Topic: Can "games as a service" actually work?

I came across this old youtube video from DreamcastGuy about how he hates the 'games as a service' concept:
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MqhY3i7Jo0)

This made me realise that I actually disagreed and I think games as a service CAN work for single player games if it's done correctly, so I wanted to see what everyone else thinks. My model for this type of game would be as follows:

-Big open world RPG type games only.
-Game releases on day 1 with a fairly long complete main story (think Witcher 3/Red Dead2/Xenoblade).
-Several large expansion DLC are announced from day 1 and will take a year to develop each.
-These will continue based on the games popularity. So there might just be 1 or there might be like 5 of them.
-Each month they then release a special sidequest/event within the game to keep people engaged.

Benefits:
-It would allow them to continue to monetize very popular games over longer periods. Which is why they're so desperate to add multiplayer to things.
-It would also add a sense that you're playing in a living, breathing world with things like limited-time seasonal events for monthly updates. Like FFXV did with it's chocobo and assassin's festivals.
-It would do a good job of maintaining hype for the big DLC releases because more people would still be actively playing the game.

Downsides:
-It might incentivize more unfinished games.
-It would appeal much more to older working people because they take longer playing games anyway. The super-hardcore teenagers who finish Red Dead 2 in a week would probably not see the benefit of this model.

If games like The Witcher 3 had gone with this model, I think there's a good chance it would still be releasing content today. People loved that game so much. I've replayed it 3 times because it was so good. So I've effectively been playing it for 5 years anyway. They just didn't get monthly purchases out of me, when they could have.

I don't play games in any set pattern. I flit from game to game as I like, not dependent on completing them, or reaching a certain rank, and I pay them in my own time on my own terms. I might (have) buy a game and not get round to playing it for a long time (years).

I can't see myself ever subscribing to many, if any, individual games. Platform-wide subscriptions, if at a fairly inconsequential price, I'd possibly do, if the library was stable (not games going on and off the list all the time).

I'm basically building a backlog to last me as long as possible once/if the industry goes full subscription/streaming only.

@gcunit

It wouldn't necessarily have to be subscription based. They could do the monthly updates for free and then just charge for the big DLC.
Or charge pennies for the monthly updates.

Mate, go play World of Warcraft. No need to go suggesting single player games become corrupt as well!Jeez. Monetising games isn't a bloody benefit. It's not like I'm grateful for it lol.

@GrailUK

I don't like multiplayer gaming really. Except for local Nintendo multiplayer.

None of my friends like the games I like. Also I hate having to deal with realworld a**holes rather than well-written NPCs in a story game.

Can it work? Sure.

Is it something I’d want/like/appreciate? Nope. I loved Witcher 3 too, but have still never gone back to play the expansions despite buying them both at launch & it’s not the only game i’ve done that with - it’s rare I ever go back to a game at all unless replaying for a sequel etc, there are just too many things vying for my attention now games wise and I often hate having to relearn skills/controls/strategies for games I know I used to be good at.

Weirdly, if you’d asked me this 8-10 years ago and suggested it for Mass Effect/Dragon Age I’d have probably jumped at it as I didn’t feel like my favourite genres were quite as saturated with things I wanted to play (which meant I actually played games like Halo/Battlefield which I rarely even think about nowadays!).

@Dezzy Ye, I can relate to that

@BrainOfGrimlock Pretty much this. Great post. I am the same way. I rarely go back to games for DLC for that same exact reason. I hate trying to relearn everything when I have already played like five games since the last time I played said game. I make an exception very rarely, but BotW is one such exception just because of how much I adore the game.

So games as a service? Not really my thing. There are a few games I am sad to see end, but most of the time I am ready for something new after completing a game. I'm okay with them trying this out in a few games, but I would hate for it to become the norm. I'm already not a big fan of DLC, so I'm not sure I'd like this either.

I've found that nothing kills my motivation to play games faster than time limited events, or generally feeling forced to play at a certain pace. Splatfests are the only event I can deal with, but that's only because they don't have rewards I can't get otherwise.

I'm also not really a fan of relying on success to keep the game going. If I buy a game now, it doesn't matter if 500 or 5 million people bought it, no one can shut down the copy I already have as long as I have access to a working system.

My backlog will be enough for this lifetime. I mean, I didn't unwrap Bravely Second until a year after I bought it (still haven't gotten around to play), and some of my Switch game were spared this fate only because of the gold coins...

@Dezzy if you're talking constant dlc for large open world games, I'd totally pay for that. More dlc for botw would be amazing. Subscriptions on the other hand are awful, and I hope they leave gaming and never come back

Also, limited time events, while really fun and cool, drive me insane because I feel like I'm forced to play the game. Which isn't really good in keeping players in the long run

@MasterJay

Yep Breath of the Wild would've benefited from it. Same with Witcher 3, FFXV, Xenoblade 1/X/2.
Maybe even the Soulsborne games. They could have monthly bosses added.

@Manah

Depends how long you're given to play the limited time thingy. FFXV gave you like 6 months on both of its limited time events. If they're permanent, it doesn't give you that sense that it's a living world.

I prefer to buy a finished product. I don't mind and actually appreciate updates after the fact, and even paid DLC on the lines of what we got with Splatoon 2 and Xenoblade Chronicles 2. But I still want to buy the content. I don't like the idea of a subscription to a game that runs out. It is why I never got into World of Warcraft and other paid MMOs. I always go to this example: That physical copy of Mario 64 on my self is mine and it is still gonna be mine when I am 67 years old (Unless I break it or lose it or something, but that is still on me) But all those expansions you bought for WoW? Junk. Worthless and unplayable because presumably in 40 years WoW will long be dead. All you paid for was permission to play the game at that time.

it simply doesn't work (for me), because some day every gameplay gets old. there is not a single game that i play more than a year. probably not even that long. there will come a time where i have enough of a game and move to other things. there are of course games that i come back to every now and then, but the periods between these times are mostly very long; up to a few years

Subscription or all-digital means that I will stick solely to retro gaming (as in, games that I already own up until that point).

I was as big a Sims fan as one could possibly be. I bought all the expansions, every console/handheld version for every console/handheld in my possession, and I even owned two variants of the absolutely dreadful The Sims 2 on (pre-smartphone era) mobiles. I skipped the short-lived MMORPG The Sims Online due to the transient model of the game.

But EA's greed knew no bounds, and they completely abused my patience. I only brief played the base game of The Sims 3 on PC, but was immediately put off by all of the locked out icons for items that can only be purchased via the online Sims Store. My last Sims game was Pets on 3DS. With The Sims 4 games no longer being supplied on disc, that has well and truly p'ed away any temptation or inclination that I may have had to give the franchise another chance.

I'm still happy to play the first two games and all of their expansions, which I can still install and play, and both hold up remarkably well. I also loved the GBA Bustin' Out, and the GBA/DS versions of The Urbz, and the DS version of The Sims 2 (the rest were student-grade crap). I still miss The Sims franchise and what it used to be, but EA have destroyed it beyond recognition, and I doubt that it will ever recover.

this worked for PC gaming for years.
but no, companies just gotta wring people dry for those microtransaction dollars.

Really? You've never played a game for over a year before?

I have that quite a lot. Usually it has to be a game that I've replayed more than once. I played Witcher 3 three times in a row (and didn't even get round to finishing all the DLC).
I played Breath of the Wild twice in a row. I played FFXV twice in a row, with a third time coming when it's all finished.

It has worked for a while now, but every game can't be a service. MMOs can be services or "places" like a website.

Games which would work as a service (for me anyway) would be any multiplayer/yearly release title, so that's your FIFA's, NBA, WWE, Destiny etc.

Massive RPG esq titles like Elder Scrolls, Fallout and Witcher (as an example) could benefit from GaaS. Easily having new content added on a monthly/quarterly basis, but ideally they'd be better suited for expansion packs (all 3 of the above have had expansions to their base games (Skyrim had 3 expansions, Witcher had it's 2 expansions and Fallout 4 has had 2 big expansions and a few content packs).