Support NeoGAF

[Obliterator]

Shit. Those sub-80 scores though. Can you blame publishers? If they can make a game that does stupid numbers and it doesn't matter what reviewers give the game? They've been trying to figure out a way to make money in spite of mediocre scores for years and this seems to be it.

Most gaming "media" are woefully out of touch with the mainstream gaming audience. Reviews for these types of games mean next to nothing because they cater to the small subset of gamers who are hardcore enthusiasts.

Ubisoft for example care a hell of a lot more what the big streamers are playing / saying about their games like SIEGE and Wildlands than they care what score some website gives them

 

[Nirolak]

Dishonored underperformed and Prey too, Next Arkane studio game will be a GAAS probably.

DOOM has multiplayer, Quake is multiplayer online, we have TESO and TES Legends, we still have Wolfenstein 2 and TEW2 and i hope they will do good

Yeah, they're definitely transitioning.

Even Bethesda Games Studio itself has both a new mobile game and a new online game coming, even if their other AAA project is singleplayer only (which it's not clear if it is).

It's just that Wolfenstein 2 and The Evil Within 2 started development ages ago before they made this decision.

I think people will be really surprised at some of the games coming out in the next couple of years. A lot of historic developers like Rocksteady, Bethesda, Square Enix, and the like are going to be putting out products that people wouldn't normally expect from them.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Originally Posted by VentureBeat

I asked NPD analyst Mat Piscatella how something like Agents of Mayhem could have such a rough launch, and he said that most consumers are looking for something else in their games.

“The top-selling games in the console market at the moment are primarily service based games that promise significant, or even unlimited, hours of gameplay,” Piscatella explained in a note to GamesBeat. “Single-player, non-service based games have to be nearly perfect in execution not only with the game itself, but also in the marketing and promotion around the game, to get to the top of the charts. It is a very difficult market for the $60 single-player game to hit the volumes in a launch month that service based games can reach, even if they have been in the market for some time.”

Surely this is true for MP service-based games though, right? Surely it's true for any game to get to the top of the charts?

Destiny, the Division, GR Wildlands, Overwatch, Destiny 2, Battlefield, COD etc all were hugely critical successes, as well as have seen their respectively companies put major marketing campaigns behind them.

For MP-focused commercial failures, look at Battleborn, Lawbreakers etc...

It's not as if publishers are just shitting out sub 65% scoring meta-critic GaaS MP games and selling 10-20m units. All the biggest commercially successful SP and MP games have also been critically successful as well as being marketed heavily.

 

[Nirolak]

Surely this is true for MP service-based games though, right? Surely it's true for any game to get to the top of the charts?

Destiny, the Division, GR Wildlands, Overwatch, Destiny 2, Battlefield, COD etc all were hugely critical successes, as well as have seen their respectively companies put major marketing campaigns behind them.

For MP-focused commercial failures, look at Battleborn, Lawbreakers etc...

It's not as if publishers are just shitting out sub 65% scoring meta-critic GaaS MP games and selling 10-20m units. All the biggest commercially successful SP and MP games have also been critically successful as well as being marketed heavily.

Getting in the 70s would put you in the bottom 1/3rd of $60 games released in a given year, so it's not actually a huge critical success unless we consider 90% of $60 video game releases to be huge critical successes.

There were actually only a grand total of seven $60 games released last year that reviewed worse than Ghost Recon Wildlands did, and most of those were still very close to the score. There were only two $60 games below 65 as well.

Mirror's Edge: Catalyst: 69
WWE 2K17: 69
Star Fox Zero: 69
Battleborn: 68
Mafia 3: 68
Star Ocean 5: 59
Homefront 2: 48

 

[Stygr]

Yeah, they're definitely transitioning.

Even Bethesda Games Studio itself has both a new mobile game and a new online game coming, even if their other AAA project is singleplayer only (which it's not clear if it is).

It's just that Wolfenstein 2 and The Evil Within 2 started development ages ago before they made this decision.

I think people will be really surprised at some of the games coming out in the next couple of years. A lot of historic developers like Rocksteady, Bethesda, Square Enix, and the like are going to be putting out products that people wouldn't normally expect from them.

Yup, IIRC People Can Fly has a partnership with SE for a multiplayer game, oh and let's forget about the Marvel Project, one game will be surely a GAAS.
Rockstar after 4 years of GTA Online profits will double dip with RDR Online, and even Eidos Montreal is doing a GAAS, maybe the Marvel Game?
Oh and Cybperunk2077 will have a "seamless multiplayer"

 

[Alebelly]

Also, the two bethesda games that have struggled, Dishonored 2 and Prey, were launched after Bethesda made anti-consumer changes to its review policy, in which it was decided they would no longer supply early review copies to critics. Both of these games would have benefitted greatly from a few days of positive buzz leading up to launch. I remember both launches feeling specifically muted because of this, and these are the only two Bethesda games to have launched under the new policy.

 

[gelf]

Welp good thing I still enjoy playing retro games then. I'll have more time to catch up on what I missed over the years if multiplayer service games are the future.

 

[Nirolak]

Also, the two bethesda games that have struggled, Dishonored 2 and Prey, were launched after Bethesda made anti-consumer changes to its review policy, in which it was decided they would no longer supply early review copies to critics. Both of these games would have benefitted greatly from a few days of positive buzz leading up to launch. I remember both launches feeling specifically muted because of this, and these are the only two Bethesda games to have launched under the new policy.

Doom also launched under this policy.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Getting in the 70s would put you in the bottom 1/3rd of $60 games released in a given year, so it's not actually a huge critical success unless we consider 90% of $60 video game releases to be huge critical successes.

There were actually only a grand total of seven $60 games released last year that reviewed worse than Ghost Recon Wildlands did, and most of those were still very close to the score. There were only two $60 games below 65 as well.

Mirror's Edge: Catalyst: 69
WWE 2K17: 69
Star Fox Zero: 69
Battleborn: 68
Mafia 3: 68
Star Ocean 5: 59
Homefront 2: 48

Yeah, you're right. I didn't realize those games I mentioned scored as badly in MC as they did... still, none were particularly bad games, rather you can argue were polarizing.

A MC score alone doesn't tell you the full story, as a game can score 65 in 10 reviews and achieve a MC of 65, and another have a wider range, ranging from perfect 100, down to 35s and still have the same MC score. I'd love to see a more comprehensive analysis of individual publication review scores against the top 20 MP focused and SP focused games.

I'd be willing to bet that the best selling MP GaaS games tend to score less in MC overall, but be more polarizing in scores, whilst SP games with similar aggregate scores tend to have a narrower deviation in review score range.

 

[BigEmil]

Big ambitious singleplayer games are likely actually far more expensive to produce than most MP games, specially "arena" based ones with a limited number of maps.
Internal alpha/ betas for mp are the big ticket items, but nowadays players are more than happy to do it for companies, even chomping at the bits to pay to access buggy early test phases.

Story writing, script, voice over (in multiple languages), motion capture, HQ asset creation forn stages that are non repetitve, etc.
It's compounded by the fact that you can't have a community (open) beta test your SP game, because then your storyline is out.

I just really hope that MP/ GaaS types won't eventually kill SP games (Witcher 3 and others have shown there's still plentybof money to be made), because as seen with ActiBlizzard and even moreso Valve, the appeal certainly is there.

Yep

 

[JamesHolden]

I'm a big GaaS fan; however, for those SP Gamers who don't support their preferred Genre by buying SP games at full price wtihin a couple weeks of release, even imperfect games, you reap what you sow. SP games have to have perfect execution and perfect marketing because if they don't immediately reach a critical mass of sales, they fail.

 

[Croatoan]

If AoM was a polished BR using saints row wackiness this would be a different thread .

Yeah, they're definitely transitioning.

Even Bethesda Games Studio itself has both a new mobile game and a new online game coming, even if their other AAA project is singleplayer only (which it's not clear if it is).

It's just that Wolfenstein 2 and The Evil Within 2 started development ages ago before they made this decision.

I think people will be really surprised at some of the games coming out in the next couple of years. A lot of historic developers like Rocksteady, Bethesda, Square Enix, and the like are going to be putting out products that people wouldn't normally expect from them.

If one of those is a coop "Skyrim" I will be happier than ever.

 

[Raptomex]

I gladly pay full price for $60 single player games. I'm not competitive and never really touch the multiplayer. My issue is any games (mainly SP games) that rely on an internet connection/server to be played at all. Then I see it as a potential waste of money.

 

[napata]

I hit the reply button because I disagree with OP quote... now if you don’t want people disagreeing with you lol

A lot of SP games with quality sold well this year... a lot of service like games with bad quality sold bad this year.

While devs try to sell bad quality games they will fail no matter if it is a service, SP, MP, etc.

The own example in the OP is a bad game that sold bad... it is not related to being a service or SP game.

And a lot of quality SP games didn't sell well at all while a lot of mediocre GAAS are the best selling games of the year.

Only 30% of the variance in sales is explained by quality. There's really nothing to agree or disagree with when it comes to statistics.

 

[charlequin]

Budgets are out of control and gamers are getting less for their $60 than ever before.

This is just such a hilariously inaccurate claim. In like 2009 it was common to ship 3-5 hour single-player games with no additional content, replayability, or extra modes for a full $60. Nowadays it's almost impossible to find something like that. Almost every $60 single-player game is an open-world game with hours upon hours of extra content in the main game, an enormous RPG too big for most players to even finish, an immersive sim with a large amount of non-linearity and replayability, and a limited number of extensive campaign shooters with 15+ hour playtimes and lots of extra content. Meanwhile, almost all multiplayer games have moved away from mandatory fee structures like sub fees or CoD's map packs towards loot and cosmetic microtransactions, thereby ensuring the game is well-supported for ages for anyone who wants to buy once only. It's basically impossible to buy a AAA game with as little value as stuff that was standard in the middle of last generation.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The GaaS model I feel is very dangerous to publishers. When people are locked into a model they are going to be more reluctant to purchase additional similar games. See: CliffyB.

I think single player games are going to be fine on PC and likely the Switch due to lower dev costs and less expectation of the prettiest graphics. Divinity 2 is selling great on PC and that is definitely an old school single player focused game.

 

[Leafhopper]

In my case, GAAS or not, I don't really buy 60 dollar games anymore. Most of it comes from a lot of 60 dollar games on what they do just don't do much for me that much.

I can name how many 60 dollar games I bought on one hand in the last 5 years.

Persona 4 Arena in 2012. I got a WiiU for Xmas of 2014 with Mario Kart 8 and Smash 4, only 2 physical games I ended up getting for it and the only games I paid 60 for and that's the last 2 60 dollar games I got.

DOOM 2016 would be one if I didn't get it for 20 dollars physically in Walmart in October. Overwatch I paid the 40 dollar version. Tekken 7 would be the most recent for sure if it was 60 dollars on PC for the base version but, it was 50. However that was still full price so that one can count.

30 and 40 dollars is kinda like the best for me as of late and a lot of good games also come out 20 dollars or below now a days but, those aren't big games usually.

Point of all this is I think more people are starting to get like me about this. It's not the fact that it's Single Player or not a game that's selling you a service, I just think people are tired of 60 dollar games as a price point in general. Especially now that people are starting to look at games "If they have multiplayer" or not.

As for Agents of Mayhem they kinda did a bad job telling people what that game was.

 

[HeroR]

I get your point, but I disagree. I realize it’s a thin line, but when I think of GAAS, I think of Division, Wildlands, Destiny, R6S, etc. Their updates continuously change the game world and it’s mechanics and often have “community” events. Witcher 3 / BotW just have static expansion content.

It is still GAAS since they're adding to the game after the release so you will come back and play it after you finished the 'main game'. Which is what GAAS is. Making you come back and spend more money and time.

 

[Aters]

Not even gonna lie, I think games like RE7 and The Last Guardian should not be priced $60 in the first place. If all you have to offer is a 10 hour campaign, you'd better cut the price down to $40 or something.

 

[HeroR]

I wouldn't worry about big budget single player games from Sony or Nintendo, Sony has had a lot of success with SP and not a lot of success with multiplayer/GaaS titles so they will probably stick with what works for them. Nintendo is obviously going to continue to produce SP content, as their most popular franchises fit that mold and the multiplayer spinoffs haven't performed nearly as well (they do a good job creating new Multiplayer IP though, like Splatoon and Arms). Indies and smaller publishers will serve the SP market also, as they usually have lower budgets and don't need astronomical sales to do well, plus they target the core audience who is more SP focused. If you are a big publisher like EA or Activision or Ubisoft, GaaS appears to be the way to go.

You mean besides the multiplayer Mario platform games: Mario Brothers Wii, Wii U, and 3D World? The only multiplayer spinoff that does so-so are the Zelda games. Even the 3D Mario games have multiplier since Galaxy.

 

[StrategyFan]

what do they call games with multiplayer that don't have microtransactions?

most of the truly great games launched that way. maybe some got an expansion pack after a year. i'll be sad if the industry doesn't even have a category for them

 

[Some Nobody]

Most gaming "media" are woefully out of touch with the mainstream gaming audience. Reviews for these types of games mean next to nothing because they cater to the small subset of gamers who are hardcore enthusiasts.

Ubisoft for example care a hell of a lot more what the big streamers are playing / saying about their games like SIEGE and Wildlands than they care what score some website gives them

I can't help but feel like this need to fight games media will eventually come back to haunt us. Like, most of the time journalists aren't going out of their way to give bad scores to get a rise out of you. It's like Angry Joe's Destiny 2 review--most people actually agreed with his criticisms, they just decided they were willing to overlook them and play the game anyway.

 

[HeroR]

You can't say Witcher 3 and BotW were successful because they were GAAS though, since they were both a success before they got any DLC. And I'm sure Agents of Mayhem would get DLC too (like the last Saints Row game) if only the sales warranted investing even more development budget into that.

True, but they still make more money then they would have originally since they have DLC to make you come back and keep playing. It's like Animal Crossing. Not a multiplayer game, but it is a GAAS.

 

[Nirolak]

The GaaS model I feel is very dangerous to publishers. When people are locked into a model they are going to be more reluctant to purchase additional similar games. See: CliffyB.

I think single player games are going to be fine on PC and likely the Switch due to lower dev costs and less expectation of the prettiest graphics. Divinity 2 is selling great on PC and that is definitely an old school single player focused game.

The opening pitch for this game on the Kickstarter, and the first marketing drops, was that it has four player co-op, and that said four player co-op works rather uniquely.

Co-op campaign based games (that play like regular games otherwise) have actually been heavily outperforming in the industry:
- Wildlands was 2017's best selling game until Destiny.
- Dying Light is around 8 million copies sold.
- As you just listed both Divinity: Original Sin and Divinity: Original Sin 2 are notable outperformers for their genre and expectations.

 

[Staf]

We did get Horizon this year. So it's not all doom and gloom fortunately.

 

[RyuKanSan]

So then technically FFXV would be considered a GaaS. Which if that's the case, I'm okay with that. Since my main genre is JRPGS, as long as the meat of the story and everything is there I believe thats fair. I also see this working for JRPGs in the long run, since I haven't really felt like I played a good long meaty jrpg since the ps2 days (never owned a handheld). It felt like once I was done with story, I had no desire to go back and replay it. So this would, for me, keep me engaged in playing the game for at least another year longer.

 

[Hari Seldon]

The opening pitch for this game on the Kickstarter, and the first marketing drops, was that it has four player co-op, and that said four player co-op works rather uniquely.

Co-op campaign based games (that play like regular games otherwise) have actually been heavily outperforming in the industry:
- Wildlands was 2017's best selling game until Destiny.
- Dying Light is around 8 million copies sold.
- As you just listed both Divinity: Original Sin and Divinity: Original Sin 2 are notable outperformers for their genre and expectations.

I like a good co-op game as well, but I think Divinity 2 is selling because people are spreading the word about how great the writing is. I could be wrong, but that is what got me to buy the game as I was pretty lukewarm on the first one. The co-op aspects of it are definitely interesting but I think they are a bonus to a game that would already be an excellent GOTY contender without it.

 

[NullPointer]

It is still GAAS since they're adding to the game after the release so you will come back and play it after you finished the 'main game'. Which is what GAAS is. Making you come back and spend more money and time.

If that's all it takes to be considered GaaS, sign me up. If I love my time with a game I'll be all over any DLC and updates that come afterwards. Though both Wildlands DLC and Doom's competitive multiplayer were huge misfires.

I do think that Rainbow Six Siege and For Honor would be enticing to a larger audience if they put some of the work they do on competitive multiplayer back into the single player and co-op aspects of the game, which those games just let wither and die.

Is it really that hard to add new situations and QoL updates for Terrorist Hunt in Rainbow Six? Or to make campaign levels for games like For Honor that you can replay by using one of the post-release characters? Guess my hope is that single player and co-op modes for these kinds of games include a more flexible design in the follow-ups.

 

[HeroR]

We did get Horizon this year. So it's not all doom and gloom fortunately.

It has DLC coming out, so it falls under GAAS.

 

[Nirolak]

I like a good co-op game as well, but I think Divinity 2 is selling because people are spreading the word about how great the writing is. I could be wrong, but that is what got me to buy the game as I was pretty lukewarm on the first one. The co-op aspects of it are definitely interesting but I think they are a bonus to a game that would already be an excellent GOTY contender without it.

The thing about games like this is usually not that there aren't people being sold on the writing, the singleplayer experience, or otherwise, but that they're hitting big with both singleplayer and co-op audiences, which is causing their sales to be much bigger than just hitting it off with singleplayer audiences.

Like there are a lot of people who really love Dying Light as a singleplayer experience, but also a ton who love it as a cooperative experience, which is what helped it to such large numbers compared to games that were just singleplayer, or less good games that were just co-op (like the original Dead Island).

It's actually a very strong direction for games that want to offer a more traditional campaign experience while also catering well to modern, more online centric audiences.

Since most games aren't based around setpieces where you climb up a bridge as it falls apart these days, it's also much easier to implement this kind of functionality in games. I'm quite suspicious both Dragon Age 4 and Cyberpunk 2070 will have it given the new job postings around the games.

 

[Koozek]

So then technically FFXV would be considered a GaaS. Which if that's the case, I'm okay with that. Since my main genre is JRPGS, as long as the meat of the story and everything is there I believe thats fair. I also see this working for JRPGs in the long run, since I haven't really felt like I played a good long meaty jrpg since the ps2 days (never owned a handheld). It felt like once I was done with story, I had no desire to go back and replay it. So this would, for me, keep me engaged in playing the game for at least another year longer.

SE does consider it one, yeah.

Yeah. SE actually does consider something like FFXV a GaaS with its monthly patches, regular timed events, free story patches in the coming months and well into 2018, free DLC (e.g. the Assassin's Creed cross-over collabo), Season Pass with content for a whole year after launch (and now they're planning even another year of support with a second Season Pass), an upcoming multiplayer DLC etc. Ultimately it's still singleplayer game, just with a constant stream of new content to further enjoy the game post-launch as a fan and it also helps sustaining retention and increasing the sales legs. People freaked out after the recent thread about SE's president saying that they'll be focusing more on GaaS in the future and thought this meant multiplayer-only FF with loot boxes and whatnot.

Regardless of how flawed FFXV is, I wouldn't have any problem with future FFs following the same strategy where there's constant new DLCs, free events, a separate multiplayer later on etc. If I enjoyed the game why not enjoy it even longer? Now, unfortunately FFXV also has the issue of still getting patches for its main story to fill narrative holes, but ideally FFXVI won't have that issue and everything post-launch will only supplement and not fix the main game.

 

[LukasTaves]

That's why I'm so interested in game pass. I dunno what Ms plans to do to drive the subscribers numbers up, but it has so much potential, I can't wait to see how it will play out having a AAA budget for a game without having to account for the risks of the game not selling well (as the budget comes from current subscribers).

Ms has potential to do something really special there, I hope they realize that.

 

[MatPiscatella]

That's why I'm so interested in game pass.

Me too. Thinking we may start seeing exponential growth in spending on subscription services soon.

Huge question is what does that impact in terms of the rest of the market (if it does).

An environment where subscription services are driving a significant share of spend will make things look much different than they do today.

 

[RyuKanSan]

SE does consider it one, yeah.

Regardless of how flawed FFXV is, I wouldn't have any problem with future FFs following the same strategy where there's constant new DLCs, free events, a separate multiplayer later on etc. If I enjoyed the game why not enjoy it even longer? Now, unfortunately FFXV also has the issue of still getting patches for its main story to fill narrative holes, but ideally FFXVI won't have that issue and everything post-launch will only supplement and not fix the main game.

Okay that makes sense. I agree and have no problem at all. I wish they would've taken this stragety in regards to the recent Star Ocean game. That series to me was already context heavy, but they seemed to be missing that in the last entry. I hope they make another one and use the GaaS method. Extra dungeons ala Cave of Trails part 2 and etc would've done that game some good.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I think people have to stop thinking GaaS mean MP or MP only .
Witcher 3 \ FFXV are a perfect eg of SP mostly GaaS games.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Then it would be a significantly different product

Hellblade at $30 launch says hi.

 

[Humdinger]

I wish Mat would stop reminding us of this. I'd rather remain in denial.

 

[8byte]

I wonder if there's a solution in building in service based elements into the SP experience. As an example, dungeons, side missions, or side games that developers can change and evolve over time without removing from the core gameplay / story experience? I know this starts to really border on digging into MP features, but I do think there's an opportunity to expand your single player content and experience without relying heavily on multiplayer, or straight content creation and DLC releases.

Obviously I don't have the answers, but I think it's somewhere out there, the opportunity that is.

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I wish Mat would stop reminding us of this. I'd rather remain in denial.

Horizon is a gaas game. Anything with updates and dlc is.

 

[george_us]

Look. I like Battle Chasers too, but if all SP games started to look like Battle Chasers I'd quit gaming. I like a variety--and that includes the big budget expensive titles like Horizon.

*Shrug* That's fine. AAA production values don't matter too much to me anymore. There's often so little substance behind them that I often wonder what's the point of dropping that much cash if you're not really going to do anything with it.

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

The GaaS model I feel is very dangerous to publishers. When people are locked into a model they are going to be more reluctant to purchase additional similar games. See: CliffyB.

I think single player games are going to be fine on PC and likely the Switch due to lower dev costs and less expectation of the prettiest graphics. Divinity 2 is selling great on PC and that is definitely an old school single player focused game.

I truly hope Divinity 2 spurs a ton of similar games. Crowdfunding sometimes gets criticized but it has lead to the development of quite a few games that I play quite often. My gaming diet would be much more bland. I wish Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo would be clever and find a way to persuade more gamers to crowdfund directly from their consoles.

 

[Vinsanity.]

It does seem that these single-player non-GAAS games get very VERY quick price drops the past couple of years. Usually down in the $20-30 range within months if not sooner.

And honestly, I know that, and don't mind waiting to buy it until then.

South Park, Wolfenstein 2? Yeah - I'll buy both of those in February for $29..

 

[LastGamer84]

This is just such a hilariously inaccurate claim. In like 2009 it was common to ship 3-5 hour single-player games with no additional content, replayability, or extra modes for a full $60.

And those games didn't sell all that well. Or at least I didn't buy them. Remember Fuse? Aliens Colonial Marines? No one else does.

Nowadays it's almost impossible to find something like that. Almost every $60 single-player game is an open-world game with hours upon hours of extra content in the main game, an enormous RPG too big for most players to even finish, an immersive sim with a large amount of non-linearity and replayability,

We had those last gen too, or did people forget about Skyrim, Borderlands, Mordor? The difference is they weren't riddled with microtransactions (Well except Borderlands dlc)

and a limited number of extensive campaign shooters with 15+ hour playtimes and lots of extra content. Meanwhile, almost all multiplayer games have moved away from mandatory fee structures like sub fees or CoD's map packs towards loot and cosmetic microtransactions, thereby ensuring the game is well-supported for ages for anyone who wants to buy once only. It's basically impossible to buy a AAA game with as little value as stuff that was standard in the middle of last generation.

Wrong, we still have the same shitty games as last gen, only this time they're sold to us for $60 with half the content, a season pass and loot crates.

Not to mention existing franchises getting gutted. One need only look at Deus Ex HR from last gen and Deus Ex MD from this generation as a comparison.

So yes you are getting less value for $60 in quite a few cases this gen. Look at Fallout 4 vs New Vegas too.

 

[Humdinger]

Horizon is a gaas game. Anything with updates and dlc is.

I know that's how the term is being broadly defined. It's not how I (or most, I venture) think of it. They don't think of an SP-only game with one DLC package as GaaS. They think of "Games as Service" as referring to ongoing service, service extended over time, not a one-off DLC pack.

I know the reply will be "that's just one form of GaaS." I know. But it's the form people equate with the term.

I understand that the strict definition of the term means that a $60 SP game with a single $2 DLC pack is "GaaS." I just don't think that's how most people use or understand the term.

 

[sotojuan]

If a single player only game getting DLC or updates months if not a year after release makes it a GaaS and thus not counting for successful SP games then "GaaS" is a meaningless term.

Most games will get some sort of DLC these days - I was just playing a 3DS single player game and you can buy sidequests for $3. Off the top of my head, Persona 5 is the only SP games I know from this year without story DLC. Well, you can download a new difficulty mode I think so I guess that's GaaS too.

 

[Tain]

Language in the OP talks about chart-topping.

What about the entire range between chart-topping and being a financial failure?

 

[Brat-Sampson]

What? Wait. So any game with sizable DLC is actually GAAS, but then surely, only successful games warrant DLC, ergo only successful games are GAAS *flip* Only GAAS can be successful...

If Horizon had sold peanuts it would apparently be a bad argument for this logic, but at the same time, I don't think anybody bought Horizon/Witcher 3 *because* there would be expansions down the line, surely...

 

[sotojuan]

Language in the OP talks about chart-topping.

What about the entire range between chart-topping and being a financial failure?

The point is that that range is becoming tinier every year.

 

[Forward]

GaaS can kiss my ass

Traditional wholesome gaming experiences for me, not this "Did you log on today to grind out a challenge for a chance to unlock a loot box for a chance to unlock exotic loot"

*Bro[netta]fist*

Right there with you.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

What? Wait. So any game with sizable DLC is actually GAAS, but then surely, only successful games warrant DLC, ergo only successful games are GAAS *flip* Only GAAS can be successful...

If Horizon had sold peanuts it would apparently be a bad argument for this logic, but at the same time, I don't think anybody bought Horizon/Witcher 3 *because* there would be expansions down the line, surely...

I don't think you can say that for Witcher 3 since people knew about the DLC early .
Not saying that is the reason they buy the game but it could only help if you are fan of the series.