It's interesting seeing his side of things because it's very firmly rooted in the player side of things. And I could very easily see why players could view Games as a Service (GaaS) as something shady. However he also only comprehends GaaS on the player end, missing exactly what it means to a developer. And really, it's not so much that Games as a Service is fraud, but rather it's the methodology du jour of fraudsters, just as licensed shovelware and obnoxious game 'collections' like Action 52 used to be. But licensed games, game collections, and even GaaS isn't the cause of fraud, it's just the low-hanging fruit being used.
Ross correctly begins with trying to define exactly what GaaS is, and amusingly goes to Wikipedia before realizing that they aren't very helpful in figuring out what exactly it is. Rather, the concept of what exactly goods and services are, come into play here. Goods being something you own, tangible or intangible, such as a hammer, an ebook, or an intellectual property. Services instead are... services that you pay people for, such as getting a haircut.
Games used to treated as goods, fullstop. The developer made the game, handed it off to the publisher, and promptly forgot about it until either making a sequel or translating it for another country. Otherwise, the code was very static, and any bugs found, <i>remained</i>. Because that's what goods are. You make the good, sell it, and it's no longer your problem unless you're legally liable for injury.
That started changing when the internet became more widespread, patches could realistically be made and applied to all current copies of a game, and more importantly reoccurring server costs started becoming a thing thanks to all of these popular internet-based games. Patches mean you can push off some of the minor bug fixing until later, and even delaying certain game content until it's actually good and ready to be played, instead of rushing it out the door in a buggy mess because the publisher is knocking down your door asking firmly why it's not ready yet.
Approaching the game like this is not treating the game as goods anymore though. Instead of a one-and-done, fire-and-forget, you have to baby the program long after it is released, feeding it, growing it, and maintaining it. The maintenance costs man-hours, and any associated servers cost money. Those are not free. You're servicing the game. It has become a service.
Ross makes an analogy in the video where he compares Games as a Service to a rest stop in a mountainous park area, and that when the state loses money and shuts down the rest stop it somehow denies complete access to the mountains and forests. This is a stretch of an analogy.
If looking to strictly compare services, the service provided by the rest stop are strictly of maintenance of the rest area, and they have nothing to do with the mountain and forest. And what happens when the service for the rest stop is halted? It is the same as with a game hosted on the internet, the whole thing breaks down and you can't use it anymore. The only difference is that the rest stop will break down over a much longer period of time than pulling the plug on a server, requiring years for nature to reclaim building and paved areas. The rest stop is not gatekeeping you from enjoying the nature.
A more accurate analogy would be a theme park, where you have bought a lifetime pass. An online-only game, much like a shuttered theme park, becomes completely unavailable when it closes down despite having paid upfront for a lifetime pass.
Now with all of this said, games as a whole are rather odd, and probably don't rightly belong squarely as a traditional "good" nor a traditional "service". Often it's a bit of a weird combination of the two, and we really don't have a good word for it as far as I know. Computers are still a relatively young concept compared to, say, a hammer and a haircut after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment