Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Somebody already mentioned this. That's not what people are doing.

GAAS is relatively nascent. It growing, improving, getting stronger and stronger.

GAAS is the biggest threat to GamePass right now and for the foreseeable future. More and more people are going to be pulled into "their one game" which means offering up hundreds of new games at a monthly rate loses appeal.

That being said GamePass might do well for the next 3 years or it might do well for the next 20. No one can really predict when the next "bigger Fortnite" is going to pull the masses.

 

[Andodalf]

The dream of 2014 is alive at Sony

 

[reinking]

Halo is f2p tho. Don't need gamepass for it but for the campaign you do. Sea of Thieves is pretty much the only one I can think of on there.

Constantly see this narrative like thats all gamepass is, a bunch of gaas games but here we are with one game???

Microsoft Flight Sim? Fallout 76? Maybe even Forza Horizons? Not sure why you think a F2P game is not considers a GAAS.

 

[Thirty7ven]

GAAS is relatively nascent. It growing, improving, getting stronger and stronger.

GAAS is the biggest threat to GamePass right now and for the foreseeable future. More and more people are going to be pulled into "their one game" which means offering up hundreds of new games at a monthly rate loses appeal.

That being said GamePass might do well for the next 3 years or it might do well for the next 20. No one can really predict when the next "bigger Fortnite" is going to pull the masses.

I've been saying...

All this talk about Netflix of gaming is completely losing perspective of how games can be their own platforms, their own services. Netflix exists in a world where the possibilities of the TV/Movie format has pretty much been tapped out.

I know at least 4 PC gamers that dropped gamepass after their $ deals on account of only playing games like World of Warcraft. It doesn't make sense for these gamers to be paying over 120$ a year to have access to games that they might or might not play. All it takes is for one or two games they want to not be on the service to make it a bad deal for them.

People can't just keep racking up that bill at the end of the month, they gotta make choices.

 

[SteelCurtain 59]

That is true but I disagree on something else not that. Gamepass promotes engagement (MAU) over game sales and that naturally promotes GaaS, and AAA single player games don't thrive on it. You can disagree but you often just do this with a strawman or gifs.

Which promotes engagement?

"1000s of hours spent grinding in a GaaS game or 20hrs completing a big budget single player game."

Somebody mentioned that people dont sub to gamepass for GaaS games because they can play them outside of it. I'm proving that they don't. And they certainly dont.

The majority of games played on it are GaaS games with microtransactions. The majority of new releases on it are GaaS. Way above 50% of the games played are GaaS. Among Us is a damn f2p game but one of the top Gamepass played games every day.

People are saying that new AAA single player releases can thrive just as well but I've seen literally nothing release for it so far and Sony refusing to release their AAA single player releases on theirs yet people are still adamant that this is not empirical evidence that they are not suited to it.

Somebody already mentioned this. That's not what people are doing.

They sub to Game Pass to be able to play tons of different games, not 1 game for a long time, you have 0 evidence that people are subscribing to Game Pass for 1-2 GaaS games rather than the several dozens of "High budget single player games", or hundreds of indie games that have been on Game Pass over the time it's existed. All you're doing is trying to fearmonger without providing even the slightest bit of evidence supporting your hypothesis, when ALL LOGIC would dictate you're completely and utterly wrong. You can't make a bogus claim and then ask people to disprove it, the onus is on you to provide ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL to support why you think Game Pass will make Microsoft abandon any high budget single player games they have and focus solely on GaaS, and don't try and use something like "GaaS are super popular" or "this game has microtransactions" as "evidence" to support your point, as those are both terrible arguments, GaaS were just as popular before Game Pass, and microtransactions were too. Also the whole "20 hours is short and 1000s of hours is long" argument is also in completely bad faith, there are plenty of games way longer than 20 hours, and the point is they play more than 1, you can easily get "1000s" of hours out of the high quality single player games that have been on Game Pass over the past 5 years. The second Game Pass stops having games they want to play THEY'LL STOP SUBSCRIBING, if they only play 1-2 GaaS games, THEY'LL STOP SUBSCRIBING

 

[Kagey K]

10 seems like a lot.

Odds are most will fail, so you need to put out a high number of them in hopes that one sticks.

 

[iHaunter]

So Sony is now doing everything that GAF hates like Multiplatform release & GAAS & Game Pass competitor

Thank Phil for that one. I really hate that Sony is doing. But dumbasses buy into it.

 

[Three]

I guess we have to agree to disagree. From my perspective, if all I ever played was GaaS stuff, why the hell would I ever subscribe to Gamepass? Makes zero sense.

Because there are GaaS games that they charge money to buy still and to people getting those for "free" seems like value.

Minecraft is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Sea of Thieves is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Gears of War is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. MLB is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Sub and you don't.

Had Battlefield 2042 succeeded you were paying to buy a now possibly f2p game. Had that been day 1 on gamepass with the microtransactions it would have been "wow what value" even though it is a GaaS game. People happily pay a sub and play GaaS games. It's not unheard of, it's actually the most common.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I've been saying...

All this talk about Netflix of gaming is completely losing perspective of how games can be their own platforms, their own services. Netflix exists in a world where the possibilities of the TV/Movie format has pretty much been tapped out.

I know at least 4 PC gamers that dropped gamepass after their $ deals on account of only playing games like World of Warcraft. It doesn't make sense for these gamers to be paying over 120$ a year to have access to games that they might or might not play. All it takes is for one or two games they want to not be on the service to make it a bad deal for them.

We're ahead of the curve.

A lot of people who pay attention to this hobby don't appreciate the fact that Fortnite is still at the top of the charts 4.5 years after release and it's essentially a crappy county fair. Disney Worlds are being constructed as we speak that are going to attract far more people than Fortnite ever could.

GamePass is for the present, not for the future.

 

[Three]

GAAS is relatively nascent. It growing, improving, getting stronger and stronger.

GAAS is the biggest threat to GamePass right now and for the foreseeable future. More and more people are going to be pulled into "their one game" which means offering up hundreds of new games at a monthly rate loses appeal.

That being said GamePass might do well for the next 3 years or it might do well for the next 20. No one can really predict when the next "bigger Fortnite" is going to pull the masses.

I don't think it's a threat if you buy the IP of those who have found their one game and release it on the service. Most will be enticed if the entry fee for that chosen game is higher than the sub without thinking of the long term cost. They will play small games inbetween. I barely watch anything on netflix yet still remain subbed for that one series I may be into.

 

[Jemm]

Because there are GaaS games that they charge money to buy still and to people getting those for "free" seems like value.

Minecraft is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Sea of Thieves is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Gears of War is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. MLB is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Sub and you don't.

That's all good and true, when you want to try those games or play them casually every now and then.

However, when you play a GaaS game so much, that you don't have time for any other games, then it is cheaper to cancel the Game Pass -subscription and just buy the base game (if it isn't free already), as the subscription money would be wasted.

By all means, you can be subbed all the time, but then you are losing the value that Game Pass offers, if you are not using it at all for other games. Of course, Microsoft would love it if people keep subbed out of habit or laziness.

 

[Nikana]

Odds are most will fail, so you need to put out a high number of them in hopes that one sticks.

I took it more as they are stretching that term GaaS.

I could see them calling gt7 GaaS.

 

[Kagey K]

That's all good and true, when you want to try those games or play them casually every now and then.

However, when you play a GaaS game so much, that you don't have time for any other games, then it is cheaper to cancel the Game Pass -subscription and just buy the base game (if it isn't free already), as the subscription money would be wasted.

Phil has said as much repeatedly.

Phil Spencer on exclusivity, monetisation and game development

We spoke at length with Head of Xbox Phil Spencer about first-party software, monetisation, and what The Initiative is actually doing.

www.gamereactor.eu

Yeah, it's totally up to each studio, and I know some people that, when they've looked at the model around Game Pass, have assumed that Game Pass is actually a better model, if there's more Games-as-a-Service games in the subscription. I actually argue the opposite and believe the opposite. The last thing I want in Game Pass is that there's one game that everybody is playing forever, that's not a gaming content subscription, that's a one-game subscription, that's WoW, right? So for us, having games in the subscription that have a beginning, middle, and end, and then they go on to play the next game, maybe those are single-player narrative-driven games, I just finished Tell Me Why, an amazing game from DontNod, those games can be really strong for us in the subscription. In many ways, they're actually better than one or two games that are soaking up all the engagement in the subscription. I want a long tail of a lot of games that people are playing, and I think the diversity of online multiplayer versus single-player, we have to support the diversity there, and that's my goal. If anything I'd like to see more single-player games from our first-party, just because that over time we've kind of grown organically to be more multiplayer-driven as an organisation

 

[Kagey K]

I took it more as they are stretching that term GaaS.

I could see them calling gt7 GaaS.

Could be that too.

I see some people here have already taken to calling anything with MTX as GAAS, instead of what it's meant to be, an evolving game with ever expanding content.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

Because there are GaaS games that they charge money to buy still and to people getting those for "free" seems like value.

Yes, but most successful GaaS games are free or at a very low cost. For example, if I plan on playing 2000 hours of Minecraft, I'd rather buy it for 20 bucks than potentially spend hundreds of dollars on Gamepass.

Minecraft is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Sea of Thieves is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Gears of War is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. MLB is a GaaS game with microtransactions, you have to buy the game. Sub and you don't.

Just as a side note, calling Gears of War a GaaS game is a bit weird. By that logic, TLOU and Uncharted are GaaS games.

Had Battlefield 2042 succeeded you were paying to buy a now possibly f2p game. Had that been day 1 on gamepass with the microtransactions it would have been "wow what value" even though it is a GaaS game. People happily pay a sub and play GaaS games. It's not unheard of, it's actually the most common.

This is the one exception where I agree. The horrible reviews made me not buy Battlefield. If it were on Gamepass though (and it's coming soon, I heard), I'd likely play it. I might even spend money on MTX (rather unlikely tho).

 

[Fbh]

You can have either GAAS or $70 + online tax. Pick one.

$70 and online tax.
Ps+ isn't that expensive and you can wait for those $70 games to go on sale.

Live service games are shitty forever

 

[iHaunter]

Halo is f2p tho. Don't need gamepass for it but for the campaign you do. Sea of Thieves is pretty much the only one I can think of on there.

Constantly see this narrative like thats all gamepass is, a bunch of gaas games but here we are with one game???

My GP ran out end of Jan. Most of the games on GamePass are indie garbage. I'm going to wait a few months until I see 1-2 games I don't plan on buying before I renew.

$70 and online tax.
Ps+ isn't that expensive and you can wait for those $70 game to go on sale.

Live service games are shitty forever

Have we even SEEN a successful live service game? Ever? A game that had the same or better numbers after launch?

 

[Concern]

Microsoft Flight Sim? Fallout 76? Maybe even Forza Horizons? Not sure why you think a F2P game is not considers a GAAS.

Its not that it isnt. Its that f2p you don't need gamepass for. People trying to make it sound like thats all thats on gamepass and as already been pointed out, thats not the case.

 

[reksveks]

1) They are historically very bad at single player games because they rejected most single player games. Their mandate historically has been social/online games because they have been pushing online subscriptions since the original xbox.
2) because MS make predominantly GaaS games so far and that is always sited as the reason why gamepass is great. Day one first party. even in the early days where people were saying Sea of thieves on gamepass is great.
3) you're the one who even said this. Now you're saying it's the oppisite? You said the aim is to get them through the door and monitise with mtx/dlc and it is.
4) exactly, old games and indies in your chart. The rest/majotity GaaS games. What's thriving to you based on that data?

1) So their tendency to be MP focused is a historical one and not linked to having Gamepass? maybe an xbox live thing?
2) Again, not evidence pedantically. I joined GP cause of Nier Automata and Ori. We either need to see what a good sample size of players are saying that they are join and why they are sticking around.
3) I am asking you for evidence specifically, I don't know if the % of dlc has increased as GP users have increased. We don't have that data. We fortunately might get that information if/when Sony release Spartacus. I was also asking for what metrics you are using.
4) I suspect GP users and non-GP users are effectively the same but we don't have the evidence to say otherwise. Out of the top 24 games on xbox across the board, 3-4 are largely single player games* (FM22, RDR2, Mass Effect LE, Assassin Creed) , 6 are F2P games, 5 are paid GAAS, 5 are GAAS on GP.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I don't think it's a threat if you buy the IP of those who have found their one game and release it on the service. Most will be enticed if the entry fee for that chosen game is higher than the sub without thinking of the long term cost. They will play small games inbetween. I barely watch anything on netflix yet still remain subbed for that one series I may be into.

The biggest games on the planet are all F2P. There are a few exceptions to that rule (Minecraft, GTAV) but by in large F2P dominates.

You might hang on to your Netflix subscription but everyone at Netflix knows that if customers don't use the product for an extended period of time they run the risk ofcancelling.

We're about to be swimming in a new generation of GAAS. The new generation of these games will be superior to the last generation. They'll be stickier and attract a wider spectrum of gamer. More and more people are going to be thinking to themselves..."I haven't used my Netflix (or GamePass) in x number of months because I'm playing this one game. Maybe I should cancel."

And look at it this way...how many casinos around the planet charge people at the door?

 

[Kagey K]

My GP ran out end of Jan. Most of the games on GamePass are indie garbage. I'm going to wait a few months until I see 1-2 games I don't plan on buying before I renew.



Have we even SEEN a successful live service game? Ever? A game that had the same or better numbers after launch?

I'd say Rainbow 6 Siege, Fortnite, Warzone, and to a lesser degree For Honor and Dead by Daylight are all examples of successful GAAS games.

 

[Three]

That's all good and true, when you want to try those games or play them casually every now and then.

However, when you play a GaaS game so much, that you don't have time for any other games, then it is cheaper to cancel the Game Pass -subscription and just buy the base game (if it isn't free already), as the subscription money would be wasted.

By all means, you can be subbed all the time, but then you are losing the value that Game Pass offers, if you are not using it at all for other games. Of course, Microsoft would love it if people keep subbed out of habit or laziness.

How many times have you heard the term "I wouldn't have played this game if it wasn't on gamepass". People usually have a GaaS game they play most often while still remaining subbed to "try" other games. I do this on netflix. I don't actually have an interest in anything but maybe a series I was interested in but I remain subbed and browse the crap that is there. I could have probably bought the box set for that series but I remain subbed through the year. It's a valid business model to make money out of laziness and habit.

Yes, but most successful GaaS games are free or at a very low cost. For example, if I plan on playing 2000 hours of Minecraft, I'd rather buy it for 20 bucks than potentially spend hundreds of dollars on Gamepass.

Just as a side note, calling Gears of War a GaaS game is a bit weird. By that logic, TLOU and Uncharted are GaaS games.

This is the one exception where I agree. The horrible reviews made me not buy Battlefield. If it were on Gamepass though (and it's coming soon, I heard), I'd likely play it. I might even spend money on MTX (rather unlikely tho).

Go into the "do you still buy games thread" and see the general concensus. The most played games on gamepass show that people don't do what you might do. They play mostly GaaS games and cheer when GaaS games like Battlefield are released on it.

Nothing weird about Gears and GaaS. TLOU1 and Uncharted multiplayer were GaaS games especially if they got regular microtransaction content updates. I was never into the multiplayer so wouldn't know. TLOU2 had no microtransactions of any kind though. The soon to come Factions is probably one of the GaaS games mentioned in the article here so it is I would say.

 

[wolffy71]

RIP single player games.

 

[oldergamer]

1) So their tendency to be MP focused is a historical one and not linked to having Gamepass? maybe an xbox live thing?
2) Again, not evidence pedantically. I joined GP cause of Nier Automata and Ori. We either need to see what a good sample size of players are saying that they are join and why they are sticking around.
3) I am asking you for evidence specifically, I don't know if the % of dlc has increased as GP users have increased. We don't have that data. We fortunately might get that information if/when Sony release Spartacus. I was also asking for what metrics you are using.
4) I suspect GP users and non-GP users are effectively the same but we don't have the evidence to say otherwise. Out of the top 24 games on xbox across the board, 3-4 are largely single player games* (FM22, RDR2, Mass Effect LE, Assassin Creed) , 6 are F2P games, 5 are paid GAAS, 5 are GAAS on GP.

We do know that people subscribed to gamepass actually spend more on games as a whole. be it addons or full game purchases.

 

[iHaunter]

I'd say Rainbow 6 Siege, Fortnite, Warzone, and to a lesser degree For Honor and Dead by Daylight are all examples of successful GAAS games.

I guess my point is, out of how many thousands? Warzone definitely is not, they're losing tons of players due to Anti-Hack. The other mentioned also had far lower numbers than launch.

I would say Fortnite and Genshin Impact may be the only ones. But they're F2P. Do they still count as GaaS? I'm talking about games you buy that aren't complete that get "Fixed" later.

 

[Concern]

My GP ran out end of Jan. Most of the games on GamePass are indie garbage. I'm going to wait a few months until I see 1-2 games I don't plan on buying before I renew.

Feb is a trash month imo. Best bet is to wait till they offer the 3 months for $1 to renew or something like that.

 

[iHaunter]

Feb is a trash month imo. Best bet is to wait till they offer the 3 months for $1 to renew or something like that.

That's what I did last time. Gonna do it agayn.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I guess my point is, out of how many thousands? Warzone definitely is not, they're losing tons of players due to Anti-Hack. The other mentioned also had far lower numbers than launch.

I would say Fortnite and Genshin Impact may be the only ones. But they're F2P. Do they still count as GaaS? I'm talking about games you buy that aren't complete that get "Fixed" later.

Wait, Fortnite and Genshin Impact are the only what? The only successful GAAS games?

I'm confused.

 

[wolffy71]

Look at the size of the teams for blizzard(wow), Activision(warzone), bungie(destiny), these live service games take up large resources. 10 running at once is gonna take a lot of manpower.

 

[Kagey K]

Look at the size of the teams for blizzard(wow), Activision(warzone), bungie(destiny), these live service games take up large resources. 10 running at once is gonna take a lot of manpower.

The biggest concern when attempting so many at once is if it doesn't catch lightning in a bottle right away it could lead to a premature shutdown, regardless of future potential.

 

[reksveks]

What is the metric for success re a GAAS?

 

[Thirty7ven]

We do know that people subscribed to gamepass actually spend more on games as a whole. be it addons or full game purchases.

Actually MS has pretty much stopped saying that, it was just a bunch of bs and they never presented any data for it. I bet it was just a spin on the data, based on the earlier hardcore that would sub to service (1$) and keep buying games. No data has ever supported the idea that gamepass, specially at standard price, makes people go out there and spend even more on games than they did.

3rd party software is actually down on Xbox (it has been going down, its not a now thing), and that's hard data. Which cant be a surprise, and it doesn't mean it's bad for Xbox of course. Something's gotta give when you have 25 million (active? also no data) gamepass subs. Of course people on gamepass deals, who are paying peanuts for the service will feel compelled to spend.

MS's lack of transparency means data is very easy to spin. Again I'm not trying to troll here... people who subscribe on Netflix don't buy more blu rays or more vod because of Netflix... but they are spending more YoY as that sub price keeps going up, that's for sure.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Look at the size of the teams for blizzard(wow), Activision(warzone), bungie(destiny), these live service games take up large resources. 10 running at once is gonna take a lot of manpower.

Live service games have a major advantage you're missing.

You can develop + release them with smaller studio sizes, and if they catch on you divert resources and manpower to filling them out.

The majority of GAAS hits started out with significantly smaller team sizes.

 

[Kokoloko85]

Good for Sony, but after reading for years on forums how all the PlayStation gamers hated them, I am interested to see their reactions

As long as they carry on making their single player games, make new IP for the single player games and also variety like Bloodborne, Returnal, The last Guardian etc for solo games, Ill be happy

 

[Three]

1) So their tendency to be MP focused is a historical one and not linked to having Gamepass? maybe an xbox live thing?
2) Again, not evidence pedantically. I joined GP cause of Nier Automata and Ori. We either need to see what a good sample size of players are saying that they are join and why they are sticking around.
3) I am asking you for evidence specifically, I don't know if the % of dlc has increased as GP users have increased. We don't have that data. We fortunately might get that information if/when Sony release Spartacus. I was also asking for what metrics you are using.
4) I suspect GP users and non-GP users are effectively the same but we don't have the evidence to say otherwise. Out of the top 24 games on xbox across the board, 3-4 are largely single player games* (FM22, RDR2, Mass Effect LE, Assassin Creed) , 6 are F2P games, 5 are paid GAAS, 5 are GAAS on GP.

1) yes the fact that they historically had no well established single player only games is because of XBL. It isn't that they sucked it's that they refused to try because a particular business model promoted a specific type of game.
2,3) the proof is in the pudding to me. What do we currently have, what are people currently playing most?
4) notice how the top played xbox single player games disappear when you switch to the top gamepass games. The top GaaS games don't. Also, f2p games are GaaS.

 

[Aenima]

Any multiplayer game these days is a live service.

 

[Three]

What is the metric for success re a GAAS?

I guess MAU and revenue?

 

[Kagey K]

I guess my point is, out of how many thousands? Warzone definitely is not, they're losing tons of players due to Anti-Hack. The other mentioned also had far lower numbers than launch.

I would say Fortnite and Genshin Impact may be the only ones. But they're F2P. Do they still count as GaaS? I'm talking about games you buy that aren't complete that get "Fixed" later.

There are definitely more failures than successes in the GAAS market, but you are approaching them with the wrong mentality.

GAAS aren't about keeping the player base as high as launch, it's about keeping a constant flow of new content coming in and maintaining the player base. They want new players constantly revolving in as people who played through it all leave, and veterans coming back and playing when new content drops.

This is achieved through a variety of ways, games like Diablo and Path of Exiles do through seasons, Fortnite, Smite and Paladins do it through Battle Passes and character drops, and stuff like Neverwinter, The Division, Destiny and Sea of Thieves do it through expansions.

Most use a hybrid of seasons, battlepass and expansions. The price of entry has nothing to do with whether or not a game is GAAS, F2P and 70.00 games can both be GAAS.

There are always going to be spectacular bombs like Anthem and the Avengers, but there is infinite money to be made for developers that can do GAAS right.

 

[Lognor]

So is this good news or bad news to the Sony faithful?

Live service games can be done well (Halo Infinite, Sea of Thieves) or poorly (Avengers). But I know some just hate the idea of live service games. This will definitely take away from Sony's main forte over the past several years. Unless Naughty Dog, Insomniac, etc are going to grow significantly much of their key personnel will be working on live service aspects in lieu of their current single player focus. Not sure how you all will take this!

 

[hlm666]

I guess MAU and revenue?

public will only hear about those numbers if they are succeeding. Otherwise the usual we are happy with it's performance for a few months, or we are working on fixing the problems our faithful fans have brought to light, then silence until they can flick the server switches without too much outcry.

 

[El Pistolero]

Fair enough, but they would need some serious manpower to keep updating and nurturing those Gaas projects, no?

 

[VAVA Mk2]

This won't feel forced at all...

 

[onQ123]

Its very dark time for conservative/oldschool playstation gamer who chose that console for best quality single player experience, all those devs wasting their time and pubs wasting their money on that gaas trash simply means less effort will be put into staples of playstation like it was durning ps1/2/3/4 eras.
And dont gimme dat bullshit about options, VR died for the very same reason no1 invested into any big games, just tiny indy like shit, hopefully singleplayer games wont be put into shit-cash tier with vr games in favour of our new overlord-gaas games.

Srsly fuck jimbo and this shit timeline- for 3,6b$ they wasted on bungie for 0 profit they could make at the least 10 very big budget singleplayer games.

Its really hard for those fuckers at the top to understand gaas ppl dont have time to play 10 games at the same time, so they wont touch ur 10 gaas u making, they will at most play 1. I say it as WoW player from burning crusade exp till end of cataclysm exp/begining of pandaria expansion- i played 0 new games other than the gaas-wow durning all those years and im fricken hc gamer who played 40-50h/week all that time- before and after i played/play easily 20+ new AAA games/year not to mention many AA ones on top, all that time/cash from me was gone coz of 1 gaas game.

For 1 fortnite that succeded there are 20 other games that failed if not more.

This post is BS when Sony has Spiderman , Horizon , Wolverine , God Of War , Ghost Of Tsushima , Uncharted , Returnal , The Last Of Us & more all single player focus .

 

[reksveks]

2,3) the proof is in the pudding to me. What do we currently have, what are people currently playing most?

okay but it's not empirical evidence without data and we need to compare it to either a userset without GP to see the impact of GP.

4) notice how the top played xbox single player games disappear when you switch to the top gamepass games. Also, f2p games are GaaS.

on the second point, i didn't think i needed to add that but probably should have. FM is a weird one cause it's got DLC but it's in both lists, RDR2 similar has an online component but isn't on GP, Mass Effect LE is on GP, Assassin Creed isn't. It seems rather random

I guess MAU and revenue?

think my bad point is that surely success is relative to the investment into the game, the person only saying that Fortnite or Genshin impact were the only successful GAAS feels wrong.

 

[El Pistolero]

So is this good news or bad news to the Sony faithful?

Live service games can be done well (Halo Infinite, Sea of Thieves) or poorly (Avengers). But I know some just hate the idea of live service games. This will definitely take away from Sony's main forte over the past several years. Unless Naughty Dog, Insomniac, etc are going to grow significantly much of their key personnel will be working on live service aspects in lieu of their current single player focus. Not sure how you all will take this!

Nope. The idea that Sony would abondon their bread and butter is ridiculous. There is a reason they acquired BP and Housemarque, in addition to expanding their other studios. I bet you they will be either picking up a number of SP focused teams within the next year or two, or signing them up as second party devs.

 

[Thirty7ven]

There are definitely more failures than successes in the GAAS market, but you are approaching them with the wrong mentality.

GAAS aren't about keeping the player base as high as launch, it's about keeping a constant flow of new content coming in and maintaining the player base. They want new players constantly revolving in as people who played through it all leave, and veterans coming back and playing when new content drops.

This is achieved through a variety of ways, games like Diablo and Path of Exiles do through seasons, Fortnite, Smite and Paladins do it through Battle Passes and character drops, and stuff like Neverwinter, The Division, Destiny and Sea of Thieves do it through expansions.

Most use a hybrid of seasons, battlepass and expansions. The price of entry has nothing to do with whether or not a game is GAAS, F2P and 70.00 games can both be GAAS.

There are always going to be spectacular bombs like Anthem and the Avengers, but there is infinite money to be made for developers that can do GAAS right.

Yup, launch player numbers for GaaS games are a bit meaningless, and when it's F2P they are almost meaningless.

So is this good news or bad news to the Sony faithful?

Live service games can be done well (Halo Infinite, Sea of Thieves) or poorly (Avengers). But I know some just hate the idea of live service games. This will definitely take away from Sony's main forte over the past several years. Unless Naughty Dog, Insomniac, etc are going to grow significantly much of their key personnel will be working on live service aspects in lieu of their current single player focus. Not sure how you all will take this!

Only time will tell. Does this mean less SP games? Because Playstation is expanding, so maybe not.

 

[ElCasual]

Japan Studios die for this SHIT.
Playstation lose his identity
Fuck Jim Ryan

 

[SlimySnake]

Have we even SEEN a successful live service game? Ever? A game that had the same or better numbers after launch?

You dont need to have better numbers after launch. You just need a dedicated playerbase and whales. Thats how mobile games survive. Only like 1% of people playing mobile games actually spend money on them but thats enough for billions in revenue every year.

This is basically what everyone is after. You can either make a $100 million game like TLOU2 which comes out once every five years and makes $500 million. Or make something like Destiny which comes out once every five years, sell $500 million and then makes $300 million every year.

 

[Lognor]

Nope. The idea that Sony would abondon their bread and butter is ridiculous. There is a reason they acquired BP and Housemarque, in addition to expanding their other studios. I bet you they will be either picking up a number of SP focused teams within the next year or two, or signing them up as second party devs.

So they haven't done that yet then? I know they've made some smaller acquisitions, but I haven't read about them hiring a ton more people. Which is what they will need to do in order to continue to deliver the single player content and these live service games concurrently. Have they hired folks with experience in live service games? Have they hired a bunch of new devs to work on those types of games? Or will they be pulling folks that typically work on the single player games? They can't do both with the personnel they have currently.

Look at Factions. It released alongside TLOU, and initially that was probably the intent for TLOU2, but here we are 15 months after release of TLOU2 and still no Factions. They can't do both. Gotta pick and choose. And it sounds like Sony is choosing live service.

 

[iHaunter]

There are definitely more failures than successes in the GAAS market, but you are approaching them with the wrong mentality.

GAAS aren't about keeping the player base as high as launch, it's about keeping a constant flow of new content coming in and maintaining the player base. They want new players constantly revolving in as people who played through it all leave, and veterans coming back and playing when new content drops.

This is achieved through a variety of ways, games like Diablo and Path of Exiles do through seasons, Fortnite, Smite and Paladins do it through Battle Passes and character drops, and stuff like Neverwinter, The Division, Destiny and Sea of Thieves do it through expansions.

Most use a hybrid of seasons, battlepass and expansions. The price of entry has nothing to do with whether or not a game is GAAS, F2P and 70.00 games can both be GAAS.

There are always going to be spectacular bombs like Anthem and the Avengers, but there is infinite money to be made for developers that can do GAAS right.

This would be a FINE model if it was used this way. I do not see an instance where this has been used correctly. Companies simply release unfinished games then patch them, ignore content, then stop support.

Even Sea of Thieves, which has a steady player base, came out super barebones and is only now having the content to back it up.