Ok, a Game as a Service is a game that is designed to generate increased revenue over a longer period of time. This is achieved by microtransactions, often coupled with lootboxes. While not all of those games feature lootboxes, all feature microtransactions.
So, while the definition is quite broad, these games quite definitely fit in it.

Now, I never claimed Microsoft cancelled ALL of their SP games, or that they weren't making any. Not much of a "gotcha!" I'm afraid.
It seems quite obvious though, that the biggest titles in their line-up, the ones pushing the system and brand, are multiplayer-driven, microtransactions-filled experiences, meant to generate revenue for years after release. You know, GaaS!
I'd add that Quantum Break and Sunset Overdrive, possibly the two biggest SP games you listed, not getting any sequels because Microsoft isn't interested in publishing them doesn't bode well for your argument.

Also, convenient how all those cancelled games were all not shaping up well. It makes it seem clean and justified.
Must be a coincidence that they also closed Lionhead, a studio which specialized in RPGs, notoriously hard to sell with microtransactions.
We now know they tried to add extraneous elements to Stormlands, Phantom Dust and Scalebound, alienating the devs and making the projects unsustainable.
The common element to these games' cancellation is one: Microsoft's involvement and poor decision-making.

You moved from saying these games weren't technically GaaS, to saying that SP games have also been made (which is something I never denied BTW).
You end by saying microtransactions don't hurt the experience. This is rubbish.
Games don't add monetization for the fun of it: it's meant to exploit people into spending more money. Systems are created to make them more enticing, more noticeable, and they are ultimately there so you can skip the experience and get the reward.
It's fundamentally admitting that time spent playing your game is worth less than whatever virtual currency you're getting.
Ignoring how they prey on addiction, and how there is currently no legal framework for them to operate in, is naive at best.

So if a game features microtransactions of any kind they are now GaaS........ way to move goalposts. So by your defenition The Last of Us,   Uncharted 4 are all GaaS just because they have microstransactions.......... it dosnt work like that.  That definition is blatantly wrong., and I can fit a lot of games there that would be insane to think that GaaS. And I have a question, have you played any of those games?  It hurts  each of those games, very little to none ,and even though I would also like them to be gone, they arent really a major hindrance. Even the worst case scenario, Forza 7, has a reasonabe pogression system that you can comfortable without ever thinking of buying a microtransaction.

Scalebound was in development for three years. It was obvious development wasnt coming along right, so they decided to cancel it. Just look at its E3 showings, it was always janky AF. This was not something Microsoft asked them to make, this was Hideki Kamiya's dream project, which he always wanted to make since the start of PLatinum games in 2006. I agree to you on the poor decision making part tho, they shouldve stuck to it a bit longer, even if the resulting game ended up to be broken or janky. And why have we started to make conspiracy theories about Microsoft alienating the devs by adding extraneous elements? Do we have a single piece of proof? a single leak? Anything? Or is it just wild assumptions?

Quantum break isnt getting a sequel because of Microsoft not being interested, it was  because remedy wanted to move on and make a multiplatform game (this was stated earlier this year) (because they saw little returms from quantum break.  I also agree on the Sunset Overdrive 2 part, Microsoft should grab the opportunity at once (there is still time, and this could still happen, right now insomniac is busy at spider-man), but its understandable if they are hesitant, since the the first game underperformed in sales. 

I am not denying the bolded. But saying theyre "all in on GaaS" is assumptive at best, insane at worst.

Sorry Microsoft, but lying about the situation isn't going to help. Its great to see PUGB and Forza 7, but given the lineup Sony has had this year, it needs a lot more than that. Hopefulle 2018-19 finally sees some improvement on this front.

And it has little to do with the topic, at hand. If you want to address other people's criticisms, then do it on topic.

Shannon Loftis, you have no bloody idea...

So why do you feel the need to comment to everyone that commented back at you if the statement was corrected? Sounds to me like you're looking for an argument.

Just had to but in here. Which one of those games you mentioned above does not offer a campaign / single player mode?

Have to give MS credit here that atleast there car racing games have Campaign modes unlike there competition.

So this claim MS dont release Single player content games is stretching the air pretty thin. Might want to look at there competitors.

She maybe should stay away from PR stuff since this interview seems like a big failure (on her part) to me. Especially the PUBG remark is laughably incorrect. I mean, it's not even technically correct, it's just incorrect and that's all there is to it. She's ignoring PC for everything else as well and you could probably take her 'exclusive' as 'console exclusive', but her wording doesn't allow that for PUBG - whose biggest userbase is on PC, and probably will be in the future as well.

EDIT: Oh, this is old news, and there's a huge discussion around it. Carry on then!

To bolded: yes, they are, and yes they are definetely hurt by that. I can admit it, quite easily in fact, becuase I'm not beholden to Sony and somehow unable to criticize them. Microtransactions are shitty, lootboxes are shittier, and Sony was wrong to add them in UC4 and TLoU (and maybe Killzone, Idk).

And speaking on moving goalpost, I'd like to remind you that you started this conversation by saying I was miscostructing what Microsoft said and making up their interest in GaaS on statements alone.
While there is not a set definition for GaaS, while with it being a new concept, I feel that my "monetizing content in a paid game" works better than your "the same, but if it's something I don't care about it's fine".

As for the rest, quickly since this is getting dull:
Scalebound co-op was requested by Microsoft and Kamiya seemed to have been unhappy with the way the project was being handled there, though admittedly it seems this was alleged. The game looking "janky" didn't prevent Microsoft from showing it off at E3 twice, and projects like this usually have a lot more problems at home than at the show, so hopefully we'll get to hear that story soon.

Remedy has been working pretty much exclusively with Microsoft for quite some time, so seems weird that Microsoft wouldn't just renew the contract they had going on, especially since there seem to have been a major investement at some point in Quantum Break,  what with the TV shows and everything.
Still, either massively poor management or, they're not interested in the games Remedy does anymore. Occam's razor suggests the latter.

Sunset Overdrive 2 isn't getting made by MS, which was the entire point of Insomniac's statement. 


Still, Microsoft is making far fewer single-player game and far more monetized multiplayer games (hope you like this better, because it's still GaaS) than either Sony or Nintendo. That's just the way things are, and it's bad. Their statements don't help, but neither does ignoring the obvious red flags

The effort in the lineup is reflected in it's current sales, not good.