GaaS = Games As A Service

We've seen so many GaaS that have failed over these last few years. Hyperscape, Avengers, Halo, the list goes on.

The ones that are successful have been Fortnite, Apex, Destiny, and Rainbox Six Seige fits the bill as well.

Can there only be a few in the market space that succeed or is it just something that requires more time for the gaming industry to get better at? Obviously we all know many companies have GaaS in the works because it's great for business when they do succeed. There's plenty more to come, but will they figure out a formula that works or will it continue to be a lot of misses and a few hits?

What’s the difference between a GaaS and a MMO?

MMOs are GaaS but even within the MMO genre there are a lot of high profile games that end up being garbage on launch e.g. New World from Amazon or Anthem from Bioware/EA.

probably. it's really just who can make content and mtx interesting enough to maintain players, but each genre already has top dog games that run s*** and can't be toppled despite them dropping in quality.

Still waiting for a successful AAA loot shooter that doesn't have to flop first to actually put in work and get good content and support

hyperscape the best br to ever exist, really hate that it died.

Game has to be tailored for frequent releases and content drops, which is hard for devs as there is never a moment where the game could be considered complete

mmo implies a certain framework and gameplay loop - guilds, raids, auction house, trading, dlc expansions, quest system, world filled with npcs to give quests, etc

whereas gaas is just meant to describe a game that will receive a constant stream of content over the next x amount of years

so all mmo's are technically gaas but not all gaas are mmo's

yeah and fortnite still s***s on all the current gaas coming out even though devs have almost like 6 years of fornite to learn from. most games that come out now that use the gaas system either launch totally half baked with little to no content and slowly add basic features (which really isn't gaas, that's just releasing an unfinished game) or they release with a lot of content that just ends up being recolors/reskins or worthless s*** that nobody actually wants so the devs can act like they have a ton of content (apex is the biggest perpetrator of this). the sheer lack of quality from the vast majority of gaas is the biggest problem but many gaas just have insane pricing structures on top of that and that results in even less revenue which leads to the games dying with the year they release.

very few games have been able to take the gaas model and consistently provide people with quality content that you can actually justify paying for, fortnite, rocket league and genshin impact are probably the best at it and that's why (combined with their gameplay loop) they remain so popular and successful

most games that come out now that use the gaas system either launch totally half baked with little to no content and slowly add basic features (which really isn't gaas, that's just releasing an unfinished game) or they release with a lot of content that just ends up being recolors/reskins

Isn't this what fortnite does?

There's a ton of GaaS that are successful. Escape from Tarkov, Path of Exile, Warframe, Deep Rock Galactic, Genshin, practically all big MMO's, etc.

If the devs are dedicated and the niche is there, the game will succeed. If the devs fall behind, the fanbase falters, the game dies. If the niche isn't there, players will look around, and may abandon if the game isn't up to snuff to its competitors.

The ones that you mentioned that failed are because the devs simply could not match that consistent content pipeline or were outright worse than their competitors. That's the risk you take when you go GaaS. It's no longer about sales, it's about sustainability (and keeping your core audience of whales)

They've had enough time.

Some games just aint that good. You can have the resources and just make bad decisions.

Other times (and its usually the case) that the executives get in the way.

And a lotta times these games just aint made with any heart or with the player first in mind. Monetization and keeping the player playing for as long as possible is prioritized so the game suffers because of it.

I think you need an actually good game & keep your promises for games as a "service" title to succeed bro

it was really fun just had a very high skill gap compared to its competitors at the time. they should have stuck with it a lil longer

i think you could make the argument that fortnite DID do that, but they don't anymore. i don't play fortnite anymore so it's possible that i'm uniformed on the state of the game but my understanding is that it's reinventing itself every couple months and providing things for players that few, if any, other games in the gaas space do (the live concerts, ltm's, forge mode, custom games, etc). i'm sure they still release recolors/reskins of already existing skins but that's such a small % of their content that i think it's fair to ignore it. the main point i was trying to make in my post is that it's unacceptable for most players for a gaas to launch now in the same state and with the level of content that fortnite had in 2017/2018. the floor for what people expect from gaas has been raised and if you fail to reach that floor at launch, it's gonna be 10x harder for you to garner any sort of playerbase. that doesn't mean that all gaas need to launch with massive brand deals and innovative features but if all your game has is 6 different versions of desert camo and recolors of characters base skins then you've already failed at the most basic component of gaas, providing worthwhile content.

Well I think when it comes to GaaS (non MMO variant), more specifically things like looter shooters, avengers, Gotham knights etc, I think their core gameplay loop is flawed. I think where they get it wrong consistently.

Endless grind for better items with no narrative incentive is aimless. If they want the game to have a 10 year run, they first gotta make the single player experience good imo. All these GaaS that flopped have all had lackluster single player campaigns. Their focus seems to be multiplayer, with single player modes tact on haphazardly. Outside of something like COD, if I can’t enjoy the game at my own leisure, why would I enjoy it playing at other peoples pace?

For example SWTOR is a game if you view it as an MMORPG, it is f***ing bad. But if you adjust your perspective on it slightly, to it being a single player game, with various multiplayer modes it makes it a whole lot better to experience. Because the single player experience in my opinion if you’re a Star Wars fan, is worth playing through at least once. I’d probably say half the current player base that has been playing for at least 5+ years have never even attempted raids or any group content for that matter. Almost every facet of that game is soloable outside of raiding. This is the model GaaS should follow. People gonna be put off cause I’m using SWTOR as an example but, story driven single player experience, with multiplayer modes is what SWTOR excels at. The only other mmo I’ve played with almost as good a single player experience is FFXIV. Conversely FFXIV does the “MMO” part waayyyyyyyyy better than SWTOR does.

You need tons of money and a whole huge, dedicated and talented team to keep a gaas going. Theres a reason sony paid all that money for Bungie. Its a very profitable market but it also needs a lot of resources, so its rare to have one thats really poppin

Yes.

you're asking people to basically invest in your game for years. once people have bought enough skins they don't wanna leave cuz it will feel like mo ey wasted.

I think the problem is triple A devs backed by big publishers are the ones failing the most at GaaS

I wouldn't say so.
Fortnite launched during a period where the highlight for the battle royale genre wasn't the service/content part, but the gameplay part, simply because there weren't as many of them. Hell, it wasn't even the core mode of Fortnite itself, Save the World was - which was PVE.
The game/world and the content of the BR mode might've been barren compared to what it is nowadays, but the gameplay (the shooting + building mechanic) was unique and addictive enough for it to be successful. They did well building on the gameplay, after getting the deserved success, creating interesting enough lore, getting good collabs for events, etc.

But, it isn't enough to have addicting gameplay nowadays, you gotta ramp it up and have good content to go with the gameplay itself. Whether it be several game modes, maps, cool battle passes, etc.

Warzone 1 immediately came to my mind, while they did f*** up the gameplay with some dumb changes (for example, getting rid of Verdansk completely) and with putting too much emphasis in the meta on weapons from whatever the current CoD was, it still always had the same gameplay from the beginning to the end. What a lot of people didn't like was the changes to the existing content or the lack of good content - the map changed for the worse, the weapon packs/skins/battle passes were getting worse, people didn't like most of the events/crossovers (Godzilla, etc.). While these weren't the main reason the game "failed" (or got rebooted), it still had something to do with it.

Fornite is a lot more successful at reinventing itself every couple of seasons.