Support NeoGAF

[Shredderi]

Yeah I can kind of feel like we're finally on that treshold where the industry changes in a profound way that leaves me and my peers very unsatisfied and we don't get with the times anymore. This happens propably to almost all hobbies that exist to almost every generation of people. You enjoy it for some 20-30 years and then it changes in a way that completely challenges your tolerance levels regarding things that are taken for granted for the younger generation that saw it as the norm and then you ultimately drop the whole hobby. Had to happen at some point but I do wish we weren't so close to that point yet.

 

[ComradeZero]

Sounds like a bubble to me. Where my econ experts at? Don't see how this continues to expand if everyone is putting out GaaS all expecting large/loyal player bases.

 

[Obliterator]

I can honestly see the success of GaaS just in my own habits.

Prior to this gen of consoles I had played maybe 3 or 4 games for 100 hours in my entire life and I've been gaming since the SNES.

This gen alone I've put over 200 hours into Destiny 1, Destiny 2 (well not yet more close to 100, but it will easily be 200), Rainbow Six SIEGE, and Overwatch and a few more I've put 100 into like Witcher 3.

Personally GaaS has been a boon to my gaming habits

 

[Iva Demilcol]

Imagine how wonderful would be if every treasure chest in Dark Souls games were basically loot boxes.

 

[Magnus]

I don't want to play 10 games a year anymore. I want like 3 that get consistent updates and 1 or 2 linear story-based games to sprinkle in. GaaS are on to something.

This right here. It's exhausting learning new systems and worlds and plots and shit every month. Don't have time for that kind of mental investment into the hobby anymore. Prefer digging deeply into fewer games over the course of the year.

As an aside, people sometimes ask me to reconcile this view with the fact I regularly play WoW. I tell them that's it's hardly a mental investment anymore. I've already spent the time learning that world, characters, gameplay systems etc. So I can actually play it in bite size chunks now no problem.

 

[thumb]

I believe you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what games as a service entails.

We can't have a productive conversation if we cannot agree on definitions.

Have a great rest of the day.

(P.S. While at WB I did extensive revenue forecasting and planning around The Witcher 3 as WB distributed the packaged versions of the game in the US. I literally modeled and reported on sales of the game, knowing exactly what support was occurring for the title over time.)

Interesting insight on your part in planning for The Witcher 3's long-term support. And FWIW, your definition for GaaS was my prior understanding. I think that games can feel more "service-y" if certain conditions hold true, even if these conditions are irrelevant to the definition. So, for example, imagine if The Witcher 3 had an online-only requirement, much like Diablo 3. Even if everything else were the same, I imagine you'd have more gamers willing to call it a service game.

 

[Audioboxer]

Reading Mat's posts really helps me understand why industry people don't engage with the fans. It doesn't matter how much you know or how well you explain it to people, a sizeable horde will just cover their ears and yell NO YOU'RE WRONG

Yeah, well, the industry does need to accept they're talking to hobbyists and gamers when they speak to many of us, not directors, CEOs, investors, marketers and other business people.

It's almost as if NeoGAF isn't a shareholders meeting. It's largely a collection of girls, boys, men and women who see gaming as their hobby. Not their career.

We're the people who work our own jobs to then open our wallets to give our hard earned money to the industry. Industry people know exactly what gamers/fans are referring to when they say the things they do about "Games as a service". There is little need to keep playing the definition game as a deflection (or, your definition is wrong, I'm ignoring you silly non-business interested gamer). Just because it's not pleasant to hear your "super successful money generating business scheme" isn't exclusively praised and loved all throughout the industry is not some sort of crime on behalf of any gamers. It's reality. Money can be made in ways which frustrate parts of your audience base. You run a great risk if you just put your fingers in your ears and shout "we're making filthy amounts of money, we don't need to listen to you whiners".

Let's not forget us whiners sometimes get things changed, arguably for the better. I need not keep reminding everyone it was plenty of enthusiasts on GAF and elsewhere who strongarmed MS into stopping their "Xbox One as a Service" venture. Aka, always online, digital only, no second-hand market nonsense. Then just recenty us whiners have gotten Turn 10/MS to go back on their shoddy Forza 7 VIP move. Another change which would probably have brought them more money as VIP was changed into a limited time use consumable.

 

[Elandyll]

Revenue wise for publishers who can't wait to add another randomized chest loot?
Sure

But value, for me?

Nah.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Yeah, well, the industry does need to accept they're talking to hobbyists and gamers when they speak to many of us, not directors, CEOs, investors, marketers and other business people.

It's almost as if NeoGAF isn't a shareholders meeting. It's largely a collection of girls, boys, men and women who see gaming as their hobby. Not their career.

We're the people who work our own jobs to then open our wallets to give our hard earned money to the industry. Industry people know exactly what gamers/fans are referring to when they say the things they do about "Games as a service". There is little need to keep playing the definition game as a deflection (or, your definition is wrong, I'm ignoring you silly non-business interested gamer). Just because it's not pleasant to hear your "super successful money generating business scheme" isn't exclusively praised and loved all throughout the industry is not some sort of crime on behalf of any gamers. It's reality. Money can be made in ways which frustrate parts of your audience base. You run a great risk if you just put your fingers in your ears and shout "we're making filthy amounts of money, we don't need to listen to you whiners".

Let's not forget us whiners sometimes get things changed, arguably for the better. I need not keep reminding everyone it was plenty of enthusiasts on GAF and elsewhere who strongarmed MS into stopping their "Xbox One as a Service" venture. Aka, always online, digital only, no second-hand market nonsense. Then just recenty us whiners have gotten Turn 10/MS to go back on their shoddy Forza 7 VIP move. Another change which would probably have brought them more money as VIP was changed into a limited time use consumable.

Totally disagree that we're any sort of audience. Because we're by far a minority.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Yeah, well, the industry does need to accept they're talking to hobbyists and gamers when they speak to many of us, not directors, CEOs, investors, marketers and other business people.

It's almost as if NeoGAF isn't a shareholders meeting. It's largely a collection of girls, boys, men and women who see gaming as their hobby. Not their career.

This doesn't mean that the discourse can't move beyond classifying"stuff I don't like" as GaaS and then basically saying that other games that fall under that definition don't count because you enjoy them.

 

[Audioboxer]

Totally disagree that we're any sort of audience. Because we're by far a minority.

Do you really believe that when Sonys move for the PS4 was lockdown the hardcore first because the hardcore are the ones who buy your console day 1/week 1 on mass? Sure, once consoles hit certain price points the market often balloons with more casual buyers, that much is known. Don't knock the core market though, getting it locked down always helps.

It was us who passed on damning feedback/information about the Xbox One all throughout the industry so the casual market did hear about it and start asking questions themselves. If we genuinely didn't matter then none of the anger or complaining would ever work. It does sometimes work, as a collectively pissed off hardcore market can be a force for PR to have to deal with.

This doesn't mean that the discourse can't move beyond classifying"stuff I don't like" as GaaS and then basically saying that other games that fall under that definition don't count because you enjoy them.

I'm not arguing they don't count, I'm arguing "word definition" play around GaaS is often not the real debate going on. It's WHAT games do for monetization, not what we call it. As I said when I entered this topic it wasn't called GaaS 10 years ago on the PC. It was called DLC/extra content/patches/updates and everything else it still is called. "Games as a service" is like "cloud computing". Its pretty open-ended and refers to many individual things.

 

[Waddle Dee]

Nintendo the company that's gone all-in on service games more than ever before on the Switch?

Guess what these are?

I never said Nintendo didn't release GaaS titles. They've been toying with the idea for a while now and the Switch is the system where they've finally embraced it. The difference between what Nintendo is doing versus, say, WB or Ubisoft, is that Nintendo's DLC is reasonably priced and their titles are still full fledged games at launch without microtransactions. GaaS isn't something I want every noteworthy game to turn into but it's not as bad when a company handles it with at least some respect for their consumers.

 

[dgrdsv]

Consumers are less willing to pay $60 for a boxed game and instead choose titles with a steady stream of new content

According to Digital River, this change from up-front costs to protracted spending means that revenue per user is expected to grow twice as fast than the rest of the market.

We gamers sure are stupid.

 

[Boombloxer]

I want to be a big fan of the GaaS-model and those kinds of games, but it's so rare that I find games that are that good that I want to really invest hundreds or thousands of hours playing them. I buy a game like Overwatch and I play it for 30-40 hours and I have a great time, and then I just...don't care. Then it doesn't matter if they keep providing updates or events because the core gameplay doesn't entice me to keep going beyond the hours where it's still novel.

Last game I really, really got into in that sort of way was probably Halo 3, which was almost exactly 10 years ago.

That's ok though. The idea is still based on playing what you want.

Still not really sold on this analogy. The "fundamentals" for GaaS are fantastic in terms of consumer demand, and while awful implementations like Forza and Shadow of War exist consumers have demonstrated they're willing to put up with lootboxes and season passes in exchange for increase long-running support.

You're completely wrong. The support is funded, thus, accepted.

I kind of doubt this, considering that loot boxes and microtransactions have zero customer benefit outside of temporary endorphin release.

Also wrong. Customization is a thing.

I don’t want to be hooked into the same games for months or years to the point I’m sick of the sight of them.

I don’t think buying fewer, all-consuming games is healthy for players or publishers.

Ok, that's your choice. Last part is factually wrong though. Read the report.

The AAA space is quickly becoming irrelevant to gaming enthusiasts, but thankfully there's a still loads of quality games to be found beneath the surface.

Also wrong. Casuals aren't spending hundreds per title.

I feel it's worth noting that Stardew Valley is a "Games as a Service" model game and that episodic game releases of adventure games like Life is Strange were one of the first stabs at trying to apply a service model to singleplayer gaming (to be clear, Half-Life 2 and Telltale did this kind of release pattern first, but I'm referring to episodic gaming itself).

Not everything is lootboxes about service games.

Ding ding

 

[MatPiscatella]

Yeah, well, the industry does need to accept they're talking to hobbyists and gamers when they speak to many of us, not directors, CEOs, investors, marketers and other business people.

It's almost as if NeoGAF isn't a shareholders meeting. It's largely a collection of girls, boys, men and women who see gaming as their hobby. Not their career.

Erm, why do you think I post here? Seriously. Why do you think I, or any industry person, would come to this forum to chat games?

I'm here because I want to help people better understand their hobby, to answer questions, and, for my benefit, gain insight into what people that really love the hobby and post here are thinking, and chat with them about it.

So why, as a hobbyist, wouldn't you want to take that guidance, or those ideas, from someone who does do this as a career? Or at least consider them thoughtfully? You are more than free to disagree, of course, but why wouldn't you want to engage in a positive discussion on these things?

I need not keep reminding everyone it was plenty of enthusiasts on GAF and elsewhere who strongarmed MS into stopping their "Xbox One as a Service" venture.

That's actually not how it all went down... but that's a story for a book some day.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I never said Nintendo didn't release GaaS titles. They've been toying with the idea for a while now and the Switch is the system where they've finally embraced it. The difference between what Nintendo is doing versus, say, WB or Ubisoft, is that Nintendo's DLC is reasonably priced and their titles are still full fledged games at launch without microtransactions. GaaS isn't something I want every noteworthy game to turn into but it's not as bad when a company handles it with at least some respect for their consumers.

Is Shadow of War not a full-fledged game now? Have the past two AC games not been full games? Was Arkham Knight not a full game? How many games have been released incomplete and then completed via the GaaS model relative to the ones that are feature complete and well rounded complete games yet are also GaaS?

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Do you really believe that when Sonys move for the PS4 was lockdown the hardcore first because the hardcore are the ones who buy your console day 1/week 1 on mass? Sure, once consoles hit certain price points the market often balloons with more casual buyers. Don't knock the core market though, getting it locked down always helps.

I do believe that. We (and I use that loosely, some people play games like it's a career when it isn't for them) are by far a minority. There's overlap with psychos on GAF that play games like it's the last thing on the planet and regular, well-adjusted folks who play games whenever.

I would say if Sony did bid JUST for the hardcore gamer at the expense of all other demographics, that would be incredibly shortsighted and stupid. However they were able to scoop up a handful of different demographics in one fell swoop and it paid off, for now.

Do you play Roblox?

 

[Neoxon]

MP games that aren't GaaS are dead. And DLC doesn't count. Indefinite post release content/balance/patch support is the new standard.

Outside of Nintendo, yeah. I’d expect most future fighting games & shooters to adopt GaaS going forward. Even Nintendo adopted GaaS to a degree with ARMS & the Splatoon games.

 

[Audioboxer]

Erm, why do you think I post here? Seriously. Why do you think I, or any industry person, would come to this forum to chat games?

I'm here because I want to help people better understand their hobby, to answer questions, and, for my benefit, gain insight into what people that really love the hobby and post here are thinking, and chat with them about it.

So why, as a hobbyist, wouldn't you want to take that guidance, or those ideas, from someone who does do this as a career? Or at least consider them thoughtfully? You are more than free to disagree, of course, but why wouldn't you want to engage in a positive discussion on these things?



That's actually not how it all went down... but that's a story for a book some day.

What is your guidance for me then? All of this works? It's financially successful? The industry is moving in this way? I know all of that. The argument from me and others isn't anything to do with what is going on here being successful or being what most developers are doing. It's an argument based upon what we like in games and what we don't like in games. What some developers and publishers are doing and what others aren't doing.

You seem to work for NPD, and I should make it clear the post you quoted wasn't really aimed at you, but actual publishers/developers and how I feel they do require to pay attention to the gamers and not just what goes on in their boardrooms.

I can't really comment further if you're saying you have inside information that isn't public. It did appear on the outside the viral backlash to MS from the gamers played a part.

I do believe that. We (and I use that loosely, some people play games like it's a career when it isn't for them) are by far a minority. There's overlap with psychos on GAF that play games like it's the last thing on the planet and regular, well-adjusted folks who play games whenever.

I would say if Sony did bid JUST for the hardcore gamer at the expense of all other demographics, that would be incredibly shortsighted and stupid. However they were able to scoop up a handful of different demographics in one fell swoop and it paid off, for now.

Do you play Roblox?

Well yeah, all I was trying to say was we are an audience to pay attention to. Remember what you said to me

Totally disagree that we're any sort of audience.

Sorry I don't know what Roblox is.

 

[Anne]

.

Read your thing with the NPD and seen you in the GaaS threads. Good stuff, always like reading numbers stuff. I've engaged with this model for like a decade, and have been up and down with the pros and cons and everything inbetween so I'm not terribly worried. You see others around here that are in the same boat.

I think the people arguing with you have never knowingly engaged with the model and don't want to talk about it from a realistic perspective. You're probably going to have to address their fears about the big boogy man trends they see in GaaS before any real conversation can happen. Whether or not that's a conversation you want to have, I don't know. Just my 2 cents on the discussion.

 

[NoPiece]

Reminds me of how World of Warcraft sucked the air out of PC gaming for half a decade. Things did self correct though.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Well yeah, all I was trying to say was we are an audience to pay attention to. Remember what you said to me



Sorry I don't know what Roblox is.

Well, says it all. We're not a significant audience and if a business is smart, it should not pander to us (message board nerds) at the expense of actual significant paying customers. We ain't runnin shit!

 

[Phrozenflame500]

We gamers sure are stupid.

Not necessarily, it's a lot less risky dropping more money on a game that you already know you enjoy and is guarenteed support in the future.

You're completely wrong. The support is funded, thus, accepted.

I don't understand what part of this disagrees with my post.

 

[spookyfish]

Well, there's one hobby I can drop, I guess.

 

[Ahasverus]

I might sound like a Trump supporter here but I don't give a shit about science in this case.

I don't like it, I won't support it, and will be probably driven away for my stubborness. I expect that and will accept it when the time comes.

But I won't stop voicing my discomfort with how what was going to be the new great narrative medium became corrupted and turned into a flashy digital casino.

 

[Neoxon]

I never said Nintendo didn't release GaaS titles. They've been toying with the idea for a while now and the Switch is the system where they've finally embraced it. The difference between what Nintendo is doing versus, say, WB or Ubisoft, is that Nintendo's DLC is reasonably priced and their titles are still full fledged games at launch without microtransactions. GaaS isn't something I want every noteworthy game to turn into but it's not as bad when a company handles it with at least some respect for their consumers.

To be fair, ARMS & the first Splatoon were a bit on the barebones side (more do ARMS).

 

[JaggedSac]

Don't most $60 games drop to $20 a few months after release? I fully expect Shadow of War to be purchasable for $20 before the end of the year.

 

[Obliterator]

Well, says it all. We're not a significant audience and if a business is smart, it should not pander to us (message board nerds) at the expense of actual significant paying customers. We ain't runnin shit!

GAF is a useful place to get the pulse of what the hardcore demo feels about certain things. That is valuable / useful for sure.

But yes, GAF in general has almost no overlap with the broad strokes of the industry.

 

[Audioboxer]

Well, says it all. We're not a significant audience and if a business is smart, it should not pander to us (message board nerds) at the expense of actual significant paying customers. We ain't runnin shit!

There's a difference between pandering and you making a suggestion that we're not even an audience. I didn't say we were running shit. I made an argument that paying attention and catering for the hardcore is a ground foundation considering who it is who shells out the most money to buy into your ecosystem to start with. I'd argue over the years too, who probably owns 100+ PS/Xbox games and is always subscribed to PS+/XBLG? The hardcore first, no doubt. To even try and suggest we're not "significant paying customers" is ludicrous. The average GAFers videogame collection cost is probably well into the thousands.

Then I made an argument when PR has to deal with a storm, who is it often leading the storm on social media? The hardcore. Who got VIP changed in Forza? I doubt it was too many "casuals". Forums, social media and other collections of enthusiasts are often the ones leading the charge to complain/criticise/share feedback. Don't underestimate how many actual developers/publisher PR folks still read NeoGAF even if they don't post here. Most of them probably do not want to post because they know precisely what it is that angers gamers with monetization in games. As mentioned here multiple times recently Blizzard even went as far to rebuild Overwatch just to skirt around having to comply with the Chinese law around drop rates. Developers and publishers know exactly what vocal gamers like and don't like, it's always about making money by pushing the boundaries as far as you can without the levels of noise/feedback/criticism not completely burning your feet.

Sorry, I just disagree with the way you've framed your downplaying of us as part of the gaming market. Even on the financial front.

edit: If you're suggesting because of gambling someone could have given $10,000 to one company (maybe 10k is a bit much...., 500~1.5k???), sure, that person is a legit whale to that company. A cherished piggy bank. They probably care 10x more about that person than the player from NeoGAF who spent $60 and that is it. That is starting to go down the path though of why some gamers are hostile to the directions parts of the industry are heading just to make more money. Completely happy to agree we matter less, far less, if you want to refer to an example like that. Whales can still be hardcore gamers though, I'm sure some on GAF will have dropped a couple hundred dollars in Overwatch chasing skins (still sad at that kind of monetary cost out your wages you can't just buy the damn skin you want from a storefront). You're never going to be able to charge anyone $100~300 for a Dark Souls 4 expansion. You need loot boxes or some sort of RNG/MTs to get people spend over $100 on cosmetics/"time savers"/etc. I know that. I'd tell MatPiscatella I know that. Arguments here from me aren't denying the success and money making potential from tactics within the "Games as a service" playbook. That's factual and is in the figures given by annual financial reports. It's what happens to these games, as games, which upsets those who care about the hobby and fun had from them.

 

[Yarbskoo]

This right here. It's exhausting learning new systems and worlds and plots and shit every month. Don't have time for that kind of mental investment into the hobby anymore. Prefer digging deeply into fewer games over the course of the year.

It's funny, it seems a couple of years ago, a common complaint among aging players was that games were too long, and no one got time to spend 100 hours on a single story. There was lots of discussion of padding and bloat. Now it seems the bloat is something to look forward to.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Outside of Nintendo, yeah. I’d expect most future fighting games & shooters to adopt GaaS going forward. Even Nintendo adopted GaaS to a degree with ARMS & the Splatoon games.

Fighting games and shooters were already ahead of the curve.

 

[MoonFrog]

I like expansion-quality DLC, or lesser DLC that seems fairly priced.

I like free updates.

I'm fine with subscriptions.

I don't like microtransactions, but, sure, I get that FTP games need to operate on them. I just won't play those much. I don't like them in games, for which I pay an entry fee. They won't stop me from buying a game, but their existence would be a sour note.

I don't play many games that have mts, but when I have they have encouraged bad art and game design and broken the fourth wall in obnoxious ways that rub in my face that this is a business transaction as well as a hobby.

 

[Waddle Dee]

Is Shadow of War not a full-fledged game now? Have the past two AC games not been full games? Was Arkham Knight not a full game? How many games have been released incomplete and then completed via the GaaS model relative to the ones that are feature complete and well rounded complete games yet are also GaaS?

Shadow of War sure doesn't seem complete since there's content locked behind Day 1 DLC and the game was designed first and foremost with it's lootboxes in mind since they affect the gameplay. In order to play the "full experience" that is offered on the first day of release, you're expected to pay more than $60.

Arkham Knight also featured pre-order DLC which locked an entire character behind it.

I don't play AC games but I know Ubisoft has gotten ridiculous with their multiple editions to their games that cost a fortune.

If your game is a GaaS title, I should be given most of, if not all of, the content that is released on launch when I buy the $60 game.

 

[ThisIsMyDogKyle]

As long as people like Bethesda, Naughty Dog, Nintendo, and the like keep releasing quality single player games I don't mind, honestly I think it's a good thing overall especially for games like Overwatch.

Except Mario those are 100% GaaS games. So like he said "irrelevant."

So if a game has had DLC it suddenly becomes a game as a service? I just don't buy it, I think it's pretty clear that the article is talking about games that receive a steady stream of new content like Splatoon, Overwatch, PUBG, the various MOBA's, and others that have sprung up more recently, not 1 or two huge dumps of content like in the games he mentioned.

 

[Obliterator]

As long as people like Bethesda, Naughty Dog, Nintendo, and the like keep releasing quality single player games I don't mind, honestly I think it's a good thing overall especially for games like Overwatch.

Naughty Dog and Nintendo are both heavily invested into GaaS and Bethesda is transitioning that way now

 

[Klocker]

Screw The Witcher 3? And Breath of the Wild? And Horizon Zero Dawn?

Yes bring the future versions out at $39.99 and I'll keep buying the DLC

 

[Sanke__]

GTA V + Overwatch

 

[ThisIsMyDogKyle]

Naughty Dog and Nintendo are both heavily invested into GaaS and Bethesda is transitioning that way now

Did I ever say they weren't? They still make high quality single player games in addition to those. In fact I mention Splatoon in the same post.

 

[Obliterator]

Did I ever say they weren't? They still make high quality single player games in addition to those. In fact I mention Splatoon in the same post.

True that's fair. Just misunderstood your post.

 

[Tatersalad]

As long as people like Bethesda, Naughty Dog, Nintendo, and the like keep releasing quality single player games I don't mind, honestly I think it's a good thing overall especially for games like Overwatch.



So if a game has had DLC it suddenly becomes a game as a service? I just don't buy it, I think it's pretty clear that the article is talking about games that receive a steady stream of new content like Splatoon, Overwatch, PUBG, the various MOBA's, and others that have sprung up more recently, not 1 or two huge dumps of content like in the games he mentioned.

This is how I feel. Do Starcraft 1 and Warcraft 3 count as GaaS because they have an expansion pack and free updates? When I think of GaaS I think of constant ongoing support and ability to pay (to unlock heroes, loot boxs, or energy in phone games) constantly as opposed to one or two large DLC drops.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Shadow of War sure doesn't seem complete since there's content locked behind Day 1 DLC and the game was designed first and foremost with it's lootboxes in mind since they affect the gameplay. In order to play the "full experience" that is offered on the first day of release, you're expected to pay more than $60.

It's a full game. There have been more than enough post weekend reports to suggest that the lootbox boogeyman has not affected Shadow of War in a negative way.

Arkham Knight also featured pre-order DLC which locked an entire character behind it.

Yea with an incredibly negligible mission that last not even half an hour.

I don't play AC games but I know Ubisoft has gotten ridiculous with their multiple editions to their games that cost a fortune.

Not even. If you played AC games you'd know that the pre-order bonuses were usually incredibly negligible 10-20 minute missions and/or equipment that quickly becomes outdated as you play. The main games weren't affected at all by either.

If your game is a GaaS title, I should be given most of, if not all of, the content that is released on launch when I buy the $60 game.

Most of those negligible dlc missions for pre-ordering are added very shortly after release if not at launch for a small price.

As long as people like Bethesda, Naughty Dog, Nintendo, and the like keep releasing quality single player games I don't mind, honestly I think it's a good thing overall especially for games like Overwatch.

All three of those devs have recently released GaaS.

So if a game has had DLC it suddenly becomes a game as a service?

YES.

It's funny - I work for Ubisoft and my whole career is kinda based on this concept. We talk about it a lot.

As a gamer I like it. I don't really have the time or desire to get invested in a new game every month - I'd rather play a handful of games i really like and take part in live events and meaningful DLC to supplement that experience.

EDIT: Also, GaaS ideally isn't "loot boxes/microtransactions" - it's consistent post launch support in the form of in-game events (aka "live events"), DLC that adds a new experience (so a new mission/story, a new mode, etc), and more.

The goal is to provide value to keep players engaged with the product and not move on to other titles - microtransactions and loot boxes are short term rewards that don't further that goal.

Life is Strange is an episodic game -- service model. Stardew Valley is one of those iterative development patch-and-update games -- also a form of the service model. If you define "Games as a Service" to mean "Things I don't like", then it's not a surprise that in the end you'd conclude you don't like Games as a Service. What it's intended to mean a game where the relationship between the publisher and consumer doesn't end at the time of first purchase. Whether that's DLC, map packs, episodic games that take feedback, early access, iterative development, MMOs, etc. The general shift to the idea of that first sale being the beginning of the product's life, not the end of the product's life. It triples the industry's value not just by increasing average revenue per user but also by engaging more users over more time with the product.

The point is player retention.

I just don't buy it, I think it's pretty clear that the article is talking about games that receive a steady stream of new content like Splatoon, Overwatch, PUBG, the various MOBA's, and others that have sprung up more recently, not 1 or two huge dumps of content like in the games he mentioned.

They aren't mutually exclusive concepts.

 

[SolicitorPirate]

Yeah, well, the industry does need to accept they're talking to hobbyists and gamers when they speak to many of us, not directors, CEOs, investors, marketers and other business people.

It's almost as if NeoGAF isn't a shareholders meeting. It's largely a collection of girls, boys, men and women who see gaming as their hobby. Not their career.

We're the people who work our own jobs to then open our wallets to give our hard earned money to the industry. Industry people know exactly what gamers/fans are referring to when they say the things they do about "Games as a service". There is little need to keep playing the definition game as a deflection (or, your definition is wrong, I'm ignoring you silly non-business interested gamer). Just because it's not pleasant to hear your "super successful money generating business scheme" isn't exclusively praised and loved all throughout the industry is not some sort of crime on behalf of any gamers. It's reality. Money can be made in ways which frustrate parts of your audience base. You run a great risk if you just put your fingers in your ears and shout "we're making filthy amounts of money, we don't need to listen to you whiners".

Let's not forget us whiners sometimes get things changed, arguably for the better. I need not keep reminding everyone it was plenty of enthusiasts on GAF and elsewhere who strongarmed MS into stopping their "Xbox One as a Service" venture. Aka, always online, digital only, no second-hand market nonsense. Then just recenty us whiners have gotten Turn 10/MS to go back on their shoddy Forza 7 VIP move. Another change which would probably have brought them more money as VIP was changed into a limited time use consumable.

...what the hell are you even going on about??

You're in a thread about an industry report for businesses! Of course it's not written for a general audience!

As Mat said, he's an industry guy explaining this stuff to a general audience, and your reaction has basically been to rant

There's a difference between pandering and you making a suggestion that we're not even an audience. I didn't say we were running shit. I made an argument that paying attention and catering for the hardcore is a ground foundation considering who it is who shells out the most money to buy into your ecosystem to start with. I'd argue over the years too, who probably owns 100+ PS/Xbox games and is always subscribed to PS+/XBLG? The hardcore first, no doubt. To even try and suggest we're not "significant paying customers" is ludicrous. The average GAFers videogame collection cost is probably well into the thousands.

Then I made an argument when PR has to deal with a storm, who is it often leading the storm on social media? The hardcore. Who got VIP changed in Forza? I doubt it was too many "casuals". Forums, social media and other collections of enthusiasts are often the ones leading the charge to complain/criticise/share feedback.

Sorry, I just disagree with the way you've framed your downplaying of us as part of the gaming market. Even on the financial front.

edit: If you're suggesting because of gambling someone could have given $10,000 to one company (maybe 10k is a bit much...., 500~1.5k???), sure, that person is a legit whale to that company. A cherished piggy bank. They probably care 10x more about that person than the player from NeoGAF who spent $60 and that is it. That is starting to go down the path though of why some gamers are hostile to the directions parts of the industry are heading just to make more money. Completely happy to agree we matter less, far less, if you want to refer to an example like that. Whales can still be hardcore gamers though, I'm sure some on GAF will have dropped a couple hundred dollars in Overwatch chasing skins. You're never going to be able to charge anyone $100~300 for a Dark Souls 4 expansion. I know that. I'd tell MatPiscatella I know that. Arguments here from me aren't denying the success and money making potential. That's factual and is in the figures given by annual financial reports. It's what happens to these games, as games, which upsets those who care about the hobby and fun had from the games.

You ever read about the 80/20/5 breakdown? The general breakdown of a game's player base is 80% 20% and 5%.

80% of the player base do nothing further than buy the game and play. 20% reads something about the game online. Only 5% ever bothers to communicate with other players and post something.

We're the niche of the niche. If we had any real influence, Bayonetta 2 would be the best selling action game of all time and no one would ever bother making sports games

 

[JABEE]

This sounds like a modern day version of getting people to keep feeding an arcade machine with quarters.

I am not a fan of this. Especially if the business part of this takes over the artistic elements of designing and making a game.

I would rather pay $80 and get a complete game but I am pretty sure I am in the minority and most people would rather pay less up front and continue via a service model.

It's not about your $80. That's the thing. They want more. They want to exploit the whales and the addicts.

Anyone saying it's about games being expensive aren't telling the truth. It's about making money, plain and simple. Games as a service has been the looming thing for a long time now. If they can get you to pay $60-100 on a gold, regular, ultimate edition of a game, that's gravy as well.

The people covering the industry steer away from criticizing publishers for these models because "games are expensive to make." Games also make a boat-load of money. EA, Ubisoft shouldn't get to cry poor because they didn't meet growth expectations despite making hundreds of millions in gross revenue.

Game publishers are GE, Exxon Mobil, and Ford. They aren't Mom and Pop stores. They are leveraging the shit out of everything they do and jacking up the margins on per unit sales for these games.

The systems exist to exploit just like quarters did, except the publishers can change the odds whenever they want. They're like constantly updating, unregulated slot machines. Casinos are audited for their practices. Not the games industry, yet the common perception is to give publishers the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Mael]

Good for them I guess.
I'm still not paying for consumables and other loot boxes.
I already stopped playing most big AAA productions circa 2007-2008 when they pushed for useless online passes and other shitty micro transactions.

Oh and Nintendo is not far behind, don't think they never did GaaS or some shit.
If you have a 3DS, you got plenty of software they used to test the waters with Badge Arcade and what not.

 

[Audioboxer]

...what the hell are you even going on about??

You're in a thread about an industry report for businesses! Of course it's not written for a general audience!

As Mat said, he's an industry guy explaining this stuff to a general audience, and your reaction has basically been to rant



You ever read about the 80/20/5 breakdown? The general breakdown of a game's player base is 80% 20% and 5%.

80% of the player base do nothing further than buy the game and play. 20% reads something about the game online. Only 5% ever bothers to communicate with other players and post something.

We're the niche of the niche. If we had any real influence, Bayonetta 2 would be the best selling action game of all time and no one would ever bother making sports games

It's posted on a forum that is for a general audience.

Can you answer me who it was who just got MS to change Forza 7's VIP? I'm not talking about the NeoGAF Game of the Year awards. I'm talking specifically about how the hardcore gaming market social media presence is what sometimes gets publishers and developers to change things. Our communication does matter, as it's what PR has to often deal with directly.

 

[Creamium]

I have no problem with this, but my playstyle is definitely the complete opposite of this trend. I play mostly sp games and when I'm done I move on to the next game and that's how I prefer it. I was never able to spend hundreds of hours on a single game, besides DkS 1. Moreover, when I'm done with a game I tend to be really done and don't feel like coming back for dlc. When I read it's a standout experience and there's praise all over I jump in again (like with TOH for Bloodborne), but for other games I mostly don't feel like going back. Loved Watch Dogs 2 and there's probably a bunch of new sp content there, but I have no desire to return. It's great while you're into the experience, but then you just want to move on the next one.

I'd be a nightmare for this model, I'm as oldschool as they come I guess.

 

[jwhit28]

It gets harder and harder to justify paying $60 for a game. If you pay only $60 on day 1, most of the time you are already a 2nd rate customer. You could have paid $80 or $100 and been an Extra Special Premium VIP Backer Supreme, but you didn't so enjoy starting off at a disadvantage. You are gonna get bombarded with ads to buy some currency like it's a free-2-play game and you are gonna feel like a dumbass when you buy substantial story driven DLC because you will probably pay $100+ collectively to play all the content when the guy that waited for the Complete/GotY version is getting the same thing for $40-$60. There is no good reason to be a day 1 customer besides being part of the discussion with friends/online, and/or satiating your impatience when you probably own some other new game you could be playing instead.

As the main form of advertising moves more and more towards Twitch presenters speaking about and playing the games early, I bet this feeling will grow like wildfire. A large percentage of people probably don't go to game forums, but the twitch and youtube presenters that act like normal commercials mostly do and will spread the same discontent to their viewers, or risk not being seen as "real".

 

[JABEE]

I think more and more people are going to come to terms with the fact that game companies aren't your friends.

Kids growing up looked at something like a finished Castlevania game from Konami or a Super Mario game from Nintendo saw games like they saw movies and books. They were something that was yours.

When you're entire relationship with a company's products is "Pay a little more money and I'll let you do the really fun stuff," it completely changes the psychology and relationship players have with the game.

Things aren't going to change though. The world of games is not changing out of necessity though. It's changing out of a desire for greater profits. The moment we accept that and stop defending these practices as some kind of patronage system to get games we love the sooner we can move on.

Situations like the old model still exist, but the future of gaming is in micro-transactions and treating the player like he's at the booths in Time Square or sitting at a slot machine.

Konami is not far off in their use of their licenses in gambling machines. At least they have the guts to be transparent about what they've become.

They're not people making masterpieces like Castlevania or Metal Gear, games that can be played and cherished forever. They're selling endorphin rushes and physicological thrills if you've got the money and the time.

 

[Spacejaws]

There is real divide here between what is actually GaaS and meaningful post release content.

It’s honestly a bit messed up and legitimises the shadier elements of GaaS to be grouped so vaguely.

Ultimately I’m pretty sure the majority of GaaS detractors are talking about F2P/P2W elements, typically of mobile and gatcha games, becoming prominent in games that are still $60 or so. That being lumped together with Dark Souls brilliant DLC offerings or GTA Lost and the Damned feels like a very wide disparity.

I wonder if the study is including DLC purchases in general...because reading the survey at a glance everybody is thinking loot boxes and season passes(both of which I do not rightly agree with but for me Season Passes are a greater evil) I’ll need to read the article.

It almost seems like these types of services need a new name to encompass what they are, like Gatcha or Freemium not just generally having any kind of content purchasable after release. I think the vast majority would agree there is a stark difference between DLC big and small and loot boxes/in game currency, even if sometimes the line is a bit blurry.

 

[sleverfunk]

This is why lol,dota, and other competitive games have very long legs even after 5+ years.
Especially in dota where the big patches keeps the game fresh and new.
It's the reason why my console has been collecting dust and bought few games.

Spoiler

please valve just drop the patch already.