Sega Reportedly Bringing Back Crazy Taxi & Jet Set Radio As "Big-Budget Reboots"

I don't want to offend anyone but I'm not into "game as a service" products.
Said that I hope those games will be fine, finding their audience.

@Pigrotto I'm not on the whole but it depends on how they execute it. Either of those in a big open space with fun mechanics that dont feel like you are being ripped off could be great. Although it would be ideal for us a straight remake wouldnt find much of a market.

"Live Service", "Big Budget"

Video game publishers just never learn do they?

They could release new versions of these games each generation for practically pennies, and make a nice profit in it. Many indies already do this, and they don't have the massive brand recognition on their title, but that's not good enough is it?. Profit has never been good enough, it has to be all the money.

The same mentality that ruined so many franchises a decade ago, is still ruining them today.

Sega have the IPs to at least get people to at least be aware of, if not excited by the return of these classic names in gaming. I know some will instantly be put off by 'live service' but that can mean anything from regular content drops, seasonal activities, evolving 'environment' etc to online co-operative or competitive modes.

Assassins Creed Valhalla is a 'Live Service' game with 'seasonal free content' offering some 'new' activities, new gear etc but doesn't mean 'Battle Royale' or Competitive MP.

Sonic 'could' go live service - add new levels, new challenges, new seasonal content etc. Crazy Taxi could add 'seasonal' events for example and new content. JSF has a LOT of potential with new areas, new customisation (like new characters, new tags etc) and none of this actually is detrimental to the originals.

Games as a Service 'evolve' over time. Its not a 'static' amount of content that once 'finished', the game is 'dead'. Online allows the developers to update the game with 'more' content throughout the life cycle, maybe do 'seasonal' activities around Easter, Halloween, Christmas etc.

Yes its 'designed' to bring players back in as well as keep the 'game' in the Public eye for a longer period to maybe encourage more to jump in - but for Gamers, its an evolving game and maybe enough reason to 'return' after completion instead of waiting another 5yrs+ for a 'sequel'.

As long as I continue to get single player Yakuza and Judgment I'll be happy and they can try to make some MP games. If Like A Dragon 2 turns out to be an online MMO or something though the pitchfork might need to come out!

@BAMozzy The issue with Live Service, is that it requires an ever increasing time and money commitment. And with more games adopting the model, there's more competition for that time and money.

So for you as a gamer, you have to be more selective in the titles you invest in. Maybe you'll pick up "Jet Set Radio Live", but the chances of you staying long term are slim. Anthem and Halo Infinite are great examples of this.

So as a title, the Live Service game has just become a dead game anyway. Only now, you have a much less refined and focused experience than one that was designed as a 20 hour experience, and there's even the chance that the game just gets shut down anyway. Like Battleborn.

And also, it looks like you have a failed game too, that won't ever get a sequel.

@Richnj That's NOT always the case. Halo Infinite is more a Free to Play model for a start and not really doing to much different from any other 'competitive' based Multiplayer game.

There is 'never' an obligation to buy additional content either. AC: Valhalla for example still offered EVERYONE new 'post release' content - inc numerous Seasonal events and can earn the in-game currency to buy 'premium' cosmetics. You could play the Story, do ALL the activities and 'never' spend any more money or 'time' - however, if you 'enjoyed' your time, you may return for the seasonal festivals, new activities and gear - all without having to Spend 'extra' money. You get 'more' content than you actually started with at no extra cost. Yes there are 'expansions' that do cost and if you can't wait for the Premium MTX to be available to acquire 'in game', then you can 'spend' money - but its NOT compulsory or detrimental to those who are happy to just 'play' the base content as released.

The point is that IF you enjoy the game you bought- enough to get to the 'end' of the content, then there will be 'more' content coming to give you a reason to 'return' to something you 'enjoyed'.

Halo Infinite's main 'issue' has been that 'lack' of extra content and people are desperate for more - waiting for Forge/Co-op, waiting for new maps/modes etc. Its 'obvious' that people will drop away when there is 'new' games, new experiences etc in 'other' games instead of 'replaying' the same maps over and over and over again. Halo: MCC gets an update and suddenly a 'spike' in users who return to check out that 'content'

Sea of Thieves no doubt 'ebbs and flows' in terms of Active users. Spikes up when new content comes and 'over' time will dwindle back down as people complete that content until returning for the 'next'.

Anthem failed because it was 'rushed' out before it was anywhere 'near' ready (typical EA who promise investors the game will release within a fixed period regardless - ME:A was another) and if they don't 'get' it right or at least 'put' it right 'quickly', people move on and don't return - they 'return' to games they ENJOY!!

Not ALL Live Service games have to be 'competitive' MP offering BattlePass so that the 'whole' community has access to the 'same' content instead of splitting the community between those who buy DLC maps and those that don't.

JSF - for example, could offer new characters, new tags, new customisation options, maybe even increase the 'base' map size by adding new 'districts' etc. So even if you have played the whole game, tagged every spot etc and 'loved' every minute, you could do it all again with a new character, tag all those spots with 'new' artwork etc. Maybe for Halloween, Xmas etc, the world is appropriately 'decorated' with Seasonal tags and other seasonal cosmetics. If you ENJOYED the game, then maybe you will jump in for 'more' of the same fun...

If you don't enjoy the game you 'bought' or you want to play other games after finishing, then you are not going to return but for those that want 'more' because they 'enjoy' the core game-play, then Games as a Service provide ongoing support.

This whole "super game" idea is about as @$$backwards as it gets. They want it to be another Fortnite, but Fortnite wasn't what it is for a long time. It grew and evolved organically over a span of YEARS. SEGA is making it sound like it's going to be all the things at launch, which likely means all the things are going to be average at best. Instead of focusing on one thing at a time, making it as good as it can be, and then moving on to the next thing. To top it off they'll cram it with as much MT and NFT bull**** as they can right off the bat so that no one could possibly hope to enjoy it for what it is, and then they'll bemoan the fact that no one wants to play it, just like all the other crap.

The sad thing is, Crazy Taxi could totally work as a GaaS. I just don't trust SEGA to pull it off.

All we wanted was JSRF through backwards compatibility. Thats all we wanted...

@BAMozzy "That's NOT always the case"

It's a mathmatical truth. People's time and money are finite. They can't spend it all on every game. Some will succeed, but not all can. By turning games in to a service, rather than a set experience, they now have to fight over a marketshare. That's why we differentiate between content and services, and why we track the marketshare of services like Netflix, and not the content it provides, like Squid Games

"its NOT compulsory or detrimental to those who are happy to just 'play' the base content as released."

The whole live service is designed to create FOMO and encourage spending. Even if not everybody falls for it, the whole thing preys on those with less self control. It's exploitive by nature. The fact is that it works, because the model is very effective and takes more money than the standard model. The industry has seen massive profits growth since they've been introduced, and more and more Publishers want to go this route because of this. If the model was truly "optional" then you wouldn't be seeing this type of money being spent on it. It's like saying gambling is optional. Technically it is. Practically, it's not.

"Halo Infinite's main 'issue' has been that 'lack' of extra content"

This isn't an issue exclusive to Halo Infinite though. Most Live Service games release extremely content lite. This is because much of the focus ends up going in to the content that will be monetised, and how best to "encourage" players to want to buy that content.

They treat the base game as an entry fee (which is also why so many have been going F2P, because it widens that net), and they treat the live service as the real product.

"JSF - for example...", "but for those that want 'more' because they 'enjoy' the core game-play"

There's nothing here that couldn't already be done, and done better, through DLC and pre-set timed events. Plenty of games use to have a setting that would change the decorations or seasons depending on in game time, or a set clock. You don't need a internet connection and live service to do that.

I could be thrilled for Jet Set radio, but it sounds like they're going to basically turn it into a Splatoon clone that's worse and sells cosmetics, while Splatoon aped a lot of Jet Set Radio's vibe,

@Richnj I really don't know when business changed from "cost+profit" to "the maximum the market is willing to spend." It fundamentally changed the entire structure of society, business, and consumers relationship with products, and at some point people started accepting it as the normal that always was, and rejecting the idea that anything else ever exist. I usually pin it back to the "greed is good" 80's, but it seems like there was another shift after that that was more subtle but more all consuming.

@Richnj The only part I disagree with is how it's more profitable, overall. It's only profitable if you land a winner. The odds of doing that are slim due to that excess competition. Look at mobile, only a handful of companies make most of the money out of millions. There's an ever increasing list of failed GaaS games that are total wasted investments, saved only by the fact that the companies have one sacred cash cow that gives regardless. The whole model revolves around a single publisher having maybe one super successful game that funds everything, and the rest are money-losing failures covered by the fact that 1 mega-success makes more money than 20 decent successes. But it's a very rickety bridge.

The fact that EA, the king of live service that proclaimed single player dead, is REMOVING online completely from some of their biggest upcoming titles and focusing on single player, to me, speaks highly of the failures of the model, when the original pioneer of it is turning back on the path outside their established sports franchises and one F2P. They wouldn't do that for backlash, they're doing it because it's not as profitable as it looked before a decade of focusing on it. Sure, FIFA or whatever it's called now prints money. But they clearly aren't pleased with every other product being a loss down the drain. Investors start to question why the rest of the company exists if it's losing money.

The failures end up on GwG/Plus and are jokes when they do. Cant even include them in Game Pass.

@NEStalgia It's probably been a gradual shift. I believe it does stem back to the 80s and neoliberalism, but all us 80s babies are in our 30s and 40s now. This kind of consumer relationship is all that a lot of people have ever known, and it makes it easier for businesses to keep pushing that.

"The only part I disagree with is how it's more profitable, overall. It's only profitable if you land a winner."

I 100% agree with that. I only meant it's been profitable for the industry as whole. So, that the combined revenue has been increased. Not that everybody has seen the same kinds of profits from that. It's why I've been so vocal about publishers downscaling development rather than trying to upscale every project.

I can only hope that these turn out well, but I'm going to temper my expectations strongly.

Glad to see them finally acknowledge some of their Dreamcast era IP's

Please Sega, give me something with Jet Set Radio! I bought the original Xbox because of Jet Set Radio Future being on the system. I had the Dreamcast and loved it! Such a shame that system failed so early. They had some amazing games on there and JSR was one of my favorites. Give me a remake or a sequel, I’ll take anything at this point!

That's too bad, I'm not a fan of the "game as a service" model. Would love arcade port/remake of Crazy Taxi, and Sega Rally Championship as well. One can only Dream(cast).

No thanks anything live service will be terrible I give them a miss microtransactions are getting out of hand now we Need company's stop trying to rob gamers out of the hard earned cash all the time