Pretty much. 

Making money is never enough for these corporate vampires, they want to make ALL the money. No matter how well they do, it's never enough. Their greed is a bottomless pit, and they'd throw their own mother into it for just a shot at that ongoing Fortnite money.

Never mind that GaaS games have been failing left right and centre in recent times as people tire of games trying to be like a second job and monopolize their time and money.

It really doesn't help that gaming as a whole has largely been shifting from making fun games just for the customer, based on what he like/clamour for, straight to "line must go up" shareholders and CEO's looking to pocket enough money for those sweet golden parachutes and retirement pensions.

AAA gaming these days feels largely like it's based around the CEO's and shareholders, not the gamers and devs aspirations. 

People can be all "GAAS can be good when done right", but GAAS at it's core is designed largely to be a benefit to the company, not to us, because when it is time to pull the plug, all our monetary value goes down the kitchen sink, whilst theirs remains in their pockets. I would much rather have a complete game with no online requirement, that I only have to pay for once, and retain that value throughout my lifetime, VS a game that is always online, wants more money from me and then pulls the plug when it feels like it.

Its also why game studios not beholden to shareholders profit margins, that instead make passion projects, turn out so great.

Look at a game like BG3.
That would never had happend, if larian studios was owned by others and beholden to share holders.

Not every game can be a new fortnite.... and the world doesn't need too many fortnite clones, theres just not room for them all to be successfull.
Too many people caseing the coin, will just end up failing because of it.

Leadership that accept gambling, for that 1 mega hit, accepting alot of these GaaS games will fail along the way of landing that mega hit.... Do so at the cost of their brand. People notice these things. If they keep turning out crap, by the time they find a good "idea" for a game, that could be a hit, no one will want to jump in.  Its that "fool me once" type of thing, people will only want to get burnt so many times before they turn on the idea of it.

To some degree I think its a FoTM thing. Higher ups see it as a magically new way of makeing games, when in truth it comes with its own flaws.

Not to mention how often GaaS type games, launch broken, missing content ect.
And the reply is "dont worry, it ll be fixed down the line", when often its just not..... games come and go and die, before they ever reach that point.

This is worse than the lootbox mess games were infested with like 10 years ago.

They'll never learn at this rate.

There is a place for both models provided the games are of high quality. And most games from either model also require quite a bit of luck to be mega popular.

I'd argue there is limited space for hyper successfull GaaS type games.
There is only so much time in the day, and if a title is something you play for years and years, online.... you typically dont play others.
So a player that plays helldivers 2, probably doesn't play fortnite and vice versa.
That drastically limits how many players such monster success titles can draw in.

While single player games arn't like that.
They can be played even by those people heavily into these GaaS type games (everyone needs a break from doing the same thing over and over).

So yes there is a place for both.
However the competition is brutal on the GaaS type games, if you want a huge hit (not just, a barely break even type of deal).
Alot of them just end up failing, and dieing early deaths, and end up loseing money for the people that made them.
Its def. alot more risky investment to make a game like that.


"And most games from either model also require quite a bit of luck to be mega popular."

The differnce is that the one and done, even if not a mega hit/popular, is much more likely to earn back, the cost it took to make the game.
Alot of these GaaS type games, cost just as much to make, and usually have a free to play model, to build user base.
That means from the get go, your down 100's of millions of dollars, and your fighting server/maintaince/on-going dev costs, to turn a profit, and claw back at the investment costs to make the game in the first place.

That ontop of the risk of failour being much higher...... its just a gamble.
Sometimes it pays off HUGE. Most of the time, it just ends up costing millions in losses.

The more studios that case that fortnite money.... the tougher the competition, the more that risk grows.
There is def. not the same amount of "room", for both types in the gameing space.

There is a limit to how many studios can do this. Eventually studios will realise that the venture/gamble is not worth it, anymore and stop.
So the great equaliser, is many studios will bet their bottom dollar on this, and the market will kill them.
Those studios shut down, and the devs. go elsewhere to do something else, or try their luck again.

From what I've heard, Hogwarts Legacy is the kind of game that can benefit hugely from a sequel. A bit like Uncharted, the first one was good with some flaws, the developers listened to the feedback and came back with a truly spectacular title. If WB were willing to work on what annoyed people in the first game, they could really knock it out of the park!

Or you know, they could turn it into a live-service grindfest that people drop after a week.

I'm 100% convinced WB will kill what hogwarts could be.  

GAAS/live service games are the future given the budget and development time of modern games. Get used to it or petition publishers to raise the price of their games or lower the graphics. 

You can't have all three things at $60-$70 forever. 

Sure we can.  Developers are making a profit, they just want more via greed.  We vote with our wallets and the market will adjust, like it always does.  

You would have a point if Hogwarts Legacy was in the red, which it wasn't.