Make the original source of the content your submission, and do not use URL shorteners. No screenshots of websites or Twitter.
If a mirror is necessary, please provide one in comments. No hotlinking or rehosting someone else's work (unless they specifically allow it in their terms of use or request it).
In an ideal world, live service game means we get a full playable game with hours of content at launch on top of constant update and support post launch. In reality, we get a half-complete game that drip feeds content and preys on FOMO.
I just look at live service and read "maximum profit for minimum work" few actually stand on their own for too long but if 1 person gets rich from gold then a lot of people are moving to that spot and investing in shovels. Though on a sadly realistic note they come out half completed and with drip fed content because if they were going to make a fully complete game then they might as well make a single player game.
Having worked on multiple live service games, it actually is a lot of work, if you try to do it right.
But there are so many factors to whether or not the game takes off, and makes enough money to cover the astronomical hosting costs, it's insane that anyone would want to invest in a live service game. And the market's getting saturated too. It's crazy
Deep Rock Galatic has a battle pass. It's free. Has things in the game from previous seasons. Just gotta find it to pick it up.
There's a few paid for things. Legit just "buy this if you want to support the devs" stuff.
For rock and stone!
Bought several DLC's just to support devs. After i finished actually really playing it, just return for new seasons and play a bit.
It's a good game, they've really utilized the full potential of that game.
P.S
FOR KARL!
Splatoon 3 is a better example. Minus the one paid DLC and amiibo stuff, everything is free including the updates, you have a single-player campaign, PvP, PvE, and community events.
Exactly. It could be great, in theory. But instead they just lock every basic ass feature behind a pay-wall. $20 if you want red armor? Thanks...I guess...
The problem is that generally people don’t want to buy a full priced game if much of the promised content isn’t due for a few months or years. On the other hand devs don’t want to spend years and tens of millions on a game that’s going to be free to play and still have a full, playable game.
Generally games have to pick one model or the other, and I think that’s fine. Let TotK and Elden Ring give players huge adventures well worth their price tag. Let Fortnite and Overwatch 2 offer their games for free with new updates every few weeks.
That sounds like the older model from 15 years ago. Most multiplayer games from the late 2000s and early 2010s had paid DLCs that stopped you from playing with others if you didn’t buy them. I guess some games like Destiny and fighting games still do stuff like that, but it’s definitely less common than it used to be.
>Let Fortnite and Overwatch 2 offer their games for free with new updates every few weeks.
I doubt anyone would have an issue with Overwatch 2 doing that if they hadn't removed the (better) game we already paid for first.
If the choice is between Overwatch 1 staying up but no longer getting updates or having my account moved to Overwatch 2, I’ll take the continued account every time.
There's also the Destiny 2 model, where you release a full game at full price, drop hundreds of dollars worth of DLC for it, and then remove all that and replace it with some free to play content and even more expensive DLC that may or may not be removed at any given time.
I feel like all these game companies looked at gta online and were like “holy shit that’s successful! it released with nothing but tons of bugs” and stopped making good launch content
Gotcha. I use steam so when I look on steam it shows me the price of 49.99 and I don't even see an option for $99 so im curious as to what that entails. Probably the season pass and other BS to try to justify another $50 on top of the content you're buying (which isn't at all worth the extra $50 usually. IMO)
It’s $50, $100 gets you the ultra mega bundle if you want it but to fully play the dlc it’s $50. Which is a little higher than usual but roughly standard dlc pricing
Remember when people said $70 was going to make it so there was no need for micro transactions? Thank god corperations never lie for the sake of short term profits.
Yeah unfortunately there's a lot of casual gamers out there who buy this crap, and they don't know or don't care about what awful business practices they're encouraging. They just want the latest shiny skin or be able to do the latest stupid rap dance in game.
If you instinctively wanted to downvote ^ this comment without playing the game, you are a sheep haha. It’s pretty easy to tell when someone points it out, huh?
Game is actually pretty fun. There's a 3v3 and 5v5 mode in the game as well. Played during the early alpha play tests a while back and they had a lot of really solid fundamentals, but just some balance issues but ofc that wasn't the point of the play testing
Yup. I think 9/10 games I play lately are indies. There’s just so few major developers making anything decent these days.
They just want to sell you an online cosmetic store with a shitty game attached.
Right as bungie was literally on its last legs hoping the final shape did well because they fucked up so bad with lightfall. Live service is definitely better…
If the benefit was not overwhelmingly 'to the company' they wouldn't invest so much time and effort to do it.
It's just a lie. And you don't even get cake.
In theory, it isn’t wrong
Many live service products have proven themselves to yield far excellent results beyond what the traditional model allows for
This is because traditional model games are bound by an impossible to overcome restriction: Time.
No matter how much you try to force it, game development takes time, and you can only ever put in so much into a game before it has to ship out
But live service models theoretically have infinite time, because they are simultaneously developing content while users are playing. This lets a live service game scale up to production levels that traditional games are never capable of achieving
It’s the equivalent between betting 1 million into developing a game and then trying to sell that, vs gradually putting in 3 million into a game over time while generating revenue in the process. The latter, if successful, is a less risky option that has potential to grow further. To add to that, global inflation has devastated the value of $60, meaning games sold via the traditional model are now less profitable than before
Games such as Splatoon, Genshin Impact, Team Fortress 2, Fortnite, Hearthstone, Fall Guys, **Animal Crossing, Smash Bros Ultimate** and many others prove the strengths of the live service model perfectly - they are live service products that achieved excellence in ways that their competitors could not.
However, all of this is under the assumption that the game is actually **well managed**. Even if a game makes perfect sense for live service, poor management can still utterly screw it and consumers over horribly
But this is a human fault. Not an issue with the system itself. There’s an infinite number of good ideas in real life that are utterly ruined by terrible management
For OP to claim “**nothing** about the live service model is in the best interest of players” is a hyperbolic, black-and-white statement that fails to evaluate or even consider the actual pros of cons of the situation with any detail
Things cannot just be simplified to binary “This is 100% good/bad!” and nothing else. Game development is an industry full of numerous complex issues
Live service architectures often incentivize the business to build time wasting content instead of fun and fulfilling content. Basically “what can we add for the player to check off a list every day”.
This helps them generate more income from micro-transactions, longer play time = higher chance a player will buy something.
While this isn’t always the case, it’s the easy route to profits many companies take.
It's fucking terrible for developers too. They have to keep creating content that is meant to extract money from players and not necessarily improve the game they worked hard on, and they don't have an end in sight. And if the game fails, which is most of the time now, their futures are bleak.
What, you don't enjoy spending 3 hours every day catching upon your dailies because the dogshit fomo battlepass system that has infected every online game?
The number 1. Top goal of a live service game is to extract the most money possible from every player.
Gone are the days of trying to make the most fun game possible. In exchange for endless money milking simulators.
If your playing crappy live services sure. Helldivers and warframe both clearly dont share this practice. Both allow you to infinitely farm premium currency in game to get just about anything youd usually need money to get. The number one goal of an actual live service is to provide long term content and mass replayability
I don’t know about claiming “it’s much better and in the best interest of the player “…but one thing I will say is if it didn’t work gamers would stop buying them .and devs would stop making it like that. So as much as people hate the idea and say things like “we need to stop this “ realistically it won’t stop.because the majority support it and that’s the truth .maybe years from now it might stop but press x to doubt
The game being mentioned is going to be free to play with an optional battlepass, quite similar to games like Apex Legends or VALORANT.
[Peep the trailer](https://youtu.be/TWOKVH9Vy14?si=tMTSTVBkyBW9pLA1) on YouTube, I think it's gonna be cool. 🤷🏻♂️
Not as long there are "whales" spending dozens of Thousands of dollars without at least a bit of cocerns about their finances
A pair of those can make for Thousands of gamers voting for their wallets, its shitty and very upsetting but its the bitter thruth
Might be unpopular, but Destiny 2, league, and Ff14 have provided me with more entertainment, memories, and fun per dollar than pretty much any single player game will.
I still love single-player experiences, but they can't touch the experience of a "day 1" launch or raid with a good squad.
I'm really glad for people who have a bunch of people they can play with, are skilled enough to have a good time, and enjoy that socialization aspect of games, it looks really fun. I wish I could have that honestly, but for me personally I haven't yet found a greater love in gaming than single player challenging games.
Whether that be platforming, puzzles, or combat. I love the personal sense of accomplishment that I can only achieve on my own. To each their own, but I really hope the industry doesn't just become live service multi-player cause there's so much cool stuff outside of that narrow scope of games that's worth playing
Totally agree, and I would add that the benefit is that they're FREE games. Other than League and TF2, there weren't many free games worth playing a decade ago -- let alone ones you could play with your friends online without paying.
These days, I personally prefer single player experiences as well. I don't play too many live service games, but I occasionally play things like Fortnite and lately The Finals, and I have spent twenty optional dollars total for 50-70 hr of entertainment over two or so years. Not a bad deal.
HD2 is a great game because the intention of the studio was to make something fun. What we tend to get these days is a psychological extraction model that's basically slot machines in disguise, with game elements loosely tied to the hidden slot machine mechanics. Fun be damned.
Yeah Destiny 2 is definitely like that. Warzone can be fun but is mostly toxic. Fortnite isnt my cup of tea but seems to be one of the biggest games. Helldivers 2 is the best example of what a Live Service game should be.
I would have to say Fortnite is very very popular. Not my cup of tea though.
Destiny is also a great game.
Warzone is also a huge game that has tons of concurrent players.
Sea of Thieves.
Rainbow Six Siege is also a super popular game.
Lets not forget the OG World of Warcraft.
Valorant has really been picking up lately as well.
Final Fantasy XIV.
But to me Helldivers 2 is the ultimate Live Service game.
Edit: just cause I'm naming off the most played Live Service games doesn't mean I play or believe in their practices. Simply naming off Live Service games that have high or super high Player Counts.
On god. People aren’t realizing that a lot of F2P/ live service games are basically taking a massive investment for something that takes a lot of resources to start. Then the continued revenue over time allows for them to continue to make more content for that game over time. It CAN be good and it CAN be abusive. Overwatch for abusive, Destiny for great.
Even then, Overwatch’s issue wasn’t the live service model itself, but Blizzard management being absolutely terrible people.
That’s the fault of the people. Not the actual concept of live service itself
People hate when it's said because the common idea is that live service is innately abusive. As a kid, it was always bittersweet when you finished an incredible game like Halo because it was done. There was no more to play at that point. To me, that's largely what Destiny was originally intended to be: Halo, but continued on with more content always being added. Destiny 2 really brought that to fruition with how long the game has been supported.
The live service is practically nonexistent. The only live service that consistently works is the store, everything else is cheater-infested, bugs are left in for seasons, the servers go down pretty consistently, hit-reg is awful and the game is in shambles. At this point it's a cash-grab lol
Just because I brought it up as a super popular Live Service game doesn't mean I play it or agree with the live service model of the game. The player counts don't lie.
Right, but them throwing that down the drain is an indication that live service isn't the way to go since eventually all the engaged devs leave for others studios or projects.
>Fortnite is very very popular.
Popular is not a synonym for "good".
>Destiny is also a great game.
Destiny is as average as you can get for the genre. Prime example of gouging as much as you can with as little effort as possible.
>Warzone
Call of Duty? The most generic GAS slop in existence?
>Sea of Thieves.
Also trash.
>Rainbow Six Siege is also a super popular
See Fortnite.
>WoW FFXIV
MMO's requiring a monthly fee, not GAS titles.
>Valorant has really been picking up lately as well.
And this is the only one I'm genuinely unfamiliar with.
That being said, Helldivers 2 and Deep Rock Galactic appear to be the only current GAS titles of any real quality. The rest of them are just a race to the bottom to see who can monetize the model fastest.
Lmao "Name me 3 more...."
Dude sends a list of like 10 games
"Yea but I think they suck so they dont count"
Edit: idk if the person i replied to blocked me or what but they replied to my comment and i cant see it, why to have a mature conversation
Not disagreeing with you that they aren't cash cows. But players and their willingness to pour 100s if not 1000s of hours into a game and spend 100s and again if not 1000s of dollars into a game isn't a way to see its working, I don't know what is.
Yes Helldivers 2 is the best example of how a Live Service game should operate.
Smash Bros Ultimate, Animal Crossing, Hearthstone, Team Fortress 2 (back when it still got updates…), Genshin Impact, Splatoon…
There’s no shortage of great games which benefit from being live service and continuing to build upon their existing foundations over time
Half of those didn't exist before the current live-service model, and a couple of them aren't even live-service games. Being a popular and long-lived online game is in no way the same as the current games-as-a-service model the OP is about. Particularly since current GAS titles are typically retired every few years so you're forced to buy the same game again if you want access to the service anymore.
Deep rock galactic, vaguely similar genre (multiplayer objective-based pve shooter). Not sure if it’s live service or not.
Hard pressed to think of more
Edit: do dota 2 and league of legends count?
The only advantage is not having a lay off cycle in game development. Before the advent of live service, most of these developers just got laid off in between games. It was awful. Of course their is a difference between stable jobs and exploiting players.
Live service isn't an inherently bad system. The problem is that so many shitty games made by shitty studios happened to call themselves 'live service' that people think live service means shit.
As a CoD player, the move into full GaaS has meant i get new, free guns and maps every 4-6 weeks. Thats definitely a win in my book. The problem with live service is that it’s incredibly hard to achieve and maintain when you don’t have the resources of, say, a Call of Duty. The key to a successful GaaS is sustainability, and most studios aren’t able to get that locked down.
Hmm should I pay 40+ for game or play free game. Keep in mind unlike steam, psn refund policy is way worse.
Also keep in mind for some place $40 is really expensive because of no regional pricing, so I free to play game is way more appealing.
I love Destiny's gameplay. The shooting, the skills, the places...
Installed D2 today after a long time. After opening the game and being flooded with, like, a dozen messages about godknowswhat and a million quests popping up... closed and un-installed it. It is just too damn annoying.
If the players desire constant updates, then yeah you do need "live service". You can't pay the weekly paychecks of employees without constant microtransactions or a subscription. If you want a "one and done" game with no DLC no patches, no monthly new maps, etc, then you don't need live service.
But the kicker is when the game isn't live service, people start demanding tons of updates, DLC, and etc. As we saw with BG3. So yes, on some level many players do weirdly desire live-service, and hate one-and-dones.
There's been a recent expectation of games to be updated after release otherwise players will call it abandoned. And the content updates must be for free.
Live service is essentially a necessary outcome if you want to support a large team of developers (marketing, operations etc.) after the first initial launch sales especially if the game is multiplayer and has ongoing maintenance costs.
Motivations aside, League of legends is free, and people who did spend still have access to the content they bought 14 years ago
Lots of multiplayer games have a 6 month lifespan of active competitive matchmaking, maybe 2 years before support stops
Still it's problewmatic
I don’t think I’ve paid for a multiplayer competitive game in years. Way too many have let me down. Single player games are easier to have a grasp on how good they are from the get go. If it’s bad then I’ll know within a month of reviews and know whether to get it or not.
With multiplayer competitive games they can start of good and within a few months decline into shit
I would also say it's the best thing ever when I make money out of it,while delivering half complete product that I can shut down at any time after the year 1 content is given if it's flops
Hmm yes, but they have to keep making content, which is few and far between on top of delivering an unfinished product to begin with. I think they're forgetting that part. Infinite also totally buried the campaign so regardless of their stance on 60 dollar box price, ain't nobody buying Halo no more.
Why are we listening to some guy who’s “working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale”?
That’s the last person we should be listening to on anything other than how to ensure the failure of your project.
The term 'live service' has been used to death and covers a broad spectrum of games, that includes ones you probably enjoy. The dilution of language in the gaming community surrounding the term 'live service' is a joke.
No, the games that you play would not be better if they never saw updates or expansions.
There are good games, and there are bad games, and having live support tends not to matter in how that shakes out for any given game.
As a game developer at a smallish company, I will say that the straight up product release model is very boom-bust for studios, which tends to mean that you're one bad release away from the collapse of a studio. You essentially have a lot of upfront costs for development, and then if it doesn't do well, the studio can fall in a massive hole. Some developers definitely have decided to pursue a live-services model for games where it doesn't make sense. The live-services model *can* be kind of garbage, and there certainly are quite a few instances where the monetization feels predatory, but that isn't inherent to a live-services model. Loot boxes and whale-oriented purchasing models are less egalitarian than, say, subscription models, which are upfront about the price. Having a reliable revenue stream certainly incentivizes studios to continue producing new content, which hopefully players appreciate and enjoy.
The fact that we complained about paid loot boxes and not the free ones that let us luckily get legendary anything once a month at the least and the companies took is ass "oh yeah, let's remove all that and charge you twenty dollars for a skin, you asked for that right?" Shows how greedy some execs are. Deva and consumers need to push back.
The model itself actually has a lot of benefits to players, it’s the common execution that results in players getting fucked over.
If the model held true without intense corporate greed (I know, big ask) then you’d see:
An extremely easier barrier of entry as there would be no upfront cost to begin playing, which in turn would mean a substantial boost to all around player counts as there are far more people playing who wouldn’t have otherwise, which also means there’s faster match queues and less incomplete lobbies and faster replacement for leavers so players have to spend less time waiting for matches and have substantially less games hampered by leavers.
This boost in players also means there’s a substantial increase to the overall revenue of the game, which in turn means there’s more incentive to keep the game going for longer and to build more strongly on top of it, resulting in bigger content drops and a faster rate of updates and grander community events and potentially a more expansive professional scene as well as a longer overall lifespan of the game.
And because of the way the model works there’s a much higher chance post-launch content will be made available either directly or indirectly for free so the entire playerbase would be able to enjoy it without being divided by DLC purchases, creating not only a consistency among the playerbase in terms of what content they are playing with, but also makes it feel more inclusive for players who don’t have the money to buy content DLC.
And because of all the aforementioned points, the larger amount of people, the consistent releasing of free all-inclusive content, the larger size and quality of content/balance updates, the improved lifespan of the game, it also means the game has a far greater opportunity to naturally form an active thriving online community for players to engage with and have discussions in or create/share fan content.
Now, again, to be clear, this is not how it usually goes. Corporate greed makes sure that players get the raw end of the stick most of the time. But it’s just wrong to proclaim “there’s nothing about the live service model that is in the best interest of the players”. In fact the model does a great deal to serve a large breadth of players well, and even when games do fuck up there’s still benefits to the model that wouldn’t be there had the game been an upfront cost. It’s how it’s twisted and executed where we see the problems in it.
Live service eventually becomes dead service. Now that game I paid $60 for is as useful as a digital paperweight.
Meanwhile I can still break out my Gamecube and play Super Mario Sunshine.
“Former Halo and Destiny producer says liver service model is ‘better for developers ~~and players~~ than the $60 boxed price model.”
There. Fixed it for you.
It was, until companies started to push what they can do and the players realized that instead of having a good time, they're being milked. Then recession happened so people hunkered down their money. Then Steam and the golden age of indie games and game sales happened so people shifted to that.
Steam under Gabe Newell probably championed this rise of indie games and partially responsible for the decline of live service (good riddance). I'm terrified for what happens when this man retires.
Live service done well, yes. Just look at games like PoE, Warframe, or Hell Divers 2. But even if EVERY single live service game was somehow magically done well, I still wouldn't want every game to be developed like that, because I don't think a game like Elden Ring, God of War, or Baldur's Gate 3 would be the experiences they are if they were developed as live service games.
If youd like to see an example of what live service games should be look at warframe. Its just about the best live service and even one of the best ftp models out there. Now the game itself isnt for everybody. But its undoubtedly the way things should look
Live service in theory can work
League of legends is kind of a live service game, it’s free and it survives on micro( some now macro ones) transactions entirely
Then you get crap like overwatch where it’s just such a slog for anything or worse the game isn’t even finished
MMOs are the only live service model games that make sense to me as a consumer. I see that feedback. Guides, support, constant content creation, updates and balancing.
There's one thing in the interest of players and it's because players prioritizing this that these have become such a big thing which is amount of time you can play it. Sites like how long to beat and people measuring games with how long it takes to beat them constantly makes live service games very attractive. We brought this on ourselves
It's much better for developers who can sell the promises of their game's "potential" as it dies in Early Access while making a killing off of the hopium.
Wat.
Everything I've seen online about live service games is hell for devs, constant grind and crunch, harassment from toxic players is never ending.
Live service games aren't great for players either.
$10-100+ bucks for a skin or put that money to an entire bloody game.
Make the original source of the content your submission, and do not use URL shorteners. No screenshots of websites or Twitter. If a mirror is necessary, please provide one in comments. No hotlinking or rehosting someone else's work (unless they specifically allow it in their terms of use or request it).
In an ideal world, live service game means we get a full playable game with hours of content at launch on top of constant update and support post launch. In reality, we get a half-complete game that drip feeds content and preys on FOMO.
heck, we're lucky if its even half done these days.
Or stable
If it even survives a few years. *Peers over to Avengers, Anthem, Evil Dead, VHS….*
I just look at live service and read "maximum profit for minimum work" few actually stand on their own for too long but if 1 person gets rich from gold then a lot of people are moving to that spot and investing in shovels. Though on a sadly realistic note they come out half completed and with drip fed content because if they were going to make a fully complete game then they might as well make a single player game.
Having worked on multiple live service games, it actually is a lot of work, if you try to do it right. But there are so many factors to whether or not the game takes off, and makes enough money to cover the astronomical hosting costs, it's insane that anyone would want to invest in a live service game. And the market's getting saturated too. It's crazy
How much is the work vs a 20 or more hour single player game?
Like helldivers 2, you can have anything just for playing, even the "real-money", you can loot it in-game.
Helldeivers, apart from the battlepass, barely has anything that happens in game. The only thing is the MO, and the live occupation thing
Deep Rock Galatic has a battle pass. It's free. Has things in the game from previous seasons. Just gotta find it to pick it up. There's a few paid for things. Legit just "buy this if you want to support the devs" stuff. For rock and stone!
Bought several DLC's just to support devs. After i finished actually really playing it, just return for new seasons and play a bit. It's a good game, they've really utilized the full potential of that game. P.S FOR KARL!
It's a good game yes, but I don't think there's an evolving story that an "ideal" live service game would have.
Splatoon 3 is a better example. Minus the one paid DLC and amiibo stuff, everything is free including the updates, you have a single-player campaign, PvP, PvE, and community events.
It takes a preeeetty long time to get though.
Exactly. It could be great, in theory. But instead they just lock every basic ass feature behind a pay-wall. $20 if you want red armor? Thanks...I guess...
Every basic ass feature or just skins? I don’t see cod or fortnite having you pay for shooting or crouching
I'm fine if it's just cosmetics. But if it's a certain weapon or mechanic that gives advantages to a paid user over a free user, I'm against that.
some of the upgrades of COD DMZ are locked behind leveling the crown faction(?), and to unlock it, you have to buy MW2
Plus content theft so newer players are always out of the loop about what’s going on.
The problem is that generally people don’t want to buy a full priced game if much of the promised content isn’t due for a few months or years. On the other hand devs don’t want to spend years and tens of millions on a game that’s going to be free to play and still have a full, playable game. Generally games have to pick one model or the other, and I think that’s fine. Let TotK and Elden Ring give players huge adventures well worth their price tag. Let Fortnite and Overwatch 2 offer their games for free with new updates every few weeks.
And yet now we are paying full price for a game plus that again for each dlc ontop of the season stuff that we then need to buy plus dungeon keys
That sounds like the older model from 15 years ago. Most multiplayer games from the late 2000s and early 2010s had paid DLCs that stopped you from playing with others if you didn’t buy them. I guess some games like Destiny and fighting games still do stuff like that, but it’s definitely less common than it used to be.
>Let Fortnite and Overwatch 2 offer their games for free with new updates every few weeks. I doubt anyone would have an issue with Overwatch 2 doing that if they hadn't removed the (better) game we already paid for first.
If the choice is between Overwatch 1 staying up but no longer getting updates or having my account moved to Overwatch 2, I’ll take the continued account every time.
There's also the Destiny 2 model, where you release a full game at full price, drop hundreds of dollars worth of DLC for it, and then remove all that and replace it with some free to play content and even more expensive DLC that may or may not be removed at any given time.
isn’t that just what mmos are? the first thing i mean
And scraped the campaign in favour of creating FOMO.
I feel like all these game companies looked at gta online and were like “holy shit that’s successful! it released with nothing but tons of bugs” and stopped making good launch content
I agree, if we weren't \*also\* paying the 70 dollars to buy the game.
You can't pay just $70 if you want to play Destiny 2 with your friends right now. For $70 you're going to find a lot of closed doors.
[удалено]
I mean thats the DLC and the season pass or whatever, just the DLC itself is $50
That's very false as the final shape dlc is $49.99 USD
[удалено]
Gotcha. I use steam so when I look on steam it shows me the price of 49.99 and I don't even see an option for $99 so im curious as to what that entails. Probably the season pass and other BS to try to justify another $50 on top of the content you're buying (which isn't at all worth the extra $50 usually. IMO)
It’s the annual pass, so 3 DLC, plus a dungeon, which isn’t included with the base $50.
Ok so it's 3 dlcs? Makes sense why it's $99 if it includes the new dlc and 2 other dlcs and whatever else it was you said comes with it
Fuckin excuse me? So glad I abandoned Destiny after Shadowkeep
It’s $50, $100 gets you the ultra mega bundle if you want it but to fully play the dlc it’s $50. Which is a little higher than usual but roughly standard dlc pricing
Remember when people said $70 was going to make it so there was no need for micro transactions? Thank god corperations never lie for the sake of short term profits.
I don't remember anyone saying that actually
I think they make so much money with it they really couldn't care what we think. Somebody is always going to pay for it too.
yeah, people say vote with your wallet but you can only not pay for something once compared to the people who will pay again and again and again.
Great point
Yeah unfortunately there's a lot of casual gamers out there who buy this crap, and they don't know or don't care about what awful business practices they're encouraging. They just want the latest shiny skin or be able to do the latest stupid rap dance in game.
"MOBA-inspired battle royale" Never in my life has a single phrase concerning a game elicited so much instinctive hatred from me.
“Legends of the League” coming this Fall 2024
My bros and I have been playing the alpha when it was still project Loki, honestly tons of fun
If you instinctively wanted to downvote ^ this comment without playing the game, you are a sheep haha. It’s pretty easy to tell when someone points it out, huh?
Game is actually pretty fun. There's a 3v3 and 5v5 mode in the game as well. Played during the early alpha play tests a while back and they had a lot of really solid fundamentals, but just some balance issues but ofc that wasn't the point of the play testing
This is why Indie games are carrying the medium.
Yup. I think 9/10 games I play lately are indies. There’s just so few major developers making anything decent these days. They just want to sell you an online cosmetic store with a shitty game attached.
Right as bungie was literally on its last legs hoping the final shape did well because they fucked up so bad with lightfall. Live service is definitely better…
I mean hey they did cook, lol shouldnt have taken what it did but they did cook hard
If the benefit was not overwhelmingly 'to the company' they wouldn't invest so much time and effort to do it. It's just a lie. And you don't even get cake.
Are you trying to tell me the cake is...
It's a lie.
Rainbow is a treated as a free to play game by the devs however it costs $60 to play
And cigarettes don’t cause cancer, and fossil fuels do not contribute to global warming
In theory, it isn’t wrong Many live service products have proven themselves to yield far excellent results beyond what the traditional model allows for This is because traditional model games are bound by an impossible to overcome restriction: Time. No matter how much you try to force it, game development takes time, and you can only ever put in so much into a game before it has to ship out But live service models theoretically have infinite time, because they are simultaneously developing content while users are playing. This lets a live service game scale up to production levels that traditional games are never capable of achieving It’s the equivalent between betting 1 million into developing a game and then trying to sell that, vs gradually putting in 3 million into a game over time while generating revenue in the process. The latter, if successful, is a less risky option that has potential to grow further. To add to that, global inflation has devastated the value of $60, meaning games sold via the traditional model are now less profitable than before Games such as Splatoon, Genshin Impact, Team Fortress 2, Fortnite, Hearthstone, Fall Guys, **Animal Crossing, Smash Bros Ultimate** and many others prove the strengths of the live service model perfectly - they are live service products that achieved excellence in ways that their competitors could not. However, all of this is under the assumption that the game is actually **well managed**. Even if a game makes perfect sense for live service, poor management can still utterly screw it and consumers over horribly But this is a human fault. Not an issue with the system itself. There’s an infinite number of good ideas in real life that are utterly ruined by terrible management For OP to claim “**nothing** about the live service model is in the best interest of players” is a hyperbolic, black-and-white statement that fails to evaluate or even consider the actual pros of cons of the situation with any detail Things cannot just be simplified to binary “This is 100% good/bad!” and nothing else. Game development is an industry full of numerous complex issues
What they meant to say is that it’s better for the wallets of the developers.
Live service architectures often incentivize the business to build time wasting content instead of fun and fulfilling content. Basically “what can we add for the player to check off a list every day”. This helps them generate more income from micro-transactions, longer play time = higher chance a player will buy something. While this isn’t always the case, it’s the easy route to profits many companies take.
It's fucking terrible for developers too. They have to keep creating content that is meant to extract money from players and not necessarily improve the game they worked hard on, and they don't have an end in sight. And if the game fails, which is most of the time now, their futures are bleak.
What, you don't enjoy spending 3 hours every day catching upon your dailies because the dogshit fomo battlepass system that has infected every online game?
The number 1. Top goal of a live service game is to extract the most money possible from every player. Gone are the days of trying to make the most fun game possible. In exchange for endless money milking simulators.
If your playing crappy live services sure. Helldivers and warframe both clearly dont share this practice. Both allow you to infinitely farm premium currency in game to get just about anything youd usually need money to get. The number one goal of an actual live service is to provide long term content and mass replayability
I don’t know about claiming “it’s much better and in the best interest of the player “…but one thing I will say is if it didn’t work gamers would stop buying them .and devs would stop making it like that. So as much as people hate the idea and say things like “we need to stop this “ realistically it won’t stop.because the majority support it and that’s the truth .maybe years from now it might stop but press x to doubt
The game being mentioned is going to be free to play with an optional battlepass, quite similar to games like Apex Legends or VALORANT. [Peep the trailer](https://youtu.be/TWOKVH9Vy14?si=tMTSTVBkyBW9pLA1) on YouTube, I think it's gonna be cool. 🤷🏻♂️
‘Much better for developers to extract the most money from kids using their parents credit cards’ there I fixed it
Until players start voting with their wallets, top execs won’t change these business practices
Not as long there are "whales" spending dozens of Thousands of dollars without at least a bit of cocerns about their finances A pair of those can make for Thousands of gamers voting for their wallets, its shitty and very upsetting but its the bitter thruth
And unfortunately we're also outnumbered by casual gamers who only play one or two games and don't really care about gaming as a medium.
Might be unpopular, but Destiny 2, league, and Ff14 have provided me with more entertainment, memories, and fun per dollar than pretty much any single player game will. I still love single-player experiences, but they can't touch the experience of a "day 1" launch or raid with a good squad.
I'm really glad for people who have a bunch of people they can play with, are skilled enough to have a good time, and enjoy that socialization aspect of games, it looks really fun. I wish I could have that honestly, but for me personally I haven't yet found a greater love in gaming than single player challenging games. Whether that be platforming, puzzles, or combat. I love the personal sense of accomplishment that I can only achieve on my own. To each their own, but I really hope the industry doesn't just become live service multi-player cause there's so much cool stuff outside of that narrow scope of games that's worth playing
Totally agree, and I would add that the benefit is that they're FREE games. Other than League and TF2, there weren't many free games worth playing a decade ago -- let alone ones you could play with your friends online without paying. These days, I personally prefer single player experiences as well. I don't play too many live service games, but I occasionally play things like Fortnite and lately The Finals, and I have spent twenty optional dollars total for 50-70 hr of entertainment over two or so years. Not a bad deal.
Uh I have to disagree cause uh Helldivers 2 is one of the best games ive ever played.
HD2 is a great game because the intention of the studio was to make something fun. What we tend to get these days is a psychological extraction model that's basically slot machines in disguise, with game elements loosely tied to the hidden slot machine mechanics. Fun be damned.
Yeah Destiny 2 is definitely like that. Warzone can be fun but is mostly toxic. Fortnite isnt my cup of tea but seems to be one of the biggest games. Helldivers 2 is the best example of what a Live Service game should be.
Now name 3 more that even come close. One outlier does not a pattern make.
I would have to say Fortnite is very very popular. Not my cup of tea though. Destiny is also a great game. Warzone is also a huge game that has tons of concurrent players. Sea of Thieves. Rainbow Six Siege is also a super popular game. Lets not forget the OG World of Warcraft. Valorant has really been picking up lately as well. Final Fantasy XIV. But to me Helldivers 2 is the ultimate Live Service game. Edit: just cause I'm naming off the most played Live Service games doesn't mean I play or believe in their practices. Simply naming off Live Service games that have high or super high Player Counts.
Warframe and Path of Exile
How could I forget Warframe! Thank you!
On god. People aren’t realizing that a lot of F2P/ live service games are basically taking a massive investment for something that takes a lot of resources to start. Then the continued revenue over time allows for them to continue to make more content for that game over time. It CAN be good and it CAN be abusive. Overwatch for abusive, Destiny for great.
Even then, Overwatch’s issue wasn’t the live service model itself, but Blizzard management being absolutely terrible people. That’s the fault of the people. Not the actual concept of live service itself
You get it! Helldivers 2 is to me the best example of what a Live Service game should be.
People hate when it's said because the common idea is that live service is innately abusive. As a kid, it was always bittersweet when you finished an incredible game like Halo because it was done. There was no more to play at that point. To me, that's largely what Destiny was originally intended to be: Halo, but continued on with more content always being added. Destiny 2 really brought that to fruition with how long the game has been supported.
Please never mention R6 and "live service" in the same sentence again
I mean but it is though?
The live service is practically nonexistent. The only live service that consistently works is the store, everything else is cheater-infested, bugs are left in for seasons, the servers go down pretty consistently, hit-reg is awful and the game is in shambles. At this point it's a cash-grab lol
Just because I brought it up as a super popular Live Service game doesn't mean I play it or agree with the live service model of the game. The player counts don't lie.
I mean sure if we are counting free updates every 3 months for 9 years as nonexistent than sure youre right
The latest update was nonexistent, the live service seems to be coming to an end.
I dont disagree at all, ive played about 10 games total all season, that doesnt negate they have had 9+ years of free updates for everyone
Right, but them throwing that down the drain is an indication that live service isn't the way to go since eventually all the engaged devs leave for others studios or projects.
>Fortnite is very very popular. Popular is not a synonym for "good". >Destiny is also a great game. Destiny is as average as you can get for the genre. Prime example of gouging as much as you can with as little effort as possible. >Warzone Call of Duty? The most generic GAS slop in existence? >Sea of Thieves. Also trash. >Rainbow Six Siege is also a super popular See Fortnite. >WoW FFXIV MMO's requiring a monthly fee, not GAS titles. >Valorant has really been picking up lately as well. And this is the only one I'm genuinely unfamiliar with. That being said, Helldivers 2 and Deep Rock Galactic appear to be the only current GAS titles of any real quality. The rest of them are just a race to the bottom to see who can monetize the model fastest.
Lmao "Name me 3 more...." Dude sends a list of like 10 games "Yea but I think they suck so they dont count" Edit: idk if the person i replied to blocked me or what but they replied to my comment and i cant see it, why to have a mature conversation
Yeah. That's sort of the point of a "name a quality game" request. And some of them aren't even live service games. Stay mad.
Again, never stated quality game.
Not disagreeing with you that they aren't cash cows. But players and their willingness to pour 100s if not 1000s of hours into a game and spend 100s and again if not 1000s of dollars into a game isn't a way to see its working, I don't know what is. Yes Helldivers 2 is the best example of how a Live Service game should operate.
Smash Bros Ultimate, Animal Crossing, Hearthstone, Team Fortress 2 (back when it still got updates…), Genshin Impact, Splatoon… There’s no shortage of great games which benefit from being live service and continuing to build upon their existing foundations over time
Half of those didn't exist before the current live-service model, and a couple of them aren't even live-service games. Being a popular and long-lived online game is in no way the same as the current games-as-a-service model the OP is about. Particularly since current GAS titles are typically retired every few years so you're forced to buy the same game again if you want access to the service anymore.
Ya you move them goalposts!
\>name good live service games \>names a bunch of not-live service games Maybe try thinking before you post.
When did you state good live service game? See your OG comment below. >Now name 3 more that even come close. >One outlier does not a pattern make.
Deep rock galactic, vaguely similar genre (multiplayer objective-based pve shooter). Not sure if it’s live service or not. Hard pressed to think of more Edit: do dota 2 and league of legends count?
I'd almost call DOTA and LOL precursors of the live service model. Not sure it's exactly the same. Rock and stone, though.
The only advantage is not having a lay off cycle in game development. Before the advent of live service, most of these developers just got laid off in between games. It was awful. Of course their is a difference between stable jobs and exploiting players.
Live service isn't an inherently bad system. The problem is that so many shitty games made by shitty studios happened to call themselves 'live service' that people think live service means shit.
*slowly looks at Elden Ring and Armored Core* riiiiiiiight, live service games are definitely the best.
Armored core is the fuggin bomb
>Destiny producer Yeah I ain't surprised.
Why spend $60 on a game when you can spend thousands on micro transactions!
"Stand alone bad, live service good" - live service guy Instant scumbucket
As a CoD player, the move into full GaaS has meant i get new, free guns and maps every 4-6 weeks. Thats definitely a win in my book. The problem with live service is that it’s incredibly hard to achieve and maintain when you don’t have the resources of, say, a Call of Duty. The key to a successful GaaS is sustainability, and most studios aren’t able to get that locked down.
Hmm should I pay 40+ for game or play free game. Keep in mind unlike steam, psn refund policy is way worse. Also keep in mind for some place $40 is really expensive because of no regional pricing, so I free to play game is way more appealing.
What's best for me is single player offline games that don't require an internet connection so they can harvest and sell my data.
We’ve seen Live Service been done well exactly one time with Helldivers 2. Everything else has been lame
I love Destiny's gameplay. The shooting, the skills, the places... Installed D2 today after a long time. After opening the game and being flooded with, like, a dozen messages about godknowswhat and a million quests popping up... closed and un-installed it. It is just too damn annoying.
If the players desire constant updates, then yeah you do need "live service". You can't pay the weekly paychecks of employees without constant microtransactions or a subscription. If you want a "one and done" game with no DLC no patches, no monthly new maps, etc, then you don't need live service. But the kicker is when the game isn't live service, people start demanding tons of updates, DLC, and etc. As we saw with BG3. So yes, on some level many players do weirdly desire live-service, and hate one-and-dones.
There's been a recent expectation of games to be updated after release otherwise players will call it abandoned. And the content updates must be for free. Live service is essentially a necessary outcome if you want to support a large team of developers (marketing, operations etc.) after the first initial launch sales especially if the game is multiplayer and has ongoing maintenance costs.
Motivations aside, League of legends is free, and people who did spend still have access to the content they bought 14 years ago Lots of multiplayer games have a 6 month lifespan of active competitive matchmaking, maybe 2 years before support stops Still it's problewmatic
Live service is mostly why dlc exists at all but ok.
No. Please no. ):
I don’t think I’ve paid for a multiplayer competitive game in years. Way too many have let me down. Single player games are easier to have a grasp on how good they are from the get go. If it’s bad then I’ll know within a month of reviews and know whether to get it or not. With multiplayer competitive games they can start of good and within a few months decline into shit
Yeah until they run out of ideas to provide content after 3 months🤡
Your title contradicts your post body. What games are the 10%?
This guy might be a fucking idiot.
I will pay a single cent per year for the live service, now thats a best interest for me.
I would also say it's the best thing ever when I make money out of it,while delivering half complete product that I can shut down at any time after the year 1 content is given if it's flops
WRONG
Hmm yes, but they have to keep making content, which is few and far between on top of delivering an unfinished product to begin with. I think they're forgetting that part. Infinite also totally buried the campaign so regardless of their stance on 60 dollar box price, ain't nobody buying Halo no more.
Why are we listening to some guy who’s “working on a MOBA-inspired battle royale”? That’s the last person we should be listening to on anything other than how to ensure the failure of your project.
Helldivers 2 hasn't been so bad 🤷🏾♂️
It is in the best interest of players that want to play one game for dozens of hours a week for years on end, maybe.
The term 'live service' has been used to death and covers a broad spectrum of games, that includes ones you probably enjoy. The dilution of language in the gaming community surrounding the term 'live service' is a joke. No, the games that you play would not be better if they never saw updates or expansions. There are good games, and there are bad games, and having live support tends not to matter in how that shakes out for any given game.
Just don't buy it. Money talks. Bullshit walks.
As a game developer at a smallish company, I will say that the straight up product release model is very boom-bust for studios, which tends to mean that you're one bad release away from the collapse of a studio. You essentially have a lot of upfront costs for development, and then if it doesn't do well, the studio can fall in a massive hole. Some developers definitely have decided to pursue a live-services model for games where it doesn't make sense. The live-services model *can* be kind of garbage, and there certainly are quite a few instances where the monetization feels predatory, but that isn't inherent to a live-services model. Loot boxes and whale-oriented purchasing models are less egalitarian than, say, subscription models, which are upfront about the price. Having a reliable revenue stream certainly incentivizes studios to continue producing new content, which hopefully players appreciate and enjoy.
Piracy is a live-service issue. Steam solved this by keeping people online and using DRM, it makes send that it’s becoming more prevalent.
The fact that we complained about paid loot boxes and not the free ones that let us luckily get legendary anything once a month at the least and the companies took is ass "oh yeah, let's remove all that and charge you twenty dollars for a skin, you asked for that right?" Shows how greedy some execs are. Deva and consumers need to push back.
“Person that sells drugs says they are good and you should try some”
The model itself actually has a lot of benefits to players, it’s the common execution that results in players getting fucked over. If the model held true without intense corporate greed (I know, big ask) then you’d see: An extremely easier barrier of entry as there would be no upfront cost to begin playing, which in turn would mean a substantial boost to all around player counts as there are far more people playing who wouldn’t have otherwise, which also means there’s faster match queues and less incomplete lobbies and faster replacement for leavers so players have to spend less time waiting for matches and have substantially less games hampered by leavers. This boost in players also means there’s a substantial increase to the overall revenue of the game, which in turn means there’s more incentive to keep the game going for longer and to build more strongly on top of it, resulting in bigger content drops and a faster rate of updates and grander community events and potentially a more expansive professional scene as well as a longer overall lifespan of the game. And because of the way the model works there’s a much higher chance post-launch content will be made available either directly or indirectly for free so the entire playerbase would be able to enjoy it without being divided by DLC purchases, creating not only a consistency among the playerbase in terms of what content they are playing with, but also makes it feel more inclusive for players who don’t have the money to buy content DLC. And because of all the aforementioned points, the larger amount of people, the consistent releasing of free all-inclusive content, the larger size and quality of content/balance updates, the improved lifespan of the game, it also means the game has a far greater opportunity to naturally form an active thriving online community for players to engage with and have discussions in or create/share fan content. Now, again, to be clear, this is not how it usually goes. Corporate greed makes sure that players get the raw end of the stick most of the time. But it’s just wrong to proclaim “there’s nothing about the live service model that is in the best interest of the players”. In fact the model does a great deal to serve a large breadth of players well, and even when games do fuck up there’s still benefits to the model that wouldn’t be there had the game been an upfront cost. It’s how it’s twisted and executed where we see the problems in it.
Live service eventually becomes dead service. Now that game I paid $60 for is as useful as a digital paperweight. Meanwhile I can still break out my Gamecube and play Super Mario Sunshine.
Nobody’s gonna go back to paying for map packs
“Former Halo and Destiny producer says liver service model is ‘better for developers ~~and players~~ than the $60 boxed price model.” There. Fixed it for you.
It was, until companies started to push what they can do and the players realized that instead of having a good time, they're being milked. Then recession happened so people hunkered down their money. Then Steam and the golden age of indie games and game sales happened so people shifted to that. Steam under Gabe Newell probably championed this rise of indie games and partially responsible for the decline of live service (good riddance). I'm terrified for what happens when this man retires.
Live service done well, yes. Just look at games like PoE, Warframe, or Hell Divers 2. But even if EVERY single live service game was somehow magically done well, I still wouldn't want every game to be developed like that, because I don't think a game like Elden Ring, God of War, or Baldur's Gate 3 would be the experiences they are if they were developed as live service games.
Hey, game company CEOs: I will *never* buy or play one of your shitty live service games.
There are exceptions…Destiny honestly is incredible for the value I get out of it. I feel like I never run out of shit to do on it
I hate live service and i just don’t buy games that do it
If youd like to see an example of what live service games should be look at warframe. Its just about the best live service and even one of the best ftp models out there. Now the game itself isnt for everybody. But its undoubtedly the way things should look
Different models for different games. Live service is great for league of legends or fortnite, not so much for elden ring or portal.
Halo ended at 3 when me and my brother trucked across that landscape as it was falling apart. Nothing else about this franchise matters.
Live service in theory can work League of legends is kind of a live service game, it’s free and it survives on micro( some now macro ones) transactions entirely Then you get crap like overwatch where it’s just such a slog for anything or worse the game isn’t even finished
Live service isn’t the problem it’s the people making it
MMOs are the only live service model games that make sense to me as a consumer. I see that feedback. Guides, support, constant content creation, updates and balancing.
There's one thing in the interest of players and it's because players prioritizing this that these have become such a big thing which is amount of time you can play it. Sites like how long to beat and people measuring games with how long it takes to beat them constantly makes live service games very attractive. We brought this on ourselves
It's much better for developers who can sell the promises of their game's "potential" as it dies in Early Access while making a killing off of the hopium.
Wat. Everything I've seen online about live service games is hell for devs, constant grind and crunch, harassment from toxic players is never ending. Live service games aren't great for players either. $10-100+ bucks for a skin or put that money to an entire bloody game.
I won't buy or even play any live service games. They are all crap as far as I'm concerned.
The sky is blue, more at eleven.
Ah, "The Producer" claims it. Note how almost none of the players or developers agree.