Support NeoGAF

[Hobbygaming]

With the news of Assassin's Creed going the live service route will you accept this change for some of the games you like to play or not?

I'm done with this franchise and I think many others will be done as well but I thought it would be interesting to see the divide

 

[Saint Boot]

Traditional only.

 

[Aenima]

Traditional. Ass Creed was already near the grave to me and is just a series i buy when they are dirty cheap. Going live service i can now ignore them and forget they exist.

 

[WoJ]

Traditional. I have zero interest in live service games.

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Should be renamed: True games vs Live garbage.

 

[Quasicat]

I love traditional overall. I do play Fortnite with a group of friends as a way to catch up a couple of times a month. What is neat is how it constantly changes, but every so often I would love to go back and play a previous season.
With that being the only service game I play, I have been finding myself going into the backlog more and more lately.

 

[Birdo]

It depends on genre.

I'd be fine with just one Gran Turismo or Forza for a whole gen with big yearly updates.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

There are only so many live service games you can play. With the massive updates and long term investments, it's just a chore. I don't mind a few, but I feel like we are moving towards a live service bubble that burst at some point when every damn game is GaaS and there aren't enough people to play them all.

 

[Hobbygaming]

It depends on genre.

I'd be fine with just one Gran Turismo or Forza for a whole gen with big yearly updates.

I think this makes sense, I'd still like sequels because I'm all in on physical but I understand your view

 

[Banjo64]

I like games like GT and Forza Motorsport taking on a live service type roll. One game per generation, like Mario Kart, is absolutely fine. Also for online shooters, I’m happy.

Anything else should stay traditional though.

 

[Quezacolt]

Traditional only.

I'd rather take a finished game, that is focused on what it's good at and has a start and end, than one that will be full of filler for years. Hell, AC is already full of filler content nowadays, and it's a more or less traditional game (outside of the season pass stuff and lootboxes), going full live service will just make them much much worse

 

[Hobbygaming]

There are only so many live service games you can play. With the massive updates and long term investments, it's just a chore. I don't mind a few, but I feel like we are moving towards a live service bubble that burst at some point when every damn game is GaaS and there aren't enough people to play them all.

That's a really good point. Maybe we'll see a GAAS crash later down the road

 

[bitbydeath]

I’m going to go against the grain here and say, I’m all for it, why? NUMBER FOUR WILL SHOCK YOU!

1. Multiplayer has been a thorn in Single Players side for far too long. Separating it or cutting out the cancer from SP games could be hugely beneficial, allowing teams to focus on SP only while the live service is worked on independently.

2. If multiplayer becomes it’s own thing then they’ll have no excuse to charge for it. GTA Online is going this route, and FTP means the online paywall will become redundant which is one of the worst things that ever happened to gaming.

3. Having one MP of an IP per generation won’t devide/stagnant the userbase.

 

[Sir Vilhelm]

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Live service.

Healthier for developers as well as gamers. There's a reason why the majority of the modern breakout hits are live service.

Lower cost of entry.
More creative than traditional releases.
Developer doesn't walk away as soon as they have your money.

 

[Rambotito]

I will play Devil's Advocate. If done right, a live service game can be better. I really got into the Division 2 and loved all of the updates and DLC. However, do not use the moniker "live service" as an excuse to release a half finished game. I'm looking at you, Fallout 76 and Anthem.

 

[Kilau]

Live service games are fantastic, I can memory hole them instantly and focus on games I care to play.

 

[junguler]

i have huge anxiety/fomo issues and can't stand playing a game that forces me to do x by y time, gaming is supposed to be relaxing imo and these kinds of games are the opposite.

 

[Ghost of Caelid]

I love live service games. Sue me. I'd rather a game get a tradition sequel but the prior version to receive updates for the years to come.

 

[GreatnessRD]

Live service is ass cheeks. Fuck 'em!

 

[elliot5]

Why not both? I'll always like both as each have their place. I don't need Forza or GT to be a yearly release. Call of Duty can be live service because the game is practically the same every year, just release the campaign as a separate thing.

As long as there's no fomo stuff live service games are good imo. I look forward to Halo Infinites MP system and "regular" single player expansions.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Traditional only for me.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

would one view an mmo as tradtional game or live service

 

[RoadHazard]

For certain games it makes sense, like there isn't really a need to release a Rocket League sequel (they should update it for next-gen though). But in general I'm all about traditional full releases (maybe with some DLC eventually).

 

[Danjin44]

Easy, traditional games. I don't do live service games.

 

[elliot5]

would one view an mmo as tradtional game or live service

MMOs are like the OG live service games man

 

[Hobbygaming]

would one view an mmo as tradtional game or live service

Hmmm I'd say that MMOs are live service

 

[Cravis]

Traditional. Once Live service games are over you can't go back and play them again. Imagine a world where Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World were live service games or other classic games?

Live service games are the fast food crap of the video game industry. Here to make a buck right now for the developer/publisher but in 15-20 years no one give a rat's ass about it.

 

[Topher]

Live Service laughs at Sony's $70 price tag.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Traditional. Once Live service games are over you can't go back and play them again. Imagine a world where Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World were live service games or other classic games?

Live service games are the fast food crap of the video game industry. Here to make a buck right now for the developer/publisher but in 15-20 years no one give a rat's ass about it.

Great point! Live service is horrible for future game preservation

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I will play Devil's Advocate. If done right, a live service game can be better.

I really got into the Division 2 and loved all of the updates and DLC. However, do not use the moniker "live service" as an excuse to release a half finished game. I'm looking at you, Fallout 76 and Anthem.

 

[Hobbygaming]

Live Service laughs at Sony's $70 price tag.

Mark Cerny and Jim Ryan responds:

 

[Moonjt9]

Live service games can kiss my ass. I don’t play them. Give me a new game or nothing at all. I can play dark souls 3 again while I wait.

 

[ManaByte]

I will play Devil's Advocate. If done right, a live service game can be better.

 

[Danjin44]

Long or short, there is a huge satisfaction finishing a game.

 

[Captain Hero]

I think for a franchise like AC they must put a poll for the fans if they want to make a huge change or not, not just doing it like this. Some companies must know that there are things shouldn't be touched or change when it comes to long known franchises but fuck them they says to every fan out there

 

[Fake]

Not game or game?

 

[jigglet]

Both.

I cannot stand live service games sold as traditional. E.g. COD, Battlefield etc.

They build up a multiplayer community, then burn it to the ground 1-3 years later and start again. Match making is dead, and you're forced to move on. Fuck that shit.

Some games should stay traditional. Some games should be live service.

 

[Havoc2049]

I enjoy both. MMOs, multiplayer games and now Live Service have been around since dial up.

 

[spawn]

Live service to me sounds lazy when they release the game half-baked and then just finish it later

 

[Captain Toad]

How is this even a question? Obviously, full sequels.

Games as a Service suck balls.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

BOTH ?!

Both can be done right and both can be done wrong.

It all comes down to the developers who have a solid vision and are able to engage with the community to improve/refine the experience.

 

[crozier]

If it’s GaaS it has better be good.

 

[Buggy Loop]

When I saw you in the list of live services, I was about to reply BAN!! But you just picked a good example that I can’t disagree..

It cannot be black or white, binary choice. I’m more of a single player guy nowadays, but I tried Grounded and Sea of thieves on gamepass and while I had fun, but didn’t hold my interest for long, I kind of respect the model and understand how fun it can be.

I have a hard time imagining a coop/multiplayer game nowadays as not live service I’ll be honest. Not sure it would be selling at 70$ a pop with a sequel coming next year. Peoples would wait or not try it out.

 

[R6Rider]

Almost always traditional. I do love me some BF and Siege though.

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

Keep the game alive longer.
Live Service Updates

 

[AJUMP23]

I like traditional gaming, but I have no issue with games as a service. I just roll off them when I want to.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Live Service update are kind of like WoW, I hate this thing. Can't they just finish their game before they ship it?

Anyway, both have lived alongside one another for a long time now, I don't see why onw would go away any time soon.

 

[TheGodfather07]

traditional. i like games to have a start and an end. i dont want to keep playing the same game for months or even longer. dont get me wrong, i can spend hundreds of hours on one game but i just want it to have an end.

 

[Havoc2049]

I would rather have a Live Service style game over a full priced yearly release that also has some kind of paid battle pass/micro transaction BS to go along with it.