• 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.

Study finds "Games as a Service" has tripled the industry's value

Z

Zelenogorsk

Banned
People funding free content updates by paying for purely cosmetic DLC is one of the best ideas ever for the gaming industry. The only time I spent money on Rocket League was the initial $10 to buy it, and yet I've gotten access to all the new modes and arenas. Awesome.
 
S

SolicitorPirate

Member
oti said:
Lately GAF feels like a club of old people who are only happy if video games are exactly what they remember them to be and who'll get super aggressive if the business model is not exactly what they grew up with, which for them is the only correct way to monetise video games.

GAF has turned into the old men yells at cloud meme.
Click to expand...

The very nature of GAF ensures this. Even the email requirement to sign up skews the user base older. The reactions to threads like this is hardly a surprise

In many ways, the behaviour reminds me a lot of what I see on Transformers forums, where men in their mid 30s think they can meaningfully influence Hasbro, a company that makes money selling toy robots to children
 
J

Joeku

Member
oti said:
Lately GAF feels like a club of old people who are only happy if video games are exactly what they remember them to be and who'll get super aggressive if the business model is not exactly what they grew up with, which for them is the only correct way to monetise video games.

GAF has turned into the old men yells at cloud meme.
Click to expand...

Video games in their breadth and quality have been on a general uptick for about a decade, and right now is the absolute best time to find something interesting, exciting, and new to play. Games have never been in a better place as art and entertainment.

The business around games (and right now puncturing into the "game" part of high-end ones) is frustrating as all hell at the moment, though.

You gotta let me able to enjoy one and lament the other. It could be better.
I know it won't be, on this trajectory. It could, but it won't.
 
T

Tertullian

Member
Not surprising. Believe the global gambling market is near triple the size of the global games market. If you can turn the games market into a vehicle for gambling, preying on the vulnerable, while not even facing proper gambling regulations and not even paying out real money to people who win... boy, you've got it made.
 
O

oti

Banned
Joeku said:
Video games in their breadth and quality have been on a general uptick for about a decade, and right now is the absolute best time to find something interesting, exciting, and new to play. Games have never been in a better place as art and entertainment.

The business around games (and right now puncturing into the "game" part of high-end ones) is frustrating as all hell at the moment, though.

You gotta let me able to enjoy one and lament the other. It could be better.
I know it won't be, on this trajectory. It could, but it won't.
Click to expand...

One has to be able to see that those advancements in art and entertainment only were possible thanks to the business evolving. Without business video games would not be what they are today, the most exciting form of media.

Without the democratisation of technology we wouldn't have such a strong indie scene. Without the evolving business we wouldn't have the democratisation of technology.

Without GaaS we wouldn't have those giant video games we take for granted these days. I know Destiny has its problems but try to imagine hearing about such a game just 10 years ago. That was impossible to do back then.

Not all changes are positive, not everyone has to like them and that's perfectly fine. But instead of seeing this as some sort of battle between the "evil companies" and "us", which is an incredibly naive way to look at it to begin with, one should realise that this is the natural progression of any industry. Asking for GaaS or lot boxes to go away is practically asking for a massive downscale of the entire industry. And if people now say "that's what I want, because I don't like GaaS", then... what is there even to talk about?
 
A

Anne

Member
Maximo said:
I feel like i'm going more on the opposite I mean this year I have picked up A Hat In Time, Observer, Divinity Original Sin 2, What Remains Of Edith Finch, Little Nightmares, Yooka Laylee, Battlechasers, Night In The Woods, Pyre. All of them Indies or middle tier games I just don't have the time or patience for a game that constantly dangles a carrot infront of me that has the same gameplay loop.
Only 24 but as I get older I feel like Im constantly looking for games that are different/challenging invoke some deeper emotions, just bored of what alot of AAA developers are offering I sure as hell am in the minority but indies have never been better and im happy as long as the market for them is stable.
Click to expand...

Idk if anybody pointed this out to you yet, but the move away from tons of AAA $60 dollars games has been a huge benefit to indies. It's just created a lot of space in the low-mid tier pricing range since spending habits and expectations line up more in that area now. Mat mentioned it in the NPD thread as one of the best benefits of the current GaaS trend.

I'm also 24, and I'm only planning on getting 4 $60 games this year (Nier, Persona, Zelda, Mario) and that is actually my hard limit. Hell, I normally only get 2~ a year now unless there's a way to get things at a steep discount. Most of my gamign budget will go into 3~ or so GaaS multiplayer games and anywhere from 10-20 indies in the $5-$30 price range. A lot of people I know who are around my age are in a similar boat. We love games, but seeing big $60 games is basically a no buy unless we are 100% we are going to be absolutely engrossed in it.
 
S

Staf

Member
Zelenogorsk said:
People funding free content updates by paying for purely cosmetic DLC is one of the best ideas ever for the gaming industry. The only time I spent money on Rocket League was the initial $10 to buy it, and yet I've gotten access to all the new modes and arenas. Awesome.
Click to expand...

I have hundreds of hour in Rocket league and i haven't spent a cent on it. I'm probably just going to buy something in support of this awesome game, don't really care about cosmetics.
 
C

CecilRousso

Member
oti said:
Lately GAF feels like a club of old people who are only happy if video games are exactly what they remember them to be and who'll get super aggressive if the business model is not exactly what they grew up with, which for them is the only correct way to monetise video games.

GAF has turned into the old men yells at cloud meme.
Click to expand...

Not really. We're yelling on something concrete, something tangible, that can be changed, where options exists, and where those options are often proven to be wildly succesful.

Still old men yelling, sure, but I have no problems with admitting to being that kind of guy. I'm rather that then being the one that comforms to whatever bullshit publishers pull, not because they need to, but because they obviously can get away with it.

I could buy games like Shadows of War, but I would feel like a fool for doing so, because I don't think it's a product that would provide me with a feeling about being valued as a customer, because of the reasons that have been discussed in all the recent threads about that game, and similiar games.

I don't need every developer to do exactly the product I personally want, but I have the right to reject it, and discuss why I do it on a forum.
 
E

Endo Punk

Member
I'm not against GaaS. Earlier this year Let it Die had me hooked for months and now I'm into Destiny, I appreciate the weekly updates to just play and chill with friends. My heart still belongs to the awesome standard games where you play through a story and you're done or try NG+ and other modes if you wish. My favourite game this year is still Yakuza 0 after all.
 
A

Anne

Member
CecilRousso said:
I could by games like Shadows of War, but I would feel like a fool for doing so, because I don't think it's a product that would provide me with a feeling about being valued as a customer, because of the reasons that have been discussed in all the recent threads about that game, and similiar games.
Click to expand...

FWIW I think Shadow of War stinks to high horse shit, and I'm down for a lot of GaaS stuff. I would reject the hell out of it and go play a game with a more fair GaaS model. Releasing a $60 game that isn't all that expansive or engaging in the first place, then throwing in lootboxes to help finish it? That's actually a joke. Lots of people that buy into the multiplayer GaaS model are laughing their asses off that this is going to work on some people.

Not every game is Shadow of War though. A lot more GaaS games will look something more like Rainbow Six, CSGO, Dota, LoL, Zelda BotW, FFXV, and even Witcher 3. You'll also get some in the middle with generally good models but some debatable element, like Overwatch. You can balance the pros and cons of all the models in those games and find quite a bit of value for your money.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
oti said:
mXyupD1.gif


If this is the foundation of your "if we shout loudly enough the companies will change" beliefs, then boy oh boy do I have bad news for you.
Click to expand...

Other posters still haven't answered me who got VIP to change in Forza 7. I'm confident saying the social media backlash, articles and those on the likes of GAF and reddit requesting refunds for the Ultimate Edition played a pivotal role. I'm pretty certain those sitting back telling others complaining to be quiet, simmer down, just accept it, stop "using up GAFs bandwidth to create multiple topics" and so on weren't the ones who persuaded Turn 10 to change VIP back to what it was. Ironically, all of those browbeating the complainers to be quiet and leave Turn 10/MS alone can now benefit from VIP being what it used to be. Thanks, I guess? Don't mention it, just remember to keep inferring we're simply old men yelling at clouds who never get anything changed. Speaking of the Xbox One, why do you think MS/Xbox took one of the worst PR hits it ever has and has completely failed to recapture its dominance over the PS3 in the early/mid 360 generation? They announced an Xbox One vision much of the hardcore market hated and rejected, then had to back peddle to try and save face, but still went ahead and bundled in Kinect at too high a price. Another move the hardcore market didn't want. Sony offered a console without their camera forced in with a better hardcore message to the gamers (including that viral here is how you share a PS4 game video) and the rest is history. Or should we revise this history in order to try and say the hardcore market had absolutely no say over the PS4/Xbox One launches?

I'm actually pretty taken back by seeing such a defeatist attitude coming from individuals on a hardcore gaming forum that has seen multiple examples over the years of when a collective work together to pass on critical feedback to PR/marketing/devs directly things can be patched/changed. No, not always, and arguably at a lesser frequency as time is moving on, but if you don't attempt to ask questions/influence change then you don't get the potential for change. The Diablo 3 real money auction house is another big one we contributed largely to getting removed. My cynicism aside that it's coming back, the point is who was largely responsible for getting it removed in the first place? We now seem to be at a stage where those on the front lines trying to assert positive change or revaluation of things in games are not only going to be told to be quiet and stop moaning, but subject to revisionist history that claims we've never done shit to influence anything. What on earth is going on right now with some opinions others have of fellow gamers? I honestly cannot wrap my head around it.
 
M

matrix-cat

Member
Tertullian said:
Not surprising. Believe the global gambling market is near triple the size of the global games market. If you can turn the games market into a vehicle for gambling, preying on the vulnerable, while not even facing proper gambling regulations and not even paying out real money to people who win... boy, you've got it made.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the legions of outspoken fans who just itch to come to the defence of their favourite corporations. I feel like not even real casinos foster the kind of 'us vs. them', console warrior mentality that game publishers enjoy the fruits of. "How dare you imply that Game X's business practices are shady? That's my favourite game!"

People want to pay the publisher to work as their PR team :p
 
wapplew

wapplew

Member
matrix-cat said:
Not to mention the legions of outspoken fans who just itch to come to the defence of their favourite corporations. I feel like not even real casinos foster the kind of 'us vs. them', console warrior mentality that game publishers enjoy the fruits of. "How dare you imply that Game X's business practices are shady? That's my favourite game!"

People want to pay the publisher to work as their PR team :p
Click to expand...

Or people really enjoy loot box economy and think games are better with it.
It's not hard to think many gamers love these kind of business practices, we can pay $60 and enjoy super long post launch content and support, endless amount of entertaining hours.
Plus some loot box, card packs game mode is legit fun, Ultimate team in EA sport games won't be most popular game mode if the mode is not enjoy by million of gamers.
How can you blame people defending the thing they enjoy?
 
O

oti

Banned
Audioboxer said:
Other posters still haven't answered me who got VIP to change in Forza 7. I'm confident saying the social media backlash, articles and those on the likes of GAF and reddit requesting refunds for the Ultimate Edition played a pivotal role. I'm pretty certain those sitting back telling others complaining to be quiet, simmer down, just accept it, stop "using up GAFs bandwidth to create multiple topics" and so on weren't the ones who persuaded Turn 10 to change VIP back to what it was. Ironically, all of those browbeating the complainers to be quiet and leave Turn 10/MS alone can now benefit from VIP being what it used to be. Thanks, I guess? Don't mention it, just remember to keep inferring we're simply old men yelling at clouds who never get anything changed. Speaking of the Xbox One, why do you think MS/Xbox took one of the worst PR hits it ever has and has completely failed to recapture its dominance over the PS3 in the early/mid 360 generation? They announced an Xbox One vision much of the hardcore market hated and rejected, then had to back peddle to try and save face, but still went ahead and bundled in Kinect at too high a price. Another move the hardcore market didn't want. Sony offered a console without their camera forced in with a better hardcore message to the gamers (including that viral here is how you share a PS4 game video) and the rest is history. Or should we revise this history in order to try and say the hardcore market had absolutely no say over the PS4/Xbox One launches?

I'm actually pretty taken back by seeing such a defeatist attitude coming from individuals on a hardcore gaming forum that has seen multiple examples over the years of when a collective work together to pass on critical feedback to PR/marketing/devs directly things can be patched/changed. No, not always, and arguably at a lesser frequency as time is moving on, but if you don't attempt to ask questions/influence change then you don't get the potential for change. The Diablo 3 real money auction house is another big one we contributed largely to getting removed. My cynicism aside that it's coming back, the point is who was largely responsible for getting it removed in the first place? We now seem to be at a stage where those on the front lines trying to assert positive change or revaluation of things in games are not only going to be told to be quiet and stop moaning, but subject to revisionist history that claims we've never done shit to influence anything. What on earth is going on right now with some opinions others have of fellow gamers? I honestly cannot wrap my head around it.
Click to expand...

About Forza, why are you asking me? Ask the posters who don't respond to you. Enthusiasts 100% played a role in the reversal because the VIP programm IS for enthusiasts. Which is why you thinking GAF prevented the Xbox One DRM is so incredibly naive. Let me quote myself from one of the countless other threads:

Sorry, but this comparison makes zero sense. Microsoft changed course after the mass market unilaterally opposed to the new DRM. The result were abysmal pre-order numbers that would've been the death sentence of any new platform.

Microtransactions are an entirely different story and have been proven to be accepted by the mass market just fine. Not using them makes no sense whatsoever for most companies.

The Xbox One is not an example you want to point to if you want to feel better about our little bubble having another drama week.
Click to expand...

What really gets me is how you believe this is a "battle" between "greedy companies" and "us". The ones who need to fight the very foundation of capitalim to "save" our hobby or something. What is even more entertaining is the notion that it is supposed to be "us" who are completely right and not those thousands and thousands of people who are fine with loot boxes, who are fine with purchasing loot boxes and don't mind. They are the reason loot boxes are successfull since almost all of us don't engage with them anyway I'd assume. And I'm not talking about the addicts purchasing them. Just other consumers with other budgets and other things to do in life than caring about artistic integrity of video games or posting on GAF. They are just as legitimate consumers as we are. Companies have to cater to them as much, actually more, than they have to cater to us.

We're not some kind of soldiers fighting the fight or whatever stupid image some people may have in their head. If you really want to change things call your representative. Show politics that this is a huge issue. But let me tell you, there are more important issues surrounding the digital economy than loot boxes in video games.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
oti said:
About Forza, why are you asking me? Ask the posters who don't respond to you. Enthusiasts 100% played a role in the reversal because the VIP programm IS for enthusiasts. Which is why you thinking GAF prevented the Xbox One DRM is so incredibly naive. Let me quote myself from one of the countless other threads:



What really gets me is how you believe this is a "battle" between "greedy companies" and "us". The ones who need to fight the very foundation of capitalim to "save" our hobby or something. What is even more entertaining is the notion that it is supposed to be "us" who are completely right and not those thousands and thousands of people who are fine with loot boxes, who are fine with purchasing loot boxes and don't mind. They are the reason loot boxes are successfull since almost all of us don't engage with them anyway I'd assume. And I'm not talking about the addicts here purchasing them. Just other consumers with other budgets and other things to do in life than caring about artistic integrity of video games or posting on GAF. They are just as legitimate consumers as we are. Companies have to cater to them as much, actually more, than they have to cater to us.

We're not some kind of soldiers fighting the fight or whatever stupid image some people may have in their head. If you really want to change things call your representative. Show politics that this is a huge issue. But let me tell you, there are more important issues surrounding the digital economy than loot boxes in video games.
Click to expand...

Because you quoted me with sarcasm inferring the hardcore gaming market didn't play a part in the Xbox One 180. I thought you'd be a good candidate to ask about Forza. Keep in mind who it is that often sets the narrative that blows upwind to the "casual gamers". Journalists play a big role, but journalists often aggregate the collective feeling of the hardcore. I think we've seen GAF -> Website -> GAF a few times. I actually remember sites lifting from GAF during the DRM-gate debates. The Adam Orth "scandal" blew up as well because of how the hardcore market responded to his comments about always-online and just accepting it. Or Don Mattrick's "we have an Xbox 360 for people who can't go online" remark which again, the hardcore market blew up around. Or finally, in the same way Dan Greenawalt's Forza 7 VIP comments on Twitter didn't do Turn 10 any favours when Reddit blew up.

You package things as "old men yelling at clouds" / "drama week" and a slew of non-sequiturs to try and undermine the potential for change/revaluation through critical feedback and of course you'll get some questions thrown your way from people who've seen what collective effort can achieve. Feel free to sit said efforts out, but as I satirised I'm sure yourself or many others sitting it out will be enjoying the fruits of achievement with the Forza 7 VIP change if Forza is a game you like. Or Diablo 3 back in the day when we got Blizzard to remove the mechanic they were artificially lowering all legendary drop rates for just to make a buck. Diablo 3 actually turned into a great game, especially when it hit consoles too, without the mess Blizzard launched it as.

It's absolutely fine if there are thousands of people with a warm fuzzy feeling in their heart games they like have loot boxes and ways to spend $100 on crystals. Everyone can enjoy whatever they want. No one is taking all of this fun away from you, loot boxes are here to stay as they no doubt appear in just about any game that isn't a David Cage movie. Regulation with drop rates needing to be known might upset a few publishers, but you can bet they'll still keep them in and just raise the drop rates a bit so any 0.1~5% drop rates don't get piled on. Gamers can and will react with criticism around franchises they enjoy if they feel said franchise is having its gameplay affected in order to try and chase a few bucks. It'll be that way till the end of time so you better prepare yourself for a lot of shouting at clouds and drama weeks for the generations to come. Gameplay, quality of life, fun factor and how much does this game frustrate you to try and get you to spend money will always be big key talking points on a hardcore gaming forum.
 
A

Anne

Member
Audioboxer said:
.
Click to expand...

Legit questions to you: Is it not possible to criticize games that do GaaS poorly(Forza, Shadow of War) while also rewarding and buying into those do it well? Is it also not possible to point out the huge benefits that a model like Overwatch uses while also pointing out the problems with their lootboxes? Is it not possible that games like The Witcher 3 or Dark Souls, which used a form of GaaS, to exist alongside multiplayer games with long tails? IS it also not possible for GaaS to bring up the value of pubs/devs to support the $60 singleplayer games they make outside of that bubble.


You get what I'm saying? It's not an all or nothing discussion. I get that this is probably really scary for people who don't mess with this stuff, but if you want to have a discussion you have to acknowledge a lot of aspects that do work. For people that like GaaS, we have to point out the current trend of lootbox overuse is not very good.

Idk. I think it's pretty simple from where I sit. GaaS can be a very good thing and have proven their worth, but some current trends and models aren't as good for players as they should be. I'd rather work towards improving those models for players and game makers instead of just yelling that the sky is falling.
 
M

matrix-cat

Member
wapplew said:
Or people really enjoy loot box economy and think games are better with it.
It's not hard to think many gamers love these kind of business practices, we can pay $60 and enjoy super long post launch content and support, endless amount of entertaining hours.
Plus some loot box, card packs game mode is legit fun, Ultimate team in EA sport games won't be most popular game mode if the mode is not enjoy by million of gamers.
How can you blame people defending the thing they enjoy?
Click to expand...

I really wouldn't know the psychology behind why gamblers enjoy gambling. I find it pretty mystifying, to be honest. I mean, I get why you'd be happy that other people are subsidising the cost of your DLC for you, but I don't understand why someone would enjoy the practice of paying for a chance of getting the thing they want, rather than just paying to get the thing they want.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Anne said:
Legit questions to you: Is it not possible to criticize games that do GaaS poorly(Forza, Shadow of War) while also rewarding and buying into those do it well? Is it also not possible to point out the huge benefits that a model like Overwatch uses while also pointing out the problems with their lootboxes? Is it not possible that games like The Witcher 3 or Dark Souls, which used a form of GaaS, to exist alongside multiplayer games with long tails? IS it also not possible for GaaS to bring up the value of pubs/devs to support the $60 singleplayer games they make outside of that bubble.


You get what I'm saying? It's not an all or nothing discussion. I get that this is probably really scary for people who don't mess with this stuff, but if you want to have a discussion you have to acknowledge a lot of aspects that do work. For people that like GaaS, we have to point out the current trend of lootbox overuse is not very good.

Idk. I think it's pretty simple from where I sit. GaaS can be a very good thing and have proven their worth, but some current trends and models aren't as good for players as they should be. I'd rather work towards improving those models for players and game makers instead of just yelling that the sky is falling.
Click to expand...

I never said it was an all or nothing discussion, I'm generally responding to a current trend on GAF which has people storming around saying "I'm fed up with all these loot box and microtransaction topics" and implying people they don't want talking about things just need to be quiet. Some of us being noisy does absolutely nothing to stop you or anyone else enjoying the games you do. I conceded in this topic everything the publishers I criticise are doing is incredibly financially successful. The stats, figures and over one billion revenue for some don't lie. I pointed out I'm a gamer though, I don't have shares and I'm not playing the stock market. I also am not employed by anyone in this industry. It should be understood therefore why my arguments are going to be biased towards this being my hobby, not a financial investment opportunity. I don't gain anything acting as free PR for any company either. If anything that IS something I've grown out of as I've gotten older. I used to be a pretty big Sony "fanboy" when I was younger as I grew up on the PS1/PS2 and have a tendency towards JRPGs. Nowadays though I basically view things between me and Sony as a transaction of my earned money, not some friendship scheme. All they want is my money, even if they do dress that up in positive PR or Shuhei going around seemingly acting like a genuinely decent guy. Sometimes credit is due for companies/corporations/businesses when it's due, I know that. I don't view everything as the market out to get me and my wallet. Some devs and pubs just do things far better than others when it comes to decent, ethical and well-intentioned "GaaS".

As I said earlier the descriptor of GaaS is as wide as it can be. We've got people saying it simply means patching games and adding content. That is pretty much.... every single game these days. Like, legitmately every single game. That is also how games have worked since PCs had hard drives, but they weren't exactly called Games as a Service back then. Even consoles have had hard drives for quite a while now. The days of the PS2 everything is on the disc and that is it is long behind us. It's quite obvious when gamers criticise GaaS they are not criticising all DLC and aftermarket support/paid content. Hence why games that are held in high regard for after market support and DLC routinely get brought up as great examples of GaaS. Do I enjoy The Witcher 3 and the Souls series? Hell yeah, I mentioned it earlier. If the definition of GaaS includes them then there are some of my personal examples of how to ask for more money out of me and have me happy to oblige. I did bring up TW3 and Dark Souls/Bloodborne earlier in this topic. With Overwatch my biggest beef has always been non-disclosure of drop rates, but that applies to the whole industry. The reason I go after Blizzard with a keen eye is because of what they did in China. To me that is evidence which proves what the motive of the company will always be. Unlike the Path of Exile devs, Blizzard don't want to be transparent and ethically inclined to make their potential buyers aware of their winnings chances. Money is being made out of some people who do having gambling addictions/problems, and non-disclosure of chances feeds into these people having absolutely no idea when there luck is going to "turn around". There's a fair bit of psychological evaluation of loot boxes going on now, I urge you and others to read it all and understand why some of us have issue with the nature of them in a market with zero regulation. Psychology is my field of study, which should maybe give a little insight into why I am going in pretty hard on all of this, outside of me simply as a gamer getting frustrated games I like or might buy are having their gameplay/fun factor affected for MTs/loot boxes.

In anticipation of anyone mentioning RNG generally in games, such as MMOs or Diablo 3 itself absent the real money auction house, I did cover that earlier in the topic. There is a difference between all gamers within a product having to earn in-game resources or kill bosses over and over to get loot and games that offer a financial transaction to spin the RNG wheel at any point in time. With the prior, the worst thing that's ever happened since gaming has been a thing is people using cheats/trainers or surfing hardcore gaming forums for EXP/Gold exploits or tips and tricks. If the grind or RNG truly put anyone off, they just moved onto another game or were happy with their great, but not excellent, equipment/cosmetics. Devs would also be very responsive to increase drop rates/tweaking things in games were it was just all in-game fun. Nowadays as I said many games are offering consumers the choice for an uncapped expenditure being put towards rolling the dice. Devs are being very coy about ever balancing things to be too in favour of the gamers at that then potentially upsets the money they make from loot box keys/credit. Or as Blizzard did, lose their shit at China and rework their whole game just to keep those drop rates hidden. Dress it up with all the psychological reliance on positive feedback, flashy graphics, in-game prompts and explosions of confetti, and it all contributes towards something that can be more sinister than the typical MMO dungeon grind to get the best in slot equipment or rare cosmetics/mounts.
 
wapplew

wapplew

Member
matrix-cat said:
I really wouldn't know the psychology behind why gamblers enjoy gambling. I find it pretty mystifying, to be honest. I mean, I get why you'd be happy that other people are subsidising the cost of your DLC for you, but I don't understand why someone would enjoy the practice of paying for a chance of getting the thing they want, rather than just paying to get the thing they want.
Click to expand...

Not that hard to understand. For gamers who never pay for MT like cosmetic, now they have a chance to get those item lock behind MT with loot box.
The sensations you get from Diablo legendary drop not so different from slot machine jack pot. You won't get that if everything can be bought with fix price.
 
A

Anne

Member
See, here's the thing that I don't like in what you're saying. You're implying that some people are propping up GaaS by just point to "it's making a lot of money so it's good." I get some people are saying that, but that's not why I would go out of my way to say that GaaS are good for me.

They are good for me because I can buy into something that is more than just a boxed piece of entertainment and content. The GaaS I enjoy are things that are big multiplayer games that last a long time. When I bought Overwatch at $40, I wasn't looking for $40 worth of content. I was looking for a game I could play with people, make friends, engage in streams and esports, and generally enjoy for awhile. I played the game for well over a year and got to experience all of that, and it should last others multiple years if they continue to enjoy that.

Past that, I also play fighting games competitively and travel across the country engaging with that. It is not just a bunch of $60 games to me. In order for developers to keep these games and tournaments going, they have to keep evolving the games and investing into tournaments(before a bunch of angry smashers jump on me, I know exceptions like Melee exist). The best way to do this is investing into GaaS. Even throwing money into tournaments is part of GaaS. The companies in question making fighting games have done an admittedly poor job of this in a lot of areas, but the move over to that trend has helped support a pretty massive hobby without it draining the bank. This is good because I get to enjoy events, new characters and upgrades, etc. Not just that it makes money, I get a lot out of it on a player level.

There's also bad in there. With Overwatch, you get the $40 game with everything no matter what forever. Awesome. You also deal with their lootboxes. Not awesome. While they are more fair than others, there's still lots of room for improvement and even space to say "this is gambling and it's not the best way to do this." Street Fighter V can also be more expensive than it needs to be to keep up with. Worst case scenario is you get the disaster launches like SFV, or the completely miserable package and DLC of MvC:I. Those things are bad, duh, and we should demand way better.

As far as Dark Souls and Witcher 3 go, they are definition of GaaS. Witcher 3 had updates along with 16 pieces of free, smaller DLC distributed over a period of time. They later got more expanded content in larger DLCs. If that isn't GaaS, I don't know what it is. Dark Souls also has frequent updates and support for their online communities (which leads to more content to engage with) as well as having 3 major DLC packs for DS2 with a remaster, as well as 2 more for DS3. You say you like that, and it's GaaS. Tell publishers that's the kind of shit you want to see, and not what Shadow of War is doing. Do it with your wallet; they'll probably listen.

So like, as somebody looking at this from the perspective of playing games as a hobby, GaaS can be a very good thing for me personally. Aspects of it can also be bad, and I'm willing to say which elements of GaaS I object to and would like to see less of. I would hope discussions around it could be better, but this is GAF. GAF deals in absolutes pretty often for some reason, but I'm willing to try to have a real conversation about it.

Edit: If it's not apparently clear, I think GaaS can be good things. I also happen to think lootboxes are pretty bad gambling hooks that should not be the standard as GaaS. I have read the psychology. It's nasty stuff I'm not happy about either. I don't think lootboxes are the standard as GaaS as of right now, but the trend of big AAA pubs trying to shoehorn them into everything should stop before it ever gets close.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Anne said:
See, here's the thing that I don't like in what you're saying. You're implying that some people are propping up GaaS by just point to "it's making a lot of money so it's good." I get some people are saying that, but that's not why I would go out of my way to say that GaaS are good for me.

They are good for me because I can buy into something that is more than just a boxed piece of entertainment and content. The GaaS I enjoy are things that are big multiplayer games that last a long time. When I bought Overwatch at $40, I wasn't looking for $40 worth of content. I was looking for a game I could play with people, make friends, engage in streams and esports, and generally enjoy for awhile. I played the game for well over a year and got to experience all of that, and it should last others multiple years if they continue to enjoy that.

Past that, I also play fighting games competitively and travel across the country engaging with that. It is not just a bunch of $60 games to me. In order for developers to keep these games and tournaments going, they have to keep evolving the games and investing into tournaments(before a bunch of angry smashers jump on me, I know exceptions like Melee exist). The best way to do this is investing into GaaS. Even throwing money into tournaments is part of GaaS. The companies in question making fighting games have done an admittedly poor job of this in a lot of areas, but the move over to that trend has helped support a pretty massive hobby without it draining the bank. This is good because I get to enjoy events, new characters and upgrades, etc. Not just that it makes money, I get a lot out of it on a player level.

There's also bad in there. With Overwatch, you get the $40 game with everything no matter what forever. Awesome. You also deal with their lootboxes. Not awesome. While they are more fair than others, there's still lots of room for improvement and even space to say "this is gambling and it's not the best way to do this." Street Fighter V can also be more expensive than it needs to be to keep up with. Worst case scenario is you get the disaster launches like SFV, or the completely miserable package and DLC of MvC:I. Those things are bad, duh, and we should demand way better.

As far as Dark Souls and Witcher 3 go, they are definition of GaaS. Witcher 3 had updates along with 16 pieces of free, smaller DLC distributed over a period of time. They later got more expanded content in larger DLCs. If that isn't GaaS, I don't know what it is. Dark Souls also has frequent updates and support for their online communities (which leads to more content to engage with) as well as having 3 major DLC packs for DS2 with a remaster, as well as 2 more for DS3. You say you like that, and it's GaaS. Tell publishers that's the kind of shit you want to see, and not what Shadow of War is doing. Do it with your wallet; they'll probably listen.

So like, as somebody looking at this from the perspective of playing games as a hobby, GaaS can be a very good thing for me personally. Aspects of it can also be bad, and I'm willing to say which elements of GaaS I object to and would like to see less of. I would hope discussions around it could be better, but this is GAF. GAF deals in absolutes pretty often for some reason, but I'm willing to try to have a real conversation about it.

Edit: If it's not apparently clear, I think GaaS can be good things. I also happen to think lootboxes are pretty bad gambling hooks that should not be the standard as GaaS. I have read the psychology. It's nasty stuff I'm not happy about either. I don't think lootboxes are the standard as GaaS as of right now, but the trend of big AAA pubs trying to shoehorn them into everything should stop before it ever gets close.
Click to expand...

Overwatch isn't $40, it was $60. If you're saying you bought it for $40 that is different. Most people surf for deals on games on the internet or get things in sales. $60 was the RRP though. At least on consoles, although some PC games are going to price parity with consoles these days.

You see, I don't disagree with what you're saying. I expressed GaaS I enjoy and of course since we've moved on from PS1/PS2 discs I've absolutely been delighted with how games can be patched into better experiences (minus games launched broken that had to be patched just to work). Morrowind is one of my favourite games ever and a younger me was overjoyed at Bethesda creating expansion packs (back when an expansion pack was something to behold ~ although Bethesda still do a decent enough job). I played World of Warcraft fairly near launch and had my mind blown at an MMO world and had no issue paying a monthly sub. I played more hours of Team Fortress Classic than I'd ever like to admit. Probably more than WoW. I played a decent bit of CS too, and then TF2 up until Valve turned it into a circus. I've enjoyed plenty of "GaaS" going on the defintion of anything patched or supported past month 1 of release because that definition of GaaS is nearly every game known to us besides the consoles CDROM/DVDROM/Cart restriction days. I've given many companies money for DLC and post-launch content.

What people do focus on though is the criticism I give of parts of the industry or games I don't see quite as positive. As the saying would go people don't give a shit about positive feedback, it's just lumped into the piles of praise and happily left alone. It's the negative feedback that rustles jimmies and spawns endless conversation as some individuals want everything turned into positive feedback so it can be neatly placed into the good pile. Especially if it's to do with a game or company they enjoy. Such is life and debating on any hardcore forum, whether it's for games or tech equipment (mobile phones/PC components/etc). I get the emotional attachment to things people like, but sometimes I do find it a bit jarring the lengths people want to go to, to shut down/belittle any sort of criticism of something they like. As I tried to highlight above, some of the "drama of the week" scenarios that play out on GAF or elsewhere does get things changed in games for the better. I think you'll be hard pushed to find anyone arguing Forza's VIP would be better as it was originally in Forza 7. Even the original Xbox One with some of the defence it had, doesn't really have many people still standing today saying "yeah, if MS had gone with Mattrick and Orths vision they'd surely be number 1 in NPD". I'm sure some individuals loved making money out of the Diablo 3 AH, but again, I think you'll find most gamers not looking to make a quick buck far prefer Diablo 3 now to how it launched.

Speaking of making a quick buck, sure, I get some individuals being excited to list virtual goods on auction houses/trade stores and making money off of others paying questionable amounts of money for cosmetics. Good for you. Where the criticism often lies isn't some conspiracy that people are jealous you made $100 selling shirts and pants or knife skins, it's when those that primarily care about gameplay/fun feel the devs are tweaking things too heavily in favour of their eBay 10~20% to us system that it frustrates enjoyment. Diablo 3 was indeed a frustrating crapshoot where legendary drop rates were soo bad because Blizzard wanted people to go and open their wallets. That was understandably going to piss off Diablo 2 fans, and newcomers to the series wanting to progress to proper end game content. We've now been successfully conditioned to believe without question ALL cosmetics are to be sacrificed too. So sure, you are going to see lots of people who value roleplaying/cosmetics and remember what they used to be like in most games throw some criticism to some of the devs with the worst implementations of "everything cosmetic is to be attempted to be gated behind a paywall". As I said with Overwatch and others like it, such as Destiny 2, my personal main focus isn't solely about being upset cosmetics are becoming harder to just enjoy normally in games, but the fact drop rates aren't listed when real money can be exchanged for a chance to pursue what you'd like to get.
 
A

a.wd

Member
I have BC and GWG and EA Access, so I very rarely buy new games unless I specifically want to support the dev (Cuphead etc).

But I can see how peoples tastes are changing away from mine, so I am happy to keep playing games in my library, my backlog will be good for a few years.
 
A

Anne

Member
I played Overwatch on PC where it launched at $40. I forget that it's $60 on console as an "Origin" edition or whatever. That's some bunk I feel is a concession they made to make sure they got money off porting it, but it's still pretty lame.

Anyways, I guess the point is that we tend to agree that there are good parts of GaaS. I do agree that games from the past that launched with extensive support can be considered GaaS. The only grey area in there is mod support, which I would not really include in the modern definition. We also agree there are bad parts of it like preying on gambling psych to push lootboxes.

I'm emotionally attached to some shit, yeah, but I feel like I was pretty reasonable in calling out things that I'm not very fond of in the current models. I'm going to go ahead and say the same to people who are emotionally attached to their $60 AAA SP games too. There are things in that model I don't even like that I didn't bother to bring up even. I saw a lot of posts going both ways and you arguing a lot, so I called you out to talk about those points and I guess I feel like there's a bit better understanding between the two points going about it that way rather than scorched earth and taking sides.

Edit: For clarification, I do not like when game design fails to support a model. Diablo 3 real money auction house was one of the worst things to ever happen to videogames period. For a more recent example, I'm not interested in Battlefront 2 in any capacity after learning how the card system works. I agree that is shitty.

Edit edit: On the flipside Diablo 3 currently is still a GaaS that I feel has gotten better over time working with the model as well.
 
C

CarbonatedFalcon

Member
Anne said:
Edit: For clarification, I do not like when game design fails to support a model. Diablo 3 real money auction house was one of the worst things to ever happen to videogames period. For a more recent example, I'm not interested in Battlefront 2 in any capacity after learning how the card system works. I agree that is shitty.

Edit edit: On the flipside Diablo 3 currently is still a GaaS that I feel has gotten better over time working with the model as well.
Click to expand...

Diablo 3 is almost certifiably not GaaS as generally defined. It has had a basic expansion add-on with RoS, and a smaller, more standard DLC with Necromancer pack.

Yes, there have been plenty of patches over the lifespan of the game, but Blizzard hasn't make money directly off this free continued support. It still had the model of a retail, boxed game. GaaS implies money is being made from the process of continued development.

The RMAH era was something fairly unique that I'm not sure falls into the GaaS umbrella either. More of its own model.
 
A

Anne

Member
If your takeaway after all the conversations that have happened on this forum is "Diablo 3 is not a GaaS title," then I don't know what else to say. The game has fucking seasons lmao
 
D

Deleted member 47027

Unconfirmed Member
CarbonatedFalcon said:
Diablo 3 is almost certifiably not GaaS as generally defined. It has had a basic expansion add-on with RoS, and a smaller, more standard DLC with Necromancer pack.

Yes, there have been plenty of patches over the lifespan of the game, but Blizzard hasn't make money directly off this free continued support. It still had the model of a retail, boxed game. GaaS implies money is being made from the process of continued development.

The RMAH era was something fairly unique that I'm not sure falls into the GaaS umbrella either. More of its own model.
Click to expand...

uh, no, Diablo 3 is very clearly GaaS.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
CarbonatedFalcon said:
Diablo 3 is almost certifiably not GaaS as generally defined. It has had a basic expansion add-on with RoS, and a smaller, more standard DLC with Necromancer pack.

Yes, there have been plenty of patches over the lifespan of the game, but Blizzard hasn't make money directly off this free continued support. It still had the model of a retail, boxed game. GaaS implies money is being made from the process of continued development.

The RMAH era was something fairly unique that I'm not sure falls into the GaaS umbrella either. More of its own model.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem with goalposts moving around to what "GaaS" specifically means. I tried to pinpoint exactly when the term was coined, expecting it to have been from some EA stockholders meeting. Hence why I unearthed this video earlier I had forgotten about from 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OIJTE

I am struggling to pinpoint an exact creation of the term, it more seems to be many in the industry started adopting it in unison.

There is a discussion here from 2013 referencing GaaS. There is a pretty interesting long blog post read on Gamasutra from 2015.

Free-2-play games are known as a ”games as a service", but often that means only their monetization and operation model - regular updates and a continuous production throughout the entire product life.

I believe, that ”service" is a much more extensive concept that includes a full range of entertainment. An ingame experience itself is only a skeleton while the service is all about a sense, community, and support.

In other words, a free-2-play game should become a habit, a part of the player's identity. The player should feel like a member of the community or a club of people playing this game.

It is vital that player see that the service extends beyond the game session, feel like a part of the game's community even when they don't play the game right now. You can think about it like about a club of BMW owners, or members of some subculture or soccer team fans, where a game is just a common ground for communication in a club of interest.
Click to expand...

https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Ily..._meaning_of_the_quotGame_as_a_servicequot.php

It leans more on talking about creating a community, and obviously player retention is an important part of that. I agree. Pubs and devs want to keep people playing for months, not just 30 days, platinum trophy achieved and game goes into the pile of played and finished.

That's how it's always been, though. Again, going back to PC gaming in the 90s and 00s, even all the MP games wanted to have communities engaged for years. What has largely happened with the industry though is the pubs and devs aren't content with someone buying Counter Strike or TFC and playing it for 4~5 years without spending another penny. Now what we have is yearly, or biennial sequels of games. So you'll get Desinty 1, 2 and maybe 3 within the timeframe of the old CS/TFC players still within their communities without spending any more money. Same goes for COD, Battlefield and the others. Look at a number of sequels, all with DLC, microtransactions, special editions and season passes. COD literally is an annual game, like a sports franchise. Or you get Valve turning CS and TF into the cash cows they are now. TF2 even went F2P, which was not long after I stopped playing. For me it didn't resemble the gameplay focussed game I enjoyed at launch anymore.

Okay, fair enough, this isn't the "glory days" of Counterstike Classic, BF2 and Team Fortress Classic. The industry largely wants sequels every 12 months, or 24 months tops, and the repeated cycle of paying for everything again. Some devs, such as Blizzard with Diablo and Overwatch, so far, do still keep the same product going for 3~4 years of constant engagement, without trying to shift everyone onto a sequel. When they're doing that though, they still want to somehow monetize so that the community that stays for a good number of years will keep pouring in a constant stream of money. How many of us spent a single penny extra on CS or TFC back in the day? We bought the game and then played it for 2/3/4/5+ years. I don't even think there was anything to spend money on. Maps were provided for free, or the community/modders did the work. Devs continually patched the main game, balancing it, fixing things or adding additional content/options/tweaks. Complete passion projects that still did make money considering the millions who paid up to own them.

Hence why in this convoluted debate around what "GaaS" is, many old-school gamers are referring to it as the way in which monetization occurs and the constant debate between gamers and devs/pubs as to what they are happy with. The F2P mobile industry comes up often because it is exactly where pubs and devs are drawing inspiration from to transition the service methods into paid content. That is what causes some uproar, as these games are not bloody free to play. Ubisoft specifically said they wanted to do this years ago

Future Ubisoft games could offer in-game purchases after taking an initial $60 chomp of your wallet. Games Beat says during an investor call, Ubisoft CFO Alain Martinez and Worldwide Online Director Stéphanie Perotti acknowledged the flexibility of free-to-play business models and the opportunity for full-priced games offering microtransactional items.

Free-to-play is a very flexible business model, Perotti said. The player has the capability to spend more than in a traditional model. We can control everything from the pricing to marketing as if we were an online store.

With games like Watch Dogs, we could see more opportunity for $60 games to learn from the free-to-play model, Martinez added. The next generation will offer more and more item-based content. This will benefit our games profitability.
Click to expand...
 
C

CarbonatedFalcon

Member
Anne said:
If your takeaway after all the conversations that have happened on this forum is "Diablo 3 is not a GaaS title," then I don't know what else to say. The game has fucking seasons lmao
Click to expand...

And...?

I suppose it depends on how you classify GaaS, I tend to think about it more as a form of monetization (e.g., money is being made) than merely a euphemism for continued support.

The monetization model of the game as it stands, particularly after the removal of the RMAH , is decidely not GaaS. I don't think that's arguable.

I mean, do you consider anything that receives an update of any kind GaaS? Are games with only expansion packs and sequels GaaS?

Seasons alone don't qualify GaaS - they more or less could be run automatically at this point. I mean Diablo 2 has a ladder that gets reset occasionally, does that mean it's an example of GaaS? Hardly.

Audioboxer said:
Therein lies the problem with goalposts moving around to what "GaaS" specifically means. I tried to pinpoint exactly when the term was coined, expecting it to have been from some EA stockholders meeting. Hence why I unearthed this video earlier I had forgotten about from 2011

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OIJTE

I am struggling to pinpoint an exact creation of the term, it more seems to be many in the industry started adopting it in unison.

There is a discussion here from 2013 referencing GaaS. There is a pretty interesting long blog post read on Gamasutra from 2015.



https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/Ily..._meaning_of_the_quotGame_as_a_servicequot.php

It leans more on talking about creating a community, and obviously player retention is an important part of that. I agree. Pubs and devs want to keep people playing for months, not just 30 days, platinum trophy achieved and game goes into the pile of played and finished.

That's how it's always been, though. Again, going back to PC gaming in the 90s and 00s, even all the MP games wanted to have communities engaged for years. What has largely happened with the industry though is the pubs and devs aren't content with someone buying Counter Strike or TFC and playing it for 4~5 years without spending another penny. Now what we have is yearly, or biennial sequels of games. So you'll get Desinty 1, 2 and maybe 3 within the timeframe of the old CS/TFC players still within their communities without spending any more money. Same goes for COD, Battlefield and the others. Look at a number of sequels, all with DLC, microtransactions, special editions and season passes. COD literally is an annual game, like a sports franchise.

Okay, fair enough, this isn't the "glory days" of Counterstike Classic, BF2 and Team Fortress Classic. The industry largely wants sequels every 12 months, or 24 months tops, and the repeated cycle of paying for everything again. Some devs, such as Blizzard with Diablo and Overwatch, so far, do still keep the same product going for 3~4 years of constant engagement, without trying to shift everyone onto a sequel. When they're doing that though, they still want to somehow monetize so that the community that stays for a good number of years will keep pouring in a constant stream of money in. How many of us spent a single penny extra on CS or TFC back in the day? We bought the game and then played it for 2/3/4/5+ years. I don't even think there was anything to spend money on. Maps were provided for free, or the community/modders did the work. Devs continually patched the main game, balancing it, fixing things or adding additional content/options/tweaks.

Hence why in this convoluted debate around what "GaaS" is, many old-school gamers are referring to it as the way in which monetization occurs and the constant debate between gamers and devs/pubs as to what they are happy with. The F2P mobile industry comes up often because it is exactly where pubs and devs are drawing inspiration from to transition the service methods into paid content. Ubisoft specifically said they wanted to do this years ago
Click to expand...

Good post that ended up preempting my response (though I'll leave my response intact.) Again, I tend to think about GaaS as a monetiztion model, so that has an effect on my perception of the term. But in a different context, it could also mean any sort of post-launch support (and community-building?) I don't think a specific definition has been agreed upon though, as the term is still sort of coming to be understood.
 
A

Anne

Member
If a developer spends resouces to continue patching or supporting a game far post launch in order to keep the playerbase engaged, yes that is GaaS. When you look at Mat's posts in the NPD thread, the definitions are there clear as day. Why this definition matters more than whatever arbitrary definition we come up with is because we are in threads discussing professional data collection and analysis based on that definition.

If you go read the other thread, Mat explains this. He also explains that by definition a vast majority of the games we play today fall under that umbrella. The entire premise of this thread is based on that definition. Yes, there can be subcategories of GaaS to talk about. There probably should be. But the data we're being given doesn't have that.

I'm personally not going to argue that a game like Horizon or something is a GaaS. It does fall into that category (I think) when we look at articles like this.

Diablo 3 though is a game with 2 substantial DLC packs and is updated on a seasonal basis with full leaderboard support. That is a GaaS. The way this actually makes money for Blizzard is keeping the community healthy (players = content in MP games) and keeping the game in conversation. That gives players reasons to buy in later when DLC happens and keeps the game in consciousness. IF this wasn't the case, they wouldn't be doing it out of the kindness of their hearts. They do it cause it makes them money or keeps the brand reputation high to make money later.
 
D

Deleted member 47027

Unconfirmed Member
Anne said:
If a developer spends resouces to continue patching or supporting a game far post launch in order to keep the playerbase engaged, yes that is GaaS. When you look at Mat's posts in the NPD thread, the definitions are there clear as day. Why this definition matters more than whatever arbitrary definition we come up with is because we are in threads discussing professional data collection and analysis based on that definition.

If you go read the other thread, Mat explains this. He also explains that by definition a vast majority of the games we play today fall under that umbrella. The entire premise of this thread is based on that definition. Yes, there can be subcategories of GaaS to talk about. There probably should be. But the data we're being given doesn't have that.

I'm personally not going to argue that a game like Horixon or something is a GaaS. It does fall into that category (I think) when we look at articles like this.

Diablo 3 though is a game with 2 substantial DLC packs and is updated on a seasonal basis with full leaderboard support. That is a GaaS. The way this actually makes money for Blizzard is keeping the community healthy (players = content in MP games) and keeping the game in conversation. That gives players reasons to buy in later when DLC happens and keeps the game in consciousness.
Click to expand...

Yes, the definitions are VERY clear. I think people pick and choose what they want to be GaaS because they don't want to feel bad (for some reason, why would you feel bad?) that they like some GaaS and enjoy them. Kind of like people reluctant to admit they like gacha games or F2P mobile games. What's the problem with that? Enjoy games.

It's not the devil. It's games. You like em. It's okay.
 
A

Anne

Member
Eh, I think it's entirely possible to like gacha games while also knowing they prey on people and can get really nasty. There's a reason serious gacha game players joke about PTSD and Gacha Hell.

Again, there's probably more fair ways to make gacha rewards work and advertise what you're really buying into.
 
D

Deleted member 47027

Unconfirmed Member
Anne said:
Eh, I think it's entirely possible to like gacha games while also knowing they prey on people and can get really nasty. There's a reason serious gacha game players joke about PTSD and Gacha Hell.

Again, there's probably more fair ways to make gacha rewards work and advertise what you're really buying into.
Click to expand...

Sure, I'm saying it's completely fine to. I don't need to pretend to hate mobile gacha games while I'm in the middle of enjoying one.
 
Vigilant Walrus

Vigilant Walrus

Member
I am a lot more optimistic than a lot of you. "Games as a service" is a lot more than loot boxes and DLCs. That's one part of it.


Games as Services has some unique advantages:


1) There is a potential to salvage a game that was previously considered a dud if it's a service. The company has a financial interest in fixing the glaring mistakes. 10 years ago when you had games like KOTOR2 with soaring omissions, you'd have publishers who refused fixing the game. When a game launched in a sorry state, it was the end of it. Rarely would they fixed in the way you've seen with Hitman, FFXIV, Rainbow Six Siege, Warframe. These games had glarring problems but became a lot more.
That is because they are services.

2) As games become more technical, more expensive and feature rich, you have developers who spend more and more time developing the tools to make the game. Not making the game, but the tools to put in so you can make the content.
You make the tools, then you make the content, and then you release the game. Then you abandon the game, and abandon all the tools.
It will take you 5 more years to make a new set of tools + new content for that new set or tool. Or you could keep adding content to the tools you've just released for. You know the tools well now, and all the mistakes fresh of the boat are within your grasp.
Blizzard made this clear when they decided to make 3 Starcraft 2 games. People were fucking pissed. "fucking blizzard greedy nazi scum fuck them". People say it as that Blizzard took one 50 dollars game and split it in 3. But that's not what they did. They made 3 feature length games much faster because they shared engine and tools. So you got a lot more content out of starcraft 2. Otherwise you'd have gotten the first campaign, and maybe still be waiting for Starcraft 3 now.

3) There is something sad about fragmenting a good multiplayer community because you keep releasing sequels, instead of supporting the game where there are passionate fans who love it.
Many games need sequels, but there are also many others that don't really need it. Call of Duty ruined itself in its fragmentation. There is little point in getting deeply invested in it, because a sequel is around the corner. But you know you can stick with Warframe. You know they won't make a warframe 2 anytime soon. You can safely invest your time and money into that game without having that be left behind.

It's a good thing that die prematurely. It's upsetting that Lawbreakers and Titanfall 2- great games are not getting played. We don't have a shortage of games. We have such a big variety of games now, that great games that dont deserve to die, die fresh of the shelf.
So let's focus efforts on keeping games alive for longer. Fewer, better games.

Games where a slow launch can allow a game to grow and become more over time.



4) A new approach to reviewing games. Reviewing a launch MMO never made sense, and as games become services, reviews in itself doesn't make sense. Instead, we need a new format where journalists routinely re-visit and re-judge the state and health of a game; after 6 months, after a year, after 2, 3, 4, 5 - 10 years.

Games shouldn't be mayflies that are just forgotten. There is way to much of just throwing games to the side like trash. There are many games that can become so much better if they are just not forgotten after launch.




5) I think Loot Boxes are not the ideal solution to monetize correctly. And while it's the rage now, I wonder if serious gambling addiction will become a big problem (or maybe it is already?) or if a lot of people will become immune and bored with it?
10 years ago, developers started fucking with F2P in a big way. And in doing so, gamers ran away from P2W games where you could buy the most powerful items/equipment/weapons in the cash shop. People didn't find the competitive aspect fun or rewarding if you could buy yourself to winning in PvP. So they had to change focus to a cosmetic based angle.
Loot Boxes is a stage. But there will be new really interesting ways to monetize games as a service. At least I hope so.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Vince McMahon said:
Yes, the definitions are VERY clear. I think people pick and choose what they want to be GaaS because they don't want to feel bad (for some reason, why would you feel bad?) that they like some GaaS and enjoy them. Kind of like people reluctant to admit they like gacha games or F2P mobile games. What's the problem with that? Enjoy games.

It's not the devil. It's games. You like em. It's okay.
Click to expand...

The issue is rarely as straightforward as the people who like them simply saying they like them. It's the people who like them getting insanely hostile around anyone who says they don't like them or wants to try and push for change/a better balance. Before anyone says but Audioboxer you've been spewing paragraphs about loot boxes and monetization for weeks, yeah, in topics specifically about loot boxes or monetization. I've not once posted in the Forza 7 official topic, or Shadow of War, or NBA 2K18 or others. Partly because I don't own those games, but also because sure, I do accept not every topic needs to be about MTs and loot boxes. The official topic is largely where people go to discuss the game they've bought/gameplay. If people click topics about loot boxes and monetization what do they expect though? Hence why there has been some pushback to posters coming into said topics almost demanding everyone shuts up and accepts they like loot boxes so all of us should too.

My own anecdotal thoughts on some of it, besides anyone simply having an emotional attachment to a franchise they like, is actually in the $. If someone spends hundreds of $, if not thousands of $ on something, that heightens the emotional bond they have with it. Anyone coming along mocking or ridiculing the concept of loot boxes/gambling or $100 MTs to level up/cut corners, then appears to be leading an assault on said persons spending habits. It gets taken personally. How dare you suggest what I spend my money on is problematic/wasteful? The pubs and devs love tapping into this kind of bond, as it gets insane undying loyalty and defensiveness on steroids.

It's the same emotional attachment the people who spend $100+ on an HDMI cable have, or on "audiophile speakers" that were stupidly overpriced. People don't like to be told/suggested they're "wasting their money" or gave into their "primal urges" too easily. Look at how hostile the average genuine gambler would be to family or friends stepping in to say "you've got a gambling problem" or "your money would be better saved/spent elsewhere". People get very vitriolic if their spending habits come into question. Sometimes because deep down they know or regret what they spend a silly amount of money on. I know for a fact there will be gamblers on GAF who will never publicly admit what they spend on games, and some will even pretend they haven't spend a single cent. I get it though, it's the emotional attachment. If I am helping a gambler in therapy I would not be belittling them/making them feel bad. That wouldn't change my personal views on some gambling practices, though.

Said emotional attachment IS often exploited by devs and pubs as well. Player retainment isn't simply the name of the game with "GaaS", it's how do we get those who stick around to keep giving us money. Not just paying for the DLC we have to make, but some sort of subscription like stream of revenue. MMOs successfully convinced people a monthly sub is required for server costs/free content, but not every game is an MMO even if a few devs/pubs have tried to suggest that. Even some MMOs have experimented with going F2P or Buy 2 Play because the MT and loot box method of revenue generation can be far more profitable than $15 a month. If you charge $15 a month AND you try to put really egregious F2P practices in your game that can be when the player base chirps up. Hence why many devs and pubs just go F2P so that the player base defends them by saying "this game is free to play, so no one has a right to ever criticise its monetization". That aside, the debates happening on GAF aren't largely around F2P games, they're around games we pay money for which is why most of these conversations go on.

By the way, Vince, even although we disagreed earlier, I'm not implying the above is a caricature of you. It's just my own general musings to why some people get very hostile to criticism of a mechanic they may have dropped lots of money into. The bigger nod is to how I believe I understand how/why pubs and devs tap into this defensiveness and loyalty.
 
ByWatterson

ByWatterson

Member
I think this is indicative that gamers are aging with the art form, and have less time to devote to a wide variety of games. That means fewer, played more regularly.
 
B

Bunga

Member
I've spent probably £300 on Hearthstone in the last two years.

I think the move to 3 expansion releases a year has killed my interest in the game. It's too damn expensive to keep up if you don't have the time to play loads.

I think as I get older and have less time to game I'm more interested in titles I can dip in and out of and get more out of for my money.
 
C

Calfirma

Neo Member
Living the Dream said:
MMO mentality
Click to expand...

Yep, I suppose that makes up a notable share of this I suppose but if you ask me I have no issues when MMOs do this because well its an MMO and that's just the genres identity. As soon as you add this type of content in a normal game then that's where I say it crosses the line, not to mention they'll add lootboxes as a result. Looking at you Shadow of War.


Today, 01:44 PM, Post #373

See, here's the thing that I don't like in what you're saying. You're implying that some people are propping up GaaS by just point to "it's making a lot of money so it's good." I get some people are saying that, but that's not why I would go out of my way to say that GaaS are good for me.

They are good for me because I can buy into something that is more than just a boxed piece of entertainment and content. The GaaS I enjoy are things that are big multiplayer games that last a long time. When I bought Overwatch at $40, I wasn't looking for $40 worth of content. I was looking for a game I could play with people, make friends, engage in streams and esports, and generally enjoy for awhile. I played the game for well over a year and got to experience all of that, and it should last others multiple years if they continue to enjoy that.

Past that, I also play fighting games competitively and travel across the country engaging with that. It is not just a bunch of $60 games to me. In order for developers to keep these games and tournaments going, they have to keep evolving the games and investing into tournaments(before a bunch of angry smashers jump on me, I know exceptions like Melee exist). The best way to do this is investing into GaaS. Even throwing money into tournaments is part of GaaS. The companies in question making fighting games have done an admittedly poor job of this in a lot of areas, but the move over to that trend has helped support a pretty massive hobby without it draining the bank. This is good because I get to enjoy events, new characters and upgrades, etc. Not just that it makes money, I get a lot out of it on a player level.

There's also bad in there. With Overwatch, you get the $40 game with everything no matter what forever. Awesome. You also deal with their lootboxes. Not awesome. While they are more fair than others, there's still lots of room for improvement and even space to say "this is gambling and it's not the best way to do this."
Click to expand...

Overwatch really is the first GaaS that I've truly respected, aside from the
hot Mercy witch skin
I haven't felt like I've been cheated out at all in the game. It get frequent updates that don't break the game or puts a chokehold that forces you into lootboxes. New maps, new heroes. Jeff and his team listen to the community and in turn I listen to what they have to say in return, even though they use those awful boxes. Talking about the boxes! They got better, they are actively making less 'open 100 boxes get no legendaries' yes it could be better but I respect they have to make a little bit of money. I think GaaS model actively made Overwatch waaay better than if it was just a standard $40 game. They just have to give us that damn single player.

TL;dr I'm perfectly happy owning and giving money to a GaaS, love them even so long as the way they get that money is understandable(Overwatch) and not scummy (Shadow of War.) Also I don't think you need a gambling warning on the game since it will give too much bad vibes and instead I think the developers should just be more upfront about their microtransactions with the community.
 
Audioboxer

Audioboxer

Member
Bunga said:
I've spent probably £300 on Hearthstone in the last two years.

I think the move to 3 expansion releases a year has killed my interest in the game. It's too damn expensive to keep up if you don't have the time to play loads.

I think as I get older and have less time to game I'm more interested in titles I can dip in and out of and get more out of for my money.
Click to expand...

That's ultimately one of the "end goals" of GaaS. I said in the Let It Die topic the other day one of the things frustrating me with it was with it being F2P I would never feel like I "owned" the game no matter how much money I could put into it. 2 years down the line if I wanted to replay it, the same choke points I might have bought VIP/paid some money to help with items, will still be those same choke points.

MP games have the reality of them saying well you can't really ever own the whole game, as we're constantly adding content we would like you to contribute your money towards. SP games though have largely belonged to that group, where the GOTY edition or base game plus DLC meant "full unrestricted ownership" and ease of replaying in 5 years for fun. With more SP games trying to add monetization long seen in MP games, that's what is causing some frustration for long-term SP fans. I don't want the Souls series meticulously tweaked for lock boxes, because if I ever replay the game I bought in 4 years and the balance is as it was at launch then, meh.

Putting SP aside though, even with MP games, we have a legacy of less intrusion than we have now. As you pointed out even with you spending £300, if you take your foot off the gas, either with your wallet or play time, you'll find yourself really fall behind. Falling behind is the nature of a MP game if you stop playing, but in the past it would be more about your skills getting rusty, rather than nearly ALL the shit you've earned being outdated/replaced if you take a few months off. That's another way to hook player engagement and keep people sometimes feeling like it becomes a "second job" trying to stay up to date. If you fail in your game time commitments, please consider opening your wallet to get back up to where you once were. A carrot and stick principle, to some extents.
 
J

Jeronimo Jones

Member
I usually just prefer to pay one time for a full experience (whatever that may mean to my brain). It's cleaner, has discrete boundaries and avoids the most extreme mind games.

One of the hooks popular with GaaS is to make you feel pressure to keep up with all.this.content. "to get your money's worth", so you have to either dedicate more time to keeping up (and the FOMO hook digs in deeper) or get left behind enough that you feel like paying is the only way to catch up, which restarts the cycle and can go on indefinitely.

The whole "prove your dedication to this game and pledge your loyalty to it and only it" thing has never really been my wave.
 
S

sjay1994

Member
I for one accept our new GaaS overlords.

I spend a lot less on games now, because I play one over a long period of time, and if I get bored I switch to something else, and the game I got bored of has some new content by then for me to check out.

It solves the DLC problem of "why would I want dlc for a game, when I have all these other games to play?"

Now with all these free updates and stuff, I don't need to spend a cent.
 
B

Banzai

Member
I don't actually mind GaaS as a concept. I think the right game could even be pretty great this way. It's just that so far, most of the games that would be examples of that concept are mind-numbingly boring trash to me.
 
P

Principate

Saint Titanfall
SolicitorPirate said:
The very nature of GAF ensures this. Even the email requirement to sign up skews the user base older. The reactions to threads like this is hardly a surprise

In many ways, the behaviour reminds me a lot of what I see on Transformers forums, where men in their mid 30s think they can meaningfully influence Hasbro, a company that makes money selling toy robots to children
Click to expand...

What on earth are you on about? Have you seen the demographic breakdowns of the current gen consoles? Gaf's age range is squarely in it especially when talking about rated 18 games. This is nothing like transformers these games are directly aimed at places like gaf. The difference is that most of that age group doesn't spend large propotions of their times games forums but a reasonable amount does but nowhere near the majority.
 
D

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
BBboy20 said:
To them, you're no longer a bread winner.
Click to expand...
Clearly.

Thankfully, 2017 has become a banner year for single player games and many of them have been highly successful.

I detest the "games as a service" model, though, and will not be purchasing any of them going forward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CNBC — Why The $183 Billion Video Game Industry Can't Quit Microtransactions
Opinion Analysis
30
2K
kyussman replied
Gaming Industry is going against the current to force live service games.
Opinion 2
70
3K
DaGwaphics replied
70% of developers worry about the live service model’s sustainability, survey shows
Game Dev 2 3
129
6K
Men_in_Boxes replied
Reuters: PC, console growth to lag pre-pandemic levels as gamers clock in fewer hours, report says
Business Analysis 2
76
4K
DaGwaphics replied
[FT] UK gaming industry: winning friends
0
345
cormack12 replied
Top Bottom