Square Enix CEO Yosuke Matsuda clarified that the company looks at the Game as a Service or GaaS business model in a much broader sense than just microtransactions, which is the problem people usually focus on when thinking of GaaS.
Of course people are focused on the problems. The whole idea of GAAS is to have 'recurring revenue streams'. If they couldn't use it to make more money after the sale, they wouldn't bother with it.
And the things that aren't microtransactions, like season pass addons, often feel like they're content cut from the main game. There just isn't a great way to sell GaaS yet.
Having worked in QA for many years, sometimes on project that involved extra DLC content, I can say that every time I have been on one of those projects where there was DLC that it was started much later, separately, and well into the development cycle of the game.
there's a great way to sell GaaS. Actually make a robust world and game that is sustainable until you can release a DLC, Season Pass or Expansion. Unfortunately us gamers are constantly left with not enough content in this model. Enough compelling content in itself is a good start for any GaaS title.
That isn't true. Expansions for most games I've played--including games like Horizon, AC Origins, Far Cry 4 and The Witcher 3--have felt like legitimate extra content. Those games had more than enough content to justify their asking price.
Isn’t FInal Fantasy 14 a GaaS. I’d pay 15$ a month for a multiplayer game that’s constantly changing and adding stuff. But that shouldn’t be in any single player game. I feel a good DLC like in the Witcher or Horizon for example, that’s cohesive and isn’t necessary to get the fullest out of the main game is acceptable.
Witcher and Horizon has DLC done right. I can say with certain for example that Heart of stone and especially blood and wine would not make any sense playing them during the events of the main game.
$15 a month for a mp game just being supported post launch by the studio?
Most of them are attempting to act like its something like business or consumer software. So, I buy a program to run the finances of my company, well, let's say its either server based or say just runs locally on a PC. I then setup a monthly fee for services or upgrades to the software as I need to continuously have the software up to date to say interact with 3rd parties. The problem with this... is it doesn't pertain to most games, meaning there really is no reason to have to continuously upgrade them after release. What they are really doing is instead of raising the prices of the games, is withhold content and then release it as DLC. Most games don't even have dedicated servers, I mean when you have someone invade or co-op in your own world in Dark Souls, its running locally. With cloud services, keeping servers running is very cheap, and it gets cheaper everyday and even the small companies don't have to keep individual servers running any longer. If I am running a game locally on my own hardware (where it is being processed), there is very little I need from the company as far as services. Most of the "SERVICES" are basically just there because of some restriction they put in place to do what you normally could do i.e. internet connections. Unless they are doing streaming, there is limited reasons to have "services", generally speaking. Make a completed great game, release it, I buy it, then you move onto the next game you want to make. I don't need a service connected to my toaster... I put the bread in... push down the handles... few minutes later... MAGIC I HAVE TOAST.
And this is why people should be worried about the Marvel games
And what do we get in return for allowing GaaS? Better gameplay? No. The publishers use the same generic gameplay to slap on every yearly release. Better story? No. The good writers are all on the indie scene since many of them would not cave in to the pressure from publishers who know nothing about plot or script. Mod support? No. The only way you buy a different color for your armor is through them and them alone. Better online features? No. Pay 2 Win is now the name of the game. While once the loot boxes were cosmetic,now they will alter gameplay altogether as you can be given huge advantages by paying more and breaking the balance. Revival of classic IPs? Never. While publishers rake in millions from microtransactions,they will refuse to revive classic IPs which may actually do well but they dont see the franchise supporting loot boxes so they are left ignored once more.
Send this response to him its good
You get to play the games at cheaper prices. Dumb question. (Unless it's a monthly charge/mission charge on 1 game alone. )
That certainly wont happen. Battlefront 2 was 60USD at launch digital or retail. If they want to do loot boxes,make it free 2 play. The suckers can get Battlefront 2 lootboxes and pay for its servers while I play the Mp With six or seven maps free because other gamers will pay for me.
Seems we are talking about two different things
Yeah my mistake. I got confused.
Dude. I don't know why you act like a troll most of the time, when you're one of the best commenters on here when you want to be serious.
That's the cool part of being a troll, you play with the fanaticism of others. The difference between a troll and a fanboy is that the fanboy only sees the side of the company he wants to defend and becomes a victim frequently. He knows what he is doing.
Blah blah blah everybody is doing it and makin a ton of money so we want a piece of the action
Vote with your wallet, don't support microtransactions, loot boxes, etc
I'm very fan of Dragon Age Inquisition. I finished the games several years ago and always wanted to play the DLCs. But I never paid the price EA asked. Until one day they sold the complete game very cheaply. My wallet is more important.
The wallet votes of everyone in this thread are offset by the wallet vote of one sucker.
pathetic excuses. immoral as$holes.
How a company views it and how consumers view it are certainly going to be different. One is making more money while the other is spending more, so of course one is going to have a more positive view, aka "broader sense" of it.
If its cosmetic only thats fine but what EA did was wrong not the fact that they did it which is something EA clearly does not understand
They just need to cut loot boxes. That's the true evil. Direct cosmetic microtransactions (e.g. buying a certain outfit for X dollars) doesn't hurt anyone.
& EA can not grasps this concept
Or cosmetic lootboxes which can only be earned by playing through the game, with no monetary possibility to buy currency from the Store, and extras like 'characters' and 'cheat codes' only available as in game unlockables, just like it used to be with games that had such systems in place before all this madness.
lol Wow. We have a "only cosmetic is fine" guy here. Only cosmetic is there to create virtual segregation in the player base, be creating the "haves" and "have nots". All the best items will be pushed into the cash shop of course, and then everyone will see the cool items on everyone else and want them too. Really, it's basic psychology. Like... grade school play yard basic. No, cosmetic is not fine. The fact people are fine accepting this garbage in any form, is how we've gotten to this point.
I highly doubt people will wanna buy hats just because a player purchased a digital hat for their character lol. Cosmetic is the stuff most would not want
@DillyDilly Overwatch alone proves that your statement is wrong. People DO care about cosmetics, and it can be a huge part of a game. Cosmetic only in free to play like Fortnite? Go for it Cosmetics locked behind randomised loot boxes in a game I've already bought? How about no.
It not only EA... Activision is the same as many more
Oh look, SquareEnix management talks. SquareEnix management spews BS. Business as usual.
You're talking about creating a system in which a company continues receiving income after the initial purchase of what use to be a single purchase product. Of trusting a company's goodwill in the face of exploitative examples.
Pathetic for straight-up lying to your fanbase lol.
If he had said GaaS doesn't necessarily mean a game will have microtransactions, I would have listened. But no, looks like SE are hopping right on the always online and can't revisit in the future unpatched, pay extra for complete games, pay to win and less actual good games on release day. Ah well, all these publishers can get in the fucking sea.
if gamers were too focused battefront 2 wouldn't have sold 7 million and will end up selling 12-15 million so no you do whatever you want we as gamers will continue to take the abuse and not stand together against these bully practices
I feel sorry for those who put $$$ into Gaas only realize it gets shut down down line when the popularity moves on.
Don’t explain yourself lol. Don’t even bother with people that get triggered by the letters “gaas” and vilify words. Their mind is set in their ways and it only stirs them up. I get what he’s trying to say but he’s only feeding the troll. If the model makes sense as a business then just pursue it. Don’t make excuses and explanations to unreasonable people. They don’t want to hear it and it doesn’t do any good when you tell them how ignorant they are.
I don't hate the idea of games as a service. When done well it keeps me playing games I may have quit months or even years ago like Rainbow Six Siege, Smash bros, and recently Monster Hunter World. The problem lies with companies like Activision and EA where they exploit this model for the sake of more money and not giving two shits about the game. Ultimately it's up to the publishers and developers on if they want to make a healthy environment for players to keep playing or if they want to be greedy and screw over players in the name of a quick buck.
If games are a service then they are not goods. They don't belong to the players, but to the businesses who made them or sold you the services. When the services stop for any reason, so do the games. You don't hate that idea? I sure do.
Uh but that's the main selling point of GaaS
I don't feel that GaaS has any real place in console games. In subscription-based MMO's on PC, maybe. Those games constantly get ever-growing content updates for a very long time post-release, so it makes sense. But leave that sort of stuff out of most console games, limited DLC aside, and don't cut already-made content out for the sake of selling it off later. Trying to steer console gamers into accepting the entirety of GaaS-based ideas, is a road towards another gaming crash. We're focused on the problems BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE. The devs who only see "easy money" aren't willing to acknowledge that these problems are there and have to be dealt with first, so it falls to us, the consumer, to call them out on their bullcrap.
Reading between the lines it’s obvious this is a new model for attempted sustainability due to the rise in development costs.
Don't buy into that propaganda. These businesses are making money hand over fist. They just want to make even more. That's the nature of capitalism.
The only reason this is even a conversation is because the budget of games continues to increase and games aren't any more expensive to compensate. Easy solution with options: 1. Raise the prices of physical media by $10. Good way to assess the demand of physical over digital. Are enough people willing to pay more? If not, physical can die a natural death with the least amount of fuss. 2. Allow crowd funding for games that may not have much hope of turning a profit through the networks. One way to gauge interest and subsidies costs at least partly. 3. My personal favorite: STOP DUMPING YOUR STUDIO'S RESOURCES INTO AAA PROJECTS WITH INFLATED BUDGETS, INTENSE GRAPHICS, AND BIG NAME ACTORS. Scale back the visual fidelity, make sure it runs well, and don't make every game a high end graphics experience. Maybe after a few successful projects, you put out a massive budget title, but only once you have the financial padding for this to not be a crazy risk. Games can also be released much faster that way. I realise these solutions will always rub someone the wrong way, but we as gamers need to bite the bullet somewhere. Paid DLC kinda sucks, but games are still $60USD and costs are higher now while we seem to demand graphics and resolution and timely delivery. We can only demand so much before the industry becomes unsustainable (or you get something as drastic as GaaS). I say we tolerate the smaller grievances now before it becomes a bigger problem.
Personally, I feel we as gamers have been bitting the bullet awhile now. games are getting released broken, full price along with dlc's that are $30 plus and to make matters worse we now have microtransactions I will agree with you, when more pride is put into the service they are trying to provide.
I think that's a fair thing to say. Games releasing broken is probably the result of time constraints. Certain companies have more pressure than otters, I'm seeing. To a point, it shows. While there is certainly some developer greed at play, I do understand why it's tempting. Mostly because developers pour too much of their capital into a game and it unnecessarily inflates their budget. I think there just needs to be a mutual understanding. Mark a game up $10, but drop the cost of DLC. I sympathize with them because there's pressure to make these grand titles that push hardware, but it isn't always necessary. Maybe once in a while, sure. Rockstar is a bit of an exception because they release very few games but monetize it considerably for years on an enormous install base. They can afford those $500M budget games. The average developer doesn't really have that luxury. Some of my favorite games this generation look like budget titles next to games like The Order: 1886 and Quantum Break. I wish developers understood that they don't need to do that, but Japanese developers understand as much. Games like Persona 5 don't have elaborate cutscenes or graphics, yet it's phenomenal. Going even further, Gravity Rush has gibberish voice acting, but is wholly fun. It can be done if they're willing to make compromises.
The people have spoken Square either get with the program & adapt or suffer the consequences
You're right but that is if they compromise, because in these eyes profits seem easy if a great game is made. I think the last time I was wowed by games was probably 2005;nowadays some games are good most are pure garbage. Destiny is prime example I love that game and the potential for it to be something truly outstanding but both dev and publisher lack pride in the work that they do and its truly sad.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.