GAAS is a boogie man term used for people that dont like multiplayer games and/or a company. NPD Mat considered anything that had updates post launch to be GAAS. Ex Witcher 3 was a GAAS.
-
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.
Xbox isn't so focused on games-as-a-service titles anymore, marketing boss Greenberg says
- Thread starter ivan.k
- Start date
There are loads of ways to play games that bring in less revenue than someone willing to spend $60 on a new copy. Rental, borrowing from friends, the used market, etc.
Subscription services are about getting as many or more people in the ecosystem spending MORE money along with the people who spend less.
You as an individual might have made them less money, but someone else kept a sub all year who wouldn't have spent $15 x 12 on EA games that year.
I think it would be a better statement to say this is the most diverse lineup on the Xbox we've seen in a long time which is true.
The term certainly gets misused, but the meaning is pretty clear in the industry. GaaS titles use online elements and micro-transactions to add content and extend their playtime and monetization on an ongoing basis. Games with one (or two) and done expansions aren't really considered GasS titles.
Well to an extent only a couple titles they have that are treated as services. God of war, horizon, days gone among others don't have that in their titles or focus on it as much.
Like uncharted 4 is considered one because of its online, and has a built in store. But isn't designed the same way gears 5 is to track everything and have milestone progression that builds towards currency like something gears 5 does.
But outside of uncharted 4, gt, mlb a lot of Sony's first party are just single player focused.
You honestly think that Microsoft, its development teams do not know what active players are? Or what the total player base is?
Take a break. You might be too invested in another company's product. With Game Pass, those numbers are doable, especially when you consider that State of Decay 2 was the best selling game according to NPD when it launched. If I remember correctly, that is a chart that tracks revenue, and SoD2 was not a full price game.
Make of that what you will. Personally, I really never try to second guess numbers revealed by a developer..........what could they possibly gain from manufacturing sales numbers, or engagement numbers?
I disagree. Netflix and such were able to implement a monthly subscription model because the traditional model in that space already had monthly subscriptions in place. Netflix just provided a better alternative. Now, Netflix pumps out an obscene amount of content to justify their monthly subscription and I don't think Microsoft, EA, or Ubisoft have that kind of output monthly to justify the price.
I don't think any of the publishers pump out enough quality content every month to justify the monthly subscription. If I take EA as an example, I have this subscription for the next 25 days and they have nothing of interest to me on there that I haven't already played. Even in Microsoft's case I have Game Pass subbed for 3 years (I didn't pay anything for this) and I don't find anything interesting that I didn't already play before.
I feel like big budget single-player games are more akin to blockbuster movies where there's usually only handful coming from each publisher in a year and putting them on a subscription model does not seem financially viable to me. I don't mind if they want to try though - since ultimately I end up paying significantly less than before.
The bolded is becoming less of an issue for publishers since the trend is that people are increasingly buying games online. If I was planning for the future, this would actually be the least of my concerns since it will pretty much resolve itself. I can somewhat see the idea that people signing up for big games might stick around for other stuff but honestly, that's a tough thing to accomplish.
Last edited:
There are two different numbers.
• Video claims to have 4m active players.
• 10 months later the article says 5m total players.
An active player is someone who logs once a month.
So yea, I think the video is incorrect, and it actually uses total players number.
You are really clutching at straws here. You either get the game through game pass or purchase. They are not giving these things for free.
Secondly, majority of game sales come within the first few months before they taper off, or even flat line. So why would any of this be surprising to you?
Lastly, I hope people like you have this same vigor when it comes to doubting numbers given by Epic (Fortnite), PUBG Corp (PUBG), EA (their numerous games), Sony, Nintendo. It is a waste of time because you could never prove your case......which is my entire point.
Technically any game that sells development after release in gaas
Can I just get the confirmation from you: you believe SoD2 had/has 4m active players?
Yes or no, very simple question.
Taking stuff Greenberg says at face value is not something i'd recommend. Obviously they'll say this because enthusiasts hate GAAS. The masses will keep pouring the money in with those games though. And with Gamepass, I think they have even more incentive to explore additional revenue streams.
I can only go by what the developer is saying. Same way I go with what any publisher or platform holder tells us their numbers are.
This is the same thing that is happening in the Sea of Thieves thread with people stating that there is no way millions are playing the game. And it is only a matter of time before people start doubting that Minecraft has sold over a million in Japan on the Switch.
It is a waste of time. You could not possibly substantiate your claim at any given degree which is what I have stated for some time. Neither could I if I ever had any doubts.
Microsoft tried to push the micro transactions hard at the beginning of this gen, but it's clear it wasn't going over well. This is another example of them being forced to change plans.
It's a beautiful thing when they don't provide any hard numbers. Leaves everything open to debate.
You ever seen a company that gives hard numbers? To the last single digit? In gaming?
Interesting. I cant wait to see what they have planned going forward.
Lol.
I think that it's at least theoretically possible this is true, since if you just extend the concept of the long-term service based revenue stream out to the platform level (with something like Game Pass Ultimate being effectively that) then you can just do whatever you want underneath that umbrella, ideally leading to a more diverse library, not only from third parties (which is allowed because the platform holder is effectively creating a baseline level of financial security for participating in the program) but also because first party games now just exist, in whatever form they take, to prop up the broader Games Pass service.
Of course, this is also an incredibly generous and optimistic take on how the service and Microsoft's approach to it could evolve, since they could just be outright lying and continue to both push the broader service on top of making the other game, itself, a service. But still, it could work that way if they wanted. It's a simplistic label but being a kind of Netflix-but-for-games does allow for more creative diversity.
Of course, this is also an incredibly generous and optimistic take on how the service and Microsoft's approach to it could evolve, since they could just be outright lying and continue to both push the broader service on top of making the other game, itself, a service. But still, it could work that way if they wanted. It's a simplistic label but being a kind of Netflix-but-for-games does allow for more creative diversity.
Last edited:
Then wouldn't it be considered a game as a service? They are continually providing updates and content no?
To be honest, I don't know the answer to that anymore. I'm sort of confused as to what is actually considered GaaS at this point as it seems pretty loosely defined.
But if we look at it simply from that point of view, at what point is a game not considered GaaS?
I wouldn't consider God of War a GaaS but that game has received updates no? It did get New Game+ post release I know that for sure. (I get you don't pay for these updates, they're free)
Is any game receiving post launch DLC considered a GaaS? I mean they got post launch content as well, so that'd cover a large majority of titles released across the board.
I always figured post launch support and DLC wasn't really considered GaaS, and that definition was more along the lines of titles that feature stuff like constant changes to main content, like Fortnite with the changes to the map and refreshes of the Battlepass etc. If it's simply updates and content, I feel like most games released in the last decade would fall under that category.
Last edited:
I don't think GaaS is a genre of game but a business model. Destiny 2, looter-shooter, AssCreed Odyssey, action-adventure. Both received numerous updates for awhile, in this case AssCreed has ended (maybe?) but D2 is still going.
So to think MS isn't looking at games they can continually make money from is a ridiculous statement to make.
So to think MS isn't looking at games they can continually make money from is a ridiculous statement to make.
All they're really saying is that they aren't focusing on it. They will still have some games that likely will have systems around GaaS, but will also have games that will not.
That's kind of the thing, people hate the concept but love gas like Witcher 3, GTA 5 or MK11, and nobody would complain if MS said those games inspire them. I think it's about balance. Gears 5 is a gas, which in my opinion improves many of its modes but, more importantly, has no impact in the campaign. And you compare that with, say, Uncharted 4, and the only reason one is seen as a gas and the other isn't is because of the importance of their mp components, because they both are gas and in both cases it doesn't affect the single player.
In my opinion, people exaggerate MS interest in gas and fail to see it in other producers, but it makes all the sense in the world that things like Halo and Forza would evolve in that direction, and the same happens with Gran Turismo or Little Big Planet but, for some reason, those don't count.
I very much disagree with you. You're clearly already a bargain hunter - there's nothing wrong with that, but it means the service isn't aimed at you (or you're not the primary target audience, at least). If you haven't played the game through 1 month of subscription, you'd have bought it in a sale later or something, point being, you wouldn't have paid 60 bucks anyway.
A lot of people do. Same as a lot of people don't really weigh the value proposition of a subscription on a monthly basis and just let it run even though they might actually use it only occasionally.
Can you list the games against these categories, cause I'm still not seeing it.
Phil Spencer and Matt Booty both said the exact same things. Game Pass itself is already the service, the games don't have to be. Having too many GAAS games on there defeats the purpose of having a subscription game service since it would be cheaper for the person to just buy that game if they want to have something to invest hundreds of hours into it.
Game Pass will be great for having focused games with a beginning, middle and end since the devs don't have to think about how to monetize their games, GP is already doing that. Having new content every month is more important than having games with super long tails and long term monetization implementations. That's not to say they won't ever have games like SoT, clearly they will, but those kinds of games don't need to be the focus.
Single Player - Ori, ReCore, Quantum Break etc
Multiplayer - Many of them
Co-Op - SoT, Gears of War
First Person Shooter - Halo etc
Third Person Shooter - Gears
Open World (with multiple different sub genres) - Forza Horizon, SoT, Wasteland 3
Circuit Racer - Forza
Open World Racer - Forza Horizon
RPG - The Outer Worlds
cRPG - Wasteland
2D Platformer - Ori
3D Platformer - Psychonauts 2, ReCore, Crackdown
RTS - Age of Empires
Simulation (Flight) - Flight Simulator
Survival - Grounded
Action Adventure - Lots
Narrative Storytelling - Hellblade, Tell Me Why
Minecraft lol
He forgot fighting games with KI. I didn't list everything obviously, just examples.
Game Pass will be great for having focused games with a beginning, middle and end since the devs don't have to think about how to monetize their games, GP is already doing that. Having new content every month is more important than having games with super long tails and long term monetization implementations. That's not to say they won't ever have games like SoT, clearly they will, but those kinds of games don't need to be the focus.
Single Player - Ori, ReCore, Quantum Break etc
Multiplayer - Many of them
Co-Op - SoT, Gears of War
First Person Shooter - Halo etc
Third Person Shooter - Gears
Open World (with multiple different sub genres) - Forza Horizon, SoT, Wasteland 3
Circuit Racer - Forza
Open World Racer - Forza Horizon
RPG - The Outer Worlds
cRPG - Wasteland
2D Platformer - Ori
3D Platformer - Psychonauts 2, ReCore, Crackdown
RTS - Age of Empires
Simulation (Flight) - Flight Simulator
Survival - Grounded
Action Adventure - Lots
Narrative Storytelling - Hellblade, Tell Me Why
Minecraft lol
He forgot fighting games with KI. I didn't list everything obviously, just examples.
Last edited:
I primarily play on PC and pretty much no one pays $60 for a game here. I would definitely have bought it from $40-$50 though.
You can maybe get a person to forget about canceling a gym membership because you have to call for it or go in person but something that I can cancel in a few clicks in my underwear? I would cancel it as soon as remembered I wasn't using it. People don't just like to let subscriptions run if they don't use it to some degree, you should know this especially on this site when we get one thread every 6 months complaining about how PSN auto charged for PS+.
Netflix is not a good comparator, as I mentioned Netflix throws an obscene amount of new content at their users which keeps them busy all the time. These game subscriptions don't have the same luxury.
Well, I guess we have to agree to disagree. Anecdotal evidence, but not only I let my subs run even though I don't use them often, because 20-30 dollars are really not an item in my monthly budget, but almost everyone in my social bubble does.
However, don't take my word for it - if the industry shifts towards this model, it means they did the math and they at least think it has a good shot at being sustainable.
Do you think they would've been acquired if they were more GaaS games?
Why would they want that? To compete with the other GaaS titles already out?
It's absolutely sustainable with GaaS games like Sea of Thieves or multiplayer games like GoW5 that have regular content updates. For single player games like God of War it's not really compatible with a subscription service. But as you said, it's just my personal opinion, we'll just have to wait and see.
What exactly is the identity of XBox Game Studios? I still think the 360 had the best "feel" to its library.
I watched that recent event, and nothing really gave me the impression of: Yup, that's an Xbox game.
Nintendo, Sony, and even Sega have their own identity. Some change a bit each generation more than others, but I digress. I'm looking forward to the future where we can look past Gears/Halo/Forza, and find new franchises. They tried a bit this gen, but no deal.
I watched that recent event, and nothing really gave me the impression of: Yup, that's an Xbox game.
Nintendo, Sony, and even Sega have their own identity. Some change a bit each generation more than others, but I digress. I'm looking forward to the future where we can look past Gears/Halo/Forza, and find new franchises. They tried a bit this gen, but no deal.
Problem wasn't GAAS. GAAS means ongoing support and updates. No complaints here about Forza Horizon 4 getting continued updates and excuses to play it. The problem in the past was lack of variety. Anyone who looks at these studios and says it's PR bullshit has an agenda. They are diverse and most specialized in single player.
Missing JRPG and Visual Novel, hope they will do it next gen.
Any "live service" title that is continuously updated with new content after launch is GAAS imo
Gears 5 and FH4 are GAAS, and I'm sure Gears 6, Halo Infinite, and the next Forza will be as well. Microsoft can produce both big GAAS games and other genres. Variety is good
Okay. I agree with this. I don't get why other people can't acknowledge that MS is making strides in diversifying their portfolio? They absolutely are doing so. Sony and Nintendo have great 1st party content. MS getting their act together is a good thing for gamers in general and shouldn't be perceived as a threat.
There really shouldn't be an 'identity' across their portfolio. Each game should carry the identity from each unique developer making the game. Trying to force everyone to be the same is where publishers have gone wrong in the past.
To me, it's what's most exciting about Xbox's future line-up, especially compared to the past. That it's so completely diverse that we've got games from Everwild to Flight Sim to AoE4 to Halo to Ori. All look completely different, in completely different genres.
I personally think they can't make their mind up. One minute it was GaaS and they only did that because they weren't producing many exclusives compared to their competitors. It was an easy fall back option to spout the latest trend, while cancelling and closing down games that weren't GaaS. Then they released crackdown 3 (lol) and sea of the thieves.
Now it's back to making normal/all kinds of games. This is part of them problem, no real direction from the start and an entire gen wasted playing catch up.
Now it's back to making normal/all kinds of games. This is part of them problem, no real direction from the start and an entire gen wasted playing catch up.
Why it need a direction? let the developers make whatever they want.
The thing that irritates me in this statement isn't the GaaS focus or lack thereof, as that's going to be borne out - or not - over time with game announcements. No, it's the "more in favour of letting developers do their own thing" after years of claiming that's what they've done all along. Clearly it wasn't true before, and so I can only assume it's still not true.
He never said the thing you're quoting to try to discredit his statement.