Fredrik said: You’re not truthful at all here, I’m playing all games mentioned and hasn’t payed a single cent extra for extra content, if these are Games As Service games then they’re clearly failing hard and shouldn’t be used as a worrying example for how awful a Games As Service future might be. Click to expand... Click to shrink...

Uh...are you being serious?I am not making a judgement on the quality of such a future. I am just stating that these games indicate a strong direction towards GAS."I'm not paying any money so these aren't GAS."No...that's...not how this works at all. At. All. If that was true, the only GAS games would be subscription based, but they aren't. Overwatch is generally considered a GAS game, and I have never spent a cent on it at all.Again, GAS are defined by their goals of persistent monetization and perpetual player engagement. That does not necessitate not having singleplayer. That does not necessitate monetization from every single player. If a game wants to have loot boxes that various people will support to varying levels, then if that is 0 for some people, it can still be successful. That is still a monetization model. It does not need you to spend money. What it does need is as many people to play as possible so that those who might be convinced to pay will do so. That is why that second point is important.Both Overwatch and Halo 5 have the same goals and general methods of attaining those goals. Halo 5 has been the most profitable Halo game so for apparently, precisely due to its GAS model. Just because there is a singleplayer there doesn't mean the GAS aspect is suddenly gone. Is Overwatch not a GAS game because it has a shooting range?