Ouch! Square Enix boss Yosuke Matsuda has insinuated that Tomb Raider developer Crystal Dynamics may have been the wrong studio for Marvel’s Avengers. Speaking as part of an alarmingly candid annual performance report, via VGC, the executive assured shareholders that the publisher had learned from the “disappointing” superhero release, and suggested that it will better match “game designs” with developers moving forwards.
Crystal Dynamics, of course, is perhaps best known for its brand of Naughty Dog-style action-adventure games, but Marvel’s Avengers represented its first foray into the divisive Games as a Service scene. “Taking on the GaaS model highlighted issues that we are likely to face in future game development efforts such as the need to select game designs that mesh with the unique attributes and tastes of our studios and development teams,” Matsuda said.
He continued: “While the new challenge that we tackled with this title produced a disappointing outcome, we are certain that the GaaS approach will grow in importance as gaming becomes more service oriented. How we go about creating new experiences by incorporating this trend into our game design is a key question that we will need to answer going forward.” Man, that’s got to be difficult reading for the Crystal Dynamics team.
The latest Marvel’s Avengers saga saw the developer add XP boosting microtransactions to the title’s in-game store, which have since been removed. Crystal Dynamics still has content promised for the title, including Sony’s controversial console exclusive Spider-Man add-on, which is due out later in the year. Meanwhile, the Californian developer has been tapped up by Microsoft to assist development on its new Perfect Dark title.
[source videogameschronicle.com]
Comments 98
Wow!
If ya don't wanna do it, do it badly 😉
Great job! 😁
It takes a special level of incompetence to screw up THE AVENGERS. How do you screw up a license to print money THAT badly?
Sometimes things just don’t come together. Wherever the blame lies, hopefully Crystal Dynamics can brush it off and deliver a top tier single player campaign in whatever they do next.
Hard to see Crystal Dynamics with that giant bus driving over them after that throw from the CEO
Matsuda: "...we are certain that the GaaS approach will grow in importance as gaming becomes more service oriented..."
Yea, I don't like that idea one bit. That sounds awful Matsuda...
Oof, kind of feel bad for Crystal Dynamics here, even if they didn't make a great game. Hopefully their next title fits them better.
Who's got the idea for gaas avengers, the executives at CD or SE? That's the real problem. CD is single player focused game studio, they're ill suited making gaas games.
Square ain't got a prayer.
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MeaslyFaithfulAssassinbug-size_restricted.gif
Matsuda is probably right that Crystal Dynamics was ill suited to craft a games as a service title, but ultimately the blame for that decision falls on Square Enix’s management team. You can see where Crystal Dynamics’ strengths lie in the rather good single player content and attention to detail on the individual characters and story.
Blame crystal dynamics.i mean his the boss.wtf dog.sh🤔t is crazy.haha.word up son
I know Square Enix you didnt even finish Final Fantasy 15 it took so long that writer left before it was finished.
The company that needs 10 years to find out the game was not what they wanted. And start over from scratch as much as i respect that you want to release a great game its total mismanagement.
Also if your future is GAAS then you are out of my books as a my favorite Developer and now im afraid how you are going to butcher the new Dragon Quest.
PS really cheap throwing your developer under the bus.
I'm less likely to buy a Square game now. Pointing fingers when you're directly responsible for crunch times... I've lost a lot of respect for Square.
@RBMango Nonsense its not hard if you make a studio do GAAS when their strenghts lie in a different thing its not that hard.
To be fair I think the campaign is decent! But the open-ish areas are boring, the combat is too grindy (unlocking all moves I mean), and the clear inclusions of multiplayer components (costume shop) hurt it a bit!
Multiplayer overall is crap imo! They clearly tried a game as a service that wasn't supposed to happen..
The issue isn't that Crystal was the wrong developer, the issue is that Square-Enix and/or Marvel demanded a type of game that Crystal simply aren't experienced making.
The narrative campaigns, gameplay differences between characters, and general game feel are all great to solid. Nearly every single problem people have with Avengers springs from the GaaS aspects. The terrible gear system, excessively long progression/levelling grind, complete lack of endgame content, largely horrible pallet-swapped cosmetics that are massively overpriced, etc., etc., etc., THAT'S all the crap that drags the whole thing down.
Remove all of that and Avengers is a pretty solid game.
"we are certain that the GaaS approach will grow in importance as gaming becomes more service oriented."
Wow. This is the absolute opposite lesson you should have taken away from this. If anything, it shows that the GaaS approach is extremely difficult to sustain when it goes wrong, such as when your roadmap plans fall through and you're left trying to keep your playerbase enthusiastic about it. Also, the most successful GaaS games are free-to-play, so maybe that's a hint you ought to take as well?
Bottom line, Avengers should have been a damn single-player game like Guardians of the Galaxy. That was what Crystal Dynamics clearly had the formula for before the game was twisted sideways to fill the mold of a GaaS to its own detriment.
They blaming the dev and NOT blaming GaaS…..🙄
It's true though. CD makes great single player games and square is being greedy with GaaS. It's not trivial to get it right and you already got FFXIV. Stick to what works. There are more corpses of GaaS than sucesses.
Also, get CD working on Legacy of Kain again. Tyvm
@Telekill This is a case of Execs trying to shift the blame. Not all of square is like that, but it sure isn't a good look.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. That's a low blow from Square. Crystal's Tomb Raider games have won many awards over the years; they are far from incompetent developers. They're not the problem. So if Crystal wasn't the problem then I wonder what was the problem. Hmmm....
CD have never been great with anything what isn't strictly SP, remember all those forced MP modes into the recent TR games? No? Well exactly.
The single player campaign is really good in Avengers and its clear its where CD were most confident. The live service side even when ignoring the MTX is just lackluster at best and awful at worst, the gear sucks, the rewards are not there and the locations and enemies as well mission design were boring. Only the combat and characters have kept me playing because that side is pretty great.
I avoid talking about this Avengers game, and I will not talk about it now. But regarding the GaaS thing, I have a feeling that games that tend to be more successful in that model are those based on original franchises, instead of famous and already settled ones.
Just ditch the Gaas going all together.
i never understood why square enix is involved with those marvel games , never cared for them , just stick to what you do best .
Hopefully they can over looks this misstep and get back to what they do best which making excellent single player games. I'm also excited to see what they bring to the table with the Perfect Dark reboot
There is no value in GaaS for consumers. Selling what should be in game rewards is just plain wrong. Content is King sell on going content to expand and continue the game in a series of smaller releases at a lower price. Then add new rewards to that content!
Ok, now go make more Marvel games like GOTG
You know it's bad when even Square admits that the game wasn't as great as they tought it would be. Heck, on Marvel's Avengers reddit page, I already seen some posts on how much of a better game Guardians of the Galaxy was compared to Marvel's Avengers.
It's a shame that Marvel's Avengers didn't do so good since there are some good ideas here and there, as well as the fanservice. However the GaaS model really held the game back, and knowing that Babylon Fall will also adopt that type of model too, I'm really worried. Square should really need to abandon it. The model, I mean.
Ugh, the "increasing importance of gaas as games become more subscription oriented ". Sorry, bud, even Game Pass couldn't save your streaming pile.
What they really mean is "how we can better mesh traditional games into the mobile p2w+mtx+sub monetization model that's clearly the only reason to make games going forward as far as any investor will ever be willing to pay for."
Suddenly PS2 looks a lot more fun than PS5.
Meanwhile at EA: Doubling down on single player and cutting multiplayer completely after the train wreck that was Anthem.
s-e learned nothing by the sounds of it. hate to say it, but the only way for them to wake up is a couple more failures that lose them hundreds of millions of dollars. this will result in the closure of (some) of its studio(s) and a major shakeup in their approach to game design and gaas. all that can be avoided, though, if they simply scratch their awful business plans now, but that would require some foresight...
I used to laugh when people said that Crystal dynamics was Naughty Dog tier when they launched Tomb Raider 2013.
It was always just an average game studio.
@Porco You'd think they had learned after FFXIV 1.0.
Gluttons for punishment!
@MrMetroid Nope. Their single player games are great. Not Naughty Dog level, but great.
It's the publishers fault the game bombed it was clearly made with with micro transactions as the main focus
Sure, blame the dev for the fact that you [square] forced them to turn the game into an MTX loaded game as a service.
Honestly hope the rumors about MS likely buying the studio away are true because they can make some good games, provided they are not being forced to turn their games into money leeches.
I wouldnt blame crystal dynamics the single player campaign was good it was after that it got bad. i would blame square in making them make a live service loot game.
@trev666 exactly.
@Flaming_Kaiser You've got that FFXV thing the wrong way around. Pretty sure the writer you're talking about was the director and person that came up with the story, setting and characters, Tetsuya Nomura, and it was his fault it took so long. Crazy things like he'd wake up and decide he wanted it to be a musical now. He kept changing his mind about what he wanted. Square Enix eventually took him off the project so it'd actually get finished - and also told him to hurry the hell up and finish KH3 as well because he was also taking ages with that.
Just back to that musical thing, it might sound like a joke but it's true:
https://www.ign.com/articles/2013/06/13/e3-2013-final-fantasy-xv-was-almost-a-musical
Bear in mind, he was inspired by the Les Miserables film which was in 2012, that's 5 years after development had started. So in this case, thank Square Enix that not only did XV get finished at all, it wasn't a Les Mis-inspired musical.
Or mebe gaas doesn't work. Especially using crap character models and making it a grind fest . Not all crystal dynamics fault its also square Enix so called design plans
@RBMango they've done a pretty good job showing us how to screw it up to be fair
GaaS was definitely the mistake here, I'd imagine Avengers would've turned out well if Crystal Dynamics were allowed to create a traditional single player game like they're known for.
I really hope the upcoming Perfect Dark they're working on is a traditional single player game. XGS is also leaning way too heavily into GaaS like Halo Infinite being the only Halo game for the next decade.
I dislike the GaaS model as much as everyone here BUT there’s no doubting they can be a huge source of revenue (Fortnite, Genshin Impact, Pokemon Go, Candy Crush etc. are testament to that)
The difference is getting the balance right especially if you want to charge full price for the game to hedge your bets. Some manage this better than others like Forza Horizon 4, Destiny, Overwatch etc.
They’re also not wrong. CD were NOT the right developer for a giant budget GaaS game having had little to no experience in that area. I read this less as them throwing CD under the bus and more criticising their own management decision.
Still it’s a real shame to hear them talking about more GaaS in future.
@bimboliquido completely agree, I read it FAR more as criticism of their own management in picking the wrong team for the job than a criticism of Crystal Dynamics. CD are a great developer but they have little/no experience of GaaS. To be thrown in the deep end expected to make a successful GaaS at this budget first time was a foolish decision by SE management.
This is just a sad situation all around. As harsh as people might perceive his words to be he isn't wrong. CD has never done GaaS before and is built on a legacy of great single player games. I don't know what Square management was thinking assigning something like this to CD.
I again just hope this game gets dropped like Anthem soon so that CD can go back to what they do best.
Oh and also GaaS being more important to Square for the future definitely concerns me more than anything. You got FF14 Square! It's enough!
Kicked em right in the Gaas.
"we didn't get a sufficiently scummy dev to produce our sufficiently scummy vision for a sufficiently scummy money printing GAAS"
The industry is genuinely heading in a direction I am not down with. I have already felt my interest waning this gen as it is.
Starting to feel a bit like the 'old man shouts at Gaas cloud' guy.
@themightyant i was waiting for somebody to talk sense instead of just putting the boot in..i'm not a big fan of the whole GaaS thing,loot boxes,micro transactions etc...but these games sell and some of them sell by the shed load so its very easy to see why most game publishers (not necessarily the devs) want to pursue this cash cow.Even the f2p games do execptionally well profit wise so while everybody hates on the avengers and other GaaS offerings just remember that its because we keep buying them and then pouring more money into them (whilst moaning all the time about them)that they have and will continue to be part of gaming culture..
@themightyant gotta agree here as well..i read it as their decision to put cd on this was their mistake..i didnt see this as se trying to shift the blame at all..people need to stop seeing what they want to see and read it properly (i myself have been guilty of this on occasion)..
@Northern_munkey We're ALL guilty of this from time to time (/very often) and I like my pound of flesh too
But on this occasion it was weird reading all the other posts and not seeing what to me was pretty obvious grated. Marvel's Avengers is the only "non-sequel, non-remake in the NPD sales top 10 for the year." SquareEnix have a history of making AAA games that are too expensive relatively and expecting these to sell more than they are likely to then complaining about it (Tomb raider, Outriders, etc.).
It's done just fine, it just hasn't sold gangbusters like they wanted especially on the player persistence live service side. In part this is because they chose the wrong developer for a GaaS project.
@themightyant @Northern_munkey Honestly I read it the same way.
It seemed more like they were acknowledging that they had picked a studio more suited to a different kind of project, and that they should pick a more specialised studio next time.
@themightyant outriders...another game thats had its fair share of needless hate thrown its way..i still play it and i really enjoy it..it is not a crap game as some would say and its very good online if you get a good squad that work together and the campaign is pretty meaty too it just suffers from being a little bit mediocre in its execution (still cant stop seeing destiny in the inventory screen lol)..another game i find to be treated unfairly is godfall which has become so much better over time and is still on my playlist and has been installed on my ps5 since day one..maybe i'm just easier to please (my wife will argue that statement)...anyway back to diablo 2..have fun people
The games as a service approach will only ever work for "free to play" games
They wouldn't have screwed it if it was a proper story game. Live service game is the f-up part.
@Northern_munkey I've not actually played Outriders so can't comment on that personally. But what I have heard from many is they really liked aspects of it but it had flaws.
I'm afraid I have to take your wife's side on this one
Judging by the games/hours you've said you played I think you just like that loot/grind mechanic. And nothing wrong with that! absolutely not a criticism. But for many that is tiresome and repetitive. I get that too.
I sit somewhere in between. I usually loath GaaS and online services, yet have sunk hundreds of hours into Forza Horizon and (squirms uncomfortably) over 1000 hours into Genshin Impact. I see it like comfort food. I can play while doing something else like listening to podcasts. It's a little mindless, which is often exactly what we need.
There is a big market for this. I don't see it as any different to constantly playing Fortnite, FIFA/Sports, Modern Warfare etc. Most people have at least one gaming vice like this. But it's popular to put them all down. I certainly do most of the time! I think in part this because while I enjoy it, I also slightly loathe the hours I'm putting into it. Ultimately GaaS comments are usually a little like holding up a mirror
@UltimateOtaku91 not exactly true though..farcry series,fifa,destiny 1 and 2 (before 2 went f2p),assassins creed,ghost recon,hell even call of duty and the battlefield series...pretty much all of these can be put in the GaaS category with their aggressive micro transactions and loot box designs..if the publishers want their games to have it they will...so no it will not just work for f2p games as it will work just as well for the AAA games too..
Yeah, let's force a developer known for single player games into making a Destiny clone with the Marvel's Avengers property when Bungie who essentially created the genre still can't get it right. Wow!
Way to pass the blame there Square Enix. The success of Guardians of the Galaxy just shows how out of touch Square Enix is. How about you let your developers focus on what they're good at instead of trying to chase trends, a trend that barely works for anyone as is, and force a dev into making a constant money machine for your company.
Square Enix sure loves to blame everyone else for its incompetence. 😡
@Kang81 i'm not convinced that bungie created this format..blizzard were doing it years ago with world of warcraft...arenanet with guild wars 1 and 2...there are countless other games that could fall into the GaaS catergory as well..bungie just made it popular on consoles..
@themightyant i like all kinds of games but yes i do like the looter/grinder games a lot..i tend to lean more towards games that give me a lot of "game" for my cash but i'm a gamer..i'll play anything except goat simulator..
@Northern_munkey Wasn't suggesting you ONLY play those types of games, just that you seem to warm to that mechanic that puts many others off.
Also don't knock it till you've tried it! Goat simulator is janky fun!
I was pretty surprised and wondered what Square was thinking here but I guess it was just as simple as 100s of millions of dollars should buy us a good game, it'll take care of itself.
The problem isn't with Crystal, it's with the game as a service design of the game. Just look at Guardians. It's a singleplayer rpg with an amazing story.
The game also could have been multiplayer, but it needed to do so throughout the entire game, and not in a grindy gaas way. If it was co-op like Left4Dead, where you aren't grinding for gear and such, just playing through fun multiplayer levels, I think it would have been better.
@themightyant i didnt think you were bud..i'll take your word on goat sim 😉
As more people seem concerned about GaaS, I worry about the near future when every big dev will be releasing a Marvel or Star Wars game.
Give the people what they really want, a Mass Effect style Futurama game!! (One day it'll happen!!)
I mean I don't think the game they tried to make is an easy game to make. I actually had some fun with The Avengers, but it has a lot of fundamental issues that get in the way of playing the game, which in itself is only kind of fun.
I think they might have found more success making a 4 player co-op campaign game. The campaign is the best part as is, and if they had done that they could have concentrated more on good fundamentals between characters. As is, the game is just too chaotic IMO, and it doesn't really feel like anything you do really affects the team at large.
Guardians of the galaxy was way better than The Avengers.
Man, I feel bad for Crystal Dynamics getting thrown under the bus like this.
I really enjoyed the Tomb Raider reboots (playing Rise and Shadow in Dolby Atmos is a flipping game-changer, by the way).
I was baffled when it was announced that Avengers was also a GaaS because it just doesn't seem to fit at all and I had a feeling it wasn't going to be a success.
I really hope the partnership with Microsoft for Perfect Dark is a little bit of redemption for Crystal Dynamics.
Who made the idiotic decision to make Avengers a 'service game.' If it was the bosses such as Matsuda, then no, Crystal Dynamics is not the issue here...
@Northern_munkey
Most likely, but Bungie is probably responsible for popularizing it, at least in recent years and for consoles.
Regardless, I wish it would go away since the only ones interested in the idea seem to only pursue it to gouge customers.
I see that people are still posting that square enix have thrown crystal dynamics "under the bus" when in fact this isnt the case at all..to me and a few others who can discern the actual context behind what square have said is that they should have farmed the game out to a team that had more experience with that style..they are accepting that "they" made the wrong decision...not reading anything here that singles crystal dynamics out as the "sole" reason the game didnt turn out how they hoped..i partly blame push square for the way this has been reported..again..especially with the closing comments,presuming that it would have been hard for crystal to read it..when are the click bait articles going to end?
@MrMetroid
Rise of the Tomb Raider was fantastic.
From a gameplay standpoint it matched Uncharted 4. Uncharted 4 was better directed and had a better story. But gameplay wise ROTTR matched Uncharged 4.
CD is a great studio. In this case, they got stuck making a game that they have literal zero experience at.
You honestly believe Naughty Dog, a studio whose strengths lies in the same areas as Crystal Dynamics, would have done any better with a live service game?
@Northern_munkey
I agree. To me it reads like SE is admitting that they should have picked another studio to build a live service game.
Live service is extremely difficult, and traditional developers who don’t have management with experience in them are never going to do a good job. Crystal Dynamics has never done a live service game and I doubt many of its team members have either.
They should have had them working on a single player action adventure game. That is what they’re good at. I hope they get the opportunity to work on a dead SE franchise. I’d love to see what CD could do with a new Brave Fencer Musashi.
@Matroska I see it different if your employees make such a mess why wait so bloody long to act? Its not their first game that took ages that they have to restart. If you as a company let this go on for so long then there is something really wrong there but thats my idea about it.
@themightyant The key remains that the big GaaS success stories are free games that nickel and dime a massive ("free") audience to the tune of tremendous revenue. Games like Forza Horizon are, fundamentally, traditional single player games that also include GaaS (generally not monetized) elements as a play mechanic. Then there's those very few outliers, like Destiny and Overwatch, but again, Overwatch is more or less a traditional team based arena shooter with "GaaS elements" as a play mechanic, and Destiny is.....well, it's unique. It's MMO, with annual expansion packs, GaaS elements (or is it just MMO elements without a sub?) It's just a unique creature, oft imitated but never replaced. Personally, I feel a lot more confident placing Destiny in the MMO basket instead of the GaaS basket, which though it has similarities, is a completely different thing. It has more in common with WoW, TESO, FFXV than it does with Fortnite, Candy Crush, etc. I think once a company decides to charge for a full game, but deliver it as a service, they're automatically setting up fora game that is contradictory to itself and irritates every customer type. Except Nintendo. They can keep strip mining their IP as full price games delivered over 2 years as a "service" and still make the top 5....
@Matroska I, for one, believe we needed a Les Mis inspired musical FF in this world, much more than.....whatever that was that we got.... And I say that as someone that actually likes XV..... It's weird...but it would have been legendary, the internet would have nuked continents in revenge, and then 15 years from now we'd have entire blogs begging for ports and sequels and an entire spinoff franchise until Ubisoft creates a Cats inspired Assassin's Creed complete with mtx.
The problem isn't with Crystal Dynamics. The problem with it is the GaaS model that they used for The Avengers. Square Enix wanted to milk this license as much as possible and it backfired. If CD were allowed to create an ultimate single player adventure, I am pretty sure the game will be Epic. GaaS models need to die but it unfortunately, it will not.
Soapbox: Games as a Service ruins everything.
That title is actually my whole argument. It's self evident.
So can we sum up this whole debacle as SE GaaSlighting us?
...I'll get my whale-oil-slicked coat.
@Flaming_Kaiser "I see it different if your employees make such a mess why wait so bloody long to act?"
Because this is the guy that had previously contributed towards giving them FFVII and FFX, KH1 and KH2 amongst other things. Also, think about how many times we get annoyed at the publisher, producer or other higher-up swooping in and stifling the creativity of someone else (e.g. Konami with Kojima and MGSV). It's always easy with hindsight. If FFXV had been a lot better then we'd be glad for Nomura's madness and glad he got away with it for so long. If it was bad and Square Enix had stepped in really early and said "stop screwing around!" then we'd blame them for not letting him be creative.
I do think they've learned their lesson, DQXI was amazing and FFXVI seems to be on track and actually coherent, unlike the dev process of XV.
@Matroska Well you say he has talent thats true but in the end they just waited way to long and again its not the first title that they took back after a decade.
In the end i didnt get the full story of 15 the game was cut up in pieces. But seeing that are going full GAAS in the future im not really seeing something i would like.
Why would people get mad about them telling him to stop screwing around. Nobody wants a new Duke Nukem trainwreck.
Also kinda tough because i dont hear the people complain about the singleplayer campaings. But with the big companies they all want a piece of the pie even when there isnt enough to go around. How can they not see that people have limited time for maybe 1 or 2 GAAS game. GAAS the new gimmick for the gaming industry.
this is one hot mess. I've always loved super hero stuff. but omg this takes the piss with the in your face cheeky selling tactics. i like the protagonist and the characters but im only casually playing through this. by the way im playing this on game pass! lol no way i would pay for this game though 😂. so il just play through and see where it stops oh to get to here you must pay lol na il just enjoy it for wat it is a novelty. the store side of this game can gather dust for all i care.
Noooo way. YOU take the blame CEO, that's why you get paid the big bucks. You're just upset that you forced these devs to pump out one of your garbage live service microtransactions filled trash heaps and it didn't make you boatloads of money. You don't get to throw the devs under the bus, it was you and the ignorant suits up top meddling and demanding that the devs add "X" and "Y" so you could milk the license as much as possible.
How out of touch you have to be to spit nonsense like this. Blaming one of the best studios in the industry? Still defending the service model? Even after all of these? Still? ***** off.
@NEStalgia I mostly agree. F2P is a much easier fit for the GaaS model and games like Genshin Impact, Warframe, etc. are shaking things up showing that this doesn't have to be a low-budget "mobile" type experience anymore. But something that in many ways can be even bigger budget and scope than your typical equivalent game, due to the potential larger and ongoing funding of GaaS MTX... though obviously gated in some way, which can be an issue for many.
Also agree that publishers are trying to have it both ways. Full paid games AND GaaS MTX. You are right it generally irritates every customer type. But no one's quite cracked that model open yet barring a few outliers like GTA that have 'bottled lightning' and can't be replicated. Publishers are trying to solve this 'problem' now with these efforts looking for a method that will appease all fans just enough to sell well at retail and have a long long tail of persistent paying users. Everyone seems to want a piece of the pie and from a financial standpoint I can understand why, first one to truly crack it will make serious bank! Not that I like it.
But I disagree that "traditional single player games that also include GaaS are generally not monetized" e.g. Forza Horizon, Assassins Creed, etc. Yes it's only PART of the equation but that comes with trying to have it both ways - you can't charge full, or even half, price for a game and then give little and just concentrate on MTX. But that doesn't mean that they don't have PLENTY of MTX too. Looking at Ubisofts earnings for example shows just how much money they make from the live service side of this. It isn't "generally not monetised" it's a HUGE part of their annual revenue.
It was an odd fit from the start.
If you want a game as a service, you don't charge fill price for the base game. When I pay £60 for a game, I want a full game.
@themightyant Regarding the single player type games, they may show huge revenue from their mtx, but that mtx is also not a part of the core experience. It's not like Fortnite with battle packs, or GTA shark cards, or even CoD with the P2W XP and gear purchases. AC monetization (other than conventional expansion pack DLC which I'm not including) is purely cosmetics. It lets you buy in-game currency that is, again, almost entirely for cosmetics. The only exception is the controversial XP booster that basically does nothing but let you not play the side content which is, like 60% of the game. Forza....I'm not aware of any monetization other than a small amount of cosmetics. I'm not sure the car packs count as mtx, that's a conventional DLC expansion + the actual expansions. Base game comes with a tremendous amount of cars, and you can buy extra licensed car packs.
I think there's a temptation to blur the line between "GaaS with monetization" meaning mtx that affects core play and advancement vs. "GaaS" with extra DLC packs available, same as if it weren't a GaaS at all." Forza Horizon, if you remove the online component, the festival events, the timed challenges etc, strip out everything "service" about it, it's the same product with the same DLC packs available. Those packs would have been sold as a bigger bundle in a box, on a shelf, as an expansion pack back in the day. AC does sell the cosmetics more like TF2, I suppose that's more in line with the mtx model, but they're also totally peripheral to the game, unlike the truly monetized GaaS environments.
Having played some, though not all of those games, I've never had any temptation to purchase any of it. It all feels insignificant, or worse, game-breaking, like buying a Game Genie. Most of the time I can't actually figure out who would buy that stuff, though people do, for some reason. But that's not the same comparison to the true GaaS MTX-driven experience where you really need to pay into the system to play the game as intended. I don't really need my Assassin to dress up like Sam Fisher while I raid a 14th century tomb....
@NEStalgia As usual you make good points and I agree with much of what you've said, but perhaps coming at it from a slightly different angle.
Is the battle pack in Fortnite Battle Pass part of the core experience? They are skins and XP boosts and you can 100% play without them. Same with GTA Shark Cards. You can earn money through normal gameplay (at a slow rate) but you don't really NEED to buy anything if you don't want to, it's entirely optional.
As such what is the "truly monetised GaaS environment" you speak of? Something like Final Fantasy XIV that REQUIRES a monthly fee? Or only games that are free and slow progression to push you towards boosters? In which case almost ALL the other games discussed fall into the later. AC especially.
I agree that when I play Ubi games (or similar) it is a store that is all cosmetics / optional. And like you I am NEVER interested in paying for that, and wonder just WHO would be. But I think we're both relatively old codgers, this idea has passed us by However clearly enough people like cosmetics in games or Fornite, Overwatch and Fall Guys would all be bankrupt and Ubi wouldn't keep adding them to ALL their games.
Additionally I have played a few of these GaaS games and other than one exception (Genshin Impact) I've never felt the need to purchase in game items, i'd rather wait/grind it out even when pinched. But there are others, especially the younger generation, that like skins and like things more quickly/more easily etc. (though the irony is they are getting them slower than we did before this GaaS model, that's the F2P cost)
"I think there's a temptation to blur the line between "GaaS with monetization" meaning mtx that affects core play and advancement vs. "GaaS" with extra DLC packs available"
Agreed. But isn't that exactly what these hybrid games are doing? Trying to have their cake and eat it too. Sell for full price AND have a live service element AND sell XP boosters . I guess part of the problem is the terminology isn't fully set in stone because the games themselves are still figuring this out.
Assassins creed is both a GaaS with monetisation (XP boosts, Helix Credits etc.) and DLC packs. As is Forza (Credit/XP booster, car packs, map marker reveals AND DLC packs)
For me there's 3-4 types here
1) GaaS games like FF XIV, Elder Scrolls Online that require a monthly fee.
2) GaaS that more strictly gate progression based on time/plays. The typical 'mobile model'
3) GaaS games like Forntite, Genshin that offer a main game that you can play for free from start to finish but are pushed towards monetisation via Battle Passes and MTX to speed things up or get new skins/characters. Payment is optional.
4) Games with GaaS elements and MTX like Assassin's Creed Forza etc.
5) (Probably some i'm unaware of that gate progression more rigidly.)
Lastly I agree i'd put some of this in 'DLC pack' territory and others MTX. But what is a Forza Car pack if not advanced horse armour? It's certainly not Shivering Isles
Happy gaming, have a good weekend, i'm off to play Forza Horizon 5... early with the VIP pass Suckered!
@themightyant I think your early examples really define what makes the true GaaS monetization model. Shark cards give you currency you can earn in-game, but the game is calibrated so as to make that a laborious process demanding significant time, such that you're compelled to spend real money to expedite tedious labor. Same with Fortnite battle packs. You buy progress in the game for money, or you spend real time playing, not to have fun or to hone skills but to "earn" purchasable progress.
The game is calibrated such that you want to spend money to bypass tedium built into the game to present time as a valuable commodity to purchase. (Imagine MH where you can buy monster parts for cash rather than grinding Rathalos' for 20 hours, and making that Rath tail a really rare drop! It's Capcom....count on it!)
It's tempting to lump MMO into GaaS. Indeed that's where the ideas of GaaS emerged from, and it's obviously a service. But MMO really is its own thing, and while our complaints about GaaS may also apply to MMO by nature, there's that key distinction where MMO is monetized around its gameplay model, while GaaS is designed around its monetization model. MMO has what is effectively a never-ending, always expanding campaign that must be monetized indefinitely, as it's always growing in scope, while GaaS settles on a finite campaign experience, bolstered by an open ended sandbox (or competitive arena) in which to "do things." It's one of many reasons I'm not comfortable calling Destiny a GaaS. Everything about it is much, much more aligned with genuine MMO than the rest of the GaaS category, from the unending campaign bolstered by continuous expansion packs, the the actual "party raid" dungeon structure, it's little different from WoW or TESO, PSO2 plus guns.
AC is a unique case. Ubi is obviously trying to go all in on the GaaS/mtx model. However, I think there's been too much hype on AC with the booster. Some have argued that progression is slowed to push you to boosters like with most GaaS, but I haven't really seen that. If you play normally and cover the side quests you level up without grind and are where you need to be. I see that more as a shortcut like Bravely Default's "buy yourself the easy mode" DLC. Atlus has done it too. That's additionally controversial. But still sits outside that mobile/CoD/Fortnite pattern of P2W. It's P2Skip-half-the-actual-game-you-paid-good-money-for. Like if SMB charged you to use the W-1-2 warp pipe to W8.
For the 5 types you list, I think 1 can really be excluded for the above. Yes, it's a service, but those are the actual MMOs, and I think that's just a very different thing with a very different set of goals, problems, costs, and players. I agree with 2&3 as the main GaaS formats.
I think there's some debate on 4 though. Are those games truly GaaS model games, or are they traditional games that offer some online service features as a bonus? And are those online service features really connected at all to any monetization method? For AC and Forza, you can buy cosmetics, XP booster, etc. But you never have to even be online or participate in any service activity to use them, it's all in the boxed game it applies to. Conversely you can participate in all the online service content fully, without ever buying any add-on/mtx. The DLC is conventional add-on-campaign DLC. That's why I really can't include that type of game in with the GaaS idea. It may feel GaaSy at times with the way it pops up with events and timed things, etc, but the fact that the online services are decoupled from any and all payment, they're free, included in the retail price of an otherwise contained retail solo game. Similarly the mtx sold are not in any way connected to the online service features, but are entirely independent to be used with the solo offline game.
So while it's tempting to look at Forza, AC, and say "this is a GaaS type game", it's lacking the one defining characteristic of a GaaS model game.....a link between continuous payments and gameplay progression and/or that mobile style artificial grind to compel you to trade money for time. Nor does it need to be played online at all (excluding Ubi's PC DRM nonsense, but that's another matter.) Dark Souls isn't a GaaS just because it allows you to invade other words in an always-on service for the same reason.
AC and Forza, if you ignore all mtx in the store, is a solo retail game that offers some shared world features in online mode.
Alternately, if you stay offline, it's a single player solo offline game for which a bunch of cosmetics and game-breaking features are available as DLC.
Neither has linked gameplay, online presence, or monetization together as a base function of the game. To me, that's the fundamental requirement of a GaaS. If you have to pay to play, pay to win, pay to avoid forced tedium, pay to avoid cooldowns, or have to play online to play because gameplay is built around online presence, it's a service game (including MMO, but that's its own category as it's always adding content you're paying for. Flight Sim is practically an MMO but we'll call it GaaS. It's not monetized but it's online requirement for functionality is absolute, your playing in their remote, changing world.) I do know some argued AC Odyssey in particular forced the grind to encourage the XP booster, but I really didn't find that to be true, and I suspect that got started by reviewers in the press that naturally have to bee-line to the end of the game. Played normally, the way most people play any normal AC game, where you try to complete all the content presented (quests, forts etc), progression is naturally part of the gameplay without trying to grind or "raid" anywhere. Where Odyssey fell flat is they just bloated the game with far too many "things" to do that becomes tedious to the point you want to skip it. But I'm not convinced that was GaaS design compeling purchase. The game even makes the purchase fairly hard to find if you're looking for it. I think they just legitimately bloated the game too much when they went all in on "making it an RPG."
LOL, yep, looking forward to some FH5 this evening as well! (I picked a bad time to buy Iki Island which is definitely not a service. )
This is so not surprising at all! I hope they never work on another Marvel game again for a long time.
@NEStalgia Again I mostly agree with what you have said I just lean more on the side of things being hazy PRECISIELY because games are blurring the lines with a combination of GaaS, MTX and other monetization elements.
I agree that by definition to be a GaaS you need some sort of continuous ongoing payment structure, but I don't see this as binary, either you have it or you don't, but more as a spectrum. The method of getting recurring revenue, and what is and isn't gated is handled in different ways from battle passes, to in-game currency, to skins or other MTX and is subjectively and sometimes objectively more or less egregious in some cases.
Ultimately I don't think it matters exactly HOW they get the extra recurring money to be a GaaS to be honest just that they are getting it at all. That is the important point. The exact 'HOW' is into the weeds and a bit of red herring. I think MANY of the games discussed have enough elements that they are a form of GaaS even if not full blooded. Especially AC which fits so many of your own GaaS definitions.
At the end of the day it's just semantics over definitions that are still fluid and not yet set in stone and not that important.
In other news: Forza H5 was enjoyable and addictive last night. But despite being a marvel in so many ways, I can't get over how familiar and iterative it feels, almost more like an old fashioned HUGE expansion pack. Excited, impressed and disappointed all at the same time.
Iki Island... I need to get back to GoT but fell off due to the Ubi nature of it and fox shrine number 20 or so. Great is many ways, by the numbers in others.
Happy gaming pal
It's not Crystal Dynamics that was the wrong developer for this game. Actually, Square-Enix were the wrong publisher.
@themightyant Agreed on general. I still think the line in the sand needs to be drawn at the part where game design or functionality is hampered by the paywall, or the service based features. I.e. whether service content simply adds to rather than constituting a component of the packaged game.
Technically gaas doesn't require the paywall to be a service. Acnh, Splatoon are easily gaas games despite there being no paid gated content or features, the service (free) functionality still limits your play by the service features. Acnh and Splatoon both wholly depend on the service features to be a functional game. While modern AC actually is complete in box without any service features (excluding bug patches), but adds service features both free and paid as additional functionality.
While we often complain as gamers about the paywall of gaas, it's actually the service restrictions on play that really define GaaS more than it is the monetization. Both parts together are ugly, though.
Haha, I thought fh5 released yesterday and was all set to play, then got the "too early" message. It was just early access for digital preorder, general release is Tuesday. Oh well!
Fortunately I never overplayed fh4 so I didn't burn out on it.... It'll still feel fresh enough to me and UK was a dull environment for it.... For now, still looking forward to it!
I'm always amazed that, especially here on PS, there's a lot of criticism of Ubisoft games, AC, and the formula, but lots of praise for GoT...... Which is literally AC Origins in a Japan skin. I loved AC Origins so I welcome the formula, but I do wish it was a little more unique.... It's really a close clone. Then again inFamous really closely followed the AC1 template as well. SP is my favorite Sony studio, but they're definitely closet AC fans....... Actually AC has better climbing....
Then again.... HZD didn't really stay far from that template either...
This reads to me like Square Enix just tossing CD under the bus and trying to pin this whole mess on them. I just kind of doubt that a studio that previously never made a GaaS before suddenly decided that this game was the perfect time to do it.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...