Support NeoGAF

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

I generally don't think it works this way.

In the same way that Overwatch and Fortnite are "Cartoony PvP shooters" that were both incredibly successful and both kinda filling the same aesthetic genre.

People don't play multiplayer games for the aesthetic genre (SP gamers do this more often), they play it for the gameplay loop.

"Sci fi military FPS" can vary substantially in terms of gameplay.

Yeah but look at where Overwatch is now. It's practically dead. In fact, as Fortnite grew, Overwatch began its gradual decline before Overwatch 2's bad launch finished it off. I'm not saying Fortnite's growth has a direct correlation to Overwatch's decline, but there is some type of incidental relationship present which is kind of interesting.

I agree that ultimately it's for the gameplay loop, but I wouldn't completely rule out aesthetic similarities being a possible factor, especially if the games are available on the same platform. I.e Foamstars gets a lot of comparisons to Splatoon and if it were on Nintendo's system it would probably not gain a lot of traction. However, as a PlayStation game it could have a better chance at (moderate) success, provided the gameplay is solid and some marketing effort is there, because very little of that type of game exists on PlayStation in the combination of game type, genre style, gameplay structure and aesthetic.

So yeah, gameplay loop & structure are the most important factors, but aesthetic/style similarities also play a big part into it IMO.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Sure and AAA singleplayer games were supposedly dead years ago.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Nah, it has always been about multiplayer, social gaming vs traditional single player gaming. Lethal Company is being studied by GAAS studios, not single player studios.

Again, all of this applies to Baldurs Gate 3. It just sounds like you're running out of traditional GAAS to mention so you have to resort to titles like Lethal company to complement your narrative.

The Finals is still regularly featured in the top 10 on Steam so it's decline is soft. It will settle north of healthy in 3 months time.

Many in the anti-GAAS crowd will never consider evidence that goes against the narrative of their preference.

cope

 

[Flutta]

Fake news. GaaS is here to stay for a long long time.

 

[Kenpachii]

Yeah, but the analyst isn't saying live services are going to die. Just that they won't be "dominating". I don't think anyone wants one type of game to dominate all others going forward.

Lol these games have been dominating for ages now, they aint going anywhere. Single player games with insomiac leaks costing 500m for upcoming generations isn't something anybody wants to burn there hands on other if they are heavily sponsored. Those games will become more and more niche.

For all single player games are dying out faster and faster, even home consoles now like playstation and xbox basically are live service boxes with single player games second.

Fortnite aint slowing down, league of legends aint slowing down, and gta 5 online expenses aint slowing down.

 

[Jigsaah]

It's worth noting that he doesn't mean that GaaS games won't be the biggest revenue generators and most played games, just that the pipeline of games will shift away as opportunities to break into that market dry up and failures mount up.

I don't even believe that to be true. The difference in revenue between successful live service games and non-live games is insane. Developers and publishers will continue to be responsible for keeping shareholders happy. Easiest and less risky way to do this is to have microtransactions, free to play models and other types of in-game purchases to continue to monetize beyond the barrier of entry.

The only way this stops is if players stop buying this stuff. However, we all know casual and core players are more than happy to spend a little (at times, a lot) extra to buy skins, P2W crap...all that.

He says what he says, but lets look at his actual worrding:

"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, but not every studio will want to develop a live service game anymore. Developers and publishers will pivot back to premium game development. Oversaturation in the PC and console markets is evident, with a handful of titles monopolizing playtime; 60% of playtime is eaten up by 19 games and 75% by the top 33 by playtime."

1. Pivoting back to premium game development would take at least 5 years to come to fruition. In the article they predict for the next year. How are you supposed to test this when many games aren't announced that early?

2. Saying not every studio will want to develop a live service game? Okay, first off...he's using absolutes to protect his prediction. Of course not every studio is gonna wanna make a live service game. But this is the case even now. Spiderman 2, Starfield, Baldur's Gate 3, Super Mario Wonder and Alan Wake are all not live service. A more bold prediction would be about specific studios who might want to pivot from their previous offerings and instead choose to do a non-live service game.

3. He does a better job with making predictions in his next line:

"Oversaturation in the PC and console markets is evident, with a handful of titles monopolizing playtime; 60% of playtime is eaten up by 19 games and 75% by the top 33 by playtime."

So he knows how to get specific...

Overall D for Duuuuuuuuuuh.

 

[Topher]

Lol these games have been dominating for ages now, they aint going anywhere. Single player games with insomiac leaks costing 500m for upcoming generations isn't something anybody wants to burn there hands on other if they are heavily sponsored. Those games will become more and more niche.

For all single player games are dying out faster and faster, even home consoles now like playstation and xbox basically are live service boxes with single player games second.

Fortnite aint slowing down, league of legends aint slowing down, and gta 5 online expenses aint slowing down.

Fortunately there is quite a healthy market for single player games. We see that in the best sellers list every single year. So seems like neither single player or live service games are going anywhere. Whether live service continues to dominate is the question. We will see.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Game studios should look deep into their talent pool and business strategy because making and supporting a big time GAAS isn't easy. But the teaseful giant gold chest of riches is too good to ignore.

What may happen is all the non-experienced studios go back to SP games or games with traditional MP modes. And skip trying to be FIFA or Fortnite. Such as Platinum Games never trying to make GAAS like Babylons Fall ever again.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Yeah but look at where Overwatch is now. It's practically dead. In fact, as Fortnite grew, Overwatch began its gradual decline before Overwatch 2's bad launch finished it off.

Overwatch 2 is still one of the 30 most played games on earth. It's unbelievably profitable even today.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Again, all of this applies to Baldurs Gate 3.

You think multiplayer GAAS studios are studying BG3?

 

[Guilty_AI]

You think multiplayer GAAS studios are studying BG3?

You think they aren't?

 

[Aces High]

We have GAAS for over 20 years now.

GAAS is not a trend. It's how online multiplayer games are created.

Online multiplayer games will go nowhere.

Dude is an idiot.

 

[Catphish]

With the great success of Baldur's Gate 3 and Hogwarts Legacy, neither of which are GAAS, and both of which are single-player-focused, there will surely be other devs/pubs that are compelled to pivot (or at least conservatively branch out) in that direction.

And I'm all fucking for it. GAAS can die in a fire.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Then VR time to shine.

I need an emoji wearing VR goggles.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

That would be so great... but I'm afraid it's going to be replaced by something even worst and AI related, since everyone is rushing into this AI nonsense today.

 

[Meicyn]

Aint happening, live service games are here to stay.

Yup, this thing has been going since Ultima Online back in 1997. They were charging $9.99 per month to play which is effectively $20 per month when adjusting for inflation.

Online gaming isn’t much different than the interactions people crave on this very forum. Folks look for socially interactive experiences and I enjoy playing The Division with friends just as much as I enjoy single player experiences like Baldur’s Gate 3 which, hilariously, is arguably even more fun with friends.

 

[Danjin44]

 

[Lionel Richie]

Many in the anti-GAAS crowd will never consider evidence that goes against the narrative of their preference.

Maybe because GAAS is fucking cancer and there's no bright sides about cancer.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Online gaming isn’t much different than the interactions people crave on this very forum.

OMG, preach! I've thought this for years now.

 

[Miyazaki’s Slave]

 

[Cyberpunkd]

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.

Which is why you need AI to make it sustainable. Pre-production of art assets can be done in weeks, not years.

 

[Moriarty1889]

Good……couldn‘t be soon enough for me.

 

[sono]

Good

 

[Barakov]

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Lol these games have been dominating for ages now, they aint going anywhere. Single player games with insomiac leaks costing 500m for upcoming generations isn't something anybody wants to burn there hands on other if they are heavily sponsored. Those games will become more and more niche.

For all single player games are dying out faster and faster, even home consoles now like playstation and xbox basically are live service boxes with single player games second.

Fortnite aint slowing down, league of legends aint slowing down, and gta 5 online expenses aint slowing down.

Most of the biggest selling and critically acclaimed (by critics and fans) games of the year were single-player titles. Tears of the Kingdom, Spiderman 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Alan Wake 2, Final Fantasy XVI...

Even last year, games like Elden Ring outsold COD for that year. So it's very clear that single-player games aren't going anywhere. Your problem is you don't think single-player and GaaS titles can coexist. But, it seems like some shareholders foolishly feel the same way.

Overwatch 2 is still one of the 30 most played games on earth. It's unbelievably profitable even today.

Well, I know it normally doesn't have that many players on Steam, but I did find another website claiming a recent average of ~ 300K players per day:

https://activeplayer.io/overwatch-2/

Hard to tell how accurate their numbers are though, since Battle.NET doesn't provide player data openly IIRC.

But even supposing the player pool is relatively healthy, the brand image for the IP s shot. It was a darling among gamers with the first one; now it's kind of an afterthought and doesn't have the same good standing especially with various business practices.

Maybe there's a chance the game's brand image can recover in the future but for now it's not really a poster child for hero shooters or GaaS titles with strong reputation.

 

[Bernardougf]

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.

Well.. if you can make AAA games that are not 40-60 hours bloated snoozefest you can make something in 3 years ... AAA game development took a wrong turn somewhere but it is doable in a cheaper/different manner...

I would mutch prefer smaller games that I can finish in about 15-20 hours with less to do and a better focused experience, and get 2 or maybe 3 games in the span of time that it takes to do some 60 hour open world asscreed bloated copy paste mess... but thats just me

 

[Bkdk]

Likely worse prediction ever. Crypto back in bull market and web 3 gaming players will certainly hit new highs.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Well.. if you can make AAA games that are not 40-60 hours bloated snoozefest you can make something in 3 years ... AAA game development took a wrong turn somewhere but it is doable in a cheaper/different manner...

I would mutch prefer smaller games that I can finish in about 15-20 hours with less to do and a better focused experience, and get 2 or maybe 3 games in the span of time that it takes to do some 60 hour open world asscreed bloated copy paste mess... but thats just me

Have you been paying attention to the market? People don't buy the games you're describing.

These companions don't want to spend 7+ years making 100+ hour games. They would love to sell everyone a $70 dollar game that's 15 hours long and only takes 3 years to develop. They make these bigger games because the data says it's their best bet.

Well, I know it normally doesn't have that many players on Steam, but I did find another website claiming a recent average of ~ 300K players per day:

https://activeplayer.io/overwatch-2/

Hard to tell how accurate their numbers are though, since Battle.NET doesn't provide player data openly IIRC.

But even supposing the player pool is relatively healthy, the brand image for the IP s shot. It was a darling among gamers with the first one; now it's kind of an afterthought and doesn't have the same good standing especially with various business practices.

Maybe there's a chance the game's brand image can recover in the future but for now it's not really a poster child for hero shooters or GaaS titles with strong reputation.

Every multiplayer community I've ever been a part of has had a vocal minority shooting "This game is dead. The devs ruined it!"

Every. Single. One.

Spies v Mercs, DotA 2, Overwatch, Fortnite...

All the developers are stupid. Why don't they listen to their cOmMuNiTy!

All multiplayer games attract this toxic personality type who go on Twitter, smash their keyboard, and tell everyone how awful the developers are. I don't listen to these people anymore. I used to.

Overwatch, the brand, certainly doesn't have the cache it did back in 2016, but I'm really hesitant to listen to the criticism online until I see the player base really take a nosedive...and even then, a lot of a games fall has to do with the market constantly getting new arrivals.

 

[The artful mincer]

Most of the biggest selling and critically acclaimed (by critics and fans) games of the year were single-player titles. Tears of the Kingdom, Spiderman 2, Baldur's Gate 3, Alan Wake 2, Final Fantasy XVI...

Even last year, games like Elden Ring outsold COD for that year. So it's very clear that single-player games aren't going anywhere. Your problem is you don't think single-player and GaaS titles can coexist. But, it seems like some shareholders foolishly feel the same way.



Well, I know it normally doesn't have that many players on Steam, but I did find another website claiming a recent average of ~ 300K players per day:

https://activeplayer.io/overwatch-2/

Hard to tell how accurate their numbers are though, since Battle.NET doesn't provide player data openly IIRC.

But even supposing the player pool is relatively healthy, the brand image for the IP s shot. It was a darling among gamers with the first one; now it's kind of an afterthought and doesn't have the same good standing especially with various business practices.

Maybe there's a chance the game's brand image can recover in the future but for now it's not really a poster child for hero shooters or GaaS titles with strong reputation.

You forgot the best selling game last year brah! Hogwarts Legacy!

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Well.. if you can make AAA games that are not 40-60 hours bloated snoozefest you can make something in 3 years ... AAA game development took a wrong turn somewhere but it is doable in a cheaper/different manner...

I would mutch prefer smaller games that I can finish in about 15-20 hours with less to do and a better focused experience, and get 2 or maybe 3 games in the span of time that it takes to do some 60 hour open world asscreed bloated copy paste mess... but thats just me

It's not just you; a lot of people want that, which is why I think the AA space has been seeing so much growth these past few years. Those types of 15-20 hour laser-focused experiences with decent production budgets and oomph is what a good amount of AA games are doing, and some AAA titles (though comparatively, not as many).

I'd love to see Sony return to some internal AA titles again, or at least do more '2P' stuff in that vein with legacy IP. Some IP could even take things from other IP and maybe leverage them better. Like I was just thinking earlier...why not reinvent Infamous to be stylized like the Gravity Rush series, make it more anime-like but still feel like a superhero game, keep the same powers & expand on them, and do that as a AA game alongside with a short animated series with a well-known studio (like Madhouse for example).

Bet that would do pretty good numbers, and have really good profit margins while doing so. And cost a fraction of what licensed games like Spiderman 3 are looking like they'll end up costing (selling less copies than them, yes, but having potentially better margins for profit vs. costs). 2-3 games like that a year can start to add up in terms of profits, plus serve some other niches in the install base.

 

[Bernardougf]

Have you been paying attention to the market? People don't buy the games you're describing.

These companions don't want to spend 7+ years making 100+ hour games. They would love to sell everyone a $70 dollar game that's 15 hours long and only takes 3 years to develop. They make these bigger games because the data says it's their best bet.



Every multiplayer community I've ever been a part of has had a vocal minority shooting "This game is dead. The devs ruined it!"

Every. Single. One.

Spies v Mercs, DotA 2, Overwatch, Fortnite...

All the developers are stupid. Why don't they listen to their cOmMuNiTy!

All multiplayer games attract this toxic personality type who go on Twitter, smash their keyboard, and tell everyone how awful the developers are. I don't listen to these people anymore. I used to.

Overwatch, the brand, certainly doesn't have the cache it did back in 2016, but I'm really hesitant to listen to the criticism online until I see the player base really take a nosedive...and even then, a lot of a games fall has to do with the market constantly getting new arrivals.

Well nintendo does smaller and cheaper games that sells like hotcakes, indie games like hollow Knight can be successful, saying that 100+ hours tripple AAA games is all that sells is too simple in my opinion.. is not wrong is just not all the truth there is, I also think that studios persue this huge games thinking of selling services indefinitely for many years but in the end this AAA bloated very expensive business seems unsustainable, in the end Im just talking about me here, I would prefer smaller games AA to AAA little, I would buy much more games, they would spend less doing it and the profit margins may be bigger. When we see games like Days Gone selling 8 million copies and still being considered a failure, something has gone wrong.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Well nintendo does smaller and cheaper games that sells like hotcakes, indie games like hollow Knight can be successful, saying that 100+ hours tripple AAA games is all that sells is too simple in my opinion.. is not wrong is just not all the truth there is, I also think that studios persue this huge games thinking of selling services indefinitely for many years but in the end this AAA bloated very expensive business seems unsustainable, in the end Im just talking about me here, I would prefer smaller games AA to AAA little, I would buy much more games, they would spend less doing it and the profit margins may be bigger. When we see games like Days Gone selling 8 million copies and still being considered a failure, something has gone wrong.

You can attach powerful IP to a small game and it'll do numbers.

You can do way better by attaching a powerful IP to a big game.

I understand you're talking about your preferences. I'm fine with that.

But if you're talking publisher strategy, small, quick dev cycle games are not the way to go.

 

[mdkirby]

I’ve never understood why no one has ever really tried a single player live service game. Ie a big 100-200 hr game, like fallout, but then with a roadmap where a major paid expansion will drop every 6 months for 5+ years, with smaller updates and quests along the way. It costs a shit ton to build a world and all the character, then comparatively it much cheaper to keep adding to that world with new stories and content. Instead they do this for maybe one year with a couple of expansions if we’re lucky, then they go “meh, fuck it, let start again from scratch”, in a new engine and entirely new world, with entirely new assets, and release the next part in 6 years, if we’re lucky.

Like fallout new vegas cost a fraction of fallout 3 to make; and took a fraction of the time. We could have had another half a dozen or so new Vegas’s made by an external studio, as paid £40 a pop expansions or standalone expansions, between fallout 3 and fallout 4, and people would have eaten them up. It wouldn’t even need to delay the sequel if it was handled by secondary teams.

 

[ProtoByte]

Well.. if you can make AAA games that are not 40-60 hours bloated snoozefest you can make something in 3 years ... AAA game development took a wrong turn somewhere but it is doable in a cheaper/different manner...

I would mutch prefer smaller games that I can finish in about 15-20 hours with less to do and a better focused experience, and get 2 or maybe 3 games in the span of time that it takes to do some 60 hour open world asscreed bloated copy paste mess... but thats just me

People keep saying this shit, but it doesn't track at this point.

The Insomniac leak showed, unequivocally, that game length, content control, and asset re-usage doesn't mean much for the cost of a game.
Dev time + dev count x average salary. That's it. Despite being the second iteration on Spider-Man, SM2 took 3-4 years of dev time depending on when you start the timeline, and cost 3 times as much. It's about as lean an open world can get.

There were long games before this gen.

 

[Pop]

Only if Fortnite starts to die*

*and it ain't looking good for the believers

 

[Neolombax]

I hope we don't see more GaaS games being developed, its very hard to maintain and be successful. At the end of the day, this just means wasted development time and resources.

 

[Trogdor1123]

Is fortnight gaas? Or just f2p? It’s numbers are at an all time high.

 

[Aces High]

Is fortnight gaas? Or just f2p? It’s numbers are at an all time high.

Every succesful online multiplayer game of the past 20+ years is GAAS.

Fortnite is GAAS. League of Legends is GAAS. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is GAAS. Every multiplayer shooter like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Counterstrike, Halo, Destiny etc is GAAS. Fighting games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat or even Smash Bros are GAAS.

The hate for GAAS on this forum is irrational.

 

[akaFullmetal]

Less live service games and more traditional games. I'll take it

 

[Aces High]

Less live service games and more traditional games. I'll take it

That doesn't even makes sense.

GAAS existed long before the Sony cookie cutter AAA formula. So if anything, GAAS is more traditional than modern single player games.

And looking at the Insomniac leaks, GAAS probably is much more economical than the money-burning AAA single player games that fail to make sales in a modern subscription service world.

What even is a traditional game? We have online gaming since 1984 and GAAS since the 1990s. Do you want to go back to Tennis for Two or what?

 

[Guilty_AI]

I’ve never understood why no one has ever really tried a single player live service game. Ie a big 100-200 hr game, like fallout, but then with a roadmap where a major paid expansion will drop every 6 months for 5+ years, with smaller updates and quests along the way. It costs a shit ton to build a world and all the character, then comparatively it much cheaper to keep adding to that world with new stories and content. Instead they do this for maybe one year with a couple of expansions if we’re lucky, then they go “meh, fuck it, let start again from scratch”, in a new engine and entirely new world, with entirely new assets, and release the next part in 6 years, if we’re lucky.

Like fallout new vegas cost a fraction of fallout 3 to make; and took a fraction of the time. We could have had another half a dozen or so new Vegas’s made by an external studio, as paid £40 a pop expansions or standalone expansions, between fallout 3 and fallout 4, and people would have eaten them up. It wouldn’t even need to delay the sequel if it was handled by secondary teams.

Some do just that though, Truck Simulator games are basically this. Then there's also ARPGs like Diablo and Grim Dawn which follow similar formulas, games like Trailmakers and No Man's Sky, 4X games, or episodic games that release story content slowly over the years.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Every succesful online multiplayer game of the past 20+ years is GAAS.

Fortnite is GAAS. League of Legends is GAAS. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is GAAS. Every multiplayer shooter like Call of Duty, Battlefield, Counterstrike, Halo, Destiny etc is GAAS. Fighting games like Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat or even Smash Bros are GAAS.

The hate for GAAS on this forum is irrational.

I'll say what people actually hate around here that is strongly associated with GAAS:
-Games that force you to be connected to the internet.
-Nickel and diming.
-Games that try to get you to spend ungodly amounts of time playing it through filler content and excessive grind.

Remove these three and people won't have anywhere near as much of a problem, whether you call X game GAAS or not. Our fish-friend earlier mentioned Lethal Company, i guarantee many single players wouldn't mind playing that, just like how many of them don't mind playing Mario Kart or Monster Hunter.

 

[Aces High]

I'll say what people actually hate around here that is strongly associated with GAAS:
-Games that force you to be connected to the internet.
-Nickel and diming.
-Games that try to get you to spend ungodly amounts of time playing it through filler content and excessive grind.

Yeah, that's pretty much the Gran Turismo 7 experience. Perfect example how not to do GAAS.

 

[Bernardougf]

People keep saying this shit, but it doesn't track at this point.

The Insomniac leak showed, unequivocally, that game length, content control, and asset re-usage doesn't mean much for the cost of a game.
Dev time + dev count x average salary. That's it. Despite being the second iteration on Spider-Man, SM2 took 3-4 years of dev time depending on when you start the timeline, and cost 3 times as much. It's about as lean an open world can get.

There were long games before this gen.

So what you are saying is that IF SM2 was a smaller/shorter less bloated game using the same graphical assets it wouldn't have cost less or take less time to make ?

In fact if I read it correctly SM2 100% completion takes around 28 hours and SM1 took around 44 hours.... these are google numbers so they can be wrong... so SM2 is a lot less bloated than SM1 which for me is a good thing IF they are saving costs and time to release this games.

 

[Fake]

God please, let this happen.

 

[KXVXII9X]

I’ve never understood why no one has ever really tried a single player live service game. Ie a big 100-200 hr game, like fallout, but then with a roadmap where a major paid expansion will drop every 6 months for 5+ years, with smaller updates and quests along the way. It costs a shit ton to build a world and all the character, then comparatively it much cheaper to keep adding to that world with new stories and content. Instead they do this for maybe one year with a couple of expansions if we’re lucky, then they go “meh, fuck it, let start again from scratch”, in a new engine and entirely new world, with entirely new assets, and release the next part in 6 years, if we’re lucky.

Like fallout new vegas cost a fraction of fallout 3 to make; and took a fraction of the time. We could have had another half a dozen or so new Vegas’s made by an external studio, as paid £40 a pop expansions or standalone expansions, between fallout 3 and fallout 4, and people would have eaten them up. It wouldn’t even need to delay the sequel if it was handled by secondary teams.

Genshin Impact?

 

[NickFire]

This probably isn’t happening. Putting aside the long dev time for modern games, stuff like sports games and COD are live service in my book. Card packs, battle passes, new releases that are Incremental updates, etc. And they’re not going away most likely.

 

[Xyphie]

Overwatch 2 is still one of the 30 most played games on earth. It's unbelievably profitable even today.

Yeah, one can just look at PSN/XBL stats and see it ranks at #10 and #11 respectively. We don't really have PC numbers but it has a 30,000 or so peak on Steam daily and probably skews towards people playing it on Battle.net rather than Steam on PC. The game has definitely gone from a "Tier 1" GaaS game (Fortnite et al) to a Tier 2 kind of game but still obviously massively in the black.

 

[Generic]

I'll say what people actually hate around here that is strongly associated with GAAS:
-Games that force you to be connected to the internet.
-Nickel and diming.
-Games that try to get you to spend ungodly amounts of time playing it through filler content and excessive grind.

Remove these three and people won't have anywhere near as much of a problem, whether you call X game GAAS or not. Our fish-friend earlier mentioned Lethal Company, i guarantee many single players wouldn't mind playing that, just like how many of them don't mind playing Mario Kart or Monster Hunter.

"-Games that force you to be connected to the internet."

GaaS usually are multiplayer games anyway.

 

[Rayderism]

Whether GaaS die or not is irrelevant to me. I don't play/buy them anyway.