Or at least release the server code when you shut the game down, so anyone can spin up a server of their own. Community servers are fine, but you should always be able to host your own for friends to play on.
Well, no.
Deep Rock Galactic has fully optional skin packs to make money and they're doing great.
Warframe has been chugging along for over a decade now and they're doing great. Beating the pants off of Destiny 2 for average player count.
The live service trick is that live service only works if the company actually cares about the product. Those two companies stand out because they legitimately care and have great communication with their communities.
So far Warframe has been the ONLY example of a good live service game. It’s the OG when it comes to the model, but it’s also the exception, and not the rule.
Destiny historically vasscilated between “fucking amazing” and “dumpster fire”. The problem has always been that it is near impossible to maintain that level of quality and entertainment consistently while also innovating on a regular basis. It is very difficult and very expensive.
They moved into “dumpster fire” territory significantly more than “fucking amazing”, sadly. Like one good expansion, three bad updates and two bad expansions, one good update.
“Live service” is a game that has an always online requirement. Just getting updates on the regular doesn’t make it a live service if the game works just fine without an Internet connection.
Single player Ubisoft games are all “live services”, due to some of them needing a constant connection to Ubisoft’s servers, and them having in-game shops that only work while online.
They’re the same thing. “Live service” is how Activision-Blizzard rebranded games that required to be always online. They also solidified the outline of things publishers at the time were already doing with their always online games, such as endless content players will have to buy.
Those documents leaked many years ago, and soon after that the moniker was changed from “always online” to “Live Service”.
I’ll try and find them, but first I heard from it was from Jim Stirling. “The Jimquisition” on YouTube, I think. Haven’t kept up with that guy in years.
DRG and Warframe also hit the critical requirement of actually being games that are fun to play!
I haven’t played a lot of WF, but I’ve got hundreds of hours on DRG. There is no grind. Getting holiday loot takes 5 to 8 matched total, and the Seasons are long and very relaxed. I maxed out XP for this season already and the next probably won’t start until at least this summer.
The community is going strong, the game is fun, Ghost Ship seems stable and like a nice place to work. It’s so stupid that more companies don’t see that they could run like this instead of chasing “get rich quick” corporate schemes that always alienate the fans.
Warframe’s MTX is so fair too. All of it can be earned in game, get items sell items for Platinum (paid currency) get the item from the shop.
The exception is the Fan made skins that are a few bucks. But those directly support the fan created skins.
Warframe is mostly pay-2-convenience.
The latest story expansion Warframe 1999 was phenomenal. If you havent played it yet, definitely follow through the main story it’s all tied together. One of the best stories that continue to deliver.
The problem being that execs often learn the wrong lesson from that. Instead of learning that this type of live service game isn’t wanted by the market, they’re likely to learn that this series of games or this character is no longer wanted.
This was inevitable as soon as games started getting the budgets of blockbuster movies. No one wants to invest that much money into a project without getting some oversight and control in return.
Of course, very, very few people who have access to that kind of cash have any design sense whatsoever, and even fewer understand the creative process, or what makes games “good”… so they ask for shit that they think will be “safe” money-makers, and we get what we get: endless, samey, soulless shlock.
Yeah, and they often launch with loads of systems where future content could be plugged in, but the actual content itself is typically bad or at the very least incomplete. The publishers try too hard to build a platform rather than a good game…
Yeah, theoretically the exact model for monetization isn’t as important, but many publishers are hoping to get players to pay subscriptions indefinitely.
no it’s like fortnite or cod. They’re usually quickplay multiplayer games with a low cost to entry, infinite grinding potential, and microtransaction hell
Its the definition of “you dont own the game”. You pay to get access to the service of playing the game and it wants to keep you playing as long as possible so you spend more money on micro transactions. They are constantly updated, usually as some form of “season”, have daily login streak bonuses, etc. And after 2 years the game shuts down and you have nothing and can’t play anything you paid for anymore.
Every live service game that fails or gets cancled is a good thing.
Basically a game that is continuously updated with new content. Lots of different models of it from MMOs to Fortnite to Diablo IV. Many of them are free to play with lots of microtransactions. They usually feature things like seasons and battle passes and loot boxes. They’re almost always heavily monetized. The competition in the “genre” is incredibly fierce since most people probably only play a handful of them and friend groups usually all want to be on the same game. It’s very hard to break into. Sony announced that they were making a big investment into the area a few years ago and news has been trickling out since that most of them have been canceled.
The worst thing about a live service game to me is that they only work when you can connect to the official servers. Many live service games have shut down and there is no offline mode to continue playing. Sometimes you still pay full price for these games. Sometimes games like The Crew, shut down after you spent money to play it and then The Crew 2 comes out so you pay full price for essentially the same game and the first one doesn’t work anymore.
Why did they make an expensive game like Concord which nobody wanted? Don’t they have market analysts or something like that? Everyone was able to tell them beforehand that it will flop.
Afaik they started development when overwatch was already successful. By the time development finished the hype was over and players had moved to other genres, and had very little interest in an overwatch clone.
They probably started it at a time when analysis suggested it was what people wanted more of, and then during the probably what; 4 or 5 years it took to develop, interest waned?
I don’t think it was weird that they started on this; it was pretty weird that they didn’t pivot or cancel earlier.
While playing the single player masterpiece which was God of War, I absolutely thought: “The only way to make this game better is if I had the luxury of buying a battle pass to grind for seasonal cosmetics along with a dozen other people.” 🤤🤤🤤🤑
pcgamer.com
Aktywne