Guilty_AI
Member
Tell this to the hundreds of people who play NFS World daily on unofficial fan-made servers.More people are affected by lightning strikes than by GAAS games shutting down.
Last edited:
Tell this to the hundreds of people who play NFS World daily on unofficial fan-made servers.More people are affected by lightning strikes than by GAAS games shutting down.
How does it relate to oversaturation? 7-10 years ago top 10 games were occupying 90% of revenue and there were way less games that now. GaaS started to spread, reducing concentration towards a few games, as new genres and focuses emerges, games becomes more diversified and cater to different preferencies.This article seems to back that up. Top 15 games occupying 60% of the time top 33 occupying 75% of player time.
Not even the guy who wrote it believes Live Service domination ends in 2024.End of the live service domination and market saturation
Live services will continue to be massively successful and dominate top played and grossing charts, undoubtedly
He's talking about saturation. A few will remain strong but developers will stop trying to break into the GAAS market and go back to making traditional games, much like what happened to MMOs.So the article actually linked in the OP says:
Not even the guy who wrote it believes Live Service domination ends in 2024.
MMO just died as a (mass market) genre due to loss of popularity and lack of breakthrough ides, not because it "oversaturated"He's talking about saturation. A few will remain strong but developers will stop trying to break into the GAAS market and go back to making traditional games, much like what happened to MMOs.
You're literally describing the state of GAAS right now.MMO just died as a (mass market) genre due to loss of popularity and lack of breakthrough ides, not because it "oversaturated"
It's literally barren wasteland, where (non-Korea/China/mobile) 2-3 games occupy more than 2/3 and top 10 occupy 90%. The genre in a very pityfull state and not because of oversaturation, but because it exhausted, and people left this genre to rot. Pertty much like TBS and RTS rotting in history.
Only if you reeeally stretch the definition of GAAS. Like calling Early Access a type of live service, or any game that produces additional content after release, or any type of MP game. Then again those were around before the GAAS moniker became a thing.And unlike MMO GaaS are pretty much safe atm, because it's not a genre, it's approach, so it can easily spread and adapt. It actually started off MMO, but than spread to shooters, adventure games, RPG etc.
No. GaaS now way too diversified, probably more than AAA games are.You're literally describing the state of GAAS right now.
You can build almost any game as GaaS even in "stricter" definition. Star Rail builded turn-based jRPG into bona-fide gatcha GaaS. There is a number of upcoming experiments what else to convert to GaaS, up to 4X games. Because GaaS is simply a monetization and content delivery approach, if a game can be turned into episodic content - it can be turned into GaaS.Only if you reeeally stretch the definition of GAAS. Like calling Early Access a type of live service, or any game that produces additional content after release, or any type of MP game. Then again those were around before the GAAS moniker became a thing.
Again, you're just stretching the definition. Earlier our in-house multiplayer defender called even Lethal Company a GAAS, despite it not even having recurring spending.No. GaaS now way too diversified, probably more than AAA games are.
And there is no sign of GaaS to loose it's steam, it;s just becomes bigger and bigger. Mainly because GaaS in not a genre, and MMO died because it's a genre that lost appeal (it's was cannibalized due to spin-off of most popular aspects tp separate genres, leaving MMO as a genre much less attractive). GaaS on the other hand is approach, not a genre, this means that it can move to any genre that is trend of the day.
GaaS started as MMO when they were on their peak. MMO died - GaaS moved to their descendands - MOBA (straight ripoff of MMO), than Battle Royale, asian online RPG, adventures (another partial ripoff of MMO). Somewhere on the way it also infected shooters and other genres,
You can build almost any game as GaaS even in "stricter" definition. Star Rail builded turn-based jRPG into bona-fide gatcha GaaS. There is a number of upcoming experiments what else to convert to GaaS, up to 4X games. Because GaaS is simply a monetization and content delivery approach, if a game can be turned into episodic content - it can be turned into GaaS.
You are assuming things under my name. Bad practice overall.Again, you're just stretching the definition. Earlier our in-house multiplayer defender called even Lethal Company a GAAS, despite it not even having recurring spending.
Social aspects are not mandatory at all. In many games they are irrelevant (see Arknight, Star Rail etc).When people say GAAS, they're usually refering to:
-Always online game that require users to make accounts.
-Games whose core social aspects or mechanics are deeply tied to monetization in some form. Basically pay to win, pay to progress, or pay to express yourself.
Endfield will be bona fide GaaS, as original Arknight was. And it is incorporate some base building from X4.A single-player game who releases a bunch of DLCs over the years, like Mechwarrior 5 or X4, will not be considered GAAS by most people.
Look at the 10 year trend of GAAS in terms of revenue. It has yet to hit a wall. It grows every year.Data please!
That's not the definition of saturation. Again, the GAAS market is still in its booming growth period.This article seems to back that up. Top 15 games occupying 60% of the time top 33 occupying 75% of player time.
Naughty Dog is likely working on a new multiplayer game. Don't tell NeoGAF.Only if you get a hit. If you don't...Well naughty Dog have already made there choice!
Is it overblown? PlayStation had a 25+ year history of primarily making single player games. Now they're a multiplayer centric company.Meh this is so overblown if gaming is the biggest entrainment industry then it makes sense to have the biggest budgets. Budgets will rise for as long as they can until they can't then they will stabilise like the film Industry.
Are digital libraries helping sales or hurting sales? GamePass seems to be hurting sales on XBox.Due to Digital libraries Single player games are selling more and longer than ever before.
Sure sure, but Honkai Star Rail is still just one game. And from a company that already had a successful GAAS IP. Do i need to point out the number of successful traditional games that came out just last year in comparison? GAAS isn't the norm, and will continue not to be.You are assuming things under my name. Bad practice overall.
I care less what you in-house call GaaS. I provide specific examples those widely accepted as GaaS like Honkai Star Rail etc. There lis ittle stretching. If anything it's you who are "stretching" to try to exclude some games from GaaS because they don't feet you cause.
Yes, thats why i said or. Those games still charge for progressing within the game's mechanics, which classifies them as GAAS.Social aspects are not mandatory at all. In many games they are irrelevant (see Arknight, Star Rail etc).
GaaS is mainly - f2p/b2p "always online" with player retention use cases and episodic deliver of content focused on recurring income.
...are we talking about the same X4 here?Endfield will be bona fide GaaS, as original Arknight was. And it is incorporate some base building from X4.
Actually X4 is one of the simpliest to convert to GaaS, and even "gacha monetization" is obvious. Just genre is rather small to pay attention to it.
Sure sure, but Honkai Star Rail is still just one game. And from a company that already had a successful GAAS IP. Do i need to point out the number of successful traditional games that came out just last year in comparison?
But you still need internet to play with your friends. Also I find weird the idea of people who don't like to play with other people, but ok.
And you once again you prove you don't really read what other people say.Umm...what?
Hasn't your position repeatedly been "The GAAS market is saturated because (lists 6 failed Live Service games over a 4 year period)?
Now you're realizing that cherry picking examples isn't helpful when defining what a saturated market is or isn't?
Did we just make a breakthrough?!
Star Rail is just the most famous of the bunch. It's not like its just one game and no other similar games present/coming in the near future.Sure sure, but Honkai Star Rail is still just one game. And from a company that already had a successful GAAS IP. Do i need to point out the number of successful traditional games that came out just last year in comparison? GAAS isn't the norm, and will continue not to be.
Charge(?!) for progression? it rather new in GaaS monetization.Yes, thats why i said or. Those games still charge for progressing within the game's mechanics, which classifies them as GAAS.
Yes, something like good old Civilization...are we talking about the same X4 here?
So you're telling me that even an originally f2p game developer is investing in traditonal release models? Don't tell this toStar Rail is just the most famous of the bunch. It's not like its just one game and no other similar games present/coming in the near future.
The very Granblue that now have single player spinoff is a turn-based online RPG with some rather limited social interraction.
>Pay to express yourself, I mentioned this too. Some of these gachas also monetize the horny-factor but they're very specific cases.Charge(?!) for progression? it rather new in GaaS monetization.
Half of the modern (and modern I mean asian, as iirc Asus&EY stated 2 years ago in their research on gaming phones, western mobile games lags 5 year behind) do not charge for progression, they charge for novelty and skins (waifu/husbando gaming). Genshin is a prime example of this where even in meta gaming newest chars rarely needed.
X4 with gacha monetization would be utter hell. In fact, it'd be a bonafide example of ruining a game with greed, exactly how it happened with other franchises that tried to "GAAS-fy" their franchises and now are rolling in the mud.Yes, something like good old Civilization
Always has. The market has grown quickly and steadily over the last 15+ years. That means your points here don't address market saturation one iota.And you once again you prove you don't really read what other people say.
>GAAS monetization rely on taking up players time.
>Single Player games do not.
You don't know what market saturation means. Allow me to explain.-If there's too much of the former, that specific market crashes as a few handful of games become succesful and take up all of the userbase's gaming time.
-The latter on the other hand, can keep generating as many games as it wants as they're one and done experiences. Its a much safer endeavor all things considered, as Armored Core 6 doesn't have to worry about competing with Baldurs Gate 3. At most they only have to pay attention to release window.
Single player market can afford to be saturated and have many releases. GAAS market cannot.
I think it’s will go away because both audiences and developers find battle pass content lame. Both will ask why we only get the pass, when meaningful world building content could be paid for.
The 'market' that grew relates to the popularity of a selected few games, not the amount of successful releases. And now these selected few are making it much much harder for new GAAS games to become successful, or even viable at all.Always has. The market has grown quickly and steadily over the last 15+ years. That means your points here don't address market saturation one iota.
And you don't understand modern market dynamics.You don't know what market saturation means. Allow me to explain.
It's all about total available dollars in a particular market. Single player gamers spend X amount of dollars every year.
If there's 3 high quality AAA SP games released in a year...1 B dollars will be spent.
If there's 6 high quality AAA SP games released in a year....1.2 B dollars will be spent.
If there's 12 high quality AAA SP games released in a year....1.3 B dollars will be spent.
As you can see, it's healthier for 3 games to fight over 1 B dollars than it is for 12 games to fight over 1.3 B dollars.
The single player market has been capped for a while now. You honestly never wondered why PlayStation only minimally bumped their SP spending up as games were getting more expensive to make? Because PlayStation knows the single player market is capped.
You don't think there are way more successful Live Service games in 2023 than there were in 2003? Umm...what?The 'market' that grew relates to the popularity of a selected few games, not the amount of successful releases. And now these selected few are making it much much harder for new GAAS games to become successful, or even viable at all.
That's true for every market.What i said times in the past remains true. You look for the GAAS that are bringing in the big bucks and you notice there only exists a handful of them.
Nope. The more you flood the market with $70 dollar SP games the more SP gamers wait for sales. That market has been capped for a while now. See: PlayStations reluctance to increase funding in SP games.And you don't understand modern market dynamics.
Time is more valuable than money. Most people in the hobby can afford to buy 12 games just fine, the question becomes whether they'll be able to play those games at all.
Playing 12 traditional single player games in a year is still realistic. Some people play even more than that.
That's how the market has always been.Playing 12 GAAS games during a year is not, because these games are designed to take up your time. GAAS players usually spend most of their time (and money by extension) in 1 or 2 of those games, not all 12 of them.
You have very few that make tons more of money. But the amount of games that can be called successful?You don't think there are way more successful Live Service games in 2023 than there were in 2003? Umm...what?
Oh, true true. The point is these games, despite existing, aren't necessarely more profitable or risk-adverse than traditional releases. This and the ones i previously mentioned can exist because their active playerbase isn't that big, and that playerbase tends to be dedicated.That's true for every market.
Also, Paladins is still getting updates from Hi Rez Studios because Paladins is still profitable despite having a small player base.
What about "see: Playstation cutting down on tons of Live service projects"?Nope. The more you flood the market with $70 dollar SP games the more SP gamers wait for sales. That market has been capped for a while now. See: PlayStations reluctance to increase funding in SP games.
i'm missing nothing. What you're missing is that the portion of GAAS actually bringing in these profits is very small, and usually contain immense playerbases. There isn't space for many games like that.That's how the market has always been.
And yet, the market has exploded in profitability and popularity over the last 20 years.
So what are you missing?
What are we doing here? Do you honestly expect this list to compare with the amount of successful Live Service games today? We're approaching Monty Python Black Knight territory here.You have very few that make tons more of money. But the amount of games that can be called successful?
2003:
Grand Chase
Ragnarok Online
MapleStory
Eve Online
Runescape
Everquest
Ultima online
Tibia
and more...
IDK what this means.Oh, true true. The point is these games, despite existing, aren't necessarely more profitable or risk-adverse than traditional releases. This and the ones i previously mentioned can exist because their active playerbase isn't that big, and that playerbase tends to be dedicated.
"That's the total number of live service and multiplayer titles [and] mid-to-long-term we want to [push] this kind of service and that's the unchanged policy of the company." - PlayStations Hiroki TitokiThey're in no way the golden geese people thought they were these last few years, and publishers are slowly realizing that. Realizing making a live service game does not mean making fortnite or COD bucks, or that they'll somehow be more profitable than SP games.
Hiroki Titokis statement suggests otherwise.What about "see: Playstation cutting down on tons of Live service projects"?
Actually, you do seem to be missing something pretty big here. Let me reiterate...i'm missing nothing. What you're missing is that the portion of GAAS actually bringing in these profits is very small, and usually contain immense playerbases. There isn't space for many games like that.
Money for who? Designing a well timed, interestingly themed mount the sells like hot cakes can be interesting for developers and sought after by consumers.Reminder: A single mount in World of Warcraft made more money than StarCraft 2.
People vote with their wallets. You people still haven't reconciled with the SP industries embarrassingly low completion rates. It's the little shame no one likes addressing when it comes to blatent market weaknesses.Money for who? Designing a well timed, interestingly themed mount the sells like hot cakes can be interesting for developers and sought after by consumers.
That said, making StarCraft 2 is intrinsically more rewarding, and more valuable to a user.
Tell that to the character artists who's entire job is to create the visual look of characters. Those people probably prefer GAAS and consider traditional 70 dollar SP games a threat to their livelihood and creativity.At some point designing low tier battle pass gear becomes a grind
You say this like it's a bad thing.and players press accept and never interact with it again. When that is the case, no amount of cash incentive (value for player, riches for the company) will make a difference, because 99.9% of the shared community are not being served by the thing.
He's talking about saturation. A few will remain strong but developers will stop trying to break into the GAAS market and go back to making traditional games, much like what happened to MMOs.
MMO just died as a (mass market) genre due to loss of popularity and lack of breakthrough ides, not because it "oversaturated"
It's literally barren wasteland, where (non-Korea/China/mobile) 2-3 games occupy more than 2/3 and top 10 occupy 90%. The genre in a very pityfull state and not because of oversaturation, but because it exhausted, and people left this genre to rot. Pertty much like TBS and RTS rotting in history.
And unlike MMO GaaS are pretty much safe atm, because it's not a genre, it's approach, so it can easily spread and adapt. It actually started off MMO, but than spread to shooters, adventure games, RPG etc.
33 games in top 75% is something that MMO ever hoped to achive. It's actually already huge diversification for these type of games. Because at best pre-WoW time it was more like top 5-8 and now it's like top3 (if we include Destiny), and top 10 is something like 95%.
That's fake news. They only did cut one, TLOU Online. And because its dev team saw that the resources it would require were going to impact where they want to focus: SP non-GaaS games, not because any change in Sony's overall strategy.What about "see: Playstation cutting down on tons of Live service projects"?
No, they aren't a MP centric company.Is it overblown? PlayStation had a 25+ year history of primarily making single player games. Now they're a multiplayer centric company.
No, they aren't a MP centric company.
The dozen (now 11) GaaS were a minority of the MORE THAN 25 Sony 1st+2nd party games under development. On top of that, GaaS doesn't imply MP only. Games like GT7 or MLB are GaaS and feature single player stuff.
Sony is expanding on MP, but they plan to continue focusing on primarly SP.
You can’t just “pivot”. AAA game development takes 5-8 years now. If they pivot in 2024, we will see next games as either cross gen or exclusive for next gen consoles.
It's 60% of "PS5 investment by business model", not their resources.When 60% of their resources are going to Live Service and only 40% are going to SP...they've become Live Service centric.
I never said they were going to be only 12 Live service ever. Obviously after these on they'll make other ones. In the same way they also had made several GaaS before this dozen.Btw, your quote was wrong. It was always "12 Live Service titles by FY2025". It was never "12 Live Service titles ever".
Sure, there are certainly improvements that could be made and some of them will even propagate through. However, modern gaming dev is very complex so you are still looking at 5+ years even with improvements.Cut costs on worthless chaff. Remove DEI and outsiders like SweetBaby. Use AI models to animate mouth movements for other countries (or hell, use AI to do voice acting for NPCs and the like). Cut back on trying to be the "greatest graphical looking game" that will be outdated as soon as the next major AAA title comes out. Focus more on artstyle/artdesign and lower the padding in these bloated open world games.
Plenty of ways to make AAA gaming more sustainable, faster, and better for the consumer than what they currently are.
Which is why proper pipelines and strict deadlines exist. Sure, a single game may take 5 years to make, but if they were efficient and cut back on the aforementioned chaff, they could be working on 2-3 games at once.Sure, there are certainly improvements that could be made and some of them will even propagate through. However, modern gaming dev is very complex so you are still looking at 5+ years even with improvements.
It’s just the nature of the beast now days. Pivots are not easy and this isn’t 5th gen gaming where you can output a decent 3D game in couple of years unfortunately.
I am skeptical that majority of studios have discipline, willpower and capability to implement the required changes.Which is why proper pipelines and strict deadlines exist. Sure, a single game may take 5 years to make, but if they were efficient and cut back on the aforementioned chaff, they could be working on 2-3 games at once.
Despite my issues with Insomniac at the moment, they tend to do this well. On average, they have a 2 year cycle between releases, despite the games taking 5-7 years to actually design. Remove the chaff and this could be lowered to 1-2 years between releases and a total dev time of 4-5 years.
As for decent 3D games, I would argue plenty of studios are doing this already in under a few years time. Having a more focused development and narrower scope and not trying to chase trends or high end graphics causes releases to come out at a more consistent pace.
This is a great point. However, if that graph were to include 3rd party investments, why was FY19 so low? Do you feel like 3rd parties are putting 10x more resources into PS5 GAAS games today, relative to 4 years ago? (I don't)It's 60% of "PS5 investment by business model", not their resources.
That graph could include the investments from 3P publishers, not only SIE. Notice that it's in a slide where it's also shown the revenues from each business model in all consoles (being addons/GaaS the biggest and fastest growing category for games).
That's all part of making the pie. Different ingredients going into the same bowl to produce their premier dessert (GAAS).Even if that 60% would be SIE investments in games, could include investments on getting stocks from other companies (either minority or acquisitions), 3P exclusivities or marketing deals, etc.
I'm specifically looking at the light blue bar, not the dark blue bar. The light blue line even dips in FY23 and what percentage have development costs risen in that time? Spiderman 2 cost 3x what Spiderman cost. Forbidden West cost 4x what Zero Dawn cost. I suspect their single player output is actually diminishing rapidly. We're seeing it already.And in any case, notice that the total of the investment is way bigger.
I think "PS5 investment by business model" is more likely to be hard numbers than percentages. The bar graph on the left seems to be referencing hard numbers. I assume the connected graph on the right is using the same logic.So regarding the investment in traditional games, even if decreasing in percentage from 45% to 40%, the amount of money invested on FY25 would be bigger than in the current FY23.
Hiroki Titoki also said "Our mid to long term strategy (Live Service) remains unchanged."![]()
I never said they were going to be only 12 Live service ever. Obviously after these on they'll make other ones. In the same way they also had made several GaaS before this dozen.
"By FY2025" means "before April 2026", but more recently they said that a some may be released after that date and that only were sure that half a dozen of them were going to be released before April 2026.
I am skeptical that majority of studios have discipline, willpower and capability to implement the required changes.
Plus in current political environment DEI/ESG crap is a “must” and thats not going away so that overhead will exist.
Overall, that aside, Insomniac is really the exception to the rule and the only way they managed to do it with SpiderMan is smart reuse of assets.
Actually Yakuza/Like a Dragon studio has been able to keep up the output in same manner. Judicial assert reuse and control on graphics helped.
As for decent 3D games, I would argue plenty of studios are doing this already in under a few years time. Having a more focused development and narrower scope and not trying to chase trends or high end graphics causes releases to come out at a more consistent pace.
The Yakuza game studio for example releases a game nearly yearly with all the requisites I had listed and I would argue they have been AAA for a while now.What games are doing this? And are those games succeeding at a rate that forces big publishers + studios to change their current way of doing business?
Even then, businesses spend money on stupid crap or fail to cut what should be cut. Look at Bungie when they had put all that money into various DEI clubs that were inevitably shut down when they were losing money.I'm not saying you're wrong, but the most basic rule of business that even children can grasp on a fundamental level is "How do we reduce our costs and maximize our profit?"
Publishers aren't infallible and chase trends or spend money on worthless crap. Look at the RTS Bubble, the MMO bubble, or the current GAAS Bubble.Don't you think publishers all over the world have been obsessing over this equation forever? If so, why are they all coming to the same conclusion? Bigger games w/ lengthy development yields the best results.
This is why I'd bet they are talking about SIE investments on games, and have the other graph next to it to explain that they'll invest on GaaS because GaaS make like around two thirds of the game revenue and is expected to grow to three quarters. So it would be a finantial suicide to continue investing mostly only in SP non-GaaS titles.This is a great point. However, if that graph were to include 3rd party investments, why was FY19 so low? Do you feel like 3rd parties are putting 10x more resources into PS5 GAAS games today, relative to 4 years ago? (I don't)
The GaaS investments made in the current FY isn't for the games released now only. It's also to develop this year post launch content of games released in previous years (like GT7), to fund development of games to be released this and specially future years. It needs to be specially considered the post launch content of titles from previous years, since in GaaS this is meatier and last for a longer period of time than non-GaaS who may get a single DLC or two (or none at all).Do you feel like PlayStation is putting 10x more resources into GAAS today compared to 4 years ago? (I do)
I think what Sony was trying to say with the slide was: in FY25 we'll invest in games twice of what we invested in FY19, but as we see GaaS are eating the market we'll invest specially there. But we'll also continue investing about the same or more in non-GaaS titles than we do now.Also, can't that logic be applied to the smaller dessert (SP games)?
In the graph of the right, the height of the portions or full column are hard numbers. The percent is the portion of each full column.I'm specifically looking at the light blue bar, not the dark blue bar. The light blue line even dips in FY23 and what percentage have development costs risen in that time? Spiderman 2 cost 3x what Spiderman cost. Forbidden West cost 4x what Zero Dawn cost. I suspect their single player output is actually diminishing rapidly. We're seeing it already.
I think "PS5 investment by business model" is more likely to be hard numbers than percentages. The bar graph on the left seems to be referencing hard numbers. I assume the connected graph on the right is using the same logic.
Yes, when he said that they only delayed a few GaaS titles and likely were going to delay a few more, but their strategy back then continued being the same (even if later they canned one of them, their strategy doesn't change because a few games get delayed or canned, GaaS or not most games always get delayed and a small portion of them get canned).Hiroki Titoki also said "Our mid to long term strategy (Live Service) remains unchanged."
I think that seeing the other slide and this one they looked at the multi year trend of addons (mostly GaaS) revenue replacing the game sales make them think it was smarter to invest more in GaaS, and regarding platforms they saw a huge market in mobile and PC way bigger than what they have in console (a little under the dark blue bar) so thought it would be a great idea to grow there:I think ultimately, if you can remove yourself from your preferences, Live Service multiplayer has such a wickedly high ceiling that traditional single player games can't touch. I think PlayStation (finally) woke up to the realization that the most social animals in earth's history are playing games and those people have been dramatically underserved in gaming. You can't put the genie back in the bottle with this stuff.
Cool, nice!I want to commend you on your post here. You actually found some plausible weak spots in my position and I love seeing that. You are one to keep an eye on my friend.
So would you bust open the doors to a PlayStation/Nintendo/Ubisoft/EA meeting where they're all focused on making giant, 7 year dev cycle games...and say "Stop what you're doing and look at what Sega is doing with Yakuza!"The Yakuza game studio for example releases a game nearly yearly with all the requisites I had listed and I would argue they have been AAA for a while now.
I hate that stuff as much as you do but how much of Bungies budget was spent on DEI clubs?Even then, businesses spend money on stupid crap or fail to cut what should be cut. Look at Bungie when they had put all that money into various DEI clubs that were inevitably shut down when they were losing money.
Genre, genre, NOT A GENRE.Publishers aren't infallible and chase trends or spend money on worthless crap. Look at the RTS Bubble, the MMO bubble, or the current GAAS Bubble.
We know but where is that revenue going? Are the big boys just getting bigger? Or is total revenue bigger because of total GAAS games increasing? Both? Activision revenues increased for decades despite releasing less games. I'am not saying that's the case here but but present me data showing its not the case.Look at the 10 year trend of GAAS in terms of revenue. It has yet to hit a wall. It grows every year.
Anecdotal evidence come on I've never said new GAAS games can't take off. It's about averages it's why Sony feel they need to launch 12 in the hope that 1 or 2 of them hit big. DATA!ThE mArKeT iS sAtUrAtEd while Lethal Company and The Finals are popping off.
FairSaturation comes when revenue stabilizes. We're not there yet. Saturation comes when new entries consistently flop. We're not there yet.
It's the same argument of games competing for the players time but agreed GAAS can transcend genre's. It's still an issue of 1 or 2 games dominating an genre e.g. Fifa for football and call of duty dominating military shooters but I concede it's not the same. Genre's can potentially be infinite and may not cannabilize one another.People desperately wants GAAS to be like MMOs but one is a payment model and the other is a specific genre.
That's not the definition of saturation. Again, the GAAS market is still in its booming growth period.
Probably. Is multiplayer and GAAS the same thing though? (Asking genuinely) They still made the decision to cut there GAAS game as it would have hogged too much resources and wasn't a guaranteed success. On a related note what do you think will happen to Rocksteady if Sucide Squad fails?Naughty Dog is likely working on a new multiplayer game. Don't tell NeoGAF.
Yes I think so. 200 million budgets are completely reasonable for games expected to make 400 to 800 million and still generating revenue. As long as budgets are appropriate for the game. I.e. I hope returnal 2 doesn't have a 200 million dollar budget...Is it overblown? PlayStation had a 25+ year history of primarily making single player games. Now they're a multiplayer centric company.
Yes I think undeniably. Retail space clearly limited games legs in ps2 and to a lesser extent the ps3 era. Maybe it not just digital but other reasons like amazon, streaming bigger gaming population. It would have unthinkable for a game like Metro Exodus to leg out to 8.5 million units in the ps3 era let alone ps2Are digital libraries helping sales or hurting sales?
Well that's a different thing dare I say a Live Service! But yes subscription service seem to decrease game sales. It affects Sony as well Horizon Forbidden West had its leg cut off when it came to plus ( After making over 440 million) Hopefully Sony make up the lost sales in Subscriptions and aren't just reacting to Microsoft.GamePass seems to be hurting sales on XBox.
The GAAS market is likely growing wider and deeper. The big players like Fortnite and Minecraft seem to be growing in popularity. Then we see smaller titles like Lethal Company and The Finals grow on the edges.We know but where is that revenue going? Are the big boys just getting bigger? Or is total revenue bigger because of total GAAS games increasing? Both? Activision revenues increased for decades despite releasing less games. I'am not saying that's the case here but but present me data showing its not the case.
I suspect PlayStation believes the vast majority of their GAAS efforts will be successful. They seem to be doing a good job of pruning that tree and cutting their weaker efforts.Anecdotal evidence come on I've never said new GAAS games can't take off. It's about averages it's why Sony feel they need to launch 12 in the hope that 1 or 2 of them hit big. DATA!
No, I think you're right on there. If GAAS are like cities and traditional SP games are like villages and towns, you're always going to have fewer cities. I don't see GAAS being any different. The anti GAAS people are a lot like the overpopulation people. "Earth can't hold anymore people! We're at planet saturation!"It's the same argument of games competing for the players time but agreed GAAS can transcend genre's. It's still an issue of 1 or 2 games dominating an genre e.g. Fifa for football and call of duty dominating military shooters but I concede it's not the same. Genre's can potentially be infinite and may not cannabilize one another.
I think Rocksteady made the pivot to GAAS because their traditional games weren't working for them. We recently saw Spiderman 2 have to sell 7.2 million to break even. The Batman liscense probably made the Arkham games less successful than the public realizes.Probably. Is multiplayer and GAAS the same thing though? (Asking genuinely) They still made the decision to cut there GAAS game as it would have hogged too much resources and wasn't a guaranteed success. On a related note what do you think will happen to Rocksteady if Sucide Squad fails?
I suspect budgets have already surpassed 200 million dollars. Didn't we see that was the cost of TLoU2 and Forbidden West a few months ago? How much will Spiderman 3 cost?Yes I think so. 200 million budgets are completely reasonable for games expected to make 400 to 800 million and still generating revenue. As long as budgets are appropriate for the game. I.e. I hope returnal 2 doesn't have a 200 million dollar budget...
If you look at PlayStations projections, they don't see the SP market growing very much over the next 5 years. I suspect the last 5 years looked pretty similar to the next 5 years (ie market saturation)Yes I think undeniably. Retail space clearly limited games legs in ps2 and to a lesser extent the ps3 era. Maybe it not just digital but other reasons like amazon, streaming bigger gaming population. It would have unthinkable for a game like Metro Exodus to leg out to 8.5 million units in the ps3 era let alone ps2
I guess I just see PlayStations market projections for SP and think the digital model and digital game libraries aren't a factor anymore. If it did grow the business at one point, PlayStation doesn't see it as being big enough to grow the market anymore.Well that's a different thing dare I say a Live Service! But yes subscription service seem to decrease game sales. It affects Sony as well Horizon Forbidden West had its leg cut off when it came to plus ( After making over 440 million) Hopefully Sony make up the lost sales in Subscriptions and aren't just reacting to Microsoft.