Help me understand the GaaS appeal for game developers

JokerMM

JokerMM

Gay porn is where it's at.
What kind of demon posses these companies to bank on this dog shit genre that is both highly risky and with low rewards? 1 in 10 projects end in utter failure and end up dead within 2 to 3 years
are these developers so out of touch with reality that they don't see the endless lifeless corpses of dead GaaS games every fucking where they look?
is the cost for the development of this dog shit genre lower than a Single player project?
 
Yes, but if you are a smaller studio or a start-up, if you can make it appear like to corporate that there's growth potential, you can potentially sell your Gaas game for millions before they realize that your project has no upside.

You'll already sipping colt45 in Paris while the corporation who brought your gaas is spending millions trying to save it and keep it relevant.
 
It's money.
You can make the game addicting like drugs and keep people playing, you will make more money.
It's not for me. I am not interested in this type of game. Feels like walking dead tv show... clearly designed to keep going and going and going, to the point, it just get bad.
 
Im still a traditionalist when it comes to multiplayer in the despite the flaws. Sell me the fucking game with a decent amount of maps/unlocks and we'll go from there.
 
Its all about the
Super League Money GIF by Anderson .Paak

Everyone want some of those fortnite cash.
 
It is not about appeal, it is about money. They are not making Gaas because they are hardcore fortnite fans, but because that what makes money.
With single player experiences, to have a top game you need a top developer and sometimes 4,5 years of development for a game that with lucky it is going to sell 2, 3 millions at full price.

With Gaas, you can keep the same game for years just releasing stupid skins and guest characters and make 10 times the money that a single player game makes.
 
Make It Rain Money GIF by Tim and Eric


Companies are aware most GAAS fail, it doesn't matter.
It's not about releasing 10 GAAS and expecting all 10 of them to be a hit. It's about releasing 10 GAAS betting that 1 or 2 of them will be a hit and make billions
 
Because GAAS makes it a lot eaiser to target people with gambling addictions. South Park explained it perfectly for mobile games.



 
Last edited:
- Easy money by target addiction with the gambling strategies(like make the player feel special so in return they spend or make the game fun to play but very hard to progress)
- Promise of doing the work later by releasing barebones experience
- Focus on other stuff other than balancing and tuning the game(like costumes and trinkets)
- Low effort events to make it for the lack of content. It can also simply be copied from other games
- Easy to abandon if it fails
 
Last edited:
The guy represent the average gamer that needs all skins and battlepasses, cuz the FOMO dont let him enjoy the game without it, SEGA logo represents any dev developing a GAAS game.

ruaa3eoewktkh8smd8iu.gif
 
Last edited:
JokerMM said:
What kind of demon posses these companies to bank on this dog shit genre that is both highly risky and with low rewards? 1 in 10 projects end in utter failure and end up dead within 2 to 3 years
are these developers so out of touch with reality that they don't see the endless lifeless corpses of dead GaaS games every fucking where they look?
Click to expand...
They most certainly know this, but they have shittons of money, they can afford failure.

JokerMM said:
is the cost for the development of this dog shit genre lower than a Single player project?
Click to expand...
It can be, but the main appeal of GAAS is more they give considerably higher return for longer.

They can release a game that'll constantly generate recurrent revenue for years to come (in very high amounts if you have a hit in your hands), and all they have to do is keep building upon it, often just stupidly simple stuff like making new skins. This is considerably simpler and less risky than spending tons of time and money making a game from scratch over and over, one that won't see any return until its released half a decade later.
 
Last edited:
You can milk a single game with lazy battle passes and seasons that require minimal effort for potential big gains. Then once in a while you release a map or two or change out an existing system and then the cycle repeats itself.

AKA: Money $$$$$
 
A few of them worked. I mean, really worked. Now everyone is chasing that glory and success. I read a post earlier that really clicked for me stating that they are playing into peoples' FOMO. They know that a lot of people want the new hotness... skins, weapons, etc. They're playing into the human condition. I personally find that it's all getting exhausting and beyond repetitive. I can barely keep up anymore.
 
gothmog said:
Money 💰
Click to expand...

Represent. said:
Money.
Low ambition.
Lack of creativity.
Click to expand...

rofif said:
It's money.
You can make the game addicting like drugs and keep people playing, you will make more money.
It's not for me. I am not interested in this type of game. Feels like walking dead tv show... clearly designed to keep going and going and going, to the point, it just get bad.
Click to expand...

Gone said:
Money.
Less time to develop.
Recurrent cash flow.
Click to expand...

Hero_Select said:
You can milk a single game with lazy battle passes and seasons that require minimal effort for potential big gains. Then once in a while you release a map or two or change out an existing system and then the cycle repeats itself.

AKA: Money $$$$$
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, wrong...


When publishers fund and distribute single player games, is it also not about money? Of course, it is, you guys are observing this through a single lens. GaaS isn't a genre nor is it just a way to monetize a property. It also enables developers a sustainable avenue to provide ongoing support in terms of servers, hotfixes, story dlcs and a variety in game content. To produce a product that grows with time into something far bigger than a single player experience could ever offer. Good GaaS games require substantially large sums of money to develop, they're also difficult to make and sustain. You guys undermine their value because you simply choose not to understand them, or you don't like multiplayer games in general.
 
near said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong...


When publishers fund and distribute single player games, is it also not about money? Of course, it is, you guys are observing this through a single lens. GaaS isn't a genre nor is it just a way to monetize a property. It also enables developers a sustainable avenue to provide ongoing support in terms of servers, hotfixes, story dlcs and a variety in game content. To produce a product that grows with time into something far bigger than a single player experience could ever offer. Good GaaS games require substantially large sums of money to develop, they're also difficult to make and sustain. You guys undermine their value because you simply choose not to understand them, or you don't like multiplayer games in general.
Click to expand...
So, money. Got it.

FWIW, I play them daily. The data is all out there for us to gleen this opinion. The amount generated annually vs. what goes back into the game is insanely off balanced for every single GAAS I can think of.
 
coffinbirth said:
So, money. Got it.

FWIW, I play them daily. The data is all out there for us to gleen this opinion. The amount generated annually vs. what goes back into the game is insanely off balanced for every single GAAS I can think of.
Click to expand...

It's no secret they generate money, but that's because of player retention. GaaS games provide consistent content for its users. Furthermore, while what you say might be true, you need to provide evidence of a company that has shared financial expenditure, otherwise you're talking out your ass.
 
Here is some insight, but TLDR: The people that PAY for the games need to EXPALIN the money they are spending. If they cannot EXPLAIN why they pay for YOU then they will STOP paying.

It's called reality kiddos....

P= Publisher
D= Developer

P"Hey...so thanks for taking this meeting on such short notice we really appreciate you making time for us"

D"Sure thing, anytime!"

P"Did you have a chance to review the FY20XX forecasts and portfolio content plans?"

D"Yup, looked at them last week after the call. I think we align with some of those targets well. We positioned our team to roll onto the next game with little friction. We pulled double duty making sure our design specs, asset targets, and milestone dates are in line with production, inflight dates, and pre-release marketing needs. Nothing ever goes 100% smoothly but we are in a better position starting XXXX than we were with XXXX".

P"Yeah, we know you all spent a lot of time doing the pre-production, and overall we thought your design direction was strong. We still think the content plans should be followed. Not to the letter...but you know...to the spirit of them at least. Content is king and we need XXX to have legs this time. PLV is driven by the amount of time they are willing to spend in the worlds you make".

D"Totally agree...but I thought we knew this was going to be a rough point in our approach. We don't have a huge budget and the content we are going to deliver will fill the need for the player time target for this genre. "

P"We need to look at live content for the title. We need to increase the content release cadence, have a clear plan of attack for reengaging lapsed players, and dive positive LTV. All of our 20XX titles are expected to do this to account for the $ we are providing for development."

D"We don't have support for ANY of those features in our DD's or post support plans. We would have to shoe horn that in now and there is a very real chance this will impact our development and release date."

P"I know, I hear you....I do, but a late game is better than a game that doesn't get released at all, right?"
 
Last edited:
Imagine developing a shell of a game costing a fraction of a regular game, if it becomes popular you get riches beyond imagining. If it flops you quietly turn off servers and try again. GaaS is nothing new, just look at the mobile space where Chinese, Korean and Japanese developers churn out Gacha games and shut them down pitilessly if they disappoint.
 
near said:
It's no secret they generate money, but that's because of player retention. GaaS games provide consistent content for its users. Furthermore, while what you say might be true, you need to provide evidence of a company that has shared financial expenditure, otherwise you're talking out your ass.
Click to expand...
Do yourself a favor and Google Fortnite annual revenue and get back to me.
 
near said:
An extreme example, where you still fail to show how much Epic Games spends annually on its upkeep. You also hold every GaaS game to the same standard.
Click to expand...
I'm not here to teach you critical thinking, just like you have no idea what standard I hold ANY GAAS title to.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there is appeal for them even if I myself don't understand it, I'm sure most people don't see appeal in Japanese point & click adventure games but enjoy them.

It just nature of how different taste works.

But I would say GaaS it easy game that publishers can take advantage of players for their money.
 
Last edited:
coffinbirth said:
I'm not here to teach you critical thinking, just like you have no idea what standard I hold ANY GAAS title to.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying your wrong, but you articulate something as if its a fact, and someone calls you out on it. Burden of proof is on you.

My argument is GaaS offers multiplayers games longevity, and sustained content for games that I and millions of people enjoy playing. The counter argument? The company makes too much money off this! Its so shit! It's psychological manipulation! lol
 
Honestly, I'm going to take a different opinion. I'd actually wager it gives more creativity options to devs. I think about how gaas evolve over years. Let's look at destiny 2. It is so much different from when it launched that it is, literally, a different game. The devs have tried loads of different things with seasons and patches that wouldn't be possible (of course that's not entirely true but you get my point) without it being a gaas. Fortnite is another good example. They change the game constantly and add some crazy stuff.

Gaas certainly isn't perfect but it's not as bad as others pretend.
 
As others have mentioned, it's money. But also what we're seeing now was set in motion years ago, when times were different and both customer sentiment and regulatory sentiment towards Gaas was very different. In the 5 years since the games were seeing emerge now (and generally flop), and when they started development, we've seen huge consumer backlash, which feels like really got going with avengers and only snowballed since. The ones making money are still overwhelmingly still the same ones it's been for years, all the new ones are dying at launch left right and centre. Gamers who play them are heavily invested in the ones they are already playing, and not keen to switch. Older gamers (and those who were playing Gaas games when younger) don't have time for them as they are generally incompatible with adult life. The model was effectively reliant on hooking and manipulating kids, who had the time to play constantly, and were easily manipulated by the gambling mechanics into spending tons of money. Many of those kids have grown up now and will be churning out, whilst regulatory bodies have now stepped in making it much harder to replace them with the next generation (and harder to empty their pockets). Epic was fined billions for manipulating kids in Fortnite, multiple countries now consider loot boxes gambling (so 18+), china now requires any under 18 to link their national ID to play online, and for under 18s strictly limits game time to something equivalent to an hour per day (across all online games, ie not per game) AND severely limits monthly spend on microtransactions, whilst also not approving hardly any new western games for sale. All these things have happened in the last couple of years, long after the flood of failing launches were seeing now began dev, and long after the games were seeing announced now were greenlit.

At the same time, we're seeing some games that were clearly intended to be GAAS, microtransaction filled games release without stores, but their core being structured as tho they were. Redfall being one example where the leaks showed full stores etc. AND we're seeing the biggest games of the year, which are making big £££ being single player games. Along with demographic reports showing the biggest gamer demographic and industry growth sector being millennials. With the number of kids/young adults playing declining. I don't know about others here, but I'm an older gamer, and fortunately don't have kids, and have a wife who is happy for me to play games, so I still get a lot of PlayStation time, but most people I know would be lucky to play a few hours a week. They certainly don't have time to be addicted to a GAAS game.

So imo we will see things shift away from this nonsense, companies are too deep in to cancel it all now tho, and I expect we'll see many more failures and likely quite a few studios go under.
 
near said:
I'm not saying your wrong, but you articulate something as if its a fact, and someone calls you out on it. Burden of proof is on you.

My argument is GaaS offers multiplayers games longevity, and sustained content for games that I and millions of people enjoy playing. The counter argument? The company makes too much money off this! Its so shit! It's psychological manipulation! lol
Click to expand...
That's because these are known quantities. Most of these publishers are publicly traded companies. I'm not here to do your homework for you.
If you want to look way down the list at a game like Warframe, that is your best case scenario for what you are positing, and to say it is an outlier is an understatement. Otherwise you're looking at Fortnite, Warzone, Destiny, Overwatch, etc. That is what 99% of people think of when GAAS is mentioned, and thusly why 99% of the people on this forum shit talk them.
 
coffinbirth said:
That's because these are known quantities. Most of these publishers are publicly traded companies. I'm not here to do your homework for you.
If you want to look way down the list at a game like Warframe, that is your best case scenario for what you are positing, and to say it is an outlier is an understatement. Otherwise you're looking at Fortnite, Warzone, Destiny, Overwatch, etc. That is what 99% of people think of when GAAS is mentioned, and thusly why 99% of the people on this forum shit talk them.
Click to expand...
What homework? You made a statement, you said "The amount generated annually vs. what goes back into the game is insanely off balanced", I simply asked you to provide that evidence, give me an example where we can see how much a company reinvests in a game's upkeep.

GaaS games I've played while also enjoying, include Valorant, Dota 2, Apex Legends and Destiny 2. All of which I spent money on. Are genuinely good games, with good production value. Developers are able to but in so much time and craft in refining these experiences. To argue its just about money is nonsensical. It is dismissive to assume devs are only in it for the money.

Trogdor1123 said:
Honestly, I'm going to take a different opinion. I'd actually wager it gives more creativity options to devs. I think about how gaas evolve over years. Let's look at destiny 2. It is so much different from when it launched that it is, literally, a different game. The devs have tried loads of different things with seasons and patches that wouldn't be possible (of course that's not entirely true but you get my point) without it being a gaas. Fortnite is another good example. They change the game constantly and add some crazy stuff.

Gaas certainly isn't perfect but it's not as bad as others pretend.
Click to expand...

I like the way you think.
 
So when you make games, the dream is to make a that you can work on for years and years. Making it better and better until you think it's done.

In reality, you can't do that. Because it costs money to make games. So you have to finish it. And if you can reach that state yet, you either cut features, cut content, cut testing or cut polish.

GAAS in theory sounds good.

But then you enter the realities of... What happens if your game isn't popular?
 
Money and time.

A lot of GaaS are built around finding the right formula, where you can build future content. So, once you figure out the scope and initial build, you can push it out and slowly continue to work to update and refresh it over the years. There's less pressure on making use of the entire budget to get the game out of door in say 5 years. Also, if a GaaS hits, you're set for next decade as it offers great financial security with recurring revenue.

Having said that, there's a great risk in developing a GaaS if you are a developer because the cost is high and if the game bombs and has no players you'll go out of business really fast. Which is why you never see developers making GaaS on their own, it is generally funded by the publishers. It's more of a push from publishers side than devs imo.
 
near said:
What homework? You made a statement, you said "The amount generated annually vs. what goes back into the game is insanely off balanced", I simply asked you to provide that evidence, give me an example where we can see how much a company reinvests in a game's upkeep.

GaaS games I've played while also enjoying, include Valorant, Dota 2, Apex Legends and Destiny 2. All of which I spent money on. Are genuinely good games, with good production value. Developers are able to but in so much time and craft in refining these experiences. To argue its just about money is nonsensical. It is dismissive to assume devs are only in it for the money.



I like the way you think.
Click to expand...
facepalm-annoyed.gif


lmao, you're saying everyone here is wrong about GAAS, and yet you have Warzone, a game that has generated billions of dollars, yet is still in a broken state, Bungie haven't rebalanced Destiny in YEARS, Overwatch doing nothing for years, etc. etc. That's what I replied to. The fact that you can't do the simple math is on you.
Here, let me help.
2+2=GAAS is all about money, not any of the PR bullshit you are espousing.

What are you even trying to say? That we should all love the warm embrace of GAAS over the decades of previously perfectly fine multiplayer experiences that didn't require additional money to play? How about the fact that a lot of these games morphed into GAAS and implemented Battlepasses and P2W bullshit into already successful games that we paid full price for before they went F2P? GTFO of here with that bullshit.
 
JokerMM said:
that is both highly risky and with low rewards?
Click to expand...
If it was they wouldn't do it. Big single-player games is what's risky with low rewards (don't mention the few games that succeed and didn't even make a profit comparable to the big GAAS).

Now i agree the market is saturated and GAAS is still a ruthless competition. Some publishers are trying to do it with an old mindset more adapted to the traditional console market and it doesn't work, plus the competence of certain studios is not really compatible and they're learning this the hard way.

So right now it's probably not a good strategy to go all out GAAS, because if single player is not potentially as profitable, at least for certain studios and franchises it's still safe. But i think that a whole fraction of the industry still exist just because of the inertia, it's hard to fire so many people, so they're still trying to make traditional games. But that doesn't really work and i think for a lot of big publishers we're going to see eventually some internal studios closing down.

It's not the end of the world though. Because a lot of people want to make cool games and not only on an indie level, i'm sure new actors will emerge. And eventually with the state of technology it will be easier to make non GAAS games again.
 
Last edited:
coffinbirth said:
facepalm-annoyed.gif


lmao, you're saying everyone here is wrong about GAAS, and yet you have Warzone, a game that has generated billions of dollars, yet is still in a broken state, Bungie haven't rebalanced Destiny in YEARS, Overwatch doing nothing for years, etc. etc. That's what I replied to. The fact that you can't do the simple math is on you.
Here, let me help.
2+2=GAAS is all about money, not any of the PR bullshit you are espousing.

What are you even trying to say? That we should all love the warm embrace of GAAS over the decades of previously perfectly fine multiplayer experiences that didn't require additional money to play? How about the fact that a lot of these games morphed into GAAS and implemented Battlepasses and P2W bullshit into already successful games that we paid full price for before they went F2P? GTFO of here with that bullshit.
Click to expand...
No. The consensus is clear about the financial leverage of the GaaS model. Stop regurgitating the same thing over and over. OP is asking the appeal for devs. You, including other posters are finding it difficult to understand that a game dev might actually WANT to make a GaaS game for a variety of creative reasons. But you're insistent in equating development with the corporate interests of publishers.

I really don't give a shit if you play games that use this model, I'm not here to sell you on it. I'm providing counterarguments as someone who invests time and money in the service. Titanfall 2 died because it did not have a model in place to sustain its servers, while there is a community that still wants to play it. The old traditional MP model was not perfect either. This new model allows you to try a new game for free in most cases. The most popular ones on console/PC have no pay 2 features at all.

Also, again stop talking out your ass. Destiny 2 has been getting fine-tuned for years and rebalanced. I don't play Overwatch, so I cannot speak on that.

Bungie.net

www.bungie.net www.bungie.net
 
High risk, high reward.
But the chances of success are so low i dont get why so many studios even bother with their attempts. Do they seriously think they have a chance at going 1 on 1 with Fortnite or Destiny and win? :messenger_tears_of_joy:

If your game isnt better and has more content on its day 1 than Fortnite then they can forget about it, nobody is going to abandon one of those juggernaut games for some half baked attempts. They have a better chance of winning lottery.
 
Last edited:
near said:
No. The consensus is clear about the financial leverage of the GaaS model. Stop regurgitating the same thing over and over. OP is asking the appeal for devs. You, including other posters are finding it difficult to understand that a game dev might actually WANT to make a GaaS game for a variety of creative reasons. But you're insistent in equating development with the corporate interests of publishers.

I really don't give a shit if you play games that use this model, I'm not here to sell you on it. I'm providing counterarguments as someone who invests time and money in the service. Titanfall 2 died because it did not have a model in place to sustain its servers, while there is a community that still wants to play it. The old traditional MP model was not perfect either. This new model allows you to try a new game for free in most cases. The most popular ones on console/PC have no pay 2 features at all.

Also, again stop talking out your ass. Destiny 2 has been getting fine-tuned for years and rebalanced. I don't play Overwatch, so I cannot speak on that.

Bungie.net

www.bungie.net www.bungie.net
Click to expand...
clown-shoes-clown.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Help me understand: Why do executives stay when decisions lead to massive layoffs and cuts?
15
172
_Ex_ replied
  • Poll
Help me pick my next game - CRPGs
25
195
StereoVsn replied
GAAS grew immensely for PlayStation during the last fiscal year...
2 3
133
2K
saintjules replied
Can GAAS Success be Predicted?
2
67
965
Fess replied
Playstation Studios [OT] - Life After GaaS
11
237
SamuraiEdge replied
Top Bottom