The "Games as a Service" Model

[shirkbot]

So the industry seems deeply infatuated with this "Games as a Service" model of sales, but it's left me with some unresolved thoughts.

1) Can games really be considered a service any more than any other form of game? I feel a good comparison is Munchkin: It's a game, you buy it and you can play to your hearts content until the end of time, no strings attached. If you get a bit bored, you can buy new cards to change things up, much like DLC. It's not a service, and if anyone tried to claim otherwise they'd likely be laughed out of the room.

2) Can PARTS of games be considered a service? My example above covers the original form of games, and even most online multiplayer, when private servers are allowed, but what about when they aren't? Could it be argued that the online multiplayer component is a service, even if the remainder of the game is not?

3) If we used the hybrid approach, where single player/local-multiplayer is a product, but online is a service, and deducted from the cost of games accordingly, would you consider that a fair deal?

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I don't really see the problem with games as a service if it's done right and as an option. TV, movies, music, etc. are all services but you can still buy them as well. Some games are just by definition services like MMOs. That Sega channel way back was a game service. I don't like services very much as I'm very particular with the things I like so buying the stuff I want is basically the same price as paying for a service to access everything.

 

[Naeras]

Connection to multiplayer servers and such are usually considered services, and that's completely fair, because those are active services for the game that are provided by the producers/publishers. In this case, if I openly break the terms of use on those services (like, say, hacking or acting like a dick), the company in question has the right to terminate my access to that service.

The problem with the games as services-model is that the above case would give the companies in question right to terminate my access to playing the game in question if I broke some kind of terms of service-things. Why? Well, because it's a service. If I buy a product, I can do whatever I like with it, but if I subscribe to a service, I don't actually own the product.

Luckily, at least here in Europe, games are legally considered products.

 

[Gennadios]

So the industry seems deeply infatuated with this "Games as a Service" model of sales, but it's left me with some unresolved thoughts.

2) Can PARTS of games be considered a service? My example above covers the original form of games, and even most online multiplayer, when private servers are allowed, but what about when they aren't? Could it be argued that the online multiplayer component is a service, even if the remainder of the game is not?

3) If we used the hybrid approach, where single player/local-multiplayer is a product, but online is a service, and deducted from the cost of games accordingly, would you consider that a fair deal?

No issue with statement 1, but it's not really a question, yes, it's reasonable.

2) It really depends on what you expect and what you value from the given "service." For example, private servers can be a pain in the ass. In most cases you have to pay a membership fee or you'll be stuck in ques or you run the risk of getting kicked out whenever a paying member wants to play. On the other hand, with a bit of technical know-how, a LAN group can set up a crappy laptop as a private server and game to their hearts content.

My own gaming group and I have had nothing but trouble trying to get games of Mass Effect 3 MP on Origin or Bulletstorm on motherf****** Games For Windows: Live. Servers are always down or hosts get kicked, AND WE'RE ALL IN THE SAME ROOM.

So basically, yes, proprietary MP servers are a "service" that's competing with private servers. In my mind, it's an inferior service that I refuse to support, but it's a decision that everyone else is free to make on their own.

3)For the most part. It takes alot of trouble to get 4 - 6 people with careers and families in the same room, we simply don't have time to dick around with unstable connections, local MP would serve it's purpose. I don't usually get too irritated with connection problems during solo multiplayer, I can always just move on to something else while I wait.

 

[themyrmidon]

I am firmly in the camp that games are products. If the company that made it wants to set up secure servers for people to reliably play a dedicated multiplayer component, then that would be providing a service. It shouldn't be this hard, but publishers think that just because they can make games that check in with a server that they are providing a service. That is not a service, a service adds value for the consumer.

Likewise, since games are products I believe that it should be up to the owner if the owner wants to sell/trade/loan/gift it after playing it. As a PC gamer this is where I clash with the rest of my race, as I have an ever-loathing hatred of Steam, although I have gotten to the point where I will (begrudgingly) use it. It provides a good service, but I hate the fact that I don't actually own any games that are registered on it.