• sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 days ago

    Once again, the opposite of “live service” is not “single player”.

    Thank you. As someone who loves multiplayer games, I like that I have had a lot of options lately. But, this whole “live service” crap needs to die. Sell me a game and then go away. If you want to release an expansion and sell me that, great, I’ll take a look. But, quit trying to sell me a subscription.

    • snooggums@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Like anything else, live service does have a place in gaming but it absolutely does not need to be forced into everything.

      I am really enjoying Helldivers 2 and it is a live service that is doing a great job of avoiding the FOMO aspect of most live service games while providing the benefits of a worldwide, changing campaign that has content added slowly over time to encourage continued engagement. It also offers daily challenges, but also rewards everyone for group efforts so it doesn’t punish for not playing every day.

      The recently did an oopsie by going too high with the in game price on the collab with Killzone that would be the road to being predatory, but they listed to the response and handled it well enough. Sadly, this is the exception and not the rule.

      • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 days ago

        One might argue (I might argue) that live service is just a worse version of some other form that game could take, like the old model of expansion packs, self-hosting servers, and such. They’re going to inevitably turn up the dial on monetization, just like Apex Legends did, once one line crosses another line and their current trajectory is no longer sustainable. Live service games have ongoing costs in a way that non-live service games do not, so they need more incoming revenue to justify it. When that revenue doesn’t make up for their spend, they shut the servers off, and the game is gone forever.

        • HackerJoe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          Yeah, I feel like all of those games would be better with community ran dedicated servers instead of this modern matchmaking crap. Matchmaking really killed communities and smaller clans.

          • ampersandrew@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            I like matchmaking. I never once found a “community” on a server browser and instead was just frustrated by teams changing rosters mid-match and such. Years later, I’d find that kind of community building in Discord servers and not the likes of de_dust 24/7. But regardless of personal preferences, it’s just about mathematically impossible that matchmaking will sustain a player base forever, so the player-hosted servers need to be there.

            • HackerJoe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              20 hours ago

              Agreed. Matchmaking + Dedicated server would be the gold standard.

        • snooggums@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          While I agree there is a high chance that any particular game tends to go down the monetization path, not all do.