Do you find the description Live Service Game off-putting?

Over the years, there’ve been various red flags in gaming, for me at least. Multi-media. Full-Motion Video. Day-One DLC. Microtransactions. The latest one is Live Service Game. I find the idea repulsive because it immediately tells me this is an online-required affair, even if it doesn’t warrant it. There’s no reason for some games to require an internet connection when the vast majority of activities they provide can be done in a single-player fashion. So I suspect Live Service Game to be less of a commitment to truly providing updated worthwhile content and more about DRM. Instead of imposing Denuvo or some other loathed 3rd party layer on your software, why not just require internet regardless of whether it brings value to customer?

What do you think about Live Service Games? Do you prefer them to traditional games that ship finished, with potential expansions and DLC to follow later?

Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow,

You really missed out not playing Command and Conquer

Boiglenoight,

I played C&C, Red Alert 1, 2 and 3. Tiberian Sun was bad.

Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow,

Just closed your eyes during the FMVs?

Boiglenoight,

I love Red Alert’s, they’re still funny. :D

Mandy,

its perfect really, they all should put it front and center! cause it tells me right of the bat i i never should touch said product, its a money saver really.

GrammatonCleric,
@GrammatonCleric@lemmy.world avatar

I’m fine with it, if it’s fun enough. I’m no gaming activist/snob.

Boiglenoight,

I’m grateful for activists, particularly those with a focus on archiving gaming. That’s another area where I think supporting Live Service Games might be shortsighted on the part of the consumer. By accepting it as a practice, ownership is ceded toward the publisher or creator. We’re less owners and more renters when it comes to gaming property.

I remember when I bought Street Fighter 2 for the SNES and realized, I no longer have to go to the arcade to play this game. I no longer have to submit an endless amount of quarters to play what I can play endlessly at home for a one-time fee. It was an amazing feeling. And with LSG it’s like we’re coming back around.

Minnels,

I just stopped buying main stream games for the most part. Indie games is where it is at. Often better gameplay loop and comes at a better price and I would rather see my money going to creative people instead of some greedy CEO.

Live service is a no from me.

Dude123,

Well said, I definitely lean towards indie with the occasional Fromsoft/Larian/Bethesda purchase

TheMorningStar,

No and I think it’s kind of silly that people find the mention of the term so upsetting. Content aside, I like multiplayer games. I’ve been playing them for years. The idea of a multiplayer game that gets content updates is nothing new. CoD (just one example) has been doing it since 2008 and I’m supposed to be upset with that now that the big chunks of content they release are free and it has a different term describing it?

Like I said, just one example, but that’s generally how it goes. And you’re free to buy whatever cosmetics you want. Maybe it’s because I’ve never been one for microtransactions and I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything because skins I’ll probably never use are up for sale. Which is the flip side to more complete content packs being sold.

Also, the idea that games are unfinished simply because they’re offering more content is weird to me.

Boiglenoight,

Multiplayer games are great. I think the upsetting part is that from the word Go, whether it warrants being a Live Service Game or not, it implies an expiration date and an online-only requirement. When I bought Overwatch, I never heard them describe it as a LSG. Maybe they did and it just didn’t register. What I know though is that having bought 2 copies, one for PC and the other for PS4, I cannot play those games now and in their place is a reportedly substandard product (one I didn’t pay for or ask for).

So now I have this game which I loved and still played occasionally is gone because the publisher made a decision to expire it arbitrarily (read: to get people to pay them more money).

Overwatch could’ve run on player driven servers. Much of this stuff can. That might only serve a few thousand or few hundred people 10 years after launch, but that’s the right thing to do.

Crystal_Shards64,

On one hand constant updates and continuing a games longevity can be nice, but in reality it usually just means fomo which I despise.

drmoose,

I have nothing against mmo/live/gaas games but the quality is never there to justify it. If anything gaas have less content than a singleplayer offline game. It’s a total bait and switch.

Ilflish,

Live service comes across as life service. A game made to monopolize my time and become a significant part of my life by using addictive systems. By the very nature of enjoying the variety of games, it will immediately turn me off a game.

arudesalad,

In anno 1800 (which is the only game I’ve played with denuvo) it still needs to have a connection to the ubisoft servers to run, so live service isn’t just about dodging 3rd party drm

Boiglenoight,

That’s terrible. :(

Carighan,
@Carighan@lemmy.world avatar

Very much so, because to me it openly announces that the game is centered in its design about something between:

  • Microtransactions
  • Extrinsic motivation
  • FOMO

None of those are a good story, great characters, good world building or good intrinsic gameplay design. And they don’t need to be for a live service game, but it also means it’s inherently worse as a game than the same underlying idea not developed as a money squeeze service.

JokeDeity,

I find the word “service” off-putting. I want to buy things outright and own them. I do not want recurring fees.

dinckelman,

Unless it’s an MMO, or something like an online aRPG, the tag “live-service” immediately means that you’re fully expecting to release an unfinished game, collect your preorder money, get backlash for the game being unfinished garbage, and then release a few patches as a “Sorry we got caught” excuse.

The days when you’d buy something, and you would know that is the final version of your software, have been over for a long time

bionicjoey,

The days when you’d buy something, and you would know that is the final version of your software, have been over for a long time

That sounds like a good thing to me. The real problem is that when buying a game, there are no guarantees about how finished it is.

dinckelman,

The point is that when you printed something on a disk, and had 0 capability of pushing patches down the road, you were forced to finish your product. Now it’s not the case, evidently

bionicjoey,

In theory yes, but in reality, plenty of games shipped unpolished in the physical media era.

Rhynoplaz,

You are completely correct

I’ve been playing a bunch of old NES and SNES games, and they all could use a few patches. Many are buggy as hell.

They were still cranking out unfinished trash back then because the cover art and box description was all we had to go by. No refunds on opened games, your money was gone and you had no hope of it ever getting better.

lorty,
@lorty@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Even MMOs tend to be terrible live service games. This mode necessitates a good cadence of content (actual content, not stuff to buy) that most studios seem incapable of doing.

qarbone,

In that scope, cromulent Early Access game seem like the poster child for live service games.

echo64,

Op, I think you’re a little confused. I can’t think of a live service game that isn’t a multiplayer game in some form. the required online is because that’s literally what the game is.

Be mad about the scummy lootbox practices that prop it up, don’t be mad that other people like online games.

JowlesMcGee,
JowlesMcGee avatar

I mean, there are examples where the multiplayer should be optional and thus force the game to be live service. For instance, Diablo 4 should be perfectly playable single player, offline, yet it's live service and to my understanding requires an Internet connection

Boiglenoight,

“in some form,” being the key part of that. Someone mentioned Diablo 4. It doesn’t have to be always online. Gran Turismo 7 is another example. It’s a trend.

Callie,

I don’t mind if they need to patch the game after launch to fix issues. you can only find so much with a QA team, the mass market is really helpful for finding issues you’d never be able to find as a team of 20 or 50 if they’re being generous.

I do absolutely despise live-service games with no choice for offline play. Diablo 4 is a more recent, prime example of this. servers went offline for a day or two IIRC, no one could play the game they payed money for, at a premium price at that. the biggest issue is that it puts a life-span on your games and I don’t think any media should have that.

ShittyRedditWasBetter,

Doesn’t annoy me in the least bit. I think most gamers are whiny and entitled the second something isn’t 100% catered to them.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • games@lemmy.world
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • love
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • megavids
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines
    •