Games As A Service: Viability or Liability?

With the rise of cloud computing as a concept in the world of technology in the past decade, we have seen the rise of practices such as SaaS (Software as a Service), PaaS (Platform as a Service) and IaaS (Infrastructure as a Service) which were instrumental in the marketability of cloud computing, mostly in the Computing and Networking companies. Recently however, numerous variations of the aaS have emerged, such as TaaS (Travel as a Service) and GaaS (Gaming as a Service) which point to the need our society has for systems that provide said services.

However, with rampant growth, issues follow, and many have begun criticizing this model due to a number of reasons, not limited to, but also including certain predatory psychological tricks, some companies use for monetization. Today we will be talking about GaaS or, as they are often referred as in the gaming community, "Live Services".

Games as a service, as mentioned in Wikipedia is a business model which : " provides video games or game content on a continuing revenue model, similar to software as a service. Games as a service are ways to monetize video games either after their initial sale, or to support a free-to-play model. Games released under the GaaS model typically receive a long or indefinite stream of monetized new content over time to encourage players to continue paying to support the game. This often leads to games that work under a GaaS model to be called "living games" or "live games", since they continually change with these updates.".

Often referred to as "live services" lately more and more gaming companies are trying to employ this business model to earn more money. In this article we will discuss the pros and cons for both the company and the customer and wrap it all up with a personal opinion on the matter. Let's get to it.

The live services business model is an attractive prospect for both gamers and companies alike, due to a number of things. Popularized by many MMO's including World Of Warcraft, Lineage 2, Aion etc, the meteoric rise of this model seems to make sense when you consider the following:

• Social Aspects: Being constantly online and being able to interact with other players, often leads to positive socializing. From guilds to friendships, plenty of gamers have united over their favorite video games in an online environment. In addition, it manages to connect people with similar interests regardless of the limitations of their town or even country. Last but not least, some aspects of online gaming have been seen having positive effects on people with social difficulties, as they allow a person to be social from the safety of their own home.
• Being familiar/a hobby: Being maintained through a significant period of time, games that follow this model become less "games" in the conventional sense, and more like hobbies. Offering consistency, familiarity and, often, a steady progression this means that, when paired with the above, you manage to create an activity that is more akin to a hobby. People will schedule their time around it, spend money around it, find friends and engage in other social engagements with people etc, thus making it a more interactive and multi layered experience.
• Easier to spend money on: People will spend money on their hobbies. Just look at the wargaming miniature scene. Naturally when a game becomes a live service and manages to attract a crowd, then that crowd will eventually begin spending. Whether it's microtransactions, mini purchases, convenience items or even getting more than one copies of the game, people like to show their gratitude towards a game they enjoy by spending money on it. That said however, (and it will be mentioned in the Con's list) there are smart ways to go about this, and bad ways.

As you see, with all the above, it makes sense that every company would want their game to be a live service success. But here lies the problem.

The problem with "Live Service" games is easy to spot from the get go and that is the limited market. As broad a target audience your game might have, in the end of the day you are entering a -very- competitive market, and with so many games out there demanding the same, gamers just do not have the money required to afford more than a couple of games under the live service model.

But the error companies make, in my opinion, is that they saw the great success games like World of Warcraft, Star Wars: The Old Republic Online or even Lord Of The Rings Online have and wish to have a slice of that recurring revenue. But that cannot happen due to a number of reasons, including:

• Limited Market: As said above, there is a finite amount of gamers out there, and unfortunately they are normal people without the budget to keep throwing hundreds of euros at each game that comes out.
• Saturation Of The Market: Due to the social aspects mentioned in the previous section of the game, the market for more "live service" games is pretty saturated. Sure, people try the occasional new "MMO" or new "Online Gaming Experience", and certainly some games might succeed, like Fortnite managed to do. However, as we said before, those games rely on turning gamers into Hobbyists and invest time and money into the game to keep it running, but when people have already found their familiar game, then they will, sooner or later, return to it.
• Bad Marketing Has Given Live Services A Bad Name: Microtransactions swiftly went from a practice that was meant to be there as a means for the gamers to show their appreciation and love for the game, to a predatory system created to psychologically apply pressure and manipulate players into spending. Naturally, leaving a bad taste in their customers mouths has left many to be weary, suspicious and tired by this form of gaming, thus making it harder and harder for games to be sustainable this way.
• High Technical Requirements: You may think that anyone with a competent studio can make a live service video game, but you would be wrong. As evident by the series of blusters that is Fallout 76, a game that wants to operate as a live service has to understand that your game has to be -flawless- from a technical point. People wont care about a shitty story, or terrible voice acting in a Live Service game, as long as the gameplay is good, the servers are stable and the graphical/technical aspects of the game are not broken, as such, unless you have a programming team that can make you a working game without the need of modders to come fix your shit, then Live Services is NOT for you....Bethesda!
• They cost a -lot- to make: Creating a game that is always online needs a -lot- of work, especially in the video game scene, when changes in technology and consoles come almost every year. Naturally creating a game with the "Live Service" model is a risky endeavor, and more often than not, fail, due to one of the issues described above. The results of this damages the companies that make them but also the gaming community as a whole. Many great ideas that would be terrific co-op or single player games died out simply because they were attempting to take the place already owned by the titans of the online genre. Anthem, Fallout 76, Sea Of Thieves, Wildstar are but a few great games and ideas that died out, simply because rather than be single or co-operative games, they tried to become Live Services that simply do not have the sticking power to attract enough people to sustain themselves.

Finally, it is important to understand that despite the pros and cons, what is important to understand about Games as a Service, is that the Customer has to come first. Many companies choose to think too much on the marketing and monetization of their games, ignoring how the experience will be from the player.

Sure if you make your game have advanced methods to manipulate or pressure someone into spending you might get a few bucks out of them, hell I am guilty for spending money on said games and fall victim to them. But, in the end of the day, if one wants to make an enduring game that will become the titan of revenue that World Of Warcraft is, then player enjoyment has to come first. If the players are happy, do not feel pressured or attacked, and generally just have a great time playing your game, then you can guarantee that they will be more open to opening their wallets to micro-transactions.

If you do not believe me, then all you have to do is pay close attention to World Of Warcraft's history.

GaaS (games as a service) are here to stay, whether we like to or not.

Are they viable?

I believe that, when done properly, they can be. They have numerous advantages for everyone involved, should they be done well, and as a person that has a distaste for crowded unfamiliar places, the social outlet those games offer me is greatly beneficial and has even managed to give me a few lifelong friends at that. It is not hard to find heart warming stories like marriages crop up around those types of games and no one can deny the inspiration for creativity they pose for many people. But at the same time, with the dark turn monetization has taken over the past few years I cannot help but worry about their future.

However in their current state, I think they are not viable as companies fail to understand that those games are risky, because they are very expensive to make, require a lot of good faith from their customers as well as a great team of developers to make sure they have something functional and be ready to respond rapidly at the slightest issue.

As far as microtransactions go, perhaps companies should focus more on making quality games than how to sell microtransactions for them, and let the market regulate itself.

As a final footnote, I would like to apologize for the lack of actual sources and links to proper articles by studied people on the subject matter, but truth be told, spare for the wikipedia article, I have not found any conclusive "scientific" report on this subject matter, as it is so new, even laws have not caught up with it.

Hope at the very least you found the points entertaining!