PlayStation Showcase 2023

[Nesh]

GaaS are important because that is what players are playing. Let’s be real, they represent the bulk of profits and platform engagement for all platforms.

But what I think you’re describing is that platform holders still need to meet the expectations of their hardcore base. Something Xbox hasn’t really done as well these last couple of years, and Sony also now seems be trending in that direction as well.

I didnt say they are not important. There are players for GaaS and players who dont play GaaS. A successful GaaS is a harder thing to achieve.
Partly because it requires huge hours of dedication and long term investments from players. For example a single player game makes room for another single player game after its finished. A GaaS model requires constant engagement for its economics to work, and players have less time and money to invest on multiple GaaS games especially if one has captured their hearts. Also their success is decoupled from the platform branding because platform exclusive GaaS have less chances of succeeding economically. There are much more financially successful non-GaaS games we can name than GaaS games for that reason.

So yeah they need to meet expectations of their hardcore base because it is the main foundation of the platform's market share and branding. It is the reason why MS and Sony are keeping their GaaS games (i.e Minecraft and Destiny) on competing platforms.

 

[iroboto]

People do play GaaS but if you review sales and what has driven revenue over the last ten years outside of the mobile space, with the exception of GTA V, it's not GaaS. It's Skyrim, Minecraft, it's Zelda, It's Mario Kart, it's Pokemon. It's single player experiences or games that are not predicated on ongoing payments. I spent a good week with Grounded but spent zero real money, nor felt the need too.

I'm sure Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony would like the console space to be like the mobile space for this reason but the home console community has resisted.

I'm defining Fortnite, Roblox, CoD Warzone, CoD, OW, Apex Legends, Dota, League, Valorant, Diablo, Destiny, SoT, most fighting games, and Minecraft as GaaS. If you have a season's pass, you are definitely a GaaS, and the few exception online games without a battlepass like Minecraft. Any game that's constantly updated with new content I would consider a GaaS because in order to pay for those content drops, someone must be giving them money in exchange. I'm tempted to call the FIFA games also GaaS since you're buying packs to build your team.

 

[Shortbread]

How big of a base (of gamers) will it take to support all the current and future GaaS games? The hardest part with so many failed GaaS games is keeping players interested, and having them return religiously on maintaining a good server population of players. I can't imagine today's cheapskate gamers wanting to spend so much money, time, and effort on supporting a bunch of GaaS games, only to have it wasted over the lack of a good and consistent player experience, and the gaming population to support it.

 

[iroboto]

How big of a base (of gamers) will it take to support all the current and future GaaS games? The hardest part with so many failed GaaS games is keeping players interested, and having them return religiously on maintaining a good server population of players. I can't imagine today's cheapskate gamers wanting to spend so much money, time, and effort on a bunch of GaaS games, only to have it wasted over the lack of a consistent player experience and gaming population to support it.

Yea, it's impossible. So that's why I think part of the strategy is to move towards the cloud. You go from 200-500m players to 2B players. I mean, we haven't even touched on the number of GaaS games in China, I'm sure they represent a massive volume of players we haven't even considered. But if you can make a GaaS title that appeals to major populations that typically can't touch hardware due to costs (LATAM, India, China) then suddenly you've got a much larger player base and potential revenue coming in.

It is a really bad winner takes all competition in the games space right now because gaming isn't grow as fast as it could because it's still bound to local hardware.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm defining Fortnite, Roblox, CoD Warzone, CoD, OW, Apex Legends, Dota, League, Valorant, Diablo, Destiny, SoT, most fighting games, and Minecraft as GaaS.

I think this an important distinction between GaaS which require no ongoing financial input Minecraft and Grounded, and those that do. The GaaS model is generally pursuing the ongoing subscription model but they don't all require it so you need to differentiate the titles which your earlier post doesn't.

When you begin to split out the actual revenue, you are back to my earlier post in terms of where the most revenue originates outside of the very few whale-driven GaaS economies, which are almost entirely predicated on mobile.

 

[iroboto]

I think this an important distinction between GaaS which require no ongoing financial input Minecraft and Grounded, and those that do. The GaaS model is generally pursuing the ongoing subscription model but they don't all require it so you need to differentiate the titles which your earlier post doesn't.

When you begin to split out the actual revenue, you are back to my earlier post in terms of where the most revenue originates outside of the very few whale-driven GaaS economies, which are almost entirely predicated on mobile.

My understanding of GaaS as a definition is pretty much what Wikipedia has written:
In the video game industry, games as a service (GaaS) represents providing video games or game content on a continuing revenue model, similar to software as a service. Games as a service are ways to monetize video games either after their initial sale, or to support a free-to-play model. Games released under the GaaS model typically receive a long or indefinite stream of monetized new content over time to encourage players to continue paying to support the game. This often leads to games that work under a GaaS model to be called "living games", "live games", or "live service games" since they continually change with these updates.

I've just always assumed that if you continue to try to monetize the customer base (season after season, or patch after patch) after the initial sale, it's a GaaS whether free to play or not.
I would say that Elden Ring is a not GaaS, and neither was Skyrim or most of the Bethseda ones excluding the MMOs.

 

[Shortbread]

My definition: If I have to spend lots of money and depend on others to have a worthwhile gaming experience, then it gives me GaaS.

 

[egoless]

Has anyone considered taking the showcase in this context? You cannot show all the amazing exclusive games, exclusive content, and exclusives marketing, all of which is locked up on your 4:1 dominant console either timed, purposely ambiguous or indefinitely... while simultaneously declaring the other company would put you out of business if that company did all those things to you that you've declared loudly is bad. The hypocrisy would be so plain to see that it would backfire.

In that context, they answered the call of duty with an admirable showcase given the current climate.

 

[iroboto]

Has anyone considered taking the showcase in this context? You cannot show all the amazing exclusive games, exclusive content, and exclusives marketing, all of which is locked up on your 4:1 dominant console either timed, purposely ambiguous or indefinitely... while simultaneously declaring the other company would put you out of business if that company did all those things to you that you've declared loudly is bad. The hypocrisy would be so plain to see that it would backfire.

In that context, they answered the call of duty with an admirable showcase given the current climate.

It's an interesting perspective, but CMA and EC have already dismissed the COD angle. It's only about cloud.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I've just always assumed that if you continue to try to monetize the customer base (season after season, or patch after patch) after the initial sale, it's a GaaS whether free to play or not.

I think this is where it gets blurry and where Minecraft and Grounded stick out because you can buy the game and get updates. This is no different to other companies like Paradox, who create and release RTS/4X games like Stellaris which released in 2016, and still gets free content updates but also massive paid-for content updates.

 

[iroboto]

I think this is where it gets blurry and where Minecraft and Grounded stick out because you can buy the game and get updates. This is no different to other companies like Paradox, who create and release RTS/4X games like Stellaris which released in 2016, and still gets free content updates but also massive paid-for content updates.

Yea, I think as long as there is a way to continually monetize the free content, then I would call that a GaaS - the free content was funded by the paid-for content.
Effectively they drive each other, release new content to keep the players playing, which in turn some % will buy paid for content, which funds the releasing new content.

Whereas Starcraft Broodwar, or the other Starcraft games, I would consider an expansion and not a GaaS.

But Destiny 1 was precisely that model, paid for content expansions. The entire game was playable and no additional money was needed. But the paid for content drops also included tons of microtransactions etc.
I would call Destiny a GaaS even though they make you pay for those new content drops.

It is quite blurry.

 

[eastmen]

They do sell well, and they are easily still some of the best IPs in their respective category. But a system seller grows the number of new players to the platform.

So far it’s been maintenance or even some shedding since last Gen and significant shedding since 360. If they can grow their
Market share by % that means their titles are resonating with more players to want to enter the ecosystem.

This is their opportunity to turn some of that around, Sony didn’t really bring a show to capture even more market share, they did a maintenance cycle it feels like. I don’t think SM2 is going to garner a lot of new fans, but existing fans will be delighted for it.

Until recently the xbox series was in short supply and it looks like the x is still harder to find. The xbox one was also discontinued at the start of the pandemic. So how do we define if they are growing the number of new players to the platform ? Its kinda hard to jump to the conclusion that they aren't growing the amount of people.

 

[iroboto]

Until recently the xbox series was in short supply and it looks like the x is still harder to find. The xbox one was also discontinued at the start of the pandemic. So how do we define if they are growing the number of new players to the platform ? Its kinda hard to jump to the conclusion that they aren't growing the amount of people.

I don't think realistically people are holding out on Xbox because they only wants Series X. I mean, lots of people are comfortable with paying the cheaper price if there is a title there they want badly. Not all of us can afford shiny new things, and the Series S is definitely a great device for this time of recession and inflation for everyone. It's affordable gaming. We are deep enough into the generation that the mainstream should be buying in, but they just haven't found a reason for it.

I want to be fair that cross gen is likely finally over for Xbox here. They should have stepped away from it after releasing Halo. So maybe this is going to be a turn of events for them once their first party is all Series consoles only. But the people won't flock if there is nothing to flock to.

 

[snc]

GaaS are important because that is what players are playing. Let’s be real, they represent the bulk of profits and platform engagement for all platforms.

Strength of ps4 era was singleplayer focuses games and thx to them sony won generation. Now new managment is more interested in statistics and thinks gaas will bring him more money where like 95% of these games end badly. Its like old Sega or Konami thought that money were in mobile gaming and ended badly even though had so many great ip.

 

[iroboto]

Strength of ps4 era was singleplayer focuses games and thx to them sony won generation. Now new managment is more interested in statistics and thinks gaas will bring him more money where like 95% of these games end badly. Its like old Sega or Konami thought that money were in mobile gaming and ended badly even though had so many great ip.

I don’t necessarily think this changed for Sony. The GaaS titles were all 3P. With the exception of Bungie which they bought for GaaS.

 

[snc]

I don’t necessarily think this changed for Sony. The GaaS titles were all 3P. With the exception of Bungie which they bought for GaaS.

3 gaas games from first party ;d Bungie, Haven, Firewalk studio. Ok maybe they are new Sony studios but we know that Guerrilla also works on gaas title (terrbile looking fortnite horizon hybrid).

 

[iroboto]

3 gaas games from first party ;d Bungie, Haven, Firewalk studio. Ok maybe they are new Sony studios but we know that Guerrilla also works on gaas title (terrbile looking fortnite horizon hybrid).

Ah. Thank you for the correction. Didn’t catch that. Firewalk is exBungie IIRC. So maybe Sony felt they needed to pad up on GaaS. I don’t think that’s a change of direction, just filling in some gaps in their library and adding more to what is there.

 

[Globalisateur]

I don’t necessarily think this changed for Sony. The GaaS titles were all 3P. With the exception of Bungie which they bought for GaaS.

What changed is that before they took more risks on small titles / different type of games. Now they mostly don't do risky Single Player games anymore (they mostly get rid of their own teams doing that) and instead take risks on GAAS titles because they think they could hit the jackpot.

They said previously that doing new IPs was a very risky business. But still they were successful and market leader thanks to that strategy. But it seems they want to be successful like before without taking risks like before.

The core Playstation experience is not only 3rd person story driven shooter games. But that's sadly what's it is currently on PS5.

 

[Nesh]

What changed is that before they took more risks on small titles / different type of games. Now they mostly don't do risky Single Player games anymore (they mostly get rid of their own teams doing that) and instead take risks on GAAS titles because they think they could hit the jackpot.

They said previously that doing new IPs was a very risky business. But still they were successful and market leader thanks to that strategy. But it seems they want to be successful like before without taking risks like before.

The core Playstation experience is not only 3rd person story driven shooter games. But that's sadly what's it is currently on PS5.

But how are GaaS not risky though? There is a bad track record of GaaS succeeding. They even had some of the best and some promising GaaS IPs and missed the mark. Everquest? Planetside? And a few others. They were sold.
And they will have to make these new titles multiplatform to reduce risks. Which eliminates the whole point of differentiating your console from competition. Unless you have 90% of the gaming market and thus keeping those games exclusives wont have much of an impact in missing potential gamers. Which they dont.

 

[Globalisateur]

But how are GaaS not risky though? There is a bad track record of GaaS succeeding. They even had some of the best and some promising GaaS IPs and missed the mark. Everquest? Planetside? And a few others. They were sold.
And they will have to make these new titles multiplatform to reduce risks. Which eliminates the whole point of differentiating your console from competition. Unless you have 90% of the gaming market and thus keeping those games exclusives wont have much of an impact in missing potential gamers. Which they dont.

GAAS is risky. But it's not for Playstation core gamers. So those people get less games they like on their favorite console.