Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

"The old model incentivizes decisions that aren't "in the best interest of players," says Joe Tung, who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale."

"I always felt like in the $60 boxed product model that I was having to make decisions that were not in the best interest of players," said Tung. "It was in the best interest of, how do we sell as many copies in the first 48 hours as we can? One of the huge strengths of the games as a service model is you can be long term, you can think long term in terms of what is best for the player, and how does that overlap with what is best for the company? I think it allows you to make much, much, much better decisions overall."

"I always felt like in the $60 boxed product model that I was having to make decisions that were not in the best interest of players," said Tung. "It was in the best interest of, how do we sell as many copies in the first 48 hours as we can? One of the huge strengths of the games as a service model is you can be long term, you can think long term in terms of what is best for the player, and how does that overlap with what is best for the company? I think it allows you to make much, much, much better decisions overall."

Former Halo and Destiny producer says live service model is 'much better for developers and players' than the '$60 boxed product model'

The old model incentivizes decisions that aren't "in the best interest of players," says Joe Tung, who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale.

www.pcgamer.com

I've been beating this drum for years now. The population has been conditioned to latch on to an unhealthy model because it's all they've known. Time for people to wake up.

 

[PauloRoberto]

I could agree with this guy... but two people talking sh&t arguments is too much, sorry.

 

[pqueue]

no.

 

[GHG]

 

[Portugeezer]

Well yeah, for his "MOBA inspired battle royal ®™©".

 

[intbal]

In my all time Top 100 Games list, "Live Service" doesn't show up a single time.

 

[Generic]

He's right, but no one is as good as Epic when it comes to GaaS.

 

[Varteras]

Guy trying to sell people on a live service game needs you to believe live service is what's best for you.

 

[CamHostage]

"I always felt like in the $60 boxed product model that I was having to make decisions that were not in the best interest of players," said Tung. "It was in the best interest of, how do we sell as many copies in the first 48 hours as we can?"

It's interesting where this does and doesn't apply. The idea that companies are still selling a new a Madden or WWE every year (to less and less interest every year) seems way out of date, but then in a thread about Rocket League we just had about wanting a sequel, the innovations on the product tend to be slim (for reasons that are or maybe are not necessary in the GAAS market.... and it's not like traditional boxed games have a great reputation of innovation either. ) Overwatch 2 and Counter Strike 2 are examples of publishers trying the sequel route, to very different levels of success. (Similarly, the new Skate has me thinking that we might still have versions of NBA Street or SSX today if the brands hadn't died in the sequel era, but then also, the new Skate has me worried about what decisions EA had taken to adapt the brand to the GaaS model...)

Overall, I think the GaaS model is good when done right for game types that should have long tails (particularly multiplayer), but the number of times it hasn't been done right makes gamers gushy to embrace it.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Joe Tung, who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale

 

[Tajaz2426]

It’s in my best interest to be piecemealed to death, grind or pay 10 dollars or more for unlocks, timesavers, digital goods with no value, replaying the same missions over and over for 100s of hours? Playing maps over and over again shooting the same things over and over again?

No, not that dumb yet. Wait a few more years

 

[Danjin44]

 

[Unknown Soldier]

I respect that games dependent entirely on optional spending (anything that's F2P with paid transactions) must always respect what the players want and will never go against what players want

There's a reason why there is no such thing as a 'Woke GaaS' because gamers in general reject wokeness and will not put up with forced wokeness in something they can choose to pay for or no

Just look at the fierce backlash of the Pokemon Go community over making everyone's trainer look fat in a recent woke patch for more information. As woke as Niantic are, they backtracked on that so very quickly when players threatened to stop spending money

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It’s in my best interest to be piecemealed to death

Which popular console or PC GAAS titles do you think do this?

 

[Hrk69]

 

[Laptop1991]

Another insincere salesman, trying to make more money again because that's all they care about now, and not the actual quality of the games.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

who made this thread?.... oh, I see.

 

[KXVXII9X]

"The old model incentivizes decisions that aren't "in the best interest of players," says Joe Tung, who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royal."

Of course they would back up and support the Live Service model.

I think something we all should be aware of is there is different kinds of gamers. No one approach is the ONE. I wish these developers would stop speaking for their audience.

If you want to do a Live Service game, do it right. I don't think the many cancelled Live Service games that people invested time and money into were for the player's benefit. Same with the ones who bait and Switch.

No Joe, you are thinking about what works best for YOU. Nothing you said relates anything to the overall experience and game design of the game. It was the regular "how can we extract the most money possible for the longest period of time" ordeal. NEXT.

 

[Spukc]

who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale."

 

[{insert code here}]

These folks want your money. They don't give two fucks what is, or isn't, good for you. Live service is a way for them to continually take your money in very small increments over extended periods of time. It's very insidious because nobody notices the 1, 2, 5, 10 payouts accruing over time.

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

" says Joe Tung, who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale."

 

[clarky]

"The old model incentivizes decisions that aren't "in the best interest of players," says Joe Tung, who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale."

"I always felt like in the $60 boxed product model that I was having to make decisions that were not in the best interest of players," said Tung. "It was in the best interest of, how do we sell as many copies in the first 48 hours as we can? One of the huge strengths of the games as a service model is you can be long term, you can think long term in terms of what is best for the player, and how does that overlap with what is best for the company? I think it allows you to make much, much, much better decisions overall."

"I always felt like in the $60 boxed product model that I was having to make decisions that were not in the best interest of players," said Tung. "It was in the best interest of, how do we sell as many copies in the first 48 hours as we can? One of the huge strengths of the games as a service model is you can be long term, you can think long term in terms of what is best for the player, and how does that overlap with what is best for the company? I think it allows you to make much, much, much better decisions overall."

Former Halo and Destiny producer says live service model is 'much better for developers and players' than the '$60 boxed product model'

The old model incentivizes decisions that aren't "in the best interest of players," says Joe Tung, who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale.

www.pcgamer.com

I've been beating this drum for years now. The population has been conditioned to latch on to an unhealthy model because it's all they've known. Time for people to wake up.

So good you made me read his bullshit twice.

 

[ZehDon]

It's better for devs because they're don't have to launch finished games, have entirely different monetisation models and sales expectations, and allow static codebases to generate revenue long after the initial upfront costs have been paid.

All of the above is worse for players, because they're now expected to "support" unfinished games through predatory and inflated monetisation models that are often duct tapped together on engines that should've been put down decades ago. Gameplay is secondary to engagement, enjoyment is secondary to purchase habits, and innovation is secondary to longevity.

GAAS is in vogue because it allows a developer to capture a disproportionate amount of revenue to their capital investment if it's a hit. That's it. That's all it is.

 

[Gojiira]

Surrrrrrrre so much better for customers right? Battlepasses non-stop,premium ‘currency’, updates centred solely on monetisation rather than actual content, paid ‘expansions’ and still the games feel shorter,less content rich than a normal full priced game. Man this guy can go suck something unpleasant

 

[Pejo]

I actually agree that it CAN be. Problem is that instead of creating a back and forth between devs and players that are on the same wavelength, it's always "how can we keep these monkeys from complaining while we siphon more and more money out of their wallets?"

Especially hilarious since this guy is ex Destiny who just went ham with microtransactions and anti-player practices in Destiny 2. My favorite being "locking content (that you already paid for) in the "vault" is actually a good thing!"

 

[kikkis]

I get that. In f2p you only pay money if you like that, but in retail release it makes sense to fabricate elaborate marketing campaign because once it's purchased, it's over. Ofc there is reviews and refunds but still.

 

[Moriarty1889]

But of course it is……..because he said so…….I don’t think so.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Guy trying to sell people on a live service game needs you to believe live service is what's best for you.

Wouldn't that go the other way round as well?

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Wouldn't that go the other way round as well?

 

[MrMephistoX]

The problem to me isn’t GaaS it’s adding GaaS and microtransactions to $70 games as the only option. More games should do a hybrid like Killer Instinct or Dead or Alive free base version with rotating content and pay to unlock optional content. Even Destiny would benefit from this and has kind of evolved that way since you can’t even play a lot of the base content that the game launched with.

 

[lh032]

Yo this thread is dumb.

 

[Sushi_Combo]

The gaming industry is in such a healthy state because of gaas.

 

[hyperbertha]

Not only did he not give a simple example of such a 'best decision', he had to repeat the same argument twice to look like he had anything with saying

 

[Fredrik]

I like when games are getting updated, no matter if it comes through Early Access, like No Rest for the Wicked, or from being said to be broken, like No Man’s Sky, Starfield, Cyberpunk 2077. Or through expansions.

It keeps pulling me back into a game I would’ve otherwise dropped in 2 weeks.

Not sure if this is Live Service though ??
Feels more like the devs are staying to repair the reputation. But I like how they add stuff that the community are asking for. No Man’s Sky is more or less perfect in how things are evolving.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

I like when games are getting updated, no matter if it comes through Early Access, like No Rest for the Wicked, or from being said to be broken, like No Man’s Sky, Starfield, Cyberpunk 2077. Or through expansions.

It keeps pulling me back into a game I would’ve otherwise dropped in 2 weeks.

Not sure if this is Live Service though ??
Feels more like the devs are staying to repair the reputation. But I like how they add stuff that the community are asking for. No Man’s Sky is more or less perfect in how things are evolving.

That's pretty much the definition of Live Service.
Although it's mostly used refering to online multiplayer.

I have absolutely no idea why people hate the concept. It's exactly as you describe.

NMS is a very good example, as it is almost unanimously regarded as the biggest comeback in gaming.
Which is due to it's Live Service nature.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Live service can be amazing when done right. The problem is it’s very rarely done right. It’s funny that he says the $60 box avenue is full of decisions not made in the players best interest, but in a vast majority of live service games, it seems every aspect is designed to be against the players best interest.

So live service gets a bad rap but it’s hard to argue it isn’t deserved when for every game that utilizes it well, there are ten that don’t. Also some genres are simpy way better thanks to live service. Im sure all the GT fans and Forza fans here love getting updates with new cars and tracks.

But even then, again, it gets pushed into genres where it doesn’t belong. See: Shadow of War.

who's now working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale

That idea is very intriguing. Now let’s see how it is sold and how much a skin costs.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

So live service gets a bad rap but it’s hard to argue it isn’t deserved when for every game that utilizes it well, there are ten that don’t.

Can you look at this list, and tell me which games aren't utilizing the Live Service aspect well?

Most played games - Microsoft Store

 

[Robb]

Only if the game turns out to be successful.

If the game bombs all we send up with is a game that has very little launch day content, promises of future content that will be scrapped and never releases, and servers that will close making the game unplayable.

 

[Codes 208]

Worked for fortnite i guess.

But not every mp game needs to copy fortnite

ESPECIALLY when its a half-assed attempt ala halo infinite

 

[Filben]

One of the huge strengths of the games as a service model is you can be long term, you can think long term in terms of what is best for the player, and how does that overlap with what is best for the company? I think it allows you to make much, much, much more money overall."

fixed.

No thanks. I'd rather have a complete product you can't just take offline and prevent me from playing once you think it earns a few millions short.

 

[StueyDuck]

Theres only a certain number of people playing games, meaning there can only be a certain number of "forever games" available before you start seeing diminishing returns.

If the positive is that all gamers get more of the game they love, well at what point does that stop being feasible. You can't have GAAS directed at 500 player base.

Developers and publishers need to make profit, I know these days with Sony and Phil Spencer it doesn't seem that way but without profit there is no games or no upkeep of these gaas.

So does that mean each game must end up being $500 to keep your forever games alive with just a few of you they are going to need to bring in money to support staff of mostly 200+ developers.

So that leaves us with two end goals, either a few forever games or many but they cost ludicrous amounts to play, enough to make you unable to play other forever games.

GaaS is much like socialism. It sounds great in theory but the more you think about it and apply it to everything the more you realise it just isn't a viable option.

 

[nowhat]

In related news, former Philip Morris executive says smoking is really cool and you should pick up the habit.

 

[Varteras]

Wouldn't that go the other way round as well?

I mean, show me a quote from someone else saying the same thing about non-live service games and I'll say the same thing. We're talking about what this guy in particular said. Sorry sweetie. This ain't the gotcha you and the OP think it is

 

[Killjoy-NL]

I mean, show me a quote from someone else saying the same thing about non-live service games and I'll say the same thing. We're talking about what this guy in particular said. Sorry sweetie. This ain't the gotcha you and the OP think it is

The logic applies all the same the other way round.

That wouldn't change just because I might not find a very specific quote.

At worst, it would be a matter of not putting much weight to the opinion of the anti-GaaS crowd because they prefer singleplayer/non-Gaas.

 

[Varteras]

The logic applies all the same the other way round.

That wouldn't change just because I might not find a very specific quote.

And my response doesn't change either. You thought you had a gotcha. You didn't. Move on.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

And my response doesn't change either. You thought you had a gotcha. You didn't. Move on.

It's not about a gotcha.

Your logic just goes both ways.

 

[VolticArchangel]

Random dev who was lucky to have worked on big projects before: "Man, I used to work on Halo and Destiny now I'm in a shitty ass moba battle royale project. Life sucks. I wish I can turn this around, gaslight customers into thinking fully priced games are bad for them, F2P GaaS is the best for them, we're the saviors of the games industry, grift them with PR bullshit and expect them to fall for it and eventually all the gambling lootboxes that we're going to implement from day 1."

Men_in_Boxes : "Say no more, my king."

 

[Varteras]

It's not about a gotcha.

Your logic goes both ways.

Yes it is.

And I'm telling you I don't care that it does. Because my response wasn't due to it being a GAAS game. It's about someone making a particular type of game being vocal about that type of game being best for you. In this case, it's a GAAS game. You didn't reveal anything.

 

[TheSHEEEP]

Tobacco producer says smoking is good for you.

 

[SHA]