Game as a service

this could be good or bad depending on how they implement it theres been games that have done it right and theres obvious ones where it has had negative effects on the game

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/halo-infinite-could-adopt-games-as-service-structu/1100-6465482/

I think this is a stretch or even click bait by GameStop. Kiki herself primarily deals outside of the games development as she works hard on halo transmedia. All she was quoted for was halo infinite took longer to make than the traditional 3 year cycle for halo games. Not a shocker since 2018 has passed and h5 was 2015. She hints that updates need to be quicker, and we heard that already about the engine back in December.

Now by no means am I saying that H:I can’t be a game as a service (it probably is) but this article and interview can’t be seen as credible. They really should have talked to Kiki about the halo movie which is something she is involved with. (Or even new mega blocks, books, promotional advertisement …the stuff involving trans media.)

> 2533274909139271;2:
> I think this is a stretch or even click bait by GameStop. Kiki herself primarily deals outside of the games development as she works hard on halo transmedia. All she was quoted for was halo infinite took longer to make than the traditional 3 year cycle for halo games. Not a shocker since 2018 has passed and h5 was 2015. She hints that updates need to be quicker, and we heard that already about the engine back in December.
>
> Now by no means am I saying that H:I can’t be a game as a service (it probably is) but this article and interview can’t be seen as credible. They really should have talked to Kiki about the halo movie which is something she is involved with. (Or even new mega blocks, books, promotional advertisement …the stuff involving trans media.)

Kiki was interviewed at the 2019 brainstorm design conference, she seems to have said what GameStop said she did. It’s linked below. I think Halo Infinite could be a very different game after reading it. E3 should be interesting.

2019 Brainstorm Conference.

what game benefited from games as a service? usually games as a service means almost no content at launch, bc a lot is cut to be implemented later, so it seems like there is always new content, when in reallity it’s just cut content reintroduced. (see destiny/anthem, where stuff from trailers a long time before release isn’t in the game, but added in later again)

games as a service seems to me a thing, only benefiting publishers, bc it’s easier to implement microtransactions and players are left with a bare bones game with the promise that it may become a better game some time in the future.

I’m fine with the concept of games as a service but I think only one game has done it well, Warframe, and that’s not the form of game I want H6 to be. All others have failed so let’s hope if they do go this route they don’t mess up the ways Division/Destiny/Anthem did.

> 2533274793122050;4:
> what game benefited from games as a service? usually games as a service means almost no content at launch, bc a lot is cut to be implemented later, so it seems like there is always new content, when in reallity it’s just cut content reintroduced. (see destiny/anthem, where stuff from trailers a long time before release isn’t in the game, but added in later again)
>
> games as a service seems to me a thing, only benefiting publishers, bc it’s easier to implement microtransactions and players are left with a bare bones game with the promise that it may become a better game some time in the future.

If that’s what ‘games as a service’ means then it sounds like Halo 5, strongly feel like that could hurt Infinite.

> 2533274829873463;6:
> > 2533274793122050;4:
> > what game benefited from games as a service? usually games as a service means almost no content at launch, bc a lot is cut to be implemented later, so it seems like there is always new content, when in reallity it’s just cut content reintroduced. (see destiny/anthem, where stuff from trailers a long time before release isn’t in the game, but added in later again)
> >
> > games as a service seems to me a thing, only benefiting publishers, bc it’s easier to implement microtransactions and players are left with a bare bones game with the promise that it may become a better game some time in the future.
>
> If that’s what ‘games as a service’ means then it sounds like Halo 5, strongly feel like that could hurt Infinite.

i’m not exactly sure that there is a final definition of games as a service, but most publishers mean, that the game will be supported with regular content updates. this sounds good, but in reality it leads to said cut content before release. this way they already have content to “update” the game in the first few months. this is a way to lenghten the time players spend with the game and therefore are more likely to spend (more) money on MTs.
halo 5 was imo kind of a games as a service, but the term wasn’t used then. same with the req-packs which are basicly lootboxes (also many updates had stuff to be unlocked with these lootboxes, so the urge to spend money would be even bigger and the grind to unlock stuff would be expanded).

> 2533275031939856;5:
> I’m fine with the concept of games as a service but I think only one game has done it well, Warframe, and that’s not the form of game I want H6 to be. All others have failed so let’s hope if they do go this route they don’t mess up the ways Division/Destiny/Anthem did.

i’m not familiar with warframe, but didn’t it get bad reviews when it was released and that it wasn’t that good of a game? i heard even the developers had to intervene in their monetization modell, bc it was that consumer unfriendly (or people spend so much on one thing, that they took it out or so).
yes, it got better (what i hear), and people like the game very much now, but you can say that about destiny too (at least the first destiny).
I don’t want to spend money on halo (or any game) only with the promise of it getting better (which it may not).
warframe has the edge here by being free2play, so it got that for it going. maybe a free2play model is the only model a games as a service is justifyable.
of course releasing a full game would also be possible, but, like i said: it’s easier to keep back content and release it as “updates” and claim the developers are “listening” to their fans, while milking them with MTs for cosmetics.

> 2533274793122050;7:
> > 2533274829873463;6:
> > > 2533274793122050;4:
> > > what game benefited from games as a service? usually games as a service means almost no content at launch, bc a lot is cut to be implemented later, so it seems like there is always new content, when in reallity it’s just cut content reintroduced. (see destiny/anthem, where stuff from trailers a long time before release isn’t in the game, but added in later again)
> > >
> > > games as a service seems to me a thing, only benefiting publishers, bc it’s easier to implement microtransactions and players are left with a bare bones game with the promise that it may become a better game some time in the future.
> >
> > If that’s what ‘games as a service’ means then it sounds like Halo 5, strongly feel like that could hurt Infinite.
>
> i’m not exactly sure that there is a final definition of games as a service, but most publishers mean, that the game will be supported with regular content updates. this sounds good, but in reality it leads to said cut content before release. this way they already have content to “update” the game in the first few months. this is a way to lenghten the time players spend with the game and therefore are more likely to spend (more) money on MTs. halo 5 was imo kind of a games as a service, but the term wasn’t used then. same with the req-packs which are basicly lootboxes (also many updates had stuff to be unlocked with these lootboxes, so the urge to spend money would be even bigger and the grind to unlock stuff would be expanded).

Not totally sure either. I’d rather they release the game with all the content at launch instead of delayed content because in many years…I want to be able to keep playing the ‘dlc’ when the servers go down since titles updates won’t mean much if I can’t play them later on because there maybe a time where my X1 may need formatting or it may corrupt, I could lose my games so try to re-access those contents could become impossible eventually. Yeh I think H5 was/is a games as a service but they stopped making new content since I believe H5 is generally losing population, I’m concerned they’ll try something in Infinite.

> 2533274793122050;7:
> > 2533274829873463;6:
> > > 2533274793122050;4:
> > > what game benefited from games as a service? usually games as a service means almost no content at launch, bc a lot is cut to be implemented later, so it seems like there is always new content, when in reallity it’s just cut content reintroduced. (see destiny/anthem, where stuff from trailers a long time before release isn’t in the game, but added in later again)
> > >
> > > games as a service seems to me a thing, only benefiting publishers, bc it’s easier to implement microtransactions and players are left with a bare bones game with the promise that it may become a better game some time in the future.
> >
> > If that’s what ‘games as a service’ means then it sounds like Halo 5, strongly feel like that could hurt Infinite.
>
> i’m not exactly sure that there is a final definition of games as a service, but most publishers mean, that the game will be supported with regular content updates. this sounds good, but in reality it leads to said cut content before release. this way they already have content to “update” the game in the first few months. this is a way to lenghten the time players spend with the game and therefore are more likely to spend (more) money on MTs.
> halo 5 was imo kind of a games as a service, but the term wasn’t used then. same with the req-packs which are basicly lootboxes (also many updates had stuff to be unlocked with these lootboxes, so the urge to spend money would be even bigger and the grind to unlock stuff would be expanded).
>
>
>
>
> > 2533275031939856;5:
> > I’m fine with the concept of games as a service but I think only one game has done it well, Warframe, and that’s not the form of game I want H6 to be. All others have failed so let’s hope if they do go this route they don’t mess up the ways Division/Destiny/Anthem did.
>
> i’m not familiar with warframe, but didn’t it get bad reviews when it was released and that it wasn’t that good of a game? i heard even the developers had to intervene in their monetization modell, bc it was that consumer unfriendly (or people spend so much on one thing, that they took it out or so).
> yes, it got better (what i hear), and people like the game very much now, but you can say that about destiny too (at least the first destiny).
> I don’t want to spend money on halo (or any game) only with the promise of it getting better (which it may not).
> warframe has the edge here by being free2play, so it got that for it going. maybe a free2play model is the only model a games as a service is justifyable.
> of course releasing a full game would also be possible, but, like i said: it’s easier to keep back content and release it as “updates” and claim the developers are “listening” to their fans, while milking them with MTs for cosmetics.

You might be right about Warframe not being good at launch. I just know these days it’s well loved, but if it took years to get to that point then yeah, that’s not a good example of games as a service done, and in that case I don’t know of a single AAA games as a service game being well received.

Both Halo 5 and Halo Wars 2 were treated like a service. Both have so many issues compared to every other Halo game before. Halo 5 took 2 years to get good and then suddenly became subpar and has stayed that way since. Halo Wars 2 is still full of bugs that make the game of glaringly lower quality than the first Halo Wars. Meanwhile, I’ve waited for about 2 years to get a patch for achievements that won’t unlock. For a Microsoft exclusive, it’s shameful that other companies are able to put out more stable games these days and that their last-gen predecessors are overall better games.

Why should I pay for a game and then have to wait months to get everything I paid for? I believe developers are supposed to use that time to make the rest of the game and then release it rather than put out a half-finished game at full price. You know, like how a game is actually meant to be developed.

Games as a service is a plague and is very unfriendly toward consumers. All it does is give publishers an easy way to make money fast and then back out of any clean-up efforts with the excuse that the developers need to move on to other projects. Meanwhile, those same devs are being forced to work hours on end with no rest every day. I’m glad 343i has said they’ll be taking a longer dev cycle for this one. It’s rare for a studio to look back at its poor practices and fix them. Would have been nice if they figured it out earlier, but better late than never. Based on the amount of time they’re giving the game, I don’t see why they would make Infinite a service and I truly hope it’s released as a proper, finished game.

God I hope Infinite can stay away from that garbage, but game industry is going to game industry.

The industry definition of “live service” almost always seems to mean “empty vapid time sink”, People don’t have unlimited time to play multiple “live service” games simultaneously as they all want all of your time. Either that or they all just ape the Fortnite model forgetting its a FTP game and stuff multiplayer with arbitrary challenges that make people play in an unnatural way in order to efficiently unlock the few things they actually want in the game.

Halo 3 was successful because it had actual content, not nebulous “live service” #content. Aside from the vidmasters added much later, there was just a lot of quality game to enjoy in Halo 3 and low and behold it was both financially successful and had a large player base most of its life.

Live services are just microtransaction delivery machines intended to wring more and more money out of fewer releases and it simply isn’t sustainable in the long term as people don’t have unlimited time or money.

Just make a fully featured, quality Halo game that has loads of things to do rather than checklists to complete and the rest will take care of itself.

If this isn’t going to be a full-throttle launch packed with quality content, I’m afraid it will crash and burn. People have zero patience once the game is out. I’m not against them launching campaign first, then followed by multiplayer, but even that would be staggering imo.

> 2533274793122050;4:
> what game benefited from games as a service?

Final Fantasy XV is one example of a game that benefited from this model.

> 2533274817408735;13:
> > 2533274793122050;4:
> > what game benefited from games as a service?
>
> Final Fantasy XV is one example of a game that benefited from this model.

Not really. FF15 campaign was great for the full game, well the multiplayer mostly seems dead. I’d hardly say it benefited but the rare crossover events were interesting but it wasn’t there long enough to keep people playing. In fact they ended up separating the mode…probably because they thought it might get peoples attention. Having a live service doesn’t always mean games will always succeed, it should be a major concern if 343i goes this direction.

> 2533274829873463;14:
> > 2533274817408735;13:
> > > 2533274793122050;4:
> > > what game benefited from games as a service?
> >
> > Final Fantasy XV is one example of a game that benefited from this model.
>
> Not really. FF15 campaign was great for the full game, well the multiplayer mostly seems dead. I’d hardly say it benefited but the rare crossover events were interesting but it wasn’t there long enough to keep people playing. In fact they ended up separating the mode…probably because they thought it might get peoples attention. Having a live service doesn’t always mean games will always succeed, it should be a major concern if 343i goes this direction.

FFXV’s multiplayer was but one small addition. FFXV got multiple expansions, small DLCs, and features added to it’s single-player experience, which for a game like FF is more important. Comrades was largely an experiment, not the main draw of the game or the main consequence of the game’s “live service” model.

> 2533274817408735;15:
> > 2533274829873463;14:
> > > 2533274817408735;13:
> > > > 2533274793122050;4:
> > > > what game benefited from games as a service?
> > >
> > > Final Fantasy XV is one example of a game that benefited from this model.
> >
> > Not really. FF15 campaign was great for the full game, well the multiplayer mostly seems dead. I’d hardly say it benefited but the rare crossover events were interesting but it wasn’t there long enough to keep people playing. In fact they ended up separating the mode…probably because they thought it might get peoples attention. Having a live service doesn’t always mean games will always succeed, it should be a major concern if 343i goes this direction.
>
> FFXV’s multiplayer was but one small addition. FFXV got multiple expansions, small DLCs, and features added to it’s single-player experience, which for a game like FF is more important. Comrades was largely an experiment, not the main draw of the game or the main consequence of the game’s “live service” model.

Hardly call it a small addition, a lot of the content was heavily used from the main campaign. As for the single player dlc…did that even sell well?, even the director walked out eventually.

> 2533274829873463;16:
> > 2533274817408735;15:
> > > 2533274829873463;14:
> > > > 2533274817408735;13:
> > > > > 2533274793122050;4:
> > > > > what game benefited from games as a service?
> > > >
> > > > Final Fantasy XV is one example of a game that benefited from this model.
> > >
> > > Not really. FF15 campaign was great for the full game, well the multiplayer mostly seems dead. I’d hardly say it benefited but the rare crossover events were interesting but it wasn’t there long enough to keep people playing. In fact they ended up separating the mode…probably because they thought it might get peoples attention. Having a live service doesn’t always mean games will always succeed, it should be a major concern if 343i goes this direction.
> >
> > FFXV’s multiplayer was but one small addition. FFXV got multiple expansions, small DLCs, and features added to it’s single-player experience, which for a game like FF is more important. Comrades was largely an experiment, not the main draw of the game or the main consequence of the game’s “live service” model.
>
> Hardly call it a small addition, a lot of the content was heavily used from the main campaign. As for the single player dlc…did that even sell well?, even the director walked out eventually.

The single player DLC did sell well, enough that they planned more than the original 3. DLC purchases made other updates like the Royal Edition possible. The director leaving the project was not due to financial reasons or the DLC selling badly, but rather internal reasons within the company.

> 2533274817408735;17:
> > 2533274829873463;16:
> > > 2533274817408735;15:
> > > > 2533274829873463;14:
> > > > > 2533274817408735;13:
> > > > > > 2533274793122050;4:
> > > > > > what game benefited from games as a service?
> > > > >
> > > > > Final Fantasy XV is one example of a game that benefited from this model.
> > > >
> > > > Not really. FF15 campaign was great for the full game, well the multiplayer mostly seems dead. I’d hardly say it benefited but the rare crossover events were interesting but it wasn’t there long enough to keep people playing. In fact they ended up separating the mode…probably because they thought it might get peoples attention. Having a live service doesn’t always mean games will always succeed, it should be a major concern if 343i goes this direction.
> > >
> > > FFXV’s multiplayer was but one small addition. FFXV got multiple expansions, small DLCs, and features added to it’s single-player experience, which for a game like FF is more important. Comrades was largely an experiment, not the main draw of the game or the main consequence of the game’s “live service” model.
> >
> > Hardly call it a small addition, a lot of the content was heavily used from the main campaign. As for the single player dlc…did that even sell well?, even the director walked out eventually.
>
> The single player DLC did sell well, enough that they planned more than the original 3. DLC purchases made other updates like the Royal Edition possible. The director leaving the project was not due to financial reasons or the DLC selling badly, but rather internal reasons within the company.

Yeh…the royal edition kind of annoyed me when they did that. Paid for the original game then made it into some weird price range, which meant I’d be paying more for a season pass while Royal Edition meant only new players got things cheaper…glad that went on sale eventually. Yeh I get why the director might have been annoyed, releasing content like that might have been frustrating. Either way I’d rather they spend more time on releasing Infinite as a whole game instead of rushing a release so they can claim it’s a ‘live service’, from what I’ve heard a lot people were annoyed about FF15 since many felt like the game was ‘unfinished’ but I thought it was a decent game.

If you need proof that games as a service are most of the time bad just look at EA. Games like Battlefield V launch with little to no content at launch while they promise to drip feed content over a very long period of time. If Infinite wants to have updates over a long period of time that’s fine as long as it launches with all the content that’s necessary for a halo game. We cant have a repeat of halo 5.

> 2533274932512744;19:
> If you need proof that games as a service are most of the time bad just look at EA. Games like Battlefield V launch with little to no content at launch while they promise to drip feed content over a very long period of time. If Infinite wants to have updates over a long period of time that’s fine as long as it launches with all the content that’s necessary for a halo game. We cant have a repeat of halo 5.

Exactly, the way H5 was poorly handled is why Halo 5 has no AAA BTB whatsoever, is now over-saturated with forge maps in most playlists, it took them long enough to get any content. If it wasn’t for Warzone…I think I would have stopped playing months ago because I dislike how poorly balanced, broken the game is/was. Plus I’ve seen how games like ‘live service’ being used to make ‘Battle Royale’ clones, they’re all just awful with barely any content and if Infinite announces any form of ‘live service’ or micro-transactions of any kind then that’s going to be a big concern for me.