Support NeoGAF

[Guilty_AI]

More people are affected by lightning strikes than by GAAS games shutting down.

Tell this to the hundreds of people who play NFS World daily on unofficial fan-made servers.

 

[MALpractice311]

It's astounding to me how many people here in this supposedly enthusiast forum don't see the similarities between the live service/GAAS bubble right now and the MMO bubble from 15/20 years ago.

I don't think GAAS/live service games are going anywhere, but we're getting to a saturation point where Fortnite and Destiny and other similar games have such a strangle hold on the genre that new entries don't stand a chance. Much like when World of Warcraft hit it big and every one and their mother started releasing MMOs.

So basically, much like MMOs, GAAS games will continue to make money, but only the top three to five, where people have already invested hundreds or thousands of hours (and dollars) over the course of years, because it will be impossible to peel players away from all that sunk time and money to check out new GAAS games. Just like how, no matter what happened, World of Warcraft dominated the MMO genre for years, while all their competitors kept crashing.

 

[Felessan]

This article seems to back that up. Top 15 games occupying 60% of the time top 33 occupying 75% of player time.

How does it relate to oversaturation? 7-10 years ago top 10 games were occupying 90% of revenue and there were way less games that now. GaaS started to spread, reducing concentration towards a few games, as new genres and focuses emerges, games becomes more diversified and cater to different preferencies.

Btw - I doubt that AAA games are way better, they concentrated way too heavily, COD and FIFA alone eat a huge chunk of occupation of player time, and if anything "oversaturation" is not a word that describes state of AAA now.

 

[consoul]

So the article actually linked in the OP says:

End of the live service domination and market saturation

Live services will continue to be massively successful and dominate top played and grossing charts, undoubtedly

Not even the guy who wrote it believes Live Service domination ends in 2024.

 

[Guilty_AI]

So the article actually linked in the OP says:

Not even the guy who wrote it believes Live Service domination ends in 2024.

He's talking about saturation. A few will remain strong but developers will stop trying to break into the GAAS market and go back to making traditional games, much like what happened to MMOs.

 

[Felessan]

He's talking about saturation. A few will remain strong but developers will stop trying to break into the GAAS market and go back to making traditional games, much like what happened to MMOs.

MMO just died as a (mass market) genre due to loss of popularity and lack of breakthrough ides, not because it "oversaturated"
It's literally barren wasteland, where (non-Korea/China/mobile) 2-3 games occupy more than 2/3 and top 10 occupy 90%. The genre in a very pityfull state and not because of oversaturation, but because it exhausted, and people left this genre to rot. Pertty much like TBS and RTS rotting in history.
And unlike MMO GaaS are pretty much safe atm, because it's not a genre, it's approach, so it can easily spread and adapt. It actually started off MMO, but than spread to shooters, adventure games, RPG etc.

33 games in top 75% is something that MMO ever hoped to achive. It's actually already huge diversification for these type of games. Because at best pre-WoW time it was more like top 5-8 and now it's like top3 (if we include Destiny), and top 10 is something like 95%.

 

[Guilty_AI]

MMO just died as a (mass market) genre due to loss of popularity and lack of breakthrough ides, not because it "oversaturated"
It's literally barren wasteland, where (non-Korea/China/mobile) 2-3 games occupy more than 2/3 and top 10 occupy 90%. The genre in a very pityfull state and not because of oversaturation, but because it exhausted, and people left this genre to rot. Pertty much like TBS and RTS rotting in history.

You're literally describing the state of GAAS right now.

And unlike MMO GaaS are pretty much safe atm, because it's not a genre, it's approach, so it can easily spread and adapt. It actually started off MMO, but than spread to shooters, adventure games, RPG etc.

Only if you reeeally stretch the definition of GAAS. Like calling Early Access a type of live service, or any game that produces additional content after release, or any type of MP game. Then again those were around before the GAAS moniker became a thing.

 

[Felessan]

You're literally describing the state of GAAS right now.

No. GaaS now way too diversified, probably more than AAA games are.
And there is no sign of GaaS to loose it's steam, it;s just becomes bigger and bigger. Mainly because GaaS in not a genre, and MMO died because it's a genre that lost appeal (it's was cannibalized due to spin-off of most popular aspects tp separate genres, leaving MMO as a genre much less attractive). GaaS on the other hand is approach, not a genre, this means that it can move to any genre that is trend of the day.
GaaS started as MMO when they were on their peak. MMO died - GaaS moved to their descendands - MOBA (straight ripoff of MMO), than Battle Royale, asian online RPG, adventures (another partial ripoff of MMO). Somewhere on the way it also infected shooters and other genres,

Only if you reeeally stretch the definition of GAAS. Like calling Early Access a type of live service, or any game that produces additional content after release, or any type of MP game. Then again those were around before the GAAS moniker became a thing.

You can build almost any game as GaaS even in "stricter" definition. Star Rail builded turn-based jRPG into bona-fide gatcha GaaS. There is a number of upcoming experiments what else to convert to GaaS, up to 4X games. Because GaaS is simply a monetization and content delivery approach, if a game can be turned into episodic content - it can be turned into GaaS.

 

[Guilty_AI]

No. GaaS now way too diversified, probably more than AAA games are.
And there is no sign of GaaS to loose it's steam, it;s just becomes bigger and bigger. Mainly because GaaS in not a genre, and MMO died because it's a genre that lost appeal (it's was cannibalized due to spin-off of most popular aspects tp separate genres, leaving MMO as a genre much less attractive). GaaS on the other hand is approach, not a genre, this means that it can move to any genre that is trend of the day.
GaaS started as MMO when they were on their peak. MMO died - GaaS moved to their descendands - MOBA (straight ripoff of MMO), than Battle Royale, asian online RPG, adventures (another partial ripoff of MMO). Somewhere on the way it also infected shooters and other genres,


You can build almost any game as GaaS even in "stricter" definition. Star Rail builded turn-based jRPG into bona-fide gatcha GaaS. There is a number of upcoming experiments what else to convert to GaaS, up to 4X games. Because GaaS is simply a monetization and content delivery approach, if a game can be turned into episodic content - it can be turned into GaaS.

Again, you're just stretching the definition. Earlier our in-house multiplayer defender called even Lethal Company a GAAS, despite it not even having recurring spending.

Stretch thin enough and yes, you can say they're "diversified" and "healthy". By your definition, a fully single-player game that launches a couple of DLCs would also be GAAS.

When people say GAAS, they're usually refering to:
-Always online game that require users to make accounts.
-Games whose core social aspects or mechanics are deeply tied to monetization in some form. Basically pay to win, pay to progress, or pay to express yourself.

A single-player game who releases a bunch of DLCs over the years, like Mechwarrior 5 or X4, will not be considered GAAS by most people.

 

[Felessan]

Again, you're just stretching the definition. Earlier our in-house multiplayer defender called even Lethal Company a GAAS, despite it not even having recurring spending.

You are assuming things under my name. Bad practice overall.
I care less what you in-house call GaaS. I provide specific examples those widely accepted as GaaS like Honkai Star Rail etc. There lis ittle stretching. If anything it's you who are "stretching" to try to exclude some games from GaaS because they don't fit you cause.

When people say GAAS, they're usually refering to:
-Always online game that require users to make accounts.
-Games whose core social aspects or mechanics are deeply tied to monetization in some form. Basically pay to win, pay to progress, or pay to express yourself.

Social aspects are not mandatory at all. In many games they are irrelevant (see Arknight, Star Rail etc).
GaaS is mainly - f2p/b2p "always online" with player retention use cases and episodic deliver of content focused on recurring income.

A single-player game who releases a bunch of DLCs over the years, like Mechwarrior 5 or X4, will not be considered GAAS by most people.

Endfield will be bona fide GaaS, as original Arknight was. And it is incorporate some base building from X4.
Actually X4 is one of the simpliest to convert to GaaS, and even "gacha monetization" is obvious. Just genre is rather small to pay attention to it.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Data please!

Look at the 10 year trend of GAAS in terms of revenue. It has yet to hit a wall. It grows every year.

ThE mArKeT iS sAtUrAtEd while Lethal Company and The Finals are popping off.

Saturation comes when revenue stabilizes. We're not there yet. Saturation comes when new entries consistently flop. We're not there yet.

People desperately wants GAAS to be like MMOs but one is a payment model and the other is a specific genre.

This article seems to back that up. Top 15 games occupying 60% of the time top 33 occupying 75% of player time.

That's not the definition of saturation. Again, the GAAS market is still in its booming growth period.

Only if you get a hit. If you don't...Well naughty Dog have already made there choice!

Naughty Dog is likely working on a new multiplayer game. Don't tell NeoGAF.

Meh this is so overblown if gaming is the biggest entrainment industry then it makes sense to have the biggest budgets. Budgets will rise for as long as they can until they can't then they will stabilise like the film Industry.

Is it overblown? PlayStation had a 25+ year history of primarily making single player games. Now they're a multiplayer centric company.

Due to Digital libraries Single player games are selling more and longer than ever before.

Are digital libraries helping sales or hurting sales? GamePass seems to be hurting sales on XBox.

 

[Guilty_AI]

You are assuming things under my name. Bad practice overall.
I care less what you in-house call GaaS. I provide specific examples those widely accepted as GaaS like Honkai Star Rail etc. There lis ittle stretching. If anything it's you who are "stretching" to try to exclude some games from GaaS because they don't feet you cause.

Sure sure, but Honkai Star Rail is still just one game. And from a company that already had a successful GAAS IP. Do i need to point out the number of successful traditional games that came out just last year in comparison? GAAS isn't the norm, and will continue not to be.

Social aspects are not mandatory at all. In many games they are irrelevant (see Arknight, Star Rail etc).
GaaS is mainly - f2p/b2p "always online" with player retention use cases and episodic deliver of content focused on recurring income.

Yes, thats why i said or. Those games still charge for progressing within the game's mechanics, which classifies them as GAAS.

Endfield will be bona fide GaaS, as original Arknight was. And it is incorporate some base building from X4.
Actually X4 is one of the simpliest to convert to GaaS, and even "gacha monetization" is obvious. Just genre is rather small to pay attention to it.

...are we talking about the same X4 here?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Sure sure, but Honkai Star Rail is still just one game. And from a company that already had a successful GAAS IP. Do i need to point out the number of successful traditional games that came out just last year in comparison?

Umm...what?

Hasn't your position repeatedly been "The GAAS market is saturated because (lists 6 failed Live Service games over a 4 year period)?

Now you're realizing that cherry picking examples isn't helpful when defining what a saturated market is or isn't?

Did we just make a breakthrough?!

 

[BlackTron]

But you still need internet to play with your friends. Also I find weird the idea of people who don't like to play with other people, but ok.

Maybe some people spend their entire day socially interacting through other aspects of their lives like work, and gaming is part of their personal decompressing time?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Umm...what?

Hasn't your position repeatedly been "The GAAS market is saturated because (lists 6 failed Live Service games over a 4 year period)?

Now you're realizing that cherry picking examples isn't helpful when defining what a saturated market is or isn't?

Did we just make a breakthrough?!

And you once again you prove you don't really read what other people say.

>GAAS monetization rely on taking up players time.
>Single Player games do not.

-If there's too much of the former, that specific market crashes as a few handful of games become succesful and take up all of the userbase's gaming time.
-The latter on the other hand, can keep generating as many games as it wants as they're one and done experiences. Its a much safer endeavor all things considered, as Armored Core 6 doesn't have to worry about competing with Baldurs Gate 3. At most they only have to pay attention to release window.

Single player market can afford to be saturated and have many releases. GAAS market cannot.

 

[Felessan]

Sure sure, but Honkai Star Rail is still just one game. And from a company that already had a successful GAAS IP. Do i need to point out the number of successful traditional games that came out just last year in comparison? GAAS isn't the norm, and will continue not to be.

Star Rail is just the most famous of the bunch. It's not like its just one game and no other similar games present/coming in the near future.
The very Granblue that now have single player spinoff is a turn-based online RPG with some rather limited social interraction.

Yes, thats why i said or. Those games still charge for progressing within the game's mechanics, which classifies them as GAAS.

Charge(?!) for progression? it rather new in GaaS monetization.
Half of the modern (and modern I mean asian, as iirc Asus&EY stated 2 years ago in their research on gaming phones, western mobile games lags 5 year behind) do not charge for progression, they charge for novelty and skins (waifu/husbando gaming). Genshin is a prime example of this where even in meta gaming newest chars rarely needed.

...are we talking about the same X4 here?

Yes, something like good old Civilization

 

[Guilty_AI]

Star Rail is just the most famous of the bunch. It's not like its just one game and no other similar games present/coming in the near future.
The very Granblue that now have single player spinoff is a turn-based online RPG with some rather limited social interraction.

So you're telling me that even an originally f2p game developer is investing in traditonal release models? Don't tell this to Men_in_Boxes , it'll give him a seizure.

Btw, not their first endeavour in this area either. They previously released a fighting games too.

Charge(?!) for progression? it rather new in GaaS monetization.
Half of the modern (and modern I mean asian, as iirc Asus&EY stated 2 years ago in their research on gaming phones, western mobile games lags 5 year behind) do not charge for progression, they charge for novelty and skins (waifu/husbando gaming). Genshin is a prime example of this where even in meta gaming newest chars rarely needed.

>Pay to express yourself, I mentioned this too. Some of these gachas also monetize the horny-factor but they're very specific cases.

Yes, something like good old Civilization

X4 with gacha monetization would be utter hell. In fact, it'd be a bonafide example of ruining a game with greed, exactly how it happened with other franchises that tried to "GAAS-fy" their franchises and now are rolling in the mud.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

And you once again you prove you don't really read what other people say.

>GAAS monetization rely on taking up players time.
>Single Player games do not.

Always has. The market has grown quickly and steadily over the last 15+ years. That means your points here don't address market saturation one iota.

-If there's too much of the former, that specific market crashes as a few handful of games become succesful and take up all of the userbase's gaming time.
-The latter on the other hand, can keep generating as many games as it wants as they're one and done experiences. Its a much safer endeavor all things considered, as Armored Core 6 doesn't have to worry about competing with Baldurs Gate 3. At most they only have to pay attention to release window.

Single player market can afford to be saturated and have many releases. GAAS market cannot.

You don't know what market saturation means. Allow me to explain.

It's all about total available dollars in a particular market. Single player gamers spend X amount of dollars every year.

If there's 3 high quality AAA SP games released in a year...1 B dollars will be spent.

If there's 6 high quality AAA SP games released in a year....1.2 B dollars will be spent.

If there's 12 high quality AAA SP games released in a year....1.3 B dollars will be spent.

As you can see, it's healthier for 3 games to fight over 1 B dollars than it is for 12 games to fight over 1.3 B dollars.

The single player market has been capped for a while now. You honestly never wondered why PlayStation only minimally bumped their SP spending up as games were getting more expensive to make? Because PlayStation knows the single player market is capped.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I think it’s will go away because both audiences and developers find battle pass content lame. Both will ask why we only get the pass, when meaningful world building content could be paid for.

Reminder: A single mount in World of Warcraft made more money than StarCraft 2.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Always has. The market has grown quickly and steadily over the last 15+ years. That means your points here don't address market saturation one iota.

The 'market' that grew relates to the popularity of a selected few games, not the amount of successful releases. And now these selected few are making it much much harder for new GAAS games to become successful, or even viable at all.

What i said times in the past remains true. You look for the GAAS that are bringing in the big bucks and you notice there only exists a handful of them.

You don't know what market saturation means. Allow me to explain.

It's all about total available dollars in a particular market. Single player gamers spend X amount of dollars every year.

If there's 3 high quality AAA SP games released in a year...1 B dollars will be spent.

If there's 6 high quality AAA SP games released in a year....1.2 B dollars will be spent.

If there's 12 high quality AAA SP games released in a year....1.3 B dollars will be spent.

As you can see, it's healthier for 3 games to fight over 1 B dollars than it is for 12 games to fight over 1.3 B dollars.

The single player market has been capped for a while now. You honestly never wondered why PlayStation only minimally bumped their SP spending up as games were getting more expensive to make? Because PlayStation knows the single player market is capped.

And you don't understand modern market dynamics.
Time is more valuable than money. Most people in the hobby can afford to buy 12 games just fine, the question becomes whether they'll be able to play those games at all.

Playing 12 traditional single player games in a year is still realistic. Some people play even more than that.

Playing 12 GAAS games during a year is not, because these games are designed to take up your time. GAAS players usually spend most of their time (and money by extension) in 1 or 2 of those games, not all 12 of them.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The 'market' that grew relates to the popularity of a selected few games, not the amount of successful releases. And now these selected few are making it much much harder for new GAAS games to become successful, or even viable at all.

You don't think there are way more successful Live Service games in 2023 than there were in 2003? Umm...what?

What i said times in the past remains true. You look for the GAAS that are bringing in the big bucks and you notice there only exists a handful of them.

That's true for every market.

Also, Paladins is still getting updates from Hi Rez Studios because Paladins is still profitable despite having a small player base.

And you don't understand modern market dynamics.
Time is more valuable than money. Most people in the hobby can afford to buy 12 games just fine, the question becomes whether they'll be able to play those games at all.

Playing 12 traditional single player games in a year is still realistic. Some people play even more than that.

Nope. The more you flood the market with $70 dollar SP games the more SP gamers wait for sales. That market has been capped for a while now. See: PlayStations reluctance to increase funding in SP games.

Playing 12 GAAS games during a year is not, because these games are designed to take up your time. GAAS players usually spend most of their time (and money by extension) in 1 or 2 of those games, not all 12 of them.

That's how the market has always been.

And yet, the market has exploded in profitability and popularity over the last 20 years.

So what are you missing?

 

[Guilty_AI]

You don't think there are way more successful Live Service games in 2023 than there were in 2003? Umm...what?

You have very few that make tons more of money. But the amount of games that can be called successful?

2003:
Grand Chase
Ragnarok Online
MapleStory
Eve Online
Runescape
Everquest
Ultima online
Tibia
and more...

Some of these are even still active, with minimal playerbase and not making the huge bucks of course.

That's true for every market.

Also, Paladins is still getting updates from Hi Rez Studios because Paladins is still profitable despite having a small player base.

Oh, true true. The point is these games, despite existing, aren't necessarely more profitable or risk-adverse than traditional releases. This and the ones i previously mentioned can exist because their active playerbase isn't that big, and that playerbase tends to be dedicated.

They're in no way the golden geese people thought they were these last few years, and publishers are slowly realizing that. Realizing making a live service game does not mean making fortnite or COD bucks, or that they'll somehow be more profitable than SP games.

Nope. The more you flood the market with $70 dollar SP games the more SP gamers wait for sales. That market has been capped for a while now. See: PlayStations reluctance to increase funding in SP games.

What about "see: Playstation cutting down on tons of Live service projects"?

That's how the market has always been.

And yet, the market has exploded in profitability and popularity over the last 20 years.

So what are you missing?

i'm missing nothing. What you're missing is that the portion of GAAS actually bringing in these profits is very small, and usually contain immense playerbases. There isn't space for many games like that.

 

[SHA]

Yippee!! Now let's get back to 7yrs of hype.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You have very few that make tons more of money. But the amount of games that can be called successful?

2003:
Grand Chase
Ragnarok Online
MapleStory
Eve Online
Runescape
Everquest
Ultima online
Tibia
and more...

What are we doing here? Do you honestly expect this list to compare with the amount of successful Live Service games today? We're approaching Monty Python Black Knight territory here.

Oh, true true. The point is these games, despite existing, aren't necessarely more profitable or risk-adverse than traditional releases. This and the ones i previously mentioned can exist because their active playerbase isn't that big, and that playerbase tends to be dedicated.

IDK what this means.

They're in no way the golden geese people thought they were these last few years, and publishers are slowly realizing that. Realizing making a live service game does not mean making fortnite or COD bucks, or that they'll somehow be more profitable than SP games.

"That's the total number of live service and multiplayer titles [and] mid-to-long-term we want to [push] this kind of service and that's the unchanged policy of the company." - PlayStations Hiroki Titoki

It sounds like some pretty big publishers disagree.

What about "see: Playstation cutting down on tons of Live service projects"?

Hiroki Titokis statement suggests otherwise.
Is 3 really "tons"?
Didn't Yoshida say that PlayStation cancels internal games all the time last year?

i'm missing nothing. What you're missing is that the portion of GAAS actually bringing in these profits is very small, and usually contain immense playerbases. There isn't space for many games like that.

Actually, you do seem to be missing something pretty big here. Let me reiterate...

You say that people can only play 1 or 2 Live Service games at a time to suggest that the market is saturated.

I'm saying that has always been true. It was just as true in 2003 as it is in 2024. So if that's true, why has the Live Service market exploded in popularity and profitability over those years? That's what you're not getting.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

Reminder: A single mount in World of Warcraft made more money than StarCraft 2.

Money for who? Designing a well timed, interestingly themed mount the sells like hot cakes can be interesting for developers and sought after by consumers.

That said, making StarCraft 2 is intrinsically more rewarding, and more valuable to a user.

At some point designing low tier battle pass gear becomes a grind and players press accept and never interact with it again. When that is the case, no amount of cash incentive (value for player, riches for the company) will make a difference, because 99.9% of the shared community are not being served by the thing.

Everyone will leave because it’s lame.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Money for who? Designing a well timed, interestingly themed mount the sells like hot cakes can be interesting for developers and sought after by consumers.

That said, making StarCraft 2 is intrinsically more rewarding, and more valuable to a user.

People vote with their wallets. You people still haven't reconciled with the SP industries embarrassingly low completion rates. It's the little shame no one likes addressing when it comes to blatent market weaknesses.

At some point designing low tier battle pass gear becomes a grind

Tell that to the character artists who's entire job is to create the visual look of characters. Those people probably prefer GAAS and consider traditional 70 dollar SP games a threat to their livelihood and creativity.

and players press accept and never interact with it again. When that is the case, no amount of cash incentive (value for player, riches for the company) will make a difference, because 99.9% of the shared community are not being served by the thing.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

I haven't spent a dime on Fortnite, my favorite game of all time, in years because that .1% (whales) are enough to keep hundreds of employees working full time on keeping the game fresh and free.

People don't seem to be leaving either.

 

[yurinka]

He's talking about saturation. A few will remain strong but developers will stop trying to break into the GAAS market and go back to making traditional games, much like what happened to MMOs.

MMO just died as a (mass market) genre due to loss of popularity and lack of breakthrough ides, not because it "oversaturated"
It's literally barren wasteland, where (non-Korea/China/mobile) 2-3 games occupy more than 2/3 and top 10 occupy 90%. The genre in a very pityfull state and not because of oversaturation, but because it exhausted, and people left this genre to rot. Pertty much like TBS and RTS rotting in history.
And unlike MMO GaaS are pretty much safe atm, because it's not a genre, it's approach, so it can easily spread and adapt. It actually started off MMO, but than spread to shooters, adventure games, RPG etc.

33 games in top 75% is something that MMO ever hoped to achive. It's actually already huge diversification for these type of games. Because at best pre-WoW time it was more like top 5-8 and now it's like top3 (if we include Destiny), and top 10 is something like 95%.

MMOs didn't die. The opposite, they have been growing and are expected to continue growing:

"The MMORPG Gaming Market size is estimated at USD 25.34 billion in 2024, and is expected to reach USD 42.22 billion by 2029, growing at a CAGR of 10.75% during the forecast period (2024-2029)"
https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/mmorpg-gaming-market

"The massive multiplayer online (MMO) games market size is forcasted by USD 29.96 billion from 2023 to 2028, to grow at a CAGR of 10.68%."
https://www.technavio.com/report/massive-multiplayer-online-mmo-games-market-industry-analysis

And they are only a subset of the GaaS. MMOs will continue being a big chunk of the gaming market, and GaaS will continue having the majority of userbase and revenue of gaming.

What about "see: Playstation cutting down on tons of Live service projects"?

That's fake news. They only did cut one, TLOU Online. And because its dev team saw that the resources it would require were going to impact where they want to focus: SP non-GaaS games, not because any change in Sony's overall strategy.

Counting Destiny 2 and the upcoming Helldivers 2 they'll have 5 GaaS in the market. They have the other ones coming, but some of them apparently not before April 2026 as originally planned because some have been delayed.

Is it overblown? PlayStation had a 25+ year history of primarily making single player games. Now they're a multiplayer centric company.

No, they aren't a MP centric company.

The dozen (now 11) GaaS were a minority of the MORE THAN 25 Sony 1st+2nd party games under development. On top of that, GaaS doesn't imply MP only. Games like GT7 or MLB are GaaS and feature single player stuff.

Sony is expanding on MP, but they plan to continue focusing on primarly SP.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

No, they aren't a MP centric company.

The dozen (now 11) GaaS were a minority of the MORE THAN 25 Sony 1st+2nd party games under development. On top of that, GaaS doesn't imply MP only. Games like GT7 or MLB are GaaS and feature single player stuff.

Sony is expanding on MP, but they plan to continue focusing on primarly SP.

When 60% of their resources are going to Live Service and only 40% are going to SP...they've become Live Service centric.

Btw, your quote was wrong. It was always "12 Live Service titles by FY2025". It was never "12 Live Service titles ever".

 

[Faust]

You can’t just “pivot”. AAA game development takes 5-8 years now. If they pivot in 2024, we will see next games as either cross gen or exclusive for next gen consoles.

Cut costs on worthless chaff. Remove DEI and outsiders like SweetBaby. Use AI models to animate mouth movements for other countries (or hell, use AI to do voice acting for NPCs and the like). Cut back on trying to be the "greatest graphical looking game" that will be outdated as soon as the next major AAA title comes out. Focus more on artstyle/artdesign and lower the padding in these bloated open world games.

Plenty of ways to make AAA gaming more sustainable, faster, and better for the consumer than what they currently are.

 

[yurinka]

When 60% of their resources are going to Live Service and only 40% are going to SP...they've become Live Service centric.

It's 60% of "PS5 investment by business model", not their resources.

That graph could include the investments from 3P publishers, not only SIE. Notice that it's in a slide where it's also shown the revenues from each business model in all consoles (being addons/GaaS the biggest and fastest growing category for games).

Even if that 60% would be SIE investments in games, could include investments on getting stocks from other companies (either minority or acquisitions), 3P exclusivities or marketing deals, etc.

And in any case, notice that the total of the investment is way bigger. So regarding the investment in traditional games, even if decreasing in percentage from 45% to 40%, the amount of money invested on FY25 would be bigger than in the current FY23.

Btw, your quote was wrong. It was always "12 Live Service titles by FY2025". It was never "12 Live Service titles ever".

I never said they were going to be only 12 Live service ever. Obviously after these on they'll make other ones. In the same way they also had made several GaaS before this dozen.

"By FY2025" means "before April 2026", but more recently they said that a some may be released after that date and that only were sure that half a dozen of them were going to be released before April 2026.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Don't forget to make some AA niche titles for long-time console supporters/fans as well, or we might just bow out and let the new generation of gaasers to take over the hobby completely.

This trend keeps up and me personally? I'll stop buying new systems and subs. Oh, and don't confuse AA titles with indies either, I'm talking about niche Japanese titles that become sleeper hits. Those kinds of games take a fraction of both budget and time to get out to consumers.

 

[StereoVsn]

Cut costs on worthless chaff. Remove DEI and outsiders like SweetBaby. Use AI models to animate mouth movements for other countries (or hell, use AI to do voice acting for NPCs and the like). Cut back on trying to be the "greatest graphical looking game" that will be outdated as soon as the next major AAA title comes out. Focus more on artstyle/artdesign and lower the padding in these bloated open world games.

Plenty of ways to make AAA gaming more sustainable, faster, and better for the consumer than what they currently are.

Sure, there are certainly improvements that could be made and some of them will even propagate through. However, modern gaming dev is very complex so you are still looking at 5+ years even with improvements.

It’s just the nature of the beast now days. Pivots are not easy and this isn’t 5th gen gaming where you can output a decent 3D game in couple of years unfortunately.

 

[Faust]

Sure, there are certainly improvements that could be made and some of them will even propagate through. However, modern gaming dev is very complex so you are still looking at 5+ years even with improvements.

It’s just the nature of the beast now days. Pivots are not easy and this isn’t 5th gen gaming where you can output a decent 3D game in couple of years unfortunately.

Which is why proper pipelines and strict deadlines exist. Sure, a single game may take 5 years to make, but if they were efficient and cut back on the aforementioned chaff, they could be working on 2-3 games at once.

Despite my issues with Insomniac at the moment, they tend to do this well. On average, they have a 2 year cycle between releases, despite the games taking 5-7 years to actually design. Remove the chaff and this could be lowered to 1-2 years between releases and a total dev time of 4-5 years.

As for decent 3D games, I would argue plenty of studios are doing this already in under a few years time. Having a more focused development and narrower scope and not trying to chase trends or high end graphics causes releases to come out at a more consistent pace.

 

[StereoVsn]

Which is why proper pipelines and strict deadlines exist. Sure, a single game may take 5 years to make, but if they were efficient and cut back on the aforementioned chaff, they could be working on 2-3 games at once.

Despite my issues with Insomniac at the moment, they tend to do this well. On average, they have a 2 year cycle between releases, despite the games taking 5-7 years to actually design. Remove the chaff and this could be lowered to 1-2 years between releases and a total dev time of 4-5 years.

As for decent 3D games, I would argue plenty of studios are doing this already in under a few years time. Having a more focused development and narrower scope and not trying to chase trends or high end graphics causes releases to come out at a more consistent pace.

I am skeptical that majority of studios have discipline, willpower and capability to implement the required changes.

Plus in current political environment DEI/ESG crap is a “must” and thats not going away so that overhead will exist.

Overall, that aside, Insomniac is really the exception to the rule and the only way they managed to do it with SpiderMan is smart reuse of assets.

Actually Yakuza/Like a Dragon studio has been able to keep up the output in same manner. Judicial assert reuse and control on graphics helped.

 

[Killer8]

Good. The sooner the gaming industry goes back to catering to my tastes above other people's, the better.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It's 60% of "PS5 investment by business model", not their resources.

That graph could include the investments from 3P publishers, not only SIE. Notice that it's in a slide where it's also shown the revenues from each business model in all consoles (being addons/GaaS the biggest and fastest growing category for games).

This is a great point. However, if that graph were to include 3rd party investments, why was FY19 so low? Do you feel like 3rd parties are putting 10x more resources into PS5 GAAS games today, relative to 4 years ago? (I don't)

Do you feel like PlayStation is putting 10x more resources into GAAS today compared to 4 years ago? (I do)

Even if that 60% would be SIE investments in games, could include investments on getting stocks from other companies (either minority or acquisitions), 3P exclusivities or marketing deals, etc.

That's all part of making the pie. Different ingredients going into the same bowl to produce their premier dessert (GAAS).

Also, can't that logic be applied to the smaller dessert (SP games)?

And in any case, notice that the total of the investment is way bigger.

I'm specifically looking at the light blue bar, not the dark blue bar. The light blue line even dips in FY23 and what percentage have development costs risen in that time? Spiderman 2 cost 3x what Spiderman cost. Forbidden West cost 4x what Zero Dawn cost. I suspect their single player output is actually diminishing rapidly. We're seeing it already.

So regarding the investment in traditional games, even if decreasing in percentage from 45% to 40%, the amount of money invested on FY25 would be bigger than in the current FY23.

I think "PS5 investment by business model" is more likely to be hard numbers than percentages. The bar graph on the left seems to be referencing hard numbers. I assume the connected graph on the right is using the same logic.

I never said they were going to be only 12 Live service ever. Obviously after these on they'll make other ones. In the same way they also had made several GaaS before this dozen.

"By FY2025" means "before April 2026", but more recently they said that a some may be released after that date and that only were sure that half a dozen of them were going to be released before April 2026.

Hiroki Titoki also said "Our mid to long term strategy (Live Service) remains unchanged."

I think ultimately, if you can remove yourself from your preferences, Live Service multiplayer has such a wickedly high ceiling that traditional single player games can't touch. I think PlayStation (finally) woke up to the realization that the most social animals in earth's history are playing games and those people have been dramatically underserved in gaming. You can't put the genie back in the bottle with this stuff.

I want to commend you on your post here. You actually found some plausible weak spots in my position and I love seeing that. You are one to keep an eye on my friend.

 

[Faust]

I am skeptical that majority of studios have discipline, willpower and capability to implement the required changes.

Plus in current political environment DEI/ESG crap is a “must” and thats not going away so that overhead will exist.

Overall, that aside, Insomniac is really the exception to the rule and the only way they managed to do it with SpiderMan is smart reuse of assets.

Actually Yakuza/Like a Dragon studio has been able to keep up the output in same manner. Judicial assert reuse and control on graphics helped.

Yakuza is the gold standard IMO. Smaller, denser settings packed with things to do.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

As for decent 3D games, I would argue plenty of studios are doing this already in under a few years time. Having a more focused development and narrower scope and not trying to chase trends or high end graphics causes releases to come out at a more consistent pace.

What games are doing this? And are those games succeeding at a rate that forces big publishers + studios to change their current way of doing business?

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the most basic rule of business that even children can grasp on a fundamental level is "How do we reduce our costs and maximize our profit?"

Don't you think publishers all over the world have been obsessing over this equation forever? If so, why are they all coming to the same conclusion? Bigger games w/ lengthy development yields the best results.

 

[Faust]

What games are doing this? And are those games succeeding at a rate that forces big publishers + studios to change their current way of doing business?

The Yakuza game studio for example releases a game nearly yearly with all the requisites I had listed and I would argue they have been AAA for a while now.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the most basic rule of business that even children can grasp on a fundamental level is "How do we reduce our costs and maximize our profit?"

Even then, businesses spend money on stupid crap or fail to cut what should be cut. Look at Bungie when they had put all that money into various DEI clubs that were inevitably shut down when they were losing money.

Don't you think publishers all over the world have been obsessing over this equation forever? If so, why are they all coming to the same conclusion? Bigger games w/ lengthy development yields the best results.

Publishers aren't infallible and chase trends or spend money on worthless crap. Look at the RTS Bubble, the MMO bubble, or the current GAAS Bubble.

 

[yurinka]

This is a great point. However, if that graph were to include 3rd party investments, why was FY19 so low? Do you feel like 3rd parties are putting 10x more resources into PS5 GAAS games today, relative to 4 years ago? (I don't)

This is why I'd bet they are talking about SIE investments on games, and have the other graph next to it to explain that they'll invest on GaaS because GaaS make like around two thirds of the game revenue and is expected to grow to three quarters. So it would be a finantial suicide to continue investing mostly only in SP non-GaaS titles.

But the slide isn't very clear and there's the other possibility, so I wanted to mention it.

Do you feel like PlayStation is putting 10x more resources into GAAS today compared to 4 years ago? (I do)

The GaaS investments made in the current FY isn't for the games released now only. It's also to develop this year post launch content of games released in previous years (like GT7), to fund development of games to be released this and specially future years. It needs to be specially considered the post launch content of titles from previous years, since in GaaS this is meatier and last for a longer period of time than non-GaaS who may get a single DLC or two (or none at all).

And possibly (I wouldn't bet on it) also investments on 3P companies (stuff like investing in Epic to secure future support, making some deal with Asian companies like NC Soft to make them develop some MMORPGs targeting mainly mobile, paying marketing deals of 3P GaaS being released this or future years as could be CoD, SF6, Tekken 8, FF14, Genshin, GTA, FIFA, etc.

So we have to consider that 60% investment doesn't equal 60% of games released that year or in the future. The percentage of games released that are GaaS will be much lower, because that percentage gets specially bumped due to the mentioned post launch costs.

Also, can't that logic be applied to the smaller dessert (SP games)?

I think what Sony was trying to say with the slide was: in FY25 we'll invest in games twice of what we invested in FY19, but as we see GaaS are eating the market we'll invest specially there. But we'll also continue investing about the same or more in non-GaaS titles than we do now.

I'm specifically looking at the light blue bar, not the dark blue bar. The light blue line even dips in FY23 and what percentage have development costs risen in that time? Spiderman 2 cost 3x what Spiderman cost. Forbidden West cost 4x what Zero Dawn cost. I suspect their single player output is actually diminishing rapidly. We're seeing it already.

I think "PS5 investment by business model" is more likely to be hard numbers than percentages. The bar graph on the left seems to be referencing hard numbers. I assume the connected graph on the right is using the same logic.

In the graph of the right, the height of the portions or full column are hard numbers. The percent is the portion of each full column.

In the graph of the left everything is hard numbers. For some reason the didn't include in the left graph the 'physical full game sales", which is a smaller number than the digital full game sales and is decreasing way faster (because digital full game sales and addon revenue are replacing physical sales).

Hiroki Titoki also said "Our mid to long term strategy (Live Service) remains unchanged."

Yes, when he said that they only delayed a few GaaS titles and likely were going to delay a few more, but their strategy back then continued being the same (even if later they canned one of them, their strategy doesn't change because a few games get delayed or canned, GaaS or not most games always get delayed and a small portion of them get canned).

I think ultimately, if you can remove yourself from your preferences, Live Service multiplayer has such a wickedly high ceiling that traditional single player games can't touch. I think PlayStation (finally) woke up to the realization that the most social animals in earth's history are playing games and those people have been dramatically underserved in gaming. You can't put the genie back in the bottle with this stuff.

I think that seeing the other slide and this one they looked at the multi year trend of addons (mostly GaaS) revenue replacing the game sales make them think it was smarter to invest more in GaaS, and regarding platforms they saw a huge market in mobile and PC way bigger than what they have in console (a little under the dark blue bar) so thought it would be a great idea to grow there:

Nothing rare, all the other big publishers are doing the same / already started to do it years before. The thing is, AAA budgets increase a lot every generation, but the revenue they generate don't grow that much, so they need to get new revenue sources to keep the ball rolling.

But not only because of making more revenue, also because of reaching a ton of new players that they can't reach by doing mostly non-GaaS SP console games: they know some people only plays GaaS, or doesn't play in console but plays on mobile or PC (specially in some countries where they want to grow, like China, Korea or India). New fans that they can also monetize with movies/tv shows, theme park rides, merchandising, other Sony pictures stuff they have in the console like crunchyroll, etc.

I want to commend you on your post here. You actually found some plausible weak spots in my position and I love seeing that. You are one to keep an eye on my friend.

Cool, nice!

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

The Yakuza game studio for example releases a game nearly yearly with all the requisites I had listed and I would argue they have been AAA for a while now.

So would you bust open the doors to a PlayStation/Nintendo/Ubisoft/EA meeting where they're all focused on making giant, 7 year dev cycle games...and say "Stop what you're doing and look at what Sega is doing with Yakuza!"

Or is the Yakuza model not generating enough money for the top dogs in the industry to care?

Even then, businesses spend money on stupid crap or fail to cut what should be cut. Look at Bungie when they had put all that money into various DEI clubs that were inevitably shut down when they were losing money.

I hate that stuff as much as you do but how much of Bungies budget was spent on DEI clubs?

Publishers aren't infallible and chase trends or spend money on worthless crap. Look at the RTS Bubble, the MMO bubble, or the current GAAS Bubble.

Genre, genre, NOT A GENRE.

Obviously the worlds leading companies in a specific field going in one direction doesn't mean they're pursuing an infallible strategy, but it does mean maybe they're seeing something certain bubbles on the internet don't want to see.

 

[The artful mincer]

Look at the 10 year trend of GAAS in terms of revenue. It has yet to hit a wall. It grows every year.

We know but where is that revenue going? Are the big boys just getting bigger? Or is total revenue bigger because of total GAAS games increasing? Both? Activision revenues increased for decades despite releasing less games. I'am not saying that's the case here but but present me data showing its not the case.

ThE mArKeT iS sAtUrAtEd while Lethal Company and The Finals are popping off.

Anecdotal evidence come on I've never said new GAAS games can't take off. It's about averages it's why Sony feel they need to launch 12 in the hope that 1 or 2 of them hit big. DATA!

Saturation comes when revenue stabilizes. We're not there yet. Saturation comes when new entries consistently flop. We're not there yet.

Fair

People desperately wants GAAS to be like MMOs but one is a payment model and the other is a specific genre.

That's not the definition of saturation. Again, the GAAS market is still in its booming growth period.

It's the same argument of games competing for the players time but agreed GAAS can transcend genre's. It's still an issue of 1 or 2 games dominating an genre e.g. Fifa for football and call of duty dominating military shooters but I concede it's not the same. Genre's can potentially be infinite and may not cannabilize one another.

Naughty Dog is likely working on a new multiplayer game. Don't tell NeoGAF.

Probably. Is multiplayer and GAAS the same thing though? (Asking genuinely) They still made the decision to cut there GAAS game as it would have hogged too much resources and wasn't a guaranteed success. On a related note what do you think will happen to Rocksteady if Sucide Squad fails?

Is it overblown? PlayStation had a 25+ year history of primarily making single player games. Now they're a multiplayer centric company.

Yes I think so. 200 million budgets are completely reasonable for games expected to make 400 to 800 million and still generating revenue. As long as budgets are appropriate for the game. I.e. I hope returnal 2 doesn't have a 200 million dollar budget...

Are digital libraries helping sales or hurting sales?

Yes I think undeniably. Retail space clearly limited games legs in ps2 and to a lesser extent the ps3 era. Maybe it not just digital but other reasons like amazon, streaming bigger gaming population. It would have unthinkable for a game like Metro Exodus to leg out to 8.5 million units in the ps3 era let alone ps2

GamePass seems to be hurting sales on XBox.

Well that's a different thing dare I say a Live Service! But yes subscription service seem to decrease game sales. It affects Sony as well Horizon Forbidden West had its leg cut off when it came to plus ( After making over 440 million) Hopefully Sony make up the lost sales in Subscriptions and aren't just reacting to Microsoft.

 

[Wildebeest]

The guy is saying that all the growth in GaaS revenue is gobbled up by established titles, not that GaaS is not going to continue to grow faster compared to AAA.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

We know but where is that revenue going? Are the big boys just getting bigger? Or is total revenue bigger because of total GAAS games increasing? Both? Activision revenues increased for decades despite releasing less games. I'am not saying that's the case here but but present me data showing its not the case.

The GAAS market is likely growing wider and deeper. The big players like Fortnite and Minecraft seem to be growing in popularity. Then we see smaller titles like Lethal Company and The Finals grow on the edges.

I can't give numbers but I think it's fairly obvious at this point.

Plus, let's face it, PlayStation does not think "tHe MaRkEt Is SaTuRaTeD!"

Anecdotal evidence come on I've never said new GAAS games can't take off. It's about averages it's why Sony feel they need to launch 12 in the hope that 1 or 2 of them hit big. DATA!

I suspect PlayStation believes the vast majority of their GAAS efforts will be successful. They seem to be doing a good job of pruning that tree and cutting their weaker efforts.

Don't you find it interesting how popular the term "market saturation" with regards to Live Service has gotten over the last couple of years? I suspect you could search NeoGAF for the term in all of 2020 and you would nary get a hit. Then all of a sudden the true believers read some fake news and bought the narrative hook line and sinker. They've been parroting the line ever since without questioning its validity.

It's the same argument of games competing for the players time but agreed GAAS can transcend genre's. It's still an issue of 1 or 2 games dominating an genre e.g. Fifa for football and call of duty dominating military shooters but I concede it's not the same. Genre's can potentially be infinite and may not cannabilize one another.

No, I think you're right on there. If GAAS are like cities and traditional SP games are like villages and towns, you're always going to have fewer cities. I don't see GAAS being any different. The anti GAAS people are a lot like the overpopulation people. "Earth can't hold anymore people! We're at planet saturation!"

Meanwhile we're going from 5 billion people on the planet when I was born to 9 billion in a few years.

Probably. Is multiplayer and GAAS the same thing though? (Asking genuinely) They still made the decision to cut there GAAS game as it would have hogged too much resources and wasn't a guaranteed success. On a related note what do you think will happen to Rocksteady if Sucide Squad fails?

I think Rocksteady made the pivot to GAAS because their traditional games weren't working for them. We recently saw Spiderman 2 have to sell 7.2 million to break even. The Batman liscense probably made the Arkham games less successful than the public realizes.

If Suicide Squad fails, it won't be good for the developers but it's not an indictment on the model if it does.

PS: GAAS is any game (multiplayer or SP) that receives updates after release. Multiplayer benefits from the concept more than SP.

Yes I think so. 200 million budgets are completely reasonable for games expected to make 400 to 800 million and still generating revenue. As long as budgets are appropriate for the game. I.e. I hope returnal 2 doesn't have a 200 million dollar budget...

I suspect budgets have already surpassed 200 million dollars. Didn't we see that was the cost of TLoU2 and Forbidden West a few months ago? How much will Spiderman 3 cost?

Yes I think undeniably. Retail space clearly limited games legs in ps2 and to a lesser extent the ps3 era. Maybe it not just digital but other reasons like amazon, streaming bigger gaming population. It would have unthinkable for a game like Metro Exodus to leg out to 8.5 million units in the ps3 era let alone ps2

If you look at PlayStations projections, they don't see the SP market growing very much over the next 5 years. I suspect the last 5 years looked pretty similar to the next 5 years (ie market saturation)

Well that's a different thing dare I say a Live Service! But yes subscription service seem to decrease game sales. It affects Sony as well Horizon Forbidden West had its leg cut off when it came to plus ( After making over 440 million) Hopefully Sony make up the lost sales in Subscriptions and aren't just reacting to Microsoft.

I guess I just see PlayStations market projections for SP and think the digital model and digital game libraries aren't a factor anymore. If it did grow the business at one point, PlayStation doesn't see it as being big enough to grow the market anymore.

The problem with the market saturation people is that they lack imagination for what gaming can be. I watch old episodes of Star Trek and I see what Live Service multiplayer can become. Fortnite, Minecraft, League of Legends are tadpoles. They can't imagine what the frog will look like.

 

[Complistic]

I mean yeah take a look at BG3. No DLC at all. It's what gamers want.