I agree on all of the above. But they still don't provide anything resembling a service. They just call these things live services to disguise bad products.
It's also a compelling argument for me to not buy the game, though, because it puts an expiration date on the game. Baldur's Gate 3 sure had no problem moving copies even though it's got LAN, direct IP connections, split-screen, and it's available DRM-free. By contrast, I could have been into Mythforce, but multiplayer is tied to a server in that game, so no thanks. Cherry-picked examples? Sure. But it still doesn't make the server-tying any more compelling for the consumer.
How many games came out in 2023? How many of those do Microsoft own? How much do you think that second number changes over the next 10 years? There are so, so, so many video game companies out there that Microsoft doesn't own.
They can also be some of the best, most engaging, and longest-lasting forms of entertainment
Emphasis mine. Longest-lasting is the one thing live service games are guaranteed not to be, which he gets to later.
The thing that really truly makes a live service game a live service are the updates.
Games got updates before live services, and games today that aren't live services get updates.
Then the author acknowledges the existence of expansions and patches before live service games but doesn't see this as being at odds with his definition. Expansions certainly didn't take "several years" to release back then, like he said, and they still don't take that long now (they still exist, which he also acknowledges). While the updates that came along with World of WarCraft were large and significant, it also wasn't out of the ordinary for PC games to add content like maps and modes for free, no subscription required, because just like today, new content drops bring players back to check it out.
Magic: The Gathering and Dice Throne get regular updates. These are tabletop games. Are they live services? Of course not. They're selling you a product, not providing you a service. The regular work the developers do on those games are just R&D that any producer goes through to make a product. The "service" of live service games are that they're providing the server for you to play on alongside those updates, but the server code is just a part of the product that they withheld from you in order to make you dependent on them and eventually have to spend money. Live services are not services; they're just bad products, because they didn't give you everything you paid for.
The author then discusses all of the manipulation that comes along with live service design, and I too find that gross, but from my perspective, that's just part of the bad product that they built. Chicken and egg. Customers were perfectly capable of the technical requirements of running a vanilla WoW server, and it was only Blizzard's legal department that stopped them.
I think the industry as a whole should be finding a better way to preserve these games and also to provide some legal avenue for paying customers...to continue playing them even when the publisher has thrown in the towel.
Exactly. This is the problem. These companies won't do this unless somehow forced though, because that dependency on their servers means you have to play the game with the lengthy grind that they dictate so that you stay subscribed longer (even though the house rules on the community server speed up the grind to be more fun), stay online longer through manipulation, and keep getting opportunities to spend money in their cash shop. Even games that aren't monetized like a live service do this nonsense, probably out of some attempt to prevent piracy, but it just ends up just making the game worse along with it. I no longer buy or play games that are dependent on an external server; even this definition has some blurred lines with games like Hitman.
It's okay to make a multiplayer game that people may only play a handful of times before putting down, or a single player game that you play through once that has a deathmatch mode attached to it. Some of the most successful multiplayer games of all time, including ones that are still popular today, started as great single player games with multiplayer attached to it. If it really gets its hooks in people but needs some touching up, put out some patches and expansions for it. It doesn't need to keep getting new content forever, and thinking that a game can or should do that is what leads to all of this nonsense. Give us the servers. Give us LAN. Give us direct IP connections. Give us same-screen multiplayer. Sever the dependency on a server that I can't control, or I'm not buying.
That's far more cynical than I can meet you at, and it's probably why the merger isn't "opposed by everyone". Microsoft is already dancing right up to the line of antitrust, though I suspect that if they're broken up, the video game division remains in one piece, not several.
They kind of can't buy any competitors at this point. They got through this acquisition by the skin of their teeth and have to cool it, and after all that, I doubt this leads to a future where they've got a larger market share than PlayStation. There's also just far too much competition in the gaming space for them to approach a monopoly. Epic couldn't will their store into superiority over Steam, especially when they're not doing anything to solve problems for their customers, and Microsoft still has to make good products to get you to buy them too.
Nintendo had a problem to solve back then, which was shovelware, so they incentivized fewer, higher-quality releases. Compared to today's market and the means we have to sift through shovelware, it was basically the equivalent of martial law to get the market on track. But for many years, competing consoles were just capable of dramatically different things. That tended to even out in the 6th gen, but even then, many devs would only release on PS2 because it cost too much money to make a game multiplatform, so you'd just target the one with the largest install base. Take a look at the 5th gen for how dramatically different the capabilities were between the Saturn, N64, and PlayStation; two of them were on CDs, one was on cartridges; Saturn sucked at 3D and pushed FMVs; PlayStation had a weird "Z-buffer" problem where vertices were really swimmy and shapes would wobble; N64 lacked the storage space to have many textures at all; draw distance and raw processing power varied wildly; on and on.
But I use the same software center in Kubuntu without those restrictions. If it's easy to toggle that off, I could have Fedora in my back pocket as an alternative for some day where Ubuntu gets too egregious with their Snaps, but so far, it's easier to just stick to Kubuntu.
They were capable of dramatically different things. Perhaps they also had those contracts, but Genesis couldn't do mode 7, and the sounds that came out of the SNES were dramatically different. There were cases where a game would come out on each system under the same name but developed by two different companies with two completely different designs, because their capabilities were so different.
Apple's got bigger problems when it comes to gaming than just whether or not Call of Duty comes out for Mac that year, and those problems are of Apple's own creation.
I tried Fedora briefly before switching back to Ubuntu. It seemed like it was still forcing updates in a Microsoft-esque way that Ubuntu does not. On Ubuntu, most updates can be applied without a restart, but Fedora seemed to bundle a bunch of updates together without really telling me what was in them, and I believe it had an install step during shutdown or startup? Which is another thing I hated about Windows. Some of this could be false, as I have an atrocious memory, and some of it could have been user error, but the first foot that it put forward reminded me too much of Windows. On Ubuntu, I just disable snaps.