Game as a service is quite honestly one of the worst ideas to ever exist.
And outside of a few key titles it has repeatedly failed.
Concord.
Anthem.
Suicide Squad.
There are several others that literally absolutely went NOWHERE.
The managers and executives at these Company's should have their heads removed for signing off on
these concepts and getting/destroying studios. There needs to be more pressure on these executives
for making these kinds of decisions.
Yeah being “woke” isn’t the reason why this game failed. Games like Overwatch and Apex Legends have a roster. Full of gay and diverse characters lol. They were also attacked by the same racist cacs that attacked Concord. Concord failed for being a 40$ uninspired hero shooter. Competing against already established free to play hero shooters. The only thing special about Concord is that it’s a PlayStation exclusive.
Game as a service is quite honestly one of the worst ideas to ever exist.
And outside of a few key titles it has repeatedly failed.
Concord.
Anthem.
Suicide Squad.
There are several others that literally absolutely went NOWHERE.
The managers and executives at these keys should have their heads removed for signing off on
these concepts and getting/destroying studios. There needs to be more pressure on these executives
for making these kinds of decisions.
games as a service gets this wild hyperfocus that centers on flops when it reality its just bad games do bad lol
concord got cooked in the same quarter that First Descendent proved it had legs and when two other titles in its lane - mecha break and marvel rivals - did dramatically better
Yeah being “woke” isn’t the reason why this game failed. Games like Overwatch and Apex Legends have a roster. Full of gay and diverse characters lol. They were also attacked by the same racist cacs that attacked Concord. Concord failed for being a 40$ uninspired hero shooter. Competing against already established free to play hero shooters. The only thing special about Concord is that it’s an PlayStation exclusive.
the narrative was objectively worthless against Last of Us 2, Horizon, God Of War, etc too
the developers themselves are the main ones trying to use it as a way out like it wasn't almost a decade of likely fraudulent as fukk internal market assessments and self-licking ice cream cone processes at work - it was the nazis who did this
games as a service gets this wild hyperfocus that centers on flops when it reality its just bad games do bad lol
concord got cooked in the same quarter that First Descendent proved it had legs and when two other titles in its lane - mecha break and marvel rivals - did dramatically better
the narrative was objectively worthless against Last of Us 2, Horizon, God Of War, etc too
the developers themselves are the main ones trying to use it as a way out like it wasn't almost a decade of likely fraudulent as fukk internal market assessments and self-licking ice cream cone processes at work - it was the nazis who did this
I don't think "bad games do bad" tells the whole story.
Outside of a few hits, the idea of a "Games as a service" is a failure IMO.
The goal of several of these companies was to pump out their own game which gives them monthly or daily rent to collect
from users.
9/10 his has failed especially when they're trying to fill a niche that's already occupied.
And few companies seem to have learned any lessons on this and instead of have continued to sign off
on hundreds of millions of dollars of budget on games that fail instead of smaller scale projects that aren't
built on recouping their costs through rent by being a "service".
I don't think "bad games do bad" tells the whole story.
Outside of a few hits, the idea of a "Games as a service" is a failure IMO.
The goal of several of these companies was to pump out their own game which gives them monthly or daily rent to collect
from users.
9/10 his has failed especially when they're trying to fill a niche that's already occupied.
And few companies seem to have learned any lessons on this and instead of have continued to sign off
on hundreds of millions of dollars of budget on games that fail instead of smaller scale projects that aren't
built on recouping their costs through rent by being a "service".
nah like... it is lol. if no one wants a bad game, its not selling. im not sure how its complicated. and if it isn't selling, then the monetization platform underlying can't sell either. its the same problem.
and its always wild how people associate GaaS models with shyt like Suicide Squad when Madden and FIFA run pockets *better* and make people re-buy the same entry for over a decade with nothing more than texture touch up between console generations
like diablo 4 doesn't make goofy money like apex didn't materialize out of left over assets and a "fukk it why not"
if anything this just further illuminates the failure of concord - because with 8 years and hundreds of million dollars they couldn't out-earn spellbreak
because the failures don't take away from the hits obviously - and also people going back on forth online don't even know how to frame a failure
people love to say that battlefront and battlefield had nothing but issues. that is *not* the case when it comes to how effective they were. shyt, for honor got called a flop too. mass effect andromeda's multiplayer revenue is one of the main reasons bioware could take anthem on the chin lol
to say '9/10' fail is just not how you quantify any of this. and again;
if no one wants a bad game, its not selling. im not sure how its complicated. and if it isn't selling, then the monetization platform underlying can't sell either. its the same problem.
Game as a service is quite honestly one of the worst ideas to ever exist.
And outside of a few key titles it has repeatedly failed.
Concord.
Anthem.
Suicide Squad.
There are several others that literally absolutely went NOWHERE.
The managers and executives at these keys should have their heads removed for signing off on
these concepts and getting/destroying studios. There needs to be more pressure on these executives
for making these kinds of decisions.
If the game is good people will play and play for years. COD, Fortnite, 2K, R6, OW2, For Honor, Apex. People aren’t tired of live service. It’s just most of these games don’t give any reason to stay long term
because the failures don't take away from the hits obviously - and also people going back on forth online don't even know how to frame a failure
people love to say that battlefront and battlefield had nothing but issues. that is *not* the case when it comes to how effective they were. shyt, for honor got called a flop too. mass effect andromeda's multiplayer revenue is one of the main reasons bioware could take anthem on the chin lol
to say '9/10' fail is just not how you quantify any of this. and again;
if no one wants a bad game, its not selling. im not sure how its complicated. and if it isn't selling, then the monetization platform underlying can't sell either. its the same problem.
The failure absolutely do take away from the hits IMO.
If the goal is to replicate this and turn it into a business, then the failures have shown that it
is for the most part not repeatable.
We've already seen that when done well, niche 3rd party titles can have repeatable success or even sustainable business models.
Whereas we with live services there is an assumption the business will do well because it's a live service.
***Note***
Fifa and Madden don't really fit this mold because they're storied and old franchises at this point.
Bent, mangled and forced into live services well after their debut.
If the game is good people will play and play for years. COD, Fortnite, 2K, R6, OW2, For Honor, Apex. People aren’t tired of live service. It’s just most of these games don’t give any reason to stay long term
I'd argue that APEX/COD/FORTNITE fill a very specific niche.
For Honor. <--- Absolutely nothing like it.
R6. <--- Absolutely nothing like it.
Destiny <---- Absolutely nothing like it.
Overwatch <---- Very, VERY unique.
Some games aren't even fundamentally "good" and can easily be classified as objectively worse than their predecessors and/or filled with endless busy work or addictive gambling mechanics.
Look at all of the modern Assassin's Creed Games or the aforementioned Fifa and Madden or games like
Warframe,
Everyone else is trying to replicate these games that already fill a very specific niche and failing
spectacularly because those genres/style of game are already servicing their fans and own most
of marketshare.
It's less about some kind of gaming Eugenics where "Good games inherently succeed" and more about lIve services
not being a replicable thing.
The failure absolutely do take away from the hits IMO.
If the goal is to replicate this and turn it into a business, then the failures have shown that it
is for the most part not repeatable.
We've already seen that when done well, niche 3rd party titles can have repeatable success or even sustainable business models.
Whereas we with live services there is an assumption the business will do well because it's a live service.
***Note***
Fifa and Madden don't really fit this mold because they're storied and old franchises at this point.
Bent, mangled and forced into live services well after their debut.
I disagree with that.
I'd argue that APEX/COD/FORTNITE fill a very specific niche.
For Honor. <--- Absolutely nothing like it.
R6. <--- Absolutely nothing like it.
Destiny <---- Absolutely nothing like it.
Overwatch <---- Very, VERY unique.
Some games aren't even fundamentally "good" and can easily be classified as objectively worse than their predecessors and/or filled with endless busy work or addictive gambling mechanics.
Look at all of the modern Assassin's Creed Games or the aforementioned Fifa and Madden or games like
Warframe,
Everyone else is trying to replicate these games that already fill a very specific niche and failing
spectacularly because those genres/style of game are already servicing their fans and own most
of marketshare.
It's less about some kind of gaming Eugenics where "Good games inherently succeed" and more about lIve services
not being a replicable thing.
how do you type all that just to cartwheel around the fact that you can't monetize a platform that people don't want to begin with?
because that's it.
so okay, sure. but lets ensure this is framed properly again
to start - im pretty sure i mentioned rivals and mecha break right at the jump too. same genre, same framework, same *quarter*. one because interest was measurable right away with rivals, something sony neglected to take seriously internally and externally. and mecha break - for doing something new in the same lane and seeing measurable success right away with a fraction of the investment of concord.
concord got cooked in the same quarter that First Descendent proved it had legs and when two other titles in its lane - mecha break and marvel rivals - did dramatically better
and to expand in future posts, i mentioned some other titles.
each title i mention had a clear so-what behind it as in what is/isn't a failure because the perception and reality is very different in gaming discourse.. You mentioned '9/10' 'flop' - but you're also not quantifying the number or the failure (if it even was). These titles were perceived as failures in some capacity in online spaces but aren't anywhere close to real bombs. That's the problem with this whole narrative. Reductive takes upfront then trying to expand on the faulty logic after the fact.
plus.... "the failures do take away from the hits" in no other industry does this work cmon lmao. boeing sucks - lets all leave the aerospace idea, whos with me? mechanic sucks, that's it im on the uber wave for life now. this is how everyone knows the gaming sector discourse is mud.
Further, each had a different structure as well. Over-simplifying GaaS frameworks as some one-size fits all money-button that is immediately attached to exceptional, yet somehow still unclear, expectations is how 'all GaaS suck' narratives happen. For example, you're communicating apex as a 1:1 (even though i mentioned clear 1:1 with rivals and mecha break) when my post says;
like apex didn't materialize out of left over assets and a "fukk it why not"
as if we all don't know what happened with titanfall 3 by this point. that's one of several tangents i'm not following you down because you know its a lazy tangent too
and because why not i got time to kill here's two other quick fallacies you've created for yourself;
"It's less about some kind of gaming Eugenics where "Good games inherently succeed" and more about lIve services not being a replicable thing."
they are constantly replicated at scale because it works. good games don't inherently succeed, but bad games that no one wants? yeah they always fail. lol
"Whereas we with live services there is an assumption the business will do well because it's a live service."
if a game has no interest then it cannot break the barriers into sustainability, then its not even capable of meeting bare minimum live service entry requirements - again lol
so it goes back to the fact that no one bought it.
a game people don't want will not sell - and that if consumers don't want the base, then you can't generate revenue regardless. that logic applies for single player full packages and refreshing titles. free to play is even scarier for larger projects as well because you're hedging bets at that point too.
imagine if software as a service was considered failure in data management across the board because of salesforce
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Yeah being “woke” isn’t the reason why this game failed. Games like Overwatch and Apex Legends have a roster. Full of gay and diverse characters lol. They were also attacked by the same racist cacs that attacked Concord. Concord failed for being a 40$ uninspired hero shooter. Competing against already established free to play hero shooters. The only thing special about Concord is that it’s a PlayStation exclusive.
