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.

Thing is, games really don't need to cost so much to make in the first place.

Some of the biggest games of recent years have moderate budgets, and the mass market has shown over and over again with its embrace of games like Minecraft and systems like the Switch that they really don't need everything to have the latest greatest graphics.
Heck, the success of the Switch version of Hogwarts shows that even that game didn't rely on AAA visuals to sell. It's only a vocal minority who demand that every game have super high end production values.

Instead of bleeding customers dry with shitty practises, publishers need to get their excessive spending under control. There's no reason why a $70 single player game without predatory monetization can't be profitable. If devs still can't profit at that price, then frankly it's a skill issue.

I don't know how much it costs to maintain servers and keep them running, but the initial costs for live service games are often relatively low. Helldivers 2 for example cost 50 million vs Spider-Man 2 costing over 300 million iirc. Helldivers is probably going to outsell Spider-Man at some point this year. You gotta remember that Sony's live service path was met with many doubts and criticisms, with a lot of people pointing at Sony's past failures at producing a single massively popular MP game.

I agree that GaaS has less room for growth, but both models have their cons and pros. And there are many genres that don't yet have a standout GaaS. As long as your game is good, well-marketed, and unique among other GaaS... chances are decent that it's going to do well. Suicide Squad bombed mainly because it sucked.

And I staunchly think developers should cut the fluff before going after graphics.  I'm playing zero dawn and it has a ton of irrelevant collectibles.  The side quests in FF7 Remake are boring and irrelevant.  Developers need to stop trying to make every game 40+ hours.  RE remakes sold just fine at 10 to 20 hours.  

As for Hogwarts, the game grossed over a billion and cost 150 million....  I have no idea what WB is complaining about.  

And of course drop exclusives.  Support PC day 1.  

That too, this obsession with making everything a 50+ hour extravaganza is needless and stupid.

There's a place for games with amazing graphics, and for huge long games, but not every major game needs to be both. Publishers have nobody but themselves to blame for overspending on every damn game then crying when they don't make enough profit.

Look at Nintendo, most of their games can be beaten in under 10 hours, and none of them have AAA production value, yet they sell tens of millions.

Even Nintendo struggles to sell millions of copies of a game that doesn't have one of their 5-6 main IP properties attached to it (Mario, Pokemon, Zelda, Animal Crossing, etc.). Pikmin after like two decades has finally built upon enough of an audience to maybe sell 4 million WW? 

Most studios have 0 IP like Nintendo's top IP. 

Saying "just do what Nintendo does" isn't going to work for a lot of publishers. It's like saying "just play basketball like Michael Jordan", that's a lot easier said than done. 

Splatoon started as a new IP on Wii U, sold 5 million on a console with only a 13 million install base, then 10+ million with 2 and 3.

They also sold over 15 million with Ring Fit Adventure, a new IP on Switch.

You don't need to be Mario or Zelda or Pokémon to sell well. You also don't need to sell tens of millions to be highly profitable if your budgets are reasonable.

Splatoon did it ... it was also like their first IP to sell 5+ million that wasn't one of the Wii/DS casual titles in like what? 20+ years? 

Metroid still can't sell over 5 million reliably. 

It's not that easy. 

There are "reasonable budget" games available that people don't give a shit about and don't sell. 

Wii/DS being "casual" doesn't mean they magically don't exist. 

Metroid is a niche series, that's got nothing to do with the viability of non-AAA games.

The idea that publishers absolutely must spend hundreds of millions of dollars per title to make their games sell, and that therefore their only choice is to make live service games is ridiculous and false. 

There are countless popular games that are not AAA.