Poetic.Injustice
Member
Single player only games are truly going the way of the dodo in the western market for a while now. The costs of AAA gaming is pretty much what led to this.
To give an example, when publishers announce they're getting into "games as a service" or "live services" in investor calls, they're basically never saying "We're going to put out more DLC for our singleplayer only titles." They just say they're expanding their DLC investment and post launch revenue or things along those lines for those games. What they really mean is that they're investing in more multiplayer oriented games, usually with microtransactions and monthly or quarterly updates.
I disagree with his definition of what a service game is. There's a distinct difference between a game like Horizon and a game like Overwatch, for example. Horizon is a single player game that, outside of the DLC that is being released for it in November, has only received bug fixes and a new difficulty mode.
Overwatch has been continuously and aggressively monetised from the start, with the soul purpose of sustained player retention and engagement over multiple years through frequent content updates. THAT, is what a service game is. Games that also come under this bracket would be Hitman, Final Fantasy XV, Destiny, Rainbow 6 Siege etc. You won't see this kind of support for a game like Horizon because it is not being positioned as a service.
Saying that a game is a service because it has even one DLC expansion kind of simplifies what service driven games actually are. There is some crossover, but there's a distinct difference that I feel should be highlighted.
This I agree with, as I don't necessarily feel like monetising a game beyond the initial release necessarily makes that product a service. At least in it's most common definition. Otherwise 99% of games released today would be considered services, and I think that kind of glosses over the semantics of what actually goes into literally running a game as a service.
They can shoehorn this stuff into single player games and see what works. Look at Shadow of War. If that game sells well, get ready for some really foul crap to appear in next year's single player games from Western publishers (and Japanese publishers eventually too).I thought we learned last gen that every game having multi-player was sunk development time/money? Loads of multi-player modes were dead right from the start if not very shortly after. Theres only ever so many players wanting ta be into multi-player and only so many of those games they can be invested in at the same time. If single player games are ever on their way out then the industrys prolly doomed no?
I think there's a difference between what some companies may consider GAAS and the NPD definition of it. I don't think MS is thinking of singleplayer games with patches and maybe DLC when they refer to gAAS. But more of multiplayer experiences with continued content dropsRight. That's also how I think most gamers understand the term "GaaS" -- multiplayer- oriented games with MTs and frequent updates that continue over an extended period of time. Not a single DLC package for an SP game.
The definition of "GaaS" that I hear some people expressing -- any game with anything besides a patch added after release -- is way too broad. It groups a game with a minor update in with games like GTA V, with years of continual add-ons, microtransactions, etc. The term GaaS is then so broad and so inclusive that it loses any functional significance or meaning.
I thought we learned last gen that every game having multi-player was sunk development time/money? Loads of multi-player modes were dead right from the start if not very shortly after. Theres only ever so many players wanting ta be into multi-player and only so many of those games they can be invested in at the same time. If single player games are ever on their way out then the industrys prolly doomed no?
SaaS and gaming in general are united in people getting really super hella mad about pricing on products that they have very, very little conception of the production economics of.
Denial:
Anger:
Bargaining:
Depression:
Acceptance:
I wonder when/if Nintendo will jump in on the ship. Splatoon 2 and Arms are their most service oriented games right now, but the free updates weren't a revenue stream other than keeping an active userbase. This is a company who put a price cap on Mario Run because they don't want to upset parents.
I wonder when/if Nintendo will jump in on the ship. Splatoon 2 and Arms are their most service oriented games right now, but the free updates weren't a revenue stream other than keeping an active userbase. This is a company who put a price cap on Mario Run because they don't want to upset parents.
MatPiscatella said:This is absolutely the correct takeaway.tebunker said:The real take aways from this are that to be a really successful SP game you need a top shelf product with top level messaging and marketing.
I paid full price for my CS4. Was going to eventually do the full upgrade price for CS5.
In fact, it's not. The correct takeaway here is that you can make a crappy GAAS/MP game with bad marketing and messaging and the game will sell millions and set the charts on fire.
1) They're making tons and tons of money with Fire Emblem Heroes and Pokemon Go, so they already are to an extent.
2) I'd be completely unsurprised if Smash Switch moved to the same DLC model as SFV and did multiple seasons of character DLC.
They did this years ago with Animal Crossing.
Nintendo is missing out big time on the loot crate market for sure from a business perspective.
Nintendo is missing out big time on the loot crate market for sure from a business perspective.
His definition seems to be NPD's definition, and several companies' definition. Yeah, it can be broken down into something that has multiple categories, but it hasn't yet. Until it has, we don't need anyone confusing the messaging. You've got people mad at the concept while simultaneously playing some of the very games theyre mad at. Publishers and developers see that and think "Oh, they don't know wtf they're talking about" , and that's not good.
Before I did some research even, I was thinking I'd quit gaming altogether b/c it seemed like the kind of games I enjoy are going away. But they're not, they're just getting post-launch support. That's whaever.
Nintendo is missing out big time on the loot crate market for sure from a business perspective.
Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.
Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.
This right here. GaaS is a solution to a problem that should not exist. If games are universally excellent enough for people to want to buy them months or years after release, they don't need updates, DLC, and paid expansions.
Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.
This right here. GaaS is a solution to a problem that should not exist. If games are universally excellent enough for people to want to buy them months or years after release, they don't need updates, DLC, and paid expansions.
Once you take away F2P and annual GaaS stuff like Sports Games and CoD, things probably look better for single player oriented stuff. Yes, on average the game has to be at higher standard to sell well then before or longer (i.e. RPGs) vs before (Deus Ex MD) and marketing/time release window can't be complete shit (ex Dishonored 2, Deus Ex MD and Prey) but games can sell.
If we're categorizing games like Uncharted 4, the Witcher 3, Fallout 4 and Horizon Zero Dawn as GaaS games, simply because they have post launch expansions, update support and DLC, then I feel the GaaS terminology has lost all its meaning.
If the post in the OP includes these games under the GaaS umbrella, then there's nothing at all to worry or be concerned about.
The question is if you consider this homogenization.
Would you consider Hitman, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Overwatch, Destiny, Final Fantasy XV, LEGO Dimensions, For Honor, Forza Horizon, Uncharted 4, and Skull & Bones to be a collection of similar games? They would all fall in the service game category in one form or another.
GAF, broadly speaking, has some ideas about what GaaS entails that don't line up entirely with industry use of the term. The example I like to use Terraria -- this is a game I paid $3 for which got 3+ years of serious content updates, more than doubling the total scope of the game, which drove revenue by getting existing players to frequently revisit the title and convince their buddies to give it a shot (as indeed Nirolak did for me.) FFXV's running set of updates operates on a similar level -- while it does have paid DLC, the underlying title has also been updated extensively and the changes are designed both to bring back old players and to make it more appealing to people who skipped it before.
.
Denial:
Anger:
Bargaining:
Depression:
Acceptance:
Every AAA developer has this strategy. The rest of your post is nonsense.
You can turn all SP games into GaaS for all I care. I really like well done online components in SP games. They enhance the experience.
They're not categorizing them as such, though. They "did everything just about perfectly" and are therefore exceptions.
2) I'd be completely unsurprised if Smash Switch moved to the same DLC model as SFV and did multiple seasons of character DLC.
Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.
Some developers hire mental health professionals to help exploit gambling addictions (like a casino). Destiny is an example of this.
It's still crazy to me that games still only cost $60. They did in 1994, and they do in 2017, even with normal inflation (not even including actual costs of game development rising). Feels like DLC / GaaS is now what expansion packs used to be back in the day.
I think it's.m not as clear cut. We have had several GaaS fail which shouldn't have according to the theory. Look at Battleborn or Lawbreakers, for example. If anything GaaS means selling millions they wouldn't have miserably fail
Nintendo has a crazy strategy of making their games fun so people want to buy them, rather than exploiting addictions in gamers and children. It works extremely well for them.
This right here. GaaS is a solution to a problem that should not exist. If games are universally excellent enough for people to want to buy them months or years after release, they don't need updates, DLC, and paid expansions.
What makes you even think that?Are you exclusively talking about the mobile market here?
Yes and his analysis directly confirms what I've said because this is another way to interpret it which in my view is way more interesting than saying "you need to make great SP games for them to sell, doh".You are talking to the person who actually did the analysis in question here so no, I think I'm still gonna go with his summary of what the takeaway is.
I think that the last part is what skews things as well. For example, yes, SE has been updating FFXV constantly but it doesn't make it a GaaS game, it's still an SP RPG with DLC (upcoming MP component aside). Uncharted 4 is SP Adventure game despite MP mode with MTs galore. Neither is Witcher 3 or Fallout or Skyrim, etc...He isn't saying that any GaaS game, regardless of quality, will succeed. He's actually said the opposite -- that GaaS is high risk, high reward. His point is about non-GaaS games. He's saying those have to be excellent (quality, marketing, etc.) or else they will fail, or at least not succeed greatly.
He's right. My only critique is that the definition of "GaaS" is so broad that it makes conversation about the topic sort of meaningless. If by "GaaS" you mean anything that even gets an update or a single minor DLC, then what are you actually pointing to, when you say "GaaS"? That's at least 90% of everything that is released on disc. It renders analyses about "GaaS" too ambiguous to be meaningful, imho.
We need either a better definition of GaaS or subcategories within the broad umbrella of GaaS. We can't be lumping Overwatch and WoW in with SP games that get a single update or DLC.
Don't make it $60 then.
Then it would be a significantly different product