Fallout 76 & Co. - Tomorrow's Games Are Ours

Table of contents:

Fallout 76 & Co. - Tomorrow's Games Are Ours
Fallout 76 & Co. - Tomorrow's Games Are Ours

Video: Fallout 76 & Co. - Tomorrow's Games Are Ours

Video: Fallout 76 & Co. - Tomorrow's Games Are Ours
Video: Запросы, похожие на 2023, October

Service games are old. Although it wasn't the first, World of Warcraft could be seen as the father of the game-as-a-service principle. Because “Games-aa-Service (GaaS) represent supplying video games or game content that are based on a continuous income model, similar to Software-as-a-Service. Games-as-a-Service is a way to either monetize video games after the actual release or to support a free-to-play model.”Says at least the English Wikipedia page (and she is right).

Service games are simply games that deliver content after the release. And with the content, which is sometimes not freely available but subject to a fee, those developers who subsequently produce further content are paid - and so on, and so on. Service games are evolving. Service games may be something completely different five years after they were released. The first service games were MMORPGs, which is completely natural: Because here it was and is still important to keep players happy in a large online world for years.

But game-as-a-service has changed over time. What is meant is no longer just the big MMOs, but also shared worlds like Anthem and No Man's Sky, asymmetrical multiplayer like Dead By Daylight, Battle Royale games like Fortnite or Multiplayer like Fallout 76. And since then the monthly subscription model of MMOs has been intolerable has become; As f2p games become closer to the standard of large AAA blockbusters, it has become more and more difficult to fund these games. Microtransactions? Pay2Win? Continuous DLCs?

While the pressure on the developers increases and games slide faster and faster in the release - supported by outdated business models and fiscal year numbers that have to be adhered to - many of the same development studios are switching to Games-aa-Service, because yes: it works, it works well. If a service game works, it can bring in lots of money, which in turn finances new games. But how can a brand new game model succeed if it is still gagged by old rules? How should it be successful if Games-as-a-Service are treated like normal games - and thereby fuel the expectation that they will be ready at the release?

Finally, what leads us to the funny phenomenon that has been the hatred of some fans for several years: Games slide half-finished, if not completely broken into the release, without being able to keep the promises that were made before. Then they develop. And if they develop well, they may be loved. But does the release have to be so terrible for the games to develop afterwards?

"We knew Fallout 76 would be criticized after release," Bethesda chief Todd Howard recently told IGN and he continues, "It's not about how a game appears, but how it develops." Service games are truer than expected.

The Fallout 76 community now loves their game:


Start photo gallery (11 photos)

"We'll be testing soft launches soon," says EA

What we understand by a normal release does not fit the concept of a games-as-a-service. We know games that have been developed over the years and offer a world of whatever kind for release: Please player - let off steam after you have paid for the license to the game. But service games are not what they are supposed to be without us, the players. They are not what they could be at the release, even though they are advertised with them and then disappoint. Why?

Precisely because they are advertised with it, of course. Because they use a release model that doesn't fit service games. Because the whole concept behind the development of such a game is not fully thought out; because it's a new form of game that needs new rules. And these rules take time, after all they have to be found out.

Hopefully not too much time, because I think we are all tired. The broken expectations, the disappointment. Maybe the bitterness that comes with the release of a new game - because it won't be able to keep what it promised, right? So it's a good thing that some publishers and developers have been addressing the problem for a while and are addressing it.

EA, for example, recently stated in a business call that how AAA games are developed is no longer up to date. Because the games have grown too big and especially the way they appear has to change:

Soft launch is the magic word. A release that is not in the focus of the public, but quietly addresses certain groups of people. Closed alpha or beta versions, early access accounts and the like may be models for the type of release that service games like No Man's Sky or Fallout 76 would have needed. And the greatest advantage of it: With such a first pre-release it will only be possible to shape the game according to the wishes of the fans before the official launch:

A new type of release is the first step towards better service games. And the logical consequence of this would be direct communication with us, the players: Because it is we who will populate the worlds of service games. Why shouldn't we decide what kind of worlds these are?

You can already visit one of these worlds:


Start photo gallery (11 photos) The good side of evil

The term game-as-a-service is often associated with frustration, at least for many players. And we know why - we just talked about it in detail. But, and that always upsets me: It shouldn't be that way. Rather, game-as-a-service should be exactly what it means: a game that offers a service to the player. A service that he pays for me - but also a service that makes him happy.

What Fallout 76 and Anthem are experiencing are two sides of the same coin: both games disappointed with the release, but Fallout 76 was able to blossom because it came into contact with the community. Have you ever tried the Fallout 76 Reddit? There was a time when every second post there started with "Bethesda, please change this or that …" and I can tell you why: Because Bethesda came into contact with the fans despite starting difficulties and now more or less the content implemented that are wanted by the players.

Fallout 76 has largely become a game that is shaped by the players.

No Man's Sky has also become a game that lives and is changed by a passionate community.

The development team around Anthem, on the other hand, did not seem to want to listen to the community or contact them at least until now. Why? Perhaps because here and there there is still the misconception that a game belongs entirely to the developer; the one who did it. This is wrong for service games: the games belong to the players, because without them they would only be half games. Fallout 76 traders are not programmed NPCs, they are players. The groupings in EVE Online are not NPCs, they are the players. Likewise, the federations in No Man's Sky. The players are these games. And that's good.

The Fallout 76 players create:


Start photo gallery (14 photos)

Game-as-a-Service is a fantastic principle that, when properly implemented, gives us players an important voice. And service games do not have to be just multiplayer, which you can learn from the example of No Man's Sky. What role playing game do you really want to play? Which Battle Royale titles would you really be interested in? Tell me and I will create the game you want. At least that's how it should be. And hopefully it will be one day.

Marina Hansel
Marina Hansel

Is the article helpful?

Yes No (4) comments

Your life is GIGA.


Help us to improve and please tell us:

Why is the article not helpful for you?

The information is out of date I have not received enough information The information is incorrect I disagree Other Send answer

Thank you, your GIGA team


Thank you

Your opinion is important to us. Also like to discuss with us in the comments.

Window will close automatically in 6 seconds

Close Window