least games that don't require a huge amount of online cooperation to get through it .
 
Z

Zap Rowsdower

Banned
No, because I enjoy single-player games far more and I have a feeling if it becomes industry standard it would be more of anti-costumer fiascos like Mankind Divided than it being as well done as new Hitman.
 
R

RecRoulette

Member
I'm excited to continue ignoring major games I really don't care about (Persona, Horizon, etc) to keep putting money into Overwatch.
 
T

Terrell

Member
To a degree, I appreciate what these kind of games do. So when it's done because it actively improves the experience beyond the basic package, I can appreciate it, particularly for multiplayer titles.

But when it's done for crass and predatory commercial gain (like loot boxes and micro-transactions) or to parse out a normally whole experience into smaller pieces through DLC season passes for content that's already complete in a blatant and insulting manner, a line needs to be drawn.

The frustrating part to me is GaaS business models applied to games that don't need it when there are games that should have been like this since the inception of console internet (annual instalment franchises, for example, that don't warrant constant retail packages, such as Madden). It's this inconsistency that makes all GaaS attempts that aren't done at no extra charge appear to be cynical cash grabs to the majority population of gamers.
 
T

ThoseDeafMutes

Member
I don't mind some things that are sort of halfway there. The Paradox model is that you have a base game, then you bring out a series of expansion DLCs (extra cosmetic content also available for sale in most of their games, although in HoI4 it's all bundled), at a rate of 1-3 per year depending on the exact game. But every time there's a new update, they bring a lot of the new features to people who only own the original game. When someone is hosting an online match, the host sets the DLC - if the host owns all of it, everyone who plays with them (including people who don't own the content themselves) get to use it anyway.

It's nice because the game doesn't stop working for you if you stop paying money, and even if you only buy the original release you still get bug fixes, improvements and (some) new features multiple times per year for several years to come. It doesn't fragment the playerbase for multiplayer either. The company gets a constant stream of revenue that doesn't cost them that much to put out, but gives them an incentive to iterate and iterate on the core game until it's polished to a mirror sheen and extremely feature/content rich. The downside is that the steam store page looks like fucking train simulator after 3-4 years on the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Gaming Industry is going against the current to force live service games.
Opinion 2
70
3K
DaGwaphics replied
What's your go to Live Service game?
2
91
2K
ManaByte replied
70% of developers worry about the live service model’s sustainability, survey shows
Game Dev 2 3
129
6K
Men_in_Boxes replied
[UPDATE] 3DS and Wii U software online services to end on April 8 | Pokemon Bank and Poke Transporter to remain online
News
0
624
Thick Thighs Save Lives replied
Devolver co-founder talks about competing with live service AAA titles for players' time and why indies may have a harder time on Xbox and PlayStation
Opinion Business Game Dev
10
856
Hypereides replied
Top Bottom