Ironic that the very company who needs the money the least is the one who is most guilty of the cash grab.
-
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.
Xbox isn't so focused on games-as-a-service titles anymore, marketing boss Greenberg says
- Thread starter ivan.k
- Start date
Ironic that the very company who needs the money the least is the one who is most guilty of the cash grab.
Whenever the game has an ongoing live mp aspect it has some form of mtx. That's why even Sony added it to UC4. If you look at the few single player focused MS titles they didn't have mtx (Ori, Recore, Cuphead, etc.)
You look at some recent MS games:
• Gears 5
• Sea of Thieves
• Crackdown 3
• State of Decay 2
• Halo Wars 2
All unsuccessful as far as player popularity goes. There was never money to be made with service on these games because all of them sank out of top 20 most played within a month after release. It is hard to turn profit when just a couple % of the small userbase purchases anything.
It is a correct strategy to abandon the costly business model, but it also means that MS must not publish unfinished games which need massive bug fixes or content patches.
• Gears 5
• Sea of Thieves
• Crackdown 3
• State of Decay 2
• Halo Wars 2
All unsuccessful as far as player popularity goes. There was never money to be made with service on these games because all of them sank out of top 20 most played within a month after release. It is hard to turn profit when just a couple % of the small userbase purchases anything.
It is a correct strategy to abandon the costly business model, but it also means that MS must not publish unfinished games which need massive bug fixes or content patches.
You're conclusion doest represent reality of those games. SoT is undeniably a success, its Rare most successful IP, State of Decay and Gears 5 done huge player numbers, MS deem them to be a success too (see Phil's recent comments on Gears 5).
From the info and interview feedback we can assume Crackdown 3 flopped & im not sure on Halo Wars 2. Cant say.
* l.a. noire doubt meme *
Having more to offer through acquisitions, doesn't mean you're any less focused on GaaS. It just means you're finally able to offer more games that aren't Gaas aside to them. The Outer Wilds, Psychonauts 2 and Wasteland 3 are games that have been inherited so it's not like Microsoft has actively chosen to focus less on GaaS. MS is also still committed Early Access. Sooner or later due to the nature of Game Pass, the design of games will change to evolve around the service that is basically now what Xbox stands for.
Having more to offer through acquisitions, doesn't mean you're any less focused on GaaS. It just means you're finally able to offer more games that aren't Gaas aside to them. The Outer Wilds, Psychonauts 2 and Wasteland 3 are games that have been inherited so it's not like Microsoft has actively chosen to focus less on GaaS. MS is also still committed Early Access. Sooner or later due to the nature of Game Pass, the design of games will change to evolve around the service that is basically now what Xbox stands for.
Last edited:
It just seems like you taking offense to people calling gears a GaaS that doesn't make it less of a game. But most people are going to continue to call a game with a heavy mp focus and microtransactions that help pay for the continued release of content(a service) a GaaS. People are going to continue to call co-op focus games(that can be played solo), that's use microtransactions to help fund more content GaaS. People are going to call single player games that have microtransactions or Paid dlc that help fund more content a GaaS.
The main point I think people are trying to get across is that it's not as if MS greenlit those games. Since they were already in development, of course they were going to let their new studios see them through to completion.
My conclusion doesn't represent MS's PR statements, it is based on player charts.
I am looking at the player numbers on stats:
Most played games - Microsoft Store
Most played games – Shop these 49 items and explore Microsoft Store for great apps, games, laptops, PCs, and other devices.
www.microsoft.com
These popularity charts pierce through bullshit PR statements about how many people tried the game, and instead, lines up the reality of how popular MS games are relative to others. These "huge player numbers" did not translate into weekly players (the ones you monetize).
You say that but Ms could clearly have said no unless legally obligated to keep it going.
you want to talk with sense and not accept PR? weird stance :p.very good point though. all MS published games are out of top 30 most played which isnt really that great imo. however with new acquisitions maybe they can change that?
I'm really liking the sound of this, plus of what Spencer is saying recently (about Gamepass being an ideal place for single player games that are a limited experience with definite end).
About time the industry stopped chasing that GaaS goose, at least partially.
About time the industry stopped chasing that GaaS goose, at least partially.
The biggest question I have, is that why is there still so much mixed messaging inside of Xbox?
Matt Booty says they're done acquiring for now. Phil claims the opposite.
Matt Booty says they're still focused on GaaS over SP. Greenberg claims the opposite.
Makes you wonder what's going on.
Matt Booty says they're done acquiring for now. Phil claims the opposite.
Matt Booty says they're still focused on GaaS over SP. Greenberg claims the opposite.
Makes you wonder what's going on.
They haven't had mixed messaging, people have taken it in weird ways. Phil said they aren't done acquiring which is probably true, Booty said they have to focus on making games with their studios both of these statements can be true. Greenberg saying it's not their main focus and Booty saying games can have it, can also both be true. None of the statements are definitive, looking from the outside it would seem Phil is focused on the future and how Xbox performs and Booty is focused on the teams he has which makes sense.
Sure could've, but that would have torpedoed all the goodwill that acquiring those developers had built up with fans. They're smarter than that. And note, I'm not saying MS wouldn't have greenlit those games. If they give the OK to sequels and refrain from shoehorning GaaS stuff into those, then they'll absolutely deserve credit for that.
Amazing that you "pierce" through MS PR by citing info provided by MS. They've exposed a portion of their figures, this alone doesn't determine overall how successful these titles are. We know officially (Phil mentioned) user numbers is the metric they follow, Gears 5 was above 4. We know that SoT and SoD performed extremely well on GP (and in unit sales, backed up by NPD), we just found SoT is still enjoys by a healthy population (by Rare head Craig Duncan). If what you were saying was true they'd be treated like Crackdown or Anthem not continue to be praised by MS internally, and continue to receive significant investment and support.
Thats incorrect though (my objection to it), ie Witcher 3, Uncharted, AC Odyssey/Origins etc, when these games can be enjoyed offline.
Last edited:
Happy with that but yeah Greenberg. Makes sense though, you want subscribers and people only have so much time and money for multiple GaaS games. I'm all done for great game experience and there is room for good multiplayer experiences that aren't GaaS heavy, just great fun to play together.
I would say they are even more focused on it, just in a different way. The game is not the service in their model, Game Pass is the service.
People are seriously, unironically claiming that Gears 5, Forza Horizon 4 and Sea of Thieves aren't GAAS? Lol
All of those games have regular content updates and other mechanics to keep players coming back. They're GAAS, it doesn't make them worse games.
All of those games have regular content updates and other mechanics to keep players coming back. They're GAAS, it doesn't make them worse games.
Um, Minecraft, FH4, and Gears 5 are all in the top 30 when I click that link above.
What does unsuccessful mean here?
SoD2 - 4million plus active players as of Nov 2018
Sea of Thieves - 8.4 million lifetime players as of June 2019.
Gears 5 - 3 million (I think) within a week or two of launch.
CD3 and HW2 were the only 'unsuccessful' titles by any stretch of the word.
Xbox sees the numbers coming from Sony and Nintendo and realizes GaaS isn't a good long term model for EVERY game made. To many GaaS games die after launch while Nintendo and Don't have focused on smaller releases over the course of the year that have had higher returns.
Basically GaaS was a dumb idea to try to turn every game into. Which people have been saying for years now. Don't get it twisted though folks. Microsoft started this GaaS bullshit back with Ryse being a launch title.
Basically GaaS was a dumb idea to try to turn every game into. Which people have been saying for years now. Don't get it twisted though folks. Microsoft started this GaaS bullshit back with Ryse being a launch title.
Thwe w
True but buying them when they knew what they were making is just as much an indication that those are the games they wanting to focusing on.
Buying a Ferrari or buying a company that can build one means you like Ferrari's just as much as building one yourself.
I think my interpretation of GAAS would be much more limited than others. Namely that there is no single player campaign or that single players would feel short-changed by their experience.
So whilst one of my favourite single player games of recent years (Hitman) satisfies all the characteristics of an ongoing service game, I still don't think of it as the negatively perceived "GAAS".
True but buying them when they knew what they were making is just as much an indication that those are the games they wanting to focusing on.
Buying a Ferrari or buying a company that can build one means you like Ferrari's just as much as building one yourself.
I think my interpretation of GAAS would be much more limited than others. Namely that there is no single player campaign or that single players would feel short-changed by their experience.
So whilst one of my favourite single player games of recent years (Hitman) satisfies all the characteristics of an ongoing service game, I still don't think of it as the negatively perceived "GAAS".
They will both have more GAAS games and more no GAAS games netx gen than this one, because they will have more games, period.
Also, how many GAAS games can you and your audience support, anyway?
The big AAA games will keep.on being GAAS games for the most part (Gears, Halo, Forza, SoT etc), and they will have more AA in between them, which is of course good
Also, how many GAAS games can you and your audience support, anyway?
The big AAA games will keep.on being GAAS games for the most part (Gears, Halo, Forza, SoT etc), and they will have more AA in between them, which is of course good
I agree
Gears 5 was a massive critical and commercial success.
Sea of Thieves continues to have a huge player base
State of Decay, whilst not my cup of tea, also has a strong community and was strong enough for MS to buy the studio and there will be a SoD 3 along soon enough.
Halo Wars i think was too niche in a way. Too simplistic for PC players but not a massive console genre.
Crackdown 3 is just of of those you have to suck up every now and then but it still has it's fans. It's certainly a commercial failure though.
So 3 of those have been absolute successes from MSs perspective.
Sorry for contradicting PR statements, my bad. Carry on.
It means that the games never built the community large enough to sustain the service development. The lure of service games is that they remain profitable after launch from daily/weekly players. The people who play the game for two hours and disappear are not the service audience, they will not purchase skins or DLC when they aren't even halfway through the base content.
Plenty of games still deliver updates despite the failures to monetize, but there is no hidden source of revenue. If you have 10x smaller playerbase, you will sell 10x less content, yet the development costs remain. If your service games have little players, it becomes a money sink. You will lose additional resources to support the game that is unlikely to pay off. And if you axe the support, you piss off that small community and usually get the negative PR from gamers.
SoD2 never has, nor it will ever have 4m active players. I think it is either a total downloads, or your source is shabby.
Good. I hope we see more straightforward traditional games from them going forward, like Sony's done with God of War, Horizon, The Last of Us, etc. Focus more on making the games stand out and be stellar, and less on how you can nickel and dime people and keep them playing forever.
according to some only god of war is not gaas
which just shows that the gaas definition needs to be changed or we need to come up with a diff word to use
At the end of the day, if the games are still supported, I can pick it up on any day have new content and people still playing it... isn't that what matters?
I think it's funny when people say the OW and Wasteland 3 are not good example since they were games started development before acquisition but as soon as GaaS is brought people site Grounded and Bleeding edge as MS continuing there GaaS influence. All 4 of those games were started before acquisition so which is it?
Obviously they bought Double Fine to make a online only military shooter.
When the games you use to prove your words are games that was well into development before even being bought it's kind of a poor statement.