Shoutout to Bloodborne still having servers ready for me on my very first runthriugh

It is my favorite software as a service model.

They run a continuous story based experience that is extremely well done. They do offer the ability to buy in game credits, but if you play regularly there is no reason to as they show up frequently in game. Their cosmetic store only has a few items, but they cycle around so there will always be another chance to get them.

And when the devs did fuck up the gameplay, they admitted it and changed course. When Sony forced them to add in the PlayStation login the devs supported the players in pushing back and we now have an official review bomb cape.

This describes just about all Paradox games made in the past 15 years, sadly. They release with a barebones concept, then slowly drip-feed content for 5-30 bucks a pop, each one usually sitting at “Mostly Negative” because it doesn’t fundamentally add or change anything most of the time, and the times it does- meh. Crusader Kings 2 was my bread and butter for a long time. Played Crusader Kings 3, and it felt like almost every helpful mechanic that existed in CK2 was stripped, and then added on again over the course of years. It was so infuriating, that I just don’t buy their titles anymore.

Depends on how old the game is and how big the DLC is IMO. Rimworld, for instance, has quite a few DLCs now, but they are all well worth it if you like the base game. OTOH if a game just has cosmetic DLC or the DLC is coming out super near release that’s a red flag.

At the very least, you can still pirate it and play cracked multiplayer with friends.

I made the mistake of buying the game year ago, and bought a bunch of DLC at 50% or greater sales, and now the sunken cost fallacy has taken hold on me, and I still want to buy more . . . . (at least I’m broke so I can’t right now hehehaha)

Vampire Survivors is an exception.

KCD is unique, personally I love it. In some ways it’s kind of the dark souls of first person RPG. The systems are at times a bit clunky, combat is hard, complex, and both you and your character need a lot of training to be profficient.

But that’s the fun of the game. Henry is a useless lump at the start, and you mold him in to what you want.

Personally, I love hardcore challenging single player games, and few in recent years match KCD.

I dont have a system to play KCD2 yet, but from everything I’ve seen, the developer doubled down and kept the majority of the systems in place, just adding scale and polish.

I’m sure the first one is on discount these days, and highly recommend it.

I’ve been playing truth E33. It’s definitely slower than the Action games you list, being a JRPG-like game. It’s your side vs the enemy. Think old Final Fantasy. A closer comparison would be the Mario RPG series. While it is a lot of your turn->their turn->your turn etc, there are timings during both your turn and the enemy turns for button presses to do more damage (or in some cases, any damage), or to negate or even counter enemy attacks. It’s so much more of an engaging experience vs just pressing a button and watching your character do a massive combo. For me, getting really good at the parry timing is so satisfying. Most enemy attacks have multiple hits during their attacks, and if you parry every single one, you launch a counterattack. There is a dodge, but while it has a large window than the parry, all it really does is negate damage. That’s another thing: because you can learn enemy timings, your can take on bosses that are well above your punching weight. I find that part very fun. The characters are well written, in my opinion. For what a dreary story the game writes, there are moments of levity and extra background you have the option of engaging with for each character. The game is a serious contender for game of the year, it at the very least several awards. And for only $50usd, it blows many other AAA(A) games out of the water. Give it a chance and I think you’ll find it well worth your time.

Minecraft is the most popular game of all time, and the single-player mode is still being updated. Granted, many people play on multiplayer servers, but still.

On the one hand, you’re right that the market for micro transaction laden multiplayer games is much larger than single player games. On the other hand, the market for people who want single player games is still very large. You showed that yourself mentioning Rockstar games and Harry Potter.

So while many publishers want a piece of that larger pie, every publisher trying for it just leads to over saturation and greater odds that a game will fail entirely. So there is still incentive for publishers to release large single player games even if the pie is smaller since there may be less competition making it easier to stand out. And what the article is saying is that, within that pie, one way to stand out is to avoid micro transactions. And since it’s discussing single player games specifically, I don’t see a lot of relevance for bringing up multiplayer games that exist in a different part of the gaming world.

single player games don’t come any where near the profitability of these multiplayer games

True, but they are still very lucrative. You can make them, release them, generate a healthy surplus, and roll that into making the next game with plenty of cash to spare.

Also, you don’t have half your dev team stuck supporting a legacy release, constantly fixated on juicing engagement and monetization. There’s a lot less overhead involved in a single-iteration release.

Reading the article, where did you get “audience rewards” == “maximal extraction of cash from the audience”?

IMO having a very profitable game that will comfortably fund your studio for the next 5-10 years AND that has universal critical acclaim and a devoted fanbase is reward enough. You didn’t lose because you didn’t make the most money out of all your competitors.

Different games have different audiences. Some people want arcade slop and slot machines to play with friends, they were never going to play BG3 or E33 anyway.

Important to the conversation as well is the fact that plenty of live-service games have recently failed spectacularly. Remember Concord? Within the industry, that is a clear signal that very high budget online slop isn’t as risk-free as previously assumed, which makes ambitious narrative-driven single player games an interesting diversification strategy for studios.

It’s not either or. Executives could spend 100M€ on “nearly guaranteed” online slop, or 80M€ on online slop and 20M€ on a good narrative game. And the critical and commercial success of games like BG3 and E33 are definitely moving the needle.
Especially when micro-economically, there are diminish returns when scaling dev teams. It’s kind of obvious but the first million euros does a lot more for a project than the 100th million. That further strengthens the case for a move away for big players from ONLY funding live-service slop.

Games as a service can be okay, in some situations. Ones we very rarely see due to (primarily) publisher greed.

If you’re paying for the game itself, at any point, GaaS is stupid and extremely exploitative.

If they choose to go that route however, the game needs to be free to play with separate monetization. They need to mebe things that are completely optional and don’t affect gameplay.

I mean, MMOs were supposed to be continuously supported and developed during the enrollment period. Earlier iterations of the model had live DMs running encounters, active continuous releases to expand the game world and advance the storyline, and robust customer support to address the bugs and defects. Also, just maintaining the servers necessary to support that much data processing was hella-expensive on its face.

Games as a service don’t need to be a scam.

But eventually, the studios figured out they can do the MMO business model on any game. Justifying a fee for Everquest was a lot more reasonable than justifying it for a glorified Team Fortress knock off. Or a freaking platformer.

I think it’s a bit more nuanced - for example MMOs. But for the most part yeah.

Neither don’t play them or ignore additional methods of monetization built into the game. It’s like they don’t exist.

If there is too much dlc, it makes me feel like the base game is an empty shell. Even if it’s not true, it turns me off from the game. Look at sims 4 and one of those city builder games.

I would say its less that they’re “rewarded” and more like they’re turning every customer upside down and shaking them until the money falls out

CDPR get this, at least. Phantom Liberty, Hearts of Stone, Blood and Wine. All well worth it.

Wish granted, but it’s just 30 dlcs each around a full-game price and you gotta wait til they go on sale for $1 once every year at a random time.

Exactly. You make good MMORPG and money will come in droves too. Same for RPG or fuck it, even poker game on crack. Just make good games, but it’s not as easy as it sounds… No one just clicks “make game bad” and often the Microtransactions are dictated by whatever publishing deal they have.

Unfortunately, they also reward bad games.

The game industry was assaulted by the MBAs long ago. They have this financial concept of leaving money on the table. That if you aren’t skinning your customers alive for all they have then you are losing money.

Then there was that infamous power point slide that got leaked where, basically, the plan is to use games to bring in audiences then use gambling techniques to hook on whales then cash them for eternity. Thus “live services games” were born.

It feels like uncreative shit because it is. It’s a finance people idea, not a creative game developer idea.

Who buys them?

Play Nice by Jason Schreier mentions that the “Pay to Win” style of monetization is very popular in Chinese markets.

I’d wager that, since other markets strongly oppose that, public companies focused on profits over player sentiment needed to find a middle ground. (That dichotomy is the main focus of the last half of the book)

We revolted when Battlefront 2 had loot boxes at the center of game progression, so companies hoping to make the most money in both markets need to make the purchasable items either purely cosmetic or only helpful in early game progression (starter packs).

Who buys them?

• People who dont game buying a present who just go “oh deluxe version, not that much more expensive, lets treat them"
• wealthy people that just pick the priciest option
• people with completitionist tendencies
• streamers and wannabe streamers for whom the extra cost is a trivial operating expense
• children and others that dont understand the value of a dollar
• people whose primary draw to the game is the photomode
• "i like game, I want more game therefore I pay more” (yes this logic is terrible when applied to microtransactions)