What does "Games as a Service" mean?

I hear this thrown around a lot, especially by many AAA developers who say "it's the future of gaming". All I know is that it's somehow related to DLC, micro transactions, loot boxes etc. What does it mean in simple terms and why is it good/bad?

I.e. Netflix for video games. Biggest barrier to consumers is they have to invest in hardware. Remove that limitation, lots more custom.

It means you have to keep paying to play the game in some way. Whether through a subscription or microtransactions or whatever. It's so devs and pubs can keep raking in money as long as the game is alive as opposed to a flat fee to buy the game and then no other income.

Make a game that isnt just a done thing when you buy it but that it keeps updating constantly so people never stop playing it and giving it money

free to play pay to win mobage tier trash

The old model of selling video games was "games as a product", meaning you would pay a flat fee (traditionally $60 since the jump to the 360/PS3 generation) to buy the game as a complete product and enjoy it as is.

"Games as a service" means you buy the $60 game as an entry fee, and from there you have to buy additional content to enjoy it. Most mobile games subscribe to the service model, and now big budget AAA games are following suit.

Imagine your games as complete movies where you pay once and be done, they want to turn all of them into tv shows which you keep paying for.

It means putting a subscription model somewhere in there.

It's gating. You're limited to so much, if you want the rest you pay.

CD red is gonna fuck everyone over, in other words.

These are bad examples. Games as service has nothing to do with a hypothetical Netflix-type platform, which would presumably be you paying a certain amount of money per month to "rent" an unlimited library of video games, and turning a movie into a TV show also doesn't quite work. A better example would be buying a blu-ray for full price and then it cuts out halfway through and you have to pay additional fees for each ten-minute period remaining in the film.

Fuck. I guess it's AA games for me in the future.

>implying AA developers won't follow this model as well

FUCK

Game as a product is yours. You can mod it, you can resell it, you can give it for a friend.
Gams as a service is like digital games. You cant resell it, you cant share it friends, you sometimes cant mod / cheat on it, etc.

Games as a service can also be sold incomplete with the promise that they will be expanded upon. Finally, there is the possibility of lootboxes and shit.

Imagine GAME
GAME is a big multiplayer game for $60.
Two years later GAME 2 comes out for $60, GAME becomes slightly more irrelevant, GAME 3 comes out and so on and so on.

If GAME would've been a game-as-a-service, it wouldn't make a GAME 2, instead it would expand on GAME with free and paid content updates, keeping the playerbase intact for years, or even decades with essentially only one game.

Based on the first few replies, doesn't look like anyone else understands it either, so you're in good company.

It means exactly what the words would imply it means. Rather than having a game as a product that you buy once to enjoy for what it's worth then move on, the game is a service that you pay for continually as you play a game that is also continually worked on.

Basically, games as a service is just a subscription model.

People generally pay money for 2 things: products and services. Video games used to be products. They write a bunch of code, put it on a disc, you buy the disc. Now a game is an experience which they can add on to and they can charge you as they see fit as they continue giving you it.

someone makeapps her face.

It doesn't necessarily mean in the form of a subscription model. Microtransactions in multiplayer works as well. Constant DLC works as well.

>I'm going to make useless replies to the OP despite the first post answering his question because I want to put MY special spin and opinion on things in the thread!

Fuck off reddit

"as a service" means continuing to pay for less level of ownership for the payer
always

It's not, though. As has been said before, something like Netflix would be more like Gamefly, or otherwise a service where you pay a recurring up-front fee in order to be able to play any game that you want within a pool of games offered by the service. It is very clearly not what OP was talking about.

Games were normally treated as a "product"
Games as a service mean there are plans to continue cahrge you for every little thing they put into the game in the near future.

He's not wrong though. None of those posts are answering the OP question. They're just butchered opinions about a topic that those anons clearly have a very tenuous grasp of in the first place.

It's funny how games have moved from being activities, to games as many here imagine, to "experiences", and now to "service".

In the oldest days, games were these activities you did that tested you on some skill, sometimes against another person. Think the Atari 2600.

Then we moved into the era where the unique concept of a "video game" as we know it today was born. Games could do a lot of things, from being fun, to having exploration, tell compelling stories that you experienced because you did them. Stuff like that. I feel this is where many people here (especially if you are in your late 20's, early 30's) feel the exact paradigm of what a "video game" is comes from. I put myself in this camp.

Then after this, games started being looked at as "experiences". This was the rise of the "movie game". It feels like we are leaving this era right now but still in it. Where games no longer could just be games. In fact, being a game is seen as a negative trait. It needs to be like a movie where the only thing that matters is what the audience "experiences and feels". Writing, imagery, and the like. It's more important to have a cinematic experience than it is to make a fun game.

But now we are almost fully into the era of "services". A game cannot just exist as a stand-alone product. No one cares about you buying a game, they want all games to have some hook that keeps people playing and paying. It feels like this started with WoW in a major way. At one point, WoW was bringing in as much revenue in a single month what only the best selling games pulled in, in their entire *existence*. That pie was too sweet for others not to crave it. And then LoL showed just what kind of money you can make with the Whale-model.

It fucking sucks because we just aren't really going to get amazing games like we used to except for some indie stuff. The concept of crafting a great game just doesn't exist anymore, it isn't profitable. Not nearly as much as "Games as service".

>Game as a product is yours. You can mod it, you can resell it, you can give it for a friend.
Just because you did it with no repercussions doesn't even remotely make this true. You have never owned the code of any game ever made

Yes yes, we get it, you're very clever and are clearly the expert on which anonymous asshat is or is not qualified to speak on a particular subject. Nobody cares.

...

is that "white" in america ?

Good post.

Well at least you people are now admitting that you just want a Reddit Circle Jerk instead of discussing video games. It's a step, I guess.

The riskiest part of game development has always been the release of a new game. "Will people buy this new game, or will they not?" With every new game released, the company knew it would get a burst of profit and then a slow stream of income from later sales. The company would eventually be forced to produce another game (and take another risk) in order to succeed.

In order to reduce this recurring risk, games as a service started coming out. Now a company only needs to sell a game once, just a single point of risk. Once the consumer has purchased the game then you have an 'in' and instead of developing entirely new games, you can just develop on the one game that has proven to sell. You can lower this even further by making the game free to play.


>"instead of discussing actual video games"
>"I want to put MY special spin and opinion on things in the thread!" just a few posts ago

Do you or do you not want people to discuss things and posit their own opinions. You're confusing me, shitposter.

I'm not that guy. I'm the only other user who hasn't actually posted about games as a service.

I originally came here to actually post a response, but read the thread, realized everyone in it was already a meme-riding fuck, was already here, and decided to remark on that since it's still on topic.

t. faggot

Who is this semon demon?

So you weren't looking for actual discussion at all, then. Why are you still here? If you know something and don't want to discuss it because of your superiority complex then why even post? If that is the case, then why deride other people's unwillingness to discuss things when you are literally doing exactly that? Why support a post that wants to mindlessly fellate the first post rather than follow up on replies made to it in and by doing so continue the discussion? Your posts just seem like hypocrisy.

Because someone responded to me, it gave me a reason to return to the thread. I was still looking for discussion, it doesn't matter about what. I didn't open Sup Forums thinking "I need to talk about games as a service today!"

If you want me to leave, stop responding. I usually recheck a thread 2-3 times in a 10 minute timeframe before I stop.

the first post was wrong tho

Well on pc there's no barrier to entry so when the old trustworthy devs jew out, new people will provide the things that the old companies don't provide. The only thing killing gaming is complacency of customers and the lootboxes thing shows that gamers are not just eating the companies' shit.

If you have a real interest in this, read Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition. It's related to what we call planned obsolescence nowadays. Identifies 3 types of human activity: Labor, which include all sort of repetitive human activities intended to satisfy our necessities (eating, sleeping, earning money to afford those and, in these spiritually bankrupt times where media consumption constitutes the meaning giver for many, vidya); Work, which constitutes voluntary creative acts and life enhancing activities intended to be done only once (art done for the sole purpose of creating something beautiful, loaded with meaning and values, infrastructure meant to last forever, eternal good ol' lighbulbs); and finally, Action, which encompasses purely the political, understood as the active self governance of the community you belong to. This classification was made with the model of the ancient Greek polis, or city-state, in mind. There, all matters pertaining Labor (self sustainance, a demeaning endevour worth dedicating the less amount of time possible) were left in the hands of slaves, freeing the citizens to spend their time in the persuit of the crafts and artistic excelence (Work), and the politics and direct participation in the government of their city, which was the mean-giver in that culture.

In our modern society, there is an inversion and intermixing of those spheres. The professional politician receives a wage for their service, instead of the free men that used to do it for honor, glry among their peers or simple duty. Now the artist has abandoned his role as a creator of beauty and meaning, taking instead the role of a peddler of consumable entertainment which briefly distracts our gaze from the abyss of our contemporary nihilism. Finally, the infinite interchangeability of anything and everything for money turns every activity in our lives into the Labor of slaves.

Comment is too long to explain more. Tl;dr is: yes it's fucking bad.

>The concept of crafting a great game just doesn't exist anymore, it isn't profitable.
It's not so much that it isn't profitable, it's that it's not profitable ENOUGH. Companies gravitate towards the biggest returns since that's their entire function. It's like, why just make a game and make millions, when you can add microtransactions and make billions?

It's lead to this sad state where the only two varieties of game are now low-budget indie titles, and monolothic AAAs with all the marketing bells and whistles like DLC, microtransactions, lootboxes, season passes, pre-order bonuses and all that shit. The advent of the internet has allowed for that market to just balloon to insane proportions (since the whole "games as a service" thing is predicated on the internet), so that no serious investor would ever think of doing something outside that paradigm. The only people still making games for the sake of games, making the things they themselves would actually want to play, are the indies and crowdfunded titles.

People will take the torch. Just pay don't give a dime to the fucking greedy ones and you'll be good.

Hitman is a service game and it fucking rocks because of it. I love the episodic format. Imagine a Batman: Arkham style game that was like this.

OnLive 3.0

Make the game what you want it to be.
That's what it means.

Basically everyone in this thread is wrong. Not completely, the subscription and microtransactions are a part of it, but they aren't the full story.

"Games as a service" is the idea that you are selling a game beyond simply its value as a game. That is to say, the game itself is only part of what you are paying for. So, obviously, microtransactions are "games as a service", because you're paying for them on top of your actual game.

But it goes further. The idea is that the game itself, its very existence, is a service to the world, to the community. It is a service provided so that people can, for instance, discuss it. Or make videos of it. Or have debates about it. Make fanart of it. The "service" that they are selling is the availability of the game for derivative works to be made of it.

So when you hear "games as a service", they're not just saying "microtransactions". They're also saying "we want to monetize you being able to talk about the game". Not directly, but via a shift in thinking. They want the consumer to BELIEVE that the game is worth more BECAUSE its existence allows for derivative works to be made of it. And so they want to consumer to forgive a lot of price gouging and shitty business practices, because they're really "getting a lot more" than they paid for.

It's taken root very easily. Have you ever seen someone going like, "i'm totally fine with [company] implementing [horrifying business practice] because this game's given me thousands of hours of enjoyment and has become part of my life and the fanart is AMAZING"? If you've ever seen someone talking like that, they're been successfully indoctrinated into buying the game As A Service. It is the idea that games are worth far more than you pay for them, so you should pay more for them.

It gets a little abstract so it's hard to explain. I guess the best way to sum it up is: "Games as a service" means they're trying to make you believe that you're buying youtube videos.

>Finally, the infinite interchangeability of anything and everything for money turns every activity in our lives into the Labor of slaves.
Smells like teen marxism

Thanks! Really cleared it up

Not necessarily, there's games that get free content as time goes on, like Overwatch or Killing Floor 2 for example. Those are games I'd consider a 'service'

interesting thanks.

That is literally not at all what this is. That would erroneously imply that basically any video game ever that gets discussed or fan art is a service.

Games as a service is an online-only game that gets content as time goes on, either subscription based or not subscription based.

Killing Floor 2 for non-sub, World of Wow for sub.

This also includes free games like Phantasy Star Online 2, and so on.

Nothing about discussion or anything external about the game has to do with 'service,' because then shit like Command and Conquer Generals is a service, or single-player-only games are services, which is ridiculous.

tl;dr

Path of Exile vs. Titan Quest/Grim Dawn.
Warframe vs. Destiny.

It's ostensibly a planned extended period of support involving DLC to be sold at a later date.

FFXV is a good example of this model. Between DLCs, a multiplayer expansion, and MMO-style events added to the main game, it's a game that you can play for a long amount of time even past the Platinum.

it means the game is getting pirated by me
i dont buy games as a service

>choker

Games as a service are the antitheses of games as a product, that's the point as plainly as it comes.

When you buy a product, you have full ownership of that product. Unless very specifically agreed upon, the person you bought said product from no longer has any legal ownership over the individual item in your possesion.

It's the difference between buying a home and renting one, really. You get to live in the house both ways, but if you're renting, that means you aren't allowed to, say, renovate your kitchen.

''Games as a service'' means, to you as a consumer, that developers are going to more strictly limit your ability to interact with the software. You will not be allowed to edit files, swap models or textures around, etc. You don't own the game after all, you're just being provided the service of being allowed to play it (as intended by the developer/publisher)

As you yourself have already mentioned, this of course very clearly ties into the microtransaction culture. After all, how will we get the goy to pay for a texture swap if he can swap them himself?
This is why they keep trying to push the ''always online'' crap, so they can monitor your files to make sure you aren't tampering with them.