It's really gross how people's games can just be disappeared these days. GaaS is a terrible business model.

I think the mismanagement comes from thinking that any fighting game can keep up with the cadence and business model of League of Legends. You'll see this again with 2XKO, even if they've got a year's worth of character releases already done ahead of time to give them a head start.

It really sucked because Smash Bros is basically the only other big platform fighter on the market. Multiversus was set up to actually be a viable alternative to smash, it was massively popular at first, and they had such an amazing library of characters to pull from. The game had everything going for it. And they just blew it. So badly.

They're patching it to be playable offline, but only if you've previously downloaded the game.

Why not just leave that version up instead of delisting it? They could even sell it. Would be seen as a success story for preservation instead of another loss, and it's especially baffling because it's a fully avoidable loss.

The business model isn't terrible, it makes money, but it is terrible for the consumer

If the business model were successful, then the GaaS model wouldnt be full of bloated corpses of failed projects

It's not going anywhere until people stop playing the games.

According to the bean counters this will save them $17/month in hosting costs

If you think that GaaS means that you have more failed projects, then look at how many normal games failed before launch.

GaaS means you have ongoing expenses after launch in a way that normal games do not. The costs are higher, but they keep chasing the much larger reward that only a super small percentage will ever achieve.

I'm not playing them as hard as I can.

Live service games have been failing constantly, so unless the change is happening already I don't think they're deterred. That perpetual revenue stream is some exec's idea of a lottery ticket.

::: spoiler spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
:::

There are a very small number of games where a changing world is a benefit to the game, although sometimes the approach also means skimping on some development before going live.

Helldivers 2 is an example of a game that benefits from the changing world approach of GaaS and it doesn't have predatory monetization. Playing the game gives enough in game currency to buy optional equipment needed for the changing world even if you only play a few hours a week. Heck, play it more regularly and you can afford most of the thematic warbonds which again and not necessary. The changing world and adding more enemy units keeps the game fresh over time, and the evolving story is like playing a giant semi shared campaign. You play a small part in a shared experience. I don't think doing the game as a single or coop campaign would have been a better experience.

That said, when they do end the ongoing campaign at some point it would be awesome to have some kind of automated system campaign for people to still do things. It wouldn't be as focused, but it would extend the game's life.

MultiVersus was hurt by trying to do SaaS because they added more predatory monetization after the beta where it was bad enough and tried to milk it for everything to the detriment of the gameplay. It is a great example of a game where the SaaS approach was terrible, and that is the case for the vast majority of SaaS games.

The beta was fun, although the monetization was bad even back then.

But the official release made all the wrong decisions to amplify the worst parts of gameplay and dial up the monetization. It was like they got all the player feedback backwards.

Do you even have to pay hosting costs, if you put a game on steam or does valve not distribute your game for free?

If I'd have to guess the bigger issues with a game like this would be licensing or that delisting allows some form of tax advantageous asset depreciation.

The catch is a free to play online gaming service isn’t a “game you own” in most cases.

It's not going anywhere until people stop playing the games spending ridiculous amounts of money in them.

Fixed that for you. The problem isn't the casual players, it's the people spending $500+ worth of skins and battle passes on one game. Those are the reason GaaS are so successful.

If people play, it becomes popular, which attracts more players, which attracts spending. Even if you spend $0, you are still supporting the type of game it is by playing it.

I would venture to guess it's to avoid potential licensing issues that could arise down the road that they don't want to deal with.

This game could have easily been another Marvel Rivals. An absolute success using its strong IPs in a game type that is underrepresented. There's no other big name doing Smash Bros style combat, and definitely not outside of Nintendo's platform. The elements were all there to make this a successful game, but they completely blew the execution.