Support NeoGAF

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

The title sums up the premise of this thread.

My hypothesis:

Outside of the obvious benefits for continued engagement driving MTXs and thus recurring revenue, from a business investment perspective it's mostly an issue of cash flow.

With each successive generation, games are getting bigger, more complex, and require more in the way of asset generation which ultimately determines how long a development project takes to complete. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to see projects taking in excess of 5 to 6 years to develop a AAA game.

In another thread, a poster suggested that Sony was making a poor investment by buying up Bungie for nearly $4bn when that money could have been used to make 18x Horizon games. The problem with this thinking is that it neglects the issue that is limiting investment decision-making and that of course is cash flow and to a lesser extent, risk.

A single AAA game that costs $200m and takes 5 years to make, means that investment is progressively sunk into a project that won't see any monetary return for 5 years. Meanwhile, the company has to post its financials annually and thus has to convince investors in the market for 5 years that the game is coming along well, will be released on time, and will generate the expected ROI that was anticipated.

Compare that with Live Service games like Destiny 2, which launched 3-4yrs ago and within that time, just pumps out a steady stream of middling to good DLC content that isn't beholden to review scores or the dreaded Metacritic for its success, it merely has to do the job of giving players something to do to keep them engaged so that they'll buy more MTXs, battle passes and level boosters.

Games like this can generate billions per year in revenue with only a fraction of the size team working on the frequent content updates, and again, the content doesn't need to drive the same level of quality as a new full game release does to get people's attention. The installed base for the Live Service game content updates is already embedded. So the content merely needs to keep players engaged.

So going back to the previously mentioned poster's comparison, it's pretty clear why Sony would spend $4n to buy Bungie instead of trying to make 18x $200m AAA games; as within the first five years, Sony would have more than made their money back, while in the latter case, they wouldn't even be able to have gotten all those 18x games out the door.

 

[TommyCronin6969]

Little effort with potential maximum profit.

 

[SmokedMeat]

It takes less resources and money to just keep an already released game going, versus starting on a new game.

Thing is the game has to be pretty popular in order for it to be worthwhile, as the goal is to take in money via microtransactions.

 

[Nankatsu]

Like you said OP it's a model that quickly generates income.

I wouldn't say it's little effort, it's just a more flexible approach, specially in terms of resources and time. You output a base game and work around it for the next 5-10 years.

Sure there are periods where content may not be extremely unique, but hey, people who play GaaS know how to differenciate a weekly event from an expansion.

I bet Sony and any other publisher looks at games that are GaaS and simply say they want a piece of that pie too.

 

[Power Pro]

I think the thing that a lot of publishers forget with these games, is they're not appealing to everyone with them. There are certain groups of people they are just never going to appeal to with these live service games because there are a segment of people, especially gamers, who don't want to engage with these practices regardless of the quality of the game. So yeah, they make a ton of money off of their whales, but there will be a large audience out there who will be completely untapped if every damn publisher went this direction, which is what you always hear they want to do.

 

[Doom85]

The title sums up the premise of this thread.

You say that, and then fail to mention the iconic British hang out even once.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

 

[cormack12]

Because 10 failures can be overlooked with one success

 

[BennyBlanco]

If you get one that hits it prints money and will keep your company alive and free to do other things.

Valve has DOTA and CS2. EA has Apex and FIFA. Epic has Fortnite. Activison has Warzone.

 

[Poplin]

higher profit margins. any publicly traded company has a fiduciary duty to shareholders to maximize profits.... i have to assume they did the math and realized that raising base price of premium games wasnt going to work, so instead they pursue business models like live service that help them get there.

Sucks, gaming really needs something like image comics for the comic book industry. privately owned, creator focused. only way to be able to manage a business without constantly being under the gun for infinite growth.

 

[bender]

 

[Solidus_T]

It requires much less work overall and therefor lower labor costs, while monetizing almost everything about the game.

 

[midnightAI]

 

[64gigabyteram]

With each successive generation, games are getting bigger, more complex, and require more in the way of asset generation which ultimately determines how long a development project takes to complete. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to see projects taking in excess of 5 to 6 years to develop a AAA game.

A single AAA game that costs $200m and takes 5 years to make, means that investment is progressively sunk into a project that won't see any monetary return for 5 years. Meanwhile, the company has to post its financials annually and thus has to convince investors in the market for 5 years that the game is coming along well, will be released on time, and will generate the expected ROI that was anticipated.

So basically, one of the major reasons for the takeover of GaaS is the absurdly long game development times.

Sonic was right.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

 

[mrmustard]

Wrong thread.

 

[nikos]

Player retention.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Mo money, mo money, mo money...... assuming it's success. It doesn't have to be Fortnite to be a success. But the closer to Fortnite the better.

Anything for a buck.

And it's not just big corporations that focus on GAAS. Small indie games can too. So even the small game companies (which are supposed to be unshackled from corporate umbrellas) can be just as money hungry hopping for endless mtx revenue.

 

[Go_Ly_Dow]

Cos publishers realised there are enough suckers out there that are willing to spend their hard earned money for years on virtual add ons. Also that there were enough out there willing to give up their time to play the same thing over and over if they just made low effort updates and reskinned old content.

 

[Danjin44]

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Cos publishers realised there are enough suckers out there that are willing to spend their hard earned money for years on virtual add ons. Also that there were enough out there willing to give up their time to play the same thing over and over if they just made low effort updates and reskinned old content.

Gaming and social media are similar. You got a bunch of people starving for attention with money in their pockets. And for many, maxing out a game getting achievements, skins, badges etc..... is like their dream accomplishment in life. And in gaming it's worse because some people do this via cheating or aimbots.

When I got a 360 way back, it was a new thing having a dedicated console profile. Logo, achievement pts etc... I remember in COD 4 trying to find all intels for pts and in NHL if you create a player or create a goalie you got like 50 pts. After I did the NHL thing, I realized how stupid that stuff is and never gunned for achievements ever again. I turn off all achievement notifications in settings.

The only difference is game makers monetized it. instead of playing the game normally and accomplishing things for free, if you dangle a digital carrot in front of them for $5 and then a banana for $3 and then a fruit basket for $20 some people will buy it for personal satisfaction and accomplishment.

 

[Loomy]

Steady, mostly predictable income stream

 

[StueyDuck]

Kids now are trained already to fork out money for dances and rappers and parents of these kids are pretty ignorant on how much they are spending and how predatory the system is.

 

[veterangamerUK]

Does this really warrant a new thread? It’s been discussed ad nauseam in others

 

[vaibhavpisal]

OP, I am afraid you will have to look above and beyond monetization for this.

First of all, watch Psychodeyssey. All 30 episodes. Psychonauts 2 is a masterpiece. But you will be surprised to see there, even the most seasoned game developers are at their wits end, for most of it's development.

Consider Spiderman 2. They have shortened Mary Jane sections. What for?? Player engagement. Makes game more fun. Even though it compromises on PlayStation's values of story focus.

Ultimately, live service games are played for long durations. This is sufficient proof to me their moment to moment gameplay is more fun.

Ultimately, it's to make their games more fun. Doesn't mean everyone is making Fortnite. Their future projects will be more fun, single player or otherwise. Since they know how to make fun games that player want to play and engage with for long time.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The title sums up the premise of this thread.

My hypothesis:

Outside of the obvious benefits for continued engagement driving MTXs and thus recurring revenue, from a business investment perspective it's mostly an issue of cash flow.

With each successive generation, games are getting bigger, more complex, and require more in the way of asset generation which ultimately determines how long a development project takes to complete. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to see projects taking in excess of 5 to 6 years to develop a AAA game.

In another thread, a poster suggested that Sony was making a poor investment by buying up Bungie for nearly $4bn when that money could have been used to make 18x Horizon games. The problem with this thinking is that it neglects the issue that is limiting investment decision-making and that of course is cash flow and to a lesser extent, risk.

A single AAA game that costs $200m and takes 5 years to make, means that investment is progressively sunk into a project that won't see any monetary return for 5 years. Meanwhile, the company has to post its financials annually and thus has to convince investors in the market for 5 years that the game is coming along well, will be released on time, and will generate the expected ROI that was anticipated.

Compare that with Live Service games like Destiny 2, which launched 3-4yrs ago and within that time, just pumps out a steady stream of middling to good DLC content that isn't beholden to review scores or the dreaded Metacritic for its success, it merely has to do the job of giving players something to do to keep them engaged so that they'll buy more MTXs, battle passes and level boosters.

Games like this can generate billions per year in revenue with only a fraction of the size team working on the frequent content updates, and again, the content doesn't need to drive the same level of quality as a new full game release does to get people's attention. The installed base for the Live Service game content updates is already embedded. So the content merely needs to keep players engaged.

So going back to the previously mentioned poster's comparison, it's pretty clear why Sony would spend $4n to buy Bungie instead of trying to make 18x $200m AAA games; as within the first five years, Sony would have more than made their money back, while in the latter case, they wouldn't even be able to have gotten all those 18x games out the door.

In the extreme case it goes to the F2P model, which lowers the expectation on your “launch”, but I think you hit the nail on the head. Another key aspect of this is limiting how much you develop ahead of time for launch to the core essential of what you need and then a bit less than that.

You try to focus on something that will hook players and reviewers in the game and promise ahead of time steady and frequent support (you give reviewers pre-release versions which are your MVP and make them see the content update coming every week or every X weeks) and this way you plan to shield away from reviews and impressions calling your game out for being short (you still try to add as much procedural content as you can to pad things out).
Then you develop only what you need to keep people engaged and tailor it to what your realtime analytics tell you has the biggest retention and reactivation effect.

This saves a lot of money spent early on and limits risk in case the game is not doing well enough to be worth saving. You cut your losses and move to the next GaaS game, and so on…

 

[Panajev2001a]

OP, I am afraid you will have to look above and beyond monetization for this.

First of all, watch Psychodeyssey. All 30 episodes. Psychonauts 2 is a masterpiece. But you will be surprised to see there, even the most seasoned game developers are at their wits end, for most of it's development.

Consider Spiderman 2. They have shortened Mary Jane sections. What for?? Player engagement. Makes game more fun. Even though it compromises on PlayStation's values of story focus.

Ultimately, live service games are played for long durations. This is sufficient proof to me their moment to moment gameplay is more fun.

Ultimately, it's to make their games more fun. Doesn't mean everyone is making Fortnite. Their future projects will be more fun, single player or otherwise. Since they know how to make fun games that player want to play and engage with for long time.

Addiction / engagement is not always fun, the core is to keep people from playing other games and most of all to keep giving you money (or staying subbed to the service which is giving you money indirectly).

Fortnite is engaging Super Mario Wonder / Super Mario 64 / Super Mario Odyssey, Luigi’s Mansion, Jusant, ICO, DOOM/DOOM 64, Quake I/II, etc… are Fun!

 

[Panajev2001a]

Mo money, mo money, mo money...... assuming it's success. It doesn't have to be Fortnite to be a success. But the closer to Fortnite the better.

Anything for a buck.

And it's not just big corporations that focus on GAAS. Small indie games can too. So even the small game companies (which are supposed to be unshackled from corporate umbrellas) can be just as money hungry hopping for endless mtx revenue.

Finding a dev on mobile selling apps/games at all is tough, all on subs or F2P. That is also because thanks to a race to the bottom people on mobile mostly refuse to purchase content (not seeing its value… sigh…) and Apple has no way to sell software upgrades vs updates on the platform (while also making it a PITA to support apps across OS upgrades).

 

[Majormaxxx]

Because it's easier than trying to convince sheeple to buy new games. Have them on a subscription or give them free to play with forced by design transactions. It's genius really. I have a backlog, a single player wishlist and other hobbies so I don't care.

 

[Goalus]

You try to focus on something that will hook players and reviewers in the game

I don't think reviewers are hooked by anything. GaaS doesn't fit a reviewer's business model, that's why they hate it. For reviewers, it's bad if they have to return to a game that they have already "reviewed" because what are they gonna do afterwards? Write another review of the same game? They want games they can "finish" in less than a week and that do not require continued engagement.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Addiction / engagement is not always fun, the core is to keep people from playing other games and most of all to keep giving you money (or staying subbed to the service which is giving you money indirectly).

Fortnite is engaging Super Mario Wonder / Super Mario 64 / Super Mario Odyssey, Luigi’s Mansion, Jusant, ICO, DOOM/DOOM 64, Quake I/II, etc… are Fun!

Fortnite - engaging and fun
Super Mario Odeyssey - engaging and fun
Doom/Quake - engaging and fun.

These are top tier studios and don't necessarily need to learn good games.

On the other hand...

Luigi's Mansion - fun for 5-10 hours. Tedious after that. This is in a 20 hrs game.

These are type of studios that need to learn how to make mechanics that feel great even if you play it for 40 hrs.

 

[Panajev2001a]

I don't think reviewers are hooked by anything. GaaS doesn't fit a reviewer's business model, that's why they hate it. For reviewers, it's bad if they have to return to a game that they have already "reviewed" because what are they gonna do afterwards? Write another review of the same game? They want games they can "finish" in less than a week and that do not require continued engagement.

There is always a new game coming out, they review a game that launches or a new season of a game coming out (“hands-on” videos, previews, etc…)… also, what a lot of reviewers love is to get in the industry so they are inclined to kind of understand and get on with the program .

 

[Panajev2001a]

Fortnite - engaging and fun
Super Mario Odeyssey - engaging and fun
Doom/Quake - engaging and fun.

These are top tier studios and don't necessarily need to learn good games.

On the other hand...

Luigi's Mansion - fun for 5-10 hours. Tedious after that. This is in a 20 hrs game.

These are type of studios that need to learn how to make mechanics that feel great even if you play it for 40 hrs.

No, they do not. They just need to make games fun and give your money’s worth that way. Dopamine addiction keeps you hooked and engaged but not necessarily fun: the game is trying to keep extracting money from you and it is a constant sense of near fun and near frustration, you know when a game is a joy to play that does not try to get you to spend more money vs a game that is trying to make you spend as you play.

Fun games you buy, addictive / engaging games you have to keep a GamePass sub service going or for a F2P strategy as you do know (it is not difficult to understand why you are pushing the engagement angle ).

 

[vaibhavpisal]

No, they do not. They just need to make games fun and give your money’s worth that way. Dopamine addiction keeps you hooked and engaged but not necessarily fun: the game is trying to keep extracting money from you and it is a constant sense of near fun and near frustration, you know when a game is a joy to play that does not try to get you to spend more money vs a game that is trying to make you spend as you play.

Fun games you buy, addictive / engaging games you have to keep a GamePass sub service going or for a F2P strategy as you do know .

Serious question: did you got addicted to one of the live service games.

Speaking from personal experience in Fortnite/ Halo Infinite.

At no point did I felt addicted or felt compelled to spend money. Played both for 70-80 hrs till I had my fill. Felt like I needed to support Fortnite for the fun I was having so purchased a single battle pass. Didn't purchase anything for Halo cause was already subscribed to gamepass.

Why do you form opinions without having a first hand experience?? Am assuming you never played these games cause you don't want to.

 

[Panajev2001a]

Serious question: did you got addicted to one of the live service games.

Speaking from personal experience in Fortnite/ Halo Infinite.

At no point did I felt addicted or felt compelled to spend money. Played both for 70-80 hrs till I had my fill. Felt like I needed to support Fortnite for the fun I was having so purchased a single battle pass. Didn't purchase anything for Halo cause was already subscribed to gamepass.

Why do you form opinions without having a first hand experience?? Am assuming you never played these games cause you don't want to.

I have played plenty of this kind of games (Infinite, Diablo Immortal, etc…), but we can have the same chat with problematic gamblers that say they have it under control. The high engagement games are developed like online casino games just not regulated .

 

[Shits_McGiggles]

Because corporate executives are retarded gambling addicts who have no personal stake in risking it all over recommendations from meaningless studies created by incompetent, overpaid data analysts who are only there to tell the executives what they want to hear.

 

[Vblad88]

I wonder, with this "All we need is one good game out of x" approach, what is their benchmark ?
They cannot reinvent Fortnite nor Genshin. Destiny got milked out of ideas, Fall Guys or Among Us got clones already with no real recognition.
They won't invest so much that they make a GTA Online Competitor and chances of creating A WoW/FFXIV destroyer close to none.

Yet I see an oldfashioned toy maker approach. "Let's make a series of action figures with cool ads, maybe it will bite", as if they had all the Chinese workers in the world to produce them.

Or maybe CoD is still their role model. A hidden yearly subscription to a military shooter.
To bad that is going to be scaled down to fit the GP Ultimate price point...

Kind of dead end...

 

[vaibhavpisal]

I have played plenty of this kind of games (Infinite, Diablo Immortal, etc…), but we can have the same chat with problematic gamblers that say they have it under control. The high engagement games are developed like online casino games just not regulated .

IMO studios are after mechanics, not to learn how to rob players.

I don't play games that try to rob me. There is a market for that. GAAS Or otherwise.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Revenue.

 

[Pejo]

 

[Sakura]

Because they see the successful ones and think it's an easier way to make more money.

With each successive generation, games are getting bigger, more complex, and require more in the way of asset generation which ultimately determines how long a development project takes to complete. Nowadays, it's not uncommon to see projects taking in excess of 5 to 6 years to develop a AAA game.

In another thread, a poster suggested that Sony was making a poor investment by buying up Bungie for nearly $4bn when that money could have been used to make 18x Horizon games. The problem with this thinking is that it neglects the issue that is limiting investment decision-making and that of course is cash flow and to a lesser extent, risk.

A single AAA game that costs $200m and takes 5 years to make, means that investment is progressively sunk into a project that won't see any monetary return for 5 years. Meanwhile, the company has to post its financials annually and thus has to convince investors in the market for 5 years that the game is coming along well, will be released on time, and will generate the expected ROI that was anticipated.

This is really a product of their own creation though. What kind of budget do you think a game like Animal Crossing or Pokemon has in comparison? Yet these games sell like 20 to 40 million copies.

 

[DenchDeckard]

Covid boom

 

[mitch1971]

As someone from the UK I'm disapointed in the direction of this thread.

 

[Humdinger]

I don't think it's complicated. They are like publishers in any other domain. They see the potential for profit -- the potential to cash in on something -- and that's the direction they move. You can expect a lot of trash from this approach, but presumably a lot of profit as well.

 

[Dr. Wilkinson]

You’d think after the success of Elden Ring or Cyberpunk or Hogwarts Legacy or Jedi they’d realize most people just want a great game and will pay $70 for it.

That should be enough.

Nintendo’s more profitable literally than ever before in their history right now and they don’t do GaaS at all.

 

[Chechack]

See how much money and profit games like Genshin,Nikke,Fortnite etc make.

Theres ur answer

 

[ReBurn]

You’d think after the success of Elden Ring or Cyberpunk or Hogwarts Legacy or Jedi they’d realize most people just want a great game and will pay $70 for it.

That should be enough.

Nintendo’s more profitable literally than ever before in their history right now and they don’t do GaaS at all.

The problem is that it's not enough when games take so long and cost so much to make. Having to invest high tens to hundreds of millions over 4+ years hoping to have a hit is a risk that needs the safety net of a recurring revenue stream. A concept like live service games can provide such a safety net if you have a hit. One bad $70 AAA game can kill a company unless there's money coming in from somewhere else to keep it afloat.

"Just be like Nintendo" is good in concept. But how many other companies have multiple games that sell 30+ million copies at pretty much full price over a single console generation? With people buying fewer titles at $70 it's harder now than it ever was to rely on tentpole games alone. Especially when so many gaming dollars are funneled to the successful service games. It's a tricky thing.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You’d think after the success of Elden Ring or Cyberpunk or Hogwarts Legacy or Jedi they’d realize most people just want a great game and will pay $70 for it.

That should be enough.

Nintendo’s more profitable literally than ever before in their history right now and they don’t do GaaS at all.

PlayStation is already doing what you're advocating for. Their AAA single player output is overwhelmingly going to be big, well known franchise games like Wolverine, God of War, Uncharted, Star Wars etc...

The problem some people don't recognize is Days Gone (8 million sales) represents somewhat of a disappointment for Sony. Games have gotten more expensive to make since 2019, so the success bar has likely risen to 9 - 11 million right now. Tomorrow it will be 13 million. Then 15 million....

PlayStation doesn't have to worry about future Wolverine or Star Wars or God of War games, but they do have to worry about Ghost of Tsushima 2 and Death Stranding 2. If they're not confident that a studio can get 10+ million in sales on a project, then the smart bet is to let them make a Live Service game (where IP doesn't matter) and see if it catches fire.

 

[wvnative]

Grand Theft Auto Online is the most profitable piece of entertainment ever created.

 

[Red5]

Little effort with potential maximum profit.

Fortnite is probably the king of F2P games but to get there with constant contents and updates, people at Epic are working 70-100 hours a week. I would say it's more little risk since they have their golden goose.

That's why GAAS titles fail if they can't keep things fresh and that's why a lot of actual developers do not want to work on GAAS titles, but every c-suite in every mega publisher want their own Fortnite.