• BumpingFuglies@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    2 months ago

    The obvious answer is to abandon GaaS as a concept and focus making more great single player games like the ones that put Playstation into a clear lead in this generation of the console wars.

    However, we’ve seen that a massive failure in the space isn’t enough to deter the truly greedy coughWBcough, so who knows?

    • Fubarberry@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 months ago

      WB doubled down, after Suicide Squad failed horribly and Hogwarts Legacy sold fantastically they decided they needed to stop making games like Hogwarts to focus on more live service games.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      I love multiplayer games, and I want more of them. But I don’t want live service games. Multiplayer is not synonymous with live service, and single player is not its opposite.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The nature of needing a community is definitely something that impedes purchases, too. People recognizing that something has a bad reputation are less likely to buy/try it.

      All games have some financial reliance on the hype cycle, but if I buy a single player game and no one else does, I still have my game. If I buy Concord and no one else does, I’m going to be holding the bag when it gets abandoned.

    • 100@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      think they still have a few shitty games as service to go before they run out

      cough marathon

  • lath@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Some other article said it simpler. If the game launched for free and they focused on microtransactions for skins, they’d be one of the live service games that brings in the money.

    • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I doubt it. When you make a game free to play, only about 5% of your players will ever pay any amount of money, which means your total audience needs to be enormous. I think when they revealed it and looked at metrics like social media and wishlists, they saw the writing on the wall and were just trying to lose less money by charging for it up front.