• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The GaaS model is stagnating the industry.

64bitmodels

Reverse groomer.
to rain on some ppls parade here I don't hate GaaS games (I hate the model itself, but the games can be fun), I just hate how their overwhelming success has made it hard for these companies who made these games to produce anything new beyond more content for that GaaS.
 

DrFigs

Member
in general there's a trend towards things being static. less turnover in the top releases, less new ip's, etc. this is true I think for most media and not exclusive to gaming.

its not like if you removed GAAS games, that the best selling games will all be new IP's. it'd be established game franchises like zelda, mario, etc. It's a bit of a loss, but I don't really see a huge difference between a new mario game and a new season in fortnite.
 
to rain on some ppls parade here I don't hate GaaS games (I hate the model itself, but the games can be fun), I just hate how their overwhelming success has made it hard for these companies who made these games to produce anything new beyond more content for that GaaS.


Not all of them. Lies of Pi, Stellar Blade, Gran Blue and some others are funded with GaaS money. Smart companies diversify.
 

ChorizoPicozo

Gold Member
if we take Shawn´s statements at face value (GaaS are sustained by up to 5% of users) or something like that; these two models (GaaS and Paid Games) kind of cancel each other. The real issue is the amount of time it takes to make these games. that's the real stagnation.
 
Why are there comparisons being made with MAUs? Most single player games are not going to make this list, hell, even many multiplayer games aren't going to make it on here. It's a metric used to measure "engagement", and do we even know how it's actually being calculated? Is it people logging in to claim their in-game rewards for hoop jumping on a weekly/monthly basis, or do they need to play a match? Even the most casual player is going to interact with live service games more frequently than a hardcore gamer that plays through a single player game and moves on. Even worse for comparisons, many live service games are free to play, so there is no cost to checking in as opposed to a single player game you need to purchase. There is no meaningful analysis to be had here, just a gross misunderstanding of data.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
I'd say is not so much about GaaS but more about how it's in people's nature to lean towards stuff within their comfort zone.

The reason they stay playing the same GaaS over and over is because they grew comfortable with that game, its visual, mechanics, playstyle, etc; and find it hard to let go, even when they themselves think the game has gone to shit. It's also the reason why sequels, as well as games by recognizable companies and IPs tend to be more popular.

Unlike what a certain boxed man would attempt to make us believe, the public in general doesn't want innovation or new things, they want what's familiar, with maybe some slight variations.
 
Last edited:

Aenima

Member
MAUs are a teriible metric for anything except gaas games.

MAU = Montly Active Users. GAAS games are designed with "Daily Login mechanics" to keep the players login in the game every day, so the MAU in most GAAS game will always be much higher than most Single Player offline games without this kind of mechanics where players dont feel forced to login in the game every day.

The reason we see old gaas game come from the cannibalization nature of this type of games. Once you play a GAAS game, alot of ppl stick with that game ignoring anything else.

When WOW came out, i bought it day 1, and ignored any other game that got released that year cuz all i played for a year was WOW. ALot of ppl do the same with game like Fortnite, CS, etc.
 
Last edited:
Can't get more "old man yelling at clouds" than talking down to the younger generation that they don't actually enjoy the thing they're enjoying and that they should instead feel bad because they're being manipulated but are just too stupid to see it. Instead, they should go play something less popular and possibly less interesting to have some proper fun instead.
 

Wildebeest

Member
I just don't see how Call of Duty is any better or different. It is even older.

People who are regularly playing the same game might seem like low-hanging fruit to pick up as new players for another game, but that doesn't combat "stagnation" in the game industry. What you have to do is find people who are not being served with current games and bring them in. People who are spending all their time on social media, staring blankly at a wall drooling, being 5 years old and not knowing what games are, people living in a country other than the USA, or whatever. Blue ocean.

Almost everyone here would hate that even more than gaas though. Unless they were making bank from it.
 

Sojiro

Member
Wait is Mario Kart 8 actually considered a GaaS now? Are we calling it that because of DLC tracks and an online multiplayer mode? I feel like what games are considered a GaaS has really been blurred, and now seems to include anything that has online multiplayer, or maybe I am way off from what I consider a GaaS.
 
Wait is Mario Kart 8 actually considered a GaaS now? Are we calling it that because of DLC tracks and an online multiplayer mode? I feel like what games are considered a GaaS has really been blurred, and now seems to include anything that has online multiplayer, or maybe I am way off from what I consider a GaaS.


A game with perpetual updates involving MTXs is a GaaS.
 

Sojiro

Member
A game with perpetual updates involving MTXs is a GaaS.
I agree, and would also add needing to be online as a criteria as well. I was just confused on the OP also calling MK8 a GaaS, and am curious if that sentiment is generally shared by people here. I have personally never considered MK8 GaaS, even with the DLC tracks.
 

LRKD

Member
I hate GaaS but it's not like non GaaS games are doing any better. CoD Halo, Pokemon, they all are stagnant AT BEST, all major PS games have been merging into the same formula ever since Uncharted, Infinite remakes/remasters. AAA gaming has become more and more corporate, it's no longer a kid's toy, or nerds making fun programs, it's just a money machine for investors.
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
Unlike what a certain boxed man would attempt to make us believe, the public in general doesn't want innovation or new things, they want what's familiar, with maybe some slight variations.
This is probably the core of the issue, a certain demographic doesn't like the shift Gaas is bringing.

It's really a generational gap.
 

bitbydeath

Member
People only tend to play 1 GaaS game, maybe two. Devs will learn this eventually but til then there are going to be many Darwin awards to hand out.
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
People only tend to play 1 GaaS game, maybe two. Devs will learn this eventually but til then there are going to be many Darwin awards to hand out.
Most probably do.

But personally, I love having multiple Gaas titles available, so technically I always have something to play.

For example, rn I switch between The First Descendants, Predecessor and FFXIV, while waiting for the Illuminate to show up on Helldivers 2.
Depending on how the Concord beta will be, I might add that to the list, making a total of 5 Gaas titles I can switch between at all times while I wait for the next major sp title that interests me.

That's likely what publishers are aiming for:
Getting enough attention to have people put these games into their rotation.
 
Yeah I definitely agree with the OP. That’s one of the main things I really dislike about live service games. I feel it can even make the companies nonchalant and indolent. Just keep updating your old decrepit looking game for years and people will just keep playing it. It’s the reason we don’t get as many full fledged sequels and have to deal with overpriced DLC for years and years. Sure, live service can be profitable obviously, but imo it can be detrimental to creativity and the health of the industry as well.
 
Last edited:
Why are people playing them if they are stagnating??

Answer is simple. They are not.

I get a stronger sense of “been there done that” between Horizon Zero Dawn and Forbidden West than consecutive Fortnite /Apex Legends rounds.
 

bitbydeath

Member
Most probably do.

But personally, I love having multiple Gaas titles available, so technically I always have something to play.

For example, rn I switch between The First Descendants, Predecessor and FFXIV, while waiting for the Illuminate to show up on Helldivers 2.
Depending on how the Concord beta will be, I might add that to the list, making a total of 5 Gaas titles I can switch between at all times while I wait for the next major sp title that interests me.

That's likely what publishers are aiming for:
Getting enough attention to have people put these games into their rotation.
I don’t have that sort of time for gaming. Fortnite releases constant updates, you need to be on 4-5 hours a day just on that one game to keep up.
Couldn’t imagine adding more games without taking it away as there is always something to do in it.

Right now I’m replaying Elden Ring, that’s also a full-time game. It’ll keep me busy until Astrobot arrives.
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
I don’t have that sort of time for gaming. Fortnite releases constant updates, you need to be on 4-5 hours a day just on that one game to keep up.
Couldn’t imagine adding more games without taking it away as there is always something to do in it.

Right now I’m replaying Elden Ring, that’s also a full-time game. It’ll keep me busy until Astrobot arrives.
It's all in your head though, you don't need be online in all those games at all.

It's about always having something to work towards to, in particular due to long-term support.

In a nutshell, compared to sp experiences (or something like Elden Ring), there is no "end".

I mean, why do people buy the latest DLC for Elden Ring?
 

bitbydeath

Member
It's all in your head though, you don't need be online in all those games at all.

It's about always having something to work towards to, in particular due to long-term support.

In a nutshell, compared to sp experiences (or something like Elden Ring), there is no "end".

I mean, why do people buy the latest DLC for Elden Ring?
I like to unlock stuff. 🤷‍♂️
I don’t play multiplayer games for its repetitive gameplay.
 
Last edited:

Killjoy-NL

Member
I like to unlock stuff. 🤷‍♂️
I don’t play multiplayer games for its repetitive gameplay.
But then that's a 'you'-issue, rather than Gaas.

Also, Souls-games are repetitive as well.🤷🏾‍♂️

Not directed at you per se, but it seems like most of the anti-Gaas crowd are either anti-social gamers or lack self-control.
 
Last edited:

EDMIX

Writes a lot, says very little
Topics like these fall apart the moment you look beyond these live-service games and see what else typically becomes immensely popular.

For example, I would say it's an objective fact that Fortnite has evolved and expanded more in 7 years than mainline Pokemon games have done in almost three decades.

Am I supposed to hate on Fortnite while celebrating stagnate franchises like Pokemon simply because Fortnite is completly free-to-play, whereas a buggy Pokemon game charges $60?

giphy.webp

Logical and I agree.

The biggest issue is people pay full price and get buggy games and it seems the publisher has no real desire to fund those corrections, merely pump out a new game and repeat.

I'm not saying EVERYTHING needs to be GaaS, but some titles progress so rarely, they fucking might as well be some online, season to season thing if they are going to change so little from title to title.
 

Guilty_AI

Member
This is probably the core of the issue, a certain demographic doesn't like the shift Gaas is bringing.
There is no shift, online games have been popular since the 90s. And the main genres dominating are still more or less the same from back them, competitive shooters and grinders.

The only thing i'd call a shift was ps360 era where consoles introduced online capabilities and popularized online games beyond PCs.
 
Last edited:

Killjoy-NL

Member
There is no shift, online games have been popular since the 90s. And the main genres dominating are still more or less the same from back them, competitive shooters and grinders.

The only thing i'd call a shift was ps360 era where consoles introduced online capabilities and popularized online games beyond PCs.
Talking more about a generational "shift" where the demographic is leaning more towards online functionalities and support, rather than traditional offline sp games and archaic designs.
Because let's be honest, Gaf is looking more and more like a gaming 'boomer-bubble'.

Other than that, I fully agree with you. Which is why this pushback seems so weird to me.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
Talking more about a generational "shift" where the demographic is leaning more towards online functionalities and support, rather than traditional offline sp games and archaic designs.
And like i said, this lean towards a very limited set of online games and functionalities has been a thing since the 90s. There is no generational shift. And i don't wanna hear about "archaic design" when people are still playing dust_2 20 years later.

Other than that, I fully agree with you. Which is why this pushback seems so weird to me.
Because we arent agreeing at all, you're seeing things that aren't there. I assume you're either very young or you've only came in contact with the gaming scene at large in the mid 2010s.
 
Last edited:

cormack12

Gold Member
Watching people shamelessly contort themselves for their mindless love of shitty entertainment and business practices is a passtime of mine. Its the free show that keeps on giving.
Gloating as a Service. You love GaaS.


I don't think it's as simple as saying any game with updates through its life cycle is GaaS. I certainly don't consider MK8 one.

For me, GaaS has some clearly identifiable hallmarks:

Time limited events (such as seasons)
A Shop (emotes, XP catchup packs, cosmetics etc.)
Virtual Currency bought with real world money
Time limited rewards to keep people 'engaged'
A power curve or itemisation that players have to chase for the tier S builds
 

Killjoy-NL

Member
And like i said, this lean towards a very limited set of online games and functionalities has been a thing since the 90s. There is no generational shift. And i don't wanna hear about "archaic design" when people are still playing dust_2 20 years later.
I'm talking about preferences from the gaming demographics. Most revenue comes from Gaas and services, because that's where shift in gaming is headed towards.

Ofcourse online gaming started a long time ago, but rn Gen Z has reach an age where they are becoming the core of the gaming demographic and they don't know any better than internet being there.
It is very much a generational shift.
Because we arent agreeing at all, you're seeing things that aren't there. I assume you're either very young or you've only came in contact with the gaming scene at large in the mid 2010
I'm 40 and started gaming on Atari 2600.

But then we appear to disagree for whatever reason, because I don't think I'm saying anything significantly different from what you are saying.
 
Last edited:

Guilty_AI

Member
I'm talking about preferences from the gaming demographics. Most revenue comes from Gaas and services, because that's where shift in gaming is headed towards.
Gaas is just a business model, and not a new one either even if it wasn't always called that. Steam itself was created for the sake of bringing live updates for Valve's online games among other reasons. The games are still the more or less the same too.

Ofcourse online gaming started a long time ago, but rn Gen Z has reach an age where they are becoming the core of the gaming demographic and they don't know any better than internet being there.
I'm not saying online gaming merely started a long time ago, i'm saying it has been extremely popular since a long time ago.

I'm 40 and started gaming on Atari 2600.
Then i assume you disconnected yourself from anything gaming related since the late 80s until the mid 2010s, otherwise you'd understand perfectly well what i'm talking about.
 
Last edited:

Killjoy-NL

Member
Gaas is just a business model, and not a new one either even if it wasn't always called that. Steam itself was created for the sake of bringing live updates for Valve's online games among other reasons. The games are still the more or less the same too.


I'm not saying online gaming merely started a long time ago, i'm saying it has been extremely popular since a long time ago.


Then i assume you disconnected yourself from anything gaming related since the late 80s until the mid 2010s, otherwise you'd understand perfectly well what i'm talking about.
I know exactly what you're saying.
But I think we have some miscommunication here.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
Likely I'm very bad at explaining myself any better.

At no point am I saying online gaming hasn't been extremely popular since a long time ago.
Gaas is a logical evolution for gaming as a whole, regardless of online multiplayer and what we see now is the inevitable progression of gaming, whether people like it or not.
 
Last edited:

Killjoy-NL

Member
Gaas is just a business model, and not a new one either even if it wasn't always called that. Steam itself was created for the sake of bringing live updates for Valve's online games among other reasons. The games are still the more or less the same too.


I'm not saying online gaming merely started a long time ago, i'm saying it has been extremely popular since a long time ago.


Then i assume you disconnected yourself from anything gaming related since the late 80s until the mid 2010s, otherwise you'd understand perfectly well what i'm talking about.
I know exactly what you're saying.
But I think we have some miscommunication here.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all.
Likely I'm very bad at explaining myself any better.

At no point am I saying online gaming hasn't been extremely popular since a long time ago.
Gaas is a logical evolution for gaming as a whole, regardless of online multiplayer. So what we're seeing is the inevitable progression of gaming as a whole, whether people like it or not.
 
Last edited:

Allandor

Member
Is the creator of this topic really complaining that there are games that are so good that people still play them after all those years?

Just a reminder, people tend to play what other people play. So a game with multiplayer focus might has better chances to be played years later because there is someone with friends who plays it ;)

Single player games do just have much higher risk to fail. And more advanced technology doesn't make it easier because everything is just much more complicated than at times where a few people made a game in a year.
Now you need more people, and the costs are generally higher paired with higher expectations of the community.
 

Wildebeest

Member
But then that's a 'you'-issue, rather than Gaas.

Also, Souls-games are repetitive as well.🤷🏾‍♂️

Not directed at you per se, but it seems like most of the anti-Gaas crowd are either anti-social gamers or lack self-control.
I think that some people want new games to bring the noise by having some amazing new graphical fidelity. If that is their priority, they don't care at all about new IP or fun new gameplay. The problem is that outside gaas you have a world of people using old engines with a lot of technical debt, and many people doing something "new" are anyway just using Unreal Engine which is a gaas engine for Fortnite.

Even if someone like Carmack came back and made a new engine, there hasn't really been any actual new 3d coding tech for a long, long time. Just stuff that is fiddling around the edges, adding stylised filters that look sort of bad, and adding things like AI frame generation and upscaling, which are bodges. Bodges to compensate for the fact that new hardware isn't scaling fast enough, which come at a cost.
 
Last edited:

Go_Ly_Dow

Member
The gaming format we loved and grew up with since the 90s is in decline and dying.

The Internet reshaped the industry, online streaming crap has taken hold of the modern industry and has captured the youth. Certain publishers have the new generation and a lot of the old generation of players by the balls with the same recycled junk.

Gaming as an art form peaked in the 90s and 2000s and once you accept that it's fine. The future of the industry, particularly in Western studios will be corporate and driven by the corporates. Not by the artists as fewer studios will want to take risks funding something unique given the risks from high development costs.
 

Go_Ly_Dow

Member
Maybe for western games but this year alone we got plenty of SP focus Japanese games.

Yeah it's the Japanese 3rd party games that keep me interested and theres plenty to look forward on that front. As long as there remains a couple of million people buying these games then we should be fine.
 
Top Bottom