Sony Wants to Improve Its Use of Games as a Service, Increased Output for PS5

As long as this doesn't affect their other single player output for which they are undisputed kings, then I have no issue.

Sony are a business at the end of the day, so need to maximise revenue from their investments. So long as this doesnt encroach on the quality of their games - particularly the sp stuff.

I trust Sony to get it right.they have more riding on it as the platform holder than other publishers

Just stop already. If you're already playing 1 DaS type game it's mainly a second job, hardcore players may leave for a bit but they will always come back. There's only time on anyone's calendar for one of these games and at this point, they have picked theirs.

If they put service stuff in my singleplayer games then im going Nintendo. This new chief i knew he was trouble the firdt time i heard his ideas.

I've never played one of these games as a service that is even close to the quality of the best single player games, and more to the point I play games because I enjoy them not because they require me to grind or do daily/weekly tasks as if they were some kind of job. I'm not completely opposed to the idea and did have a lot of fun with Destiny but they really need a lot of content at launch and then meaningful updates instead of just grind this task forever. Then of course there is the question of time as many of us don't have time to finish normal games let alone play these or have to be at a certain level to join in the latest task.

I'm more than happy to give them a go but have yet to be convinced this is the way games should be going

@get2sammyb "that this is an era the company wishes to improve"

I think that should read -

"that this is an error the company wishes to improve"

Ok maybe it's supposed to be "area".

@carlos82 Its like a job in the end you need to do this or a event is held. I had it with Overwatch and in the end with MHW how is it possible too make games a chore ask the investors. 😒

"Games as a Service"

These should always be referred to as what they truly are :

"$60-to-start"

@Flaming_Kaiser I know that's what Destiny became as it just demanded all of your gaming time and that's why I've never played one since. I'd much much rather just have a complete game that's exciting from start to finish even if it's only 8 to 10 hours long then something that demands 100's of hours of my time repeating the exact same content

@carlos82 A game that lets have other interests and gives you a chance too try other stuff. Liveserviceeee will kill off original games. Ubisoft is a example they dont have games but templates with games build around them.

No thanks. I only want offline, single player games. Not interested in anything else.

I don't have any particular issue with Games as a Service. I do have issue with some of the shady practices around games as a service though. Obviously, the biggest issue for me is the method by which they expect 'gamers' to keep spending after the initial outlay.

Another issue I have is the base game and more importantly, what content that base game ships with. All too often, it seems its a means to ship a game with 'little' content with the 'promise' that more content will come at a later date. However, that 'extra' content isn't exactly clear and may even stop altogether if the devs don't get the install base they hoped to attract and/or don't get the money coming in for those micro-transactional 'extras'.

Another factor with Games as a Service is the install base. With new games arriving every month, people will drift away (more quickly if the content isn't continuously engaging the users) and may not return if the 'latest' Games as a Service or even a popular RPG with 100+ hrs of content offer gamers something more engaging, more interesting etc. Even if you yourself don't get drawn away by newer content, your friends, your co-op game partners may which either forces you to play solo, play with 'randoms' or quit and find something 'new' to play.

Its very hard to maintain a user base over a long time. There maybe a selection of die-hards that keep playing, a few 'whales' that keep buying extras, but a fair proportion will inevitably move on. Destiny, one of the biggest, was slated by Activision because 'Bungie' hadn't made the content interesting or appealing enough that Forsaken wasn't bought by 'everyone' who bought Destiny 2. It seems Activision expected ALL the users to buy the expansion and went on record to say they were not happy with the sales of Forsaken and were talking about increasing the output and methods of monetising content to offset their 'losses' (not that they 'lost' money but had forecast higher profits by expecting a higher percentage of Destiny 2 users to buy the Expansion - especially as D2 had been given free to expand the number of 'users'...

Point is, Games as a Service can work but the industry has to be careful with how they do this. They can't release a sub-par base game with the 'bare bones' content and expect gamers to buy into the concept with the 'promise' of adding the meat to those bones over the coming year or so. Can't rely on 'micro-transactional' content to keep bringing in money to pay for the extra content - especially as that 'extra' content should be paid for in advance by the gamers that actually believed in the concept they were sold on. They also have to be aware that gamers will get bored, will drift off on to new releases - and its up to the Devs to have 'content' that makes gamers return instead of jump to the 'next' Game (service or standard type).

In my mind, Games as a Service seem like a big risk for 'big' reward. In other words, get it right and the profits will soar, get it wrong and the game, as well as all that time and investment will be lost, dead. The more traditional Single Player (with or without MP) are more 'low risk' and can deliver a Profit with little sales - get that right though, the profits keep building - God of War surpassing 10m sales for example is proof...

I have no issue with games as a service. My issue is when companies want to cash in on a different part of the market and take an existing IP and try to slam a round peg through a square hole.

That goes for any style of game. Looking at you Valkyria Revolution. I think switching styles or design philosophies with an existing franchise is actually riskier than just creating a new IP to compete in the new space - but companies often see it in reverse.

I think Games as a service can work at the start of a console life mainly due to the lack of games to play. Destiny got its hooks into me as there was not a lot of other games releasing at that time. Buy the time Destiny 2 came around there were lots of games to play so after about 60 hours of doing the same stuff over and over again just thought I could be playing lot of different games.

The other problem being a lot of the games as service are broken or under featured at release like Anthem and usually have to pay more to fix these problems like forsaken with Destiny 2.

If Sony want to cash in on the games as a service then they need a competent game to release in the first year or so.

games as service usually can be boiled down to tedious grind filled with hundreds of cosmetic micro transactions. I don't really care.

I'm not keen on the games as a service model. It's better to have everything included in the game at launch instead of features slowly being added and missable limited time content. And please no daily/weekly log in bonuses or challenges, let me play only when I want to without penalty.

This has to be the worst trend in gaming right now along with Microtransactions. Just release a polished full game. Is it that hard to do!?

I don't really care about all that. All I care about is the PlayStation brand giving me 'AAA' normal single player games really. Like they have been since the PS1 days

I think uncharted series and tlou is a good example of great single player with good multiplayer gaas component (if the multiplayer portion updated constantly).

@get2sammyb This is why I worry about games as a service. If each game wants your repeat custom, you can only be playing a small number at a time.

@Rudy_Manchego Games as a service models always affect single player content, games as a service is exactly what its initials implies, it's gas.

@Tasuki What word did i use?

Sony don’t ruin your excellent success and business model by ruining it with games as service rubbish! Aren’t you making enough money as it is?

Play ESO still and used to play Destiny 1 & 2 so yeah, not a bad thing imo.

@Flaming_Kaiser I've been a long-time MH player, but World's timed event stuff has somewhat irked me because previous games didn't have that.

@GodOfPie Its so annoying i work in shifts and if its in the nightshift im to broken up too play. But i understand why they do it. But for me it makes me play a game less in the end. We have enough things we have too do. 😆