Games as a service is fraud

[Vash The Stampede]

I think the market is going to require some amount of adjustment from the traditional "I bought this game it belongs to me in perpetuity" stance.

Thanks to Stadia and other services like it, that is now being brought to peoples attention. I don't think people would be happy knowing they're paying a huge amount of money to get something they don't own. Most people who download games online are ignorant to this problem because it hasn't caused friction for them... yet. Imagine if someone payed hundreds for games on Stadia and suddenly they lost access to those games. Either they couldn't afford it or because Google took their Stadia account away. You'd bet people would be furious and even boycott these services.

I think that business model will only exist within the realm of single-player games. The moment you want to play any form of online component, you MUST take that into account before paying for a game.

Because if you recognize that what you're paying for is ultimately temporary, you can make a better judgement for how much you're willing to pay.

That's why free games like Fortnite are popular while Anthem is $60 and is a shit show. People don't want to pay for an online game that they can't actually own, but a free game is no problem for people. We forget that Fortnite was a game long before it became popular but when Epic released a free2play version with Battle Royale mode, that's when it exploded. So this "games as a service" model is flawed when game companies have to put money into a free game that might not make any money.

Look at the most popular online games right now. You have Fortnite, Dota2, CS:GO, LoL, and HearthStone. All free, with the exception of Minecraft and PUBG. PUBG is free on mobile devices. So how effective is this business model when your multiplayer game needs to be free to get players interest? The AAA gaming industry is reaping what it sows.

I'm not sure how there's any correlation there simply because people are willing to pirate both.

People don't care if they're called a pirate. They want what they want and if the gaming industry won't supply it then they'll make it. People were downloading music off Napster and burning it on CD's and couldn't care if you call them thieves. Nobody offered a way to download specific songs they wanted to listen in their car or portable CD player. A private server is no different because this was taken away from the consumer in order to gain bigger profits. It clearly doens't need to be this way. I played on a private server for years and couldn't care what you think of me. I got to enjoy what I wanted and payed no reoccurring fees. Why should I, because the companies TOS says so? I bought the game, I own the game, and therefore I should be able to enjoy it however I want.

[Halicia]

People don't care if they're called a pirate. They want what they want and if the gaming industry won't supply it then they'll make it. People were downloading music off Napster and burning it on CD's and couldn't care if you call them thieves. Nobody offered a way to download specific songs they wanted to listen in their car or portable CD player. A private server is no different because this was taken away from the consumer in order to gain bigger profits. It clearly doens't need to be this way. I played on a private server for years and couldn't care what you think of me. I got to enjoy what I wanted and payed no reoccurring fees. Why should I, because the companies TOS says so? I bought the game, I own the game, and therefore I should be able to enjoy it however I want.

So yeah, that entirely defeats your argument here then. Saying that "charging money for something is a fraud, because I can just steal it and get it for free!", is a lie. It still costs money to make originally, and even if the milk farmer won't go out of business if you steal a gallon, if everyone steals their gallon, noone's getting milk anymore.

[SirCowdog]

.I don't think people would be happy knowing they're paying a huge amount of money to get something they don't own.

Exactly! Which is why I said we all need to be careful about what we're supporting with oir purchases. If enough people recognize they're paying full AAA prices for a product which is ultimately temporary, then prices might adjust according to what the market is willing to accept. Right now I don't think this idea has really sunk in with most consumersm and I have no doubt the game companies want to keep it that way, since the idea of buying ownership of a completed product is much more appealing than renting access to an incomplete or impermanent product.

That's why free games like Fortnite are popular while Anthem is $60 and is a shit show.

What you're describing isn't specific to GaaS, though. A consumer's reaction to a product is determined by the actual quality of the product vs the price. If Anthem had delivered a high quality game with lots of options and deep gameplay combined with more content, its service model is actually very good(no paid DLC, no season pass, free updates).

Again, it's up to the consumer to support good deals that are consumer-friendly, and to stop giving money to predatory or sub optimal services. But at the same time, we need to be willing to recognize a good deal even if it's a GaaS.

People don't care if they're called a pirate. They want what they want and if the gaming industry won't supply it then they'll make it.

This is where I definitely agree with you, especially in the cases where a publisher has shut down the servers for a game because they weren't making enough money, and yet won't allow others to provide the service, even after being offered a fee for the rights.

[Vash The Stampede]

So yeah, that entirely defeats your argument here then. Saying that "charging money for something is a fraud, because I can just steal it and get it for free!", is a lie. It still costs money to make originally, and even if the milk farmer won't go out of business if you steal a gallon, if everyone steals their gallon, noone's getting milk anymore.

Again, you're undermining the situation cause "stealing". If someone wants to host their own server and the company won't let them and they make a server emulator then that isn't stealing. It breaks TOS but who cares about TOS? What I'm suggesting is that these companies give consumers a copy of the server software by legal means because the $60 copy of the multiplayer game you bought is useless without it.

What you're describing isn't specific to GaaS, though. A consumer's reaction to a product is determined by the actual quality of the product vs the price. If Anthem had delivered a high quality game with lots of options and deep gameplay combined with more content, its service model is actually very good(no paid DLC, no season pass, free updates).

If Anthem had delivered a high quality game then it wouldn't have micro-transactions which promote the idea of Games as a Service. The whole point of GaaS is that it encompasses micro-transactions, which could be a skin you buy in the store or a monthly fee like in World of Warcraft.

Again, it's up to the consumer to support good deals that are consumer-friendly, and to stop giving money to predatory or sub optimal services. But at the same time, we need to be willing to recognize a good deal even if it's a GaaS.

Hence why Fortnite is a success, because before the Battle Royal free2play mode it was a paid game, an awful paid game. As long as the GaaS game is free and not paid for then it'll work because micro-transactions should only be available for free2play games and not games you pay for. You can't have a $60 game with microtransactions, with or without multiplayer.

[SirCowdog]

.


If Anthem had delivered a high quality game then it wouldn't have micro-transactions which promote the idea of Games as a Service. The whole point of GaaS is that it encompasses micro-transactions, which could be a skin you buy in the store or a monthly fee like in World of Warcraft.

Hence why Fortnite is a success, because before the Battle Royal free2play mode it was a paid game, an awful paid game. As long as the GaaS game is free and not paid for then it'll work because micro-transactions should only be available for free2play games and not games you pay for. You can't have a $60 game with microtransactions, with or without multiplayer.

This sounds more like your own personal bias and definition of "quality". You absolutely can have a good game for $60 with MTX. I'd point to The Division 2 as a recent example.

I don't think you're being very objective in this situation.

[Tech614]

So Ross and Leonard French(a copyright lawyer) had a debate. While they come to an agreement that it isn't fraud GaaS does violate a lot of consumer protection laws in many European countries. And if US laws were stricter they would here too.

So it wasn't fraud and that term was used for clicks? AKA click bait? And you got mad when I called it such? You're not doing this guy any favors with defending him lmao.

[Mister Cheese]

So it wasn't fraud and that term was used for clicks? AKA click bait? And you got mad when I called it such? You're not doing this guy any favors with defending him lmao.

It's not clickbait when he offers a well structured hour long video on how GaaS is an anti-consumer practice. Nobody "clicks" on an hour long video.

[Yunru]

It's not clickbait when he offers a well structured hour long video on how GaaS is an anti-consumer practice. Nobody "clicks" on an hour long video.

Well lets not forget that you kinda have to use clickbaits as youtuber to trick its algoritem.

[Lindon]

It's not clickbait when he offers a well structured hour long video on how GaaS is an anti-consumer practice. Nobody "clicks" on an hour long video.

It is clickbait since he uses a sensational titel that is fradulent by itself since GaaS is not fraud by any definition of the word.

[Delekii]

Man it makes me rage when people say companies "only shut down private servers to protect their IP". It's bullshit. A huge number of earlier games that were popular online games were intended to be hosted remotely and shipped with remote server executables. You can still host and play those games today. I have never heard of a game's owner having their copyright challenged on the basis of providing a locally functioning server infrastructure.

When games become abandonware companies should provide the means to continue playing that game remotely. Calling it fraud is dumb, they are allowed to do what they like, but not doing it is mean spirited in a bad way.

[Tech614]

It's not clickbait when he offers a well structured hour long

Do you even understand what clickbait is? Because the only thing that matters to classify something as click bait is the title. How long his ridiculous and wrong diatribe is has jack shit to do with it.

He called "super broad term" a "sensational buzz word" that he later even admits was a false title. In what fucking universe is that not click bait? You're fanboying pretty hard for some random youtuber right now.

[Justpassing]

I think this thread should go a biiiit back and be about what "clickbait" is, beacuse people are obviously don't know. I mean if you don't know what it is... what do you know?

[SirCowdog]

Do you even understand what clickbait is? Because the only thing that matters to classify something as click bait is the title. How long his ridiculous and wrong diatribe is has jack shit to do with it.

He called "super broad term" a "sensational buzz word" that he later even admits was a false title. In what fucking universe is that not click bait? You're fanboying pretty hard for some random youtuber right now.

Does it really matter if you got tricked by a "click bait" title if the content of tje video is actually really good?

I'd say that whether or not the title is vaguely misleading is an extremely minor issue. It's effectively judging a book by its cover. Ans arguing about the precision definition of what click-bait actually means is kind of pointless.

[kail]

Does it really matter if you got tricked by a "click bait" title if the content of tje video is actually really good?

I'd say that whether or not the title is vaguely misleading is an extremely minor issue. It's effectively judging a book by its cover. Ans arguing about the precision definition of what click-bait actually means is kind of pointless.

When does the content get good so I can skip to that part. First 10-15 minutes was a complete waste as far as I've watched.

[Tech614]

Does it really matter if you got tricked by a "click bait" title if the content of tje video is actually really good?

I'd say that whether or not the title is vaguely misleading is an extremely minor issue. It's effectively judging a book by its cover. Ans arguing about the precision definition of what click-bait actually means is kind of pointless.

Umm, when that "cover" is literally low IQ bait playing to the lowest common denominator do you really think I want to watch the video? The click bait wasn't aimed at "tricking" people into watching the video it was aimed at the gamer outrage crowd to come in and circle jerk about how the game industry took their first born and fucked their moms.

Highly doubt there is any good content in there, and he already agreed his take was wrong according to the other guy(I wouldn't know not watching any of his videos with click bait titles and basement dweller thumbnails) lmao...

[Mister Cheese]

Umm, when that "cover" is literally low IQ bait playing to the lowest common denominator do you really think I want to watch the video? The click bait wasn't aimed at "tricking" people into watching the video it was aimed at the gamer outrage crowd to come in and circle jerk about how the game industry took their first born and fucked their moms.

Highly doubt there is any good content in there, and he already agreed his take was wrong according to the other guy(I wouldn't know not watching any of his videos with click bait titles and basement dweller thumbnails) lmao...

You fucking what? They agreed to disagree. The argument of what GaaS is; is far from over. There's a ton of problems with it as is. His original argument was calling it fraud. Which he believed it was. That's not clickbait.

[Vash The Stampede]

This sounds more like your own personal bias and definition of "quality". You absolutely can have a good game for $60 with MTX. I'd point to The Division 2 as a recent example.

I don't think you're being very objective in this situation.

It's all personal opinion when it comes down to it, but I wouldn't say Division 2 was loved with a user score of 6.4. My belief is that no $60 game with a micro-transaction system can ever be a good game. Assuming 6.4 is a good score for a game like Division 2, there are games that get away with this but that doesn't mean people like it. The more you shoe horn micro-transactions into a game the more agitated those people will be towards that game. You're not having fun but analyzing what dastardly thing they've done to your game to rob you of money. Is it pay to win? Is it all cosmetics?

Look at Borderlands 3 which is another looter shooter like Division 2, and the first thing everyone thought was, "How are they going to fuck it up with micro-transactions"? Because that's what all games do today is introduce micro-transactions and hope that nobody cares that the gameplay was tuned to push you to buy them. Hence why any game that is a GaaS is a bad game because you can't help make the game in such a way that pushes players to the micro-transaction system. Like Fallout 76 and Assassin's Creed Odyssey which enjoys a 5.6 on MetaCritic for it forcing players to grind out XP through boring content. How about Blizzard who doesn't make anything less than a game that has a micro-transaction system, and lost 3 million players Q1 this year.

Games as a Service will push itself out of the market and won't be a threat to us gamers for much longer. Too many games sinking as a result of this business practice that clearly the gamers don't want.

When games become abandonware companies should provide the means to continue playing that game remotely. Calling it fraud is dumb, they are allowed to do what they like, but not doing it is mean spirited in a bad way.

I think game companies should be forced legally to provide server software if they charge for the game. If you spent any amount of money on a game to purchase, then you own it and therefore are entitled to the server software. If I didn't buy the game and it's either free2play or a monthly fee only then I'm not entitled to it as I've never made a purchase towards it.

[SirCowdog]

Umm, when that "cover" is literally low IQ bait playing to the lowest common denominator do you really think I want to watch the video? The click bait wasn't aimed at "tricking" people into watching the video it was aimed at the gamer outrage crowd to come in and circle jerk about how the game industry took their first born and fucked their moms.

Highly doubt there is any good content in there, and he already agreed his take was wrong according to the other guy(I wouldn't know not watching any of his videos with click bait titles and basement dweller thumbnails) lmao...

But what if that angry crowd gets sucked into the video and actually learns something about the subject, educating them against further assumptions based on faulty info?

See, that's the thing about the linked video: It's less of an argument meant to prove the "clickbait" title, and more of a deep dive into the subject.

Like the guy or not, you should really consider what's being said.

[HitRefresh]

Back in the day, we called those "updates" addons.
Updates in forms of patches/bugfixes are also more or less covered with the sold copy. (just like you have guarantees after purchasing something)

Not only has that company to provide a working *product*, it also is bad for their own image if they release a broken game with lots of bugs that won't get adressed in a patch for free.

The most interesting part of this bullshit is that I can't resell my "good" anymore - even though it's legaly my own property.

I'm talking about content updates, not patches.

[SirCowdog]

but I wouldn't say Division 2 was loved with a user score of 6.4.

Oof...ok, this is going to risk going WAY off topic, but I wouldn't consider Metacritic as a good tool for anything except how to get a bad idea of what a game actually has to offer. Not only are the individual scores often screwed up with paid sites, but also often scored low by people who don't actually understand the game. In the case of The Division 2, many people are claiming the difficulty is too high, despite recent nerfs and many people(including myself) being able to clear the hardest difficulties with sub-optimal builds.

But my primary point is that The Division 2 is a solid game with few bugs, lots of graphics and sound options, detailed and varied environments, plenty of accessibility options, a clean game engine, good gunplay, periodic free content releases, and a purely cosmetic MTX store where every item can also be found or unlocked within the game.

It might not be the best game ever to exist, but it's good value for $60 and has a non-predatory MTX system. Future content drops are announced as being free, barring a true expansion(which is on par for single-player games).

My belief is that no $60 game with a micro-transaction system can ever be a good game. Assuming 6.4 is a good score for a game like Division 2, there are games that get away with this but that doesn't mean people like it. The more you shoe horn micro-transactions into a game the more agitated those people will be towards that game. You're not having fun but analyzing what dastardly thing they've done to your game to rob you of money. Is it pay to win? Is it all cosmetics?

Look at Borderlands 3 which is another looter shooter like Division 2, and the first thing everyone thought was, "How are they going to fuck it up with micro-transactions"? Because that's what all games do today is introduce micro-transactions and hope that nobody cares that the gameplay was tuned to push you to buy them. Hence why any game that is a GaaS is a bad game because you can't help make the game in such a way that pushes players to the micro-transaction system. Like Fallout 76 and Assassin's Creed Odyssey which enjoys a 5.6 on MetaCritic for it forcing players to grind out XP through boring content. How about Blizzard who doesn't make anything less than a game that has a micro-transaction system, and lost 3 million players Q1 this year.

Games as a Service will push itself out of the market and won't be a threat to us gamers for much longer. Too many games sinking as a result of this business practice that clearly the gamers don't want.

I tend to agree. The main problem with Gaas is that companies can't seem to help themselves and overdose on it like an addict. Too much ketchup and not enough french fries. Given a choice, game companies will attempt to squeeze as much profit and exploit players for as much money as possible, even to the extent of harming the quality and potential enjoyment of the game. I think the games you listed are perfect examples of how to do GaaS badly.

But I guess my only point of contention is that I'm not convinced that it's impossible to do it right with a $60 game. Maybe we haven't seen a practical, real example of that yet. But that doesn't mean it's impossible.

As for GaaS pushing itself out of the market....I think that REALLY depends on the level of service being provided, and at what cost. I'm not going to shed any tears if it DOES die off though.