Support NeoGAF

[64bitmodels]

This is sort of a continuation to the previous thread that Drizzlehell made about live services. The common consensus is that they're bad because they're greedy, oversaturated, unfinished a lot of the time, and they've killed off many other multiplayer games. to which i agree and my post detailing that is one of the first few in the thread. I think Live services are mostly a parasite on the industry that we will simply never be rid of so long as the #1 motive to making the majority of video games is money and not passion.

Spoiler: Is TF2 a live service?

However, there are quite a few games I enjoy that I feel teeter on the line. Team Fortress 2 for instance perfectly fits almost every definition.
it's an online multiplayer only game that has a shop where people can purchase stuff through microtransactions. But Team Fortress 2 up until now wasn't routinely updated for almost 6 years. the Jungle Inferno update came out in 2017.

The game has plenty of cosmetics yes, but you can unlock many of the weapons and costumes by...simply just playing the game. I'll get tons of weapons and hats by just jumping around shooting people.
not to mention that the game's shop is honestly quite out of the way... i never really encounter it much throughout the game, if at all. Unlike most LIve Services you can host your own servers on the game (hence why there are multiple versions of the exact same community server in a different location)

There's no grind to get anything, there's no season passes, no DLC.... you're not bombarded in the face by a gigantic daunting menu with millions of different tabs and options. You're even given mods to play around and have fun with which is more than can be said for 99% of other 'live service' games. Is it still a Live service then? the same way that fortnite, suicide squad and Destiny 2 are?

this kind of question, and the previous thread made me think.... what IS a live service? how can yall define it? is it as simple as an online game with a shop? or is there a multitude of different categories and requirements it needs to fufill? This isn't a poll as i feel it's a bit too nuanced for binary choices

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

A Live Service is any game where the developer doesn't ditch you after you give them your money.

It's love in its truest sense.

 

[Punished Miku]

Splatoon 3 is built on frequent, free updates and its great. Just builds community and excitement.

The issue is exploitative monetization.

 

[64bitmodels]

Splatoon 3 is built on frequent, free updates and its great. Just builds community and excitement.

The issue is exploitative monetization.

i feel like thats a great example of a regular multiplayer game in the sense that everything can be unlocked without spending a single dime. there are seasonal events (splatfests) but they simply boil down to just competitions which can be finished by playing the game more. why nintendo doesn't put it on PC is beyond me

 

[Koppelthorn]

My definition of a live service would be an always online piece of software with reoccurring, optionally/sometimes/always paid updates that introduces new content on a somewhat continual basis. This definition would cover games like Destiny, Warframe, Fortnite, etc while leaving out obviously not live service but multiplayer games like I dunno, a mainline COD game or something like that. But even then that definition is broad. I don't think its as simple as an online game with a shop, there needs to be the live (i.e always online and evolving) and service (content delivered on a somewhat regular basis) components to it. I honestly can't think of any other descriptors, though I only really played Warframe way long ago and OG Destiny so I'm not sure if the landscape has changed in that sense.

And while I don't think a live service game automatically equals a bad game, but in today's gaming industry I honestly cannot think of a single live service game that was chosen to be a live service game because of the development teams vision or anything like that. Most of the time, the team has their own vision, and corporate higher ups mandate that it becomes a live service game in order to increase profits. This is the core of what makes a lot of live service games rather soulless. And from a development perspective, I can't really think of a reason why one would opt for the live service model when other content release models such as the traditional DLC or expansion pack, or episodic based expansions/DLC exist and from a content release perspective, achieve the same goal. Like others have said, it really feels as if the whole structure of most live service games are designed in such a way to extract as much money from the player as possible even down to systems designed by psychologists in order to extract as much money as possible.

A good example of an idea that at least from what I can tell was not originally thought of as a live service game was the foundation of what would become Warframe:

Look familiar?

 

[64bitmodels]

My definition of a live service would be an always online piece of software with reoccurring, optionally/sometimes/always paid updates that introduces new content on a somewhat continual basis.

no shop or MTX?

 

[Aenima]

No, Thers alot of good live service games. There has been for many decades since MMORPGs are life service games. Aside from the game own quality, the monetization and how its implemented, is to me what can make the diference between a good and bad GaaS.

 

[Koppelthorn]

no shop or MTX?

Conceptually, I don't see why it would be required but I can't name a single live service game that doesn't have those. Which falls in line with my idea that no live service game is made with the live service component being part of a passionate vision from the development team. It's all just a money thing.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I explained in other discussions, but people keep mixing Live service with Multiplayer when both are completely different things.

>A Multiplayer game, as the name explains, is a game that makes use or is designed around having more than one player. Its 100% related to the game's mechanics.

>A live service game, or GAAS as people took to calling it, is a business model.
While traditional models work by making you pay upfront for getting a one and done product, GAAS works by having a constant stream of revenue as well as delivering a constant stream of content for one certain game.
It doesn't need to have forced online, it doesn't need to be multiplayer. It just needs those two things: frequent delivery of content and a recurrent form of monetization, which can be in the form of new dlcs, subscriptions, MTX, even models that revolve around giving early access to new added content for paying users.

Does that make the game bad? Not necessarely. Is it superior to traditional models? Not either.
For those kind of things, its all about execution. You can have shitty exploitative GAAS just like how you can also have shitty exploitative games from the traditional model. On the other hand, there are also plenty of GAAS who respect your wallet, time and ownership of the game, much like decently priced games from the traditional model.

 

[killatopak]

It’s in the name Live. Meaning it is continually updated. There is no real end to it as the devs just keep adding more or changing stuff up to keep it fresh.

A game that isn‘t live service doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t get updated. CK2 for example has a bajillion DLCs but it was never considered a live service game. Another example is Sims. The reason for the game for both are sequels.

A live service game is just any game that will never have an end state because that end state means the death of the game itself. Meanwhile a non live service game that ends doesn’t necessarily mean the community has left it. There could be a sequel or a successor or many more circumstances.

To be fair though. Modern live service games are even worse nowadays. They combine both functions and produce yearly stuff. I used to love sports games but now they’re infested with it.

 

[Danjin44]

99% of live service games are MP/co-op focus which I naturally have zero interest playing them.

 

[NightmareFarm]

I would say if DLC is still being milked regularly after a year.

Live service is bad imo takes focus away from just making sequels. Fighting games get a pass however, they have always been built to last a generation long whilst being updated on a regular basis to balance things and expand the meta. It's the better alternative compared to releasing special editions.

 

[Robb]

No I think the model can be great for certain games.

The main issue to me is that it seems devs/publishers today just ask ‘how can we make a live-service game out if this game/franchise’ rather than ‘would the live service model fit this game/franchise?’.

 

[01011001]

it doesn't make a game automatically bad, but the developers are incentivized to make aspects of the game intentionally worse to fit the live service model.

Halo Infinite is a good example for that.
the instantly obvious issue is the progression system. it has weekly free rewards if you finish all the weekly challenges, and it has battlepasses that you level up partially by completing challenges.
Challenges push players to play game modes they don't like (currently you need to play the featured playlist to finish all your challenges), use weapons they don't like/want and sometimes have to camp for to get them, it pushes them to play worse by incentivizing suboptimal playstyles that can of course negatively influence the performance of the whole team, and many more issues.

the weekly unlock creates a FOMO mechanic.

then there's the structure of the game.
in live services you have to give the players new stuff at a regular basis. this sounds good in theory, until you look at Halo Infinite's example again.

prior Halo games, especially those made by Bungie, launched PACKED with game modes, playlists, character customization items and features.
Halo Infinite by design drip-feeds the players all of these things over time, and often as a time limited "event" type mode.
where Halo Reach had playlists reaching from Team Slayer, Team Objective, to Team Doubles, Big Team Slayer, Big Team Objectives, MLG, Team Arena, Invasion, Infection and rotating modes each weekend...
Halo Infinite usually has maybe 5 playlists, and they can change arbitrarily from month to month.

there is yet to be an Infection playlist in Halo Infinite, but they sure are "teasing" it coming. the mode itself is already playable in custom games, but not as a matchmaking playlist.

343i is purposefully releasing playlists of popular modes slowly over time in order to stretch out content and make players return to the game over time.
it's basically trying to manipulate the player and stuff like this is literally designed by psychologists that GaaS dev teams hire to optimize player retention and manipulate player behavior.
content is ready to go live, but is withheld to be released at a slow pace in order to fake that there is new content coming, even tho in reality it's just taken out of the game and then reimplemented


in more single player or coop based games, developers are incentivized to make progression through the story or missions harder and grindier than normal in order to sell progression speed-up items,
which once again means it's designed to be bad to some degree on purpose.

 

[Crayon]

Fighting games went live service and it's been great.

I'd say better than ever but there were these things called arcades.

 

[Three]

For completionists it's bad, for studio game output it's bad. I don't think it inherently makes the game itself bad because sometimes games just have multiplayer that gets updates but GaaS tends to incentivise grind and extracting money from you for time savings.

 

[radewagon]

The basic concept just doesn't appeal to me. I don't want a game to constantly evolve or continue to offer me new content. I want my games to have finite ends. I want to finish a game and move onto the next. I can't imagine playing a single title consistently for even more than a month. I'd just get bored. There are games I go back to, obviously, but not any games that I play routinely enough for a GAAS model to ever attract my continued attention.

 

[brian0057]

Companies pretending games are services and not products is the most damaging aspect of modern day gaming.

 

[ahtlas7]

Live service = I have to log into the game through a store front, in simplest form.

 

[Three]

The other aspect that I don't like is the built in FOMO where they have time limited things. At that point I feel a GaaS game becomes more a day job where you have to constantly be playing to keep up with content instead of playing at your own pace.

 

[64bitmodels]

It’s in the name Live. Meaning it is continually updated

could you class Terraria as a live service then? there's no DLC, no store, mod support, but it does get continually updated and has been updated for 10 years with content

 

[GymWolf]

No.

 

[murstdurst]

A game that has a season pass model.
It's just down to how bad it is implemented (added mt, pre-order "bonuses", in game store, expansions etc.).
Something like diablo immortal would be the worst of the worst.
Diablo iv is terrible as well, but not as bad as immortal.

 

[killatopak]

could you class Terraria as a live service then? there's no DLC, no store, mod support, but it does get continually updated and has been updated for 10 years with content

Personally, I wouldn’t but it does feel that way when you compare it to say Guild Wars 2 or New World with its one time purchase. Live service in the end though is all about monetization and the fact that Terraria has none means it probably isn’t classified as a live service.

 

[Black_Stride]

Live Service is currently my most played type of game.
So clearly I absolutely love them.

And when I think about it.
I actively hate when I buy a game and a dev basically abandons it and says no new content for you.
Even with single player games I seethe when I know the dev is never gonna make DLC for it (stares at Rockstar).
Service me.....service me hard!!!!

Ever since devs stopped selling Map packs and splitting the community ive fallen in love with live service games even more, I feel like my money is going further cuz the dev has also put a commitment to supporting the game.

One of the reasons i stopped playing COD is cuz of its yearly releases, I knew the devs were gonna abandon the title for the new title soonish, even if I was still having fun with the "old" one.


I played Destiny for way longer than I care to admit.
Forza Horizon games have always felt like they are well worth the money even if im spending again on DLC and carpacks.
Halo Infinite just got a new season and a bunch of improvements.
Unfortunately for me, none of my friends play Naraka and the console versions didnt pick up steam, otherwise id still be in that universe right now.
I kept coming back to Monstor Hunter World.
Ive been on the high seas for what feels like forever in Sea of Thieves.
Battlefield 2042 is actually a good game now.
Id never believe im a guy who could play games like Smite.....but here I am years later after downloading it on a whim.

Live service in the end though is all about monetization and the fact that Terraria has none means it probably isn’t classified as a live service.

Live Service literally means just that.
Whether you pay upfront or not as long whether the updates cost money or not as long as the game keeps updating with content its a Live Service game.
A game which you buy once and done, gets no additional content over time (bug fixes not withstanding) is the opposite of a Live Service game.

 

[akaFullmetal]

Some gaas work like WoW or destiny, others not so much but game developers push it. If the game doesn't get the engagement or can't keep up with content (halo), then it usually dies or goes on life support limping around .( Babylon, anthem, avengers) Or even try to rip you off (stars wars bf2).