Guilty_AI
Member
It needs a way of recurring player spending at minimum. Could be MTX, could be newer paid DLC periodically, could be subscription, etc.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Palworld has sold over 5 million copies in only 3 days | Momentum continues with latest sales figures reaching 86k units per hour
- Thread starter Thick Thighs Save Lives
- Start date
- Sales-Age Hype
Guilty_AI
Member
The anti-GAAS crowd hates online-only games and predatory monetization. This game has neither, so you can call it GAAS all you want (it isn't), people still won't hate on it for it.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
GAAS stands for Games as a Service. Look at how broad that is.
Your crazy rigid and narrow definition is the opposite. Your definition means games like Fortnite Battle Royale and PUBG weren't GAAS until they added their shops, which is absurd.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Everyone in here arguing whether or not this game is GaaS or not...? Pathetic.
Game doesn't require internet. It's the full experience. You can play the game from the beginning to the end. You could download it now, and still be playing it years into the eventual oncoming apocolypse. They could have (and probably should have) released a physical copy of the game that would be playable forever offline without downloading a big patch.
Game doesn't require internet. It's the full experience. You can play the game from the beginning to the end. You could download it now, and still be playing it years into the eventual oncoming apocolypse. They could have (and probably should have) released a physical copy of the game that would be playable forever offline without downloading a big patch.
Fabieter
Member
The same is true for the last few big assassin's creed games but I also would call them games as a services.
Guilty_AI
Member
MonHun is arguable, but unlike what you and
Men_in_Boxes
seem to believe, the "anti-gaas crowd" isn't nearly as worried about labels.MonHun doesn't enforce online play, which is the aspect people tend to hate the most in GAAS. The expansion comes with plenty of content too. What remains that you will see people complaining about is the MTX, but the game doesn't advertise the paid cosmetics inside the game so players tend to overlook this.
If you want to keep broadening the definition on your own to feel better go ahead. But right now it feels you're more worried about keeping some narrative alive than describing what is actually happening.
Here's the business model of this game:
>Release game costing X moneys.
>Player pays X moneys and plays the game forever with no strings attached.
No matter how much you want to call this GAAS, it completely negates your previous narratives on why GAAS would "dominate" in the first place.
This game isn't a social one, or only minimally social at least.
This game does not rely directly on player engagement to make money because-
This game will not generate further revenue beyond the initial purchase.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
MonHun is arguable, but unlike what you and
MonHun doesn't enforce online play, which is the aspect people tend to hate the most in GAAS. The expansion comes with plenty of content too. What remains that you will see people complaining about is the MTX, but the game doesn't advertise the paid cosmetics inside the game so players tend to overlook this.
If you want to keep broadening the definition on your own to feel better go ahead. But right now it feels you're more worried about keeping some narrative alive than describing what is actually happening.
Here's the business model of this game:
>Release game costing X moneys.
>Player pays X moneys and plays the game forever with no strings attached.
No matter how much you want to call this GAAS, it completely negates your previous narratives on why GAAS would "dominate" in the first place.
This game isn't a social one, or only minimally social at least.
This game does not rely directly on player engagement to make money because-
This game will not generate further revenue beyond the initial purchase.
GAAS means Games as a Service.
That is all.
Fabieter
Member
Then
Sp explain it to me because it certainly doesnt has to be online only to be gaas.
StreetsofBeige
Gold Member
The thing about GAAS, what are the actual requirements?
The old ass COD games would have $15 map packs released every 3 months for a year. Is that GAAS?
What about old PC sports games where you buy the game. But then there's additional player/season discs to buy every year for $20 (roster updates)? Is that GAAS?
The old ass COD games would have $15 map packs released every 3 months for a year. Is that GAAS?
What about old PC sports games where you buy the game. But then there's additional player/season discs to buy every year for $20 (roster updates)? Is that GAAS?
Guilty_AI
Member
Guilty_AI
Member
Honestly, i would 100% call those GAAS.
jshackles
Gentlemen, we can rebuild it. We have the capability to make the world's first enhanced store. Steam will be that store. Better than it was before.
GasS is "Games as a Service" - it's an offshoot of SaaS, which is "Software as a Service". It's not a genre, it's a pricing model (that has lately come to be synonmyous with certain types of games and predatory practices, hence the confusion here). The pricing model typically falls under the layman's phrase: if you stop paying for access, you lose access to the software/game. A game can be monitized using both a traditional and GaaS model, for example:
- Super Mario Bros. 3 for the NES was sold using the standard commercial software model - pay once, be given a copy of the game to play on your hardware for as long as you want. The developers make their money on the upfront sale.
- Super Mario Bros. 3 for the Nintendo Switch (Online) is the same game sold in the GaaS model. You pay for access to their subscription, which includes lots of other games, but if you stop paying then you lose access to that game. The developers make their money in perpetuity based on the number of people playing / number of people subscribed.
Obviously corporate greed wants things both ways, which is why we have things like Assassin's Creed and Diablo IV masqurading as GaaS - but they're not actually GaaS (well, unless in the case of Assassin's Creed you're playing it while subscribed to Ubisoft+ which is a GaaS service). Microtransactions, cash shops, season passes, DLC, etc. don't technically make a game GaaS as those are entirely different pricing models that aren't wholey incompatible with GaaS. For example, Assassin's Creed Valhalla is on Game Pass, and it also has a cash shop. Diablo IV is now owned by Microsoft and will probably be given the same treatment on Game Pass in the future.
This particular game is also sold traditionally as well as GaaS, just like the Mario 3 example above. Seems like most people are opting to buy it outright using the traditional model by handing the dev $30 and being given a copy of the game on Steam. Others are opting for the GaaS route, by playing it as part of their Game Pass subscription. But that doesn't make it "a GaaS game" for the people that bought it outright on Steam. If they fail to produce updates, then sure the hype might die down - but the game will still be accessible / playable in it's current condition and with it's current feature set. The developer could disappear overnight and never be heard from again, and I'd still be able to enjoy the game the same as I have been the last few days.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Actually, yes.
That is the way GAAS makes money. That is always what makes GAAS bad as it influences how the game is designed. Take that out and i have no complaints anymore, because that is literally the reason it is being opposed. The micro-transaction is the reason for all the other game systems being predatory.
Take any GAAS and take the real money shop out, and you no longer have a GAAS. At least, not one that can keep itself going.
Die Namek Ability
Member
For those of you saying its pokemon you're clueless, watch a video.
For those of you saying gamepass blah blah blah. It SOLD 4 million not rented 4 million. No one gives a fuk about gamepass on PC. Would rather pay to play on Steam
Its 30 bucks great deal and super fun and UNIQUE thats why its selling bananas.
For those of you saying gamepass blah blah blah. It SOLD 4 million not rented 4 million. No one gives a fuk about gamepass on PC. Would rather pay to play on Steam
Its 30 bucks great deal and super fun and UNIQUE thats why its selling bananas.
ChorizoPicozo
Member
isnt the game Early Access?
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
No. That's an illogical way of looking at it.
A service provides.
Charging customers isn't a service.
Serving customers content is a service.
GAAS is any game that provides players with new content, at a regular cadence, after the game is purchased or downloaded.
No Mans Sky is GAAS.
PUBG was GAAS before F2P and after.
World of Warcraft is GAAS.
It's the most important game type in the industry and will be well after we die.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
So basically my dayjob is a GAAS too?
We both know why you are saying this. We both know you are lying.
Everything that people have an issue with GAAS is how their monetization works, which leads to worse gaming experiences in order to get more money. As in it gives BAD service intentionally, to get you to pay more. Taking out the micro-payment, re-balance it for a one time purchase, and you get a game that we are happy with.
I don't care what you want to say, you go back to your micro-transaction hell and leave the rest of us out of it. We are not interested in joining you.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
You can keep saying that as the GAAS model continues to run roughshod over the old model, but we both know it's not true.
Competition has a way of finding the truth without using words.
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
Look at this popular new game!
...
We are angry!
-Neogaf (2024)
...
We are angry!
-Neogaf (2024)
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Well this game we are taking about, Palworld, is using the old model. So you decide if that makes you wrong or not.
March Climber
Member
It’s just
Men_in_Boxes
coming into the thread making a snap judgment mistake, doubling down on said mistake, and now changing the thread discussion to be about the semantics of said mistake.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
6.7 million dollars....crazy.
They will be rolling in it now. Probably only need to hire a few key members to keep the game going.
They will be rolling in it now. Probably only need to hire a few key members to keep the game going.
Same ol G
Member
It's supposed to be a pokemon killer so people act like somehow this surpassed pokemon and a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon.
Let's see if this game ever gets a sequel or how it's doing in a year.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
A pokemon killer?
Nah, not at all.
It's a survival game done well with pokemon looking monsters that hold guns.
You craft and build bases where rhe pokemons help you.
It's not a pokemon killer at all though.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
Good news is it has offline singleplayer, so even if no one play for a while it can still be enjoyed by others years from now.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Fuck it, flung the devs 23 bones on steam so they get more bank before the lawsuit comes.
Silly fun gameplay. Hats off to them.
Silly fun gameplay. Hats off to them.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Do you like survival games like rust or Ark?
If not, then no...you're not missing anything
Last edited:
Same ol G
Member
Unfortunately people keep comparing it to pokemon, that's why there is this misconception of what it actually is.
I wonder how many people bought this game thinking it was a pokemon alternative
March Climber
Member
None of this matters. It isn’t an online-only game. It already sold big numbers. They’ve already won.
Last edited:
systemr123
Member
No man’s sky says hello
Jibran#one
Member
It's on game pass and Xbox check
It's selling well check
Neogaf hating on it check
It's selling well check
Neogaf hating on it check
Same ol G
Member
Yeah happy for the devs but i don't see this game getting yearly iterations or something that's my point game seems like a one time thing
March Climber
Member
I don’t want them to try and ‘match’ Nintendo’s business model. All they need to do is port it and patch it. The potential here is for it to have a No Mans Sky/Minecraft length of life, not be abandoned a year later for a questionable quality sequel with a few changes.
DeltaPolarBear
Member
You mean a single player game that lied about what it is at launch, and had to spend money repairing its damaged reputation for free, is suppose to be GAAS?
If it was what it said it was at launch, there would not be a need to give away all the updates that were meant to be there to begin with. It is an early access title that pretended it wasn't. It is not a Damn 'service' to deliver your promises.
systemr123
Member
Yes that's' exactly what I mean. It was shit at launch, then redeemed itself, and from there on out it became a GAAS game that's still going strong today. It doesn't matter if it launched completely broken or not. Game was fixed and delivered on promises already many yeaaarrrssss ago. Also, they don't have to give any updates for free, you're not entitled to that, but they do it anyway.
Last edited:
systemr123
Member
Hitting the hammer on the nail or however you say that. I tried the game, it's not for me. However, I can see why it's very very popular right now and I wish the best to the devs. It's a pretty great game, runs like shit on xbox though. The constant negativity of people not just on this forum, but in general is baffling to me. Instead of a world where we look forward to nice things, it seems peoples only goal nowadays is to shit on everything to make their own crappy lives feel better and perhaps, relevant.
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
Gaas, to me means a game you pay for on a subscription or periodically pay for season passes, etc. Like a live service game with a payment model. This game looks to be pay once and play. I wouldn't call Rust a gaas game. THis is the same to me.
Xcell Miguel
Gold Member
Over 5 million
You are right.
But some people here seem to be having a hard time understanding what synonymous means in terms of GAAS, they just lock on to the word service and argue about being literal.
I don't know how far this forum accepts making fun of certain types of people but, yeah...
DeltaPolarBear
Member
The game lied about what it was. Gamers are in fact entitled to a refund if the developer said there was features that ended up not being there. You are entirely wrong about gamers not entitled to what they paid for.
What kind of universe are you living in that made you think developers are allowed to commit fraud? Those are not updates, those are promised features.
systemr123
Member
A lot of people actually did get refunds for it, as did I, because it was crap at the start. That doesn’t take away from what it is now. I don’t know why you have to deny that the game is a good GAAS nowadays. We all know it was a crap game in the beginning and people did get their refunds during that time.
You seek meaning in something that doesn’t exist, talking about universes lol. I never said game was great at the start, quite the contrary. You’re searching for something no one said or thought it looks like.
Last edited: