Support NeoGAF

[FauxXeno]

Damn Sony give me another LBP or real mmos like EQ or DCUO , they were basically live service and I loved them . I'm just not a big fps or shoot em up type of games and it's the only market they're trying to cater to. Something like LBP could easily compete with MC or RB if they played their cards right , imagine if they put the ambitiousness and variety of ps3 games with today's technology

 

[Instant_Classic]

And they are failing miserably, with shutdowns and layoffs left and right. Let's stop presuming any superior insight in these greedy corporate mofos and the scam consultancy firms that led them into the trap.

You do realize a lot of these big budget AAA single player games flop, too?

80% of the studios Microsoft bought would have long closed their doors, without being funded essentially unlimited money.

 

[Zacfoldor]

In times like these, the words of great men echo in eternity.

Words like, "Bitches ain't shit and they ain't sayin' nothing. A hundred motherfuckers can't tell me nothing. I beez in the trap, bee-beez in the trap. I beez in the trap"

 

[SantaC]

Two games, wow.

Let's ignore the thousands of other games released annually that fail to generate $

"Over 5,000 games released on Steam this year didn't make enough money to recover the $100 fee to put a game on Valve's store, research estimates."

I'm providing you data, you're providing me feelings.

Gaming will die if it was only GaaS titles. Have fun playing your shitty online service games then.

 

[calico]

Being shackled to a GaaS business model has been bad for Microsoft's studios, true

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

You do realize a lot of these big budget AAA single player games flop, too?

80% of the studios Microsoft bought would have long closed their doors, without being funded essentially unlimited money.

Sure. Gaming is a risky industry. But the GaaS race is a promise of gold, not based on logic but on misguided impulse. From the same creators of "cloud is the future" or "AI will make games on its own, reducing costs to 90%". Corpo fucks are thrilled to embrace the latest bullshit consultancy firms and marketing drones sell them.

GaaS is literally a lottery. Even if your game is good you may never know what resonates with the market. On the other hand, a well crafted traditional game with a clear focus will always find its audience.

 

[Aenima]

Most played list are useless as most GAAS use season passes or daily login incetives to make the players login every day even if to only do dailies and go back to a single player game after that. So its much harder to single player games to appear in those lists when they dont really design the games around player retention.

 

[Felessan]

Sure. Gaming is a risky industry. But the GaaS race is a promise of gold, not based on logic but on misguided impulse.

The logic is clear there - younger crowd prefer social gaming as as time goes by, their share in total playerbase will increase (it's already is) and oldschoolers share decrease. No one live forever and as we become older, we tends to play less on average, leaving more room for new generations. Those who play Fortnite now might try SP games when they get older or they might stay with games they familiar with.

30 years ago live service was some hundreds thousands people market. 20 years ago it rose to some millions. 10 years ago it should be tens to hundred million people, and now it's probably over a billion gaas players (including casuals and mobile players). It growing fast and often at the expense of traditional gaming (like casuals used to play on consoles too)

GaaS is literally a lottery. Even if your game is good you may never know what resonates with the market. On the other hand, a well crafted traditional game with a clear focus will always find its audience.

You have to have some luck and "players resonance" in SP games too.
And it's actually ~easier~ for GaaS titles as a lot of their attractiveness coming from social aspects (as they are called social gaming) that is easier to control, making it even less of lottery that SP games.

To make a successful gaas you need knowledge, experience and refined business processes, things most western devs lacks, the reason many of them fails on this venture. If you have them, like many asian devs who run live service games for decades, creating a successful game much easier and predictable. Complete flops are rare there and some even work-for-hire, not a thing if it really would be lottery. Netease and Tencent proved that it's not an impossible task to convert IP into gaas with very high rate of success.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Being shackled to a GaaS business model has been bad for Microsoft's studios, true

Yes, that's why the countless big budget single player games from MS such as Avowed, South of Midnight, and Hellblade 2 couldn't even break 5000 concurrent players.

 

[HYDE]

I personally don't give a flying fuck about any of those games on the list.

Same…barf!

 

[Instant_Classic]

Most played list are useless as most GAAS use season passes or daily login incetives to make the players login every day even if to only do dailies and go back to a single player game after that. So its much harder to single player games to appear in those lists when they dont really design the games around player retention.

Statistically most single players game hover around low player rates, unless it's something like a BG3, Witcher 3, Elden Ring, etc.

Basically the creme de la creme.

 

[Instant_Classic]

The logic is clear there - younger crowd prefer social gaming as as time goes by, their share in total playerbase will increase (it's already is) and oldschoolers share decrease. No one live forever and as we become older, we tends to play less on average, leaving more room for new generations. Those who play Fortnite now might try SP games when they get older or they might stay with games they familiar with.

30 years ago live service was some hundreds thousands people market. 20 years ago it rose to some millions. 10 years ago it should be tens to hundred million people, and now it's probably over a billion gaas players (including casuals and mobile players). It growing fast and often at the expense of traditional gaming (like casuals used to play on consoles too)


You have to have some luck and "players resonance" in SP games too.
And it's actually ~easier~ for GaaS titles as a lot of their attractiveness coming from social aspects (as they are called social gaming) that is easier to control, making it even less of lottery that SP games.

To make a successful gaas you need knowledge, experience and refined business processes, things most western devs lacks, the reason many of them fails on this venture. If you have them, like many asian devs who run live service games for decades, creating a successful game much easier and predictable. Complete flops are rare there and some even work-for-hire, not a thing if it really would be lottery. Netease and Tencent proved that it's not an impossible task to convert IP into gaas with very high rate of success.

This

 

[Signalis]

Because these kids, are and will be normalized with GaaS being the standard.

Gamers of the past, won't matter.

Speaking of past, I think many old gamers actually liked gaming MORE once online came into play.

GaaS will be what the industry knows, and runs on.

The same way you remark on single player games, these kids will remark on Roblox, Fortnite, etc.

 

[Instant_Classic]

The numbers don't lie.

The overwhelming majority of kids born after 2000, don't fuck with single player games.

 

[Sohurmk833]

The numbers don't lie.

The overwhelming majority of kids born after 2000, don't fuck with single player games.

They also don't fuck with live service games they haven't played for close to a decade as proven by the charts.

 

[clarky]

Also worth remembering the industry path is paved in dozens of GaaS that died right soon launch.

And plenty of non GAAS titles as well. Flops are not exclusive to that business model.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Sure. Gaming is a risky industry. But the GaaS race is a promise of gold, not based on logic but on misguided impulse. From the same creators of "cloud is the future" or "AI will make games on its own, reducing costs to 90%". Corpo fucks are thrilled to embrace the latest bullshit consultancy firms and marketing drones sell them.

GaaS is literally a lottery. Even if your game is good you may never know what resonates with the market. On the other hand, a well crafted traditional game with a clear focus will always find its audience.

A well crafted traditional game may find it's audience, but it still pales in comparison to have a constant stream of income coming in monthly.

You spend 5 - 7 years making a single player game, now what?

That's another 5 - 7 years of NO REVENUE, coming in.

Companies have salaries to pay, you realize this.

Right?

 

[Emmy Ator Best]

A well crafted traditional game may find it's audience, but it still pales in comparison to have a constant stream of income coming in monthly.

You spend 5 - 7 years making a single player game, now what?

That's a other 5 - 7 years of NO REVENUE, coming in.

Companies have salaries to pay, you realize this.

Right?

This is you

 

[Instant_Classic]

They also don't fuck with live service games they haven't played for close to a decade as proven by the charts.

Either way, the bets are on a GaaS taking off and providing a safety net for the company for many years to come.

Still better than spending half a decade working on a game, that won't continue to bring money in.

Why do you think Sony and Ubi are going all in?

 

[Instant_Classic]

And plenty on non GAAS titles as well. Flops are not exclusive to that business model.

This

 

[RCU005]

It seems that GaaS is just a trend, and that single player games gives you a more stable business.

Look at Nintendo, they sold 155+ million Switch, when the have the least amount of live service games.

The issue here is that companies want the golden egg, and live from it for eternity without doing anything else.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Blame guys like this

 

[Angry_Megalodon]

Why do you think Sony and Ubi are going all in?

Dude, these are not the best examples to prove a point.

Sony has cancelled more games than released and Ubi is about to go extinct because of insane business strategies.

A well crafted traditional game may find it's audience, but it still pales in comparison to have a constant stream of income coming in monthly.

You spend 5 - 7 years making a single player game, now what?

That's another 5 - 7 years of NO REVENUE, coming in.

Companies have salaries to pay, you realize this.

Right?

So, according to you, when devs work on a GaaS, salaries are not paid or do they collect them from trees? Who do you think paid the salaries of Naughty Dog while they wasted YEARS for the development of Factions?

For both GaaS and non-GaaS games, they get the money after years of producing nothing. And after that, they have to pay more to maintain the game, because that's not free. Mihoyo spends about 200M PER YEAR for Genshin Impact alone.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Blame guys like this

From the perspective of a company, this is why GaaS is worth it.

The potential is off the charts.

 

[clarky]

It seems that GaaS is just a trend, and that single player games gives you a more stable business.

Look at Nintendo, they sold 155+ million Switch, when the have the least amount of live service games.

The issue here is that companies want the golden egg, and live from it for eternity without doing anything else.

Companies need both, a steady return on investment over time to keep the lights on. Not many can afford to see nothing for 5+ years these days then have all your income be front loaded into a 6 month period of only sales. Then repeat.

Live service titles don't need to be the next big thing like Arc Raiders. Plenty 20-50k CCU titles turn a tidy profit.

 

[BennyBlanco]

From the perspective of a company, this is why GaaS is worth it.

The potential is off the charts.

You would have to buy 457 games at $70 to spend $32k on single player games. It makes complete sense to chase this market.

But obviously there is a big market for single player games as well.

 

[clarky]

Honestly I don't see why folks around these parts are so against live service games. I've been playing videogames since their inception and I think its awesome that some games evolve over time. When done right of course. I think the issue arises when companies try to force there way in and do things back to front and try and make a offline title fit into a GAAS model. See Suicide Squad.

The idea can't be to fleece the consumer, the idea must start with a great concept that happens to be a live service game.

 

[calico]

Yes, that's why the countless big budget single player games from MS such as Avowed, South of Midnight, and Hellblade 2 couldn't even break 5000 concurrent players.

All shackled to a GaaS business model

 

[Instant_Classic]

Companies need both, a steady return on investment over time to keep the lights on. Not many can afford to see nothing for 5+ years these days then have all your income be front loaded into a 6 month period of only sales. Then repeat.

Live service titles don't need to be the next big thing like Arc Raiders. Plenty 20-50k CCU titles turn a tidy profit.

This, with development timelines being as long as they're, the days of going periods without income are much more difficult.

In the days where a sequel or new release could be a 1 - 2 year thing, sure.

When the releases are stretched in 5 - 7 years gaps, you can't go that long without revenue coming in and expect to keep the lights on.

 

[clarky]

All shackled to a GaaS business model

None of those titles are live service.

 

[clarky]

This, with development timelines being as long as they're, the days of going periods without income are much more difficult.

In the days where a sequel or new release could be a 1 - 2 year thing, sure.

When the releases are stretched in 5 - 7 years gaps, you can't go that long without revenue coming in and expect to keep the lights on.

And one bomb and you're dead. If you have a Live service game running in the background as well at least the lights stay on.

 

[Instant_Classic]

And one bomb and you're dead. If you have a Live service game running in the background as well at least the lights stay on.

Exactly, the idea is to have the live service games provide reoccurring revenue so other projects can be developed.

 

[pudel]

But obviously there is a big market for single player games as well.

Ofc there is. SP games are made for eternity and can be sold forever. GaaS games usually have an expiry date...when not enough playing it...its server are shut down and the game is gone forever (see the crew, anthem). Or they are selling you the same game over and over again on a yearly basis (see EA/2K's sport games) and still asking you for the pay2win money. Honestly GaaS gamers are either very young (they dont know better yet) or complete retards.

 

[JimmyRustler]

We should have never let the peasants into our hobby back in the 00s.

 

[Sohurmk833]

Either way, the bets are on a GaaS taking off and providing a safety net for the company for many years to come.

Still better than spending half a decade working on a game, that won't continue to bring money in.

Why do you think Sony and Ubi are going all in?

Because both companies are run by greedy retards that know nothing about the gaming industry whatsoever.

 

[clarky]

We should have never let the peasants into our hobby back in the 00s.

Eh? Maybe we shouldn't have let you in in the 90's you mean.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Ofc there is. SP games are made for eternity and can be sold forever. GaaS games usually have an expiry date...when not enough playing it...its server are shut down and the game is gone forever (see the crew, anthem). Or they are selling you the same game over and over again on a yearly basis (see EA/2K's sport games) and still asking you for the pay2win money. Honestly GaaS gamers are either very young (they dont know better yet) or complete retards.

If you are a competitive FPS fan for instance your options are GaaS or dead games. I still play counter strike and it doesn't feel like a thing I ever need to spend money on to have a better time. Same with PoE and PoE2.

It just depends on the dev.

 

[calico]

None of those titles are live service.

The business model they are shackled to is a service model, which has killed most of them as a traditional purchase-to-play proposition.

 

[Topher]

Honestly I don't see why folks around these parts are so against live service games. I've been playing videogames since their inception and I think its awesome that some games evolve over time. When done right of course. I think the issue arises when companies try to force there way in and do things back to front and try and make a offline title fit into a GAAS model. See Suicide Squad.

The idea can't be to fleece the consumer, the idea must start with a great concept that happens to be a live service game.

I blame Sony and their shotgun approach to pushing live service. That's left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths (and the fact that the games are very unappealing). Same with Microsoft's live service approach to Halo Infinite. Other examples as well, but I'm not going to start a list war. lol. For myself, I see nothing appealing in the best seller list in the OP. Live service has been hit and miss for me, but mostly miss.

Either way, I don't think these threads bragging about how much money live service makes is beneficial. I don't play games because they make money and I think that's a silly way to approach a discussion about what games we enjoy. We see these best seller lists every month in the circana threads so I don't get the random rehashes like this. Bit of a "this again?" thread, frankly.

 

[clarky]

Ofc there is. SP games are made for eternity and can be sold forever. GaaS games usually have an expiry date...when not enough playing it...its server are shut down and the game is gone forever (see the crew, anthem). Or they are selling you the same game over and over again on a yearly basis (see EA/2K's sport games) and still asking you for the pay2win money. Honestly GaaS gamers are either very young (they dont know better yet) or complete retards.

Explain why I'm a retard please? Most of my gaming time right now is spent playing POE2, Arc Raiders and a few other shooters. I spend money in those games every now and again when they recieve a good content update to throw the dev's a bone. I play the odd decent offline game, if its good enough.

 

[pudel]

If you are a competitive FPS fan for instance your options are GaaS or dead games. I still play counter strike and it doesn't feel like a thing I ever need to spend money on to have a better time. Same with PoE and PoE2.

It just depends on the dev.

Yeah, if you like multiplayer games you can only hope that the devs wont fuck you over. CS and PoE is doing it quite well with their "cosmetic stuff only".

 

[bitbydeath]

Top 10 Most Played PS5 Games list.

There's a lot of SP games here too.
GTAV
Call of Duty
Sports X2
Minecraft
Battlefield

 

[clarky]

I blame Sony and their shotgun approach to pushing live service. That's left a sour taste in a lot of people's mouths (and the fact that the games are very unappealing). Same with Microsoft's live service approach to Halo Infinite. Other examples as well, but I'm not going to start a list war. lol. For myself, I see nothing appealing in the best seller list in the OP. Live service has been hit and miss for me, but mostly miss.

Either way, I don't think these threads bragging about how much money live service makes is beneficial. I don't play games because they make money and I think that's a silly way to approach a discussion about what games we enjoy. We see these best seller lists every month in the circana threads so I don't get the random rehashes like this. Bit of a "this again?" thread, frankly.

Yeah they went about it the wrong way for sure. You can't shoehorn a game into being a live service. I said it earlier up, you need a decent idea first that happens to fit into a service model. If you set out to make a live service money maker but have no idea how or what you are making then 9 times out of ten it'll end in disaster.

 

[StereoVsn]

The numbers don't lie.

The overwhelming majority of kids born after 2000, don't fuck with single player games.

Is this true though? A lot of younger folks in their 20d seem to be getting into retro gaming. It's proving to be quite popular with proliferation of various emulators and handheld Android (and Linux) devices.

Sure, the Live Service craze is there but for users in the West on consoles and PCs (mobile is a different animal) it seems most of the revenue is going to the same dozen companies and titles that have been around for quite a while.

New GaaS games can break in like Helldivers or Arc Raiders but that is pretty rare.

I think the stats for "most played" are too one sided. If I play 50 SP games for 1,000 hours , none of them would show up in "most played". But if I play Fortnite and CoD for 1,000 hours they will.

It seems to be that with SP games customers are "spreading the love" across bunch of different titles but with GaaS it's very concentrated.

 

[Instant_Classic]

There's a lot of SP games here too.
GTAV
Call of Duty
Sports X2
Minecraft
Battlefield

Nobody is playing those games for solely the single player aspects, at least the majority aren't.

It's the live elements, that keep people coming back.

 

[bitbydeath]

Nobody is playing the single player aspects of those games, at least the majority aren't.

For the two shooters I agree.
Not sure about the other four though.

 

[yurinka]

For every one GaaS that succeeds, there are dozens that fail.

And for every non-GaaS that succeds, there are thousands that fail. Look at all that shovelware and asset flips that saturates all the stores, they aren't GaaS.

 

[Topher]

Yeah they went about it the wrong way for sure. You can't shoehorn a game into being a live service. I said it earlier up, you need a decent idea first that happens to fit into a service model. If you set out to make a live service money maker but have no idea how or what you are making then 9 times out of ten it'll end in disaster.

What's funny is that Sony missed an opportunity to do something like what the Space Marine 2 devs did and integrated live service into existing franchises. They already had multiplayer with TLOU and Uncharted. Create the single player campaign and then create extended missions with coop or whatever. Instead they came up with shit like Concord and Fairgame$. I don't get it. Horrible strategy.

 

[Instant_Classic]

For the two shooters I agree.
Not sure about the other four though.

The data overwhelmingly disagrees with you.

Multiplayer and/or live elements, are the main draw.

Minecraft is a very social game, people like to play it with their friends.

For sports games, the live nature of the games regardless of whether they're playing multiplayer keep things fresh.

 

[bitbydeath]

The data overwhelmingly disagrees with you.

Multiplayer is the main draw.

What data?