In the modern gaming community, the prevalence of “Games as a service(Gaas)” has put a strain on consumer- publisher relations. The “games as a service” model is a relatively new update model for video games, it revolves around games being continuously updated to keep players engaged. This model lengthens the lifespan of games greater than what it was a decade ago. This update model has created some of the more recent popular games, like Fortnite, Minecraft, Rainbow six siege, Etc. These games are popular because of the constant attention, but also because of their cheap prices.

The problem with the “Games as a service”  model is that games need constant updates and attention to stay relevant in the consumers mind. This leads to many different problems including, unfinished updates, rushed and cut content, and sometimes can lead to dissatisfied consumers. This dissatisfaction with updates is the core issue that defines “Gaas” and is why many consumers view this model as simply a way for companies to make more money. The companies will use minimal resources keeping a game updated, making more money than the initial launch of the game. This can be viewed as a problem with how games are published, as Gaas games seem to increase the value of the companies that publish them more than non-Gaas games. This becomes an issue when the toxicity isn’t limited to online spaces, when developers receive death threats from updating their games, this issue becomes a private security threat.

Consumers are moving towards subscription and service based products for a while in the economy, with things like netflix and Disney+. It was only a matter of time until gaming moved toward this trend, and the Gaas model seems to be the gaming version of this. Most consumers are okay with the constant updates, it keeps their favorite games fresh, and because the companies know this they continue to pursue this model. The problem is the very vocal minority of consumers that threaten and attack developers for certain updates. This vocal minority pushes the gaming community to be more toxic about updates that affect their games. Even minor updates that improve the game in some aspects will still get a hostile response, the consumers believing the developer isn’t doing enough”. The toxicity developers receive can put stress on the employees, and even have physical repercussions on the developers’ health. Mental health for developers has been the highlight of recent years as consumers continue their toxic attitude toward them.

This isn’t to say the companies aren’t at fault there are two types of game companies, publishers and developers. Developers work on a game and will sometimes publish the game themselves and are responsible for updates and marketing. Publishers are massive companies that hire or own developers that great games they publish. Publishers are responsible for publishing games and their marketing. There publishers are the biggest reason for the Gaas model, as they push the developers to create the games this way. The toxicity received by developers is very often displaced as the publishers were the biggest decision maker when a game was developed. Publishers do receive hate and toxic comments however, the developers receive the lion’s share, mostly because the consumers view the developers as the problem.

The introduction of the Games as a service model cannot be stopped, that is certain, but the toxicity surrounding the model can be reduced in multiple ways. The most obvious way is to keep the developers mental health in mind when developing criticism. They are people too, making a salary and doing something they enjoy and want to do, pouring their heart and soul into a game only to get called “trash”. This needs to stop as we focus on the mental health of these people and their co-workers. Another way to reduce the toxicity is to inform people and reduce their expectations. Consumers need to temper their expectations around updates and content. Too many times have updates been given to a game that are small, but healthy updates only for consumers to attack the developers. By tempering expectations, consumers can learn to be thankful and praise developers for even the smallest update. The last thing I will discuss in what we can do is to learn where the root problem is for the Games as a service model. Developers are simply doing their job most of the time, publishers are the companies that push the developers to release the updates, complete or not. While I am not advocating acting toxic towards publishers, consumers should know where to send their criticism.I will end this article by highlighting a recent example of an update that was received by toxicity. Nintendo released the Character Byleth for Super Smash Brothers Ultimate  and the developers received criticism from a large number of consumers. I am not going to advocate for or against this character. I will simply highlight how this addition of 1 character in a roster of over 80 lead to the biggest toxic backlash in the history of characters being added. This clearly highlights the toxicity that can fester if a community doesn’t feel grateful and doesn’t know how to temper expectations.