Game On: The success of ‘games as a service’ comes at a price
Unless your head is in the sand, in recent years you’ve probably noticed a multitude of games advertising new “seasons” or massive updates with swanky titles. The latest is Apex Legends, which just dropped its 11th season, Escape, on Nov. 2, introducing a new playable character, new map and of course new battle pass and sequence of cosmetic items to unlock.
While I’m excited by these additions, I also feel a tinge of guilt bingeing the same game time and again with only modest changes. It’s shocking how few new big-budget titles have been released this year, and I can’t help but feel that gamers throwing their time and money at these “games as a service” stops studios from creating genuinely new experiences.
Why risk releasing a new game when they can drip feed updates to their already successful game? When I was a kid, there were far fewer constantly updated multiplayer games. Most of them were RPGs along the lines of World of Warcraft or Runescape. WoW was notorious for its subscription-based model, wherein gamers never actually owned the title – instead, they paid $12 per month to access the game.
It was a steep price, so steep that despite my interest, I couldn’t pay for it, and I couldn’t bring myself to ask my parents to pay for it, either. Then my mom got hooked on Eve Online a year later, which was even more expensive as a subscription. At the time, subscription costs were the obvious way for developers to earn enough revenue to justify continually expanding upon their game.
By 2003, interactive website Gaia Online offered free membership to all but enticed people into supporting its development and server costs just by releasing two unique, valuable “donation items” every month for the cost of $2.50 apiece. Then, in 2010, Valve made a breakthrough with Team Fortress 2. It added cosmetic items to their 2007 game, starting with hats, then loot crates.
Loot crates would woo gamers by randomly appearing in inventory but requiring a $1 key to open them. The item received would then be randomly selected from a list and awarded to the player. Basically, a gambling element was added to the game, and before long Valve realized it could ultimately generate more revenue by making Team Fortress 2 free to play – thus bringing in more potential customers for these “microtransactions.”
These changes did not come without consequence. What was once a calculated, teamwork-focused arena shooter slowly devolved into a menagerie of gaudy items, bombastic weapons and random game modes. People lost sight of enjoying individual matches and became gradually more obsessed with how their characters looked in-game. It happened to me, too, and I fell out of love with Team Fortress 2, which was once my most-played video game.
Despite my stance, Team Fortress 2 found plenty of new players who enjoyed the new elements, and the title remains in the top five most-played Steam games at all times, typically averaging around 85,000 concurrent players. It went from being a modestly successful game to a cash cow, and the rest of the gaming world noticed and followed suit. Roblox, Rocket League, Fortnite and dozens of similar titles dominate the gaming world today.
These are great games, but their continual popularity undermines the creation of new experiences. Halo Infinite is out Dec. 8, and for the first time the developers have opted to launch the single-player campaign and multiplayer as separate applications. While the campaign will cost $60 and be complete upon launch, the multiplayer component will be free, constantly updated and funded by – you guessed it – cosmetic items.
I love online games, but I can’t shake the notion their propensity for generating heaps of cash is hurting the development of new single-player games. Online games are typically fun but vapid experiences, whereas single-player ones can be deep, immersive and – dare I say it – artful. I’d hate to see the game industry regress and lose that side of itself.