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

Square Enix: Games as a Service is "the mainstream model for gaming in the future"

StereoVsn

Member
You hope it's two years. I'm guessing part 4 doesn't release until 2025.
Best (and I mean absolutely Best Case) case scenario at this point would be episode 1 coming out in 2018 and then follow ups every 2 years after, finishing the saga in 2022. I have 0 faith in SE being able to accomplish that.
 

RedSwirl

Junior Member
Actually I think this is just moving mainstream console games to more or less what big PC games have always been, or at least what big PC games have been since at least the 90's.

As far as back then PC games like The Sims or Age of Empires or whatever launched the main game first with expansion packs and other content updates going on for years before a full sequel came out. Back then as today, PC games lived on for years instead of being left behind after two years. The only difference from today is that we have F2P and microtrnsactions now.
 

djtiesto

is beloved, despite what anyone might say
I swear you only exist to deliver the worst news :p

I'm convinced this guy takes a sadistic pleasure in doing it, too.

This is absolutely terrible news, the whole 'games as a service' model seems contrary to what SE has been historically known for - story-based single player RPGs (plus fans of these games are usually the type who buy expensive limited edition physical copies). SAAS might work for workplace management software but not so much for games that ape movies. Imagine 'books as a service' or 'movies as a service'? Same thing.
 

Opa-Pa

Member
You gotta admire Square's commitment to constantly devolving in a shittier company. Can't wait for Taro's next game to have loot boxes.
 

Harlequin

Member
Weren't Square also convinced that free-to-play, always-online and episodic games were going to be the "mainstream models for gaming in the future"? IIRC, that's what ruined Just Cause 3.
 

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
Weren't Square also convinced that free-to-play and episodic games were going to be the "mainstream models for gaming in the future"? IIRC, that's what ruined Just Cause 3.
So a lot of companies thought free to play, frequently updated games would be the future, but console gamers had a strong preference for paying $60 up front for their f2p games, and thus the current games as a service model where you buy a $60 game full of microtransactions arose.

These are by far the most successful games in the industry.
 

xealo

Member
Weren't Square also convinced that free-to-play, always-online and episodic games were going to be the "mainstream models for gaming in the future"? IIRC, that's what ruined Just Cause 3.

Id argue what ruined Just Cause 3 is that the game runs like crap. The content in the game itself is just expanding upon what Just Cause 2 were already doing.
 

Nirolak

Mrgrgr
So cancel the game not the studio?
Their statement was basically that they pulled out because Copenhagen was too expensive, and they'd rather hire more in Montreal.

This is also why Crystal Dynamics is constantly starved for staff, and has to rely on Eidos Montreal to co-develop all their games.

They tried to move Hitman out to Montreal with Square Enix Montreal as well, but ended up cancelling that game (but keeping the studio) when Absolution underperformed.
 

Gamezone

Gold Member
What is games as a service exactly? Releasing one episode a month trough the entire year isn't exactly fun to deal with.
 
I feel like I'm in an alternate timeline where Gabe Newell hasn't talked about this years ago. Only now are others catching up?
 

Harlequin

Member
Id argue what ruined Just Cause 3 is that the game runs like crap. The content in the game itself is just expanding upon what Just Cause 2 were already doing.

Yeah but that was because Square originally wanted it to be a very different game and then made Avalanche change course in the middle of development. Jim Sterling did a video on this IIRC.
 

Fou-Lu

Member
Fuck off game companies. This is the exact opposite of what I want. I mean if you each want your big service game, okay, but don't ruin my chance at having solid one play through single player games.
 

vocab

Member
AAA will only get worse at this rate. Also I dont feel SE could create a compelling game that makes sense in the context of games as a service. Feels like a me too statement at this point.
 
Top Bottom