Games as a Service

  • Ignore the fact that the article is about Fortnite and head to about halfway down:
    "In fact, the days where the game that came in the box is the same one you're playing weeks, months or even years later are long gone.

    Instead, they are increasingly seen as a service rather than a product."

    Sea of Thieves is one such Game as a Service product, as has been mentioned more than once. What is interesting though is that, up to press, there is no collection of monies other than your initial investment in the game, or the fee they received from Gamepass.
    The article even later on talks about how Games as a Service can, "By keeping players engaged with in-game purchasing and frequent updates, they can make a company a lot of money."

    Rare have repeatedly held off on asking for any microtransactions in the game and let's be honest; Arena is probably going to be here before we finally see pets or any other real-world currency based items in game.

    what does concern me though is how they will be dealt with when they are introduced, as again, we see in the article: "On top of this, some parents have been caught out by their children unwittingly making large purchases on their credit cards." I would hate to think that anyone racked up any kind of unmanageable debt for the sake of the videogame, but I trust in Rare to get it right - afterall, they have waited months longer than expected to even touch real-money transactions.

    Food for thought. enjoy your day folks!

  • 5
    Posts
    5.5k
    Views
  • @sshteeve I don't think Rare is going to bait people to make microtransactions. I think they wil eventually come up with fun cosmetic things or pets but not stuff that would make you get an advantage on other players. If SoT were to become cash grabbing we would have already seen signs of that in the release of the game.

  • Microtransactions come in many flavours.

    The Good:

    • Actual gameplay DLC singleplayer missions or complete game modes etc.
    • Microtransactions in free to play games.

    The Decent:

    • Microtransactions in games you pay full price for (cosmetics etc you choose to buy).
    • DLC that's been clearly cut from the main game (here's looking at you Ubisoft with your day 1 DLC packs)
    • Season passes. (you don't even know what's coming yet you pay for them?)

    The Bad

    • Lootboxes of any kind (this is just gambling)
    • Microtransactions in Games you already pay for and also have to pay to play as well. (WoW is a nice example of are you not getting enough money from me?)
      -Pay to win of any kind especially in a full priced game.

    I feel that having Microtransactions in SoT would actually be a new entry to my Good point. The game is already giving us loads of free content without needing monthly subs or Season Passes, them giving some items that don't impact balance for a price isn't that bad. It gives them more revenue to develop the game with.
    They've also gone on record that they want to try to make the pets unlockable too so cheers to this.

  • @captain-nicklas I would be heavily inclined to agree with you there. As I say it was just an interesting article with some nice points on how the games industry is changing.

    @Hynieth you're bang on the money there fella.

    [General Side-Note]
    Personally, I have always said that pets and other similar "DLC" or Microtransactions are fine by me - it's like buying stuff from the store - it all goes back to Rare to help their teams develop new stuff - after all, the money that they received back in May covered all those years of development time that went into the game pre-release - we have had 4 major content releases now, as well as BRAs that will have been paid by Rare and Microsoft separately!
    I really want my cat on ship with me...

  • Yes the good old days of gaming are currently gone. Hopefully, it will only be temporary. We use to get a whole game at release. There are companies that release a fuller and more polished product at the initial release. Many do not though. That was the case with SoT. Thus the delay in following the rollout of paid DLC and microtransactions.

    Gaas is used too much of an excuse for SoT stating it was never intended to be finished. That it is expected to change, even to the point of it evolving it something you did not purchase. That is not the intention of the GaaS model. Many companies push games out as soon as they think they can start making additional money through the extended sales. This aggressive, predatory behavior is running many titles and player experiences.

    The biggest advantage to the GaaS model is the potential to increase the lifespan of a title for an indefinite amount of time. It works both ways. A game company brings in more revenue and players get to enjoy more of the game they are playing. Problem is the model is sliding fast to getting less of a game upfront and more of what the initial game should be sold in increments beyond release.

    This means players end up paying more for a game that they would have just received with the traditional single purchased. It can be a cost creep that outweighs the actual value of a single game. Some players may save some money by not having to purchase as many new titles within the series. However, the lure of other shiny new titles usually overrides any of that savings. Playing video games can be so expensive. That is where the value must be firmly present.

    In order for a title to maintain the long lifespan to earn additional sales, its developer has to keep working at making the game as captivating as the initial play through of the core game the player starts with. I think it is a mixed bag doing this with SoT. The Bildge Rats content incrementally did so but at the expense of repeating many if the same gameplay content in slightly different ways.

    Shrouded Spoils has brought the game more together. I think it is finally matured into the game that should have been the state of the game at release. The additional sales could have been implemented and a larger player base maintained if that was the case. We would also not have some of the issues of releasing content like some of the newer commendations and lack of important data to reward players properly.

    Most of us will have to say it has been worthwhile though to have been playing the game up to this point. I think that perception would be far from being satisfactory if Rare had started charging for content. I would say they are at the point to finally move forward with the paid part of the GaaS model.

    It will more than likely wait to after The Arena. Maybe the core game will see its first new paid content closely around the same time. Hopefully, content will rollout in both at a pace to keep all players engaged. At this point the concern is the time it will take to see anything new.

    We paid the premium to gain access to SoT. I would say with the current state of the game we got what we paid for and more so in the form of great experiences along the way completing our many voyages. In do not see Rare using the GaaS model like many companies do to interfere with progress or cheapen the experience.

    It will be up to each individual pirate to decide that along the voyages ahead. As long as the growing negatives of GaaS are not present in SoT and we never get loot chests the sea should continue to be a happy place to sail. At the same time let’s hope the traditional way of buying a solid AAA game with a single price tag does not become nostalgia of the good old days of video gaming.

5
Posts
5.5k
Views
1 out of 5