"Games as Service"

From Crappy Games Wiki Uncensored
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Games as Services" is a term that refers to games that, according to big publishers, "offer long-term content and support to extend the longevity of games". In reality, this refers to big publishers' efforts to put more microtransactions and loot boxes into already full price games.

What this model entails

"Games as Services" involves including more content, DLC, expansions, and such to games that were already released so that players won't stop playing said games after they "beat it" because the games will continue getting more new content over the years. While on the surface this doesn't sound like a bad thing, in recent years publishers that adopt this model do so not to offer more content for the players, but to continue monetizing those games by making all the new content cost money, essentially charging money over and over with games that players already paid for.

This "model" also allows publishers to rush games and release them unfinished while still charging full price, then claim that the game will be fixed later under the excuse of "new content" when said new content is actually already existing content should've been in the game at launch in the first place but was intentionally removed so it can be sold as "expansion DLC". As a result, many of these games launch as bare-bones barely functional games that have close to zero content and what little content they have is boring and repetitive.

Big publishers will often use the "games need more additional monetization to support the additional content" excuse to keep implementing microtransactions and, even worse, loot boxes in full price games. Essentially, "games as services" allows publishers to put "free-to-play" mechanics on retail games, some of them have even become "pay to win" due to the over-reliance of micro-transactions.

Publishers pushing for more "games as services" also tend to push for less single player games in favor of more multi-player only games. This is because extra content, microtransactions, and pay-to-win mechanics are significantly harder to shove into story-based single player games. Electronic Arts in particular has become infamous for openly stating that "single player games have no place in the market anymore and multiplayer games as service is the future". These claims have led to massive amounts of backlash and other developers are now advertising single player content as a feature in their games.

The biggest flaw of the "games as services" model is that the model is supposed to make games last for many years, yet the publishers pushing for it keep releasing sequels for those games almost every year expecting players to abandon the current game for the new one, which completely defeats the whole purpose of "games as services". In fact, the continuous annualization of these games means that publishers expect players to start spending money on the new game all over again every year.

Thankfully, this model has largely proven to be a failure, as lots of multiplayer only games that followed the "Games as Service" model flopped very quickly. These multiplayer only games are completely reliant on having a big consistent player base, and in most cases, the player bases are very short lived because players quickly abandon them due to the games being shallow and lacking in content at launch, resulting in the games losing their player bases. By the time those games get more content and look more like finished products worth playing most of the player based would already have abandoned the game in favor of newer releases.

While AAA "service" games continue to make billions in microtransactions, the gaming community has become less and less forgiving with how shallow and microtransaction filled these games are. In fact, AAA "service" games are starting to flop as well while single player games continue to be successful.

An additional problem that has come to surface with service games is that the requirement to have the game constantly get new updates and content results in the developers suffering through crunching times so that the game can see that new content at a consistent rate. There have been many reports of service games where the developers faced severe crunching, in some cases causing mental and physical issues to those developers.

Examples

  1. Electronic Arts has become notorious for being one of the biggest supporters of "Games as Services", with them claiming that single player games are obsolete and pushing for more pay-to-win multiplayer only games. Their sports games, in particular, put more focus on online multiplayer and micro-transactions while putting less and less single player content every year.
    • Many "games as services" games (not only EA's) are multi-player only, and most of them lose their player base very quickly because players moved on the new multi-player only games that keep getting released constantly, leaving the older games "that were supposed to be supported for years" completely abandoned and unplayable.
    • They even tried to not abide by Belgium's gambling laws to continue pushing loot boxes, and are currently under criminal investigation as a result, in the end they gave up and removed it.
  2. Street Fighter V: Capcom released the game with less content than a demo and shamelessly admitted the game was unfinished and that they would fix it later. It was quickly found that a large amount of the "DLC" Capcom was charging money for was content already found within the disc's data, in other words, on-Disc DLC. This is a familiar trend with Capcom in general.
    • A year later, Capcom tried to do the same with Marvel VS Capcom: Infinite, but the game commercially failed before they could fully fix it.
  3. Destiny 2: Every new event keeps putting more and more focus on the Eververse, the game's loot box store. These events also introduce special loot boxes that can only be obtained for a limited amount of time while putting strict limits on how many of those the player can through regular gameplay, essentially forcing players to buy loot boxes in bulk whenever there's an event. This was changed for the game's second event and now event loot boxes can only be earned via gameplay and there is no limit to how many the player can earn.
  4. Star Wars Battlefront II: Everything in the game was built around loot boxes and the game was intended to be pay-to-win in every way. The backlash the game received for its abuse of loot boxes got so bad and widespread that governments are now writing anti-loot box laws and Disney forced EA to remove microtransactions from the game. All progression was eventually removed from loot boxes due to criticism.
  5. Metal Gear Survive: when the game came out, it was criticized for requiring a persistent internet connection, a multiplayer component that is tacked on, and a massive reliance of microtransactions. Konami even went so far as to lock basic features like additional save slots, weapon load outs, and storage upgrades behind a $5 - $10 paywall (3 save slots and 4 load out slots locked away for $10 each).
  6. Sea of Thieves: Although Rare knew full well that the game was shallow and lacked content, they decided to release it in the state it was in anyway, and still charge full price for it. The result was a game that only had 3 quest types, and a painful grind for cosmetic rewards that are ultimately superfluous since the game is played for a first-person perspective, with plans to add in microtransactions later. The game had roughly 2 million players in its first 48 hours across retail, digital, and Game Pass, but the player base was quickly halved since the majority of players stopped playing after the 14-day free trial for Xbox Game Pass expired.
  7. 2K Games: has been getting extremely greedy with their stance on microtransactions. They destroyed NBA 2K18 by designing the progression system around microtransactions by gimping core gameplay mechanics and making progression as slow as molasses. Apparently, NBA 2K19 follows the same model as its predecessor, only even worse than before. The company even tried to justify the inclusion of microtransaction by claiming they are "an unfortunate reality". This "reason" was heavily criticized by many people who pointed out lots of very successful single player games that did not rely on microtransactions. Worst of all, they tried to bribe some websites to hide the negative reception of NBA 2K18.
  8. Fallout 76: The game was released as an online multiplayer game, but it has the same bugs and glitches that Bethesda games are notorious for, along with some features like a story to pay attention and human NPCs are removed from the series. Even the attempt to add loot boxes in the game was made, also the patches of this game constantly create new problems or even unfix some issues that previous patch fixed.
  9. Activision is another major publisher that supports this model. They have filed for 2 patents that manipulate matchmaking systems by pairing novice players up with those that have bought a lot of in-game items with real money in order to prey on jealousy to encourage micro-transaction purchases. They have also started chasing trends as of late, such as ditching single player in favour of Battle Royale for Call of Duty: Black Ops 4. Activision has also started adding microtransactions to game post-launch, and shamelessly selling zero-effort items including aiming reticles!
  10. Anthem: Anthem was advertised to be a deep game with creative combat and deep meaningful narratives similar to previous BioWare games, but it released as a shallow looter shooter with very little content, repetitive missions, and a very lacklustre story. Many players noted that Anthem becomes boring and repetitive very quickly.

Reception from Gamers

Reception towards the "GaaS" model from the gaming community at large has been extremely negative. The biggest points of contention involve the over-emphasis on monetization, trend chasing, reliance on free-content updates, being released in an unfinished state, all despite already having a $60 entry fee. This is why the majority of "Games as a Service" titles have either slightly underperformed in terms of copies sold, or flopped entirely. Fallout 76 and Anthem are the two most recent examples of "GaaS" games that tried to use this model that have not only been poorly received by gamers and critics alike, but have woefully bombed commercially with only the most die-hard of fanboys buying, playing, or even defending them. Some gamers have gone so far as to [justifiably] outright boycott some of the biggest supporters of the "Games as a Service" model like EA and Activision, and instead choosing to support the ones who care about making games for the sake of the craft.

Publishers who support this business model have somewhere down the line become short-sighted, only thinking about short term gain rather than thinking in the long run, forgetting the importance of consumer goodwill and making quality games. Fortunately, the recent announcement that Horizon Zero Dawn had sold 10 million copies since its February 28th 2017 launch has proven that well crafted games made with passion and integrity, along with consumer goodwill do eventually lead to long-term success; in fact, it is just one of many games that prove this mentality to be true.