10 Commandments of Game as Service

[AlexKidd]

Live Service needs to die.

[Merlin]

Let us see how many commandments Anthem Breaks...Be honest people, we all know this a "Live Service" I don't even want to taint this genre with the word "game" in its name. I dare not.

[MadMummy76]

[/SIZE][/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

This is not what I'm posting about. I should have predicted some gamers entrenched in the MTX war would take this stance and explained further. I started with "...seems to be here to stay." for a reason. I don't love the system, and I'm not so naïve to think GAS are going anywhere, or that there is anything we can do to get rid of MTX in online games. I can't think of a single game that had only dev/publisher-hosted online services and didn't have any kind of post-launch monetization. Cosmetic MTX is the best devil we can get in bed with. I prefer subscriptions, but you get more players with MTX. I choose not to fight a losing battle, and instead work to make the outcome more favorable for everyone. When I have the chance, I provide feedback that a developer has a chance of listening to.

I'm not letting any devils into my house, "hey allow me because I'm a lesser evil" nope, no evils allowed on my watch. They can shove their cosmetics far up their arses. I'm never going to bend the knee. I'd stop gaming entirely before I start engaging microtransactions. If a game is not enjoyable without them then I'm not playing the game period.

Where did I suggest only having a beta right before launch? I think you misread me.

I didn't suggest you said it. But that's how they are doing it, that's how they have been doing it for the better part of the last decade. So I thought this was a more important message than yours.

I can't remember what year it was, but major publishers stopped sending reviewers and media productions review-copies well in advance of launch (I want to say this started with Fallout 4). This was around the time game started launching in highly unfinished states or being very vague about what they were offering. Review copies give accountability, the problem is the strings that are attached to publications that depend on add revenue from the publishers of the games they review. If you can stand by your game, you should be willing to give out free copies to anyone that can prove they have a media platform of some minimum size.

Free review copies incentivize the reviewers to give favorable reviews. I think there should be no familiarity, or any kind of backroom deal going on between publishers and reviewers. Having free demos before or at launch gives the players the opportunity to judge the games for themselves, without having to rely on reviewers being honest. And honesty isn't enough really, the reviewer needs to have the same opinions as you for his/her views to have any relevance to you. That almost never happens. There is always something I disagree on with other people, that can make or break the game.
So I think reviewers can buy the games if they are interested in playing them. But as soon as they are given free games to review that they might not even buy otherwise, their opinion is tainted.

I agree, the return of Demos and Trial periods would be a welcome change, and it looks like BioWare may be kicking it off again, we'll see how it goes next month.

I just hope they don't pull an ME:A where a handful of people greatly exaggerated the problems with the game during trial, and everyone started parroting the loud minority without even seeing for themselves.

[MadMummy76]

I'm talking about the fact that you don't understand networking at all. The person with a bad connection would still lag behind even with dedicated servers, actually even more so. And do you honestly think that game companies would have a dedicated server for each of the millions of matches going on at any given time? Or allow you to have the full server side and host games yourself? Most features of modern games would simply not work without having a connection to their network.

[isturbo1984]

except... reality. mic drop? have you played a game online before?? it doesnt work like that for on online shooter like say... Call of Duty. even when a player has good internet, the person with a bad or mediocre connection lags behind. problems just not present on a dedicated server. and there is nothing to get congested. there is only 8-12 people on average per match. 8-12. what are you talking about??

[Valkenr]

IV.I agree with MadMummy76 on this one. What you call vanity many people call gameplay rewards. Monetizing these is really shitty in my opinion. It's easy to say "it doesn't matter how your character looks." But I play games for escapism. And looking cool is fun. Especially in multiplayer games. Any time part of the game is put behind a paywall it's a shitty thing. It's inexcusable if it's a non-free-to-play-game.

Then what would you rather have? Subscriptions? Overpriced DLC? Everything P2P with minimal account verification services? Vanity items are a good compromise in my view. The trick is not making the MTX vanity a league above the rest of the items looks. Destiny has done well with this, if they would scrap the loot-boxes, they would be my favorite monetization scheme. I didn't see any of their MTX stuff as preferable, and the cooler stuff came from the high-skill content like the raids and competative PVP. There were just a few speeders that were preferable, and it was easy to get things for free, assuming you didn't want everything on offer.

VI. Unlike MadMummy76 I'm a big fan of PVP. But I do not agree at all that it should be 1v1v1 always. Plenty of games do not have this, and also do not only have two sides. Even if you want a rigid PVP system, then why limit yourself to 3-realm? Why not 5? Or 10? You could also easily have rules that limit zerging. Why rule out the possibility? Player-ran anything is preferable to dev-ordained versions simply because there will be more variety and interaction with other players.

I was only talking about open zones and war-type systems. Small-team queued PVP matches are better with 1v1, but when you have entire armies against each other, a 3-army setup is preferable. More divides the community too much. Are you familiar with Planetside? It has my ideal set up for an open pvp system. I enjoyed it for a while, then took a break, and came back to a plague of MTX in my face all the time. I was really hoping Destiny would come out with some Planetside-lite-like event for the Faction Wars.

I have never had a good experience with one of the large 200+ player guilds. I see them as pretty chaotic with the leadership having pretty big egos. In this respect, I'm thinking of a game like Global Agenda, that had a Risk-like map the player alliances could fight over. You basically had to join a huge alliance if you wanted to participate. It then just turns into a numbers game, and all the big guys circle around each other until they wipe out everyone else.

VIII. Who cares if reviewers have copies or not. If the game is good the game is good. Yes it's often used to hide awful quality in games, but it doesn't have to be. If you develop a game you should not be forced to provide AssBlastEdgeLord2001 a copy just because he prattles into a webcam twice a day. Youtubers who bitch about not getting free games are pathetic and gross. They seem to make themselves feel plenty special enough as it is. And it's a worrying trend that mirrors what happened with the old media gaming "journalist" and media.

The following sentance is really grimey and gross: "(a tip: seek out as many of you can, make them feel special, and they'll be in a better mindset when they review your game)"

Never talked about forcing anyone to do anything. This is a common misassumption in conversation these days. A suggestion does not imply force. Like I said to MadMummy, if you aren't confident enough to give free copies of your game to everyone with a decent media platform, your game isn't ready. The problem with old-media is advertising incentives. I'm not iron clad on this point, I can see utility to being completely disconnected, like with auto crash-safety testing. But I still like the idea of having the confidence to distribute your game to even your harshest critics.

As for that sentence, I usually include something I know will be received well in feedback. It makes the rest of the message more palatable if you aren't telling them they are doing everything wrong. I find trying making people feel special, and more receptive to positivity, is a little evil that we can live with.

VII. Bullet sponges are extremely overused. But they can have their place in good game design.

Agreed, that's why I gave the Nurgle example. There can be a bullet sponge, just have a good reason for it in the cannon. I don't like the Destiny model where you have to grind out gear to get the DPS necessary to kill the raid boss in time, I prefer strategy over grinding out gear ranks. Systems like that fracture the community and widen the gap between the casual and hardcore crowds.

[Valkenr]

I only have one commandment regarding games as a service: Thou shall fuck off with games as a service.

A game should be designed and completed before release, not after. A game should not change in any way except the occasional bugfix after release.

And to address your points, because they can be applied to any game not just to games as a service.[LIST=1][*]Levelling should serve the sole purpose of unlocking skills and abilities. Stats should be unaffected by levels. Equipment should not have levels, an item has stats, that are intrinsic to that item, and never change, unless you upgrade the actual item.[*]Agreed, but this point is irrelevant if we declare that the game shall not change at all after release.[*]You shall not have any type of currency or in game purchases with real money[*]No monetization. I pay for the game once, and that's it. Cosmetic items should be unlocked from the start so I can make my character look as I want from the start I shall not pay real money for virtual items.

This is not what I'm posting about. I should have predicted some gamers entrenched in the MTX war would take this stance and explained further. I started with "...seems to be here to stay." for a reason. I don't love the system, and I'm not so naïve to think GAS are going anywhere, or that there is anything we can do to get rid of MTX in online games. I can't think of a single game that had only dev/publisher-hosted online services and didn't have any kind of post-launch monetization. Cosmetic MTX is the best devil we can get in bed with. I prefer subscriptions, but you get more players with MTX. I choose not to fight a losing battle, and instead work to make the outcome more favorable for everyone. When I have the chance, I provide feedback that a developer has a chance of listening to.

[*]No, you shall private beta, well before launch, to actually serve a function, because beta right before launch serves no purpose but publicity. You can't fix anything if you have the beta a week before release date. And regular players don't give useful feedback anyway. Well at least most don't. Betas these days are nothing but paid demos.

Where did I suggest only having a beta right before launch? I think you misread me.

[*]You don't have to get a free copy to be able to review a game, you shouldn'T review games that you wouldn't otherwise buy anyway, since you're not the target audience then. It shouldn't break their bank. Instead of early review copies bring back demo versions of games, that are released before the game is out, not after. Early review copies are a plague. It gets in their heads whoever gets early copies. And it makes actual gamers who pay for the game feel second rate citizens.

I can't remember what year it was, but major publishers stopped sending reviewers and media productions review-copies well in advance of launch (I want to say this started with Fallout 4). This was around the time game started launching in highly unfinished states or being very vague about what they were offering. Review copies give accountability, the problem is the strings that are attached to publications that depend on add revenue from the publishers of the games they review. If you can stand by your game, you should be willing to give out free copies to anyone that can prove they have a media platform of some minimum size.

I agree, the return of Demos and Trial periods would be a welcome change, and it looks like BioWare may be kicking it off again, we'll see how it goes next month.

[MadMummy76]

Efficent for the publishers. But it's crapo for the users. Dedicated servers mean player run servers are a possibility. Which should be the goal of all multiplayer games. Peer to peer doesn't allow mods, player-run-communities, alternative rulesets, or a long lifespan for the game. Not to mention that the increased efficiency has brought increased costs. You get a lesser experience and either have to pay to play online (consoles), have to be constantly bombarded with adverts, or have the g ame consantly badger you to feed it more money.

Having communities is not a function of the network model. You can still have user hosted games, while the network code is p2p based.
If it's about giving the ability to players to create custom games. I support that.

[MadMummy76]

Not to call you a shill but... are you a fucking shill? theres nothing efficient about having to play an online match piggybacking on some kid's internet connection whose non-gamer parent's are too cheap for a better internet package.

With a dedicated server all connections go to a single point, which inevitably becomes congested.

What's the most efficient and fastest way to spread data quickly? Bitorrent. What is bittorrent? Right Peer to peer. I think that's what you'd call a micdrop.

[MakeGamesGreatAgain]

As a developer on this forum, I certainly like what I read.

Good info to put into the memory banks.

[isturbo1984]

[*]Actually peer to peer networking is more efficient than having dedicated servers.[/LIST]

Not to call you a shill but... are you a fucking shill? theres nothing efficient about having to play an online match piggybacking on some kid's internet connection whose non-gamer parent's are too cheap for a better internet package.

[fenrif]

So I thought I would outline what I would prefer in my GAS, and wonder what other people would like to see.

I'd like more Games-as-service titles to have giant flashing red warnings as soon as they're booted that warns players to go play something else. Like a finished game, or a game that doesn't revolve around your wallet.

That said, most of your list is a good common sense guide to spot bad games. If a game does those things it's shite, service based or not.

I would take issue with a few things however. Since you posted a list I'll respond in kind:


IV.I agree with MadMummy76 on this one. What you call vanity many people call gameplay rewards. Monetizing these is really shitty in my opinion. It's easy to say "it doesn't matter how your character looks." But I play games for escapism. And looking cool is fun. Especially in multiplayer games. Any time part of the game is put behind a paywall it's a shitty thing. It's inexcusable if it's a non-free-to-play-game.

VI. Unlike MadMummy76 I'm a big fan of PVP. But I do not agree at all that it should be 1v1v1 always. Plenty of games do not have this, and also do not only have two sides. Even if you want a rigid PVP system, then why limit yourself to 3-realm? Why not 5? Or 10? You could also easily have rules that limit zerging. Why rule out the possibility? Player-ran anything is preferable to dev-ordained versions simply because there will be more variety and interaction with other players. The following sentance is really grimey and gross: "(a tip: seek out as many of you can, make them feel special, and they'll be in a better mindset when they review your game)"

You shouldn't have to bribe people to review your game positively. The game should be the only thing that matters. If you send over a hooker to cook them a steak and suck their dick, or if you call them a cunt and kick them in the shins... The review should be the same, because the game is the same. Youtubers who expect this should be avoided like the plague, and those that engage in it too.

VII. Bullet sponges are extremely overused. But they can have their place in good game design.

VIII. Who cares if reviewers have copies or not. If the game is good the game is good. Yes it's often used to hide awful quality in games, but it doesn't have to be. If you develop a game you should not be forced to provide AssBlastEdgeLord2001 a copy just because he prattles into a webcam twice a day. Youtubers who bitch about not getting free games are pathetic and gross. They seem to make themselves feel plenty special enough as it is. And it's a worrying trend that mirrors what happened with the old media gaming "journalist" and media.

Lastly: Dedicated servers are great and should absolutely be mandatory for all multiplayer games. Sharding is a pox upon MMOs and should only be used very sparingly when absolutely necissary. It completly ruins the feel of an MMO being a living world. Makes it hard to form communities within games. And is just generally really unfun and immesion killing.

Actually peer to peer networking is more efficient than having dedicated servers.

Efficent for the publishers. But it's crapo for the users. Dedicated servers mean player run servers are a possibility. Which should be the goal of all multiplayer games. Peer to peer doesn't allow mods, player-run-communities, alternative rulesets, or a long lifespan for the game. Not to mention that the increased efficiency has brought increased costs. You get a lesser experience and either have to pay to play online (consoles), have to be constantly bombarded with adverts, or have the g ame consantly badger you to feed it more money.

[Animusisters]

Making demands to cancer, now that's cheeky.

[MadMummy76]

I only have one commandment regarding games as a service: Thou shall fuck off with games as a service.

A game should be designed and completed before release, not after. A game should not change in any way except the occasional bugfix after release.

And to address your points, because they can be applied to any game not just to games as a service.

1. Levelling should serve the sole purpose of unlocking skills and abilities. Stats should be unaffected by levels. Equipment should not have levels, an item has stats, that are intrinsic to that item, and never change, unless you upgrade the actual item.
2. Agreed, but this point is irrelevant if we declare that the game shall not change at all after release.
3. You shall not have any type of currency or in game purchases with real money
4. No monetization. I pay for the game once, and that's it. Cosmetic items should be unlocked from the start so I can make my character look as I want from the start I shall not pay real money for virtual items.
5. No, you shall private beta, well before launch, to actually serve a function, because beta right before launch serves no purpose but publicity. You can't fix anything if you have the beta a week before release date. And regular players don't give useful feedback anyway. Well at least most don't. Betas these days are nothing but paid demos.
6. If it was up to me pvp would be fired into the center of an exploding star never to return. I don't want tacked on pvp in any game, pvp should be a separate game mode, or a completely stand alone game.
7. Agreed No bullet sponge, and realistic damage to enemies. No humanoid shall survive a headshot from a handgun. And limb hits shall paralize or immobilize at the least.
8. You don't have to get a free copy to be able to review a game, you shouldn'T review games that you wouldn't otherwise buy anyway, since you're not the target audience then. It shouldn't break their bank. Instead of early review copies bring back demo versions of games, that are released before the game is out, not after. Early review copies are a plague. It gets in their heads whoever gets early copies. And it makes actual gamers who pay for the game feel second rate citizens.
9. That goes without saying. Plus if you use licensed music then don't cheap out and actually negotiate a license so you can keep selling the game indefinitely
10. Actually peer to peer networking is more efficient than having dedicated servers.