Support NeoGAF

[Poetic.Injustice]

Single player only games are truly going the way of the dodo in the western market for a while now. The costs of AAA gaming is pretty much what led to this.

 

[Humdinger]

To give an example, when publishers announce they're getting into "games as a service" or "live services" in investor calls, they're basically never saying "We're going to put out more DLC for our singleplayer only titles." They just say they're expanding their DLC investment and post launch revenue or things along those lines for those games. What they really mean is that they're investing in more multiplayer oriented games, usually with microtransactions and monthly or quarterly updates.

Right. That's also how I think most gamers understand the term "GaaS" -- multiplayer- oriented games with MTs and frequent updates that continue over an extended period of time. Not a single DLC package for an SP game.

The definition of "GaaS" that I hear some people expressing -- any game with anything besides a patch added after release -- is way too broad. It groups a game with a minor update in with games like GTA V, with years of continual add-ons, microtransactions, etc. The term GaaS is then so broad and so inclusive that it loses any functional significance or meaning.

 

[Some Nobody]

I disagree with his definition of what a service game is. There's a distinct difference between a game like Horizon and a game like Overwatch, for example. Horizon is a single player game that, outside of the DLC that is being released for it in November, has only received bug fixes and a new difficulty mode.

Overwatch has been continuously and aggressively monetised from the start, with the soul purpose of sustained player retention and engagement over multiple years through frequent content updates. THAT, is what a service game is. Games that also come under this bracket would be Hitman, Final Fantasy XV, Destiny, Rainbow 6 Siege etc. You won't see this kind of support for a game like Horizon because it is not being positioned as a service.

Saying that a game is a service because it has even one DLC expansion kind of simplifies what service driven games actually are. There is some crossover, but there's a distinct difference that I feel should be highlighted.



This I agree with, as I don't necessarily feel like monetising a game beyond the initial release necessarily makes that product a service. At least in it's most common definition. Otherwise 99% of games released today would be considered services, and I think that kind of glosses over the semantics of what actually goes into literally running a game as a service.

His definition seems to be NPD's definition, and several companies' definition. Yeah, it can be broken down into something that has multiple categories, but it hasn't yet. Until it has, we don't need anyone confusing the messaging. You've got people mad at the concept while simultaneously playing some of the very games theyre mad at. Publishers and developers see that and think "Oh, they don't know wtf they're talking about" , and that's not good.

Before I did some research even, I was thinking I'd quit gaming altogether b/c it seemed like the kind of games I enjoy are going away. But they're not, they're just getting post-launch support. That's whaever.

 

[Mooreberg]

I thought we learned last gen that every game having multi-player was sunk development time/money? Loads of multi-player modes were dead right from the start if not very shortly after. Theres only ever so many players wanting ta be into multi-player and only so many of those games they can be invested in at the same time. If single player games are ever on their way out then the industrys prolly doomed no?

They can shoehorn this stuff into single player games and see what works. Look at Shadow of War. If that game sells well, get ready for some really foul crap to appear in next year's single player games from Western publishers (and Japanese publishers eventually too).

 

[blakep267]

Right. That's also how I think most gamers understand the term "GaaS" -- multiplayer- oriented games with MTs and frequent updates that continue over an extended period of time. Not a single DLC package for an SP game.

The definition of "GaaS" that I hear some people expressing -- any game with anything besides a patch added after release -- is way too broad. It groups a game with a minor update in with games like GTA V, with years of continual add-ons, microtransactions, etc. The term GaaS is then so broad and so inclusive that it loses any functional significance or meaning.

I think there's a difference between what some companies may consider GAAS and the NPD definition of it. I don't think MS is thinking of singleplayer games with patches and maybe DLC when they refer to gAAS. But more of multiplayer experiences with continued content drops

 

[Poetic.Injustice]

I thought we learned last gen that every game having multi-player was sunk development time/money? Loads of multi-player modes were dead right from the start if not very shortly after. Theres only ever so many players wanting ta be into multi-player and only so many of those games they can be invested in at the same time. If single player games are ever on their way out then the industrys prolly doomed no?

They found a solution: They started releasing less AAA games altogether.

 

[Forward]

SaaS and gaming in general are united in people getting really super hella mad about pricing on products that they have very, very little conception of the production economics of.

I paid full price for my CS4. Was going to eventually do the full upgrade price for CS5.

It worked for them for decades.

Greed is greed is greed.

Denial:


Anger:


Bargaining:


Depression:


Acceptance:

I love the fact that you have incidentally implicitly stated the immutable nature of my lack of "Acceptance".

...almost as much as your having to misrepresent someone else's post as being mine to get your "Anger" quote.

Failure of that scale is actually quite endearing.

 

[Forward]

Dub

 

[Falchion]

Sad but true. That's why I hope a lot of developers move to the Ninja Theory model by creating smaller scope single player games for half the price. No reason everything needs to be open world, just focus on delivering an excellent experience.

 

[vareon]

I wonder when/if Nintendo will jump in on the ship. Splatoon 2 and Arms are their most service oriented games right now, but the free updates weren't a revenue stream other than keeping an active userbase. This is a company who put a price cap on Mario Run because they don't want to upset parents.

 

[N21]

Unless your game is hot and all it's press release keeps it hot, your game will have a hard time succeeding anywhere.

 

[HeroR]

I wonder when/if Nintendo will jump in on the ship. Splatoon 2 and Arms are their most service oriented games right now, but the free updates weren't a revenue stream other than keeping an active userbase. This is a company who put a price cap on Mario Run because they don't want to upset parents.

They did this years ago with Animal Crossing.

 

[The End]

I wonder when/if Nintendo will jump in on the ship. Splatoon 2 and Arms are their most service oriented games right now, but the free updates weren't a revenue stream other than keeping an active userbase. This is a company who put a price cap on Mario Run because they don't want to upset parents.

1) They're making tons and tons of money with Fire Emblem Heroes and Pokemon Go, so they already are to an extent.

2) I'd be completely unsurprised if Smash Switch moved to the same DLC model as SFV and did multiple seasons of character DLC.

 

[dr_rus]

The real take aways from this are that to be a really successful SP game you need a top shelf product with top level messaging and marketing.

This is absolutely the correct takeaway.

In fact, it's not. The correct takeaway here is that you can make a crappy GAAS/MP game with bad marketing and messaging and the game will sell millions and set the charts on fire. Which is a really, really sad state of affairs.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[Renekton]

So if you flub just one aspect of a AAA SP release, it's a world of hurt.

Witcher 3 or bust.

 

[charlequin]

I paid full price for my CS4. Was going to eventually do the full upgrade price for CS5.

I mean, okay? It's hard comparing apples to apples given the different variations in Adobe's product line but if you were buying the Creative Suite and upgrading on each major version you were paying about as much (or more) for these apps as you do on the subscription plan. The Photoshop-only plan is a lot cheaper than it used to be to buy Photoshop alone and keep it up to date. If you want to pick on the biggest problem with Adobe's business model now, it's that they don't have any legit option along the lines of the old subject-matter suites for people who need more than PS but less than the whole kit.

In fact, it's not. The correct takeaway here is that you can make a crappy GAAS/MP game with bad marketing and messaging and the game will sell millions and set the charts on fire.

You are talking to the person who actually did the analysis in question here so no, I think I'm still gonna go with his summary of what the takeaway is.

 

[besada]

I don't find this shocking or even necessarily terrible. I've played something close to 350 hours of Overwatch at this point, a game I paid $40 for. I'll play some more tomorrow. Prior to this, the best value for money proposition I've played was probably Skyrim/Oblivion/Fallout 3, each of which I paid $60 for and played about 200 hours.

As a value proposition, it's hard to beat if you enjoy the gameplay.

 

[vareon]

1) They're making tons and tons of money with Fire Emblem Heroes and Pokemon Go, so they already are to an extent.

2) I'd be completely unsurprised if Smash Switch moved to the same DLC model as SFV and did multiple seasons of character DLC.

Those two are mobile games, not exactly the AAA GaaS we're talking in this thread.

Smash is the easiest one to adopt this model, given that they had an ongoing paid already DLCs in Smash 4. But if, say, Smash had a lootbox system, I can imagine the backlash to be quite hard since previous Smash games had a metric ton of content unlockables already included in the game.

Nintendo's approach to these things have always been this weird half-steps so maybe we can expect some weirdness from them.

They did this years ago with Animal Crossing.

Animal Crossing had no ongoing microtransaction the way a revenue generating GaaS expects.

 

[Poetic.Injustice]

Nintendo is missing out big time on the loot crate market for sure from a business perspective.

 

[Cybit]

It's still crazy to me that games still only cost $60. They did in 1994, and they do in 2017, even with normal inflation (not even including actual costs of game development rising). Feels like DLC / GaaS is now what expansion packs used to be back in the day.

 

[Bronetta]

Nintendo is missing out big time on the loot crate market for sure from a business perspective.

They got amiibo, the next best thing.

 

[texhnolyze]

I have little to no interest in single player only games that are not RPG, especially the ones with less than 10 hours of playtime and no replay value.

Nintendo is missing out big time on the loot crate market for sure from a business perspective.

But they've got amiibos. They can sell amiibos for everything, not restricted by genres.

E: beaten.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

His definition seems to be NPD's definition, and several companies' definition. Yeah, it can be broken down into something that has multiple categories, but it hasn't yet. Until it has, we don't need anyone confusing the messaging. You've got people mad at the concept while simultaneously playing some of the very games theyre mad at. Publishers and developers see that and think "Oh, they don't know wtf they're talking about" , and that's not good.

Before I did some research even, I was thinking I'd quit gaming altogether b/c it seemed like the kind of games I enjoy are going away. But they're not, they're just getting post-launch support. That's whaever.

I'm not "confusing the message". Many developers and publishers already do break down GaaS into categories, which is why I said what I said. The fact that you got mad at the thought that all games would are "becoming services" is exactly why the distinction needs to be made and why I think that simply saying "all games with DLC and patches are GaaS" is far too broad a statement. As I said, many developers would disagree with that interpretation of GaaS.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

If we're categorizing games like Uncharted 4, the Witcher 3, Fallout 4 and Horizon Zero Dawn as GaaS games, simply because they have post launch expansions, update support and DLC, then I feel the GaaS terminology has lost all its meaning.

If the post in the OP includes these games under the GaaS umbrella, then there's nothing at all to worry or be concerned about.

 

[Boombloxer]

Some of these responses are incredibly out of touch.
The market is pretty clear, and denial doesn't really change that.

They're not going away, but they aren't going to be the market driver anymore.

And no, that GaaS definition is way too broad.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Nintendo is missing out big time on the loot crate market for sure from a business perspective.

Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.

 

[theclaw135]

Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.

This right here. GaaS is a solution to a problem that should not exist. If games are universally excellent enough for people to want to buy them months or years after release, they don't need updates, DLC, and paid expansions.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.

I get the point, but given how addictive many Nintendo games are, I'd say that they already do a great job of exploiting the addictions in gamers and children.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

This right here. GaaS is a solution to a problem that should not exist. If games are universally excellent enough for people to want to buy them months or years after release, they don't need updates, DLC, and paid expansions.

Oh right... so all these other publishers have to do is just make top-tier 95+ MC games consistently every time, that are so universally praised and considered fun, that their sales will be evergreen for years after release...

Easy peasy!

 

[StereoVsn]

I think it's.m not as clear cut. We have had several GaaS fail which shouldn't have according to the theory. Look at Battleborn or Lawbreakers, for example. If anything GaaS means selling millions they wouldn't have miserably failed.

Then we have just this year: Zelda, Nioh, Nier, P5, Horizon, Crash (and before in end of 2016 FFXV) all succeed and Mario coming in October. Even ME:A while being a terrible game actually sold decent numbers (not enough to support that messed up development and expectations though). Heck, just released Divinity OS2 is doing quite well for a niche game.

Once you take away F2P and annual GaaS stuff like Sports Games and CoD, things probably look better for single player oriented stuff. Yes, on average the game has to be at higher standard to sell well then before or longer (i.e. RPGs) vs before (Deus Ex MD) and marketing/time release window can't be complete shit (ex Dishonored 2, Deus Ex MD and Prey) but games can sell.

Plus as we start seeing with Battleborn and Lawbreakers some of the GaaS genres are getting saturated and it's not going to be as easy going forward. Like the latest hotness being Battle Royale mode. You know that in a year there will be bunch of games with that added or announced and some will absolutely fail.

Edit: How the hell are Witcher 3, Horizon or Fallout 4 GaaS? Was Oblivion GaaS because it had expansions?

 

[Boombloxer]

Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.

Every AAA developer has this strategy. The rest of your post is nonsense.

This right here. GaaS is a solution to a problem that should not exist. If games are universally excellent enough for people to want to buy them months or years after release, they don't need updates, DLC, and paid expansions.

This isn't true either. Laughable in fact.
If you can add more content to a fun game, why would you not want more of it? Free or paid. The universal excellence isn't something that should stay stagnant.

It's mind boggling how some of these posts flat out ignore every MMO, let alone the past generation, the largest titles in the world are all multiplayer and have been for quite some time.

Once you take away F2P and annual GaaS stuff like Sports Games and CoD, things probably look better for single player oriented stuff. Yes, on average the game has to be at higher standard to sell well then before or longer (i.e. RPGs) vs before (Deus Ex MD) and marketing/time release window can't be complete shit (ex Dishonored 2, Deus Ex MD and Prey) but games can sell.

"Once you take away the biggest titles in the market, and realize that the quality bar has risen so high for single player games that dev budges are harder to justify, it doesnt look so bad!"

The mental gymnastics are amazing.

 

[horkrux]

You can turn all SP games into GaaS for all I care. I really like well done online components in SP games. They enhance the experience.

If we're categorizing games like Uncharted 4, the Witcher 3, Fallout 4 and Horizon Zero Dawn as GaaS games, simply because they have post launch expansions, update support and DLC, then I feel the GaaS terminology has lost all its meaning.

If the post in the OP includes these games under the GaaS umbrella, then there's nothing at all to worry or be concerned about.

They're not categorizing them as such, though. They "did everything just about perfectly" and are therefore exceptions.

 

[Lime]

The question is if you consider this homogenization.
Would you consider Hitman, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Overwatch, Destiny, Final Fantasy XV, LEGO Dimensions, For Honor, Forza Horizon, Uncharted 4, and Skull & Bones to be a collection of similar games? They would all fall in the service game category in one form or another.

GAF, broadly speaking, has some ideas about what GaaS entails that don't line up entirely with industry use of the term. The example I like to use Terraria -- this is a game I paid $3 for which got 3+ years of serious content updates, more than doubling the total scope of the game, which drove revenue by getting existing players to frequently revisit the title and convince their buddies to give it a shot (as indeed Nirolak did for me.) FFXV's running set of updates operates on a similar level -- while it does have paid DLC, the underlying title has also been updated extensively and the changes are designed both to bring back old players and to make it more appealing to people who skipped it before.
.

Denial:


Anger:


Bargaining:


Depression:


Acceptance:

Just question of curiosity to you knowledgeable mods: How do you feel about this particular industry trend? You have given very nicely detailed observations about the use of this model, so how do you personally feel about it? How do your own playing/buying habits fit into this? Again, just curious

 

[wesleyshark]

For $60 I don't want a near-linear game I'll only play for ten hours or less and never touch again. I'm all about giant open worlds to get lost in, or persistent online worlds that are always updating and changing with new things to do and people to play with.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

Every AAA developer has this strategy. The rest of your post is nonsense.

Some developers hire mental health professionals to help exploit gambling addictions (like a casino). Destiny is an example of this.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

You can turn all SP games into GaaS for all I care. I really like well done online components in SP games. They enhance the experience.



They're not categorizing them as such, though. They "did everything just about perfectly" and are therefore exceptions.

I was referring to the definition of GaaS given in the discussion in the thread. Some have been saying that those primarily single-player games also count as GaaS.

I think GaaS needs to be restricted to game with a very strong MP focus, which focus on long-term player retention through content expansion updates, micro-transactions and DLC.

Uncharted 4, although it has a multiplayer mode, that certainly isn't a focus for the game, and (I may be showing my ignorance here but) ND certainly hasn't seemed to place a strong emphasis on a long-term player retention strategy.

Many games last-gen had expansions and great post-launch DLC support. I wouldn't categorize them as GaaS though.

 

[Bluth54]

2) I'd be completely unsurprised if Smash Switch moved to the same DLC model as SFV and did multiple seasons of character DLC.

I feel like Nintendo seriously screwed up the DLC model for Smash for Switch/3DS by selling DLC Mii costumes. They should of been selling reskins and costumes for the regular characters that players could pick like they do alternate colors.

 

[synce]

Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.

Somehow I doubt this will be the case for much longer, considering how effortlessly Nintendo made the switch to attaching overpriced DLC to their games. They're always just a little late to adopt trends.

In 10 years everything will be lootbox/microtransaction infested multiplayer nonsense. If that sounds crazy to anyone, just think back to when DLC wasn't a thing.

 

[Boombloxer]

Some developers hire mental health professionals to help exploit gambling addictions (like a casino). Destiny is an example of this.

I've had this conversation a few times now in different threads. It's not even close to the same thing, largely because you earn the same things during gameplay you have the option to pay for. So, no, not like a casino, which is designed to separate you and your money as often as possible.

And this is off topic, so unless you'd like to start another thread about it, we can stop here.

 

[hemo memo]

At least we still have CDPR.

Also I don't mind it when it's done right. Only cosmetics that you can get by normally playing the game but you get faster paying.

Games that clearly don't need it and they only have it because "fuck you give me money" are the problem like MGS5 and DS3 of the games I remember.

 

[Guileless]

It's still crazy to me that games still only cost $60. They did in 1994, and they do in 2017, even with normal inflation (not even including actual costs of game development rising). Feels like DLC / GaaS is now what expansion packs used to be back in the day.

According to dollartimes.com, $60 in 1994 had the same buying power as $99.35 today, which is around what most "deluxe" editions of games with season passes included cost.

 

[Ivan]

I think this trend will pass, people will get hungry for unique and high quality SP experiences again.

We need something groundbreaking to happen to shake things a bit.

Like Half-life back then or something similar.

 

[Syrus]

I prefer SP games. MP is a bonus.

I feel I may putgrow gaming if this is true

 

[Humdinger]

I think it's.m not as clear cut. We have had several GaaS fail which shouldn't have according to the theory. Look at Battleborn or Lawbreakers, for example. If anything GaaS means selling millions they wouldn't have miserably fail

He isn't saying that any GaaS game, regardless of quality, will succeed. He's actually said the opposite -- that GaaS is high risk, high reward. His point is about non-GaaS games. He's saying those have to be excellent (quality, marketing, etc.) or else they will fail, or at least not succeed greatly.


He's right. My only critique is that the definition of "GaaS" is so broad that it makes conversation about the topic sort of meaningless. If by "GaaS" you mean anything that even gets an update or a single minor DLC, then what are you actually pointing to, when you say "GaaS"? That's at least 90% of everything that is released on disc. It renders analyses about "GaaS" too ambiguous to be meaningful, imho.

We need either a better definition of GaaS or subcategories within the broad umbrella of GaaS. We can't be lumping Overwatch and WoW in with SP games that get a single update or DLC.

 

[Tobor]

Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.

Meanwhile, Nintendo is busy developing several GaaS games for mobile. And if you think they aren’t going to develop GaaS for Switch, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d love to sell you.

This right here. GaaS is a solution to a problem that should not exist. If games are universally excellent enough for people to want to buy them months or years after release, they don't need updates, DLC, and paid expansions.

Horseshit. What’s really going on is the biggest GaaS games dwarf the revenue from the biggest single player games. It’s an order of magnitude. The incentive is there for the entire industry.

 

[dr_rus]

Are you exclusively talking about the mobile market here?

What makes you even think that?

You are talking to the person who actually did the analysis in question here so no, I think I'm still gonna go with his summary of what the takeaway is.

Yes and his analysis directly confirms what I've said because this is another way to interpret it which in my view is way more interesting than saying "you need to make great SP games for them to sell, doh".

 

[StereoVsn]

He isn't saying that any GaaS game, regardless of quality, will succeed. He's actually said the opposite -- that GaaS is high risk, high reward. His point is about non-GaaS games. He's saying those have to be excellent (quality, marketing, etc.) or else they will fail, or at least not succeed greatly.


He's right. My only critique is that the definition of "GaaS" is so broad that it makes conversation about the topic sort of meaningless. If by "GaaS" you mean anything that even gets an update or a single minor DLC, then what are you actually pointing to, when you say "GaaS"? That's at least 90% of everything that is released on disc. It renders analyses about "GaaS" too ambiguous to be meaningful, imho.

We need either a better definition of GaaS or subcategories within the broad umbrella of GaaS. We can't be lumping Overwatch and WoW in with SP games that get a single update or DLC.

I think that the last part is what skews things as well. For example, yes, SE has been updating FFXV constantly but it doesn't make it a GaaS game, it's still an SP RPG with DLC (upcoming MP component aside). Uncharted 4 is SP Adventure game despite MP mode with MTs galore. Neither is Witcher 3 or Fallout or Skyrim, etc...

As to why I earlier mentioned that Sports Games and yearly CoD releases (but not AC for example) need to be taken off when doing statistics here is because audience is "captive" there.

 

[n00bsauce87]

Don't make it $60 then.

Then it would be a significantly different product

You are right. If we are buying MP/infinite replay value/ 2+ years of additional DLC for $60, why are buying a "finished" game that's single player whose shelf life maybe 2-3 months for the same price?

$40 seems more reasonable. This isn't the early PS3/Xbox360 era of games. Standards have changed.

 

[wapplew]

Make me wonder when was the last time a game like agent of mayhem (average rated single player game) sold very well?