Is it impossible to review GaaS games?

HOUSEJoseph · Jul 10, 2018

TeenageFBI said:
It feels like there's a big subset of gamers that are mostly interested in obliterating their spare time with games akin to second jobs. An addictive loop is the most important bit. Many GaaS developers are happy to oblige and it results in incredibly high player review scores from this subset.

On the other hand, I'd say that most professional critics aren't interested in spending the rest of their life with a single game and they're kinda confused or repulsed by those log-in-once-a-day schemes + battle passes + premium currencies. They'd rather move on to the next game in their review pile.

So yeah, it feels like professional critics are incompatible with games as a service. I appreciate when a site like RPS puts out an article on whether or not a game has been improved with post-release patches. ..but they don't happen often enough for people hooked on these games. Sounds like an opportunity for a new kind of review site to me.

Maybe on some of these traditional websites, perhaps have people designated to GaaS when traditional reviewers need to move on and review new games. They could exclusively review GaaS games, or be tasked to re-review games originally reviewed by traditional reviewers.

Deleted member 896 · Jul 10, 2018

I honestly don't think press reviews are even important for a service game. And that's not meant to be a shot at the irrelevance of traditional outlets in as much as I think it's probably a waste of reviewers time. If something like a Warframe is on my radar at this point it's because of how word is spreading among players and I probably don't need a professional writer's opinion at this point. An IGN-type site can certainly re-review if they choose. But I'm less likely to read that than I am a launch review.

Amibguous Cad · Jul 10, 2018

It really is possible - TESO and Destiny effectively get re-reviewed every time there's a new major paid content drop.

For games that don't have content you can slap a SKU on, it's a little more difficult. But not by much. Outlets should dedicate themselves to ongoing coverage for such games, including a re-review process for games that are in demand. There's nothing stopping IGN from saying "hey, a ton of people are playing Warframe, let's check it out again." I don't know why more outlets aren't doing that.

justiceiro · Jul 10, 2018

The review system is outdated and stuck in a era were you can't update games, but now you can!

Dennis8K · Jul 10, 2018

GaaS?

0/10

Add some lootboxes and you got yourself the legendary -1/10 game.

Sampson · Jul 10, 2018

To me it feels like writing a review of a concert after the first two songs and printing it the next day.

SturokBGD · Jul 10, 2018

It's interesting to me that gaming reviews are really no different now than they were 40 years ago, despite changing technologies and business models.

floridaguy954 · Jul 11, 2018

Memento said:
No... they should be reviewed in the state they launch and receive a score that reflects that state

That is why I am not into it tbh... I want the whole experience at launch. People sure like them GaaS though so I am probably the minority

Also even though I believe some GaaS games get much better as time passes (like DriveClub for example), I dont think they should be re-reviewed. It settles a bad precedent imo.

I disagree.

GaaS have the opportunity to evolve using the data from real user feedback to mold a game into something people would want to play for years.

The old school way of reviewing a game shouldn't apply to software that changes over time. Re-reviewing a game makes sense in this Era of patchable games.

Ubiblu · Jul 11, 2018

GaaS should be re-reviewed on a regular basis following major content updates. We can all appreciate just how far some games have come since their original launch, and scores should be updated to reflect ongoing support.

Of course, it is reasonable to expect a score to deteriorate once the game is no longer in vogue and appears dated.

texhnolyze · Jul 11, 2018

A launch review with an updated review every year should be sufficient. Lots of them have 'Year 1', 'Year 2', and so on season passes, after all.

julian · Jul 11, 2018

I feel like reviewers need to rethink how they go about reviewing GaaS, MMOs, multiplayer, etc. Like the games themselves, the reviews should be living and updated/added onto regularly (weekly/monthly).

DorkyMohr · Jul 11, 2018

I think the developers are fine with the zeitgeist of their game being the result of a more direct relationship between them and their fanbase. The only problem constantly updating reviews of these types of games solves is placating people who view review scores as validation of their tastes. It really doesn't matter.

BoxManLocke · Jul 11, 2018

Sampson said:
To me it feels like writing a review of a concert after the first two songs and printing it the next day.

If the concert stops after the first two songs and you get a vague promise from the band saying "you'll be invited to the rest of the concert in the next weeks/months", yes, it's exactly like that.

More and more of those titles are just fine releasing with very little content, so it's only right they get panned by reviews that judge what you pay for at launch.

Remember · Jul 11, 2018

This was probably one of the reasons why giant bomb slowly moved away from traditional reviews and instead mainly do check-ins on games they have been playing over time, in addition to giving more complete review-like opinions when doing end of year rewards.

Right now the entire scoring system is in flux and not a single review team knows how to work around this issue in a smart way. Simply giving bad scores for a game still releasing content is a terrible way to go about things even if some here suggest it. We can't compare video games like other mediums 1:1 like this.

Black_Red · Jul 11, 2018

Memento said:
No... they should be reviewed in the state they launch and receive a score that reflects that state

That is why I am not into it tbh... I want the whole experience at launch. People sure like them GaaS though so I am probably the minority

Also even though I believe some GaaS games get much better as time passes (like DriveClub for example), I dont think they should be re-reviewed. It settles a bad precedent imo.

But that review is helpful to no one, since it doesnt reflect how the game play.

If you want reviewers to punish games launching in a incomplete state thats cool, but that review doesnt help the reader.

League of legends is a 7 years old game that launched with 17 champions and has 141 champions right now.
Also, it changed its graphic engine and looks like a different game right now:

I think they should update those reviews, but its probably too much work for little profit.

saenima · Jul 11, 2018

The problem with updated reviews is that they don't drive traffic. It's working for nothing. I think it was Austin Walker or Klepek thar said upwards of 90% of review clicks are in the first couple of days.

Chaos2Frozen · Jul 11, 2018

Is it worth wasting a reviewer's time to go back to every GaaS out there for an update when he or she could use that time to spend on newer games that people would want to know about?

Black_Red · Jul 11, 2018

Chaos2Frozen said:
Is it worth wasting a reviewer's time to go back to every GaaS out there for an update when he or she could use that time to spend on newer games that people would want to know about?

But reviewers also review DLC, and GaaS are way bigger than most games, I think if a cople of sites did that it could be useful.

Remember · Jul 11, 2018

Chaos2Frozen said:
Is it worth wasting a reviewer's time to go back to every GaaS out there for an update when he or she could use that time to spend on newer games that people would want to know about?

The problem is when an older game suddenly receives a boost of new players thanks to a new update or patch that revitalizes it.

newgamewhodis · Jul 11, 2018

Black_Red said:
But reviewers also review DLC, and GaaS are way bigger than most games, I think if a cople of sites did that it could be useful.

There are plenty of sites that revisit titles from time to time. You just have to seek it out. A quick Google of "warframe review 2018" or something can set you on track. Off the top of my head, RPS does a great job checking out titles during Early Access and then revisiting them later on.

cakely · Jul 11, 2018

Yep, obviously it's totally possible.

HOUSEJoseph · Jul 11, 2018

floridaguy954 said:
I disagree.

GaaS have the opportunity to evolve using the data from real user feedback to mold a game into something people would want to play for years.

The old school way of reviewing a game shouldn't apply to software that changes over time. Re-reviewing a game makes sense in this Era of patchable games.

That was something I forgot to mention initially. One reason why I think GaaS games improve over time is not just because of added content and depth, but because they use user feedback to make tweaks to the game to make it better. It truly is an amazing thing we are seeing, especially to us old timers.

Chaos2Frozen · Jul 11, 2018

Black_Red said:
But reviewers also review DLC, and GaaS are way bigger than most games, I think if a cople of sites did that it could be useful.

Remember said:
The problem is when an older game suddenly receives a boost of new players thanks to a new update or patch that revitalizes it.

Yeah but only if it's big new content for popular games.

The way I see it, reviewers are great for new content that people don't have public access to. But once the game comes out, if anyone is interested in an update months down the line they would have tons of content readily available for them to see themselves on YouTube.

Crossing Eden · Jul 11, 2018

May said:
Review, then periodically re-review maybe after a year or so. That's the fairest way to do it and very possible.

^

For example take a game like Warframe, it was a PS4 launch title, and it's gone through MASSIVE changes in design and scope since then.

Remember · Jul 11, 2018

Chaos2Frozen said:
Yeah but only if it's big new content for popular games.

The way I see it, reviewers are great for new content that people don't have public access to. But once the game comes out, if anyone is interested in an update months down the line they would have tons of content readily available for them to see themselves on YouTube.

The issue regarding this for certain games is having to go through videos to make sure you're looking at the right version. Both FFXIV and Elder Scrolls Online have improved greatly but a general viewer will notice that both of these games had bad first impressions, especially if the viewcount for the first impressions/reviews are higher than the newer content. It will turn them off from a potentially better game because they are watching version 1.0 footage and judging accordingly.

samred · Jul 11, 2018

Steve Youngblood said:
I honestly don't think press reviews are even important for a service game. And that's not meant to be a shot at the irrelevance of traditional outlets in as much as I think it's probably a waste of reviewers time.

I have erased and rewritten answers to this a few times. Which is usually a sign that I should write an article about a topic. That might happen. For now, I'll just point out that folks in my line of work think about this topic on a reeeeegular basis.

Vaibhav · Jul 11, 2018

Gamemakers should update each big update with no like 1.0 for initial release. Then 1.1, 1.2 etc and so forth. This way it would be easy to review individual build. Also would show how commited devs are towards the game.

Conkerkid11 · Jul 11, 2018

It helps if they dish out most updates like Path of Exile or Warframe does, where they do mostly major patches once in awhile that are given a title, and are basically free expansion packs. Typically these aren't reviewed like most DLC is though, which is weird, because critics review free games, and they review DLC, so why don't they review something like each of the seasonal updates for Path of Exile?

For the most part though, devs of these games shouldn't rely so much on eventually updating the game to the point where it's good. Day 1, the game should be good.

Musubi · Jul 11, 2018

I mean... its no different than reviewing MMO's and then coming back and reviewing them again for expansions.

Reviewing GaaS games when there is a big update or a major rework seems fair. They should reflect the current state of the game.

CountAntonio · Jul 11, 2018

Review them as is and mention the game is a service and will evolve then review it down the line if it warrants it.

Sampson · Jul 11, 2018

BoxManLocke said:
If the concert stops after the first two songs and you get a vague promise from the band saying "you'll be invited to the rest of the concert in the next weeks/months", yes, it's exactly like that.

More and more of those titles are just fine releasing with very little content, so it's only right they get panned by reviews that judge what you pay for at launch.

Sure, I'm just saying I don't really see much value in the concept of a review. Could write a tweet that says "little light on content" if that's the case. Especially because most GaaS games are moving to a free-to-play model.

The traditional review paradigm of a 500 word essay based on one person's experience playing the game for ~20ish hours seems woefully irrelevant. As others have said, you can better sense of the game just downloading it and trying it yourself for a bit, or watching streamers.

Adventureracing · Jul 11, 2018

I think reviews for both movies and games are entirely unreliable. In both mediums there seems to be a bandwagon effect that sees games/movies end up scoring much higher or potentially lower than they should.

That plus I just find there are very few reviewers who's opinions I value. With so much media from games being available prior to release and so many avenues to read genuine word of mouth (instead of supposedly objective reviewers) I just don't see the point of reviews at all anymore.

TheThreadsThatBindUs · Jul 11, 2018

If a GAAS game charges $60 upfront then it deserves to be reviewed in the state it's in at launch like any other game. Gamers spend their hard earned cash and want to get their money's worth, so a launch review gives them the best change at being able to do that.

If the GAAS game releases and is shit at launch, then the reviews should absolutely reflect that. That's the problem I have with most GAAS games, I.e. the paltry content offered at launch that isn't worth the initial asking price.

If you're making a GAAS game and plan on only delivering an incomplete portion of a game up front, to be expanded over time, then go F2P. As a gamer, I'm not spending full price only to be delivered half a game and then have to wait half a year and pay extra for the rest of it... *cough*Destiny*cough*... *cough*SFV*cough*

Tawpgun · Jul 11, 2018

May said:
Review, then periodically re-review maybe after a year or so. That's the fairest way to do it and very possible.

This tbh

You can dog on a game for being light on content but mention it is a GasS. Then re-review on major content updates.

Crossing Eden · Jul 11, 2018

TheThreadsThatBindUs said:
If a GAAS game charges $60 upfront then it deserves to be reviewed in the state it's in at launch like any other game. Gamers spend their hard earned cash and want to get their money's worth, so a launch review gives them the best change at being able to do that.

If the GAAS game releases and is shit at launch, then the reviews should absolutely reflect that. That's the problem I have with most GAAS games, I.e. the paltry content offered at launch that isn't worth the initial asking price.

If you're making a GAAS game and plan on only delivering an incomplete portion of a game up front, to be expanded over time, then go F2P. As a gamer, I'm not spending full price only to be delivered half a game and then have to wait half a year and pay extra for the rest of it... *cough*Destiny*cough*... *cough*SFV*cough*

Destiny absolutely was a full game, a 4-6 hr campaign, multiplayer, an open world, daily missions, strikes, etc., and SFV's SP portion was free and the base package came with 16 characters. Each season adds 6 characters.

Radishhead · Jul 11, 2018

Just review it at launch and at no other point in the future. GaaS should t be an excuse to launch an unfinished game and doing more than one review encourages publishers to screw over people who buy on launch.

TheThreadsThatBindUs · Jul 11, 2018

Crossing Eden said:
Destiny absolutely was a full game, a 4-6 hr campaign, multiplayer, an open world, daily missions, strikes, etc., and SFV's SP portion was free and the base package came with 16 characters. Each season adds 6 characters.

I'm sorry, I missed the irony in this post... was this a serious post?

Both games were widely criticised for their poor content offerings at launch. Nothing you listed suggests either games would be considered content-rich at launch. It doesn't matter if free content is released later on down the line, as in the context of this thread, reviews happen on launch day and that was the point of my post... games should be reviewed on the basis of the content they put out at launch.

isahn · Jul 11, 2018

As others have already suggested: a review of the launch game followed by "the status of" at year-1, year-2 etc should give to the consumers enough informations to make a proper buying decision.

jsnepo · Jul 11, 2018

Memento said:
No... they should be reviewed in the state they launch and receive a score that reflects that state

That is why I am not into it tbh... I want the whole experience at launch. People sure like them GaaS though so I am probably the minority

Also even though I believe some GaaS games get much better as time passes (like DriveClub for example), I dont think they should be re-reviewed. It settles a bad precedent imo.

This as long as the game is paid. If it is free then it should be reviewed not by the content but of the fun factor.

honest_ry · Jul 11, 2018

Dont see the problem.

Review the game as it was released. We have a right to know what a game is like at launch.

You can always re-review a game further down the line.

Crossing Eden · Jul 11, 2018

TheThreadsThatBindUs said:
I'm sorry, I missed the irony in this post... was this a serious post?

Both games were widely criticised for their poor content offerings at launch. Nothing you listed suggests either games would be considered content-rich at launch. It doesn't matter if free content is released later on down the line, as in the context of this thread, reviews happen on launch day and that was the point of my post... games should be reviewed on the basis of the content they put out at launch.

Destiny was criticized for the endgame more so than the content of the base package. And again, regardless of the endgame, it was absolutely a full game. "Full game" is such an arbitrary metric anyway as "full game" is always dependent on personal biases.

Deleted member 8593 · Jul 11, 2018

This is a problem with the review format and the way people consume them, not a problem with GaaS itself. It's a failure of gaming media and their audience to adapt and much of this can be attributed to childish tribalism.

Biw · Jul 11, 2018

Memento said:
Companies releasing unfinished games because "well it doesnt matter anyway because once we add more stuff they can re-review it".

Gotta reach that fiscal year release... just ship it and we add the stuff later. Sounds like a possible future if re-reviewing because a norm.

I don't think many companies are going to purposefully release a half baked game and gamble on the chance it's better received later.

In an industry as competitive as gaming, that's suicide.

Protome · Jul 11, 2018

Ideally reviewers would re-review games or update their reviews as big changes hit them. This isn't even something unique to GAAS games at this point.

The issue is there is rarely any money in doing that, unless a game takes off like Fortnite. Reviews get most of their reads at launch, not ages afterwards.

I'll also never understand the "review it at launch and never update it" opinion some people have in here. Reviews are buying aids and if they don't reflect the current state of the game then they are useless.

Jerykk · Jul 11, 2018

You review it at launch and then update your review (or re-review it) after a significant number of changes have been made. PC Gamer has already done that with several games. The launch review is relevant because that's what people will experience at launch. The launch review becomes less relevant over time and if the game changes enough to warrant a new review, then do a new review.

Hell, I'd argue that multiplayer reviews are pretty worthless in general because the experience is entirely dependent on your skill level and the level of your competition. Playing a game as a newb is usually a completely different experience than playing it as a vet. A review is really only good for telling you how many people are playing at launch and how technically stable the game is.

Ganransu · Jul 11, 2018

From a money-making standpoint, do re-reviewing old games generate as much traffic as the latest games on the market? What reason would a review site have for going back to a game they had already done instead of a new one?

May be if the score matters so much, publishers and developers could persuade review sites to go back to their game if they've done a major update? This is especially important if it's something like Warframe which went from a cool ninja shooter to an awesome ninja shooter, it deserves a new review since the game changed so much.

Also, I'm sure games like WoW sort of do this already, with the expansion reviews and such?

For those saying "unfinished game bla bla", well, take a look at Warframe, the game is completely different while keeping its name. It wasn't so much that the game was "unfinished", but it is updated to have an open-world, so shouldn't that deserve a second chance?

Patapuf · Jul 11, 2018

Amibguous Cad said:
It really is possible - TESO and Destiny effectively get re-reviewed every time there's a new major paid content drop.

For games that don't have content you can slap a SKU on, it's a little more difficult. But not by much. Outlets should dedicate themselves to ongoing coverage for such games, including a re-review process for games that are in demand. There's nothing stopping IGN from saying "hey, a ton of people are playing Warframe, let's check it out again." I don't know why more outlets aren't doing that.

Cost - a reviewer spending time re-reviewing games isn't reviewing new games.

audience interest - If people were interested in the 4th review for Warframe ect. publication would do them.

They are probably better served publishing articles about the update itself, like they generally do for popular MP games.

Chettlar · Jul 11, 2018

Impossible to review them in an equally outdated method like a magazine, but not on an equally transient platform, like a website.

Iztok · Jul 11, 2018

It's not really hard, either issue subsequent reviews when a new expansion arrives (or whatever the analogous terminology is for a particular game - Seasons, major patches), or insist that the initial release should be of high quality to begin with and stick with the 1 review.

TSM · Jul 11, 2018

I think the big assumption is that reviews are as relevant as they once were. I'd wager that for younger gamers twitch and youtube play a far larger role in informing them on games than any other source.

Is it impossible to review GaaS games?

User Requested Account Deletion

User requested ban

Amico fun conversationalist

Unshakable Resolve - Prophet of Truth

User requested account closure