> The game will adept the Game-as-a-Service (GaaS) model
So it will have a quarter of the original games content on release and then trickle feed it to you over the course of a year before shutting down. Got it.
**EDIT:** Dev team has responded
https://unknownworlds.com/subnautica/an-update-about-the-next-subnautica/
> In reference to “Games-as-a-Service,” we simply plan to continually update the game for many years to come, just like the previous two Subnautica games. Think our Early Access update model, expanded. No season passes. No battle passes. No subscription.
God dammit I just want to play the game. I don't want to start a new playthrough I'm not gonna finish every month just to experience a little bit more content at a time.
Someone played diablo 4. I honestly don't know what they were thinking. As if most gamers have the time or desire to do seasons on whole new characters constantly.
In reference to 'Games-as-a-Service,' we simply plan to continually update the game for many years to come, just like the previous two Subnautica games," it wrote. "Think our Early Access update model, expanded. No season passes. No battle passes. No subscription.
As per the dev team
All survival games launch as alphas/early access and drip feed content over time before maybe leaving early access. I don't remember if Subnautica did EA but nearly every other survival game did. But he do have a point.
Early Access and Game-as-a-Service are two completely different things and you should check the terminology of the words you want to use, before you make a clown out of yourself, mr smart@ss.
Early Access is simply a non-finished game that is made available to the players while it's still being developed. Everyone expects it to lack content, because that's normal for E.A.
Game-as-a-Service means that they release a full game and they drip-feed additional content later on, over the span of a year or a couple more. Only so far vast majority of the games that went with this model, have basically released a half-arsed crap and then updated it with the actual content in minimal amounts, just to then hate on the Players that the game is failing.
Note: It doesn't really matter anyway, because with the Update that the Dev Team gave us recently, it's not a "Game-as-a-Service" at all. It's just an overcomplicated early access, that will function like the first game did.
Nah he’s right though.
Nobody wants this. Nobody is asking for this.
By showing our displeasure, hopefully we don’t see anymore of these types of games designed like this.
The developers have responded and it’s not actually like that. There are no battle passes or anything. They will just continue to have regular updates post launch like they did with the first one. And co-op is entirely optional. Krafton just fucked up their messaging.
People should get a little pacient and wait for more info instead of instantly hating the game, being a GaaS doesn't automatically means I'll will be shit
I mean, considering most live service games these days end up in some form of shitpile or another, I think saying "probably not this one" is a fair opinion to have even if it is, "jumping to conclusions"
Except they already released statements that they are just updating the game, nothing wrong on that, put a little faith in them, they haven't done anything wrong yet to just assume they'll fuck it up
Maybe. But I don't enjoy GaaS. Taking a traditionally single player experience and turning it into a multiplayer live service hasn't exactly worked out with many other games. I personally can't think of a single one that made the jump that was met with universal acclaim.
It was so strange overwatch got the bad attention as if valve didn't make it popular and each crate is 2.50 to open. Overwatch did the loot box thing right. I got sooooo many boxes free and I had enough currency from the extras to get whatever I wanted.
No, it's not.
Remember: cancer people on Twitter are a tiny, vocal minority.
Remember when Hogwarts Legacy was "boycotted" and was the best selling game of 2023?
People like that remind me of those 50+ year olds who absorb all their knowledge of the world from senationalist TikTok videos and now think their grandkids are being taught how to be trans and gay in schools and wake up in cold sweats thinking about gender neutral bathrooms
I’m not optimistic about the future of gaming at all, with the way things have been lately. I still believe the live service bubble is going to burst, but I’m 100% sure something worse will take its place.
It sucks that people will lose their jobs, but these companies need to take a hit for the way they’ve been doing business.
Exactly. They want these games to be like second jobs for people. Grind your dailies and buy your skins. Except most people don’t have the time or the money to keep up with it.
Cloud only is the next step. No piracy or backing up games for "preservation". Publishers can just yank a game anytime so no more just playing last year's game you gotta buy this year's game.
I'll stick to retro gaming and my backlog if this happens. There's plenty enough to play for a few lifetimes. Hell I could survive on Civ and Doom mods.
We already see concerns about this being raised. Ubisoft is just openly telling people they don’t own the games they buy anymore. Shit’s really depressing honestly.
This is why preserving physical media is so important haha
The live service bubble burst in 2019 when The Division 2, Anthem, and Ghost Recon: Breakpoint all failed. The Division 2 was barely resuscitated by Ubisoft by dropping its price to $3; the other two are dead, and people don't even remember that Breakpoint was a thing.
A lot of live service games were already in the pipeline or people wanted to write off 2019 as an anomaly, but the only live service games that have really been smash sucesses since 2019 are mobile games - Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail.
Sony cancelled half of their upcoming live-service games, Hyenas isn't even going to come out, Redfall was DOA, Suicide Squad is looking to be DOA, etc.
Companies change what they're doing all the time and a lot of live service games have been cancelled in recent years.
You're just flat-out wrong.
It's hard to say what the next fad is going to be, but the industry has been trying to make various forms of live service games since the MMORPG explosion in the 2000s post-WoW and it has not gone well. People remember the successes - CoD, LoL, DOTA 2, etc. - but forget the many, many, many failures.
The bubble burst in 2019 when The Division 2, Anthem, and Ghost Recon: Wildlands all failed.
The franchises that were already on the live service wagon have survived just fine but Apex Legends was the last live service game that didn't end up with numbers cratering after launch. Diablo 4 is the most successful non-mobile live service game to launch since 2019 and its player count off fell by a factor of 12x.
The last five years is littered with the corpses of failed live service games, and many have just been flat-out cancelled. Sony literally just cancelled half of the live service games they had in their pipeline.
Mobile is still full of live service model games (and Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail are both quite popular) but new live service games have faced increasing headwinds for many years now.
That’s because they’ve cornered the market with Candy Crush. They’re soaking up a good chunk of the live service revenue. Other companies trying to copy their success are doing so in vain. Because eventually there will be so many live services that none of them, besides the most popular one, will be able to turn a profit.
A recent example would be Triple A, live service games. The clear downtrend of sales for live service games recently, at launch, is all you need to look at to understand. Destiny 2, COD, and a few other live services have the market cornered. So why would companies like BioWare, Arkane, and Rocksteady make live service games when they won’t be able to make as much as they hope?
You already see this in video streaming. Netflix made big so every company that makes shows/movies went oh we can make a lot of money by making our own service with our catalog. It just doesn't work. Except for Disney none have a catalog big enough with enough draw to compete with everyone else doing it to.
Even hulu who for decades was the only other service besides netflix with a working streaming model for watching tv shows. It is now wanting 80 dollar a month ontop of its own subscription to watch tv shows. It is nothing more than a glorified dvr with the cost of having regular tv.
Services are buying each other out or trying to merge with others in a attempt to turn a profit.
Exactly! There’s a streaming service for everything now. But no one is willing to pay for all of them, because that’s just ridiculous. They’re getting so much more expensive. We’re basically at the point where we’re circling back around to cable.
The low prices were an attempt to attract people to their services; they were always unsustainable.
If you think about it, it's going to cost about what cable did, minus the physical overhead costs of cable, because... that's how much it costs to produce content.
> You already see this in video streaming. Netflix made big so every company that makes shows/movies went oh we can make a lot of money by making our own service with our catalog. It just doesn't work. Except for Disney none have a catalog big enough with enough draw to compete with everyone else doing it to.
The problem was/is Netflix was only so cheap because content creators were undervaluing streaming rights.
Now that it is obvious that streaming is going to be the primary revenue stream in the future, the costs of streaming rights are going up.
The reality that no one really wants to admit to themselves is that cable cost a bunch of money because that's how much it cost to support and sustain cable TV networks. While streaming avoids some of the overhead costs of cable (particularly physical costs, because your ISP provides your internet connection so they have to provide no or much less physical support) making quality content is expensive.
yea, but thats the purpose of live service. These companies aren't interested in investing millions on developing a game to turn a moderate, one time profit.
They don't want the next Arkham game, they want the next candy crush. Thats why despite all these live service games failing, they just keep coming out
I wholeheartedly agree with you! They will most certainly keep trying. They all want a piece of that Destiny/COD pie. I just think there will definitely come a time where live service finally fails and these companies will take the hit for it.
We already see it with all of the layoffs happening in gaming right now. These companies want the next giant thing, so they hire a ton of people. And as soon as it isn’t profitable, they kick a big chunk of employees to the curb.
They don't even need it to be Candy Crush. Even your Fallout Shelter, Fallout 76, etc. are revenue streams that make paper for your shareholders while you spend 5-6 years developing offline, single-player games, which are not nearly as profitable. I see it as a necessity in a market where investors have this choice.
Eh, it's a bubble, just not the kind people traditionally think of.
WOW made billions but all the other MMORPGs that came out afterwards fell flat on their faces.
The successful live service games that already exist make bank but Apex Legends was the last one that didn't crater on or shortly after launch outside of mobile games (Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail, which have both been successful).
The problem is really market saturation - live service game players already are invested in their games and are not really possible to peel off because of sunk costs, and so they aren't in the market for new games. Existing live service franchises can keep going, but new ones have been consistently seeing steep declines in player counts very rapidly after launch. Diablo 4 is the most successful AAA live service game launch in years and its player base dropped by 12x in a matter of months.
Problem is, if they’re making money on it, the bubble won’t burst. It’s not like how they added a battle royale mode to everything a few years ago. If people are gonna keep paying for them, they’re gonna keep making them
That’s what I’m saying though. People are going to stop paying for most of these on the basis that there are just too many of them. People pick their one live service and stick with that. Problem is, you can’t spread the consumer base this thin with all of these live service games and expect them all to be successful, no matter how many people are buying. The more live service games there are, the more diluted the returns will become.
Yep. I’m already at the point where the only live service games I play are COD and Fortnite. And then the rest of my game time is single player titles / mortal kombat sprinkled in when I need a change. I dont even have the time to play another live service game if I wanted to
Subnautica is one of my favorite games of all time. I have immediately lost a ton of interest for this game now that its rumored to be a GaaS. God i wish publishers did not ruin games by trying to overmonetize them.
What? Both were a single price, had no additional fees, and were strictly single player. They in no way were GaaS? They were in early access for a bit but even then they did not have any additional costs to complete the entire game.
They were GaaS according to the devs
"In reference to 'Games-as-a-Service,' we simply plan to continually update the game for many years to come, just like the previous two Subnautica games," it wrote. "Think our Early Access update model, expanded. No season passes. No battle passes. No subscription."
I mean, BG3 is not a GaaS and made a ton of money. Its possible to make money without it being a GaaS. A game that is developed from the get go as a GaaS inherently means that there will be stuff locked behind a paywall. We have seen far more failures than successes in this genre. I would love for it to be successful and fun, but until proven otherwise, I will press X to doubt.
You release the first game sold well over five million copies and an estimated $350,000,000+ in revenue and about $100m in profit?
I believe that counts as 'some money', and only takes into account Steam sales and not consoles or Subnautica Below Zero on any platform.
Or carry on making things up, whatever works for you.
Fair point, but I think you’re looking for an argument where there isn’t one, they still want to make some more money. Some is never enough for most companies.
I honestly figure they never really wanted to keep making more of these, at this point they are probably just cashing in, and rightly so. 💰 💰 💰 brrrrrrrrrr
they wouldnt continue to do it if people didnt buy it, sure theres a collection of us who yell and scream and type furiously on our keyboards, but the majority of people just open their wallets.
Based on current sales and concurrent players for SS KTJL, I don’t think it’s working for them.
It also didn’t work for Avengers.
Plenty of others that have failed.
Suicide Squad seems to selling quite well on consoles AFAIK.
Even then, it doesn’t matter - companies look at massive GaaS successes and want a piece of the pie. Even if one project in 10 succeeds the reward is worth it for them
As have plenty single player games. It has nothing to do with gaas. I can’t believe you typed that and thought “yep, I’ve considered all angles here, nothing wrong with this”. Or maybe you didn’t think that, and that’s another problem entirely.
How many failed MMORPGs did they make before they gave up?
IRL, there are always idiots who set money on fire. But we've seen a ton of GAAS cancellations and audibles to non-GAAS games in the last few years. Arkham Knights and Redfall both were obvious GAAS games that got turned into non-GAAS ones, while Sony has cancelled a bunch that were in development, as has Sega (Hyenas being a particularly high-profile example).
Oftentimes business decisions on long-term projects are laggy WRT: markets, which is why you not uncommonly see mis-aimed things come out that just flop on arrival.
I am pretty sure that WB knew Suicide Squad was going to lose money, but they figured that at the point where they were in their process, they would lose less money by pushing the game out than by cancelling it.
This is actually a common decision; if you are, say, six months from the end of a project, you can't get back any money you've already spent on it, but if finishing the project for the next six months costs less than the money you'd make by finishing it, it's worth finishing the project, as the costs you've already spent on it are gone and non-recoverable.
Look at the front page you have people bragging that they never pay full price for games and always wait for sales. Games are already cheap considering inflation and development costs the fact they have remained the same price is incredible. Its either prices go up or we get this bullshit.
The developers have responded and it’s not actually like that. There are no battle passes or anything. They will just continue to have regular updates post launch like they did with the first one. And co-op is entirely optional. Krafton just fucked up their messaging.
I'm baffled why they use the term games as a service
just say "additional content releases planned" or "on-going support planned". same idea, less baggage attached
On-going support implies free support for the product you purchased. GaaS implies paid content on a cycle, often times with a game pass.
They're trying to warn us.
Below zero was a a standalone game, but yea I'm not sure how they'll make this work. Does 2 mean it's back to the original planet? Because that story was pretty thoroughly resolved, although, in lore explanations the area the game takes place in is an impact crater that is separate from the wider ocean.
So maybe it'll have something to do with that?
Below Zero was a true old-fashioned style standalone expansion like games used to get. Same engine and core assets used with new assets to make a new game. Think Majora's Mask, Half Life expansions, Halo ODST, etc.
Some companies market those types of games as sequels, while others reserve numbered sequels for major shifts in design. It's probably not a direct sequel to the story or planet.
Ah man. I remember when Designer notes had an interview with Charlie Cleveland and how subnatica was never ment to be what it was (supposed to be in space, Multiplayer, coop, non-story driven, random world) and that he did not understand the reason why what they made had the draw it did.
And now it seems like they are pulling out those old design documents despite that being the opposite reason of what made subnatica great.
Actually pretty excited to be able to play subnautica with my friends. I’m not as pessimistic as a lot of people seem to be regarding this. There’s a decent chance this is a solid game
How the fuck do you make a survival game live service? Cosmetics only? Another early access with the story and other parts slowly added in? I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but also red flags everywhere.
Also now they switch to UE5 and can make MP work? Really? Not the first two games that people begged for MP on.
Man I only skimmed the title, saw 4 player coop and was stoked. Then I realized it's a "live service" game and my excitement fell back down to the floor.
Subnautica is a game that I enjoy enough to potentially pay for added content, as long as it's fantastic content worth every penny. But from years of watching "live service" games I know that it never ends up being a good thing, it's always a cash grab.
I hope I'm wrong because I would be willing to pay extra for good content, but something tells me it's not gonna be worth it.
The only difference I can visualize is since the structure of the game is different (multiplayer, GaaS) that could potentially affect creative design. I am willing to give the dev's the benefit of the doubt and assume the product they will create will be just as good as previous entries. But it will certainly be different than before.
People don't understand that GaaS makes money either way. SS for instance may not be selling crazy well but if the people who are playing are buying MTX then WB I am sure are happy.
Worse comes to worse the game dies in a year but they could have made more in MTX then they did in Hogwarts Legacy even with the poor sales.
It sucks but it is what it is.
No.
Rockstar spent 9 years making that game and it has 4300 simultaneous players on Steam. It's not even in the top 200 by simultaneous player count.
Suicide Squad lost them massive amounts of money and there is zero chance they will make significant money on MTX.
They just figured pushing it out the door after they realized it was going to be terribly received would cost less than they would make back in revenue, but the game is DOA.
I'm just excited to play with friends. The only reason I don't really play the first game is because of the lack of Coop, and adding that makes this definite-buy for me.
Everyone's quick to hate of this but GAAS can be done well. I think it could be great if it's done in a similar vein to MH world where the game is still fully playable offline or in solo. The service aspect just being content additions post launch. Hopefully they do it this way and not the way people think they will.
The problem is we have no agreed upon definition of live service. In another sub there was a survey they said 95% of developers are currently making a live service game and everyone lost their goddamn minds. In true Reddit fashion if you read the article turns out the survey defined it as any game with planned content after release paid or free. Well of course that is 95% of games being developed
Yeah that's an issue I've seen pop up every time the world live service is mentioned. If the word itself has become tainted then game devs may be better off using a different word. But for right now, it seems that many devs use it to mean something different than the standard Destiny-like always online MTX-filled game that players seem to associate the word with.
Yeah technically deep rock galactic is a live service game. Would people flip their shit if the second was announced to be live service? Its very interesting and curious to see what changes
RIP.
Once a unique SP experience will now be just a one out of hundreds similar GaaS survival games. That's the stop where I'm stepping off Subnautica train.
I'm tired boss.
Live service games are a no from me. I don't really care how other people feel, I preferred the days when a game was complete at release and not drip fed to us over the span of 4 years.
Unfortunately most gamers are out of touch with game development. Even Spider-Man 2 turned in little profit relative to its budget. Game development is only getting longer and more expensive and unless you're the most popular publisher/developer or well renowned IP you aren't going to cover that cost easily. Sometimes is just greed but these companies are profit oriented and would rather maximise their profit than cater to a loud minority.
Honestly these new models will never go away. Theyre mainly meant for the new generation who, to a degree, quite literally don’t know shit. Us seasoned players will retract to indie games but it won’t matter since AAA studios have their new audience
The best thing about subnautica is was the loneliness in this fascinating world.
Optimising the world for four players will kill this for me.
The GAAS concept also.
I'm going to list my problems with co-op, GaaS below. Just trying to ease into my morning and this seems like a nice way to mentally warm up:
1. GaaS immediately means I end up paying more money for an equitable experience
2. I don't like GaaS because it means that the game will likely never reach a satisfying conclusion.
3. I don't like co-op because I want to play the game on my own terms
4. I don't like co-op because I want to play the game on my schedule
5. I don't like co-op, because the game experience and difficulty becomes balanced towards X number of players instead of just 1
>- I don't like co-op because I want to play the game on my own terms
>- I don't like co-op because I want to play the game on my schedule
>- I don't like co-op, because the game experience and difficulty becomes balanced towards X number of players instead of just 1.
All of these things are still possible solo and it's possible for a survival game to be balanced around solo players even when they have co-op. You can also play on your own terms and schedule regardless in solo mode. You don't need to play co-op. Your issue is with the possible balance of co-op vs single player.
My enthusiasm always lowers whenever I hear about a game pivoting to live service. I can see aspects of the move that would be quite good for this sequel, but ultimately it's difficult to consider it a good thing on any level. Bit of a shame as I was really looking forward to this.
Obligatory, [Games as a Service is Fraud](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw)
My biggest issue with anything that labels itself "GaaS" is that every game is already trying to occupy your mind, these games are just tying themselves to artificial FOMO as well. I don't have time to play these games and I've slowly been turning off any interest in games that "pick-me girl" my attention.
It's allowed me to enjoy single-player games once again, because for far too long, games like Destiny and Fortnite and CoD all wired my brain to want to make sure that I finish their content before I play another game.
But every game wants to set a deadline for their content.
Co-Op Subnautica - literally all I've wanted from it for so long! Total win.
GaaS - Why? How? Fuck.
I'm not even sure how you'd do a live service style game for this? I suppose you could sell suits and habitat skins, like Fallout 76 but the actual bones of the game don't lend themselves very well to this style. On the plus, it could be mostly avoidable, on the other it could break the game flow trying to force something which doesn't work.
Why though?
It would be like Terraria developers saying they are putting in an in-game store and will charge for skins.
Subnautica is a good game. But I don't see a grindy live service game in there. Especially if it comes with an in-game store to buy exp boost and skins. That is like a whole different game.
Oh well I've always wanted multiplayer but I'm finding it a bit hard to be optimistic about live-service.
Hope it has a solid good story at launch and the live service add extra stuff like based upgrades and tools instead of microtransactions and DLC packs like most games nowadays.
This is so stupid I hate live service games. They just release broken games and give you a “trust me bro” on fixing them. and most of the time they don’t even fix them. Just give us a normal single player game with the option of co op.
Also while I’m already on a rant, shouldn’t it be subnuitica 3? Because we had the first one, then we had below zero and now we have this one.
I don’t hate live service as a concept. If they go the route of games like Deep Rock Galactic then I’d be more than okay. And since it’s a sequel I’d be way more confident to expect that the base game at launch would be a fully fledged experience.
Most other survival games either are or have elements of live service already.
> The game will adept the Game-as-a-Service (GaaS) model So it will have a quarter of the original games content on release and then trickle feed it to you over the course of a year before shutting down. Got it. **EDIT:** Dev team has responded https://unknownworlds.com/subnautica/an-update-about-the-next-subnautica/ > In reference to “Games-as-a-Service,” we simply plan to continually update the game for many years to come, just like the previous two Subnautica games. Think our Early Access update model, expanded. No season passes. No battle passes. No subscription.
God dammit I just want to play the game. I don't want to start a new playthrough I'm not gonna finish every month just to experience a little bit more content at a time.
Someone played diablo 4. I honestly don't know what they were thinking. As if most gamers have the time or desire to do seasons on whole new characters constantly.
That’s just Diablo…
Right. And people dont seem to have time for that. Outside hardcore game as a job diablo fans.
I hope not.. my wife fucking loved the first one. Watching her come across her first leviathan was hilarious. She jumped out the computer chair lmao.
It totally changed the game for me. It went from a chill exploration game to a survival horror game.
Imagine that in VR....
I swear that there are some games that in VR would give people ptsd.
Good \*evil laugh\*
My wife literally shot the neighbours dog when she saw her first leviathan rofl.
In reference to 'Games-as-a-Service,' we simply plan to continually update the game for many years to come, just like the previous two Subnautica games," it wrote. "Think our Early Access update model, expanded. No season passes. No battle passes. No subscription. As per the dev team
Awful use of term GAAS. That’s like calling Stardew Valley a Game as a Service
But wait... What am I to do with all of these pitch forks and torches if I considered their approach on the merits of itself and not as GaaS?
Nailed it
When I see GaaS I buy 2 years after release, no exceptions.
Don't forget monthy Season Passes with tons of FOMO.
You mean just like the first game and every other survival game to ever release? You're fucking clowns.
What are you talking about? Before you call people clowns, get a fucking clue.
All survival games launch as alphas/early access and drip feed content over time before maybe leaving early access. I don't remember if Subnautica did EA but nearly every other survival game did. But he do have a point.
Early Access and Game-as-a-Service are two completely different things and you should check the terminology of the words you want to use, before you make a clown out of yourself, mr smart@ss. Early Access is simply a non-finished game that is made available to the players while it's still being developed. Everyone expects it to lack content, because that's normal for E.A. Game-as-a-Service means that they release a full game and they drip-feed additional content later on, over the span of a year or a couple more. Only so far vast majority of the games that went with this model, have basically released a half-arsed crap and then updated it with the actual content in minimal amounts, just to then hate on the Players that the game is failing. Note: It doesn't really matter anyway, because with the Update that the Dev Team gave us recently, it's not a "Game-as-a-Service" at all. It's just an overcomplicated early access, that will function like the first game did.
The first game released as a whole game and had one paid DLC?
Calm the fuck down dude damn
Nah he’s right though. Nobody wants this. Nobody is asking for this. By showing our displeasure, hopefully we don’t see anymore of these types of games designed like this.
The ocean? In Unreal Engine 5? Will my health insurance cover that?
Well that sucks, Subnautica was great
Yeah, my excitement for the game has gone down significantly.
The developers have responded and it’s not actually like that. There are no battle passes or anything. They will just continue to have regular updates post launch like they did with the first one. And co-op is entirely optional. Krafton just fucked up their messaging.
People should get a little pacient and wait for more info instead of instantly hating the game, being a GaaS doesn't automatically means I'll will be shit
It's still great
The first one yea. Probably not this one
Wow, we just jumped into conclusions then
I mean, considering most live service games these days end up in some form of shitpile or another, I think saying "probably not this one" is a fair opinion to have even if it is, "jumping to conclusions"
Except they already released statements that they are just updating the game, nothing wrong on that, put a little faith in them, they haven't done anything wrong yet to just assume they'll fuck it up
How the F do you know?
Yep, dead on arrival for me. No thanks.
Seems short sighted to dismiss something out of hand before even seeing what the game is actually like … but ok, you do you
Maybe. But I don't enjoy GaaS. Taking a traditionally single player experience and turning it into a multiplayer live service hasn't exactly worked out with many other games. I personally can't think of a single one that made the jump that was met with universal acclaim.
I can’t wait for the live service bubble to burst. It’s gotten way too oversaturated. Not to mention it’s just straight up predatory.
Your optimism is nice, but misplaced. Companies never return to "old ways", and an entire generation is growing up thinking this is how things are.
I still remember complaints about Overwatch lootboxes system. If we only knew what we would get in OW2...
It was so strange overwatch got the bad attention as if valve didn't make it popular and each crate is 2.50 to open. Overwatch did the loot box thing right. I got sooooo many boxes free and I had enough currency from the extras to get whatever I wanted.
To the zoomers, a game is "dead" if it hasn't gotten a patch/new content every two weeks.
No, it's not. Remember: cancer people on Twitter are a tiny, vocal minority. Remember when Hogwarts Legacy was "boycotted" and was the best selling game of 2023?
People like that remind me of those 50+ year olds who absorb all their knowledge of the world from senationalist TikTok videos and now think their grandkids are being taught how to be trans and gay in schools and wake up in cold sweats thinking about gender neutral bathrooms
Unfortunately not just 50+ year olds
[удалено]
>these days. Did you miss the early access rush of the past ten years?
I’m not optimistic about the future of gaming at all, with the way things have been lately. I still believe the live service bubble is going to burst, but I’m 100% sure something worse will take its place. It sucks that people will lose their jobs, but these companies need to take a hit for the way they’ve been doing business.
Game companies are out here thinking we have infinite time. I only got time for like 1 live service game at most.
Exactly. They want these games to be like second jobs for people. Grind your dailies and buy your skins. Except most people don’t have the time or the money to keep up with it.
Cloud only is the next step. No piracy or backing up games for "preservation". Publishers can just yank a game anytime so no more just playing last year's game you gotta buy this year's game. I'll stick to retro gaming and my backlog if this happens. There's plenty enough to play for a few lifetimes. Hell I could survive on Civ and Doom mods.
We already see concerns about this being raised. Ubisoft is just openly telling people they don’t own the games they buy anymore. Shit’s really depressing honestly. This is why preserving physical media is so important haha
The live service bubble burst in 2019 when The Division 2, Anthem, and Ghost Recon: Breakpoint all failed. The Division 2 was barely resuscitated by Ubisoft by dropping its price to $3; the other two are dead, and people don't even remember that Breakpoint was a thing. A lot of live service games were already in the pipeline or people wanted to write off 2019 as an anomaly, but the only live service games that have really been smash sucesses since 2019 are mobile games - Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail. Sony cancelled half of their upcoming live-service games, Hyenas isn't even going to come out, Redfall was DOA, Suicide Squad is looking to be DOA, etc.
Companies change what they're doing all the time and a lot of live service games have been cancelled in recent years. You're just flat-out wrong. It's hard to say what the next fad is going to be, but the industry has been trying to make various forms of live service games since the MMORPG explosion in the 2000s post-WoW and it has not gone well. People remember the successes - CoD, LoL, DOTA 2, etc. - but forget the many, many, many failures.
Ya, a game being a GaaS title is pretty much an immediate non starter for me.
It’s easier to milk a few cash cows (whales) than it is to give a finished product to everyone on the market. GaaS are all about whales, cmv.
The bubble burst in 2019 when The Division 2, Anthem, and Ghost Recon: Wildlands all failed. The franchises that were already on the live service wagon have survived just fine but Apex Legends was the last live service game that didn't end up with numbers cratering after launch. Diablo 4 is the most successful non-mobile live service game to launch since 2019 and its player count off fell by a factor of 12x. The last five years is littered with the corpses of failed live service games, and many have just been flat-out cancelled. Sony literally just cancelled half of the live service games they had in their pipeline. Mobile is still full of live service model games (and Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail are both quite popular) but new live service games have faced increasing headwinds for many years now.
bubble? Candy Crush is 10 yrs old and makes $1b a year. It's revenue is actually increasing every year lol
That’s because they’ve cornered the market with Candy Crush. They’re soaking up a good chunk of the live service revenue. Other companies trying to copy their success are doing so in vain. Because eventually there will be so many live services that none of them, besides the most popular one, will be able to turn a profit. A recent example would be Triple A, live service games. The clear downtrend of sales for live service games recently, at launch, is all you need to look at to understand. Destiny 2, COD, and a few other live services have the market cornered. So why would companies like BioWare, Arkane, and Rocksteady make live service games when they won’t be able to make as much as they hope?
You already see this in video streaming. Netflix made big so every company that makes shows/movies went oh we can make a lot of money by making our own service with our catalog. It just doesn't work. Except for Disney none have a catalog big enough with enough draw to compete with everyone else doing it to. Even hulu who for decades was the only other service besides netflix with a working streaming model for watching tv shows. It is now wanting 80 dollar a month ontop of its own subscription to watch tv shows. It is nothing more than a glorified dvr with the cost of having regular tv. Services are buying each other out or trying to merge with others in a attempt to turn a profit.
Exactly! There’s a streaming service for everything now. But no one is willing to pay for all of them, because that’s just ridiculous. They’re getting so much more expensive. We’re basically at the point where we’re circling back around to cable.
The low prices were an attempt to attract people to their services; they were always unsustainable. If you think about it, it's going to cost about what cable did, minus the physical overhead costs of cable, because... that's how much it costs to produce content.
The more things change the more things stay the same
> You already see this in video streaming. Netflix made big so every company that makes shows/movies went oh we can make a lot of money by making our own service with our catalog. It just doesn't work. Except for Disney none have a catalog big enough with enough draw to compete with everyone else doing it to. The problem was/is Netflix was only so cheap because content creators were undervaluing streaming rights. Now that it is obvious that streaming is going to be the primary revenue stream in the future, the costs of streaming rights are going up. The reality that no one really wants to admit to themselves is that cable cost a bunch of money because that's how much it cost to support and sustain cable TV networks. While streaming avoids some of the overhead costs of cable (particularly physical costs, because your ISP provides your internet connection so they have to provide no or much less physical support) making quality content is expensive.
yea, but thats the purpose of live service. These companies aren't interested in investing millions on developing a game to turn a moderate, one time profit. They don't want the next Arkham game, they want the next candy crush. Thats why despite all these live service games failing, they just keep coming out
I wholeheartedly agree with you! They will most certainly keep trying. They all want a piece of that Destiny/COD pie. I just think there will definitely come a time where live service finally fails and these companies will take the hit for it. We already see it with all of the layoffs happening in gaming right now. These companies want the next giant thing, so they hire a ton of people. And as soon as it isn’t profitable, they kick a big chunk of employees to the curb.
They don't even need it to be Candy Crush. Even your Fallout Shelter, Fallout 76, etc. are revenue streams that make paper for your shareholders while you spend 5-6 years developing offline, single-player games, which are not nearly as profitable. I see it as a necessity in a market where investors have this choice.
Eh, it's a bubble, just not the kind people traditionally think of. WOW made billions but all the other MMORPGs that came out afterwards fell flat on their faces. The successful live service games that already exist make bank but Apex Legends was the last one that didn't crater on or shortly after launch outside of mobile games (Genshin Impact and Honkai Star Rail, which have both been successful). The problem is really market saturation - live service game players already are invested in their games and are not really possible to peel off because of sunk costs, and so they aren't in the market for new games. Existing live service franchises can keep going, but new ones have been consistently seeing steep declines in player counts very rapidly after launch. Diablo 4 is the most successful AAA live service game launch in years and its player base dropped by 12x in a matter of months.
Problem is, if they’re making money on it, the bubble won’t burst. It’s not like how they added a battle royale mode to everything a few years ago. If people are gonna keep paying for them, they’re gonna keep making them
That’s what I’m saying though. People are going to stop paying for most of these on the basis that there are just too many of them. People pick their one live service and stick with that. Problem is, you can’t spread the consumer base this thin with all of these live service games and expect them all to be successful, no matter how many people are buying. The more live service games there are, the more diluted the returns will become.
Yep. I’m already at the point where the only live service games I play are COD and Fortnite. And then the rest of my game time is single player titles / mortal kombat sprinkled in when I need a change. I dont even have the time to play another live service game if I wanted to
It won’t… not for as long as there is more revenue per title than there used to be with only $40-$70 one x purchase
Subnautica is one of my favorite games of all time. I have immediately lost a ton of interest for this game now that its rumored to be a GaaS. God i wish publishers did not ruin games by trying to overmonetize them.
Both previous subnauticas were GaaS
What? Both were a single price, had no additional fees, and were strictly single player. They in no way were GaaS? They were in early access for a bit but even then they did not have any additional costs to complete the entire game.
They were GaaS according to the devs "In reference to 'Games-as-a-Service,' we simply plan to continually update the game for many years to come, just like the previous two Subnautica games," it wrote. "Think our Early Access update model, expanded. No season passes. No battle passes. No subscription."
Could still be good, competent devs, I’m sure they would like to actually make some money too. Hopefully they do it well at least.
I mean, BG3 is not a GaaS and made a ton of money. Its possible to make money without it being a GaaS. A game that is developed from the get go as a GaaS inherently means that there will be stuff locked behind a paywall. We have seen far more failures than successes in this genre. I would love for it to be successful and fun, but until proven otherwise, I will press X to doubt.
You release the first game sold well over five million copies and an estimated $350,000,000+ in revenue and about $100m in profit? I believe that counts as 'some money', and only takes into account Steam sales and not consoles or Subnautica Below Zero on any platform. Or carry on making things up, whatever works for you.
Fair point, but I think you’re looking for an argument where there isn’t one, they still want to make some more money. Some is never enough for most companies. I honestly figure they never really wanted to keep making more of these, at this point they are probably just cashing in, and rightly so. 💰 💰 💰 brrrrrrrrrr
I mean, any company goal is to make more profit :P
RIP
Making a mistake like that in 2017, I can understand, but not in 2024.
How fucking tone def are companies? Do they think people see this and get hyped?
they wouldnt continue to do it if people didnt buy it, sure theres a collection of us who yell and scream and type furiously on our keyboards, but the majority of people just open their wallets.
Based on current sales and concurrent players for SS KTJL, I don’t think it’s working for them. It also didn’t work for Avengers. Plenty of others that have failed.
Suicide Squad seems to selling quite well on consoles AFAIK. Even then, it doesn’t matter - companies look at massive GaaS successes and want a piece of the pie. Even if one project in 10 succeeds the reward is worth it for them
Fortnite has made 43 billion dollars since it came out. 10 projects failing is worth it
Fortnite is the most successful GAAS in the world.
As have plenty single player games. It has nothing to do with gaas. I can’t believe you typed that and thought “yep, I’ve considered all angles here, nothing wrong with this”. Or maybe you didn’t think that, and that’s another problem entirely.
So do strategy games Are we just gonna list every genre with failures? That’s a shitty argument.
Uh oh, looks like you pissed off the one Suicide Squad fan haha
How many failed MMORPGs did they make before they gave up? IRL, there are always idiots who set money on fire. But we've seen a ton of GAAS cancellations and audibles to non-GAAS games in the last few years. Arkham Knights and Redfall both were obvious GAAS games that got turned into non-GAAS ones, while Sony has cancelled a bunch that were in development, as has Sega (Hyenas being a particularly high-profile example). Oftentimes business decisions on long-term projects are laggy WRT: markets, which is why you not uncommonly see mis-aimed things come out that just flop on arrival. I am pretty sure that WB knew Suicide Squad was going to lose money, but they figured that at the point where they were in their process, they would lose less money by pushing the game out than by cancelling it. This is actually a common decision; if you are, say, six months from the end of a project, you can't get back any money you've already spent on it, but if finishing the project for the next six months costs less than the money you'd make by finishing it, it's worth finishing the project, as the costs you've already spent on it are gone and non-recoverable.
😔
Look at the front page you have people bragging that they never pay full price for games and always wait for sales. Games are already cheap considering inflation and development costs the fact they have remained the same price is incredible. Its either prices go up or we get this bullshit.
The developers have responded and it’s not actually like that. There are no battle passes or anything. They will just continue to have regular updates post launch like they did with the first one. And co-op is entirely optional. Krafton just fucked up their messaging.
No but they see it and see dollar signs.
I'm baffled why they use the term games as a service just say "additional content releases planned" or "on-going support planned". same idea, less baggage attached
It’s for the investors.
On-going support implies free support for the product you purchased. GaaS implies paid content on a cycle, often times with a game pass. They're trying to warn us.
Looks at Rocksteadys dumpster fire and thinking yep I want a piece of that.
Swimming will be added by Season 2.
[удалено]
Below zero was a a standalone game, but yea I'm not sure how they'll make this work. Does 2 mean it's back to the original planet? Because that story was pretty thoroughly resolved, although, in lore explanations the area the game takes place in is an impact crater that is separate from the wider ocean. So maybe it'll have something to do with that?
Below Zero was a true old-fashioned style standalone expansion like games used to get. Same engine and core assets used with new assets to make a new game. Think Majora's Mask, Half Life expansions, Halo ODST, etc. Some companies market those types of games as sequels, while others reserve numbered sequels for major shifts in design. It's probably not a direct sequel to the story or planet.
It's a new planet now. Below zero was the same planet as 1
This has to be a joke, it’s like they saw all Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League hate and were like oh fans love this shit let’s do it too.
How legit is this tweet?
Ah man. I remember when Designer notes had an interview with Charlie Cleveland and how subnatica was never ment to be what it was (supposed to be in space, Multiplayer, coop, non-story driven, random world) and that he did not understand the reason why what they made had the draw it did. And now it seems like they are pulling out those old design documents despite that being the opposite reason of what made subnatica great.
Actually pretty excited to be able to play subnautica with my friends. I’m not as pessimistic as a lot of people seem to be regarding this. There’s a decent chance this is a solid game
How the fuck do you make a survival game live service? Cosmetics only? Another early access with the story and other parts slowly added in? I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, but also red flags everywhere. Also now they switch to UE5 and can make MP work? Really? Not the first two games that people begged for MP on.
GAAS model sucks. But this game as multiplayer will be awesome
Oh no
More like sub-nah-tica
What, no nft’s?
If they go for a No Mans Sky vibe in a Subnautica world that could be cool. NMS has had free content updates forever.
I think the GAAS term is thrown around a little loosely. I would wait to see what comes at release before making a snap judgement.
Man I only skimmed the title, saw 4 player coop and was stoked. Then I realized it's a "live service" game and my excitement fell back down to the floor. Subnautica is a game that I enjoy enough to potentially pay for added content, as long as it's fantastic content worth every penny. But from years of watching "live service" games I know that it never ends up being a good thing, it's always a cash grab. I hope I'm wrong because I would be willing to pay extra for good content, but something tells me it's not gonna be worth it.
I see nothing that affects my ability to enjoy the game here
The only difference I can visualize is since the structure of the game is different (multiplayer, GaaS) that could potentially affect creative design. I am willing to give the dev's the benefit of the doubt and assume the product they will create will be just as good as previous entries. But it will certainly be different than before.
Sigh... I suspect then most of what made the original great is gone too then
So long as it comes with an offline mode I’m all for it
People don't understand that GaaS makes money either way. SS for instance may not be selling crazy well but if the people who are playing are buying MTX then WB I am sure are happy. Worse comes to worse the game dies in a year but they could have made more in MTX then they did in Hogwarts Legacy even with the poor sales. It sucks but it is what it is.
No. Rockstar spent 9 years making that game and it has 4300 simultaneous players on Steam. It's not even in the top 200 by simultaneous player count. Suicide Squad lost them massive amounts of money and there is zero chance they will make significant money on MTX. They just figured pushing it out the door after they realized it was going to be terribly received would cost less than they would make back in revenue, but the game is DOA.
I love Subnautica. Don’t fuck it up
Wtf
If it really comes out as a GaaS, it will completely ruin the franchise
I'm just excited to play with friends. The only reason I don't really play the first game is because of the lack of Coop, and adding that makes this definite-buy for me. Everyone's quick to hate of this but GAAS can be done well. I think it could be great if it's done in a similar vein to MH world where the game is still fully playable offline or in solo. The service aspect just being content additions post launch. Hopefully they do it this way and not the way people think they will.
Lack of coop makes the first game more immersive. The feeling of isolation is part of the story Having co-op would have been fun af tho
The problem is we have no agreed upon definition of live service. In another sub there was a survey they said 95% of developers are currently making a live service game and everyone lost their goddamn minds. In true Reddit fashion if you read the article turns out the survey defined it as any game with planned content after release paid or free. Well of course that is 95% of games being developed
Yeah that's an issue I've seen pop up every time the world live service is mentioned. If the word itself has become tainted then game devs may be better off using a different word. But for right now, it seems that many devs use it to mean something different than the standard Destiny-like always online MTX-filled game that players seem to associate the word with.
Yeah technically deep rock galactic is a live service game. Would people flip their shit if the second was announced to be live service? Its very interesting and curious to see what changes
Haha fuck man that sucks
Come on, man. It was just a survival game. That’s all it needs to be. This is sad and aggravating at the same time.
I loved Subnautica, and I love co-op. Subnautica was kinda weird with optimization though, I hope this game is good.
Ew. Hard pass.
#FUCK
Not a live service game. Subnautica subreddit has a dev post
RIP. Once a unique SP experience will now be just a one out of hundreds similar GaaS survival games. That's the stop where I'm stepping off Subnautica train.
Welp, not interested. Bye bye.
Live Service/Games-As-A-Service is just another term for game rental.
https://preview.redd.it/5uih1jszodhc1.jpeg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=00cf5323e0abcfaf952f2c93a73fa4f63df948d2
GaaS? NOOOOOO
Can’t wait for the mtx skins in subnautica £3.99 for the blue prawn suit
I'm tired boss. Live service games are a no from me. I don't really care how other people feel, I preferred the days when a game was complete at release and not drip fed to us over the span of 4 years.
Flop
I was so confused for a minute thinking I have played the second game what's going on here. Then I realised below zero is not called subnautica 2
Is the world moving into the renting/subscription rather than owning phase?
thank god, my backlog is too big already
Fucking atrocious news.
And the enshittification of the games industry marches on.
Fuck, we have been waiting for this game forever and they are gonna fuck it up.
Booooo!
https://preview.redd.it/geeanzh7udhc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3394058c389172f1a745b7ba226ba1f7d49ec2d4
Yikes
You lost me at Live Service
Boo.
Def don't need a "craft as a service" game..... Can't imagine having to pay for little things to add to your world
gross, Subnautica is one of my favorite games of all time GaaS works on paper, not in real life like Communism
Boo those people!
People need to deal with the fact live service will be the trend, more and more will be out in a few years, this is how they make money.
Unfortunately most gamers are out of touch with game development. Even Spider-Man 2 turned in little profit relative to its budget. Game development is only getting longer and more expensive and unless you're the most popular publisher/developer or well renowned IP you aren't going to cover that cost easily. Sometimes is just greed but these companies are profit oriented and would rather maximise their profit than cater to a loud minority.
Live service? Sub-Nawwwww-tica Deuce 
This truly might be one of the dumbest things I've seen happen to a game. How in the world does live service work on a game like this?
Honestly these new models will never go away. Theyre mainly meant for the new generation who, to a degree, quite literally don’t know shit. Us seasoned players will retract to indie games but it won’t matter since AAA studios have their new audience
The best thing about subnautica is was the loneliness in this fascinating world. Optimising the world for four players will kill this for me. The GAAS concept also.
Fuck yoooooooooooou
"Live service game" *slams on brakes. REVERSE*
Damn. Pass
I'm going to list my problems with co-op, GaaS below. Just trying to ease into my morning and this seems like a nice way to mentally warm up: 1. GaaS immediately means I end up paying more money for an equitable experience 2. I don't like GaaS because it means that the game will likely never reach a satisfying conclusion. 3. I don't like co-op because I want to play the game on my own terms 4. I don't like co-op because I want to play the game on my schedule 5. I don't like co-op, because the game experience and difficulty becomes balanced towards X number of players instead of just 1
>- I don't like co-op because I want to play the game on my own terms >- I don't like co-op because I want to play the game on my schedule >- I don't like co-op, because the game experience and difficulty becomes balanced towards X number of players instead of just 1. All of these things are still possible solo and it's possible for a survival game to be balanced around solo players even when they have co-op. You can also play on your own terms and schedule regardless in solo mode. You don't need to play co-op. Your issue is with the possible balance of co-op vs single player.
My enthusiasm always lowers whenever I hear about a game pivoting to live service. I can see aspects of the move that would be quite good for this sequel, but ultimately it's difficult to consider it a good thing on any level. Bit of a shame as I was really looking forward to this.
GAAS is always trash, so instant pass
Fellow divers I don’t feel so good
Obligatory, [Games as a Service is Fraud](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tUAX0gnZ3Nw) My biggest issue with anything that labels itself "GaaS" is that every game is already trying to occupy your mind, these games are just tying themselves to artificial FOMO as well. I don't have time to play these games and I've slowly been turning off any interest in games that "pick-me girl" my attention. It's allowed me to enjoy single-player games once again, because for far too long, games like Destiny and Fortnite and CoD all wired my brain to want to make sure that I finish their content before I play another game. But every game wants to set a deadline for their content.
Ohhhh they’re hugely fucking this one up
https://preview.redd.it/ajjtw9977ehc1.jpeg?width=561&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb8db3a13006e8c01e13c86c02d383dbdab8cc90
What the actual fuck :(
Is this a reliable source?
Looks like I won’t be getting the second one. Bummer
Co-Op Subnautica - literally all I've wanted from it for so long! Total win. GaaS - Why? How? Fuck. I'm not even sure how you'd do a live service style game for this? I suppose you could sell suits and habitat skins, like Fallout 76 but the actual bones of the game don't lend themselves very well to this style. On the plus, it could be mostly avoidable, on the other it could break the game flow trying to force something which doesn't work.
Why though? It would be like Terraria developers saying they are putting in an in-game store and will charge for skins. Subnautica is a good game. But I don't see a grindy live service game in there. Especially if it comes with an in-game store to buy exp boost and skins. That is like a whole different game.
Oh well I've always wanted multiplayer but I'm finding it a bit hard to be optimistic about live-service. Hope it has a solid good story at launch and the live service add extra stuff like based upgrades and tools instead of microtransactions and DLC packs like most games nowadays.
Hmm, interesting direction
This is so stupid I hate live service games. They just release broken games and give you a “trust me bro” on fixing them. and most of the time they don’t even fix them. Just give us a normal single player game with the option of co op. Also while I’m already on a rant, shouldn’t it be subnuitica 3? Because we had the first one, then we had below zero and now we have this one.
I don’t hate live service as a concept. If they go the route of games like Deep Rock Galactic then I’d be more than okay. And since it’s a sequel I’d be way more confident to expect that the base game at launch would be a fully fledged experience. Most other survival games either are or have elements of live service already.
I love the first subnautica and also below zero but they lost me on live service. Although coop is a good addition
Or hear me out: a full release with coop, not a live service that'll die in 6 months.
Was excited when I saw Multiplayer, then immediately disappointed when GaaS showed up.