“Games as a Service: How the Industry could do it”
“Games as a Service” A phrase that if you pay attention to various video games news outlets (other than us) is something that you have heard more often recently. If you are not really sure what that means, a quick definition:
Games as a Services (GaaS)-represents providing video games or game content on a continuing revenue model, similar to software as a service. Games as a service are ways to monetize video games either after their initial sale, or to support a free-to-play model.
The model in some cases isn't a bad idea. Free games found in the Apple App Store or Google Play store need a way to earn something. After all, the people that have developed it need to be paid. The issue becomes when AAA publishers implement similar systems into games that come with a $60 price tag. I’m not totally against it being done. I rarely take part in the practice myself and for some, its necessary. Its the implementation that has caused discord between consumers and publishers.
I have a short list of suggestions on what games should and shouldn't follow this model:
Should: Sports Games
Lets be honest, NBA 2K15 isn't all that much different from 2K18 aside from aesthetics and a pseudo-open world. One of the biggest reasons why sports gamers buy the same title every year is because the real life sports leagues move around players in free agency or trades and might update team logos and after a point, the game stops updating rosters. Other than that, not much in the game engine changes. EA has actually hinted at considering this for their Madden and FIFA titles. Instead of just charging for a whole new game every year with little changes, they release one title and use a subscription service with regular and unlimited updates for members. The issue there is finding a suitable price that would be attractive for players and profitable for the companies. For those games that use a mode like FIFA Ultimate Team and other forms of micro transactions will have to be rebalanced or removed and added into monthly or yearly subscription models.
Shouldn’t: RPGs, FPSs, and other games as part of a single player franchise
Games like Horizon, The Last of Us, God of War, single player story driven experiences, shouldn’t be subscription based almost for the obvious reasons. Games with single-player experiences will either get finished in 2-3 weeks or a couple of months then either sold back or shelved so the value isn’t all there. Annual releases like Call of Duty, Battlefield or Assassin’s Creed also shouldn't be eligible because the settings of each game will change. In the case of CoD, the publishers are on a 3 studio rotation. Sure the CoD franchise has multiplayer aspects that could be placed in the “should” pile, but when November rolls around and that new title releases, the previous year’s player base tanks as fans look to “git gud” in the newest year’s multiplayer setting. Grand Theft Auto V makes a unique case for itself in that it should qualify in the “Shouldn’t” pile, but with the success of GTA Online, it has rolled into the should pile. GTA Online debuted in 2013/14 and is still strong going on 4 years later.
Should: Multiplayer only experiences (Overwatch, Warframe, Player Unknown’s Battlegrounds, etc)
Games like the ones listed above that only do multiplayer should fall under the GaaS model as well because sometimes a game will be hot for a while and then you gradually play it less and less. It’ s natural. As someone that is addicted to Overwatch, I still had a dry spell where I wasn’t playing it. Not that it got stale, but Destiny 2 came out and I was invested in that. Then when Overwatch League started and I was right back on the Mercy needle. Some games you just get an inkling for after a while. You can just hop back in and get your fill then you stop playing.
Here’s the problem with GaaS in today’s world: We have a subscription for a lot of things. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Nature Box, PS Vue, XBOX Live Gold, and the list goes on. Consumers can easily be fatigued with all these companies that want their $9.99 (or more) a month. All of those things plus usual bills and finances can be stretched thin. Then you don’t want your ability to play a game tied into being able to pay the monthly service fee. Doing some research on the popular World of Warcraft games, they use this system with content updates every few years and we wee how that game is still popular.
The model has its pros and cons and will have its fans and enemies. What the industry will have to do is make the offer attractive enough for expected player base without alienating them. Microtransactions also cannot be part of the system. A game under this model must have unhampered access to its full content. Loot boxes can still exist, but not purchaseable. Bring back that old school way of having locked content rewards. If there are only new engine improvements even 4 of 5 years, and people renew monthly or yearly, have things for them to earn. GaaS isn’t a terrible idea for gaming, it just cant be an industry standard.