• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
53,393
Gaas implies no upper limit. Aka, you can spend several thousand dollars and still not possess all the content.
No it doesn't. Literally just means a period of time where the title is supported, examples, WD2 and AC:Syndicate were considered internally to be GaaS despite only having a few months of active support after the initial release. Not every GaaS game is Overwatch. Different games require different approaches.

I just don't see it as that kind of thing.
Read above. Adding expansions, (as well as patches and free dlc), overtime, is a way to keep players involved with the title and to make more money from it after the initial purchase, (the amiibos which are literally designed to have players come back each day).

I've read through the thread and agree with most of your points. Although, I don't know if BoTW is really a service. Do we have a clear-cut definition as to what GaaS really entails?
Read above.
 

Loakum

Member
Oct 27, 2017
472
Here's Nintendo openly showing the audience what their live support plan for BOTW is:
screen-shot-2017-02-14-at-8-52-42-am.png


It's a service game. Support didn't stop after the purchase and day one patch but instead continued for months after release. That's what GaaS means.
Perfect example of a service game. The gamer wins by getting more story driven gameplay features, months after launch. The developer wins with higher profits for a game title. It's a win win because both the gamer and developer benefits. Thanx Eden.
 

impingu1984

Member
Oct 31, 2017
3,416
UK
GaaS delivered the best, more complete AC game to date.

So yes, you clearly haven't played AC Origins.

And shadow of war was a vapid experience with loot boxes injected into it that basically hampered the experience.

Just because assassin's creed origins was "good" doesn't mean or validate that GaaS is a good thing for players... Loot boxes etc have had a negative effect on many games single or multiplayer. Sure in some cases it could enrich the experience, but so far the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't make a game better and many players don't like it.

Overall Ubisoft want to do services instead of games cos it's better for them... Not necessarily better for the player, but they will try and spin it as better for the player as well.

I have no doubt that some people don't mind, but I do and one of those minority people that actually follows through... I don't buy the MTXs or games... Hell I don't buy Ubisoft games due to its past and current DRM bollocks..

Gaas will exist now.. I just don't want traditional SP games to disappear due to gaas...
 

Ferrs

Avenger
Oct 26, 2017
18,829
I've been playing since the Master System games and I don't understand the GaaS hate. Yeah some games fucked up the formula, but when done right it can be wonderful for some games. I actually liked some of them.

Extended DLCs too, if I like a game there's nothing better to see new content for it.
 

OrdinaryPrime

Self-requested ban
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
11,042
Having a preference for single player games is not dumb. It's just an opinion. Chill.

I agree with you, for what that's worth :).

It's interesting that people mention Origins since it's 'Service' elements can be completely ignored while playing through a hugely large world filled with quests everywhere.
 

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
53,393
Perfect example of a service game. The gamer wins by getting more story driven gameplay features, months after launch. The developer wins with higher profits for a game title. It's a win win because both the gamer and developer benefits. Thanx Eden.
Welcome.

Right, but as Raptomex said above, by this criteria every game with DLC is a service game. Again there's a major difference between BOTW and Destiny, or Ghost Recon.
Different genres require different methods of support but at the end of the day they're all service games. Every big pub in their own way, is getting in on it. And yes, that includes Nintendo. They didn't release free dlc for Zelda one month before the big Champion's Ballad dlc for shits and giggles.

It's not just dlc either, it's live support overall.

Not even trying to sound like an ass here, but I can't really think of an "ambitious" Western title in the past few years. Maybe Horizon?
This is lowkey incredibly disrespectful to not only the devs who work on the insanely expensive triple A titles each year, but also devs overall.
 
Last edited:

BernardoOne

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,289
And shadow of war was a vapid experience with loot boxes injected into it that basically hampered the experience.

Just because assassin's creed origins was "good" doesn't mean or validate that GaaS is a good thing for players... Loot boxes etc have had a negative effect on many games single or multiplayer. Sure in some cases it could enrich the experience, but so far the evidence seems to suggest that it doesn't make a game better and many players don't like it.

Overall Ubisoft want to do services instead of games cos it's better for them... Not necessarily better for the player, but they will try and spin it as better for the player as well.

I have no doubt that some people don't mind, but I do and one of those minority people that actually follows through... I don't buy the MTXs or games... Hell I don't buy Ubisoft games due to its past and current DRM bollocks..

Gaas will exist now.. I just don't want traditional SP games to disappear due to gaas...
I've played Shadow of War. Is a better game than Mordor, with better gameplay, more content, and the lootboxes don't actually matter shit on it or actually hamper anything.
 

Servbot24

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
43,155
It's the right thing to do in terms of business.

Thankfully indies will always be a thing. If there were no more traditional single player games I'd just quit gaming.
 

impingu1984

Member
Oct 31, 2017
3,416
UK
I've played Shadow of War. Is a better game than Mordor, with better gameplay, more content, and the lootboxes don't actually matter shit on it or actually hamper anything.
With regards to shadow of war.. I argue all day that adding the loot boxes didn't add a single worthwhile thing or make the game any better than not having loot boxes, other than giving WB an extra way to suck money from you...

At that point it's not worthwhile to the player.

I don't see have it's a good thing, it might not a bad thing if you don't care, so at best it's neutral at worst it's a bad thing, but in no way did it make the better.
 

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634
This is lowkey incredibly disrespectful to not only the devs who work on the insanely expensive triple A titles each year, but also games overall.

That is quite the blanket statement and is incredibly hyperbolic. Ambitious means more to me than standard sequels to yearly franchises, and usually falls outside the realm of commercial art, which most (if not all) AAA game development is. I genuinely cannot think of a major Western-developed title in the past few years that I would consider ambitious, but I would love to be proven wrong. I mentioned Horizon previously, but I'm sure there are more examples I'm missing?

As for "games overall", the best games in the past few years outside of Japan have been indie titles, many of which are far more ambitious than the amount of work that goes into multi-million dollar titles.
 

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
Dismissing an entire type of games with broad generalisations that don't take the actual games into measure isn't much of a criticism.

I'm really glad that you were here in order to defend the honor of games as a live service from the faux criticism hurled at them, by hurling insults at the monster that would do such a thing. So glad.


On a more adult note, plenty of people disagreed with my post and i had no problem whatsoever in respectfully engaging them. Your post, on the other hand, was insulting and contained absolutely nothing of value. You are free to keep salivating at the prospect of another turn on this silly excuse for a conversation but i am done with this exchange. Have a good day.
 

Birdo

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
826
Does this mean that you refrained from buying The Witcher 3? Because that game had continual live service updates, including game and story content, long before it announced its larger expansions.

Hell, even Horizon Zero Dawn is a live service game. It was praised for how GG continually implemented tweaks to the game, from UI improvements to a New Game Plus mode, well before its single expansion was released.
I thought The Witcher 3 was a terrible game and didn't like Horizon Zero Dawn, I did wait until this past November to purchase it though.
 

BernardoOne

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,289
With regards to shadow of war.. I argue all day that adding the loot boxes didn't add a single worthwhile thing or make the game any better than not having loot boxes, other than giving WB an extra way to suck money from you...

At that point it's not worthwhile to the player.

I don't see have it's a good thing, it might not a bad thing if you don't care, so at best it's neutral at worst it's a bad thing, but in no way did it make the better.
You don't have to spend a single cent on them, and in return they have made the live gameplay element Shadow Wars better with time.
 

Patapuf

Member
Oct 26, 2017
6,418
Players have made a choice:
nDgESfC.jpg


You can be an old man yelling at the cloud, but the market clearly prefers service and living games.

The narrative that has formed that GaaS is bad for games and that everyone hates them is one of the more baffling ones in recent years.

Consumers love GaaS. It's not just a thing publishers like.

I get having different preferences and all... but the numbers speak for themselves.
 

exodus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,951
Honestly, I prefer the move towards what Ubisoft consider live games versus the yearly iterations we were getting in the PS3/360 era. Origins is their best AC title to date. R6 Siege has been given time to grow and has developed a strong community. Their output seems to be highly engaging and not overly exploitative. Kudos to them.
 

brandonh83

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,409
Different genres require different methods of support but at the end of the day they're all service games. Every big pub in their own way, is getting in on it. And yes, that includes Nintendo. They didn't release free dlc for Zelda one month before the big Champion's Ballad dlc for shits and giggles.

I still don't think it matches the types of games that fall under the "games as a service" label. I think what you're arguing is an incredibly large generalization, but I don't think either of our minds will change so I'm cool with a "to each his own" scenario :p
 

legend166

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,113
It's basically - "Have you seen this profit figures? Can you see this revenue? Look at what these chumps are paying for? $5 for the chance to get some completely meaningless digital cosmetic item? We've convinced grown adults to give us billions of dollars to play virtual Barbie, of course we're going GaaS!"
 

Faithless

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,183
"DIGITAL EXTRA CONTENT REQUIRES MUCH LOWER LEVELS OF R&D AND MARKETING"

This sum up everything.
*sadness*
 
Oct 25, 2017
16,568
With regards to shadow of war.. I argue all day that adding the loot boxes didn't add a single worthwhile thing or make the game any better than not having loot boxes, other than giving WB an extra way to suck money from you...

At that point it's not worthwhile to the player.

I don't see have it's a good thing, it might not a bad thing if you don't care, so at best it's neutral at worst it's a bad thing, but in no way did it make the better.
It is worthwhile to the player. Based on the people who do spend money, which you're not pushed to, they continue to deliver updates and content.
 

Ringten

Member
Nov 15, 2017
6,195
Is that flaming horse actually 15 bucks??..
To be honest I don't see how all of this is different to dlc/ season pass. GaaS is just that but paying with micro transactions instead of normal currency
 

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
53,393
I still don't think it matches the types of games that fall under the "games as a service" label. I think what you're arguing is an incredibly large generalization, but I don't think either of our minds will change so I'm cool with a "to each his own" scenario :p
GaaS is a large umbrella, and there's many different types of games being released which if they adhere to that live support model need a different kind of support. So a title like Overwatch instead of getting large story expansions gets free costumes for the lootboxes. Aain, this is down to games in general having a larger amount of variety compared to the period where nearly every season pass involved MP maps.

"DIGITAL EXTRA CONTENT REQUIRES MUCH LOWER LEVELS OF R&D AND MARKETING"

This sum up everything.
*sadness*
Why would an expansion, (or any digital content), require as big a marketing campaign as the full game and/or development time equivalent to the creation of the game itself? And why are you sad about that? People keep trying to latch onto things without actually thinking about those things mean in the larger context.....
 

Jiraiya

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,295
That is quite the blanket statement and is incredibly hyperbolic. Ambitious means more to me than standard sequels to yearly franchises, and usually falls outside the realm of commercial art, which most (if not all) AAA game development is. I genuinely cannot think of a major Western-developed title in the past few years that I would consider ambitious, but I would love to be proven wrong. I mentioned Horizon previously, but I'm sure there are more examples I'm missing?

As for "games overall", the best games in the past few years outside of Japan have been indie titles, many of which are far more ambitious than the amount of work that goes into multi-million dollar titles.

No one can prove you wrong until you give your criteria for ambitious. I'm also positive your subjective opinion won't magically make your opinion true.
 

DerpHause

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,379
Perfect example of a service game. The gamer wins by getting more story driven gameplay features, months after launch. The developer wins with higher profits for a game title. It's a win win because both the gamer and developer benefits. Thanx Eden.

So confused as to where DLC end and GaaS begins. DLC, especially DLC that comes out significantly after launch seems to fall right into this category, but we've had that for quite a while. What is the line between the 2?
 

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
53,393
That is quite the blanket statement and is incredibly hyperbolic. Ambitious means more to me than standard sequels to yearly franchises, and usually falls outside the realm of commercial art, which most (if not all) AAA game development is. I genuinely cannot think of a major Western-developed title in the past few years that I would consider ambitious, but I would love to be proven wrong. I mentioned Horizon previously, but I'm sure there are more examples I'm missing?

As for "games overall", the best games in the past few years outside of Japan have been indie titles, many of which are far more ambitious than the amount of work that goes into multi-million dollar titles.
This is a good way of saying that no one should take you seriously considering that your specific criteria for ambitious doesn't at all matter. If you have to ask, "what titles have been ambitious in the past few years?" You're demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of how much work goes into any individual title, especially compared to last gen, and even more so in the triple A space.
 

Faithless

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,183
Why would an expansion, (or any digital content), require as big a marketing campaign as the full game and/or development time equivalent to the creation of the game itself? And why are you sad about that? People keep trying to latch onto things without actually thinking about those things mean in the larger context.....
I'm sad about this part: "MUCH LOWER LEVELS OF R&D"
No need to explain why this is sad, it's pretty obvious.
I don't care about marketing.
 

Wowfunhappy

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,102
But the whole point is that the game launches complete and DLC is extra content. Did you not buy Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild because they had updates after launch.

This way of thinking really makes no sense. You're getting more of the game, not less.

While you're right, given the context of this thread, I highly doubt the poster was referring to Mario Odyssey.
 

impingu1984

Member
Oct 31, 2017
3,416
UK
It is worthwhile to the player. Based on the people who do spend money, which you're not pushed to, they continue to deliver updates and content.

Spending money you otherwise didn't have to spend to get a similar experience you use to get isn't really what i would say is worthwhile.

Its great except that much of what was in the loot boxes in a traditional SP game in time gone by would be an unlockable, later a DLC. Point is the main reason for it to exist is more money for the publisher / dev. For less effort.. and in some cases a worse experience for the player...

Don't get me wrong. GaaS has a place in gaming and isn't gonna disappear.. I just don't want traditional SP to disappear because of it...

In general I think it's made certain games worse than they would be without imho.
 

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
53,393
While you're right, given the context of this thread, I highly doubt the poster was referring to Mario Odyssey.
That game applies to the context of this thread tho. We can go back and forth about which methods of post launch support we prefer but we can't really exclude devs from the equation because their game go against the "all GaaS are bad" boogeyman.
 

Deleted member 31133

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 5, 2017
4,155
It's the right thing to do in terms of business.

Thankfully indies will always be a thing. If there were no more traditional single player games I'd just quit gaming.

This. If GaaS is the future it's one that can leave me behind. Why can't we live in a future where GaaS and offline traditional single player games are both a thing. Why does it have to be one or the other.
 

4859

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,046
In the weak and the wounded
Damn, that PS3 slump!

That wasnt a slump, that was an investment.

That was the money they spent on raising production costs exponentially higer than a normal gen switch, while keeping game prices much lower than they should have been for the cost it took to make the games, a tactic known as predatory pricing designed to run competition out of business, so you can scoop up their market share, while simultaneously making entry barriers too high for new competitors to enter the scene and topple you with a new exciting game concept that hadnt been done before.

as they are spending way more than they are charging their profitability goes down.

As their competition starts to go out of business, and they gain their marketshare, it starts going back up.

At that point they can start finding ways to price supra competitively, or overcharge their market. In this case they are overcharging for the worthless shit that comes in a lootbox that cost basically nothing for them to put out.


The down and then up seen in that graph is a textbook predatory pricing campaign.
 

Faithless

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,183
Actually this is better for you. They can use that R&D money to make something you may like. Not everything is lining Yves Guillemot pockets.
This is not I was thinking about at all, I don't care about Yves Guillemot pockets.
I think less money in R&D department actually lower the chance to see something I may like since they rely more and more on micro-transactions instead of developing real interesting extra content (aka "BIG" DLCs/Addons like The Witcher 3 did)
 

PMS341

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt-account
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,634
This is a good way of saying that no one should take you seriously considering that your specific criteria for ambitious doesn't at all matter. If you have to ask, "what titles have been ambitious in the past few years?" You're demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of how much work goes into any individual title, especially compared to last gen, and even more so in the triple A space.

Manhours and crunch are not equivalent to ambition. Spending a long time on a game doesn't make it ambitious. Taking actual, non marketing related risks that aren't based on finances is a bit closer to my definition, I suppose.
 

Deleted member 888

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
14,361
I don't really care what devs call patching games and offering DLC, it is how they do it. Give your game a digital STD of heavy handed MTs and loot boxes and it's either not for me or on sale only.

My backlog is ridiculous and there will be more games than I can play in one lifetime.

That horse armor price is just sad Ubisoft.
 

4859

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,046
In the weak and the wounded
I don't really care what devs call patching games and offering DLC, it is how they do it. Give your game a digital STD of heavy handed MTs and loot boxes and it's either not for me or on sale only.

My backlog is ridiculous and there will be more games than I can play in one lifetime.

That horse armor price is just sad Ubisoft.

No, its sad that they have gotten the current generation to buy it without batting an eye. Its sad that they succeeded in normalizing that with their marketing.

Its sad that our successors could not pass the marshmallow test.
 
Oct 29, 2017
2,398
Here's Nintendo openly showing the audience what their live support plan for BOTW is:
screen-shot-2017-02-14-at-8-52-42-am.png


It's a service game. Support didn't stop after the purchase and day one patch but instead continued for months after release. That's what GaaS means.
No.

X As A Service has a very clear definition of a cloud computing service model, where people buy subscriptions (or continuous monetization) to access an online system. Without the subscription, the service ends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_a_service

Games As A Service is cloud gaming or subscription based gaming. WoW is GaaS. GamePass is GaaS. PUBG is GaaS. Zelda is NOT GaaS. This is why some of the games you might think are GaaS are not actually called GaaS but called "live games". You could make an argument that Zelda is a live game. I would still not agree with you. Warcraft II: The Tides of Darkness (1995) was not a live game even if it had an expansion pack and an upgraded version in the Dark Saga, much like Zelda got nine months after release. Live games have a commitment of continuous "User engagement", not a singular expansion pack. Splatoon 2 is a live game, it's not a GaaS game however.