Support NeoGAF

[Instant_Classic]

Actually, the industry is learning the hard way that indies will eventually leave them behind, lol.

Don't ignore AI.

Don't ignore the combination of individual neon talent and AI, that's instant death to huge committee driven systems competing in the same spaces. You couldn't imagine a Minecraft and neither can I, but a couple of folks can, and they're out there, the next Notch has likely already been born, so don't presume the future is set in stone for AAA, their media, or their gaas bullshit.

I love the notion that indies are some bastion of excellence.

99.99% of them are trash.

And one's like BG3 and E33 aren't representative of most of them.

 

[bighugeguns]

I love the notion that indies are some bastion of excellence.

99.99% of them are trash.

And one's like BG3 and E33 aren't representative of most of them.

Okay, let's wait for GTA6 to permanently crush every GAAS except for like 2 and swing back end of year.

 

[clarky]

Plenty of money at the casino too. Go get it.

Why wouldn't you go? Because it's risky? Same logic applies to GAAS, bro.

Same logic applies to any game development no?

 

[calico]

Gone from the industry being all in on it to in the next 20 years

 

[bighugeguns]

Same logic applies to any game development no?

Imagine playing roulette, but like a bad dream the squares keep shifting and multiplying, and by the time you very slowly roll your dice there are suddenly five times as many squares and the table tilted 5 degrees. Wouldn't be such a nightmare if you didn't bet your entire house on that dice throw.

 

[clarky]

Okay, let's wait for GTA6 to permanently crush every GAAS except for like 2 and swing back end of year.

What you you smoking? GTA online isnt going to kill every live service game just like it isn't going to kill every single player title.

Most folks will play it for a couple of weeks and move on.

Imagine playing roulette, but like a bad dream the squares keep shifting and multiplying, and by the time you very slowly roll your dice there are suddenly five times as many squares. Wouldn't be such a nightmare if you didn't bet your entire house on that dice throw.

So you agree.

 

[Instant_Classic]

It only doesn't make "business sense" for publishers who expect their games to make billions and be played by more people than what are available on Earth.

There will always be a market for single player games. Because there will always be enough people who want them. It's just that you can only make millions from them instead of billions. Which will always make business sense for the more sane or smaller publishers and studios who don't feel like they need to compete with all this normie trash in the list.

The purpose of any business is to grow.

Atlus said recently they must grow their audience to survive.

Square Enix is always complaining about games not reaching expectations.

Ubisoft is about to fade away in 5 - 10 years.

Sony realized nobody cares about SP games unless it's a 200 million budget AAA spectacle.

Traditional AA types like Gravity Rush and Astro Bot didn't sell well enough.

SP in a way is in an "all or nothing" state, either you go big or go home.

Unless your single player game is big budget, it'll most likely have bad to mediocre mass appeal.

This idea that single player games are safe from the realities of the industry, is truly funny stuff.

 

[bighugeguns]

What you you smoking? GTA online isnt going to kill every live service game just like it isn't going to kill every single player title.

Most folks will play it for a couple of weeks and move on.

So you agree.

I do! Just trying to explain to you that different ventures have different risks, not everything is as secure as it seems, things change rapidly, games are slowly made, ask the Concord devs, oh wait, you can't, they're gone!

 

[Instant_Classic]

Okay, let's wait for GTA6 to permanently crush every GAAS except for like 2 and swing back end of year.

I don't think you understand, the main appeal to GTA6 is seeing how great the online will be.

GTA6 online will have many GaaS elements, and will allow Rockstar to survive for the next 20 - 30 years while doing nothing but maintenance on the game.

 

[Topher]

Michael Bay films make a lot of money too but they're still all shit.

I like what I like. Whether it's popular or not is if no consequence to me, nor should it be to you. I don't care for GAAS titles, but my good buddy loves them and plays almost nothing but them.
To each their own. Even if every studio promised to never make another single player title again, I'd still have enough to last the rest of my lifetime, so I'm unconcerned.

Yep. Thankfully, that will not be the case. Those relishing the end of single player are never going to be silent about it, but they will never be proven right either. The market is vast and there are plenty of game developers who cater to the single player market. Hell, as niche as the VR market is, there are still games being made for it. Somehow some believe SP is going to just dry across the board entirely? Just not being realistic. Of course, we are talking about folks who think the top 10 list represents the entirety of gaming.

 

[bighugeguns]

I don't think you understand, the main appeal to GTA6 is seeing how great the online will be.

Yes, which is a locked in decade+ super black hole of player engagement.

 

[Three]

I remember when they introduced Fortnite, i thought it will be dead in no time but here we are with a massive success.

I remember it was dying until they turned it into a battle royale which took off in popularity.

 

[clarky]

I do! Just trying to explain to you that difference ventures have different risks, ask the Concord devs, oh wait, you can't, they're gone!

Loads of non live service studios go under every year.

You develop a AAA single player player game and miss and your dead. Same risk.

Not every live sevice game cost 500 millions to develop just like regular games. The whole industry is a risky business. You also don't need to hit the jackpot to turn a profit.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Yes, which is a locked in decade+ super black hole of player engagement.

Yeah, and it will be to the envy of the industry.

Rockstar will literally be allowed to do nothing for many years, and enjoy the money as it falls in their lap.

You can't beat that.

 

[Instant_Classic]

Loads of non live service studios go under every year.

You develop a AAA single player player game and miss and your dead. Same risk.

Not every live sevice game cost 500 millions to develop just like regular games. The whole industry is a risky business. You also don't need to hit the jackpot to turn a profit.

Exactly, single player games are high risk too.

Many of the bombs released by Microsoft's purchased studios for example would have long folded.

 

[pudel]

SP in a way is in an "all or nothing" state, either you go big or go home.

But its the same for gaas...its even worse for gaas...because you need players immediately and steadily, while SP games can recover their costs over a pretty long time.

 

[clarky]

Yes, which is a locked in decade+ super black hole of player engagement.

Nah GTA online has its fans for sure but its only a small slice if a very big pie.

I like live service games and have quite a few on the go or on the back burner.

 

[bighugeguns]

Nah GTA online has its fans for sure but its only a small slice if a very big pie.

I like live service games and have quite a few on the go or on the back burner.

Well, you have questionable taste to me, Clarky, I like what you say but I take it with a pinch of salt.

 

[Instant_Classic]

But its the same for gaas...its even worse for gaas...because you need players immediately and steadily, while SP games can recover their costs over a pretty long time.

Most single player games make their money in the initial launch period, this is known.

After that the launch period ends, sales tend fall off a cliff.

 

[clarky]

Well, you have questionable taste to me, Clarky, I like what you say but I take it with a pinch of salt.

One mans apples are another mans oranges sir. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[Three]

Just not being realistic. Of course, we are talking about folks who think the top 10 list represents the entirety of gaming.

Not even just top 10 lists but engagement top ten lists. Single player games will never really top those lists. GaaS/f2p as a business model pushes engagement so of course you will have more engagement with those games. Single player games as a business model push sales not engagement so at the very least that is the chart they should be looking at. Having said all that GaaS games with mtx have been commercially more successful than single player games so the premise of the industry running on GaaS is true. The majority of revenue is from it. Doesn't mean single player is disappearing though.

 

[pudel]

After that the launch period ends, sales tend fall off a cliff.

Ofc, but its not as disastrous as if you have a failing gaas game on yr hand.

 

[nkarafo]

Atlus said recently they must grow their audience to survive.

Square Enix is always complaining about games not reaching expectations.

Ubisoft is about to fade away in 5 - 10 years.

Sony realized nobody cares about SP games unless it's a 200 million budget AAA spectacle.

Traditional AA types like Gravity Rush and Astro Bot didn't sell well enough.

SP in a way is in an "all or nothing" state, either you go big or go home.

Unless your single player game is big budget, it'll most likely have bad to mediocre mass appeal.

This idea that single player games are safe from the realities of the industry, is truly funny stuff.

The idea that it makes sense to leave any type of market completely untapped is truly funny stuff.

These publishers you mentioned are free to abandon this market if they feel they need grow bigger than they already are but if they leave an untapped market behind someone else is going to tap it. Thus single player games will continue to be.

The purpose of any business is to grow.

No, tons of businesses make enough profits to sustain themselves without the need to grow more than they need to. You can only grow up to the point where it starts to become unsustainable for you.

Unless your single player game is big budget, it'll most likely have bad to mediocre mass appeal.

Thankfully, not everyone gives a fuck about "mass appeal".

Thankfully, not everyone aims to sell their products to every-single-human-being-on-the-planet.

Thankfully, not every business owner thinks like you.

 

[Felessan]

But its the same for gaas...its even worse for gaas...because you need players immediately and steadily, while SP games can recover their costs over a pretty long time.

Not really
It's much easier for AA live service game that for SP game. You just need a few faithfull and rich who will carry your game - there are many lot of such games
Revenue structure for SP games and live service games are very different - players expect AA SP games to be cheaper, making it even harder to reach break-even. And live service just need a few whales who will pay hundreds bucks a month to carry it, and smaller games often go for whale attraction and retention tactics, where games heavily structured for whales liking (bigger games avoid overusing that as they more depends on general crowd)

 

[bighugeguns]

At least Martahon is creatively brave, it deserves some success for that.

 

[clarky]

But its the same for gaas...its even worse for gaas...because you need players immediately and steadily, while SP games can recover their costs over a pretty long time.

This is nonsense.

 

[pudel]

Not really
It's much easier for AA live service game that for SP game. You just need a few faithfull and rich who will carry your game - there are many lot of such games
Revenue structure for SP games and live service games are very different - players expect AA SP games to be cheaper, making it even harder to reach break-even. And live service just need a few whales who will pay hundreds bucks a month to carry it, and smaller games often go for whale attraction and retention tactics, where games heavily structured for whales liking (bigger games avoid overusing that as they more depends on general crowd)

Yeah, but than you make games just for a few whales...if thats what you want to do and what you want to be the future of gaming....good luck and all the best!

This is nonsense.

Why?

 

[clarky]

Yeah, but than you make games just for a few whales...if thats what you want to do and what you want to be the future of gaming....good luck and all the best!


Why?

All games need to be at least a bit successful out of the gate regardless of model.

A moderate selling live service game has a much longer tail financially than a single player one.

Say both a live service game and a single player game sell half a million copies which one do you think will be earning the most money twelve months in?

 

[nkarafo]

Most single player games make their money in the initial launch period, this is known.

After that the launch period ends, sales tend fall off a cliff.

If a game has turned enough profits to make it's investment worthwhile then who cares?

Are you seriously suggesting every single product that exists has to make money indefinitely?

Boy, you are making serious "business sense" here.

 

[Topher]

Not even just top 10 lists but engagement top ten lists. Single player games will never really top those lists. GaaS/f2p as a business model pushes engagement so of course you will have more engagement with those games. Single player games as a business model push sales not engagement so at the very least that is the chart they should be looking at. Having said all that GaaS games with mtx have been commercially more successful than single player games so the premise of the industry running on GaaS is true. The majority of revenue is from it. Doesn't mean single player is disappearing though.

"running the industry" is a bit hyperbolic, imo. There is no denying that gaas is the most lucrative for many publishers, sure. If gaas magically disappeared then there would still be gaming. So not disagreeing with you here. Gaas is big and that isn't changing any time soon. But there are so many segments in this industry and this is a time where small studios are able to create amazing games these days. I think a lot of folks who are enamored by "business models" have tunnel vision when it comes to stuff like this.

 

[JimmyRustler]

The purpose of any business is to grow.

Atlus said recently they must grow their audience to survive.

Square Enix is always complaining about games not reaching expectations.

Ubisoft is about to fade away in 5 - 10 years.

Sony realized nobody cares about SP games unless it's a 200 million budget AAA spectacle.

Traditional AA types like Gravity Rush and Astro Bot didn't sell well enough.

SP in a way is in an "all or nothing" state, either you go big or go home.

Unless your single player game is big budget, it'll most likely have bad to mediocre mass appeal.

This idea that single player games are safe from the realities of the industry, is truly funny stuff.

And yet somehow to focus on SP games helped companies multiple times to lead the market. Remember how they help the 360 gained massive popularity because of their insane line-up, despite the trash hardware? Or how they helped Sony to get on top with the PS4 again? They are massively important. Or how do you explain last years CoD (in comparison with the old ones at least) failing this hard? From what I've heard the MP is quite solid, only the SP is utter trash. So what could it be... Just a coincidence people somewhat started loosing interest in the series the year they completely botched the campaign?

AAA studios funnel too much money into single projects in general. Instead of having so many people working on one project, they should spread the budget and make studios work on several slightly smaller SP games that can be finished and released faster. Some fail, some succeed, a few hit big and pay for the others. That's how it worked for decades and going back to this would be best for everyone I think.

 

[clarky]

And yet somehow to focus on SP games helped companies multiple times to lead the market. Remember how they help the 360 gained massive popularity because of their insane line-up, despite the trash hardware? Or how they helped Sony to get on top with the PS4 again? They are massively important. Or how do you explain last years CoD (in comparison with the old ones at least) failing this hard? From what I've heard the MP is quite solid, only the SP is utter trash. So what could it be... Just a coincidence people somewhat started loosing interest in the series the year they completely botched the campaign?

AAA studios funnel too much money into single projects in general. Instead of having so many people working on one project, they should spread the budget and make studios work on several slightly smaller SP games that can be finished and released faster. Some fail, some succeed, a few hit big and pay for the others. That's how it worked for decades and going back to this would be best for everyone I think.

Dev times and costs are insane these days on both side of the fence. Thats the core issue today.

Embark seem to be doing it right whether you like their products or not.

 

[Felessan]

Yeah, but than you make games just for a few whales...if thats what you want to do and what you want to be the future of gaming....good luck and all the best!

It's how those AA games survive?
There even a picture in parallel thread about "Stick to AA games catered to loyal fanbase"

Rules are pretty much the same in both worlds:
- AAA cater to true mass market, expensive, have high production values but "safe" and quite washed-out originality-wise
- AA try to cater to some niche auditory/whales those carry them
- Indies are bloodbath of failures where everyone hope that they will be tiny few who earn moderate amount of money and loyal fanbase to become AA or turn into runaway success and be propelled straight into AAA

 

[pudel]

It's how those AA games survive?
There even a picture in parallel thread about "Stick to AA games catered to loyal fanbase"

Rules are pretty much the same in both worlds:
- AAA cater to true mass market, expensive, have high production values but "safe" and quite washed-out originality-wise
- AA try to cater to some niche auditory/whales those carry them
- Indies are bloodbath of failures where everyone hope that they will be tiny few who earn moderate amount of money and loyal fanbase to become AA or turn into runaway success and be propelled straight into AAA

AA live service is the same shit as AAA live service for me. I thought discussion was about gaas vs non-gaas.

 

[GHound]

OP's been playing the same six games for the last 10-20 years and is still bad at all of them.

 

[calico]

Why is Ubisoft fading in 5-10 years when it has Siege and is all in on GaaS btw?

 

[clarky]

Why is Ubisoft fading in 5-10 years when it has Siege and is all in on GaaS btw?

Because they makes shit games.

There single player stuff and live service stuff is average at best.

 

[Hawk The Slayer]

World of Warcraft is the best GAAS

 

[nkarafo]

- Indies are bloodbath of failures where everyone hope that they will be tiny few who earn moderate amount of money and loyal fanbase to become AA or turn into runaway success and be propelled straight into AAA

What?

You really think every indie developer makes a game because they want to become the next big AA or AAA studio?

You think that's what the person who made, say, Balatro had in mind? To reach a point where he will compete with the big publishers?

You think this guy is miserable now that he failed at this task?

 

[pudel]

OP's been playing the same six games for the last 10-20 years and is still bad at all of them.

I doubt he is playing at all, otherwise he wouldnt come up with these thoughts at all. He sounds like Strauss Zelnick in his best days. And even Strauss Zelnick was recently agreeing that SP games can be pretty cool when done right.

 

[clarky]

I doubt he is playing at all, otherwise he wouldnt come up with these thoughts at all. He sounds like Strauss Zelnick in his best days. And even Strauss Zelnick was recently agreeing that SP games can be pretty cool when done right.

Can you agree that live service games can be pretty awesome as well when done right?

 

[Topher]

How many new live service games are released every year? Not a part of any franchise. Games like Arc Raiders.

 

[Three]

"running the industry" is a bit hyperbolic, imo. There is no denying that gaas is the most lucrative for many publishers, sure. If gaas magically disappeared then there would still be gaming. So not disagreeing with you here. Gaas is big and that isn't changing any time soon. But there are so many segments in this industry and this is a time where small studios are able to create amazing games these days. I think a lot of folks who are enamored by "business models" have tunnel vision when it comes to stuff like this.

There was no claim that gaming would be completely dead without GaaS but it certainly would be a much, much smaller market if GaaS revenue was not there. I would say claiming "the industry runs on GaaS" isn't hyperbolic because even the single player games that make little revenue are often funded by GaaS money. Take Epic for example and how it normally uses its GaaS money on things like Alan Wake 2 or free giveaways where it pays those singleplayer studios. There would still be a market without GaaS and small studios would still make games, gaming wouldn't die but the industry is dominated by GaaS and denial of this truth is bad. That tunnel vision is even less helpful to a company. I agree with you that this doesn't mean there is no market for single player games or things like VR. I love those things and hate GaaS but I'm not going to deny that the big players in the market are the big players due to GaaS and the others are the little guys.

 

[Felessan]

AA live service is the same shit as AAA live service for me. I thought discussion was about gaas vs non-gaas.

It's good to understand how market really looks like, what are the actors, dynamics and "forces"
A lot of stupid comes from complete ignorance of real world and stubborn will to stick with delusional bubble rabid fantasies

 

[pudel]

Can you agree that live service games can be pretty awesome as well when done right?

Yeah...i used to play Path of Exile a lot...however its a game which can quickly turn into "work". I really dont need this anymore.

 

[near]

I like single player games, but understand it doesn't make business sense anymore.

Unless you have a lot of money to burn or are an established franchise.

I'm trying to help you guys.

You guys will learn the hard way, the industry will leave you behind.

This is very reductive and just as bad as those takes that just want GaaS to fail. Your idea of what makes business sense doesn't matter to any studio that actually wants to make something specific or meaningful. We still have Hamster Corp releasing 100s of arcade games, Suda51 making his weird action games, and tons of tactical RPGs coming out every year because people want to make and sell those games. Single player games are still huge, and they're not going anywhere. If you reduce the medium to only one business model, you lose a lot of the most interesting interactive experiences. GaaS is a business model, not the end point of the medium.

 

[clarky]

Yeah...i used to play Path of Exile a lot...however its a game which can quickly turn into "work". I really dont need this anymore.

Love POE2. If any game feels like a job then best drop it.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Dev times and costs are insane these days on both side of the fence. Thats the core issue today.

Embark seem to be doing it right whether you like their products or not.

That's because the scope of most games is ridiculous by now. We don't need Open World bloat in every single game. That's btw. also why it's so hard to look forward to any sequels these days. By the time you slogged yourself through 30 hours in game, you're done with it. It used to be something like 10 hours and by the end you were craving for more. That's why we both used to replay and anticipate games more. I mean, how crazy is it that a TOP RPGs of the 00s like Mass Effect can be completed faster than most of the action adventures today? It's crazy man. Make this shit shorter and smaller. Stop making games that are constructed in a way that basically aim for players to make a subscription after buying it. And voila, you'll have both costs and dev time in check in no time. But of course, as long as investors keeping casing that Fortnite money (and I get it, every now and then someone manages to squeeze into this market), nothing will change.

 

[Felessan]

What?

You really think every indie developer makes a game because they want to become the next big AA or AAA studio?

You think that's what the person who made, say, Balatro had in mind? To reach a point where he will compete with the big publishers?

You think this guy is miserable now that he failed at this task?

Those who do it professionally would like it for sure
If you are enthusiast and writing game is a side pet project to your main job - it's ok to be lenient and not care about money
If your living depends on it, most would like it to be less of a lottery draw, and for this you have to rise above indies bloodbath

 

[pudel]

If any game feels like a job then best drop it.

Thats what annoys me the most about live service shit. You constantly need to keep the pace. If you let loose once you are out. Which is ofc desired, because thats what all live service games want. To lock you in forever.