For almost a decade, live-service features have been de rigeur for most games – but with live-service projects being cancelled or pivoted to single player, it a
Hard disagree -before it went Free to Play, Team Fortress 2 was a shining example of GaaS! A steady stream of updates and external media that constantly kept that game in the limelight.
Games As A Service is not a scam in and of itself - the issue is the greedy people often behind them.
At least with Team Fortress 2 they have always had dedicated servers you can host yourself. Most GaaS never provide a server that you can run and host yourself.
There are lots of good examples, they’re usually smaller studios/indie though. GaaS sucks when you get the people with business degrees in on it. It’s great for people who are working on a game they’re passionate about and just want to keep adding more content.
well that’s the thing, it went free to play. Pretty classic enshittification arc.
I don’t remember any one thing getting worse with TF2 after that change. What would be enshitified for it? Microtransaction cosmetics? I’ve never had a problem with those, as long as they are just cosmetic. If they change the balance of a game though, I simply refuse to play those games.
While Overwatch and CS:GO are often games pointed to as the one that popularized and lead to the loot box/gambling popularly, TF2’s implementation of crates/keys is a clear point of inspiration for those games :(
However I agree, the initial Free To Play decision wasn’t a bad thing for TF2, though the culmination of that with the store/creator relationship and how things evolved in the company have lead to a less than desired development cycle for TF2 content when you look at what Valve actually provides in modern updates. And we waited how long for that comic? :P
Hard disagree -before it went Free to Play, Team Fortress 2 was a shining example of GaaS!
How was TF2 (pre-FTP) a GaaS? I bought it in the Orange Box for a one-time cost. Where is the as-a-service component to that business model you’re citing?
They performed multiple free content updates over several years. I believe Gabe is quoted as saying the GaaS model had replaced the episodic model for them, the idea being that they weren’t selling a product, but a service that would continue passed the exchange of funds.
We saw that in their games during that period like Left 4 Dead 1/2 as well.
As time has gone on, we’ve seen approaches to the idea morph to the anti-consumer versions we see and associate with the name, but there was a time when it wasn’t a negative.
I don’t think Unreal Tournament 2004 would have been considered live service just because they occasionally gave out a free new map. It was a form of marketing for the thing they already made. TF2 at least was a product when they sold it up front before it was free to play, when it had no microtransactions and they weren’t the goal for getting paid for having made TF2.
It was always the goal, just a different approach. I posted this quote in another reply but:
"The crux of the Newell’s address focused on the concept that direct communications with customers, transparency, and constant updates are the best ways to maximize profits from a product. In this way, Valve views its products as a service rather than a finished project. When the company shipped Team Fortress 2, work wasn’t done. Rather, the team said, “Now we can start.” The team has then gone on to ship 63 updates – which include anything from bug fixes to new game modes – to the game in just over 14 months. This can directly result in increased sales that would normally taper off over time. As Newell put it, “When you want to promote your product, you’re going to use your customers to reach new customers.” " https://www.ign.com/articles/2009/02/19/dice-2009-keynote-gabe-newell
The thought pattern still has roots in sales/marketing - by releasing more content for the game, you attract new players. I would say No Mans Sky is a good example of this in recent years - its free content updates leading to constant attention and sales. No other forms of monetization are included.
I played UT2004 but was too young to recall things, but if the game did this through game updates I’d consider it an early form of Games as a Service. However, I consider Live Services to be a sub-classification under the banner, which by my definition UT2004 would not be:
I think of games that provide ongoing content, and maintains the game servers in exchange for varying streams of income. These are games that will typically “stop working” when the official servers go down (stop being “live”?). I consider games like Anthem and Loadout to be examples of Live Services in this respect.
So while L4D2 was by definition an example of a Game as a Service, it has a different approach to the concept compared to a game like Destiny 2. From how the game is played (offline/online, hosting servers), to how it is monetized and the updates are delivered can vary significantly.
I believe that all Live Services fall under the GaaS label, but not all games that fall under the GaaS label are Live Services. The lines have just become so blurred that it is hard to consider that games that can be so different fall under that label. We are in the pot, and the temperature is getting higher.
I don’t think you’re going to find many sharing your definitions. GaaS has just been simply replaced by the term live service in how people talk about this stuff. Perhaps Valve showed their hand early with this interview, but the expectation we had as customers with early TF2 was very different back then. I definitely wouldn’t consider No Man’s Sky to be any form of service; it might be the industry’s best example of being a form of penance for what they promised their customers at the start.
I think you may be using a different definition of GaaS than mine. My definition includes a regular fee to play or a subscription as a continuous revenue generation from the product. From your replies I don’t think your definition does. That leaves me more confused about your definition.
When I think of Games as a Service, I think of things like:
"The crux of the Newell’s address focused on the concept that direct communications with customers, transparency, and constant updates are the best ways to maximize profits from a product. In this way, Valve views its products as a service rather than a finished project. When the company shipped Team Fortress 2, work wasn’t done. Rather, the team said, “Now we can start.” The team has then gone on to ship 63 updates – which include anything from bug fixes to new game modes – to the game in just over 14 months. This can directly result in increased sales that would normally taper off over time. As Newell put it, “When you want to promote your product, you’re going to use your customers to reach new customers.” "
https://www.ign.com/articles/2009/02/19/dice-2009-keynote-gabe-newell
Games as a Service I think of as an overarching concept based around the idea of service not stopping at the point of sale. After that, the different approaches are almost “sub-classifications”.
There are those games that are touted as “Live Services” - when I use that term, I think of games that provide ongoing content, and maintains the game servers in exchange for varying streams of income. These are games that will typically “stop working” when the official servers go down. I consider games like Anthem and Loadout to be examples of Live Services in this respect.
Games like World of Warcraft I consider Live Services, but I go one further and call those “subscription services”, since they require the subscription to play and in theory this is the main income that funds the game staying online.
The way I see it, all Live/Subscription Services fall under the Games as a Service banner, but not all Games as a Service will necessarily be either.
To me, it’s more nuanced than one general classification, especially with the way things blend together these days; games can have multiple income streams (subscription, microtransactions, battlepasses, season passes, so on), as well as multiple forms of content delivery (free updates, expansions, DLC).
The lines have been blurred further with “early access” and “incomplete” titles being released that have constant content updates simply to get to a release state. However, these types of games have those stars that typically shine through. Such as No Mans Sky or (contentiously) Fallout 76.
tl;dr To me GaaS is the literal idea of treating games as more than a one-time product, but evolution in how content is delivered and monetized have lead to many different approaches.
Unfortunately, the normalized ones (the maliciously monetized and despair-inducing) are so far apart from the “good ones” like L4D2, that it is difficult to consider that they are both actually examples of “Games as a Service”.
Hard disagree -before it went Free to Play, Team Fortress 2 was a shining example of GaaS! A steady stream of updates and external media that constantly kept that game in the limelight.
Games As A Service is not a scam in and of itself - the issue is the greedy people often behind them.
At least with Team Fortress 2 they have always had dedicated servers you can host yourself. Most GaaS never provide a server that you can run and host yourself.
One shiny red apple on a pile of rotting fruit does not make an apple pie.
Games as a service was always enshittification wearing a trench coat. TF2 and MMOs back in the day were merely bait.
There are lots of good examples, they’re usually smaller studios/indie though. GaaS sucks when you get the people with business degrees in on it. It’s great for people who are working on a game they’re passionate about and just want to keep adding more content.
they weren’t intentional bait, the MBAs just hadn’t invented all the ways to scam users with it yet.
While that might be true it was foreseeable. And they always do it.
well that’s the thing, it went free to play. Pretty classic enshittification arc.
I don’t remember any one thing getting worse with TF2 after that change. What would be enshitified for it? Microtransaction cosmetics? I’ve never had a problem with those, as long as they are just cosmetic. If they change the balance of a game though, I simply refuse to play those games.
While Overwatch and CS:GO are often games pointed to as the one that popularized and lead to the loot box/gambling popularly, TF2’s implementation of crates/keys is a clear point of inspiration for those games :(
However I agree, the initial Free To Play decision wasn’t a bad thing for TF2, though the culmination of that with the store/creator relationship and how things evolved in the company have lead to a less than desired development cycle for TF2 content when you look at what Valve actually provides in modern updates. And we waited how long for that comic? :P
to me, loot boxes/crates are an unethical gamifying of monetization, even if it’s only for cosmetic items.
How was TF2 (pre-FTP) a GaaS? I bought it in the Orange Box for a one-time cost. Where is the as-a-service component to that business model you’re citing?
They performed multiple free content updates over several years. I believe Gabe is quoted as saying the GaaS model had replaced the episodic model for them, the idea being that they weren’t selling a product, but a service that would continue passed the exchange of funds. We saw that in their games during that period like Left 4 Dead 1/2 as well.
As time has gone on, we’ve seen approaches to the idea morph to the anti-consumer versions we see and associate with the name, but there was a time when it wasn’t a negative.
I don’t think Unreal Tournament 2004 would have been considered live service just because they occasionally gave out a free new map. It was a form of marketing for the thing they already made. TF2 at least was a product when they sold it up front before it was free to play, when it had no microtransactions and they weren’t the goal for getting paid for having made TF2.
It was always the goal, just a different approach. I posted this quote in another reply but:
The thought pattern still has roots in sales/marketing - by releasing more content for the game, you attract new players. I would say No Mans Sky is a good example of this in recent years - its free content updates leading to constant attention and sales. No other forms of monetization are included.
I played UT2004 but was too young to recall things, but if the game did this through game updates I’d consider it an early form of Games as a Service. However, I consider Live Services to be a sub-classification under the banner, which by my definition UT2004 would not be:
So while L4D2 was by definition an example of a Game as a Service, it has a different approach to the concept compared to a game like Destiny 2. From how the game is played (offline/online, hosting servers), to how it is monetized and the updates are delivered can vary significantly.
I believe that all Live Services fall under the GaaS label, but not all games that fall under the GaaS label are Live Services. The lines have just become so blurred that it is hard to consider that games that can be so different fall under that label. We are in the pot, and the temperature is getting higher.
I don’t think you’re going to find many sharing your definitions. GaaS has just been simply replaced by the term live service in how people talk about this stuff. Perhaps Valve showed their hand early with this interview, but the expectation we had as customers with early TF2 was very different back then. I definitely wouldn’t consider No Man’s Sky to be any form of service; it might be the industry’s best example of being a form of penance for what they promised their customers at the start.
I think you may be using a different definition of GaaS than mine. My definition includes a regular fee to play or a subscription as a continuous revenue generation from the product. From your replies I don’t think your definition does. That leaves me more confused about your definition.
What is your definition of Games-as-a-Service?
When I think of Games as a Service, I think of things like:
Games as a Service I think of as an overarching concept based around the idea of service not stopping at the point of sale. After that, the different approaches are almost “sub-classifications”.
There are those games that are touted as “Live Services” - when I use that term, I think of games that provide ongoing content, and maintains the game servers in exchange for varying streams of income. These are games that will typically “stop working” when the official servers go down. I consider games like Anthem and Loadout to be examples of Live Services in this respect. Games like World of Warcraft I consider Live Services, but I go one further and call those “subscription services”, since they require the subscription to play and in theory this is the main income that funds the game staying online.
The way I see it, all Live/Subscription Services fall under the Games as a Service banner, but not all Games as a Service will necessarily be either. To me, it’s more nuanced than one general classification, especially with the way things blend together these days; games can have multiple income streams (subscription, microtransactions, battlepasses, season passes, so on), as well as multiple forms of content delivery (free updates, expansions, DLC).
The lines have been blurred further with “early access” and “incomplete” titles being released that have constant content updates simply to get to a release state. However, these types of games have those stars that typically shine through. Such as No Mans Sky or (contentiously) Fallout 76.
tl;dr To me GaaS is the literal idea of treating games as more than a one-time product, but evolution in how content is delivered and monetized have lead to many different approaches. Unfortunately, the normalized ones (the maliciously monetized and despair-inducing) are so far apart from the “good ones” like L4D2, that it is difficult to consider that they are both actually examples of “Games as a Service”.
It’s long and I’m sorry.