Games as a service

[felter]

Going to throw this out there into the realms of the Egosoft forum, as I think a few of you may have something interesting to say on the matter, probably both for and against. It's quite a long video, 1 hour and 15 minutes long and I actually watched it all, it is a pretty interesting argument that he is making, he certainly did his homework it wasn't just thrown together. I also find myself actually agreeing with him, though I doubt anything will come of it in the end, but I wish him all the best.

"Games as a service" is fraud

[notaterran]

The concept of games as a service needs to die but unfortunately there are gamers out there keeping it alive. Fallout 76 and Anthem are bad jokes.

[Antilogic]

I have no issue with Games as a Service as long as they are run and handled well. Same as with anything.

[RegisterMe]

I have no issue with Games as a Service as long as they are run and handled well. Same as with anything.

+1

[felter]

Can you give an example of those games that you think is run and handled well, so I and others can see what you think is acceptable. Fallout and anthem have been mentioned as not acceptable, even though I personally haven't played them, what I have heard about them, I would have to agree that they are not acceptable as a game in any kind of form, let alone as a so called game as a service.

[Morkonan]

...it is a pretty interesting argument that he is making, he certainly did his homework it wasn't just thrown together....

I didn't watch all of it. In fact, I probably watched about... less than two minutes of it. I did click around to see what bits and pieces he was highlighting in his discussion, though. I should have probably just downloaded the power-point.

I don't really know WTF he's arguing about half the time, to be honest. It doesn't make a lot of sense and seems to just be supporting drivel. It's like those .ppt presentations where the presenter shows fifty slides, but you only really needed the first two and the last three, while throwing out the very last one. His ending talks about various developers/producers justifying certain actions due to IP/Copyright/Trademark/etc... And, to be honest, since they own those things, they can do whatever they want with them whenever they want to do what they want to do with them.

What we, as consumers, have to decide is whether or not we are going to accept being sold a product that is intended to encourage us to buy more products associated with it or that exposes us to be blackmailed and/or exploited for our "love of the game."

Yes/No ?

Not so long ago, people used to laugh at "Psychology." Today, it's friggin' Black Magic and Production Houses are sacrificing goats in front of the Conference Call speaker just to get a few minutes with a Psychologist that specializes in stealing candy from babies. (Actually, these days, if a producer ever let it get out that they consulted with psychologists in order to improve the chances of players buying/paying more, they'd likely get a visit from some regulatory or law-enforcement agencies. That's OK, though, since designing such elements is now part of "mainstream" development.)

We need to learn how to recognize GAAS titles that are entirely focused at continuing revenue streams where that continuing revenue stream makes no darn sense. I won't buy such games. But, that's because I think such games should not be made, not because I think anyone should be denied the right to spend their own money. Production houses want to make money. But, when they want to make money more than they want to provide a product worthy of buying, that's where I draw the line.

There is only one danger, really, we should be concerned about - GAAS titles can make a huge amount of money and gain a ton of loyal supporters. That means there is a risk that the marketplace could shift to favor those sorts of games over traditional offerings. (It already is in some respects.) Either we choose to support that with our purchases or not. We need to decide that while we still hold some small bit of consumer power.

Gamers don't have a right to games. They are products. We have a right to buy them or not and that is the right we must exercise. Either that or start making our own games. (Which is already happening in many respects.)

PS - I haven't bought a Microsoft Office product for myself since 2007. I will not, even though it's arguably the best darn office-suite available. Instead, I use an Open Office product. It's not as good. Doesn't have all the features I'd want. Kinda sucks. Doesn't count words for crap and is almost entirely unintuitive at points... But, I'm not supporting Micro$oft Orifice ... because screw those guys.

[felter]

If you haven't watched it fair enough but you cannot argue about it as you do not have the facts. I know it was long that is why I mentioned it but if you only watched bits an pieces, maybe just maybe that's why it didn't make sense to you.

[Observe]

Is it possible you could give a brief written summary of the salient points? My internet is such, that it can't handle YouTube.
Thanks.

[Antilogic]

The Division 2 and Guild Wars 2 are two that come to mind immediately.

[fiksal]

well... I tried... he slowly starts getting to a point at 9min mark, and he is a bit too loud for casual listening

I think I'd prefer a summary as well

[Chips]

I'd definitely prefer a summary. If I usually ask Mork for one when he posts something taking longer than 5 mins to read and 5 mins to understand (my mind doesn't necessarily process info as fast as it can read it ), then a 1hr 20 min vid has no chance I got about 10 mins in and realised i needed to trim my toe nails.

Should add, I loved Guild Wars 2. Stopped playing it mind, mainly due to boredom - but that's a free-to-play game, with paying for expansions that are relevant. Obviously it hopes you buy entirely cosmetic items (which there are a ton of) to help fund the game, but there's no real ingame advantage in paying, other than having the latest expansion. However, that did change when they expanded player specialisations, as the original ones are definitely inferior to the new ones (which you get with the latest expansions only). Then again, it may also be that they really started to struggle to make it balanced.

So curious to know the definition, or at least a varied list of games that met his criteria.

[Olterin]

... So I sat through all of that video. It's a pretty bad presentation I have to admit, far too long-winded. However, the central point that I perceived as such is an interesting one: Games as a Service deprive the consumer of their legal right of ownership of the single copy of software that they bought. It is fairly well-established (and makes sense) that having bought a piece of software, you own that one piece of software. You may not have the right to reverse-engineer it or copy it, but you can transfer ownership. Games as a Service (usually) deprive you of that ownership through requiring an online connection to a game server which stores critical bits of the software to run... and - here's the important bit - by not (usually) providing consumer who'd purchased a piece of software with the means to keep it running after the official servers shut down, the companies essentially turn a "perpetual ownership" into a "temporary lease" which is not advertised as such. By this metric, subscription-based games are not a problem. The heavy monetization of content is not a problem (at least, not one pertinent to the point being made). The issue of ownership is.

... And I have to say I agree. I'm mostly fine with the "Games as a Service" thing as long as I have the option to stay the hell away from them (monetization) - which I do for the most part - as long as they're left operational and supported for an extended period of time, and when this support becomes impractical, the game receives one final update to no longer require being always online. Be honest: how many always-online games (that are/were on a "buy to play" basis) are there that shut down and can no longer be run? Compared to how many can?

TL;DR: the point is that companies want to be able to treat products that are purchased with a one-off transaction as subscription services that can be terminated at any time. This is morally (and legally) wrong. Do watch the video... approximately the first 30 minutes of it (and turn the volume down) - the guy does provide interesting points that go into a lot of detail here, even if said points are not as well-presented as they could have been.

[Antilogic]

well... I tried... he slowly starts getting to a point at 9min mark, and he is a bit too loud for casual listening

I think I'd prefer a summary as well

Yeah if it takes you 1 hour and 15 mins to explain this point you're doing it wrong.

[Morkonan]

If you haven't watched it fair enough but you cannot argue about it as you do not have the facts. I know it was long that is why I mentioned it but if you only watched bits an pieces, maybe just maybe that's why it didn't make sense to you.

You could have at least, you know, like maybe given us a summary of what he had to say? You know, kind of like if you wanted to have a discussion about it but realized that it would be impolite if you required other forum goers to have dedicate over an hour of their time to gaining information before they could even decide whether or not they wished to participate in such a discussion? That sort of thing..

Otherwise, all I can reasonably do is glance at the material, take the already pre-existing idea of GAAS and then attempt to apply a response to it.

I don't mind needed to do some research to participate in a discussion. However, watching some dude for over an hour go into rambling deviations in order to support his arguments when a bullet-list would do is a bit much.

It's like... I don't even read my own long-winded posts, so you expect me to "read" this guy's?

Give us a summary. That's fair.f If you want to discuss it, do some work to make that happen and people will likely be happy to discuss what you've presented and will then only ever have to dedicate over an hour of their time watching random_guy if they want additional, detailed, information about his presentation of the points you have already addressed.

Or, don't do the work. It's up to you.

...I got about 10 mins in and realised i needed to trim my toe nails...

I friggin' "HAH'd!" One guffawed "HAH," acted out with an uncontrolled autonomic braincharge that bounced around in my head after reading that. Thanks.

... So I sat through all of that video. It's a pretty bad presentation I have to admit, far too long-winded. However, the central point that I perceived as such is an interesting one: Games as a Service deprive the consumer of their legal right of ownership of the single copy of software that they bought. It is fairly well-established (and makes sense) that having bought a piece of software, you own that one piece of software...

Thank you for charging over the top for the rest of us by providing us with a partial summary! We appreciate your sacrifice. There will be a parade in your honor on Tuesday...

TLDR at the bottom for possible "solutions."

It's not "fact" that you own software you have, in some way, given money for.

The thing is, you do not only ever exchange money for a tangible "thing." I paid for a ticket to Disneyland and got to ride roller-coasters. Did I buy the roller-coaster? No, I bought a revocable, temporary, access to ride that roller-coaster so long as I complied with the terms of the service and access... Why does the food I buy go away? Am I buying the Right to Life, the ability to fuel my body or am I instead buying the right to process foodstuffs into poop?

The only thing that is clear in such an exchange is that the exchange takes place with an understanding that there is, in fact, an exchange as was expected by both the consumer and provider of the goods or services. That's it. "Some limitations may apply" is written there for a reason - A purchase does not necessarily mean unlimited use or access in perpetuity.

"Ownership" has limits, as well. You "own" a game, but that ownership is the right to install and play it, under the EULA and TOS. The evidence that you are a participant in that agreement is the exchange of money... IF there is any sticking point in that understanding, that is where it occurs. If you do not specifically "agree" to a TOS/EULA but still give up money for the product it governs, things might get a bit sticky. But, there are so many "click here to accept" front-ends that it's extremely difficult to prove you didn't know or didn't accept such "Terms" as a conditional part of your purchase.

IMO, people with dissenting opinions are going the exact "wrong way" to combat the problem of what we, the consumers, may consider restrictive or unpalatable licensing for games, especially "Games as a Service." Instead, clear, concise, easily understandable "Terms and Conditions" must be "up front" and entirely accessible for all readers so that we can make an "informed choice." And, when do we get that "information" so we can use it to make such an "informed choice?" AFTER we have already exchanged money for it... That is wrong.

Right now, there's a bunch of software I want to buy. It's all very expensive stuff. It is an appreciable financial investment. And, it's all heavily protected and closely stewarded to the point where the expense of doing all of that protection and product stewardship has created a monetization scheme that is, itself, unpalatable. But, if I want access and use of such software, I will have to pay to get it... I will have no rights, despite the expenses incurred, to that software that are not explicitly laid out in the purchasing agreement. And, if the developer goes out of business or the internet gets broked, then that software will likely be entirely useless.

That "evolution" of "Games as a Service" software is what we need to target as a consumer if we want a way out. What's worse is "planned obsolescence" of games. That is something we must expose, as well. We have to demand that a developer release any internal restrictions they have planned for a game's obsolescence. I need to know, for instance, that if I buy a game that the developer is planning to phase it out in three years in favor of migrating the consumers to another product and shutting down all online services for that game. And, perhaps, we as consumers may decide that we will require such developers to unlock such games at such a time so that middle-ware third-parties can provide services for them. Wouldn't it have been nice if games hosted by Gamespy had that option built into them when Gamespy "disappeared overnight" leaving thousands and thousands of players without a game and the developers/producers who signed on with them with no options?

TLDR - To sum:

Clear terms and conditions up front, before the purchasing process is engaged.

Guaranteed, within reason, substantial use of the product past the lifetime of the provider.

Sunset plans for the product released and a reasonable clause for unlocking currently locked restrictions. (Potentially opening up further monetization for the producer/developer in licensing for third-party support options.)

[Mightysword]

There is only one danger, really, we should be concerned about - GAAS titles can make a huge amount of money and gain a ton of loyal supporters. That means there is a risk that the marketplace could shift to favor those sorts of games over traditional offerings. (It already is in some respects.) Either we choose to support that with our purchases or not. We need to decide that while we still hold some small bit of consumer power.

Heh, didn't we have the same discussion 10-15 years ago? WoW was so big of a success that everyone wanted a piece of that pie. And I meant literally EVERYONE, from East to West, built from very solid and large fan base. You had Final Fantasy Online, D&D, Eldescrolls, Starwars, even proven veteran like Everquest, and gene that has nothing to do with MMO like The Sims Online, and I know there are a lot more of these names that I forgot to mention. I remember amid this "hype", there were talk about how it was the death of single player, everything was gonna be MMO from now on. Honestly it made a Single player enthusiastic like me a tinny bit of worry at the time.

So ... I think it's kinda amazing that these days there are only TWO, TWO names that worthy of mention in the MMO genre: WoW and Final Fantasy. WoW is the reigning champion that success even scare a company like Blizzard from making a successor that can live up to its past success, and FF only managed to survive by virtually a complete redesign of the game after a disastrous launch. All other games from this MMO Hurrah era had either completely fold, or reduced to F2P models. And with games like SW:TOR it wasn't due to the lack of investment, or games like EOS it wasn't due to the lack of a fanbase, and even FF wouldn't have survived if it does not provide what people wanted, which it had to do by virtually bending itself backward. It's obvious the success are not just based on such one dimensional reasons. On the other hand, SP has enjoyed a Renaissance since, in fact it's in even a better shape then before. I think the "purist" find it annoying how their SP's experience is "tainted" by the tackle on online components we sometime have these day. But for me as a "moderate", I see if differently. I think SP fought a war with MMO and made MMO its bitch, and it came out with a little extra integration.

Another angle to look at is the Market is not vacuum without other participant. If a company decided "there are more money to make Truck, so we just make truck and stop making Sedan", that doesn't mean we should worry the Sedan gonna disappear, it'll just mean another company will raise up and fill that demand. In fact, it's a god sent gift when a new company can grab the market share without a fight because the competitor decides to vacate it on their own. As long as there is demand, there is no need to worry about short supply. Anno 1800 is the first AAA title I bought in the last few years, I think it's The Witcher 3 is the one before that. I have no problem filling my libraries with tittle I wanted to play in between, so looking at the current eco system of gaming, I have very little to worry about.

[fiksal]

Be honest: how many always-online games (that are/were on a "buy to play" basis) are there that shut down and can no longer be run? Compared to how many can?

Out of ones I had, ... Earth and Beyond. But I dont remember if I had to buy it actually, or if it was just subscription. Okay, so maybe none.

TL;DR: the point is that companies want to be able to treat products that are purchased with a one-off transaction as subscription services that can be terminated at any time. This is morally (and legally) wrong.

How's he distinguishing this supposedly legally wrong practice from subscription games, which will not run without one?


Also if to think about it - does it mean he called Steam service (possibly) illegal too at some point? Steam can axe all of your games at any point.

[Olterin]

How's he distinguishing this supposedly legally wrong practice from subscription games, which will not run without one?

The distinction goes via the upfront expectation - with a subscription game, the expectation is clear that you can only access the game as long as you're continuing to pay for said access and as long as the company is keeping the servers running.

Also if to think about it - does it mean he called Steam service (possibly) illegal too at some point? Steam can axe all of your games at any point.

He didn't explicitly do so, but if Steam were to axe all of your games, they would be in violation of the law in the EU I should think. Any regular store can't just barge into your house and take all your games you bought from them in the past away, just because you did something unrelated to all the previous games at your home that goes against said store. Can it? (If the answer is "no" then it would most likely be illegal in the EU, in my understanding)

TLDR - To sum:

Clear terms and conditions up front, before the purchasing process is engaged.

Guaranteed, within reason, substantial use of the product past the lifetime of the provider.

Sunset plans for the product released and a reasonable clause for unlocking currently locked restrictions. (Potentially opening up further monetization for the producer/developer in licensing for third-party support options.)

Incidentally, you're proposing the very same thing that the guy in the video is. I agree, this would be a sufficient solution.

Thank you for charging over the top for the rest of us by providing us with a partial summary! We appreciate your sacrifice. There will be a parade in your honor on Tuesday...

... So since it's Tuesday, about that parade, Mork... I'd like to see two tank columns rolling past, a spectacular air show, two infantry companies... You know, like a good Moscow Parade

[pjknibbs]

So ... I think it's kinda amazing that these days there are only TWO, TWO names that worthy of mention in the MMO genre: WoW and Final Fantasy.

I would add EVE Online to that list. There is a free-to-play option with it, but there is for WoW as well, and both are limited compared to the pay-per-month option.

[fiksal]

How's he distinguishing this supposedly legally wrong practice from subscription games, which will not run without one?

The distinction goes via the upfront expectation - with a subscription game, the expectation is clear that you can only access the game as long as you're continuing to pay for said access and as long as the company is keeping the servers running.

Understood. If the expectation is enough then the whole legality thing for games as services can just be done away with upfront message, agreement, or event marketing campaign.

Also if to think about it - does it mean he called Steam service (possibly) illegal too at some point? Steam can axe all of your games at any point.

He didn't explicitly do so, but if Steam were to axe all of your games, they would be in violation of the law in the EU I should think. Any regular store can't just barge into your house and take all your games you bought from them in the past away, just because you did something unrelated to all the previous games at your home that goes against said store. Can it? (If the answer is "no" then it would most likely be illegal in the EU, in my understanding)

Hm. It's against EU? It's right in Steam's agreement that one has to accept. Certainly Steam had already banned users before for violating the user agreement, were none in EU? I dont remember seeing any news Steam violating anything.

Thank you for charging over the top for the rest of us by providing us with a partial summary! We appreciate your sacrifice. There will be a parade in your honor on Tuesday...

... So since it's Tuesday, about that parade, Mork... I'd like to see two tank columns rolling past, a spectacular air show, two infantry companies... You know, like a good Moscow Parade

I second it.

And I can give Putin a call. What country do you want the "parade" (wink, wink) to be "in" (wink, wink)?

So ... I think it's kinda amazing that these days there are only TWO, TWO names that worthy of mention in the MMO genre: WoW and Final Fantasy.

I would add EVE Online to that list. There is a free-to-play option with it, but there is for WoW as well, and both are limited compared to the pay-per-month option.

Aww. Indeed, a bit unfair.
I worked for EVE for a year or so. [1] It's an interesting game, though I didnt manage to actually play it, or play it well.


[1] now that I can actually say that.

[Morkonan]

How's he distinguishing this supposedly legally wrong practice from subscription games, which will not run without one?

The distinction goes via the upfront expectation - with a subscription game, the expectation is clear that you can only access the game as long as you're continuing to pay for said access and as long as the company is keeping the servers running.

Ah, but there's the rub...

Developers are designing games with nonsense online requirements. Why? Captive audiences and an excuse for extended monetization schemes. eg: SimCity, Anno series, etc.. - Online requirements are hamfisted and shoveled into the game with "excuse mechanics" that are only there to justify a live connection

Money, money, money... Superdata's chart for 2018

There's big money in competitive online games and even cooperative ones, it seems. The lure there is obvious. But, it's not monthly fees that fuels this Big Money, like it used to be with MMOs. Remember when WoW was Blizzard's Cash Cow? It's still strong and outperforming expectations. [ulr=https://massivelyop.com/2018/05/03/acti ... cht-or-no/]WoW Outperforming Expectations Q1[/url]. But, the tide is turning. Activision Blizzard microtransactions 7.16 Billion.

The money is obviously in continuing purchases or the simple access for players to engage in additional purchases. A no-brainer, right? And, if it's so obvious and so easy to exploit, it's going to be the way the producers shift the market. Why make money once on a sale when you can keep making money from it as long as there's electricity going to a PC somewhere?

THIS is what we, "The Ideal Gamer", have to try to shape. Why, for instance, does a game of "Civilization" have to have an online-only requirement? It currently doesn't. Currently. But, what happens around the conference-room table when someone mentions the fact that other games that have nonsensical online requirements are making "Big Money" and Civilization VII or VIII or whatever version is just leaving money on the table if it doesn't have an online requirement shoehorned in as a "feature?"

My Prediction - All "AAA" focus titles are going to end up incorporating online requirements, marketplaces, "social" networks, etc, and shoehorn mechanics into them as an excuse for these requirements. Get your credit-card ready so you can "Register" "your" game, since that data field will have a little "*" next to it that tells the new game owner "this information is a mandatory requirement for registration purposes."

If we don't vote with our wallet, that's our future and the only titles out there that don't have that feature will be from publishers and devs who don't have the deep-pockets to support online marketplaces... yet.

Incidentally, you're proposing the very same thing that the guy in the video is. I agree, this would be a sufficient solution.

Well, he should have cut an hour out of his vid, then...

It's "part" of a solution. The only way to affect the rest of an appropriate solution is to funnel money towards developers that don't include such schemes in their products. We won't have games that cater to "the player" rather than serve the continued interests of the developers until we do that. If they go bankrupt, the only ones left will turn into tyrants...

... So since it's Tuesday, about that parade, Mork... I'd like to see two tank columns rolling past, a spectacular air show, two infantry companies... You know, like a good Moscow Parade

Wookie Infantry Corps drilling in formation as we speak!

[ external image ]