The problem with live service games started when they went from being a service provided to the player as a means of continuing to play the game fix bugs and balance gameplay to a service designed to manipulate the player into playing only that game and continually spending money on it
Which is not the problem with live service, but with the party taking advantage of it. Live service is just a tool. And if it didn’t work, they wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. So part of the blame falls on the players too.
I would say esports is what killed the Halo franchise. The franchise was greatuntil it became a massive sweat fest. Halo used to be the ultimate party game now it's the painful to play
@deadcaptainjames6045 idk man, halo has always felt kind of sweaty since halo2. I dont know who plays games and doesnt try. Dont understand this argument. Unless youre so bad you can't get any kills, its still fun to play getting beat
I'd rather play ~30 great games a year that end after the campaign, than play ~5 live service games that never end and just lock you in endless loops of loot progression.
Yep same here i want an ending so i can close off and move on ,unlike some people prefer having a infinite loop and play a trash game for 15 years and tell us it will be good one day.
I play counterstrike. I have since 2000. That's the only game I play that could be considered infinite, and now it's technically a live service with loot boxes, but the gameplay is still the same. I play single player games way more than any multiplayer game unless it has campaign coop. I even played little big planet for the couch coop. Now all games are just convince stores you walk around in
@@Seb_Falkor eh, thats your taste and everyone has different taste. As for me I'd rather just play games with my friends most of the time and sometimes myself. Yet I'd still play elden ring constantly by myself (if I had it) just like I still play dark souls 3 to this very day.
My biggest problems with live service games are when massive triple A companies do it instead of releasing a full game at launch. It feels like getting onto a plane and you see the pilots wearing a parachute. Sure the flight could go fine, but I don’t like the idea of the person in charge being able to jump ship instead of seeing it through.
Yea, asmon playing it off as people saying old games had no bugs kinda misses the mark. Old games had bugs, sure... but they released the game with all the content included. I can't get excited about paying for a development team's promise to finish what they promised to deliver and already got paid for because they got sidetracked generating cosmetic items and an ingame casino.
@@Jim-km1xt Yeah, its definitely driven me away from some stuff like Destiny 2 & OW 2 which were both titles whose predecessors I sank several hundred hours into. I would rather pay the lump sum and get something substantial than for it to be 'free' and severely lacking/restricted. Definitely made something like Elden Ring look much more attractive. If they want me to be paying a constant stream of money, I expect a constant stream of content which just isn't happening.
@@tomguglielmo9805 For every live service game you can name that released with all content included at launch day, I can show you 100 that released unfinished. Nobody said "all". Just because you can point to an outlier doesn't mean the trend isn't real.
@@tomguglielmo9805 All I did was outline my issue with the way this business model tends to impact games. I didn't say you couldn't enjoy it... You came in here and told everybody they were wrong then when I explained how your criticism of my stance didn't make sense, you tried to act like I was attacking your preference. To be clear, we can disagree on whether or not we enjoy something. Your issue is that you're imposing your preferences on me.
I work in the product development/ project management world, but not software specific. There's a very popular approach to project management called "agile" that seems to have made its way into everything, but started as a software dev thing. Basically its when a team of devs starts with a general vision and build out features as they go. Its about short cycles of development that focus on creating a "minimum viable product" that can be shipped and then improving on in later dev cycles based on feedback. A more traditional approach is to plan everything upfront, execute all the work, and release a product based entirely on the initial vision. That is sometimes called "waterfall approach". I am speculating that maybe this is a chicken and egg kind of thing. Are live service games the result of agile product development? Because I guarantee that is how they do their dev cycles. Or did live service happen and it spawned this type of project management?
From what I can tell the waterfall plans are definitely used in bigger studios but fail due to shareholders and incompetence within the team itself. As dead-lines, unrealistic promises/expectations or even sheer incompetence pile up such a methodology is quick to break down especially with how tight the schedules usually are. No wonder there are so many horror stories of employees living in their offices
I may be wrong, again, I MAY BE WRONG please correct me if I do. The Waterfall Approach must be done with the backbone of the product already been completed and then gets better as time goes on, meaning, the CORE deliverable of a product must be made first before perfecting it. Let's say you create a robot that can clean houses, then people must be able to see that it can clean houses effectively before adding features like clean better, watch kids, groom pets etc.... If, the function of cleaning houses itself are faulty and needs perfection or the customers do not enjoy the way the robot cleans the house then it is just an incomplete product not waterfall approach which is the case of many many examples above (No Man Sky's "infinite universes" planets are just Ctrl C+Ctrl V at first, Overwatch 2 promises the major difference being story mode then surface WITHOUT it, etc...)
If you ask any dev what's important for their game design, they will say quick iterattive design. Basically this 'agile' approach. It has its place when trying new ideas and functionality, but you can't push out a full product and continue building like that. Because of pressures from shareholders, you'll never be able to go back and fix all the bugs that are appearing 2 features ago. That's where the larger waterfall structure needs to take place. I've not actually heard a breakdown of the concept, but I imagine that it's something similar to my company's go live procedure. think of a feature, review the need for it, add it to a roadmap, provide a beta version for a small portion of users, test/fix, provide training internally and let the rest of the users and sales people know it's live. A company my company acquired was still in this very 'agile' development, which meant that half the things were breaking in a way an engineer needed to fix and there were features that only 12 companies were using. It was a mess for months trying to get to a point where the product could actually be supported in a decent way. On the other hand, our company rolls out a new product feature very rarely, but supporting what we have is pretty standard daily business.
I don't think is a chicken and egg thing. Some services games are way too big to able to be develop at their fullest in 3-4 years. Look at Zelda Breath of the Wild and Genshin Impact, one single player with 1 character and one fixes map and the other with 50 plus characters and a bunch of regions. And just imagine when they "finish" Genshin Impact story how long would have take to develop all the characters, all the maps and all the events. The problem is that people want MORE.. Genshin Impact could take you 200 - 300 hours to finish it until the current patch but for a lot of people is not enough, and the game lacks content.
The most insidious thing about games as a service is that for PC gamers our games have gotten strictly worse because they rob us of our ability to make our own content with custom maps and dedicated servers so that they can sell us skins.
Imagine if Orange Box came out as a game as a service. We won't have any good stuff that creative players came up with to spice up their own fun. The reason why I really dislike any modern game is that everything is curated, pre planned and soulless. You don't get no funky map made of Hitler portraits or replicas of map from other games. What a shame
@@Spectrum0122 destiny 2 Fortnite work well on predetermined hardware and software which is consoles and Mac to an extent dammit but again we have megaglest a free open game we can modify so it balances it out on PC.
yup why bother letting the players do their own custom content for the game, to keep it alive if they can just keep it all locked from players and at most selling off some skins, maybe a map or two in a dlc, all while behind a battlepass to get the players to grind
This is lowkey why I respect trackmania so much for their choices. They allow custom skins and even map objects that are from the community, and they use that content to feed the live service aspect of it. The way that it’s sustainable for them is a pretty lax subscription service that opens up a handful of options in ways to play, as well as making and equipping custom skins in the client. The game got a significant amount of backlash for this choice of monetization of their otherwise free game, but honestly it’s pretty good. It’s live service in the sense of constant stream of content (at a rate that would be impossible without the help of the community sourcing new maps every single day), but without battlepasses, or basically any FOMO, unless you count leaderboards closing at the end of each season for their respective tracks.
I think the difference between the bugs in halo 2 and something like cyberpunk, is that if you play the game as intended you have less than 1% chance of even seeing something wrong. Compared to cyberpunks first release, where literal cutscenes would space lock you and driving was impossible lol.
Ya I saw his point but it's pretty disingenuous comparison. Computer assisted glitch finding for years vs day 1 busted physics and t-posing on a motorcycle just trying to play normally. Back when, games couldn't be patched after release so ya things were released at a higher level of standards (correct amount)
@@whuzzzup All 3 of Asmongold's examples about old games not being tested better were console games (N64). Specifically Super Mario 64 and Zelda OoT. So anyway in this context we're more referring to Asmongold's console games examples. Obviously PC gaming is superior but if you go far back enough you could not rely on a PC customer to even have access to the internet/broadband or gaming magazine patch CDs. You had to ship a mostly functional not broken game, and payed video game bug testers were an important part of that process. This is when they'd sell "big box" PC games for example, floppy disks and CDs etc.
@@FlameMage2 asmond opinion changes based on who he's watching. He has shir on live services and has made the argument "old gamea were better". If you point it out he always calls ya dimb and how its sk nuanced.
On the subject of games getting more expensive to produce... there are also far, FAR more people buying games these days, as well as digital releases which completely cut out physical distribution costs. So yeah, games are still making butt loads of money $60 or not.
thanks. that is often kept secret. games like elden ring show that there is another way. it's not that it's not worth it, it's that public companies want their annual returns
people still believing this "games are more expensive to produce" mantra lol...... i feel like most of the costs go to marketing more rather than developing ...
"more expensive to produce" also isn't an excuse when we have the healthiest indie game scene we've ever had, with one or two men dev teams. there's no excuse. A lot of money is uselessly spent on things players don't care about.
nftscreenshotter6436 seriously, the fact that most "indie" or self publishing studios make better games than most multimillion dollar AAA games is ridiculous.
@@NarratedStories55 yeah and it just so happens that these games couldve improved with a proper QA and optimization phase rather than tossing the shit out for a quick christmas buck lol
@@NarratedStories55 while that is true the problem is that as the games increase in scale and technical complexity so do the tools to make the games. So development isnt the problem its the publishers pushing the development before its ready. On top of that the live service model or the publishers attempts to milk money out of a game doesn't benefit the people that make the game and ends up making them and the game look worse when you encounter the constant bugs or broken mechanics.
As someone who has played countless retro games and grew up with hand me down consoles and handhelds from my mom and her siblings my whole childhood, I can't agree at all. Not only are a lot of those games broken, but there's no patching something like that. Some games just don't work how they are supposed to as well. Have you ever played Biofreaks? That game is an unplayable turd and that's just off the top of my head. I'd argue modern games have more bugs, but they aren't game breaking. It's mostly just visual bugs that don't effect gameplay. You also have to consider that it makes a big difference that a lot of modern games have online capabilities. That changes everything for the stability of the game and how it has to be programmed. I've played modern games only made by a hand full of people that work better than a lot of older games made by entire studios. I used to have a massive collection of older games anywhere from Atari to PS2, but that was when you could go to flea markets and yard sales and actually afford them. Now grandma thinks her box of assorted Colecovision and Atari games are worth a small fortune. Obviously though, as games get more complex there is a higher chance of bugs no matter who is making the game. It's just that now those issues CAN be fixed retroactively. Hell there's a huge community of people that fix games for emulation because they need it, and obviously none of these companies are gonna rerelease 90% of these games and fix their issues (*cough* Nintendo *cough*). I've played WAY more retro games that are bad and just down right unplayable due to bugs than I have modern ones, especially when it comes to cartridge based systems. Maybe my sample size it just a lot bigger than yours and that's why I feel this way, who knows. Probably the benefit of being able to go to Goodwill every week and get 5 or more new games I hadn't played for my assorted consoles growing up. I miss when retro games were affordable. There were a lot of bad ones but I've had more fun playing a shitty game with a group of friends on older consoles than I've ever had playing a game like OW 2 with a group for example.
Big difference between bugs that ruin your experience every 20 minutes and bugs that go largely unnoticed and are mostly just abused by speed running communities.
@@СергейЕжов-с1м No, but they still exist and just because *you* don't find them doesn't mean someone else won't find them and have *their* experience ruined.
@oriondawn7064 maybe for some bugs its true, but i don't see how bunny hopping\manipulation of script counter in Vice City\Jedy Academy cutscene excaping\many more can ruin someone experience. Most bugs are not reachable by accident. And these bugs can't ruin your experience(because you need to know exactly how to replicate them) - therefore its pointless to waste time on them, better focus on more reachable for regular players things. Multiplayer may occasionaly be exception - some bugs may give to skilled players too many advantages
My issue with live service is just the heavy monetization right out the gate while the game has lot of issues that need fix first. This is basically every "AAA" publishers ship out a bugged out game but gotta makesure ppl can still spend muns with no issue.
Notice how the cash shop never has any bugs? Hmmmmm.... If I didn't know any better, I'd say they were more focused on selling the in-game casino than the game the casino is in.
Some of the best games I have ever played in my life, those that I remember the most fondly and often come back to replaying them were exactly those games that you play once and finish and its a great story, or great gameplay... Live service has its purpose too, but I personally prefer to just buy a game, spend 50, 60, 100, 200 hours on it and finish it. Add it to my list of completed games and move on, keeping it in memory.
Yeah the replay value is much appreciated specially multiple ways of progressing through the game and different decisions you can make for different gameplay
@@1xxvipxx1 I have fond memories of Destiny despite how things went. Then D2 came along and shot my passion repeatedly over 2 years before I left, lol. Destiny was a fantastic game at the time (aged poorly) but what killed my love for the franchise was the gameplay design changes in D2. But that's how I remember Destiny knowing full well I may be viewing it through rose tinted glasses.
Live service is amazing when it’s about keeping the game alive. The problem is when games start out as live service instead of becoming live service for the players.
I can probably count on my one hand how many games did it well, Fortnite and Deep rock galactic come to mind... I can now think with all appendixes on my body how many games have failed... Anthem, Battlefront, Battlefield...
@@squaeman_2644 The thing to mention about Fortnite also is that its free, you can just download it and start playing. Its not like they owe you anything, because you havent paid for anything, and if you do then its just a cosmetic not a game changing advantage. If a game is live service and you PAY for it... that's almost a guaranteed recipe for disaster each and every time. "Live service" and "free" should go hand in hand.
@@mikeellchuk3787 live service means you're dependent on the developers hosting servers to play. If the host servers end, so does your gaming experience...
Asmon defends live-service games like he's an abuse victim. "Yes, my partner does do horrible things to me on a regular basis, but they're fun to be around when they aren't so it's ok."
I'm yet to play a 'live service' game that wasn't riddled with issues, from predatory monetisation to straight up just not being finished. Subscription based has been the best 'live service' experience so far.
50:38 - The problem is, you hit the nail on the head here and destroyed your own argument by accident. Back then, yes, games launched with a ton of bugs. But the VAST majority of players would never actually EXPERIENCE those bugs because they require very specific circumstances. Nowadays, it is very common for games to launch with game-breaking bugs that large portions of the player base experience. Technically, you're right; old games were buggy. But they typically weren't buggy as far as the majority of players knew. Now, everyone knows that the game is buggy because they experience the bugs. BF4 was hella buggy, and everyone knew it. I've never met someone who has played Ocarina and found it to be buggy, unless they were LOOKING for exploits/bugs.
Cyberpunk 2077 is ABSOLUTELY NOT, IN ANY CAPACITY, a "live service game". Don't twist the definitions around, what live service was coined and built and continually used to reference, is online dependency for core components of the game to even function at all in perpetuity. Cyberpunk is a 100% offline game that simply has patches, and not only that, it also has zero DRM, so literally once the patch files exist, there is no server or account system or barrier of any kind to stop you from fully playing all of it. They DID have a separate multiplayer spinoff planned, and that would have been a live service, but it was likely canceled or moved back to come out with Cyberpunk 2, and was said to have run in a completely separate client from the main game. Also 2:36 "a million concurrent players ONLINE"... there is no "online", it was simply Steam and the GOG client recognizing that the software was running and adding that to a tally, there is no server that anyone is "on", and the number was likely higher than what they could even calculate because of all the DRM free cloned copies out in the wild that shouldn't be reporting back to any server at all, or at least not if blocked in firewall which many do as a precautionary measure.
Just imagine the "Live Service" model in literally any other business than the video game industry: "Here's your brand new car, sir! Enjoy! Don't mind the wheels, we'll install them in a year or so. Also, the steering is a bit off, it'll be fixed in a patch in a couple of months." "Here's your meal, sir. Raw beef. Uncooked. Come back in a few months and it might be edible. Also, remember, you can RIGHT NOW buy from our selection of side dishes for just $5.99!" "Here's your new shirt - come back in a couple of months and we'll add sleeves. And for just 5.99 we'll dye it any color you like (once)!" "Enjoy our brand new big budget blockbuster movie! The final scene will be done shooting next month. Also, you can buy additional bonus content for just 5.99!" "Here's the key to your apartment. We'll add windows next spring. And don't worry about the plumbing, that'll come in a later patch."
They are already talking about MTX/subscriptions for heated seats in BMWs. I've heard other people say that other auto companies will be heading down this road as well.
Its true that live services with P2W features always feel like youre playing 80% if the game, with the other being locked behind a small loan of a hundred bucks. I just hope that someday when we "acquire" said games, ill get to see what is it that the whales had.
there's nothing wrong with playing one game and then another when you're done. Back then, for example, I just played through a link to the past and then metroid and then mario and then terranigma and then final fantasy and then sailor moon... simply that way... who wants to play the same game for years? not me.
There isn't a problem with live service games, there's a problem with bad live service games. You have games like LOL, Fortnite, Genshin that are F2P and casual friendly that also get content almost weekly, because of whales.
Key word.. F2P friendly.. People dont have money straight off the bat to dump on a game.. Making the games accessible without money & giving a choice to spend for rewards will attract long term players.. These games also come out with new game modes/new maps/etc..
Nothing wrong with an ongoing service. If I'm going to spend a long time (and a lot of money) on a game then I want it to be constantly updated. I don't care if that's through patches, expansions, microtransactions, user content, whatever. If the game isn't being updated then I'll get bored with it eventually, it's inevitable, and I'm certainly not going to buy skins or whatever for a game I know will be dead in a month. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the game being released in an unfinished state. The only game I've ever played for a long time beyond when it stopped receiving updated was Diablo 2, and that was because I was 10 years old and literally had no other games. It also has nothing to do with early access. Against the Storm: banger, Gunfire Reborn: banger, Phasmophobia: banger, Vampire Survivors: banger, Risk of Rain 2: banger, and the list goes on.
Ross Scott has a great video on games as a service and he clearly and honestly despises this trend. Hard to blame him, it's difficult to assess if this is even a legal practice.
I've never heard someone call a game that got a patch or update a 'live service' game. Live service games are where they try to get you to play 1 game forever. Why would I waste hundreds of hours on repetitive gameplay when in that time I could play dozens of other amazing games that have actual endings in that time?
He keeps pointing out the bugs on old games to counter the argument of old games being complete and finished. Those bugs are forced and you really have to go out of your way to do most of them. The point is that old games didn't have half their content cut on a paywall and most were already playable right from the start.
It's interesting how companies like EA created the problem of too many battle passes and then "solved" the problem by making all in one monthly passes that include a small library of games.
Halo Infinite isnt dead because there wasnt a Battle Royale mode, it died because 343 didnt have any plan on what to do with the game, no updates for major fixes on launch then no content, no fuckin classic MP modes, no forge, broken multipayer ( it was fun when it worked). Halo doesnt need a BR, it just needs a company that cares about quality and service to the fans.
I do think being able to update the game after the fact is a great thing , but if the base game isn't good it suffers at the start till word of mouth goes around saying the game is better later on.
And they rightly should suffer, games now are one of the few mediums that can be changed as time goes on to better please the consumer but time and again the consumer gets fucked. There’s no live service food, no live service movies, they can’t just go back and change stuff, they have to be good the first time. Yet this advantage is twisted into an excuse to putting out garbage and having diehard fans defend it solely because they promised it will get better
I dig Vermintide and how they run it. I have hella fun until I burn out in a few weeks, then come back in a few months to see if things changed mich. I'm so hype about the new 40k Dark Tide that I upgraded my whole setup
I feel like in a couple of years it's going to completely turn around, majority of gamers will grow up and hate battle passes and marketing departments will start fake gimmicks like "Buy our game, it is only one time purchase... NOT LIKE THE OTHER GAMES". Something like they try to sell stuff with a sticker "NO PALM OIL" as if they were better than the other products.
No. Thats wrong. The cost of games has risen a lot, but that doesnt excuse them charging more. Not only are most games digital now, removing shipping and handling costs, but they have a much higher customer base. Especially with digital products. Their sales have massively gone up. They made more profit now than they ever had before before the price hikes and live service products.
Exactly. And Cyberpunk wouldn't need live service to save it if it was a complete and competent game on release. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM. Saying "live service saved cyberpunk" is completely missing the point. We shouldn't need live services to "save" games in the first place, they should be done and ready on release.
@@nftscreenshotter6436 Agreed. There should be a system for companies who don't offer us a finished product. We should get refunded $50 and they should get small amounts of the money back as the game get's fixed.
Live service games need to transition to a "static" or traditional functioning game prior to the game servicing ends. Give the games to the people once you abandon them.
On the pirating of music. You went from buying albums and owning them to stealing them and owning them, now you pay monthly for Spotify and own nothing. Anyone who thinks that is a good thing is sadly mistaken.
14:59 - When you look at RimWorld reviews on Steam you see a lot of people with 1000+ hours played because the gameplay loop is based on growing and getting pushed back by bad events. The game has massive player retention because it's fun.
Live service games are terrible. I get why Zack likes the updates, but they destroy the foundation of games in general . . . a complete game at launch.
The more I watched this video, the more I realised how much respect I should have for the people behind Path Of Exile. In regards to monetizing whilst maintaining the bottom line, POE is a present game for the future - the game, its fun, its gamers and developers are all protected in all their bottom lines. It's a remarkable case-study - a live service that works for everyone.
A company like Fromsoft. Is basically updating new versions of the same game each time. They just refine the engine more abs more, and create new assets and enemies to fight. Each game kind of like a DLC of something they started in the 90s with kings field. Just improving on everything each time, but building on the same engine.
Well, wasn't even FF15 technically a live service game?! It did regular seasonal events. My brain is trying to remember, but didn't they even have weekly hunt events?
"Games cost so much more to make yet they cost relatively the same, and that's where battlepasses come in!" Good sir gaming is mainstream now when it wasn't before. Put concisely: there are simply more players. Also, disks aren't a cost anymore for 95% of people (though that doesn't have much of an effect).
Price of making video games at least for triple a studios is 10 fold of what it used to be. Back when I was a wee lad( mid 80s and 90s) a lot of video games were made by a handful of developers. It’s only during the early 2000s that studios started actually growing in size and make games more cinematic and involved (not necessarily bigger) .
i feel like calling Cyberpunk a life-service is a bit disingenuous though. It features no in-game purchases for real money and CDPR actually spend a fuckton of money fixing the (admitted) terrible release state. The game is absolutely phenomenal now and it cost me nothing more than the base-cost of the title to get the full experience.
The ability to update games after release is a blessing and a curse. Yes, complex games like Elden Ring can be patched, and new content added. But, the overwhelming flip side is that many games are now released unfinished, even games which are released "finished". For example, Football Manager Mobile is an excellent game (if you like that sort of thing) which is released "finished". The new version was released on Tuesday with a host of great new features. I love it. BUT the game obviously didn't have proper play testing... in fact, post-release bug reporting IS the play testing, it seems, and there's a lot of stuff that obviously needs fixing, including fundamentals of the match engine and sorting tools. So, what you have is a game that will be a perfect little mobile game... in 2 months. When they fix everything that fans are complaining about.
The problem with saying that the "live service" turns out positive for the cases you mentioned is that it ignores the fact that if they didn't have to rely on it as a crutch, instead of releasing a fractured, buggy and broken game, at least to the astonishingly bad levels of CyberPunk or ButtholeField, it would be finished on day one. Although, in my mind, I would separate offline, server-independent games from always-online titles like all the F2P garbage deluge we're drowning in these days. I recoil far more if I hear the game is "F2P" than the definition of "live service" we seem to be discussing here (meaning consistently updated over time a la No Man's Sky), unless it's a paid game, while also having always-online requirements. Diablo. Temtem. So in this sense, I certainly agree that it is all around a betterment for the industry and the consumers. Take Terraria, for example. A personal favourite, and a perfect example of live service done right. No monetization, no online requirements, no tricks or traps to emotionally manipulate you into a grind cycle ad infinitum, nothing but heapin' spoons of extra content, fantastic game mechanics and sky's-the-limit mod support. But I'd also very much rather play a complete experience than loop my time into an endless charade of a game with no end like MOBAs or BRs if that's the definition we're going with.
And I HATE the idea of battle passes. I have no idea how this concept got past the public, but here we are, drowning in them. Paying for something you don't get, but instead have to earn. Otherwise you can't have what you paid for? We allowed this??? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Also also, I think using speedruns as an argument for how buggy old games were is disingenuous at best. Speedrunners are actively looking for ways to break the game, and even though they may find many, it's rarely something you'd run across in a normal playthrough. Modern high-profile live service games though... It almost seems like pure luck if your experience is less than 50% bug-ridden in the first year.
Look...the hard truth is that when it comes to these AAA dev's like EA, Acti/Blizz, and 343 for example, when they are presented with the option of turning a game into a live service they absolutely take advantage of it by often doing the bare fuckin' minimum for content while maximizing anti consumer profit strategies. It's nothing but an excuse for them to put out half baked shit. Not EVERYONE that employs a live service does this...but there sure are more bad ones than good ones.
There's a difference between bugs and exploits. Get it right. There's a difference when I boot up a new game and there's largely noticeable graphical glitches and game crashes. Versus i have to do a very specific set commands and different things to get an advantage over another player that I would never had known otherwise unless I was looking for it specifically or saw it online. Sure Super Mario 64 Speedruns look Buggy as hell, but they are intentional exploits. What you are really looking for is a first playthrough experience. If you put in Mario 64, it won't crash 6 times an hour and you are able to beat the game easily enough without having to wait weeks for a patch after launch.
The problem with developers releasing live service games is that they make the mistake of adding Early Access as well. Release a full game and make it live service and we'll stop being mad at them
It’s kinda crazy how *good* EPIC has gotten with live service. Paragon died because of how poorly they handled updates and how they ignored what the community actually wanted. As someone who was a huge fan of the game it was crazy how much they ruined it. But Fortnight? It’s honestly really good when it comes to updates and events. I don’t play it, but the fact that it’s still so prevalent after all these years really speaks on its behalf
Sometimes Asmongold has really bad takes and his whole take of "Wow games weren't finished even back then" is such a blatantly untrue statement. More games back then had for more content and replay value then half the games that came out in the PS4/XONE era
Basically, I think a live service game is good unless the makers call it a "live service game". Paradox Interactive is a dev studio that makes games like this and it works, yet they never advertise the game like that. And because of that, they make sure the game is at least functional, but they add a tremendous amount of content ever 9 to 12 months. Same with successful MMOs
Can someone explain why it matters how many concurrent players a game has as long as it sells well and is reviewed very highly and loved by fans? Act man says the problem with games like TW3 and Elden Ring is that as good as they are, they don't stay on top long, and then he points out how huge of a drop they had in player count from their peak to not too long after that. Why does this matter though? If they don't have microtransactions, why do they care how many people are playing their game at any given time as long as the game sold really well and was HUGELY praised by everyone?
3:40 This is so true and soooo many people do not understand this to be the case. Most big studios have maybe 100 QA people, max. Which compared to the millions of players that are essentially also testing the game, is NOTHING.
Games companies never make any truly good games now because they know if a game is too good then people will just play it for years and years and years instead of buying a new game. It's built in planned obsolescence and that classic idea performers know to always leave the audience wanting more. That and just money and greed of course
As Software developer i can assure you developers, we have no last word if it will ship or not. It all depends on manager and higher ups. Higher ups with some of the developers will make high level estimate which are most of the time not constantly changed. Once you say it will be done in a year but during the time you get in some problem or need to wait for some of the requirements which at the begining you didnt expect then first estimate is not changed. So in the end it will be 1 and half year. But They still expect what they wanted in a year because of money. In this case Developers need to make it possible to be somewhat playable/usable. But at the end of the day if it would be up to developers they would not ship product which is not done. They are using developers as some puppets to make connection with player base so player base feel like they can make changes. Its all up to higher ups and money.
I thought live service games are those which you literally cannot play if you dont have an internet connection. I wouldn't call Cyberpunk a live service game because although yes they can push out updates to it literally every game can do that at this point via Steam - later in the video asmon even said that live service games can come to an end and then you cant play it anymore which is exactly my understanding of a live service game and why I hate the concept and hate the trend of having everything be live service.
I completely agree. Games have been releasing updates for their games via the internet for MANY years long before the concept of a live service was even a thing. This would also include DLC as well, both paid and unpaid.
Yeah man live service games have been a huge positive for game devs, they get to sell demos for full game price and then finish the game whenever they feel like it, yeah cyberpunk 2077 is now playable 2 years later wow so impressed
42:35 tower of fantasy only has 1 premium currency tho. It has a lot more currencies in total but only one of them is pay only and only 2 (including the previously mentioned one) of them can be purchased
"hard to copy a Nintendo game". Dude. Ever hear of emulators? Snes9x was on Windows 98. PS2/PS3/Xbox is where it got hard to emulate. Dreamcast didn't even need a jail break to use burned CDs.
"live service is a positive thing for cyberpunk" sorry but that's a shit take. It's an excuse to release an incomplete, untested, full priced product. They're not doing it for our benefit.
Blockbuster rentals for PS2 games... if you got yourself a PS2 hard drive you could copy a game straight to the HD within 20mins & it was yours from then on...
The reason why I am such a Genshin Stan is because I love that it’s a live service game that actually provides you with frequent content updates. Takes me back to the good ol’ days when Valve actually gave a shit about TF2
There are a few things that we need to bear in mind about bugs then and now. Back then when Gaming was still in its relative infancy, devs were still learning on the fly and didn't always have game dev courses to learn how to code, model, map etc, nor did they have a vast discography of games to learn from. Not to mention the tools nowadays like even Unreal or Unity have so many users, so much documentation larger teams of coders and testers than ever before. The tools are easier to use, the teams have bigger budgets and more experience and documentation at their fingertips and yet they somehow release games in worse states. Yes they're often more ambitious because the hardware has moved forward, but relatively speaking they've not gotten much more ambitious. Take open World games for example, Spider Man 2 making a large open world on the PS2 with such technical limitations was incredibly ambitious. The expectations have gone up and it feels like the standards haven't followed, and yet even with these unfinished trashy games, they still want to milk you for as much money as they can.
halo being "dead" has nothing to do with not having a br but with fuck up after fuck up after fuck up not one person on the planet gives a flying fuck about br except streamers
20:12 What you talk about there is EXACTLY how I feel about games like Warframe. The story was always a bit confusing, but the game was a blast to play... and as of typing this comment, I haven't legit played in MAYBE a year now? But I've been keeping track of the things they've been adding, changing, etc... It's daunting every time I try going back to the game wondering what I should do, does everything still work the same, what the heck is the story now, etc. I might go back to it eventually 🤣
on the bugs, while old games had a lot a bugs, you had to go far out of your way to find or do them. they didn't just happen while switching weapons, or climbing stairs
An issue with live service games is that it can give a game the illusion of being good. If Fallout 76 released as the standard it's at today, people would have probably thought "atleast the game can't get any worse". When you prove that a game can be worse and then improve it so that it's not at its worst, for some people that makes the game look decent.
I funny they point out the Bethesda with the game timelines. elder scrolls 6 might come out in 7 or 8 years and when will be the next fallout in maybe 15 years. They focus on online games and neglect the single player ones
I love when asmon pushes back on act man’s “arguments” in this video I love to see people have their own thoughts and brain it’s nice to see. Edit: also love to see act man peddling a dogshit live service mobile game for money surely a man with consistent values.
43:00 7 days is a pretty good game that is just constantly being ruined by the people that made it, they are constantly seeing how players are playing it and put roadblocks in the way to make you play the way devs want you to play. A lot of the fun of the game is creating a death trap that manipulates zombie AI and pathing to make killing them on horde nights really easy. My favourites are using the L bridge pieces with the open-top box pieces on the side of the bridge that has the railing, over a 2-block gap. The zombies break the open top box because they see it as a valid path, then when it's broken it's not a valid path anymore so they look for another way in. Also putting trapdoors over the top of ladders with a 1-block gap for their heads, the zombies climb the ladder but get stuck hitting the trap door leaving you there to just headshot them and they drop to the bottom of the ladder. You can just experiment with shit like this to filter zombies to where you want them. But once the anti-fun pimps catch on to something like that, they do whatever they can to counter or nerf it. That's why zombie rage mode exists, they just start destroying random blocks if they can't get to you.
I love how all of these youtubers talk shit about microtransactions and live service games and then take sponsors for sketchy companies who make shitty app games souly designed for micro transaction..
Early access is one of the best things that happened in the gaming industry. Why ? Because players have the opportunity to support smaller creators to create a game for which they would not have the funds under normal circumstances. However, the conditions must be met. One of them is a roadmap so that the player knows what he supports and where the project will actually go. Reduced price that would increase after the release of version 1.0. A couple of games that could have been created thanks to early access. 1. Hades 2. Divinity Original Sin 3. Long Dark 4. Grounded 4. Valheim 5. Age of Darkness 6. Everspace 7. Satisfactory 8. Darkest Dungeon 9. Dead Cells 10. Deep Rock Galactic (ROCK AND STONE YEEEEAH !!! /,,/) and many others. Of course, it is still about the intelligence of the customer, and as in every single market, he must be careful what he supports, how much he supports and why he supports it. Early access is an opportunity to create projects that would probably never be created ... because of a lack of money. And today we can say that it would be a big shame and a mistake. The Live Service system is an early access system for billion-dollar corporations. And it's a mistake. Live Service system should not be the system on which the game is built, but it is the system into which the game will be evolved. Let's take Rainbow Six Siege as an example and modify the reality a little so that I can show how the use of the game's live service should work. Announcing R6 as a AAA game for 60 euros. The game will contain 10 operators. Others can be obtained in the form of in-game currency (grind ... moderate grind) or as part of support instantly when buying a season pack). Or the game would remain with 10 operators and additional content (maps) would be in paid DLC. After a few years, depending on how much the player base has developed, the company will decide whether it makes sense to turn the game into a live service game. If the player base is large and enough time has passed (let's say 4-5 years), the company announces the transition of the game to Live Service, which will result in DLC content (maps and all additional content) not being paid for but will be available for free (so that DLC it did not divide the communities in different approaches to content) but skins, for example, will come into the game as part of monetization. Here I would point out that at this point it is very important that the company does not anger the community. If from the beginning of the development of the game I represent the game as a game about special units, then the skins will come to the game on a given theme and I will stick to it. And it is not considered that a pink skin pack with cat ears will come into the game. In the current situation, when we look at, for example, BF V, it is unacceptable that games that are based on the LIVE SERVICE system from the beginning should be paid for. Because EA, in a certain way, said that they don't follow what the marketing of BF V was based on (and that was a complete passage of the 2nd WW as part of the additional content). It simply allows them to cut themselves off from the service because the game is a live service game and for the player who paid 60+ euros for the game, BF V becomes an incomplete game. Just like that. Because EA decided so. And currently no one can sanction them for this decision. If someone wants to create games on the LIVE SERVICE system, ok ... but let them be F2P. And this is a big problem. The gaming industry has no institution that controls: 1. Fulfillment of promises given to players in marketing 2. The quality of the product itself. The gaming industry is so big nowadays and the companies are literally worth billions. To protect the customer and maintain a certain quality of the products, this market needs a similar institution. Games are art, they are an opportunity to educate future generations, they are a tool to use creativity and logical thinking, they are a book that can bring stories we never dreamed of. So let's make them so that they are created correctly. We will make them so that the customer is protected from abuse. And of course, above all, so that both parties are satisfied. And what about the BATTLE PASS. In AAA paid games, it is a possibility to kill the reward system that paid games had until now. In F2P games, it is a unique system to give the player the opportunity to support the game (if the BP is done well and contains interesting rewards). Fortnite is probably the best example. Whether it is a F2P or AAA game, in both cases BP should not contain one, and that is the FOMO mechanism.
Once the live service is made stable enough to play or login the monetization is usually hell. That and some games have large content by droughts like halo infinite comes to mind with its I think it was 6 or 10 month long season
The problem with live service games started when they went from being a service provided to the player as a means of continuing to play the game fix bugs and balance gameplay to a service designed to manipulate the player into playing only that game and continually spending money on it
I would argue that the problem is that people are buying it anyway.
Which is not the problem with live service, but with the party taking advantage of it. Live service is just a tool. And if it didn’t work, they wouldn’t be doing it in the first place. So part of the blame falls on the players too.
@@luxinterna3370 Game studios hire psychologists for this very reason.
I would even say live service is now an excuse to sell an unfinished game.
Live service games have become a category by itself
Halo does not need a BR it needs content in general. Not having a BR isn’t what killed it. Having 6-10 month long seasons did.
The game is also a buggy mess STILL.
I would say esports is what killed the Halo franchise. The franchise was greatuntil it became a massive sweat fest. Halo used to be the ultimate party game now it's the painful to play
@@deadcaptainjames6045 Have you tried getting good?
@@casted_shadows battlebit casually blowing the competition with normal battlefield game modes. what a surprise.
@deadcaptainjames6045 idk man, halo has always felt kind of sweaty since halo2. I dont know who plays games and doesnt try. Dont understand this argument. Unless youre so bad you can't get any kills, its still fun to play getting beat
I'd rather play ~30 great games a year that end after the campaign, than play ~5 live service games that never end and just lock you in endless loops of loot progression.
Yep same here i want an ending so i can close off and move on ,unlike some people prefer having a infinite loop and play a trash game for 15 years and tell us it will be good one day.
@@someguy3508 your smoking crack man
Funny, I’d rather have the exact opposite
I play counterstrike. I have since 2000. That's the only game I play that could be considered infinite, and now it's technically a live service with loot boxes, but the gameplay is still the same. I play single player games way more than any multiplayer game unless it has campaign coop. I even played little big planet for the couch coop. Now all games are just convince stores you walk around in
@@Seb_Falkor eh, thats your taste and everyone has different taste. As for me I'd rather just play games with my friends most of the time and sometimes myself. Yet I'd still play elden ring constantly by myself (if I had it) just like I still play dark souls 3 to this very day.
My biggest problems with live service games are when massive triple A companies do it instead of releasing a full game at launch. It feels like getting onto a plane and you see the pilots wearing a parachute. Sure the flight could go fine, but I don’t like the idea of the person in charge being able to jump ship instead of seeing it through.
Yea, asmon playing it off as people saying old games had no bugs kinda misses the mark. Old games had bugs, sure... but they released the game with all the content included. I can't get excited about paying for a development team's promise to finish what they promised to deliver and already got paid for because they got sidetracked generating cosmetic items and an ingame casino.
@@Jim-km1xt Yeah, its definitely driven me away from some stuff like Destiny 2 & OW 2 which were both titles whose predecessors I sank several hundred hours into. I would rather pay the lump sum and get something substantial than for it to be 'free' and severely lacking/restricted. Definitely made something like Elden Ring look much more attractive. If they want me to be paying a constant stream of money, I expect a constant stream of content which just isn't happening.
@@tomguglielmo9805 For every live service game you can name that released with all content included at launch day, I can show you 100 that released unfinished.
Nobody said "all". Just because you can point to an outlier doesn't mean the trend isn't real.
@@tomguglielmo9805 All I did was outline my issue with the way this business model tends to impact games. I didn't say you couldn't enjoy it... You came in here and told everybody they were wrong then when I explained how your criticism of my stance didn't make sense, you tried to act like I was attacking your preference.
To be clear, we can disagree on whether or not we enjoy something. Your issue is that you're imposing your preferences on me.
@@tomguglielmo9805 The OP didn't say "all"...
I work in the product development/ project management world, but not software specific. There's a very popular approach to project management called "agile" that seems to have made its way into everything, but started as a software dev thing. Basically its when a team of devs starts with a general vision and build out features as they go. Its about short cycles of development that focus on creating a "minimum viable product" that can be shipped and then improving on in later dev cycles based on feedback. A more traditional approach is to plan everything upfront, execute all the work, and release a product based entirely on the initial vision. That is sometimes called "waterfall approach". I am speculating that maybe this is a chicken and egg kind of thing. Are live service games the result of agile product development? Because I guarantee that is how they do their dev cycles. Or did live service happen and it spawned this type of project management?
From what I can tell the waterfall plans are definitely used in bigger studios but fail due to shareholders and incompetence within the team itself. As dead-lines, unrealistic promises/expectations or even sheer incompetence pile up such a methodology is quick to break down especially with how tight the schedules usually are.
No wonder there are so many horror stories of employees living in their offices
I may be wrong, again, I MAY BE WRONG please correct me if I do. The Waterfall Approach must be done with the backbone of the product already been completed and then gets better as time goes on, meaning, the CORE deliverable of a product must be made first before perfecting it. Let's say you create a robot that can clean houses, then people must be able to see that it can clean houses effectively before adding features like clean better, watch kids, groom pets etc.... If, the function of cleaning houses itself are faulty and needs perfection or the customers do not enjoy the way the robot cleans the house then it is just an incomplete product not waterfall approach which is the case of many many examples above (No Man Sky's "infinite universes" planets are just Ctrl C+Ctrl V at first, Overwatch 2 promises the major difference being story mode then surface WITHOUT it, etc...)
If you ask any dev what's important for their game design, they will say quick iterattive design. Basically this 'agile' approach. It has its place when trying new ideas and functionality, but you can't push out a full product and continue building like that.
Because of pressures from shareholders, you'll never be able to go back and fix all the bugs that are appearing 2 features ago.
That's where the larger waterfall structure needs to take place. I've not actually heard a breakdown of the concept, but I imagine that it's something similar to my company's go live procedure.
think of a feature, review the need for it, add it to a roadmap, provide a beta version for a small portion of users, test/fix, provide training internally and let the rest of the users and sales people know it's live.
A company my company acquired was still in this very 'agile' development, which meant that half the things were breaking in a way an engineer needed to fix and there were features that only 12 companies were using. It was a mess for months trying to get to a point where the product could actually be supported in a decent way.
On the other hand, our company rolls out a new product feature very rarely, but supporting what we have is pretty standard daily business.
I don't think is a chicken and egg thing. Some services games are way too big to able to be develop at their fullest in 3-4 years. Look at Zelda Breath of the Wild and Genshin Impact, one single player with 1 character and one fixes map and the other with 50 plus characters and a bunch of regions. And just imagine when they "finish" Genshin Impact story how long would have take to develop all the characters, all the maps and all the events. The problem is that people want MORE.. Genshin Impact could take you 200 - 300 hours to finish it until the current patch but for a lot of people is not enough, and the game lacks content.
@@catbuikhang6482 yep you only move onto the next stage after making sure the previous one is complete.
For me it's simple, I can buy 3 battlepasses or 3 months WoW subscription, or an entire game on Steam discount. I go for the game, every time.
facts just bought every single rockstar game (ultimate editions) on steam from a sale yesterday
I buy 3 battle passes a runescape subscription and buy the games on discount, I'm a slave to capitalism.
The most insidious thing about games as a service is that for PC gamers our games have gotten strictly worse because they rob us of our ability to make our own content with custom maps and dedicated servers so that they can sell us skins.
blame blizzard vs riot for the claim over MOB games because the executives thought they had legal claim over DOTA profits
Imagine if Orange Box came out as a game as a service. We won't have any good stuff that creative players came up with to spice up their own fun. The reason why I really dislike any modern game is that everything is curated, pre planned and soulless. You don't get no funky map made of Hitler portraits or replicas of map from other games. What a shame
@@Spectrum0122 destiny 2 Fortnite work well on predetermined hardware and software which is consoles and Mac to an extent dammit but again we have megaglest a free open game we can modify so it balances it out on PC.
yup
why bother letting the players do their own custom content for the game, to keep it alive
if they can just keep it all locked from players and at most selling off some skins, maybe a map or two in a dlc, all while behind a battlepass to get the players to grind
This is lowkey why I respect trackmania so much for their choices. They allow custom skins and even map objects that are from the community, and they use that content to feed the live service aspect of it.
The way that it’s sustainable for them is a pretty lax subscription service that opens up a handful of options in ways to play, as well as making and equipping custom skins in the client. The game got a significant amount of backlash for this choice of monetization of their otherwise free game, but honestly it’s pretty good. It’s live service in the sense of constant stream of content (at a rate that would be impossible without the help of the community sourcing new maps every single day), but without battlepasses, or basically any FOMO, unless you count leaderboards closing at the end of each season for their respective tracks.
I like how I watched this video before Asmon reacted and now watching it with his reaction feels exactly like an update to it
Act Man: Wrath of the Bald King
its a live service
Meta.
Asmon DLC
What is real life if not the ultimate live service?
I think the difference between the bugs in halo 2 and something like cyberpunk, is that if you play the game as intended you have less than 1% chance of even seeing something wrong. Compared to cyberpunks first release, where literal cutscenes would space lock you and driving was impossible lol.
Ya I saw his point but it's pretty disingenuous comparison. Computer assisted glitch finding for years vs day 1 busted physics and t-posing on a motorcycle just trying to play normally. Back when, games couldn't be patched after release so ya things were released at a higher level of standards (correct amount)
@@whuzzzup All 3 of Asmongold's examples about old games not being tested better were console games (N64). Specifically Super Mario 64 and Zelda OoT. So anyway in this context we're more referring to Asmongold's console games examples. Obviously PC gaming is superior but if you go far back enough you could not rely on a PC customer to even have access to the internet/broadband or gaming magazine patch CDs. You had to ship a mostly functional not broken game, and payed video game bug testers were an important part of that process. This is when they'd sell "big box" PC games for example, floppy disks and CDs etc.
@@FlameMage2 asmond opinion changes based on who he's watching. He has shir on live services and has made the argument "old gamea were better". If you point it out he always calls ya dimb and how its sk nuanced.
@@TheFrmx damn bro bet you feel smart
@@BIZaGoten yeah bro super bigbrain smarts with 1billion IQ's
On the subject of games getting more expensive to produce... there are also far, FAR more people buying games these days, as well as digital releases which completely cut out physical distribution costs. So yeah, games are still making butt loads of money $60 or not.
thanks. that is often kept secret. games like elden ring show that there is another way. it's not that it's not worth it, it's that public companies want their annual returns
people still believing this "games are more expensive to produce" mantra lol...... i feel like most of the costs go to marketing more rather than developing ...
@@schikey2076 that's is absolutely true for studios like Relic...
"more expensive to produce" also isn't an excuse when we have the healthiest indie game scene we've ever had, with one or two men dev teams. there's no excuse. A lot of money is uselessly spent on things players don't care about.
nftscreenshotter6436 seriously, the fact that most "indie" or self publishing studios make better games than most multimillion dollar AAA games is ridiculous.
Old games might have had bugs, but you didnt encounter 10 game breaking ones on every playthrough, you had to really really fish for them.
Or have to wait many months just to play multiplayer.
To be fair, games now are immensely more complex than games were then. There are thousands of extra variables that can and will create bugs.
@@NarratedStories55 yeah and it just so happens that these games couldve improved with a proper QA and optimization phase rather than tossing the shit out for a quick christmas buck lol
@@NarratedStories55 while that is true the problem is that as the games increase in scale and technical complexity so do the tools to make the games. So development isnt the problem its the publishers pushing the development before its ready. On top of that the live service model or the publishers attempts to milk money out of a game doesn't benefit the people that make the game and ends up making them and the game look worse when you encounter the constant bugs or broken mechanics.
As someone who has played countless retro games and grew up with hand me down consoles and handhelds from my mom and her siblings my whole childhood, I can't agree at all. Not only are a lot of those games broken, but there's no patching something like that. Some games just don't work how they are supposed to as well. Have you ever played Biofreaks? That game is an unplayable turd and that's just off the top of my head. I'd argue modern games have more bugs, but they aren't game breaking. It's mostly just visual bugs that don't effect gameplay. You also have to consider that it makes a big difference that a lot of modern games have online capabilities. That changes everything for the stability of the game and how it has to be programmed. I've played modern games only made by a hand full of people that work better than a lot of older games made by entire studios. I used to have a massive collection of older games anywhere from Atari to PS2, but that was when you could go to flea markets and yard sales and actually afford them. Now grandma thinks her box of assorted Colecovision and Atari games are worth a small fortune. Obviously though, as games get more complex there is a higher chance of bugs no matter who is making the game. It's just that now those issues CAN be fixed retroactively. Hell there's a huge community of people that fix games for emulation because they need it, and obviously none of these companies are gonna rerelease 90% of these games and fix their issues (*cough* Nintendo *cough*). I've played WAY more retro games that are bad and just down right unplayable due to bugs than I have modern ones, especially when it comes to cartridge based systems. Maybe my sample size it just a lot bigger than yours and that's why I feel this way, who knows. Probably the benefit of being able to go to Goodwill every week and get 5 or more new games I hadn't played for my assorted consoles growing up. I miss when retro games were affordable. There were a lot of bad ones but I've had more fun playing a shitty game with a group of friends on older consoles than I've ever had playing a game like OW 2 with a group for example.
Big difference between bugs that ruin your experience every 20 minutes and bugs that go largely unnoticed and are mostly just abused by speed running communities.
Bugs are still bugs you know, they don't disappear just because you ignore them or don't find them.
@@OrionDawn15 well at least they can't ruin your experience if you can't find them. Therefore, much less important
@@СергейЕжов-с1м No, but they still exist and just because *you* don't find them doesn't mean someone else won't find them and have *their* experience ruined.
@oriondawn7064 maybe for some bugs its true, but i don't see how bunny hopping\manipulation of script counter in Vice City\Jedy Academy cutscene excaping\many more can ruin someone experience. Most bugs are not reachable by accident. And these bugs can't ruin your experience(because you need to know exactly how to replicate them) - therefore its pointless to waste time on them, better focus on more reachable for regular players things.
Multiplayer may occasionaly be exception - some bugs may give to skilled players too many advantages
@@СергейЕжов-с1м I agree there, I'm talking more about game-breaking or generally awful bugs rather than exploits however.
My issue with live service is just the heavy monetization right out the gate while the game has lot of issues that need fix first. This is basically every "AAA" publishers ship out a bugged out game but gotta makesure ppl can still spend muns with no issue.
Notice how the cash shop never has any bugs? Hmmmmm.... If I didn't know any better, I'd say they were more focused on selling the in-game casino than the game the casino is in.
Shoutouts to Act Man, watched the original now I get the extended Asmon cut
Welcome to free to watch videos!
Best way to watch 🤙
Man got the asmon dlc
Some of the best games I have ever played in my life, those that I remember the most fondly and often come back to replaying them were exactly those games that you play once and finish and its a great story, or great gameplay... Live service has its purpose too, but I personally prefer to just buy a game, spend 50, 60, 100, 200 hours on it and finish it. Add it to my list of completed games and move on, keeping it in memory.
Yeah the replay value is much appreciated specially multiple ways of progressing through the game and different decisions you can make for different gameplay
Yehh I'm the opposite. See thats how choices works. We can all do out own thing. There's a million good games. Live service is just catching up
it's just because you were young when you played them. I wonder how people will remember destiny when they grow up..
@@1xxvipxx1 I have fond memories of Destiny despite how things went. Then D2 came along and shot my passion repeatedly over 2 years before I left, lol.
Destiny was a fantastic game at the time (aged poorly) but what killed my love for the franchise was the gameplay design changes in D2.
But that's how I remember Destiny knowing full well I may be viewing it through rose tinted glasses.
@@Edanite I remember thinking destiny 1 looked like dogpiss when it came out, Destiny 2 IS dogpiss
The Acting Male absolutely destroyed them with this one.
goodness gracious.
Live service is amazing when it’s about keeping the game alive. The problem is when games start out as live service instead of becoming live service for the players.
I can probably count on my one hand how many games did it well, Fortnite and Deep rock galactic come to mind... I can now think with all appendixes on my body how many games have failed... Anthem, Battlefront, Battlefield...
@@squaeman_2644 The thing to mention about Fortnite also is that its free, you can just download it and start playing. Its not like they owe you anything, because you havent paid for anything, and if you do then its just a cosmetic not a game changing advantage. If a game is live service and you PAY for it... that's almost a guaranteed recipe for disaster each and every time. "Live service" and "free" should go hand in hand.
@@mikeellchuk3787 live service means you're dependent on the developers hosting servers to play. If the host servers end, so does your gaming experience...
@@mikeellchuk3787 what about wow I mean you pay for that or is it because it's subscription based
ps1 and ps2 games were actually extremely easy to copy, in fact, all you needed to make copies work on a ps1 was a straw and a toothpick
Asmon defends live-service games like he's an abuse victim. "Yes, my partner does do horrible things to me on a regular basis, but they're fun to be around when they aren't so it's ok."
"There's only 7 or 8 premium currencies it's not that many"
Bruh, there should be 2 AT MOST
That was sarcasm, bud. 😉👍🏻
I'm yet to play a 'live service' game that wasn't riddled with issues, from predatory monetisation to straight up just not being finished. Subscription based has been the best 'live service' experience so far.
Dota
50:38 - The problem is, you hit the nail on the head here and destroyed your own argument by accident. Back then, yes, games launched with a ton of bugs. But the VAST majority of players would never actually EXPERIENCE those bugs because they require very specific circumstances. Nowadays, it is very common for games to launch with game-breaking bugs that large portions of the player base experience. Technically, you're right; old games were buggy. But they typically weren't buggy as far as the majority of players knew. Now, everyone knows that the game is buggy because they experience the bugs. BF4 was hella buggy, and everyone knew it. I've never met someone who has played Ocarina and found it to be buggy, unless they were LOOKING for exploits/bugs.
Cyberpunk 2077 is ABSOLUTELY NOT, IN ANY CAPACITY, a "live service game". Don't twist the definitions around, what live service was coined and built and continually used to reference, is online dependency for core components of the game to even function at all in perpetuity. Cyberpunk is a 100% offline game that simply has patches, and not only that, it also has zero DRM, so literally once the patch files exist, there is no server or account system or barrier of any kind to stop you from fully playing all of it. They DID have a separate multiplayer spinoff planned, and that would have been a live service, but it was likely canceled or moved back to come out with Cyberpunk 2, and was said to have run in a completely separate client from the main game.
Also 2:36 "a million concurrent players ONLINE"... there is no "online", it was simply Steam and the GOG client recognizing that the software was running and adding that to a tally, there is no server that anyone is "on", and the number was likely higher than what they could even calculate because of all the DRM free cloned copies out in the wild that shouldn't be reporting back to any server at all, or at least not if blocked in firewall which many do as a precautionary measure.
Just imagine the "Live Service" model in literally any other business than the video game industry:
"Here's your brand new car, sir! Enjoy! Don't mind the wheels, we'll install them in a year or so. Also, the steering is a bit off, it'll be fixed in a patch in a couple of months."
"Here's your meal, sir. Raw beef. Uncooked. Come back in a few months and it might be edible. Also, remember, you can RIGHT NOW buy from our selection of side dishes for just $5.99!"
"Here's your new shirt - come back in a couple of months and we'll add sleeves. And for just 5.99 we'll dye it any color you like (once)!"
"Enjoy our brand new big budget blockbuster movie! The final scene will be done shooting next month. Also, you can buy additional bonus content for just 5.99!"
"Here's the key to your apartment. We'll add windows next spring. And don't worry about the plumbing, that'll come in a later patch."
They are already talking about MTX/subscriptions for heated seats in BMWs. I've heard other people say that other auto companies will be heading down this road as well.
Its true that live services with P2W features always feel like youre playing 80% if the game, with the other being locked behind a small loan of a hundred bucks. I just hope that someday when we "acquire" said games, ill get to see what is it that the whales had.
there's nothing wrong with playing one game and then another when you're done. Back then, for example, I just played through a link to the past and then metroid and then mario and then terranigma and then final fantasy and then sailor moon... simply that way... who wants to play the same game for years? not me.
There isn't a problem with live service games, there's a problem with bad live service games.
You have games like LOL, Fortnite, Genshin that are F2P and casual friendly that also get content almost weekly, because of whales.
Key word.. F2P friendly.. People dont have money straight off the bat to dump on a game.. Making the games accessible without money & giving a choice to spend for rewards will attract long term players.. These games also come out with new game modes/new maps/etc..
Nothing wrong with an ongoing service. If I'm going to spend a long time (and a lot of money) on a game then I want it to be constantly updated. I don't care if that's through patches, expansions, microtransactions, user content, whatever. If the game isn't being updated then I'll get bored with it eventually, it's inevitable, and I'm certainly not going to buy skins or whatever for a game I know will be dead in a month.
And that has absolutely nothing to do with the game being released in an unfinished state. The only game I've ever played for a long time beyond when it stopped receiving updated was Diablo 2, and that was because I was 10 years old and literally had no other games. It also has nothing to do with early access. Against the Storm: banger, Gunfire Reborn: banger, Phasmophobia: banger, Vampire Survivors: banger, Risk of Rain 2: banger, and the list goes on.
Isn't it a bit awkward that Act-man advertised a live-service game inside a video dedicated to the evils of live-service games...
The rocket/sword glitch in Halo was super fun. Melee climbing walls just made the game better. Sad when they removed it.
Ross Scott has a great video on games as a service and he clearly and honestly despises this trend. Hard to blame him, it's difficult to assess if this is even a legal practice.
I've never heard someone call a game that got a patch or update a 'live service' game. Live service games are where they try to get you to play 1 game forever. Why would I waste hundreds of hours on repetitive gameplay when in that time I could play dozens of other amazing games that have actual endings in that time?
He keeps pointing out the bugs on old games to counter the argument of old games being complete and finished. Those bugs are forced and you really have to go out of your way to do most of them. The point is that old games didn't have half their content cut on a paywall and most were already playable right from the start.
It's interesting how companies like EA created the problem of too many battle passes and then "solved" the problem by making all in one monthly passes that include a small library of games.
Halo Infinite isnt dead because there wasnt a Battle Royale mode, it died because 343 didnt have any plan on what to do with the game, no updates for major fixes on launch then no content, no fuckin classic MP modes, no forge, broken multipayer ( it was fun when it worked). Halo doesnt need a BR, it just needs a company that cares about quality and service to the fans.
I do think being able to update the game after the fact is a great thing
, but if the base game isn't good it suffers at the start till word of mouth goes around saying the game is better later on.
And they rightly should suffer, games now are one of the few mediums that can be changed as time goes on to better please the consumer but time and again the consumer gets fucked. There’s no live service food, no live service movies, they can’t just go back and change stuff, they have to be good the first time. Yet this advantage is twisted into an excuse to putting out garbage and having diehard fans defend it solely because they promised it will get better
RIP Wildstar, I wish the strongholds in Lost Ark were like those bases~
I dig Vermintide and how they run it. I have hella fun until I burn out in a few weeks, then come back in a few months to see if things changed mich. I'm so hype about the new 40k Dark Tide that I upgraded my whole setup
I feel like in a couple of years it's going to completely turn around, majority of gamers will grow up and hate battle passes and marketing departments will start fake gimmicks like "Buy our game, it is only one time purchase... NOT LIKE THE OTHER GAMES". Something like they try to sell stuff with a sticker "NO PALM OIL" as if they were better than the other products.
No. Thats wrong. The cost of games has risen a lot, but that doesnt excuse them charging more. Not only are most games digital now, removing shipping and handling costs, but they have a much higher customer base. Especially with digital products. Their sales have massively gone up. They made more profit now than they ever had before before the price hikes and live service products.
You would say live service helped Cyberpunk a lot. I would say it created the problems and offered the solutions years later.
Exactly. And Cyberpunk wouldn't need live service to save it if it was a complete and competent game on release. THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM.
Saying "live service saved cyberpunk" is completely missing the point. We shouldn't need live services to "save" games in the first place, they should be done and ready on release.
@@nftscreenshotter6436 Agreed. There should be a system for companies who don't offer us a finished product. We should get refunded $50 and they should get small amounts of the money back as the game get's fixed.
Live service games need to transition to a "static" or traditional functioning game prior to the game servicing ends. Give the games to the people once you abandon them.
On the pirating of music. You went from buying albums and owning them to stealing them and owning them, now you pay monthly for Spotify and own nothing. Anyone who thinks that is a good thing is sadly mistaken.
14:59 - When you look at RimWorld reviews on Steam you see a lot of people with 1000+ hours played because the gameplay loop is based on growing and getting pushed back by bad events. The game has massive player retention because it's fun.
Yeah exactly, the developers need to ask themselves: What is a fun gameplay loop?
Live service games are terrible. I get why Zack likes the updates, but they destroy the foundation of games in general . . . a complete game at launch.
The more I watched this video, the more I realised how much respect I should have for the people behind Path Of Exile.
In regards to monetizing whilst maintaining the bottom line, POE is a present game for the future - the game, its fun, its gamers and developers are all protected in all their bottom lines.
It's a remarkable case-study - a live service that works for everyone.
A company like Fromsoft. Is basically updating new versions of the same game each time. They just refine the engine more abs more, and create new assets and enemies to fight.
Each game kind of like a DLC of something they started in the 90s with kings field. Just improving on everything each time, but building on the same engine.
Well, wasn't even FF15 technically a live service game?! It did regular seasonal events. My brain is trying to remember, but didn't they even have weekly hunt events?
yep they even have the co-op dlc: Comrades which was at first cool but didn't last long.
"Games cost so much more to make yet they cost relatively the same, and that's where battlepasses come in!"
Good sir gaming is mainstream now when it wasn't before. Put concisely: there are simply more players. Also, disks aren't a cost anymore for 95% of people (though that doesn't have much of an effect).
Price of making video games at least for triple a studios is 10 fold of what it used to be. Back when I was a wee lad( mid 80s and 90s) a lot of video games were made by a handful of developers. It’s only during the early 2000s that studios started actually growing in size and make games more cinematic and involved (not necessarily bigger) .
@@whuzzzup probably enough to increase production costs.
i feel like calling Cyberpunk a life-service is a bit disingenuous though. It features no in-game purchases for real money and CDPR actually spend a fuckton of money fixing the (admitted) terrible release state. The game is absolutely phenomenal now and it cost me nothing more than the base-cost of the title to get the full experience.
The ability to update games after release is a blessing and a curse. Yes, complex games like Elden Ring can be patched, and new content added. But, the overwhelming flip side is that many games are now released unfinished, even games which are released "finished". For example, Football Manager Mobile is an excellent game (if you like that sort of thing) which is released "finished". The new version was released on Tuesday with a host of great new features. I love it. BUT the game obviously didn't have proper play testing... in fact, post-release bug reporting IS the play testing, it seems, and there's a lot of stuff that obviously needs fixing, including fundamentals of the match engine and sorting tools. So, what you have is a game that will be a perfect little mobile game... in 2 months. When they fix everything that fans are complaining about.
The problem with saying that the "live service" turns out positive for the cases you mentioned is that it ignores the fact that if they didn't have to rely on it as a crutch, instead of releasing a fractured, buggy and broken game, at least to the astonishingly bad levels of CyberPunk or ButtholeField, it would be finished on day one.
Although, in my mind, I would separate offline, server-independent games from always-online titles like all the F2P garbage deluge we're drowning in these days. I recoil far more if I hear the game is "F2P" than the definition of "live service" we seem to be discussing here (meaning consistently updated over time a la No Man's Sky), unless it's a paid game, while also having always-online requirements. Diablo. Temtem. So in this sense, I certainly agree that it is all around a betterment for the industry and the consumers.
Take Terraria, for example. A personal favourite, and a perfect example of live service done right. No monetization, no online requirements, no tricks or traps to emotionally manipulate you into a grind cycle ad infinitum, nothing but heapin' spoons of extra content, fantastic game mechanics and sky's-the-limit mod support.
But I'd also very much rather play a complete experience than loop my time into an endless charade of a game with no end like MOBAs or BRs if that's the definition we're going with.
And I HATE the idea of battle passes. I have no idea how this concept got past the public, but here we are, drowning in them.
Paying for something you don't get, but instead have to earn. Otherwise you can't have what you paid for? We allowed this??? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Also also, I think using speedruns as an argument for how buggy old games were is disingenuous at best. Speedrunners are actively looking for ways to break the game, and even though they may find many, it's rarely something you'd run across in a normal playthrough. Modern high-profile live service games though... It almost seems like pure luck if your experience is less than 50% bug-ridden in the first year.
Look...the hard truth is that when it comes to these AAA dev's like EA, Acti/Blizz, and 343 for example, when they are presented with the option of turning a game into a live service they absolutely take advantage of it by often doing the bare fuckin' minimum for content while maximizing anti consumer profit strategies. It's nothing but an excuse for them to put out half baked shit. Not EVERYONE that employs a live service does this...but there sure are more bad ones than good ones.
There's a difference between bugs and exploits. Get it right. There's a difference when I boot up a new game and there's largely noticeable graphical glitches and game crashes. Versus i have to do a very specific set commands and different things to get an advantage over another player that I would never had known otherwise unless I was looking for it specifically or saw it online. Sure Super Mario 64 Speedruns look Buggy as hell, but they are intentional exploits. What you are really looking for is a first playthrough experience. If you put in Mario 64, it won't crash 6 times an hour and you are able to beat the game easily enough without having to wait weeks for a patch after launch.
Asmon has never played a great single-player game and it shows....
Halo infinite didn't need a BR that game died because there was a lack of content that's why people went back to MCC
The problem with developers releasing live service games is that they make the mistake of adding Early Access as well. Release a full game and make it live service and we'll stop being mad at them
Most gamers were never a 'one game Andy', that's just the bulk of WoW and FIFA players like yourself.
It’s kinda crazy how *good* EPIC has gotten with live service. Paragon died because of how poorly they handled updates and how they ignored what the community actually wanted. As someone who was a huge fan of the game it was crazy how much they ruined it. But Fortnight? It’s honestly really good when it comes to updates and events. I don’t play it, but the fact that it’s still so prevalent after all these years really speaks on its behalf
Sometimes Asmongold has really bad takes and his whole take of "Wow games weren't finished even back then" is such a blatantly untrue statement. More games back then had for more content and replay value then half the games that came out in the PS4/XONE era
For console games, sure.
For PC games, that's always been an issue.
Basically, I think a live service game is good unless the makers call it a "live service game". Paradox Interactive is a dev studio that makes games like this and it works, yet they never advertise the game like that. And because of that, they make sure the game is at least functional, but they add a tremendous amount of content ever 9 to 12 months. Same with successful MMOs
Yeah, I’m happy to pay the small monthly subscription service for EU4 instead of buying all of the DLC.
Can someone explain why it matters how many concurrent players a game has as long as it sells well and is reviewed very highly and loved by fans? Act man says the problem with games like TW3 and Elden Ring is that as good as they are, they don't stay on top long, and then he points out how huge of a drop they had in player count from their peak to not too long after that. Why does this matter though? If they don't have microtransactions, why do they care how many people are playing their game at any given time as long as the game sold really well and was HUGELY praised by everyone?
3:40 This is so true and soooo many people do not understand this to be the case. Most big studios have maybe 100 QA people, max. Which compared to the millions of players that are essentially also testing the game, is NOTHING.
Games companies never make any truly good games now because they know if a game is too good then people will just play it for years and years and years instead of buying a new game. It's built in planned obsolescence and that classic idea performers know to always leave the audience wanting more. That and just money and greed of course
Live service game is a fancy word for early access for triple A devs
lmfao no games are cheaper now to make then ever thanks to technology and the costumer base has also grown alot
6:45 Asmon really knows just when to pause, as always. Never change.
As Software developer i can assure you developers, we have no last word if it will ship or not. It all depends on manager and higher ups. Higher ups with some of the developers will make high level estimate which are most of the time not constantly changed. Once you say it will be done in a year but during the time you get in some problem or need to wait for some of the requirements which at the begining you didnt expect then first estimate is not changed. So in the end it will be 1 and half year. But They still expect what they wanted in a year because of money. In this case Developers need to make it possible to be somewhat playable/usable. But at the end of the day if it would be up to developers they would not ship product which is not done. They are using developers as some puppets to make connection with player base so player base feel like they can make changes. Its all up to higher ups and money.
Yeah games had bugs back in the day but the core gameplay was quality. Can’t say the same for a lot games now
You need to go watch Accursed Farms video, "Games as a Service is FRAUD"
You need to talk to Ross.
I thought live service games are those which you literally cannot play if you dont have an internet connection. I wouldn't call Cyberpunk a live service game because although yes they can push out updates to it literally every game can do that at this point via Steam - later in the video asmon even said that live service games can come to an end and then you cant play it anymore which is exactly my understanding of a live service game and why I hate the concept and hate the trend of having everything be live service.
I completely agree. Games have been releasing updates for their games via the internet for MANY years long before the concept of a live service was even a thing. This would also include DLC as well, both paid and unpaid.
@@savagex378 yeah fully agreed.
Yeah man live service games have been a huge positive for game devs, they get to sell demos for full game price and then finish the game whenever they feel like it, yeah cyberpunk 2077 is now playable 2 years later wow so impressed
This was such a good Acting Male video
42:35 tower of fantasy only has 1 premium currency tho.
It has a lot more currencies in total but only one of them is pay only and only 2 (including the previously mentioned one) of them can be purchased
"hard to copy a Nintendo game". Dude. Ever hear of emulators? Snes9x was on Windows 98. PS2/PS3/Xbox is where it got hard to emulate. Dreamcast didn't even need a jail break to use burned CDs.
"live service is a positive thing for cyberpunk" sorry but that's a shit take. It's an excuse to release an incomplete, untested, full priced product. They're not doing it for our benefit.
I have no idea why is he calling Cyberpunk a live service game
Blockbuster rentals for PS2 games... if you got yourself a PS2 hard drive you could copy a game straight to the HD within 20mins & it was yours from then on...
Fuck dude I wish I knew this back then but I was like 10 lol
The reason why I am such a Genshin Stan is because I love that it’s a live service game that actually provides you with frequent content updates. Takes me back to the good ol’ days when Valve actually gave a shit about TF2
Game prices has over all just gone down if adjusted for inflation, stagnated if not. Not increased by 30%
There are a few things that we need to bear in mind about bugs then and now.
Back then when Gaming was still in its relative infancy, devs were still learning on the fly and didn't always have game dev courses to learn how to code, model, map etc, nor did they have a vast discography of games to learn from.
Not to mention the tools nowadays like even Unreal or Unity have so many users, so much documentation larger teams of coders and testers than ever before. The tools are easier to use, the teams have bigger budgets and more experience and documentation at their fingertips and yet they somehow release games in worse states. Yes they're often more ambitious because the hardware has moved forward, but relatively speaking they've not gotten much more ambitious. Take open World games for example, Spider Man 2 making a large open world on the PS2 with such technical limitations was incredibly ambitious.
The expectations have gone up and it feels like the standards haven't followed, and yet even with these unfinished trashy games, they still want to milk you for as much money as they can.
I hate doing dailies in the live services game. Congrats, you manage to make the game like work. Now I don't want to play it.
It's incredible how many things Asmongold is wrong about in just this video yet he never admits it.
halo being "dead" has nothing to do with not having a br but with fuck up after fuck up after fuck up not one person on the planet gives a flying fuck about br except streamers
20:12 What you talk about there is EXACTLY how I feel about games like Warframe. The story was always a bit confusing, but the game was a blast to play... and as of typing this comment, I haven't legit played in MAYBE a year now? But I've been keeping track of the things they've been adding, changing, etc... It's daunting every time I try going back to the game wondering what I should do, does everything still work the same, what the heck is the story now, etc. I might go back to it eventually 🤣
TOTALLY AGREE with Act 🎬 Man and people
DONT want that.
on the bugs, while old games had a lot a bugs, you had to go far out of your way to find or do them. they didn't just happen while switching weapons, or climbing stairs
I just love the copium asmon has about live service games.
SAAS is not a video game thing - it's prevalent in all industries
An issue with live service games is that it can give a game the illusion of being good. If Fallout 76 released as the standard it's at today, people would have probably thought "atleast the game can't get any worse". When you prove that a game can be worse and then improve it so that it's not at its worst, for some people that makes the game look decent.
I funny they point out the Bethesda with the game timelines. elder scrolls 6 might come out in 7 or 8 years and when will be the next fallout in maybe 15 years. They focus on online games and neglect the single player ones
Asmon likes live service games because he's rich and can afford them. FR FR NO CAP ON A STACK.
My friends and I are still sad they deleted Overwatch.
I love when asmon pushes back on act man’s “arguments” in this video I love to see people have their own thoughts and brain it’s nice to see. Edit: also love to see act man peddling a dogshit live service mobile game for money surely a man with consistent values.
@@gaijinkuri684 Still makes him a hypocrite
43:00 7 days is a pretty good game that is just constantly being ruined by the people that made it, they are constantly seeing how players are playing it and put roadblocks in the way to make you play the way devs want you to play.
A lot of the fun of the game is creating a death trap that manipulates zombie AI and pathing to make killing them on horde nights really easy. My favourites are using the L bridge pieces with the open-top box pieces on the side of the bridge that has the railing, over a 2-block gap. The zombies break the open top box because they see it as a valid path, then when it's broken it's not a valid path anymore so they look for another way in.
Also putting trapdoors over the top of ladders with a 1-block gap for their heads, the zombies climb the ladder but get stuck hitting the trap door leaving you there to just headshot them and they drop to the bottom of the ladder.
You can just experiment with shit like this to filter zombies to where you want them. But once the anti-fun pimps catch on to something like that, they do whatever they can to counter or nerf it. That's why zombie rage mode exists, they just start destroying random blocks if they can't get to you.
I love how all of these youtubers talk shit about microtransactions and live service games and then take sponsors for sketchy companies who make shitty app games souly designed for micro transaction..
Early access is one of the best things that happened in the gaming industry. Why ? Because players have the opportunity to support smaller creators to create a game for which they would not have the funds under normal circumstances.
However, the conditions must be met. One of them is a roadmap so that the player knows what he supports and where the project will actually go.
Reduced price that would increase after the release of version 1.0.
A couple of games that could have been created thanks to early access.
1. Hades
2. Divinity Original Sin
3. Long Dark
4. Grounded
4. Valheim
5. Age of Darkness
6. Everspace
7. Satisfactory
8. Darkest Dungeon
9. Dead Cells
10. Deep Rock Galactic (ROCK AND STONE YEEEEAH !!! /,,/)
and many others.
Of course, it is still about the intelligence of the customer, and as in every single market, he must be careful what he supports, how much he supports and why he supports it.
Early access is an opportunity to create projects that would probably never be created ... because of a lack of money. And today we can say that it would be a big shame and a mistake.
The Live Service system is an early access system for billion-dollar corporations. And it's a mistake.
Live Service system should not be the system on which the game is built, but it is the system into which the game will be evolved.
Let's take Rainbow Six Siege as an example and modify the reality a little so that I can show how the use of the game's live service should work.
Announcing R6 as a AAA game for 60 euros. The game will contain 10 operators. Others can be obtained in the form of in-game currency (grind ... moderate grind) or as part of support instantly when buying a season pack).
Or the game would remain with 10 operators and additional content (maps) would be in paid DLC.
After a few years, depending on how much the player base has developed, the company will decide whether it makes sense to turn the game into a live service game. If the player base is large and enough time has passed (let's say 4-5 years), the company announces the transition of the game to Live Service, which will result in DLC content (maps and all additional content) not being paid for but will be available for free (so that DLC it did not divide the communities in different approaches to content) but skins, for example, will come into the game as part of monetization. Here I would point out that at this point it is very important that the company does not anger the community. If from the beginning of the development of the game I represent the game as a game about special units, then the skins will come to the game on a given theme and I will stick to it. And it is not considered that a pink skin pack with cat ears will come into the game.
In the current situation, when we look at, for example, BF V, it is unacceptable that games that are based on the LIVE SERVICE system from the beginning should be paid for. Because EA, in a certain way, said that they don't follow what the marketing of BF V was based on (and that was a complete passage of the 2nd WW as part of the additional content).
It simply allows them to cut themselves off from the service because the game is a live service game and for the player who paid 60+ euros for the game, BF V becomes an incomplete game.
Just like that. Because EA decided so. And currently no one can sanction them for this decision. If someone wants to create games on the LIVE SERVICE system, ok ... but let them be F2P.
And this is a big problem. The gaming industry has no institution that controls:
1. Fulfillment of promises given to players in marketing
2. The quality of the product itself.
The gaming industry is so big nowadays and the companies are literally worth billions. To protect the customer and maintain a certain quality of the products, this market needs a similar institution.
Games are art, they are an opportunity to educate future generations, they are a tool to use creativity and logical thinking, they are a book that can bring stories we never dreamed of.
So let's make them so that they are created correctly. We will make them so that the customer is protected from abuse. And of course, above all, so that both parties are satisfied.
And what about the BATTLE PASS.
In AAA paid games, it is a possibility to kill the reward system that paid games had until now.
In F2P games, it is a unique system to give the player the opportunity to support the game (if the BP is done well and contains interesting rewards). Fortnite is probably the best example.
Whether it is a F2P or AAA game, in both cases BP should not contain one, and that is the FOMO mechanism.
Hates live service games
Promotes shitty mobile game
Ok
Once the live service is made stable enough to play or login the monetization is usually hell. That and some games have large content by droughts like halo infinite comes to mind with its I think it was 6 or 10 month long season