Killjoy-NL
Member
And the bolded is what I was responding to as well.
I would say the same if it was about a non-Gaas title.
Last edited:
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Former Halo, Destiny producer says Live Service model is better for devs & players...
- Thread starter Men_in_Boxes
- Start date
I would say the same if it was about a non-Gaas title.
Varteras
Gold Member
Lol oh stop. This was about a gotcha, and you know it. Because you wanted to assume that I was only saying it because it was live service. And now you've wasted time going back and forth trying to wiggle out of looking foolish. Take your L and move on.
Killjoy-NL
Member
You turned it into a gotcha attempt. I was just pointing out the logic goes both ways.
I do that all the time when I see dumb simple-minded comments, regardless of the topic at hand.
Last edited:
Varteras
Gold Member
Byyyye enjoy the L.
vaibhavpisal
Member
One good thing about GAAS titles is they don’t depend on hype but repeated playerbase that love the game.
The games are actually played and don’t depend on graphics / animations to generate interest.
The games are actually played and don’t depend on graphics / animations to generate interest.
TheGodfather07
Member
How in the world can anyone compare how it is today to how it was in the past and think its better now? In the past we were drowning in high quality games! Now its the opposite. We're drowning in mediocrity. Even games that were considered average in the past are better than most of the shit today. All the joy is being sucked out of this industry thanks to this kind of mentality from developers and greedy corporations. They want to release less games and squeeze as much money as possible per player from the same damn game for 10 years. I love gaming but I despise how the industry is run. Its a clown show.
Fredrik
Member
Hmm, I actually never ever play online so then the definition is wrong. I have all online features deactivated in NMS. Would’ve skipped Starfield and Cyberpunk if they were online. I just have no interest what so ever to have real people mess up my eacapism by talking about frame drops and bugs and always running and just wearing underwear and jumping over tables and just being silly. Not for me.
But I absolutely like games that keep getting updates!
Killjoy-NL
Member
Nah, online functionality is not a hard requirement for a live service game.
NMS definitely counts as a live service title.
TheGodfather07
Member
Where you been? If graphics and animations alone generate interest, then hellblade 2 wouldn't be a total flop. Name me one game that did well just because of graphics/animations alone. It's all about simply being a good game first and foremost. That's what generates interest.
Last edited:
ElRenoRaven
Member
He is wrong. I used to get complete games. Now I get games which I have to buy in pieces and don't feel complete. That in no way benefits me as a gamer since they cost more now than they did before. More so if I choose to buy the pieces to make it complete.
Hell let's take Destiny 2 for an example. I paid for a great campaign with all the extras. Then Bungie if you wanna call them that anymore said fuck you and took away what I paid good money for. They then sold new campaigns in it's place.
Sure some will defend this but it's just flat out wrong and why I no longer support them among other devs.
Hell let's take Destiny 2 for an example. I paid for a great campaign with all the extras. Then Bungie if you wanna call them that anymore said fuck you and took away what I paid good money for. They then sold new campaigns in it's place.
Sure some will defend this but it's just flat out wrong and why I no longer support them among other devs.
Last edited:
ozz ex machina
Member
GAAS has been amazing for me. I'm completely immune to buying bullshit cosmetics or battle passes. I can enjoy high quality games with lots of free new content, all for no cost. Games like Apex Legends, Counterstrike go/2 (I did pay for csgo back in 2013 for like 15 bucks).
Kenneth Haight
Gold Member
Fredrik
Member
Where do you draw the line though when it’s just frequent patches and added features through updates and when it’s a live service title?
Killjoy-NL
Member
Dunno, but since NMS released back in 2016 and just recently got another major update after years of continuous major updates, I think it's safe to say that counts as Live Service.
So I guess when a game is designed to have continuous support for multiple years.
Hudo
Gold Member
I dunno if it's better for the devs. Probably, because you can nickel and dime your addicts regularly.
But it's certainly not better for the player since live service games are, by definition of their business model, designed to entice and entrap the player to spend more time and buy more shit regularly. So this fucker can't seriously tell me that the live service model is somehow less malicious and more customer friendly than the "one-and-done" $60 game. Get fucked.
But it's certainly not better for the player since live service games are, by definition of their business model, designed to entice and entrap the player to spend more time and buy more shit regularly. So this fucker can't seriously tell me that the live service model is somehow less malicious and more customer friendly than the "one-and-done" $60 game. Get fucked.
Last edited:
vaibhavpisal
Member
Any trailer that generate hype is cause of visual fidelity. Polish, if you will. Polished visuals, smooth animations etc.
Hellblade 2 is a different case. It has walking sections, isn’t trying to be video game at all. I have finished the game, it has zero trappings of stuff that sells well or reviews well.
Fredrik
Member
I agree that it’s definitely designed for updates but I’m stuck at the Live Service definition, for me the word service here gets me thinking about a subscription of sorts. NMS has had free updates and you get it all with that first purchase.
MetalFreak
Member
Wildebeest
Member
It is better for developers if there is a critical number of players who are willing to support the devs. It is better for players if there are devs that actually care enough to keep the game moving along in a good state. If, if, if.
Killjoy-NL
Member
I think it has to do with most critics acting like Live Service is all about scamming consumers with overpriced DLC/MTX, when in reality it can be much more than that.
It's probably also why some people don't want MMOs to be labeled GaaS, because that might work against their agenda.
Basically any game with a longterm plan and continuous support is GaaS/Live Service.
Last edited:
Tiago Rodrigues
Member
The fact he calls games that aren't live service games as The old model is depressing to say the least.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Joe Dung said:
They should start doing that then, instead of designing the games to rope in whales and get people to spend more money on worthless trinkets drag them into some constant repetitive grind that uses psychological tricks and manipulation to keep people playing.
BlackTron
Gold Member
Majormaxxx
Member
He can get f****d with a fire hydrant.
FunkMiller
Gold Member
This.
Utterly ridiculous to pay any attention to the opinions of someone who is heavily invested in the thing he's advocating being successful.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
I can see how that's better for devs, but for players, nah, specially players like me that love SP experiences, you can't turn that into a GaaS, although Ubisoft is trying hard to do that.
FeralEcho
Member
I mean...did you not see who made the thread?! Shouldn't come as a surprise for anyone...
I'm half convinced the OP is actually the producer he's quoting lmao
Majormaxxx
Member
nice try shill
killatopak
Gold Member
Read the quotes and not once did he say how it is better for the player. All the positives are for the developers/publishers.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
Read the link.
aclar00
Member
Im a no go on GaaS games. Think im just old though and have moved away from multiplayer. Most GaaS games are multiplayer centric, no?
I used to play the hell out of SFIV online, but i didnt care for the play style of V and the grinding for characters just put me off. Im notneven sure if it would qualify as GaaS, but that shitnis off putting and I honestly rather wait and pay for an ultra edition (if it were to happen) for 6. Cant say i care for the gameplay of 6 either though...
I used to play the hell out of SFIV online, but i didnt care for the play style of V and the grinding for characters just put me off. Im notneven sure if it would qualify as GaaS, but that shitnis off putting and I honestly rather wait and pay for an ultra edition (if it were to happen) for 6. Cant say i care for the gameplay of 6 either though...
Shake Your Rump
Gold Member
So, because he personally strove to exploit early adopters, the entire sales model is bad?
Sorry, dude. I’d rather pay $100 for a complete game on disc than whatever free-to-play micro-transaction-laden battle-pass you are peddling.
Men_in_Boxes
Snake Oil Salesman
"He"? Um, they've all been doing it for decades.
In no other area of life would people prefer to pay full price, without trying the product, and have refunds be difficult.
Imagine if they started doing this when buying cars, paying for dinner, purchasing clothes.
The traditional full priced model in gaming is a grift. A grift we've (not me) been conditioned to support.
