Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

Nowadays, often when you buy a game you aren't just buying the game as-is, but future updates and features too. A service, not a product. A lot of software moved towards this awhile ago with "Software-As-A-Service" model.

Whilst this has multiple benefits to developers (allows for more rapid feedback and freedom try new ideas and the roll back unpopular ones), do you think this is a good model for consumers? Are a lot of the problems of things like Early Access just consumers of games simply not being used to this model?

You wouldn't buy a word processor that didn't save files but had them as a future update. You'd wait until they implemented that feature. Why buy a game that lacks the features you want in that game?

I'm a gamer and a software developer, so I'm not detached from this enough to get perspective. What are the opinions of other people?

[MoLAoS]

Honestly I dislike it a lot. The industry pays a lot to get advertising and press talking about how great it is for consumers but its really not. Even Paradox has an issue always patching shit for no reason just because DDRJake spends 10 hours a day figuring out obscure bugs. Then Paradox overpatches and ruins the game for half the customers.

[Levi]

Well, TF2 was sort of done that way, and it turned from something I loved to something I hated.  So I'm not really a fan either. 

I'm sure it could be done well if something was designed for it from the start, but so far I've mostly had bad experiences.

[MoLAoS]

Well, TF2 was sort of done that way, and it turned from something I loved to something I hated.  So I'm not really a fan either.

Online semi-competitive games are a little different, they sort of need lots of balance patches, although a ton of major features changes might be overdoing it.

[MorleyDev]

So it has the potential to go horrible wrong if mismanaged. A lack of clear vision from management resulting in chasing user opinions without filter, and increasing the risks for large amounts of feature creep to drift away from that original vision, lack of adequate QA resulting in constant breakages.

From a software developer perspective, this seems to me to be a result of trying to take SaaS without the lessons from agile that need to come with it, given that video games have traditionally maintained an old-school model of development. So lack of thorough testing of code, QA isn't considered and treated like an important part of the development team but it's own "thing" etc.

Of course there are projects that do it write. Kerbal Space Program is the shining example at the moment, since those developers have a good handle on stopping feature creep and maintaining their vision (watch the interview of them with Scott Manley). And MMOs like EVE Online have survived for years thanks to this process, but they most definitely are SaaS.

[nenjin]

On the one hand, for games with strong development and a long life-span, it's net benefit for the customer.

But that doesn't describe 1/2 of the games as a service out there. Many projects, while billed as a service, are really just taking money prior to discontinuing development. This can often be disguised by 3rd party software, (i.e. digital distribution platforms.)

A game like DF, that will get developed come hell or high water, it's solid. For your average AAA studio with publisher backing? It's a rip off 90% of the time, because it's envisioned as a monetization scheme, and promoted as a service.

Also, see: Theme Park economics. That's essentially what games-as-a-service are moving to. F2P games already do this by converting your dollars into a digital currency of which the company can control the exchange rate. In F2P games, it's acceptable. But, for example, if Steam required you to buy everything on Steam from your Steam wallet, that'd be the kind of closed system methodology that basically exists to exploit the customer and the fact they have zero control over the system they're taking part of.

[Sharp]

I was at a Cloud Gaming event by Microsoft recently which was all about this. It looks like it has a lot of potential although most of the focus is more for freemium mobile applications which I am not a fan of especially as they are looking at continual monetisation of users.

https://www.develop-online.net/interview/games-as-a-service-what-does-it-mean-for-indies/0189880

The guy being interviewed was there and a colleague of his and were pretty much saying the same as in the interview citing examples of using soft-launches to do quick tweaks to improve success of the game as well as doing tweaks throughout.

This isn't really QA on the cheap (although it can be) as good QA will still focusing a lot on actually finding and fixing bugs, this is more of focus group testing in the same way that games will have beta testers whose job is not really to find bugs but to comment on how they find the game and how it could be improved, of course what mediatonic want is to have beta testers without realising they are beta testers by analysing how they are playing the game and how much they are playing and what makes them keep playing or stop playing which is much more then what a QA department can reasonably do.

The way the conference was stating was it wasn't so much going to be feature creep but just trying to tweak games for mass market audience which unfortunately for hardcore gamers like myself is not good as it's just trying to make games be as addictive as possible rather then be good quality games.

I really don't like freemium models as it really puts a more literal meaning on end-user.

Anyway for developers though it looks like there are lots of tools so indie devs can get QA for cheap as well as easily monetise their product by in-game purchases or advertisements or analyse behaviour of players. It does look nice for being able to game more ubiquitously though.

[BFEL]

My thoughts on this are mostly taken up by the way its used to justify the prevention of modding and even more disgustingly, the destruction of backwards compatibility.

Basically for developers, as long as games are a service and not a product, they can keep people from "interrupting their intended service" with modding, and also choose when they just want a game to die by stopping support for it and discontinuing manufacture of the things that can play it.
Obviously this is an issue right now for consoles, and its why I'm transferring all my gaming over to computer.

In a world where games have been legally recognized as art, I find it disgusting that developers can just take a torch to the museum the moment the Mona Lisa stops making them money.

[Neonivek]

The problem is mostly that I am kind of with BFEL.

This is more going to be a technology used to further control their products AGAINST their customers... then one that will be used to enrich the customer's experience.

[KA101]

As BFEL and Neonivek.  I'd heard City of Heroes/Villains had become more accessible, and was ramping up to take a look--and then they started closing the servers.

Terreria looks Nifty.  Too bad I can not only see the end-stage of all that grinding, but would need to get Updated every so often.  Nthx.

Basically, I think this is a move to subvert the single-sale exemption to copyright law and eliminate resale/trading of games: once the product's registered, that's it, no transfers fuck you I SAID GOOD DAY.  So I'm not terribly thrilled with publishers or devs who charge and then market as a Service.

Gagh.

/hasn't bought a game for years, and no new ones for longer than that

[Darkmere]

Depends on what service is actually provided. Years ago when I was playing World of Warcraft, I was satisfied with the entertainment value I received per month for my gaming dollar. MMO's tend to work with the model.

Nothing else I've played has worked. To be clear, this is exactly how I see "early access" despite all the protestations of the industry at large; you buy a product as it is *now* and agree to hope and a prayer that it will eventually fit whatever ideal product you can imagine, at some future date. Spoiler alert!: It won't.

I think it'll be great for the industry financially, as people buy into whatever marketing is fed them about new products.... But personally I'll continue to wait until a product is in acceptable shape before I buy it, so it won't change my buying habits at all.

[alexandertnt]

I agree with BFEL.

Some games I have had more fun modding than playing (e.g. Skyrim), and the idea that a game would actively work to prevent modding makes me sad.

Plus there are tons of older games that are good fun, and I don't like the idea that games could cease to work/exist oneday (moreso that just plain old bitrot).

[LoSboccacc]

I hate it with passion. It is an excuse to sell unfinished products at full price, with a vague promise of fixing it on the road which is seldom fulfilled.

The moment they starting selling bugfixes with expansions disc the whole industry was as good as dead for me.

I still get some AAA title full price from reputable companies, but those are fewer and fewer. Mostly I purchase them when they hit the 5€ price on steam, the true value of a license, since we don't even own them nowadays.

I am spending much more on donations, alpha founding and fund raising now. More risky - two in six project were duds - but better investment for my money overall dropping 25 on 4 games than 60 on a AAA title and then untold amounts to have it patched and working trough dlc.

and don't get me started on freemium.

[DJ]

IMO it would only be an acceptable model if the customers could sue the publisher for failing to deliver promised features. I mean, it is a sort of false advertising, right?

[LoSboccacc]

nah, it is written all over the boxes:

thou shalt not sue but arbitrate
thee software hast nae warrantee


and so long, I can't come up with ten ok? XD