The Game Awards 2017 Promotes G.A.A.S

Agheil writes - "Fellowgamers, I have been watching The Game Awards for a while now and they add different categories here and there each year so I don’t pay much attention to it.

This year they added a category that promotes G.A.A.S."

[firelens]

I was wondering, I looked at this category and was like this is games as a service no? Glad you're acknowledging it.

[rollerdisc]

Yeah I feel like not alot of people picked up on this. The wave of hate against lootboxes is dying down.... I wonder what things will be like in the next couple of years.

[bananasrule]

This always happens, something happens, a big push and then people loose attention on it. Its the sad truth. I dont like lootboxes or microtransactions either still.

[Agheil]

I don't know if something big will happen in the next couple of year but at some point will most devs go with GAAS and micro-transactions, etc? We'll see.

[Platinum_Fan]

It's hosted at Microsoft Arena you know they had to have a games as a service category.

[bananasrule]

Gaas isnt always bad, some gamers enjoy a growing game. But i understand not making new games or not likeing microtransactions

[Agheil]

completely understand that, people have their own thoughts on G.A.A.S just like i do.

[Elwenil]

Agreed, I doubt anyone will say Warframe continually adding content is a bad thing, but then Warframe is free to play and pretty much needs new content to draw in more players as well as keep the playerbase they have. World of Tanks, War Thunder and many other free games use this formula pretty well and most players are satisfied, even if the grind does get a bit extreme at times. My issue is with games that charge $60+ for the game, it ends up being obviously short on content and then they sell ridiculously priced expansions/DLC or subscriptions that that offer the gamer very little value for their money. Adding content to keep gamers engaged and happily playing your game is one thing, milking the hell out of our wallets because they cut the original game up and are selling it back to us piece by piece or offer shallow, "bare minimum" content that is overpriced is a totally different thing. Just like loot boxes and microtransactions, there is a right way and a wrong way. Unfortunately it seems the trend is headed the wrong way. Just my .02

[_-EDMIX-_]

My problem with games as a service is that that is something that only applies to a category that already exists of games and it's called MMO's.

Games as a service to me sounds like it's simply a way of trying to take advantage milk and squeeze every penny out of consumers. In a lot of times it's coming from genres that look like they have no real place inside of MMO's in the first place,

Trust me these Publishers could care less about actually making an MMO what they only like is there generating of the revenue stream which actually means I'm doubtful they're actually going to attempt to make a realistic and game component they simply want you to pay for every last thing and nickel and dime you longer and longer and longer.

So the teams that actually really make MMO's actually really craft the damn game to make sense to this type of model, the teams that are only doing it because their Publishers are greedy and want to make money from consumers likely have very little history with making MMO's in the first place.

[Agheil]

It was titled different, if they put G.A.A.S, some people would have something to say about it.

[-Foxtrot]

I don't even know why Overwatch was brought back...it had it's time winning GOTY (God knows how) so why they had to bring it back for a mention seemed forced.

Plus that drunk guy defending EA...didn't help. Like the guy thinks EA has only screwed up once....basically "they've never been awful to me so it's not true"

[Zeref]

GAAS =/= lootboxes

[rollerdisc]

I worry about this, its nice to grow a game but at what point does it become bad because new games arent being made?

[bananasrule]

we'll see, something could happen at some point and gamers will yell then too.... then forget lol

[Agheil]

hahah

[Agheil]

Thats my question...

[SegaGamer]

He's got a point in this video to be fair. Look at the games nominated for that award, all games full of microtransactions to keep the game going. If we want to stop GAAS and mictrotransactions in gaming, then the last thing we need to is give out awards to these games.

[Agheil]

Yup! GAAS is made as if its ok with this award. I know they're are two sides to this but I don't like the idea of encouraging more GAAS games from devs.

[Pandamobile]

Why would we want to stop GAAS? Are you arguing that developers should just ship a game and abandon it like a orphaned child like they did 15 years ago? There's nothing inherently wrong with service based games, and from a publishers' point of view a game is a product they want to drive continued investment in it to try reap maximum rewards. Yeah, that usually means post-launch monetization, and yeah, that means trying to hold players' attention for a longer amount of time. As long as the core gameplay is engaging and the monetization strategy doesn't ruin the experience for non-paying players, it's all all fine.

[coolbeans]

Yeah, I'm a bit lost on this as well. "Let's go after the system which has resulted in long-term dedication for fixes, updates, etc. by developers!!!" Of course we can't deny the ABUSES that have resulted from said system, but that doesn't mean we should discourage it outright.

It's also funny to consider this attitude when only a few short years ago it seems like everyone was excited for Destiny.

[Magnetar]

I agree, I don’t get why people are attacking gaas. Millions of people love them, there’s nothing wrong with creating games that create great communities and supporting them for years.

[Wintersun616]

GaaS is bad because in the end it all comes down to more unfinished games being released at full price and maybe hopefully with good luck being fixed later down the line. Also it's another step closer to MTs becoming the norm, quote me on that, you'll see. People defending this sh*t are idiots.

[Pandamobile]

The boxed 'product' business model of gaming has change significantly in recent years and isn't sustainable for an entertainment industry as broad as gaming. GAAS is pretty much going to be the standard for multiplayer and some genres of single player games going forward.

[Wintersun616]

But it's not that black and white. Look at all the good DLC released in the last few years and all the free patches and minor updates from some developers like Rockstar and Guerrilla Games. There is absolutely no need for GaaS because there are other options available. And from a consumer's point of view it's always better to receive a finished product for one price than be committed to a game and get smaller updates every now and then. I detest the concept of GaaS and will not buying any such games, ever. Though I must admit I'm slightly biased because I don't play multiplayer games basically at all, which are the games that GaaS will be targeting first. But still I'm all for consumers getting finished good quality games at once, instead of cheap money grabbing half measures, which these types of games are perfect for.

[Pandamobile]

I'd argue that any game that exists in a live state post launch is qualifies as a service. GTA5 is a live that gets continuous updates, thus making it a service provided by the developer.

All GAAS means as a developer is factoring in things a live plan to continue growing the game after it is released.

Whether it's piece-wise DLC drops like in GTA or expansion on the single player story, or patching and completely evolving the game over time like in Team Fortress 2, these are two different sides of the same coin.

[Wintersun616]

No, none of those examples are GaaS. GaaS is a new term and it can't be applied so freely to pretty much all modern games which receive new content or patches, like you over simplified it. Games that receive free updates or patches over time are not automatically GaaS. Neither are any games that are sold at full price and then get normal DLC content later on. There is a difference. GaaS is a midway point between transitioning future games closer and closer and eventually fully converting them to pay to win MT fests just like most mobile games. That's the future of EA and Microsoft and they're not even trying to hide it. If you want to justify and defend that, then go ahead, but please don't try to tell everyone that it's not exactly what it is.

[Pandamobile]

The difference between my examples and yours are that you're pointing out instances of shitty design and applying it universally to all service-based games.

[Wintersun616]

It's the other way around. You're applying the GaaS stamp on games that simply are not GaaS. We must draw a line between traditional normal means of selling games and providing patches/fixes and GaaS, because otherwise this wouldn't even be a topic of discussion. You can't just say that all games which change in some way after the inital release are GaaS. That's not what it means.

[_-EDMIX-_]

No one's arguing for the game to be abandoned they're simply saying but they don't want developers creating games with this mindset that they're going to give you 10% of the game now and have you pay for the other 90% over the course of several years.

Trust me this has nothing to do with saying we don't want post-launch content simply that we actually want a limited amount of that post-launch content and for the damn game to not rely on existing at all based on the purchase is a post launch content in the first place.

That is the difference between saying you got an expansion for The Witcher 3 that was completely optional and the base game is over 100 hours vs The Witcher 3 has been broken apart to 18 different pieces of downloadable content in the actual based game of The Witcher 3 is only 10 hours...

I'm sorry buddy but that is a huge vast difference.

We are saying we want a complete game in an expansion that is optional.

Not games releasing at minimal percentage of completion only to be purchased by piece meal for years

No.

[_-EDMIX-_]

Agreed and I would question all those games getting nominated.

All I saw from that award show was a bunch of Publishers paying a crapload of money to give their games as a service crap recognition I don't really take any of those Awards seriously and it sounds like they bought and paid for those Awards to give attention to their crappy games.

[Hardiman]

I thought the same thing.

[Agheil]

Happy others notice this as well !

[Krysis]

I wonder which one "sponsored" this category to show how micro transactions are "popular". How in the frick am I supposed to take this award show seriously?

[TheColbertinator]

Anyone know if rollerdisc,bananasrule and aghell are the same account?

[pinkcrocodile75]

Guy's I've got to be honest here. I do not nor have I ever given two F**k's about GAAS and MT's. I've never paid over the odds for a game, not even season passes for the most part (ok I maybe one or two but not more than 2).

I buy a game, play it and then F**k it off.

I'm sure there are gamers like me and my family who don't care and never will. If nobody buy's them they cease to be worth the dev time to the studios.... unless that studio is the @rse h0le of hell (AKA Activision)

[Krysis]

The problem is there are enough people that spend alot on this stuff and make them more than lucrative enough for the publishers, that in turn ruins it for the rest of us. Especially if the progression systems are tied to the micro-transactions.

[rainslacker]

There are plenty of people who do the same thing you do. But the trend since around the middle of last gen was to make it so those that don't partake in MT are seeing an ever increasing presence of design principals which still affect them.

Gamers have been complaining about this one particular aspect for a long time.

It's not about whether we can ignore them, it's that some publishers are going to extra efforts to make sure that we notice them even if we aren't interested, and in the case of SW:BF designed the game around encouraging people to become frustrated with the grind with the hope they'd buy in for a skip ahead. The P2W aspect was bad enough, but EA had to make it even worse by making it so the money you spent didn't gaurantee that you could just skip ahead.

So, EA is designing games to encourage the roughly 10-20% of people who pay extra, and not just designing good games with a less obtrusive monetization scheme. That's a problem whether you buy MT or not.

EA isn't the only one who has done this, but they're getting all the heat now because they made some stupid comments on reddit which caused it all to blow up in their face.

[r3f1cul]

i just havent ever played a game that was so well done and amazing that i didnt get tired of it after about 2 months of hardcore play :/ i'll come back and do a dlc or expansion but then i'll stop immediately afterward again, ive just never been the type to sink all my time into one game and i dont entirely get how people actually do it without getting bored because at some point you are essentially doing the exact same thing over and over and over again O.o

[RommyReigns]

And this is why the TGAs will never become recognised as a true awards show like the oscars for movies or the Ballon D'Or for football/soccer.