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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not at all a problem for me. I pretty much only play competitive shooters/racing games, so live service is a pretty important part to both genres.

Much prefer it to the older DLC models where DLC content would be dead half the time because nobody would buy it.

Edit: Love that the Lemmy hivemind is as bad as Reddit. Can’t have anyone disagreeing with you

[–] Boiglenoight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It used to not be. FPS games were run by players, not corporations. The ability to run your own dedicated server was baked into the game. Today you can still setup a Quake 2 server without having to rely on the publisher or a 3rd party. It doesn't have to be that way today, but people accept it.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I absolutely will accept it because it brings better gameplay. FPS games are more fun when there’s constant balancing changes and new content on a schedule. It’s infinitely better than older game models where if one thing is broken you’re stuck with it for the entire lifetime of the game.

Being able to run my own dedicated server isn’t even something I’d want to do, nor would I want to play on player hosted servers.

When games go EoL, sure, require them to open source the multiplayer engine. But really, it’s not a big deal that an individual can’t host a Battle Royale server.

[–] Boiglenoight@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I absolutely will accept it because it brings better gameplay. FPS games are more fun when there’s constant balancing changes and new content on a schedule. It’s infinitely better than older game models where if one thing is broken you’re stuck with it for the entire lifetime of the game.

How is this different than Valve continuing to patch Team Fortress 2 decades after its release? There's no Live Service model here.

Being able to run my own dedicated server isn’t even something I’d want to do, nor would I want to play on player hosted servers.

I think that's true for most people, but a small number of a community can support the vast majority. It would ensure a game isn't dependent on a company to exist, either.

When games go EoL, sure, require them to open source the multiplayer engine. But really, it’s not a big deal that an individual can’t host a Battle Royale server.

If that was an actual practice that'd be great. There's no incentive for the publisher to do this, however, and they're profit driven.

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

TF2 was technically a Live Service when it was actively receiving updates. The fixes that are added by valve are an outlier, and doesn’t change game balance. Constant balance changes are a necessary part of any competitive game. I’ve got no interest in something that isn’t being updated semi-frequently.

Self hosted servers don’t make sense in most of these games anymore. Communities like this vastly overestimate the want for custom servers. Most gamers don’t really care, for better or worse.