Soapbox: Games As a Service Should Be Embraced, Not Misunderstood

Another well written piece Liam, I just can’t help but still feel negative towards live service.

I get that there is potential to get more for your money, but I still prefer a full complete product from the outset with maybe some DLC later.

I don’t see a live service game ever obtaining the quality of a TLOU, God of War or Horizon. And many live service that I’ve played don’t last long in the memory in terms of experiences I think back about.

Maybe it’s just me, but until a game comes along that truly breaks that mould in my mind (sadly Avengers isn’t it), I think I’ll struggle to change.

Excellent article. I couldn't agree more. It's like people saying they don't like anime, while there are all sorts of anime.

At best it's additional content that's not necessary to the game's story or mechanics, which is good for people who want to sink more into that specific game. At worst, it feels like a gimped product at release or a paywall. I don't have the time to invest in a game for more than a few weeks. There are always new games to play coming up and I have lots of other entertainment vying for my attention that isn't games. I can't possibly consume everything I'm interested in. It doesn't matter much to me if the content is free or not, once I've moved on I'm done.

Edit: And as the article describes, this sort of add-on content can be good after the campaign is over. The real problem is games that don't have a campaign to begin with, or have a shoddy one, because really all they have are the service side. When I see the term "games as a service," those are the ones I think of, not AC or TLOU or Ghost despite those having peripheral service elements.

I miss the days where companies put a fantastic game and then didn’t try to nickel and dime me afterwards.

Put out a great game, get your sales, and get started on the next.

Based.

For real, it depends on the game. It’s just an easy way to capitalise and take advantage of customers. They’re usually only made by the biggest of companies, who love ways to eke money out of nothing. There are exceptions but the majority of GaaS are soulless shells of games who only become playable after a few years.

Well written article! I agree, I don’t think it’s the GaaS model as a whole that’s the problem. I think what concerns me far more is the overall homogenization of gameplay mechanics/systems we see cropping up in games nowadays and how games are being released unfinished or half-baked only to use “it’s a live service” as an excuse so that is later patched or revamped months after release and after the money’s in the bank.

Take for instance Ubisoft where 5-10 years ago each property felt different and unique but somewhere along the way they all turned into being rpg-lites w/ similar open-world design and mission/narrative structures. Now i’m even starting to see this pop up in superhero games such as the recent gameplay reveal of Gotham Knights where you now get xp and enemies have health bars, for what reason? who knows. But in the words of Ian Malcolm “they were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should”

@Kefka2589 Yes, it’s the shift away from quality single player content that is the problem.

@SpicyTacos101 @Kefka2589 Preach!

each to their own but I couldn't disagree more, that said i'm from the 90's so remember when masterpieces could be released without any more money being spent.

I take serious issue with the second paragraph of this article. Games as service use an ongoing monetization financing model, and you're missing that key part in your definition, which isn't even as complete as the Wikipedia definition. In fact your definition is so broad as to be utterly meaningless. You might want to look at DiGRA papers or some conference papers on the topic from DEVELOP.

You've literally conflated DLC and micro-transactions, which pretty much means most games launched this generation, and indeed last would count as a GaaS. That's just not how it is talked about within the industry, and nor is it how games researchers view the GaaS phenomenon. Your broad definition which includes Witcher 3, AC and Fallout 4 makes any debate about the phenomenon impossible.

None of those games have ongoing monetization with an indefinite end, with the financial transaction model coupled to core gameplay mechanics. So they are not GaaS, expanded content does not make a game a service. Even microtransactions don't necessarily mean that a games is a GaaS. Unless those transaction are linked to core gameplay mechanics, either buying XP, Resources or Equipment in a potentially infinite game structure it isn't a GaaS.

I agree that people shouldn't necessarily dismiss a game simply because it is a GaaS, there are examples that people clearly seem to enjoy, Division (1&2), Destinty (1&2), Warframe and Rainbow 6 Siege and probably a few more if I sat and thought about it. They aren't all awful games. However, the financial model does lead to design decisions which fundamentally lead to certain play experiences and loops, most notably grind. Most GaaS use the fear of grind, or indeed FoMO with time limited items to encourage people to purchase experinece or in game items rather than earn them through play.

Pricing and mt are the biggest issues. I play plenty of gaas games, and this seems to be the bigger hurdle for me.

If the microtransactions are purely cosmetic or give no online advantage then I don't mind

Soapbox: Games As a Service Should Be Eradicated, Not Justified

I corrected the title, for my own satisfaction.

I'm not keen on the live service model. Too often they're released lacking in content, with the excuse that content will be added later. Then there's the daily objectives, and having to reach a specific level in a season to avoid missing out on items. Those factors make the game feel more like a chore than anything. Then there's the monetisation, which GaaS is often rather greedy with.

Live service games can be still be great, and I've enjoyed playing Monster Hunter World and Fall Guys. However, the live service model does make me more hesitant to buy a game.

Sadly I disagree with most of this article. You have stretched the term to its absolute limit to make it cover almost every game.
I do see your point though but i am not the type to play the same game for years so these games generally don't appeal to me but other people clearly like them.
I

Not a chance, nope

nearly all games with a service is like walking down uk high street harrassed by big issue sellers beggers and charity harrassers give us £3 a week etc (except the charity gets ***** all for over a year). these arent a service 99% of time they are just trying screw you out of as much money as possible and for what.

I disagree, but respect your opinion.

@supergurr exactly, the definition is laughably broad, and certainly wouldn't survive any peer review that's for certain. It's also just not how the term is understood within the industry either.

@Anguspuss At least they’re charities. It would be like the CEO of John Lewis asking you for your spare change.

I think the issue is that Games as a Service, to be consumer-friendly, need to take one of two approaches:

1) Be F2P, and make your money through microtransactions
or
2) Be a $60 and then DON'T nickel and dime consumers afterwards. The upfront cost IS your support.

Where I get frustrated is with GaaS titles (like Siege) that ask a big sum up front but then basically beg you for more money at every turn. It's obnoxious and off-putting.

When you've got an upfront cost, and season passes, and microtransactions, and DLC, and blah blah blah... like holy hell. It's like the game becomes its own NYC electronics shop filled with tchotchkes and crap.

You're really stretching what the definition of a GaaS title actually is!

I like sp games like Arkham City or Knight for example. Neither Gotham Knights nor Justice League look to be sp focused tiles and therefore my enthusiasm for either is pretty low. That's just my own personal preference though. If you or anybody else likes GaaS titles that's up to you, I don't and nor do I have to.

Some of my favourite games this gen are live service games with AC Odyssey, Monster Hunter World and MK11 being amazing.

I feel its becoming overused these types of games but when it works its great. I have Avengers pre-ordered and shell be playing it on the 1st and honestly i'm looking forward to seeing how it evolves, i feel many are hating it because its not what they want and adverse to live service games. I agree the MTX side is worrying but live service or pure single player SE will be forcing them in regardless.

The issue is that every developer is trying to jump on the band wagon and possibly destroy a franchise with needless content.

I have no problem with content being added to games over time. If a game adds half an hour of content a week finally building to 21 hours at the end of the year that’s good. If you have to dip back into the game every week in order to play that half an hour of additional content or it will be gone forever that is bad.

I take a similar view of DLC if they put something up on the PlayStation store and leave it up forever and when I buy it I’ve got it for good that’s a nice option to have. If it’s a case of buying digital currency to get something in an in game store but will be rotating every day I find that bad. I have a similar problem with card packs and boxes that can be bought over and over again.

In all honesty I'm not really sure what the author of this piece was thinking. Is he trying to convince himself or us?

🤔

My problem is when game franchises that weren't meant to be Game As a Service (but single game experiences) suddenly turn into one.

@Col_McCafferty I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, but I do think that Games as a Service are unfairly looked down upon. People need to accept that the term covers much more than just Destiny and The Division nowadays. Every game I highlighted in the piece is absolutely a Game as a Service.

@LiamCroft no they are not. You clearly don't know what you are talking about in this particular instance. Is The Witcher 3 an ongoing game with no definitive end? If the answer is no then it isn't an ongoing service, it is a discrete product. In fact apart from Maybe GT Sport I'd argue none of the games in your third paragraph are GaaS. Uncharted 4 and TLoU are not games as service, the MP component is not an ongoing service which is supplied with ongoing managed content from the developer. Any upgrades or added content are discrete and require purchase. They may have microtransactions, but unless they are part of a changing curated service they are not a GaaS.

Destiny 2 is a mutated monstrosity, with annual games, a battle pass (seasonal passes) masses on masses of microtransactions, they are removing half the game after only 3 years and adding content from Destiny 1 which is playable on PlayStation 3.

I don't feel that I misunderstand them. GaaS are overpriced and predatory. Now they are launching completely and utterly broken like Fallout 76, and they expect you to pay for $20 skins and pay to win items to support fixing their pre-alpha game. Get out of here.

games as a service in my opinion are generally awful, watch some Jim Sterling to find out why

It'll be interesting to see how well this article will age once Suicide Squad, Gotham Knights and others release. They might turn out "fine", but GaaS leaves much to be desired. It doesn't help that WB are notoriously bad with monetizasion in their games and where in the process of selling their gaming division. GaaS as a whole has been a ploy to milk games and franchises. If you enjoy being a cashcow, that's your business i guess, but don't be a fool thinking it goes into developer's pockets. Exceptions may apply, but they are exceptions and they are in the minority.

Firstly I do not agree with conflating "live service" games with those that offer DLC. Trying to lump Bioshock with Fortnite is so shortsighted and dishonest of the very nature of each game. I can't believe I've just seen someone try to claim these games are comparable.

You can play Bioshock a decade a go or today in any of its various versions, and have near enough the same experience. If you played Fortnite last year, you've had a drastically different experience to those of today or when it launched. With a live service game you can actually miss experiences. This is also seen in the monetisation of each, where the amount spent to get the full experience of Bioshock is a fixed price. At some point you stop spending money on that game. Where Fortnite you can miss skins etc, and your spend is an on going spend if you are seriously invested in obtaining everything the game offers.

That difference in expanding an experience and completely overhauling/refreshing an experience in order to incentivise additional spending should be obvious.

Secondly, GAAS or live service games dilute the market. They require you to invest more time and money in to their service in order to experience everything. Look at GTA Online or Fortnite, I've missed so much of their experiences. Same with Destiny 2, it's dropping maps and such that I've not gotten round to starting. Those are gone. In contrast to (and I am trying to pick totally random games here as examples) thing like Halo 3, where I played every map from that game over ten years ago, and going back to it on MCC, I can continue to play every map. Or Skyrim and Fallout 4, where even though both games has substantial DLC and even added micros, I could play those games today and they would have all the experiences in there for me from the day they launched. Nothing is removed in order to make way for more content to further monetisation. What this means is I can play these games when I feel like, and for as long as I feel like playing. When a game is a GAAS, it is telling me I have to play that game at certain times and normally for longer than I otherwise would. This means I have less time and money for other games. It wants me to not spend time and money on other experiences. End result is players experience less variety and devs find their 20 hour experience games to be a less enticing for gamers who are experiencing FOMO and don't want to put down their chosen GAAS in case they miss something.

Short version is GAAS are bad for gamers and devs. And games with DLC do not count. And I personally think it's shameful to suggest otherwise.

"Live service games should be embraced"

Ha ha not a chance.

(Edit)

@GAMER-GlRL or just listen to many of the developer speeches on the topic at GDC, DEVELOP, or DiGRA. They literally all talk about how to make ongoing Micro-transactions seem attractive by literally making playing the game to get them unattractive. Most GaaS seek to make the playing experience bad enough so people will literally pay not to play them, and that is the business practice in a nutshell. Whenever I'm allowed to go to conferences there are usually talks by some Dev or other about how to strike the balance between grind and gouging.

@SirAngry The Witcher 3 was supported for weeks upon weeks with free DLC and updates and then received paid expansions a while later. Support has ended for it, but it was heavily supported at the time.

Assassin's Creed Odyssey has an entire in-game store where you can buy microtransactions and armour packs from. It is also supported with DLC and continuous updates.

@Richnj Well written comment

@Kefka2589 you talking about Fallout 76? If so, I totally agree, it is probably the poster child for the awfulness of GaaS. There are others. But primarily what defines the concept of a GaaS is the changing curated nature of the experience over time. If you want to go back to the origins of the concept, you have to look at MMORPGs primarily like Warcraft, where the term started to be defined. It was about curating a changing narrative over time to drive ongoing player engagement. I think Liam Croft needs to go and read some game design texts.

@LiamCroft support is not ongoing curation. You are wrong. Mictotransactions do not necessarily equate to an ongoing service either. Given I was roped into doing ***** on AC Origins and Odyssey during it's development I can assure you the design brief did not mention GaaS. There was zero ongoing curation. The game experience has not changed over time to the point that content is now missing. Most of the content you can buy in AC Origins and Odyssey isn't available in game via play either, which excludes it from the GaaS model. It is a discrete product.

The main issue I have with this article is that there needs to be a clear line drawn between GaaS and just games with DLC. Nobody would put Uncharted 4 in the same group as Destiny 2 in this regard, because those are two very different types of games. The former was a full game that later received some post launch DLC, while the latter was and always has been designed as an 'endless' game with a constant treadmill of new content.

I agree that GaaS aren't inherently a bad thing, but I would also say that the GaaS model is much more prone to exploitation and negative outcomes than the traditional model. When a game exists in a constant state of flux, nothing is set in stone and it becomes a lot more susceptible to shifting industry trends, changes in development staff, new monetization models, etc. Case in point, Bungie is straight up removing almost all the year one content from Destiny 2, which effectively makes it a completely different game now than the one I played a couple years ago, whether I like it or not. The game I played back then doesn't exist anymore, because they've continuously tweaked and modified it until it became something else.

I absolutely disagree with this on so many levels. The problem I have with the GaaS model is that it feels like an excuse to release an unfinished game, then add features and content that was meant to be in it, later, with future updates, and people will praise them for continuing to support the game.

The list of games you think are GaaS is laughable. The Witcher 3 was not a GaaS. Just because it had a steady stream of mini free dlcs for a few months doesn't make it a GaaS. It was a complete game. By your definition, a game could have 2 paid for expansion packs and they are now a GaaS, even though a GaaS is something that relies on it being updated.

The one purposes for a GaaS is recurring consumer spending whilst keeping costs down by drip-feeding content and making a big update every 3-4 months. Sell skins and emotes which will take a 3D artist or animator a couple of days at most to make.

When a game developer/publisher says it's a "live" game, it means we need to rush a game out, we'll fix it later and then not worry about releasing a new game for a few years, not because we are constantly updating our current game, more because we can milk people with boosters and cosmetics.

You need to be careful, if you stretch any more than you already are, you'll throw your back out.

@LiamCroft Would you consider Fallout 3 and Fallout 76 to have the same business model?

@LiamCroft While i agree Odyssey is very much a GaaS, how is getting update patches and DLC a GaaS model? It may fall under the vague terminology of GaaS, but let's not kid ourselves with technicalities here, there is a reason consumers differentiate the terms and it's because the industry won't do it. By that logic, games like KH3 are GaaS, where it received patches throughout the year and then released a DLC expansion, or Days Gone with its patches. There is a difference between using DLC to update and enchance a game while also giving some content (for a price) as an expansion, and making it in such a way to always waste time and money on it.

@RayNick Destiny 2 is quite literally supported by patches, updates, and DLC. It doesn't evolve on its own, Bungie has to add content to it.

@LiamCroft I never argued the contrary about Destiny 2 either. Destiny even has Microtransactions and at one point was one of the worst offenders of the GaaS model because of the way they were implemented as well. That and the DLC that locked old content IIRC. Of course games with MX are always going to be supported, that's what makes them GaaS.

Look my big issue with games as service stuff is that a lot of content is delivered for a limited window, I want to play games on my schedule, not the games.

Sorry Liam but nobody is buying it. Your definition of what constitutes a GaaS title is very broad and actually quite incorrect. If you like these types of games that's fine but please don't try and make out some of our favourite sp games fall under the same category.

I bought AC Odyssey a few months after launch, played it and played it until I obtained the platinum and all this without spending another penny. The story DLCs are optional and don't distract at all from the overall experience.

This is actually a shameful article and not what I expect from PushSquare. It really does feel like some people in the industry have had a 'word' and are trying to create some positive PR for their nefarious practices. I'm sure it's just the opinion of one gamer and my fears are unfounded. I really hope so anyway.

I've given up and can't catch up with all these new methods of service etc nowadays. So... I've decided to buy less games and focus on one or two, whereas I use to wanna buy every triple A. And with the money saved I've gone onto books, board games or painting miniatures. Less is defo more in this day and age.

I think it is intellectually dishonest to claim that The Witcher 3, Fallout 4, The Last of Us, etc., are live service games. What an absurd claim. Are you - a writer on a major games website - honestly unable to differentiate that Fallout 76 is a live service, and Fallout 4 is not? Normal games have all of the content included and have endings. Live services sell you game content in small pieces. I don't think I need to give more examples because everyone else reading this knows what I am talking about.

If there is a huge amount of live service games then they will suffer the same fate as MMO's fifteen years ago. Ultimately, each human being only has so many hours in the day and there are not enough people to support hundreds of ongoing live services. Just like MMOs, a couple will succeed while everyone else attempting the business model loses their jobs.

There are some devs that make money from the microtransactions, but generally speaking it is the publisher that is making the money. And even then it's usually executives and shareholders that are raking in the money. Do you really think the people who design GTA skins get a share of the profits? They get their paycheck like everyone else, and that's it.

I am completely baffled by your assertion that advertising "No Microtransactions" is in bad taste. It is information I am very interested in. This claim, and your overall defense of live services, is frankly baffling. It will honestly make it difficult for me to value your opinion in future articles.

I know that loads of people play live service games, but I personally have never found one that I find appealing. I want a game to eventually end. I don't want it to be an open-ended addiction.

@Col_McCafferty Jesus christ, it really is not that deep. That's a pretty insulting comment to be perfectly honest, it is my opinion and mine alone.

I'm not sure we can put games like Odyssey in with Destiny, Anthem and Fallout 76 though, as they clearly aren't the same with Odyssey being much closer to a traditional game with some iffy microtransactions.

Generally speaking my main problem with these games is that they treat them like a job with dail/weekly tasks, timed battle passes etc and I just don't game like that. I choose what I want to play when I want to play it, not because I need to level up 20 times before the end of the week or grind 15 identical side quests to unlock the next mission. Well that and having to wait a couple of years for meaningful content

Now excuse me while I go dig up my daily fossils to pay back a Raccoon who tricked me into living on his island 😯

@LiamCroft Okay, good to know.

👍

@Col_McCafferty You're free to respectfully disagree with my opinion but do not make accusations such as that.

@kyleforrester87 Hey, you've got something on the end of your nose.

😜

Seriously though that's how it read to me. I'm glad that I am wrong so just leave it at that.

uncharted 4 is not games as a service. why? because the complete single player narrative experience was intact on the day it released. the multiplayer side of it might be considered games as a service, but you can't lump the single player experience together with the multiplayer since they are two very different things. the definition of a service game used in this article would apply to pretty much every game on the market today and that is incorrect!

the reason people dislike the service model so much is because in most cases, the games launch "incomplete" but at the full asking price. then, the publishers are expecting players to pay up an additional, $30, $60, $90 down the line to support all future content. that is very bad value and a backwards way of releasing a product. it is also a BIG ask and most people would prefer the entire experience to be supported with the base cost of the game. publishers have a choice to make — either make the game free to play with optional paid expansions down the line OR charge full price on release but support it going forward FREE of charge. can't have it both ways and expect to satisfy everyone. if they don't reconsider this model, there are going to be a LOT of unsatisfied gamers and a severe backlash going forward.

@Col_McCafferty honestly it does read like a shill piece, and the ongoing defence of the piece without acknowledging the fault in the definition within the article, or even acknowledging that others have provided tighter definitions, ones which are used within industry itself is not acceptable. I thought the article was a misguided attempt to defend the idea of games as an ongoing experience that has a temporal element i.e. GaaS, and on that score I'd be OK with it. I can see the appeal of such games, and one such franchise has paid a fair few of my bills here in Malmö. However, the attempt at making the definition so broad as to include discrete products is disingenuous in the extreme.

@SirAngry Thanks man, glad it wasn't just me.

@Col_McCafferty it really wasn't just you. Sent the piece to few ex-colleagues at Massive here in Malmö and they've had a good chuckle. My old boss said it could've been written by Yves Guillemot or Andrew Wilson. I have no reason to believe this is anything other than Liam's opinion, but it is an opinion that is clearly informed by industry spin.

@Col_McCafferty I honestly wondered if something similar had happened. I just found it odd to have a practice so obviously anti-customer be defended so vehemently. But it's a good reminder to me that there are likely a lot of people that have had a good dose of the corporate Kool-Aid. Their marketing gimmicks - including the guerrilla marketing on social media and other websites - are very effective.

@SirAngry You have taken issue with just one point in the article, how about the rest of it? What about where I argue Marvel's Avengers' approach is a fairer way of doing things?

Again, it is insulting of you to suggest that this is a "shill piece".

Supporting the game after launch is completely different from a "game as a service"
You gave some examples of games that got (mostly) paid content down the line, without even fixing some of the issues that plagued the games at launch. Assassin's Creeds, Fallouts, etc.

Naughty Dog has been smart of not making the Microtransactions intrusive to the campaign, then they'd have a problem. I own and played both games and didn't even know they had them.
Ghost of Tsushima and Witcher 3 are good examples, but it's they're different form others mentioned here. That's because the games actually felt complete at launch, and everything added later feel like bonuses or expansions to the base game.
And I wouldn't really qualify those as a "game as a service" for that very reason. So, no. I don't think they're misunderstood or that they should be embraced.

Not buying Avengers because the main missions bored me. Would be boring if GaaS or not.

Bought Story DLC in AC Odyssey because after 100+hrs I was still having a blast (Same as Witcher 3)

The Division 2 was a life saver over Corona Lock Down. No "addiction", No "micro-transaction money pit"... just a co-op game we could play together after 9PM and catch up (instead of watching more News)

It did the job perfectly. Worth every penny.

Also, If you spent real money playing "Digital Barbie" in a game, that is ON YOU. Do not go blaming publishers.

I feel like we are arguing about semantics here. The definition given in the article feels too broad.

Also, in the hypothetical situation that there are no caveats to getting more content such as extra characters and the like, there is also the problem that content may not be as consistent since the team will most likely constantly change throughout development. At least with developing individual titles, there is a shared vision which should lead into a solid game even if the experience is ultimately finite.

I also personally do not like "Games as a Service" as the nature of how "Games as a Service" works, renders physical media in a weaker position, as it will never contain the whole game. Probably won't mean much to the average player nowadays, but I still prefer physical, so games that are constantly changing just irk me.

I respect the time you have taken to come at this at a different angle from most folk but I think your example of ubisoft games shows why games as a service for single player games isn't a great idea. I played odyssey recently and can't help but feel that if ubisoft weren't trying to max the monetisation of that game, you wouldn't have had the degree of level gating to help sell xp boosters. In fact the game was made so copy paste massive to keep you in that space and increase the chance of you buying things with mmo level writing for majority of quests when something smaller but more crafted, would have been so much better. I don't recognise the examples of fallout 4 and witcher 3 as gaas, with some content dropping down the line is different to online leaderboards, weekly events/challenges and a world designed around maximising traffic through online shops for cosmetics and xp boosts. Odyssey deliberately gates its world with ridiculous leveling to induce grind and increase the chance folk tapout and pay to play the main story. I hope some of the recent ongoings at ubisoft and change in management leads to a change in their design approach. I'll hard pass any game they make with that structure.

@LiamCroft I said it read like a shill piece, and it does, it might be a semantic differentiation, and so minimal as to being meaningless, but it is there. The effect of the piece is the same regardless. As to Crystal Dynamics business model, the added content being free isn't exactly new. It's literally part of the ongoing curation model. Warframe gives such content for free. The idea that this is fairer is moot, if the fundamental core game mechanics have been designed around grind Vs gouging. If the game strikes a balance between those two competing forces I have no doubt it'll find itself an audience that'll be happy with the game. However, if the game requires so much grind that it essentially shunts some consumers with reduced free time into paying to keep up then it become egregious, and therein lies the problem with GaaS. That balancing act is in constant tension. Until the game is released it is not possible to judge. However, I fully understand gamers being skeptical. I'd argue such GaaS games should be reviewed as an ongoing product, because quite often the experience 12 months later is distinctly different. However, throwing it back to you, do you think the early access to the full game that digital deluxe edition buyers get is a fairer way of doing things? Honestly, I'd argue that's indicative of the sorts of monetary practices players can expect going forward from it as a game.

Just realised I never commented on the situation with Crystal Dynamics reportedly offering content for free. They may do in the beginning, but only until the point where the game itself no longer sells for full price. Once we reach that point, I fully expect CD to do what every other GaaS does, and add microtransactions and other shady monetisation practices to make the game worth developing for.

'Some studios take it too far — using "no microtransactions" as a marketing tool is a big no-no in my opinion'

I've lived a long life and seen many things. Even accidentally walking on my Mum and Dad having sex. That was less shocking to 7 year old me, than reading the above sentence.

I need to expand on my comment actually @LiamCroft, you view the added characters as a great bit of "free content", I can assure that is not how the game design team at Crystal Dynamics view them. They will be viewed as content to keep players engaged over time and more potential player contact points that might encourage further monetary action. Here, if I've maxed out the initial characters levels, having new characters to max out keeps me engaged and potentially wanting to spend money to level those characters to a suitable level. What you see as free content is in fact, from the view of the designer, a piece of addictive design.

Shill piece or click bait to fire up the comments section?

I expect better than this from games journalism.

@get2sammyb Using the crazy taxi argument if the game was expanded upon with the components you say, we'd never have got Crazy Taxi 2 & 3 as they'd have just supported the first one (not the best example as 2 was ok and 3 was nowhere near as good but you get the point). I have no issue with games being expanded, but with GTA it's safe to say if that game didn't have the expansions it's had, we'd all be playing GTA6 already and that's where I see the negative as opposed to the positive. Its not the games being expanded and improved, but the new single player experiences we're having to wait longer for.

Also in fairness to the site, it's good when stuff is published that we don't necessarily agree with. It encourages rather than stifles debate and whatever side of the argument you fall under, I'm glad the article was published.

Simply. GaaS totaly ruined mobile games. Especially Google Play Store is picture of gaming "Skynet". Every game is plagued by forced ads or by agressive microtransactions and are therefore unplayable (even if you invest money into them). That is why mobile gaming is dead if we speak in some serious gaming way and should be presented as frightening example "how it can end".

If I speak personally, any post-release effort (aka GaaS) is waste of time and resources, that could be used on developing sequel or another game. In-game real money stores (including those with paid currency) is great place for flushing your money down the toilet.

People are still whining about long backlog, but they are wasting their time in long ago finished games.

I've started a new way of gaming a few months ago. Insert game, complete run thru, put to shelve, next. I've found out interresting thing. Lot of games are totally same, just with different graphics. Lots of games have same repetitive side quests. Lots of games have meaningless rpg system that scales with progression or is used as artifical prolong of gametime by forced grinding. ... I really fear how "long" will be ps5 games, while loading times fills about 1/3 of gametime (included fast travel loads and hidden loads).

So... If GaaS survives, there will be no need for lots of games. There will be about 20 games, still supported but similar to each other.

Remember, with every penny you spend on post-release content or in game purchase, you delay other games.

@get2sammyb The article comes accross as either ill informed or dishonest. Either way, it's not a good look.

@get2sammyb What if you remembered how much you loved Crazy Taxi but when you went to play it again it was a totally different game?

@get2sammyb You are looking at GaaS on a very consumer friendly and honestly naive way of thinking though. You can dream and hope but let's be realistic here. If games like Crazy Taxi were to be released nowadays, you would get probably a tenth of what the game originally offered but streched out into hours and hours of the same objectives in order to egg you to purchase stuff to make your experience more "enjoyable" and eventually the "additions", which are actually content that would normally be in the game, are added on for free (some times). Now, you may be one of those who didn't spend a nickel on the game, but GaaS exist for so long for a reason and that is because other people essentially paid for that "free" content. Just because you and the majority of the playerbase didn't, doesn't mean it's free. The game (CT) got sequels instead and whether it's better or not is evident. Not all game sequels are better but most are. Also, Street Fighter is a bit of a false equivalent, since the structure of fighting games are very complex (not saying that other genres aren't, but fighting games are in a special place). The multiple editions aren't a good practice either, but back then it was the only way to not only give more characters and story but also balance the thing. Once DLC was implemented though, it could be argued if things got better, since some games paywalled characters while others added grind and MX to help you farm. Then, EVO got the better of publishers and devs and blah blah blah. Either way, publishers have found new ways to monetize games through GaaS, what ifs are cute, but you shouldn't confuse reality with fantasy. It's ok for a game to have an end and a conclusion. Technology evolves, and a well crafted sequel can always provide more from new engine, no matter how much money you throw at the old one. As it stands right now, GaaS is the moto for this industry, "less work, more money" and it sucks that such and archaic and honestly looked down upon economic ethic is still being used by anyone.

@get2sammyb it's the other mechanics that come around the additional content. Retaining players from a publisher / developer perspective is great. But players shouldn't be gullible enough to believe that within an ongoing monetized environment such free updates are altruistic. The underlying core mechanics and how heavily tilted within the grind Vs gouge mechanics most GaaS revolve around define for most gamers whether the game is worth it, and that's a personal subjective thing. I've even said in my first post on this article it depends on how these things are implemented, and that GaaS aren't necessarily bad products. However, the core argument at the start of the article is disingenuous, and as a piece of persuasive rhetoric the argument falls flat on its face with a ludicrously broad definition. Secondly, it then seeks to support the concept of GaaS by including games that clearly fall outside of any broadly accepted industry definitions, it's an awful opinion piece, and for a games journalist shows a shocking lack understanding of this specific niche area. From that point forward Liam has already debased any of his arguments, and he's not attempted to understand the phenomenon as is. That's the problem here. It's fine to present an opinion piece from one perspective, and for that to be a personal perspective, although again, on this count I feel the article fails as it does drift into a defense of broad industry practices without any attempt to understand them from the industry's perspective or what they mean for the design principles going forward and to include a critique in the round of said situation. Fundamentally I think it is a rushed article that hasn't had the due care and research lavished on it that such a topic requires. It does feel like either a shill piece, or a sharp knee-jerk reaction to something that may have put his nose out of joint yesterday.

this article is up there right next to liam's 8/10 metal gear survive review!

https://www.pushsquare.com/reviews/ps4/metal_gear_survive

everyone is entitled to an opinion and unique perspective, but this piece comes across as baseless and ill informed. i don't know why a website like puishsquare would want to push such an anti consumer agenda and side up with the exploitative and greedy publishers of the gaming world? which if i may add, are ruining the gaming industry as we know it, one game at a time with mtx and service games. pushsquare: NOT for the players!

Wow, this article and the comments section speak to exactly how polarizing GaaS are! Props to Liam for writing a great opinion piece and explaining his position well. Not everyone has to agree with either stance, but it's clear where most on this website fall. MMO's have been doing GaaS for a very long time successfully, so getting mini-MMO qualities in certain games can be really great. Often that's not how it happens in practice, but I also feel I get my money's worth out of a GaaS game with the initial purchase and if I want more I'm willing to spend more. Those games were I'm willing to are few and far between, but it shouldn't stop devs from trying. The market will always support whatever direction makes them money.

@get2sammyb

In fact the GaaS version of SF2 exists.... SFV! Totally proves your point, and I think SFV is one of the more tasteful GaaS that exists currently. Bad GaaS only exist because people support them, and we should commend those that get it right.

Such a bad take again. Right on time when Xbox is going to push GaaS from its 1p and gamepass.
Yikes
Edit
I understand there r some exception but making a case for GaaS is just the wrong approach.

@get2sammyb actually maybe I can use your crazy taxi example to explain the difference between a discrete product (game) which then receives further discrete support via DLC as opposed to Crazy Taxi as GaaS from a game designers perspective, and one with over 20 years experience.

Discrete Crazy Taxi with DLC support would pretty much be crazy taxi as you (and I) loved it on Dreamcast (and other systems) but at a later point extra content would be added for discrete purchase. Maybe I'd choose to add new districts to the city and add further taxi's / drivers within discrete DLC. Maybe new game modes as well. The business model here is based around making a game people want to pay money for, and once you've developed the product you move on as a developer.

Crazy Taxi as GaaS is a different beast. In some respects it's more akin to an arcade machine. My model is based around trying to draw money out of players over time not necessarily for new content, but to circumnavigate playing the game. Taxi drivers now have levels. Delivering customers to their destination nets you money you then spend on upgrading your taxi. The idea is to balance the grind to tilt a significant proportion of players to buy the in game currency. I do this by making the initial cars too slow, or unresponsive, so you pay for engine upgrades or steering upgrades to make the cars handle like they should do, so you can have fun. Extra taxi's can be earned in game, but they cost a lot of in game currency, and are only available for a limited time. However, the game might be free to play, but to compensate for that fact upgrading the cars would potentially cost significantly more than buying a discreet game, because some gamers might love the grind and not spend a penny.

Trust me, the business model does affect the design decisions taken and the underlying product significantly.

Games as a service are born out of greed and only offer a negative effect on the industry as a whole. It's essentially a scramble for publishers to try and take as big a slice of the time and money in market as they can. This inevitablly reduces the share of time and money to go round more equally between smaller devs arguably making far more interesting and progressive games, not just ones that are designed to get people addicted.

Including games like the Witcher 3 as games as a service is really pushing the boat out as they are designed to offer the player value, not keep them in the loop to spend money like casinos. You can try to use semantics to muddy the waters, but the term games as a service has been generally applied to dirty business practices in the industry and trying to make everyone change their mind will get you as far as asking people to smell your farts.

@SirAngry Normally I hate correcting other's spelling/grammar, but in this case I agree with most of the points you've made to distinguish 'discrete' game products and continuous live services. The definition for GaaS is simply being applied too broadly here.

@CptH0vvDy I apologise for any grammatical errors or spelling mistakes. I am dyslexic and typing on a phone that often switches between Dutch, Swedish and English, it's a pain, but hey it's my cross to bear.

The first batch listed are not GaaS at all. Not even close. All are good games. Expanded on.

The second batch are GaaS and all of them not for me.

Trying to hype up the three GaaS comic book games doesn’t work.

I could still like all three but the destiny comparisons worry me.

These GaaS are designed to need to be played constantly and paid for Constantly. I like playing a varied batch of games and solo. Any game trying to make me pay over and over to stay competitive online. It’s not for me.

Even Dirt rally 2 - I paid for all the content and hated the model. I just want a good game like Dirt 2/3. Not a cut back game and loads added after.

Games like destiny just aren’t for me and like FUT MUT game modes seem like a milking grind system - set up to be addictive and earn the company the most money.

Entertainment should be more than that.

More power to those that enjoy the models - I just wish they would try solo player campaigns and enjoy a good narrative and not feel the need to be competitive 24/7 with every Tom Dick or Henrietta

@get2sammyb That sounds fantastic but we’ve seen how that’s played out this gen overall.

No thanks. While I'm not naive to the direction devs (and many consumers) want the industry to go, all digital, games as a service, I can't get on board with it. This trash breeds laziness. For all the problems I have with its story I'll take a complete experience like The Last of Us Part II all day, everyday over the GaaS model.

@SirAngry No need to apologise, I could only imagine juggling multiple languages, let alone with my phone!🤪 Just wanted to make sure your point comes across clearly, because it basically sits at the heart of this - extremely heated - discussion.

@Papers92 I think most of the Pushsquare users are enthusiast gamers who play a lot of games. Supporting multiple developers. This in turn makes sites like Pushsquare a valuable resource. So it's surprising to see such an article. Liam writes from the heart and although I disagree can understand his viewpoint as he really does enjoy GaaS.

GaaS which will inevitably go on to become the de facto consumption of gaming is plagued with issues which are completely unregulated. GaaS is all consuming and extremely addictive. Which is why its popular with the mainstream.

I like a few service games, mainly Rocket League - it wouldn't function any other way than as a GaaS. In that respect its a huge success. But even I, as a weary old bloke with responsibilities have spent way too much time on a mostly worthless pursuit trying to break through platinum rank. I could have played a newer game or twenty in that time frame.

You have the nonsense of gimped games at release being charged at full price and not being able to play if the servers are down. My teenage sons solely play GaaS fueled games, I would rather they support multiple developers but they won't. Playing the same 5 or 6 games on a cycle - made worse by the LockDown. Its always social which is a positive, not really why I'm a gamer though - for me it's escapism.

We also have to make the distinction of what is GaaS. I summarise its a game that needs an Internet connection to function and incrementally alters the game mechanics and content over a period of time, funded via various ways to pay to play outside of the initial cost of the game. That to me is GaaS.

There is a myriad of cross contamination across genres in this respect, fighting games although they may not be considered GaaS are so encumbered with stripped down rosters you have to purchase a season pass or 5. This grossly inflates the price.

Anyway to draw a line under my own meanderings, the best stand alone games are the equivalent of Fight Club, Aliens, Rocky, The Shawshank redemption - one off movies that leave a lasting impression.

GaaS is the light, breezy, on in the background stuff like Coronation Street or Match of the Day.

Good stuff happens in coronation Street, We all know the theme tune. But in no way is it better than. Aliens. Game over man.

@get2sammyb Your example of the ideal live service Crazy Taxi sounds fine and something fans might like. However, the argument that live service "could" be great ignores the fact that the games industry doesn't exist in a vacuum - it exists within an economic system. And within that economic system live service are probably destined to be the way that we have seen. It reminds me of the concept of "Trickle Down Economics" - it sounds reasonable and logical in theory, but the past forty years have shown that it doesn't really work because the wealthy just keep the money rather than trickle it down - it's even a mandatory responsibility of many (if not most) publicly traded companies. Similarly, live services sound nice but we know they won't work the way we want them to. Expansion packs like The Frozen Wilds are probably the best way to get out additional content.

@OmegaStriver Couldn't agree more. Games as a service really is just a way for developers to keep people engaged to buy microtransactions. While all along they are still making money while not having to make another game. Rockstar is a prime example of this.

@get2sammyb no, they aren't. Buying a discrete product, with discrete DLC for a set price isn't about retention over time, it's about a core product with add on sales. Discrete products have an end normally. Even sandbox titles. As I'm designing a one off product, with a singular set price my design is set up to be worth that initial price, and it's about making a game worth that price. I don't care about retention over time as I've got my fee for the product.

The second model is about retention in my product over time. In the first model you have access to all the content you've bought. In a GaaS you potentially have access to everything either by playing the game normally, or making monetary transactions. To retain gamers I might offer free content, in fact most GaaS do offer free content, but they also switch out older content evolving the game over time. You can argue that's great, and for some games it absolutely is, but as a business model it does funnel me towards making addictive design decisions within the game as well as annoying enough people just the right amount to squeeze money from them.

I'd argue the old MMORPGs with their monthly subscriptions were more honest about things, and with their secure revenue streams were less prone to predatory monetisation practices.

But to return to Liam's core argument, had he argued that games like the Division (great game ) or Destiny or Monster Hunter or even older games like Warcraft show that GaaS can work, and indeed provide an ongoing engaging experience and value for money the debate might have been more honest. However, saying The Witcher 3 or Fallout 4 were GaaS and so let's all love GaaS was a rubbish argument.

I like them. Most of them only offer cosmetic microtransactions anyway and I never ever use them. Hell, I never use any other character models other than the original.

@get2sammyb
I really don't think it's the same thing as Gaas. The striking example coming to mind is how Xbox is planning to transform franchises like Halo, Forza, Fable (apparently) and instead of new games having the same game evolve for years.
I want Days Gone 2, 3 etc or whatever the name. Not the same game for a decade

@get2sammyb "What if I remembered how much I loved Crazy Taxi and then went to play it and the core experience was there, as I remember it? But now I had a ton new drivers to try out, a bunch of ways to customise my taxis, an additional branch of Crazy Box minigames to complete, and a whole new map to explore?"

That would be nice, but it is a moot point because the content would never be free, either because you are paying for it yourself, or because what people in the industry like to call "whales", spend so much on the industry that they can develop the content and release it as "free" for everyone else.

GaaS CAN theoretically be done in a "pro consumer" fashion (in that sense, I would say Liam has a point), but there is no incentive for a game company to do so. And even when it seems like companies are doing this correctly, you could argue that what actually happened is content has been held back on purpose to give the illusion that you are getting extra content for free. Just because something has the potential for good, does not mean it will be, and the industry has given plenty of examples of how GaaS are anti-consumer.

GaaS being good is pointless to think about when the only logical use for it as a business, is to make more money. I do not think GaaS is misunderstood; I think the general understanding and fear of them is fair, and even if GaaS is misunderstood, it is entirely a problem of the industries own making.

@Constable_What I'll let you into a secret, the reason big publishers still charge a fee for GaaS upfront is because sucke... sorry, consumers are more likely to remain if the game is pants and spend more money on it to make the experience enjoyable if they've already dropped $60's on it. It's the same principle behind share scams, people stick with them because they don't want to lose the initial investment. Again, sadly, I've been to seminars that explain how you can exploit this phenomenon to gouge early adopters.

You can thank the The Division, Destiny 1 & 2, and Anthem for the negative reaction Games as a Service games get. Also The Avengers, that game looks like absolute half assed garbage.

@Constable_What that's the phrase, it's 3 in the morning here, and my brain is frazzled, but I still have some work I need to get done by 7 so others can progress their work schedules... so with that I'll sign off from this debate for now. I hope I've articulated my arguments well enough, given the likes and responses to my comments I'm going to say I've communicated far more effectively than the original article.

Yuck. I want a finished game.

@LiamCroft I'm pretty sure CDPR would disagree and may even be offended you would call TW3 a live service. Look free DLC, some updates and some expansions do not make a game a live service, its called supporting a game. In fact you're the first i've ever seen say that about TW3.

@LiamCroft
I have no problem for games as a service. My only issue with the article is I don't see how The Witcher 3 is a game as a service because it had free dlc updates and 2 paid expansions. That doesn't constitute it as a Game as a Service model. Bad examples imo.

We should embrace games as a service? I want to play a game with a beginning and a dam end, no grinding crap, no monetizing crap just simple, I will never take on this cash cow grinding money grabbing grind fest and never will, the fact that so many games take on this practice means I game much less these days, I'm still finding reasons to buy a ps5 when I don't game as much as I used to, online only MP crap.

@SirAngry Absolutely agree with your last sentence.

Wow. Didn't know gaas had such a broad spectrum, from fortnite to the witcher III. Pretty much anything with dlc/mt. But I digress, I don't mind at all. I've played WoT and never paid a dime. I've bought a game and all the dlc. Longevity in a game is good. If you're not interested, don't buy or play.

Personally, I miss Local/couch co-op. I’ve been excited and then disappointed after Avengers, Godfall, and both new DC games advertised “co-op”, then quickly clarified that it was all-online. My brother and I always game together in the same room, and our gaming friends can’t often coordinate their schedules with us. Online shooter games and battle royales at least make sense to play alone versus others (maybe creating a friend squad of you’re able), but what happens if you don’t have friends that are available or have stable WiFi? Or just try to get 1-3 strangers on board with completing missions and cooperating? Gaming is going in a strange direction that doesn’t suit my situation.

I still can’t believe the Assetto Corsa review was done without a steering wheel. Pfffttt... preposterous.

Oh wait — wrong over-reaction comment section.

Yikes, Liam, getting some heat down here. I get the point you were going for, GaaS-type games can enrich a player's experience and I'm sure there are some examples of this.

The problem for me is, you inappropriately conflated games that receive any type of post-release support with the Games as a Service model, then used that logical gymnastic as a vehicle to sell your underlying point.

I agree with you (GaaS CAN be good to the right consumer) but you cheated to get there. Whatever overly rigid definition you sourced as the very questionable clay to build your argument, you know deep down games like The Witcher 3 do not qualify as GaaS. Not in the commonly understood usage and probably not in the technical usage either. It's a stretch is what I'm saying. And people who try to change or challenge the definition of a word as the lynchpin of any argument quickly show that there is no substance to their point. You can't build a house on sand. And you have a pretty decent house here, it's just got some bad foundations.

You had other points people here glossed over, and those I can get behind. You should have developed those more and stayed away from that third paragraph.

I appreciate an alternative viewpoint. I don't think an echo chamber is good for anybody. I'm glad you wrote this and I'm glad I read it - this type of stuff is why I keep coming to this site. But on a macro scale, this GaaS stuff is not a net gain for the industry any angle you look at it, even if there are SOME examples of it being done in a beneficial way.

We all screw up. I screw up daily and it's the crummiest feeling ever to get called out. And like you I work in a very publicly-facing job where my mistakes are unlikely to go unnoticed. I guess I just say all that to say the people I respect most in this life own their mistakes. It happens. It takes more intellectual honesty and strength to admit a fault than to proudly defend it.

Rambling... good article, just work on the building blocks of your argument next time. The internet can be a dangerous place when you have a differing opinion haha.

On the one hand I'd like my favourite game to keep getting supplied with DLC to encourage me to keep playing. On the other hand I don't want Devs releasing games half-finished and relying heavy on post-launch updates and DLC. And there's the fact all that DLC is usually focused for Online play, like Rockstar, keeps adding stuff to GTAO & RDO when I mean people might even pay for all that DLC to be available in SP. So overall yea I get the point of this article but most these games cater for Online play and not SP, and that's the problem.

Games as a service failed in the 80s and 90s, it should have stayed dead!

Wow, the comment section has been great! It's good to hear there are still gamers out there that just want a single player, or definitive experience out of the box.
Games as a service= end of gaming.
It's just a trick to get the average person to waste money. I look at NBA 2K the last few years. I only play MyLeague. I never touch the other modes. And I see constant complaints about microtransactions, and gambling in the games other modes. That's how games are today. And the push will continue. Hopefully, smaller publishers will deliver the best experiences, because I know the big boys like EA and Take Two will eventually fall flat.

Just wanted to say I hate getting into a game late and finding out there's a ton of limited time missions and skins and unlocks that you can no longer get. I absolutely hate being a slave to limited-time content. Buy now or miss it forever. Duuuumb.

Post-launch support/traditional DLC =/= games as a service. Witcher 3 is not games as a service - simply a game with some great post-launch service and traditional DLC. it works great for Destiny and R6: Siege, but is terrible others, especially when they are made RPGs to bloat playtime. Wolfenstein: Youngblood was made to be games as a service RPG instead of a strong co-op campaign and that is as terrible for the game.
The aforementioned of games (Gotham Knights and Suicide Squad) absolutely fall into the possibility of being alongside Youngblood. There’s a good bit of mixing up what games as a service means and its implications in this article. The examples for the most part either show how Gotham Knights may be the wrong game for the model or confuse post-launch support with games as a service.

A game should tell a story, and have an ending. It ought to be a labor of love from some creative types who really wanted to see their vision realized. When the talk moves to markets, marketshare, stockholders, etc., we are no longer really talking about games.
Games as business models is just a greedy concept.

@Kefka2589 Jesus. Do people really still peddle that "Wikipedia isn't trustworthy" *****? It's not an academic paper here. Wikipedia is, statistically speaking, accurate as hell.

@Jaz007 - Pretty much; as the definition in the article outright states "Games released under the GaaS model typically receive a long or indefinite stream of monetized new content over time to encourage players to continue paying to support the game." This is a lot different from a game simply having a post-release DLC schedule, or microtransations. While something like, say, Street Fighter V (or most fighters these days) could be considered GaaS, games like The Witcher, The Last of Us, or (to use a Nintendo example) Zelda: Breath of the Wild, who only release a relatively limited amount of DLC content, would not have enough to qualify as 'Games as a Service'. On top of that, the DLC for those games serves mainly as bonus extras for the main campaign, which goes against the entire point of Games as a Service, which is built around the idea of constant post-release content. In other words, to qualify as GaaS, your title needs to revolve around and rely upon post-release content, rather than it simply being an extra or bonus.

@Th3solution the article itself was an over reaction, so in that sense the comments section can be seen as corrective measures.

@Medic_Alert
Damn.. I agree with you

@MS7000 I Read your comment last night and wanted to respond with a round of applause, but my eyes were close to bleeding and I had stuff I needed to do. You are correct, we can talk about hypothetical scenarios all we like, but when there are so many concrete examples that exist and show the contrary position it becomes ludicrous to do so. You are also right with the "whale" comment as well, there's plenty of design talks on "whale hunting" and I once saw a comparison between mean, median and mode expenditure on a game let's call it Warframe, because that's what it was, the average expenditure as a figure was $1300's or thereabouts, which was huge, the mode was closer to $90's which is a AAA game and some DLC the median was a similar figure or maybe it was $90's and I've forgotten the mode... the point is what dragged the mean average up so high was these "whales", some of whom were spending way over the $1300 range. You can argue that's on them, but it is also on the company that built their product around addictive design practices. Maybe these people can afford it, and we shouldn't care, it's on them right? Would we feel the same about a drug dealer who was preying on an addict? There's a lot around this subject that requires unpacking and careful thought, that's not to say that's what Liam "had" to do, I'm actually glad he wrote this car crash article, because the comments section is so much more illuminating and well informed than the thing that sparked it, but to ignore the reality of GaaS when defending it is, well, indefensible.

If anything, this comments section proves that Games as a Service continues to be misunderstood, just as my headline put it. Games as a Service is more than just Destiny and Fortnite nowadays, and The Witcher 3 was absolutely an early example of how a single player game can adopt the model.

@SirAngry Do you get a kick out of gloating about sharing my article with your friends and calling it a car crash? Your comments are bordering on very unacceptable.

@Medic_Alert
From an interesting interview of People can Fly devs of Outriders.:

While many of these design decisions are hallmarks of the action-RPG genre, the looter-shooter elements may give the false impression that Outriders is actually a service game, akin to Destiny or The Division. But Kmita is clear that this is not the case.

“When we started our game and realised that the story is so important, we realised if we did a game-as-a-service, we would probably start chopping everything into sub-content,” he says. “We didn't want to do this because the story was so important for us.”

“We think that there are a lot of cool games on the market, and people maybe don't have any more time to spend 300 hours to basically grind one item,” he adds.
https://www.ign.com/articles/outriders-making-of-ign-first

@LiamCroft actually the misunderstanding is all yours, and the fact you continue to promote your misunderstanding as the reality of the situation is sad. You were wrong about your definition, and continue to be wrong. You could have held your hands up in a mea culpa over the way you structured your argument on an erroneous and disingenuous definition, but you haven't. I'm done, and I think for many here, myself included so to is your credibility.

Games as a service should get in the bin. They are there purely to benefit the publisher.

@LiamCroft it is a car crash, you don't like your work be critiqued and called out then you're in the wrong line of work. It hurts like hell when something you've produced for consumption is heavily criticised, I've been there, you have to front up to that criticism and try to take it on the chin. You can decide the criticism is unfair and continue on as before, or you can learn from it. You appear to be choosing the former, which is your right, but in this instance I think it'd be a mistake. You asked questions of me, I responded, I asked questions of you and you haven't. I shared the article with former colleagues because I thought it was hilariously naïve, and yes people within the industry would get a kick out of it, if that doesn't feel good so be it, but it does speak volumes about the original article.

My personal feeling is that the concept of games as a service is better than the execution of games as a service and what the idea has become.

I mean, the idea of a game that continues to give you content, remains playable and all that for a long period of time and offers value for money is not a bad concept. This was the original 10 year dream for Destiny after all.

I know a lot of Destiny players and Rainbow Six and other games, including MMO's who have got a lot out of the game. The problem most gamers have though is that this model is often abused to the detriment of gamers.

Take Assassin's Creed Odyssey - I won't complain about the good DLC stories and paid expansions but the game itself is grindy for a single player game with a story and the grind is there purely to offer incentive to microtransactions. As others have said, take other games like the obvious ones such as Anthem and The Divsion etc that launch in state where there is not much content and you have to hope that it is well supported.

The Avengers game is a game that seems cynical. We have had some great superhero properties over the last few years that have done well and been largely self contained. I am not sure that the game has so far shown why it needs to be games as a service except for attempting to sell users additional content. Is a player on xbox getting the same deal as those on PS4 for this game? No - this isn't done for the consumer.

So I think that games as a service has a wide range of meanings but in short hand it has been polluted by cynical cash grabs.

@LiamCroft
I see this in the same way as reviews. All in all they are just opinion pieces where the press often show they are out of touch with most gamers.
Dont be offended please and there is nothing personal. . It is just the reality of day to day 'gaming news' these days. IMHO.

Good article although I am not sure I would call some of those games GaaS but it is fair point, I have played many GaaS games my favourite being Destiny but also put plenty of time into the Division and it is these type of games I consider GaaS. I admit to getting both Destiny 1 & 2 at launch (loved every minute) and have bought pretty much all of the season passes since launch apart from the last 2 and feel it has been value for money. The game was £50 - £55 the season passes are around £40 a time which normally covers a years worth of content so for £90 I am playing a game all year round and loving every minute even if I don't like some of the DLC (I hated the Gambit one) there was still plenty of stuff in there I liked. So for less than 30p per day (even less if you take multiple years) I get an excellent game (IMO) my favourite FPS which is constantly updated. I haven't spent a penny on any cosmetics or currency from the store despite the option. Alternatively I absolutely loved GoT which was also £55 and I played it solid for about 3 weeks got the platinum and will probably never go back to it, which is no problem I like these games too but Destiny is probably better value if you like the content. Each to their own really I have mates who hate GaaS too but it works for me.

I dont have a real problem with games as a service, as long as its done right. If the developers release updates with good new content i dont mind buying some cosmetics here and there.

@LiamCroft Wow, you're still clinging on to that life raft aren't you?

SirAngry has given us some great insight into the business and has always done so in a fair manner. No need to attack him.

Not sure what's going on with you Liam but you're being way too sensitive about this. Did you really think everyone would agree with you?

@avenovah how about having a look at games as 'a disservice'? Surprised no one have mentioned the Elephant i the room; Activision and the most horrendous examples in the likes of COD BLOPS3 and 4 ... Full price, MTX (RNG), pay to win and even missing SP in the last one. Yikes!

@LiamCroft Yeah, the thing about the English language is that it's not a fixed thing. This comment section proves that the majority of people use GAAS to describe games that have a vastly different approach to content and monetisation than your standard full packaged release and DLC.

They do this because as I tried to point out, under your definition, both Fallout 3 and Fallout 76 come under the same classification, yet both games are so drastically different in their models.

It's because of this that normal gamers have silently agreed that GAAS is in and of itself, an entirely different business model. One that they can use to differentiate games with DLC and updates, and "live" games with ongoing overhauls and major refreshes to keep players engaged.

It's you that is misunderstanding this.

@Col_McCafferty I'm not the one doing the attacking here.

While I get your overall point, basing an argument on a definition provided by Wikipedia will never help anyone. No right-minded gamer would consider TLOU a gaas, DLC or otherwise.

@Col_McCafferty I don't feel attacked, and I've not attacked Liam as a person, although I do think he's damaged his credibility here, which is a shame, because he actually writes well. The problem here isn't the quality of the writing but the content and then the continued defense of the content without actually engaging with the debate he's sparked. Stating the same argument again and again without addressing others points, or criticism isn't debating. The irony is I actually broadly agree with him that GaaS aren't necessarily trash. There are plenty of people who love Destiny 2 or The Division and for whom the content provided is exceptional value for money. The issue I have is that Liams defense of GaaS is based on a disingenuous foundation.

@SirAngry Ha! I did see in your previous comments that you were working to a deadline. Admittedly when I made my comment, I went to bed shortly after. Hope you have managed to get some sleep now and are not currently running on empty.

@LiamCroft I still feel like your definition of GaaS is too broad. A game having DLC does not inherently make it GaaS. Otherwise, where is Oblivion's latest DLC? It has been a few years after all. I thought that would also fit GaaS by your own definition.

What commonly separates games with DLC from GaaS is the idea of the game constantly evolving to the point where even the base experience is no longer the same. Street Fighter V could be considered GaaS, as that game is constantly evolving; it has weekly challenges which you either play to earn in game currency, or you pay to play with said currency to earn other content such as costumes. Said content is then unavailable beyond that week, possibly forever (unless I am mistaken, I cannot get the "Asura" costume for Kage now as I was not playing the game at a certain time about a year ago). The game also has new mechanics and moves such as a second V Trigger when the game originally featured one for each character. Not to mention balance patches. The game experience is different now from when I first played ages ago with some content even being no longer available; the inherent nature of a service is what it offers over time changes; this is true for games too.

If we look at Witcher 3, the game itself has not changed over time. The mechanics have stayed the same, and the 16 free DLCs you are referring to was done over a very short period after launch. By the definition which you have in quotations from Wikipedia, the game would not qualify as a service since the game does not offer new content frequently over a long period of time. Most importantly, the base game has not been altered, just additional content thrown on type. Even the expansions whilst they may offer something new, do not change anything about the original game.

Witcher 3 is like adding chocolate sauce on ice-cream; you can still see the individual parts and acknowledge and enjoy them for what they are. Meanwhile, GaaS is a smoothie; it may have started as individual fruits, but the form has changed so much that it is impossible to tell what it was before at a glance.

I feel like I am rambling now, so I shall stop there for now.

@MS7000 not so much running on empty as I am Skåne röst which is a type of coffee that has been burned so much it's literally pure caffeine. Tastes disgusting, but I'm coming round to it's charms.

@SirAngry I was mostly joking. And the discussion is fine, like Sammy says, but I think making it personal and questioning the author’s personal integrity is a bit much. I actually agree with most of the dissenting opinions, but I can’t condone all these users just firing off personal insults to the writer, the site, and anyone who would dare feel differently.

— — — —

For my two cents — I’ve never been a fan of any form of post-release content (well, except patches to fix bugs and make minor improvement like adding a photo mode, etc.). I guess I should say I dislike any paid post release content. It’s a personal opinion, but I always feel a little uneasy about paying for anything post launch. I honestly can’t remember even a single piece of DLC I’ve purchased. I can maybe justify DLC if it comes much later as a response by the developers to a game’s success - as a way to prolong its life and reward a rabid fan base, but this pre-planned post launch DLC support has always rubbed me the wrong way. It feels like content is carved out from the original game and released piecemeal later. The AC games, Marvel’s Spider-Man, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, etc. are games I love but I just don’t feel comfortable buying DLC that was announced weeks or months before the game even releases in some kind of post-launch release schedule. If anything, I’m more comfortable to wait and buy the GOTY or complete edition later (which is what I did with Witcher 3 for example). Games like Horizon Zero Dawn and Bloodborne had their DLC come out later and so it feels less exploitive, but I still haven’t been personally comfortable with the idea of DLC in general. Persona 5 Royal would be an extreme example of this where you can’t even get the added content without buying the whole game again for full price.

And I get it — publishers need to recoup money given the high cost of game development on AAA titles. So to make a great game, take a piece of it and carve it out for later, then release it a month after launch — that’s a way of make a $60 game into a $70 or $80 game, which is where game prices might be headed next gen. anyways. I just have an issue with it. Nevermind the far end of the spectrum of the constant drip feed of content of the ‘live service games’, which I just don’t touch at all.

Part of what Liam asserts (whether the moniker of the genre as GaaS is correct or not) is that if the post release content comes with no additional cost, then that’s a pretty good deal. And I guess I can understand that argument with what The Avengers is doing, but it still comes off as a wee-bit suspicious to me as a way for developers and publishers to somehow cash in later by withholding content at launch. I’m pretty sure that eventually there will be opportunities to pay for additional content in the game. And so that’s why I’ll wait and see how it all plays out before I commit to the game.

Had this article been written maybe in 2014 or 2015, there's a very high chance I would have agreed with it. But releasing an article like this in 2020 after years upon years of publishers pushing the boat out on anti-consumer business practices via this GAAS model seems....problematic (to put it in a polite way).

I think what this article puzzlingly glosses over is the very heart of why this business model is so unpopular with more seasoned and informed customers: the fact that it compromises the dignity and overall fun of these games we want to enjoy. There are definitely examples of really positive and non-exploitative live services, but that's not the norm. The norm are bare bones experiences loaded with excess artificial grind that's designed to frustrate you into coughing up money for either a more convenient experience or an item you want that takes an unreasonable amount of time to acquire through normally playing the game. I think it's absolutely fair and arguably healthy for people to be extremely skeptical of these two latest DC games, especially since they're coming from an awful publisher like WB Interactive.

@Th3solution that's a pretty fair assessment of where things are. DLC for me depends. There is a cost to development both in time, and in money. Is DLC cut out of the initial release, or is it its own content that is developed on the back of a core development investment to further sweat value out it? I think that again depends on the game, but from where I sit, yeah, you are right in general to be skeptical. The worst example I can think of is Dead Space 3 where the actual ending of the game was DLC. My advice to any friend is never buy a game day 1. Given the addition of HDDs to consoles many games Day 1 are a QA teams nightmare because it shows how badly they performed squashing bugs, but again, that's more due to publishers being willing to ship faulty product they can fix later to hit a specific date, than it is a criticism of those working in QA teams.

I rather have expansion then liveservice i hate that so much. Laced with MT and making leveling up a chore with RPG's. I love how the interface of AC looks like a free to play mobile game. Unpolished messes, boosters, bareboned releases, finish it after the release if it sells, roadmaps... 🤢🤮

10 years ago, that content would have formed the foundations for a Marvel's Avengers 2

You make that sound like a bad thing.

If you buy a fighter now its less then 50% of the roster and you can buy how many seasonpasses now more then 4/5. At what price you unlock almost nothing anymore. A costume now is a MT your physical copy is 90% voucher too devalue your purchase at a maximum rate. Yeah what a great thing liveservice games.

@JapaneseSonic Just put in investors in there and youre golden. Dont forget that they actively target people with addictions. They make a business out of it. Its like the early tabacco industry. With the big exeption that they can freely target kids.

@OmegaStriver You don't have to miss those days. Plenty of complete games still come out. Just because there is often additional content, it doesn't mean that the base game isn't a complete experience. Ghost of Tsushima and The Last of Us 2 come to mind.

@quinnyboy58 Masterpieces are still released and no one is forcing you to pay anything extra. The problem is with people who can't help but feel that they should own everything when a game comes out.

My favourite franchise was Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm. I'd buy the game and the expansion, but I'd spend nothing on costumes or anything else, just like the "good old times".

If anything, in most cases we get much more content for much less, if you adjust for inflation.

I just go on reputation. If a developer has flooded a game with gambling boxes or produced poor value content in the past, I avoid their games. Also, I don't really buy games on launch, so if something sucks, I usually know from the reviews/players comments. I have nothing against service games per se though. I still play ESO

Luckily it's up to people to either embrace them or reject them (misunderstand? really?). Gamers have a choice, which is great. I personally don't care about GaaS but there are those that do. Kudos to them, but don't tell people what to think/do.

@naruball And there are plenty more coming out that are starting to mimic the systems of GaaS. So, I stick with my original statement.

I really think it's time Liam just came to the party and state he was wrong or at least state that his understanding of GaaS and live games isn't what his previous understanding of them were while writing this article. It's no big deal to be wrong, or shown a different perspective, especially when we all learn something from it.

I would have agreed a few years ago to an extent, GTA online was beginning to show what would end up happening on a large scale. So now no way...no chance and I'm appalled you think overall GaaS is a good thing.

GaaS are largely now..note largely not completely... a predatory way to entice money out of customers.

GaaS worked relatively ok for dlc. Keeping in mind publishers then even kept back content locked on the disc day1 which then was clear as hell as predatory but that's largely forgotten.

Fast forward to modern times and developers are removing content from games then forcing players to cough up more money to get new content see: Destiny.

The only decent GaaS and keeping in mind that definition has largely been far removed from its original meaning is from games like the Witcher 3 which provide clear brand new content.

Attempting to pigeon hole both DLC like that and stuff like Fortnite skins is ridiculous and shows an elementary level understanding of modern GaaS.

Yes devs should be paid for their work but the reason devs and publishers went down this route isn't to make better games for you and me. It's to make easier money.

It's all about keeping you hooked, keeping stuff just slightly out of reach with that tempting few quid to get that item or it's in its simplest, most blatant form gambling mechanics which is nothing short of predatory and downright morally wrong.

not sure how you can view The Witcher 3 or Uncharted 4 & so on! in that category? completely disagree with this article.
I only have to look at the soulless Rockstar North! to know this is not something I ever want! I feel like my favorite developer & Game franchise is over at this moment in time.

Whenever I see Liiive Service it instantly puts me off and I imagine Jim Sterling saying it. He’s a bit of a cockwomble but it still makes me laugh.

Personally I don't see games that includes microstransactions and DLC as GaaS, otherwise this would have been going on since the early days of the PS3 and X360. Suggesting that is rediculous and your way of making the whole thing come across as acceptable. Yes those parts mentioned above can in some games be awful and in some cases have been used to upsell and make profit, but let's face it, it's the online games that requires you to be online that's the issue. Destiny started this terrible craze and even though it's great for the people that love it, it has indeed started a mediocre trend of awful games that solely rely on the same content but different setting, to keep you spending on their game for as long as possible. How you can write this and make it seem a positive thing is beyond me. No game that has followed this trend has been groundbreaking at all. If anything they have been God awful.

I'd also like to point out that the linked Wikipedia article does not seem to support the conflation of all post release content and a game as a service. Downloadable content is only mentioned once in the Wikipedia article, as a potential form that microtransactions might take. It's pretty clear that the definition used in the PushSquare article is not widely accepted.

@LiamCroft Sorry but you're SUCH a child. You say what you like but when people disagree with you, you get butthurt about it and go "OH it's OBVIOUSLY MISUNDERSTOOD" or "Your comment is SO unacceptable" instead of having a conversation with others that are disagreeing with you. You also STILL think Witcher 3 is a live service when it isn't. Not sure if I ever want to read another article that Liam wrote after this again.

@LiamCroft Your definition states over a long period of time and the Witcher 3 got a few free updates, it was serviced not turned into a service. The updates didn’t monetize or alter the base game much. Traditional DLC expansions have been around for ages and have no reason to be called games as a service. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a new term and games like inFamous: Second Son would fall under and we know they don’t.
No one is talking about this Witcher 3 stuff when we worry about Gotham Knights being a games as a service game. No one. We’re talking about the core experience being stretched out. Instead of a game you’re meant to play through having a strong campaign, it’s meant to loop and be repeatedly played rather than be a strong experience with careful design throughout. RPG elements when used wrongly artificially extend a games life when it would have a tighter designed game without them.
Like I said, look at Wolfenstein: Youngblood as an example of games as a service comprising core game design.

@SirAngry
Exactly DLC isn't GAAS, it's bad enough on it's own along with games needing day one patches to actually make them playable, but the latter is another example of the industry going down the ****hole.

Admittedly not adding much to the discussion here but I'm kinda wondering what games aren't GaaS if we're going to broaden the definition that much.

@zupertramp Anything produced before 2004 or any broken POS that the publishers decided to abandon.

@AinsleyE by his definition, Spider-Man on PS4 is a GAAS which is just ridonkulous

Gaas are a plague on the world of gaming. It has sprouted so many greedy little tendrils, suckling on the teet of gamers for as long as possible.
I miss the days when a game was complete on release and then down the road something brand new would come out.

@LiamCroft
"The Witcher 3 was absolutely an early example of how a single player game can adopt the model."

Liam, YOU ARE WRONG about this. As this comment section has shown, it takes much more effort than it is worth to try to get this point across to you. If you were some random commenter we would have given up long ago, but since you write for a website there is perhaps some benefit in getting you to understand. But I don't know what else can be said to convince you since the underlying premise is so obvious to virtually everyone. The Witcher 3 is not a live service and everyone knows it. A game patch is different from a live service.

@KippDynamite Okay, maybe using The Witcher 3 was taking my argument slightly too far. However, I still think Assassin's Creed Odyssey is the perfect example of my point.

Look at the image below and tell me that's not Games as a Service. This is on top of an in-game store packed full of microtransactions, booster packs, and armour packs. The game even has the manufactured level grind that people complain about in GaaS loot games! There are also daily and weekly quests which change on a regular basis — that's Games as a Service.

https://i.redd.it/zanrvdbo22m11.jpg

@LiamCroft is AC Odyssey an online game whose experience has changed over time? No. Buying XP or resource packs doesn't make a game a service. Do you know what a service is? In effect it is something you use at point of contact, but when you walk away from it the service keeps running. If I don't go to the dentist, the dentist doesn't disappear. It's the same with GaaS. If I turn AC Odyssey off the game does not continue without me. Destiny does. Division does. Monster Hunter does. I'm just not sure how you aren't getting this. Also like to point out games can have services, but that doesn't mean the core experience itself, the game, is a service.

PS. The image you shared is a DLC roadmap / release schedule. It is not a service.

@SirAngry Assassin's Creed Odyssey has daily and weekly quests, as the image I linked to outlines. Those change all the time. The Division 2's core campaign hasn't changed since launch, just like the story of AC Odyssey hasn't either. Both games have elements that change on a regular basis. Games as a Service is more than just live service titles at this point.

@LiamCroft you're talking about two games I've worked on. The weekly challenges you are talking about in AC Odyssey are literally in the game, I should know, I worked on them. They are not an ongoing curation. The Division is different. The core experience is curated on a regular basis, changing the nature of the game. Gun balancing etc. AC Odyssey has none of that. It is not a service, it is discrete product. I walk away from it and it does not continue. I walk away from The Division and it does. That's a key distinction. I've actually got a better example for you than AC Odyssey, Death Stranding. The asynchronous elements in that game do mean my game world is evolving without my input or presence.

And that's another key element of GaaS service, the reliance on other players for content / evolution of experience. In part other players contribute to your experience, and that doesn't necessarily mean cooperative play or competitive play, it could be asynchronous engagement as Death Stranding shows.

@LiamCroft As I look at the image you posted, it looks just like a live service to me. In fact, that's why I haven't bought or played Assassin's Creed Odyssey - because as much as people tell me it's a lot like a normal single player game, just as many people tell me that the XP leveling is tweaked so that you will struggle to progress at your own pace unless you buy an XP Booster.

And that is a major aspect of the "live service" experience for me - the core gameplay being compromised in order to sell me something. If I sense a game doing this, I become angry and frustrated. I didn't feel this during Ghost of Tsushima. I didn't feel this during the Witcher 3, or Fallout 4, or Uncharted 4, or Hitman. I think I'd feel that frustration with any of the recently published Ubisoft or Activision titles, so I haven't bought them. This isn't a primary component of live services (and in fact is in normal games as well), but they are a deal breaker for me.

I can see what you mean about live services (or games as a service) having somewhat fluid definitions, but I think virtually everyone can tell when a game has an ending and when it doesn't. A game without an ending - that promotes constant changes and items for sale - is a trademark of live services. A game with missing features that are sold to you later are generally live services - like buying more inventory space in Fallout 76. "Roadmaps" (like the one you posted) are generally a trait of live services.

Here's my test: if I can play the game in ten years and it's basically the same experience as it was on day 1, then it is a normal game. Otherwise, it's a live service.

@KippDynamite I think that's a fair test as long as you apply it to DLC as well. Each of those "items" in that image will be the same in 10 years time as well. They won't change, and they will remain the same core experience. They are add on sales and additions to the base game. That does not make the base game a "service".

As to the XP grind in Odyssey? It's appalling to be honest with you, and is absolutely a grind element from GaaS. However, copying a design feature does not mean your core game becomes the same thing you borrowed the feature from. Is Doom Eternal an RPG? Is it a platform game? I'd say no, but it takes design elements from both genres.

@kyleforrester87 actually Diablo 3 is a good example of a game as service that doesn't require other players, the "seasons" are indeed curated and do indeed fundamentally change the base experience should you choose to play the game in season mode. That is also handled server side, and if you don't complete the game while that season is live, tough. Great example.

@SirAngry Yes, I can see your argument and I think you're right, and even as I typed my comment that point felt a little bit off. I like what you said earlier (all of it, actually) about how the game goes on even if you are gone - that is a tell-tale sign of a live service. If I buy DLC like The Frozen Wilds then I can also play that DLC 10 years later and it will be the same.

Maybe I'm just confusing all of the aspects of modern games that bother me, and live services just so happen to have most of them!

There is another dynamic to live service games that is rarely discussed, which is that publishers are trying to convince us that they are selling us services rather than products. This is basically to take away our rights of ownership. If I buy a PS4 disc then I can play it any time I want, I can resell it, I can lend it to a friend. Many publishers don't like this, so for many years they have tried to find ways around this. For example, ten years ago they charged for the multiplayer component of games so that it wouldn't work if you bought the game used.

If a game is a service then we have no ownership rights, but games aren't services - they are products. Pretending a game is a service strengthens publishers legal argument to take away ownership rights. That way even if countries finally catch up and acknowledge the concept of selling a used digital product, publishers can argue that we didn't buy a product - we subscribed to a service.

@kyleforrester87 I think your comment is trying to de-legitimize my point and paint me as a crazy person with fringe concerns, but there are many people who care about this sort of thing.

@KippDynamite yeah, the all progress is great and get with the program luddite argument. It's pretty weak as well. Especially when other publishers are showing that the "old" paradigm is still able to make more than enough profit and basically be the GotY contenders pretty much solely. The big publishers literally had to push for GaaS awards as an idea so their games got a chance to win things.

@kyleforrester87 Yeah the consumer should stop fighting something they don't like.

Must have missed that in my economics classes.

@kyleforrester87 There's a world of difference between a streaming service like Netflix, Spotify, and even Game Pass, which offers a variety of content, and where the content within isn't modified itself, and is also available to purchase through other means, and something like a GAAS where you purchase a single piece of content and that content is constantly changing.

There's no psychological manipulation with Spotify. I can listen to any song and through decades of music, at my leisure. The content is always there. This is a nothing like a Fortnite battle pass, that asks you to spend money, for the chance to unlock content, but only if you play enough within a set amount of time. At which point you lose your chance to unlock that content.

Between trying to include DLC as GAAS, and comparing the streaming services to GAAS it really doesn't sound like anyone has a strong defense for GAAS. If the model was really this great thing, people would be able to defend it on its own merits, instead of having to disingenuously lump it in to other (obviously different) products to justify it.

@kyleforrester87 To be clear I'm not making an argument either way in the ownership vs. service debate. I just think your take is a strange one. Like the burden is on the consumer to change.

Also think it's weird that you seem to harbor such contempt for those who basically purchase things differently. I use Spotify rather than buy my music but I don't begrudge anyone who still purchases theirs; good for them, in fact.

And as concerns having all the answers, you're the one on here predicting the future.

@Richnj I guess the comparison is there, though, because you don't own any of the things on Netflix, Spotify, Gamepass, etc. And I suppose their success proves people don't much care about ownership.

But you're certainly right that these services are fundamentally different than a live service game.

@kyleforrester87 I was looking more at these...

"The vocal minority will get their knickers in a twist over “losing ownership" "

"a logical suggestion but these hardcore types won’t accept it until they are up to their knees in it, then it’ll be some other technological evolution that they are refusing to accept."

Kinda sounds like contempt to me. Or annoyance. Or, idk, something. (EDIT: condescending, that's the word i was looking for)

But you're probably right. GaaS is probably the future and it's just a couple of us old heads who can't accept it which is why GoT and TLoU II sold so poorly.

@zupertramp I'm not sure GaaS is "the" future. I think it's part of the future, but essentially you are talking about products that demand a lot of attention over a long period of time to work. We've already seen some high profile flops like Anthem and Tom Clancy's Ghost Dance Revolution Cry or whatever that cookie cutter nonsense was called. It could be a gold rush situation, where those that planted the flag first get rich and it makes it hard for others to muscle into the space given the nature of the products and the marketplace they produce.

I do however think that a subscription model is something that might be a big one going forward for fighting games and sports games. Why things like FIFA, Madden and Tekken aren't already subscription services isn't totally beyond me, I think things Like PS+ and Live Gold are a potential barrier, but I would imagine moving to an evolving subscription service rather than annualised releases that just do roster changes, or in the case of Tekken bloat the roster to try and draw money out of players.

@kyleforrester87 fair enough.

@SirAngry Yeah I'm not so sure it's the future either; that was mostly sarcasm on my part. I honestly don't know where it's all going but I'm enough of a cynic to expect the worst. My son eats up this live-service stuff but then again if you give a kid crack*...

EDIT: what I probably should have said was... "if you give a kid access to highly addictive feedback loops in the form of an ever changing, ever evolving video game that takes FoMO to its extreme" but that just doesn't really sound the same.

@zupertramp True, ownership might not be super important, but I think a better word for it might be 'access', or even 'choice' . It's not like you have 'Songs as a service' where the only way to listen to Fast Car is to purchase the song, and if some bigwig ceo decides to squeeze it for money they will replace all copies with a dance cover version.

It actually bugs me that I can enjoy music and films from 50-60 years ago, sometimes on a streaming service, and I can experience them more or less as they were all those years ago, but 50 years from now, where today's music and films will still be available in their current form, games won't. All the GAAS of today will have been taken down for whatever is popular at the time. People will still be able to play Mario 64, but they won't be able to play Fortnite. That's how I see the future for these GAAS.

Edit: I just had a sad chuckle to myself about calling defense of live service games as 'GAAS lighting'

@kyleforrester87 If Suicide Squad is an Odyssey type live service that’d be cool and could fit well. (Hopefully minus RPG elements). Using nonsensical extremes makes it just as bad as the “hardcore type” you mentioned. It messes up the term and uses the wrong games to help the argument. Because of the extremes the article got lost in the trying to address what legitimate worries live service brings by saying “look: every game you play is live service” instead using a moderate live service like Odyssey to help show the potential and also going over what can go wrong and how to have a moderate head about the situation.
It failed to differentiate well enough help have a good discussion. It also didn’t talk about the different levels of live service and how a lighter form could be good for some as opposed to others.
There’s a good discussion to be had here, but this article didn’t do it if I’m being honest.

@SirAngry From my understanding with FIFA, Ultimate Team does not carry over between games, so as a result, people start over from scratch eveytime. So why would EA make a subscription service when not only are people more than willing to pay $60 a year for the game (you could argue this is a subscription fee), but the players start from scratch everytime with their UT experience? With a subscription service, whilst the revenue would be constant, I doubt it would be as much since no need to start UT from scratch.

@kyleforrester87 it’s rarely discussed because it’s blatantly obvious and a none issue for the majority of people. The vocal minority will get their knickers in a twist over “losing ownership” but most people don’t give a crap and would rather sacrifice certain things to gain others. Again, it comes down to a lack of willingness to accept change by the consumer as much as it is publishers and developers taking the piss with extortionate pricing and dodgy tactics. Somewhere in the middle is progress.

I feel like you are correct that people who care about ownership are in the minority, but that begs the question; what do people like me who disagree with the general direction that gaming is going do short of leaving gaming for good? Do we just shut up and accept it? Publishers would be jumping for joy at the logic. Progress is not a bad thing in of itself, but progress for the sake of progress is stupid. It is the same attitude of indifference which has led to practices like DLC and microtransactions and lootboxes becoming common.

As much as I like seeing others enjoy games, and as selfish as it is for me to say it; I feel like gaming becoming mainstream was the worse thing to happen to it. There are too many people who play games now because of how accessible it is, who do not care for the politics of gaming. Why would developers or companies listen to us, when they have a lot more people, who make up a much larger audience, who see gaming experiences as little more than disposable such as going to the cinema?

@kyleforrester87 I do feel like Liam got an awful lot of flak here which is a shame. Articles like this are still good, if for no other reason than the discussions that result. And I did enjoy the article even if I ultimately disagree with the content for the most part.

@MS7000 indeed, but if you look at their earnings from their EA Sports titles they are suffering reduced engagement. This requires them to sweat their remaining players more aggressively, which next time around reduces their player base, which requires them to... you get the picture. There's been talk about this for a few years now, and if the loot boxes start being taxed in the EU as gambling, and more importantly start being subject to gambling legislation their market dies. It's the old argument is it better to sell one apple for 10 gold coins or 10 apples for 2 gold coins each, sure your costs are higher in the second example, and in the first the profit margin is astronomical, but selling an apple for 10 gold coins is hard. A subscription model might bring more players in, and actually increase engagement over time, which might allow you to sell other content within the service that isn't so predatory. I don't know enough about how their internal metrics are looking now, my data is 3 years old, but last time I checked most sports franchises, MLB The Show being an exception, were having declining sales.

@kyleforrester87 I think any "dog pilling" was of his own making. Continuing to argue something without actually engaging with the points others had raised quite frankly was asking for it. Doesn't excuse some of the things said, but honestly to have a debate requires a to and fro and genuine exchange of ideas, constantly stating the same thing, asking questions of others while not addressing theirs is a recipe for being ripped apart. I certainly wouldn't have wanted him on my high school debate team. lol. However, personal insults aren't on.

@kyleforrester87 look, disagreeing with someone over one specific thing doesn't mean they're suddenly a mortal enemy. I'm a grown up, and just because I disagree with someone, and think they've made a complete and utter pills of something I don't think that means they should be crucified... publicly flogged maybe, but certainly not crucified. Joking by the way. Maybe it's because I live in a world where disagreements happen on an almost hour by hour basis, but you just have to get on with it I'm just not likely to permanently judge someone for things like this.

@kyleforrester87 you're right, it wouldn't really bother me if someone had a problem with me, or didn't like me. If I had caused offense and I could see why somebody took offense that would concern me, but I'd be man enough to apologise, the only thing that truly annoys me is when people misrepresent what I've said. People are absolutely free to disagree with me and think I'm an a-hole.

@Richnj wanted to come back and pick up on your comment around streaming services like Netflix and gaming, not necessarily to comment on GaaS, but to talk about why the way Netflix has gone has people in the industry worried about Game Pass and other similar services.

Netflix is part of a much broader sales ecosystem. When a film launches it goes to cinema first, then discrete release for individual purchase, via disc or digital, then it can be bought by TV channels to broadcast, and then streaming services like Netflix became another way to earn money on your investment. Netflix though has steadily started to move up that food chain, and caused revenues from films to drop.

Game Pass is seeking to cut out gamings other revenue streams entirely, and shunt new games directly streaming services for a stupidly small fee. Given current development paradigms that's not profitable (GP has lost MS over $2bn so far). It also forces developers to savagely cut upfront costs, and seek new ways to make money from games in other more predatory ways, this informs the design decisions within development, and will seriously restrict the type of games that become available.

Were GP to say be a service for mostly 2 to 3 year old games after they'd been able to sweat sales and draw out acceptable revenue I'd be banging the drum for it, as it'd be a good thing for the industry, and a great service for cash starved gamers, or just frugal gamers. As it is it might stand to destroy the games I want to make, and seemingly consumers want to play.

I don't pay monthly or yearly for anything and never will Well unless that is the only way but even then that might put me off gaming :-/ + Game pass will just go up and up in price once Microsoft have got everyone hooked on it :-/ So everyone will lose in the end(well everyone who likes Xbox anyway)

@Richnj Yeah not having ownership does certainly bug me because even in the case of TV, film, and music we have to use the caveat "more or less as they were" because, as we've seen recently, societal mores change which sometimes leads to the altering (or even the removal of) original works on streaming services. If you own your media, this doesn't matter.

Also I'm really not trying to open a can of worms about changing standards... I'm merely mulling over the difference between ownership and simply paying for access.

And for the record, I largely steered clear of piling on with more @LiamCroft bashing because I figured his argument, while obviously meant to be provocative, seemed largely in good faith. I still think his definition of GaaS was/is too broad but I do see his point about it being misunderstood, even if I think he's overselling it with that word "embraced."

I really only took issue with the (possibly misperceived) superior tone that @kyleforrester87 had toward those adamantly opposed to GaaS. Like it could end up being a really good thing or just the inevitable thing but it seems natural to question its merits.

And lol at GaaS lighting.

@kyleforrester87 Right, but I'm not even 40 yet, but have been able to enjoy movies and songs much older than me. The 'memory of the moment' means nothing to those who are either too young to have played, or those who just happened to be playing something else at the time. My "memory of the moment" for things like Jaws, Night of the Living Dead, and Bob Dylan were formed in the 90s, decades after their time.

This is how GAAS has no real future, and how GAAS service dictate to you when and how you should be gaming, rather than providing a timeless experience.