We see it most prevalently in games because the gaming industry is massive. But this can also happen to your car… Or your fridge…
Here’s a fun story:
There were these few blind people who volunteered to have cybernetic implants that would help them (partially) see. The company went under, the patent is held by a patent troll, but the people still have those implants in their head… Which have now either shut down or are malfunctioning…
Live service games have been failing constantly, so unless the change is happening already I don’t think they’re deterred. That perpetual revenue stream is some exec’s idea of a lottery ticket.
Same here. There’s been a few games I’ve seen on here recently that look interesting, even some “indie” titles, but as soon as I get to the Steam page and it lists online only, I’ve lost all interest.
It’s not going anywhere until people stop playing the games spending ridiculous amounts of money in them.
Fixed that for you. The problem isn’t the casual players, it’s the people spending $500+ worth of skins and battle passes on one game. Those are the reason GaaS are so successful.
If people play, it becomes popular, which attracts more players, which attracts spending. Even if you spend $0, you are still supporting the type of game it is by playing it.
Not to mention the GAAS titles which are competitive in nature. The whales thrive on having a mob of casual players they can crush with their P2W advantage. If the whales were only matched against other whales, they’d win less and play less.
There are a very small number of games where a changing world is a benefit to the game, although sometimes the approach also means skimping on some development before going live.
Helldivers 2 is an example of a game that benefits from the changing world approach of GaaS and it doesn’t have predatory monetization. Playing the game gives enough in game currency to buy optional equipment needed for the changing world even if you only play a few hours a week. Heck, play it more regularly and you can afford most of the thematic warbonds which again and not necessary. The changing world and adding more enemy units keeps the game fresh over time, and the evolving story is like playing a giant semi shared campaign. You play a small part in a shared experience. I don’t think doing the game as a single or coop campaign would have been a better experience.
That said, when they do end the ongoing campaign at some point it would be awesome to have some kind of automated system campaign for people to still do things. It wouldn’t be as focused, but it would extend the game’s life.
MultiVersus was hurt by trying to do SaaS because they added more predatory monetization after the beta where it was bad enough and tried to milk it for everything to the detriment of the gameplay. It is a great example of a game where the SaaS approach was terrible, and that is the case for the vast majority of SaaS games.
GaaS means you have ongoing expenses after launch in a way that normal games do not. The costs are higher, but they keep chasing the much larger reward that only a super small percentage will ever achieve.
It’s really gross how people’s games can just be disappeared these days. GaaS is a terrible business model.
It’s not just limited to games…
We see it most prevalently in games because the gaming industry is massive. But this can also happen to your car… Or your fridge…
Here’s a fun story:
There were these few blind people who volunteered to have cybernetic implants that would help them (partially) see. The company went under, the patent is held by a patent troll, but the people still have those implants in their head… Which have now either shut down or are malfunctioning…
Hack the planet, indeed.
It’s not going anywhere until people stop playing the games.
I’m not playing them as hard as I can.
Live service games have been failing constantly, so unless the change is happening already I don’t think they’re deterred. That perpetual revenue stream is some exec’s idea of a lottery ticket.
Same here. There’s been a few games I’ve seen on here recently that look interesting, even some “indie” titles, but as soon as I get to the Steam page and it lists online only, I’ve lost all interest.
Miss me with that bullshit.
Fixed that for you. The problem isn’t the casual players, it’s the people spending $500+ worth of skins and battle passes on one game. Those are the reason GaaS are so successful.
If people play, it becomes popular, which attracts more players, which attracts spending. Even if you spend $0, you are still supporting the type of game it is by playing it.
Not to mention the GAAS titles which are competitive in nature. The whales thrive on having a mob of casual players they can crush with their P2W advantage. If the whales were only matched against other whales, they’d win less and play less.
The catch is a free to play online gaming service isn’t a “game you own” in most cases.
There are a very small number of games where a changing world is a benefit to the game, although sometimes the approach also means skimping on some development before going live.
Helldivers 2 is an example of a game that benefits from the changing world approach of GaaS and it doesn’t have predatory monetization. Playing the game gives enough in game currency to buy optional equipment needed for the changing world even if you only play a few hours a week. Heck, play it more regularly and you can afford most of the thematic warbonds which again and not necessary. The changing world and adding more enemy units keeps the game fresh over time, and the evolving story is like playing a giant semi shared campaign. You play a small part in a shared experience. I don’t think doing the game as a single or coop campaign would have been a better experience.
That said, when they do end the ongoing campaign at some point it would be awesome to have some kind of automated system campaign for people to still do things. It wouldn’t be as focused, but it would extend the game’s life.
MultiVersus was hurt by trying to do SaaS because they added more predatory monetization after the beta where it was bad enough and tried to milk it for everything to the detriment of the gameplay. It is a great example of a game where the SaaS approach was terrible, and that is the case for the vast majority of SaaS games.
It’s going offline. You can still play it.
If you never owned it then it doesn’t matter.
It’s not my game. I only wanted to talk about what they did wrong. Kinda just doing armpit farts at the funeral, yanno?
Lol i like that phrasing. Yeah i hear ya
spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
The business model isn’t terrible, it makes money, but it is terrible for the consumer
If the business model were successful, then the GaaS model wouldnt be full of bloated corpses of failed projects
If you think that GaaS means that you have more failed projects, then look at how many normal games failed before launch.
GaaS means you have ongoing expenses after launch in a way that normal games do not. The costs are higher, but they keep chasing the much larger reward that only a super small percentage will ever achieve.
I am aggressively opposed to anything that is profitable at the expense of the consumer. That is a terrible business model.