
Live service has become a curse word among enthusiast gamers. While ostensibly a business model, many associate the phrase with multiplayer and microtransactions. It’s true that free-to-play games like Fortnite are live service, with regular iterations introducing seasonal gameplay mechanics, systems, and themes. Right now there’s a big Marvel event occurring in Epic’s battle royale, which has seen the introduction of Doctor Doom-style quests and locations.
The thing is, live service effectively just means ongoing development, and Astro’s Playroom recently exhibited some of the advantages of the model – albeit on an admittedly smaller scale. You’re feeling conflicted right now, aren’t you?
While much is criticised about the contemporary state of gaming, one of its real advantages is that a game can be iterated upon after its release. This obviously comes with undeniable downsides: some titles release broken and unfinished, with missing features. That’s not good enough. But when it comes to evolving and introducing – shock horror – live service events, there are tons of possibilities.

Astro’s Playroom demonstrated that in the subtlest of manners recently, and no one criticised developer Team ASOBI for following said path – largely because it did it in the right way. But make no mistake, the semi-regular release of Special Bots, which introduced new puzzles and encouraged players to return to the title multiple times in the lead-up to Astro Bot’s launch, was an example of live service support.
Now it’s true that the developer didn’t monetise this, aside from the entire campaign acting as interactive marketing for new game Astro Bot. And it’s also accurate that the team eschewed FOMO (or fear of missing out) by ensuring the content will always be available to be unlocked. But this gradual ongoing support is an example of how live service can be implemented positively – and even culminated in a countdown event, similar to the new year stuff in Fortnite.

I understand people are going to bristle at this article; they’re going to point to the calamitous launch of Concord and claim what Team ASOBI did here doesn’t count. But the whole point I’m writing this is to attempt to open your eyes: live service doesn’t have to be bad; it doesn’t have to be evil. In fact, when used effectively, as is the case here, it can be pretty cool. Don’t automatically write off what’s possible just because of your predetermined notions of what the model entails.
What did you think of the Special Bots updates to Astro’s Playroom? Did you enjoy completing the regular puzzles, and did it help build your anticipation for Astro Bot? Did you join the countdown for the new game’s release? Keep calm in the comments section below.
Did you enjoy unlocking the Special Bots in Astro's Playroom? (1,089 votes)
- Yes, it was a great primer for Astro Bot
- Meh, it was okay I suppose
- No, I didn't find these puzzles fun at all
- I didn't unlock the Special Bots
Comments 130
I really wouldn't call this live service. First is that there is obviously no way for Sony to profit from these updates since there was no monetization at all. They just gave out a free update to the free tech demo installed with every PS5. Second is that these updates weren't planned in advance from the game's launch. It was simply a nice addition to a fun little game. You wouldn't call Ratchet and Clank 2016 live service because they eventually added the bouncer to everyone regardless of pre order years later.
Nah. The Special Bots are more akin to free DLC, with their own separate trophy set.
I dunno man, seems a bit of a reach. To me anyway, service implies something you pay for. So like if something gets updated over time I consider this support, not service. Schematics, I know, but that's what I consider live service, either subscriptions, expansions, season passes, micro transactions, or a combination of the above.
Massive reach
This feels like someone at PushSquare has taken a desperate backhander by someone at Firewalk.
Embarrassing behaviour.
This might be a crazy idea for the staff here, but free game updates/patches that add extra content have existed before the term "life service" even existed. This update doesn't have anything to do with "life service" because we all now what that actually means - a persistent online connection that allows for developers to tweak the game, often server-side without even having to change anything on the side of the client. It also entails constant collection of player data to analyze and improve the game. None of that is happening here.
I think Liam made a similar claim a year or two ago. People were up in arms and I don't think they've changed their mind about this.
Even it were technically live-service, it's not how it's used by the average person.
@naruball The community response was why I don’t do Soapboxes anymore 😂
"I understand people are going to bristle at this article; they’re going to point to the calamitous launch of Concord and claim what Team ASOBI did here doesn’t count."
No, Sammy, we're going to take issue with you being a pedant.
Games receiving permanent updates or additions at no extra charge to players isn't what anyone associates with the term "live service" nor any of its connotations, so don't try to be clever - it's not the same thing. No more than Baldur's Gate 3 is "live service" by merit of its extensive patches. If you're to follow this argument to the illogical conclusion, you're suggesting that any game that does anything after launch is a live service.
Live service means microtransactions (mostly appears in the form of some sort of cosmetics store, loot boxes or battle passes) and there's none in this game.
I don't know, I just view it as a fun little update to generate hype for a sequel.
???
So now any game with updates is a live-service? Super Mario Odyssey was the best live-service game ever, I guess. An argument of semantics does not change what live-service has come to mean. And Astro's Playroom's fun use of updates does not change the predatory practices often seen in live-service games.
This can be seen as a fun little article. But it's likewise completely nonsensical.
We're not thick. Is that what you think, because this is a website for gaming enthusiasts. I'm mildly insulted. When people refer to live service gaming as in GaaS, it's not a game like Astrobot that has had content added after release. No Man's Sky is the best examples of this, we know the difference between the this kind of live service and the games built around monetising it, like Fortnite.
You said it yourself, no one complains about live service support. No one moans about Hello Games giving years worth of free content and upgrades because we're not stupid enough to not be able to discern the difference between that kind of live service supported games and the monetised kind.
Frankly, I'm shocked you put Astrobot and Fortnite in the same category! You can't really think that, surely. Astrobot is not a monetised game as a service but it has live service support. Not the same thing.
Yeaaaah, I'm gonna say this is a swing and a miss article, Sammy
@PloverNutter You would if they added a new weapon every month over a prolonged period of time, each coming with associated challenges and content.
Fortnite wasn't planned as a live service either, it just evolved into one.
No one is denying that this is on a completely different scale, but the concept is still exactly the same. And it demonstrates it doesn't have to be bad.
Patches that add something do not make a game a live service.
@TrickyDicky99 Oof.
@get2sammyb Somehow I don't think "giving away free things forever" is what investors have in mind when they are looking for growth into services. I think that's kind of the opposite thing.
@crossbit "Games receiving permanent updates or additions at no extra charge to players isn't what anyone associates with the term live service nor any of its connotations, so don't try to be clever."
Well they should, because that's what it means. Obviously there was no charge in this particular example, but the "cost" was obviously interactive promotion/advertising for Astro Bot.
There’s a bit of a gulf in what the community classes as live service. And what this article is trying to reach is totally the opposite.
Yes by definition these may be ‘live service’. But as the author well knows it’s not what the community means.
It’s actually one of the worst articles I’ve read on here.
@RoomWithaMoose Is No Man's Sky a live service? (The answer is yes, by the way.)
That's quite a stretch, if I tried that I'd def have pull something. 😂😂 Live service games don't survive by giving away free things and are not typically single player games.
This is nonsense. "Live service" doesn't just mean "the game gets patches and updates", it means the game is designed to be a "forever game" that constantly churns out content and treadmills to keep players hooked and addicted. I have no idea what you're trying to do with this article, but all you've done is make a massive reach. We're not dumb, we can tell the difference between a game getting updates and a game being designed to keep you stuck in it and spending on it. Embarrassing false equivalence.
This is like calling Resident Evil a "Role Playing Game" because you play the role of Jill Valentine. Totally ridiculous.
Live service is amazing in the right hands 🤝
I get where you're coming from here and I feel like the response is a bit overly negative to what was intended to be a light-hearted piece.
However... I'd point out that Asobi are showing what live service/updates (whatever you want to call it) can be when done right, yet we all know that this is increasingly rare these days sadly, hence the animosity towards it
@PsBoxSwitchOwner "There’s a bit of a gulf in what the community classes as live service. And what this article is trying to reach is totally the opposite."
Then the community needs to stop thinking in boxes and try and consider the positives of the model as well as the negatives.
@get2sammyb
Sammy, PSN is a live service that everybody use.
No point going any further my chad 🤫
@get2sammyb
Sammy, I don't know why you are defending this position. Its clear that whilst there is an argument to be had that Astrobot and Fortnite both enjoy updates beyond launch that enhance the game so you could lump both under the umbrella term 'live service',
when people bemoan live service gaming they will always mean the type that is MONETISED. I don't know why you're trying to blur the distinction in people's mind when they are already able to tell, and already do treat differently, the two different kind of 'live service' games. People want less of the monetised kind.
@get2sammyb in reply to comment #17 you would then of course, because that would change the entire game and how it is played. But you can't just say "if they did that it would be" because they didn't 🤦♂️
Astro Bot and Ratchet and Clank aren't designed to be played over a year or more, with people coming back each month instead of playing some other new games, they are single player games that have a goal, a finishing point, and happened to have a bit of stuff added later. So until they are not that, they can't be seen as live service just to poke people on the internet because you love gatcha games 😛😛
If Astro Bot released and you could only play one system of planets this month and then next month more unlocked, then it would be live service, and much, much sh**ter. If they add levels in the future, fine, but it would be more akin to DLC, as I'm assuming this game has an ending. I.e collecting all the bots. After it ends, it is the end, and not "tune in next month for season 7, only £42.65. Don't forget to buy parappa the rapper in an all new never before seen hat, only £12.97"
@get2sammyb What's that have to do with Astro's Playroom?
If your point is that live-service doesn't inherently mean bad, that's a fine point. But that point still completely ignores all the bad things associated with live-services that make people justifiably weary of them. Live-service doesn't HAVE to be bad, but there's a reason it has so many negative connotations.
And Astro's Playroom is not a great defense to the contrary, because it barely counts as live-service in any notable way.
@get2sammyb so what game to you isn’t live service?
@PsBoxSwitchOwner
[Sammy frantically Googling for a game that has never received any patch or update so that we can't immediately hit him with the "Well, Sammy, actually."]
@get2sammyb Remember the good old days of live service games? Say, around 2003, when Rockstar Games added extra maps to a game mode in Max Payne 2? Or how Raven Software added bonus multiplayer maps to Jedi Academy. Some of the best live service games ever released.
The Splatoon series is a good example of a live service that people don't think is one. Regular updates that add new content, Splatfests and Big Runs are time limited events, and 3 even has a battle pass system with the catalogues. It's a much better example than Astro's Playroom, though of course this is a Playstation site so I get it. People have a misconception that live service must mean microtransactions, etc. live service isn't defined by a particular type of monetisation, but by the evolving nature of the online platform of the game, it just so happens that most live services have to rely on mtx to sustain the model - Nintendo doesn't, they make enough money from everyone buying the game at full price.
How about a poll about how which games we complain about when we talk about live service gaming:
1. Yearly, full price, franchise releases with added content via MTs and Battlepasses, designed to funnel players towards spending real money long term.
2. Monetised GaaS games that cost money to buy to play with content added via a road map, designed to funnel players toward spending real money longterm.
3. F2P, heavily monetised live service games with added content via special events and FOMO, designed to funnel players towards spending real money longterm.
4. Fully featured games that developers update with free content for months and years after release.
Tough one. It's 4!! Ban them!!
Live service, also known as games as a service (GaaS), is a business model in the video game industry that provides games or game content on a continuing revenue model
Key words: business model and revenue model Adding free stuff to a single player game isn't a business model and doesn't directly generate revenue, thus it isn't a live service. Can we delete the article now? 😁
Next time just say "some elements from live service games can benefit other games" as I think that is what was meant, overall. Rather than a "gotcha, you've been playing live service all along muahahaha" article
Who thought this article was a good idea?
At best it demonstrates how out of touch you guys are to your audience, completely missing the point why people disliked Concord.
At worst its you playing “i told you so” and “gotcha” against your own audience.
One of the worst article ive read on this site. Probably the besr way out of is would be “sorry my 9 year old got into my computer”, cause thats exactly how it reads.
Shame!
@Ravix it's so obvious I can only think this was a set up. Job done. I've already made 4 comments 😆😆👍
Sam, just stop lmao
This is a terrible article.
Live service doesn't mean any game that gets an update post-release, no one uses that definition. Obviously they're all referring to GaaS, titles that rely on an always-online connection and constant updates designed to keep the player engaged indefinitely.
When Concorde was euthanized that disc became a coaster. If Sony stopped updating Astro's Playroom, which I'd imagine they have at this point, the entire game is still playable.
You're comparing apples to oranges and then going 'aha! you see, they're both fruit! you liked apples all along!'
C'mon man.
@riceNpea @species
I mean, it is literally the worst article I've ever seen on here, yet I can't stop looking 😂😂😂
I think at it's core it has some truth, but it is dressed in such a way that it just looks like a big F*** you to anyone who didn't mindlessly buy Concord because he actually quite liked the idea that you could pay once and get every season locked down in a live service game, before they monetised everything else later on when people were already hooked. Or not, as it turns out.
Sammy is basically a big gatcha machine stuffed full of these articles ready to drop this month, I bet. This will be our punishment 😁
Please sir, more tomorrow
@Ravix Is this a case of someone identifying a game as live service so now we have to agree and say it's live service for fear of cancellation?
This is a genius article the more I think about it. How could we not post on the comments about a topic framed so epically badly?
I can no longer follow the comments as words have lost all meaning to me. All I can see is Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible pulling off his face to reveal he was in fact a live service game all along. Help me 😂
Think I need to take a break from reading Push Square for a while.
Sammy you absolute wild man. I fail to believe you aren't currently sat back with a beer, watching the comments eat themselves while having a little chuckle.
Anything done in a minamilsitic way is fine by me. Just beating you over the head with something is a different tune.
We know Sammy loves his live service games more than anyone, I mean actual live service games not this free pack in game that got free updates 😁
Its been a long debate if No Man's Sky is a live service so if that game is debated then nah Astro is not a live service. A few updates that add DLC is not live service and if it was then every game with free updates and paid DLC is live service. I mean by this logic Smash Bros Ultimate was a live service because it had DLC.
I unlocked them 30 minutes before starting Astro Bot as they provided extra bots in the game. I did not participate in the live service element and waited for them to all be available. If they would have been a live service that timed out, I honestly don’t know whether I would have just ignored them entirely or begrudgingly got them due to their being extremely quick.
Here's the kicker: Concord's seasonal updates weren't actually going to put any of the new content (playable characters, maps, modes, gameplay modifiers for playable characters, or unlockable cosmetics) behind a paywall. Concord wasn't going to do battle passes either. The only things that you would've had to pay for were some cosmetics that were going to be in a Store starting in Season 1. And we all know a game or 5 that are pay to play and also have a cosmetic store. But because Concord's lack of FOMO and the game in general was marketed so poorly, basically no one outside of the small community playing Concord actually knew this. Concord was setting a good example for how to do a live service game from a monetisation perspective, and Sony shot it down before it even had the chance to prove that to the wider community.
@Weebleman I would've 100% believed that if he didn't come into the comments to defend the article. He actually believes it 😆 fair play, we all have our blind spots.
Now we're calling updates and/or dlc live service, ok
If this article was meant for the purpose of clicks then I say well done Sammy .😄😄
You can say the same for No Man’s Sky. Every major update comes with new content that has all been free. No DLC or microtransactions infest the game. It’s my favorite example of a live service game that isn’t labeled as such by anyone else
For me personally there's a big difference between a game being live service and a game getting an update. So when games get an update adding difficulty options or some slight new features then do they become automatically live service? Atlas Fallen just got a big update so does that mean it's a live service game too? Stellar Blade got a photo mode and costumes after a few months so is that also live service?
@get2sammyb
Be careful. You might throw out your back stretching that far! You know very well the thing people don't like about live service isn't the idea of updates. It's the monetization that people have a problem with. If this just a click grabber article though then well done! You win!😄
The idea of the article is to challenge the notion that live service can only be executed in one way. As the comments prove, many are unable to parse this idea.
But for the point of discussion, let's consider some other examples which display a spectrum of different ways the live service model can be implemented, some successfully and others less so:
All of these, delivered in different ways with different models and different monetisation schemes, are examples of live service.
As you can see, none of the above adopt the same philosophy as Fortnite or Call of Duty, which are obviously competitive shooters monetised through skins and battle passes.
There are many different ways to deliver a live service. Thank you!
@Korgon Then the issue people have is not live service, but game monetisation. Obviously it costs money to create new content for a game, and there's different ways that can be monetised.
In my Astro's Playroom example, I believe the work that went into the Special Bots was "paid" by the promotion it provided for sequel Astro Bot.
@get2sammyb most people know that. People don't think there's only one type of live service. Your problem is, you're effectively a mirror image of what you think we are doing. You're not appreciating that when people complain about live service games they're not complaining about all types of live service games, they mean the egretiously monetised ones, or ones that are trying to fill a niche thats already full whilst taking away resources from other potential games. No one wants to see the end of games with live service support that do it properly, such as Helldivers 2, or freely, like NMS.
You're preaching to the converted.. and a handful of folk who can't tie their shoelaces.
Live service is basically anything that is supposed to provide prolong user engagement... consistent patches, updates, DLC... etc are all aspects of a live service. It doesn't just have to be monetization through skins or loot boxes. It just has to be something that can keep people returning to the game outside of the normal launch window
@LiamCroft ouch!
Point of this article 99% of live is bad, but 1% is good. So live service is still sh*t most of the time.
It is not live service, at least not with any standard definition of live service. There's arguments to be made for the benefits of live service. However, this article is such a silly and weird take.
I love this live service article, with all the comments it's a constantly evolving landscape and will keep us all coming back for more. How do I sign up for the battle pass?
See for me the best example of live service, done fairly well by Sony, is GT7, new cars, challenges, tracks etc.
To me that was live service done quite well, although it's been a while since I played, so maybe that's changed?
A game like Astros Playroom getting a wee update here and there after launch isn't even a stretch to claim it's live service, that's total nonsense, otherwise every game is live service.
Games that get patches for bugs fixes, optimisation etc, or small free content update (say akin to The Witcher 3 when they released a dozen or so freebies) are not live service.
Live service is an ever evolving game, whether f2p with battle passes etc, full priced and evolving like GT7 or Splatoon, or worse, full price with MTX like EAFC with Ultimate Team.
We as a community all know what live services is taken to mean, this article reminds me of that guy at a party who gets drunk and goes all devils advocate thinking he real smart.
Does it really matter how we call this update/live service?
Release functioning games and add content if you like, for a fair compensation ofc.
We gamers (many, not all) are complainers and often very mean - me included, however I try to be better.
Concerning the extra Bots they added, nice freebee. The puzzles were a bit weak on the hints or my brain is rotten, you choose.
ps: for whom it may concern - Remake Socom 2 -
They wouldn’t have done this if there wasn’t a new game to sell. I would consider this good marketing rather than live service. And I have nothing against live service. I love Fortnite and have played every season since C2S4.
The problem Sony have is that there’s no room for another live service game. Certainly not one that will last more than a few months.
It feels like how everyone jumped on the bandwagon when Nintendo wii blew up. Sony went all in with the PS Move and MS with Kinect. They were too late to the party. And that’s what this live service drive feels like.
They see games like Fortnite brining in millions and they want a piece of the pie. The pie is gone. As long as games like Fortnite continue to thrive, it’s going to be incredibly difficult to have another big hit. No one is going to abandon a game they have invested years into for the desperate, wannabe, new kid on the block.
I hope Sony realise this before they waste even more time and resources.
I don't think most people think the big takeaway from the Concord fiasco is "live service = bad" and I don't think arbitrarily trying to define what the term means is productive or necessary.
Concord failed spectacularly because it was late to the hero shooter party, didn't offer anything new, was less fun than the alternatives and wasn't free to play. Nevermind that Sony decided to create a roster from scratch instead of doing what Marvel Rivals did and use existing, well known characters that people would naturally be intrigued to play. There's a bunch of other reasons as well.
Being able to update and patch games on the fly sounds great until the dev abuses that ability and releases an unfinished mess with the intention of finishing it later because it's clueless, impatient investors needed their ROI yesterday. Hence, very few games nowadays are feature complete.
Heh, this article is doing about as well as concord, hey. Certainly decreasing your own stocks there, mate. Painful read, cringing on your behalf.
@get2sammyb "Then the issue people have is not live service, but game monetisation."
Exactly this. Couldn't have put it better.
How long were you waiting to write this article btw? 😂
I'm surprised by the negative reaction though. I think you've hit a lot of nails on a lot of heads with a lot of hammers here.
Do you see you stupid gamers? You actually enjoy live-service! See? SEE?!!
@get2sammyb Not to mention Monster Hunter
Such a ridiculous Reach to equate a few add-ons to market an upcoming new iteration of. The ip as live service. We all know what we are referring to when we air our distaste for the model. I don't know why you are reaching and schilling for the model in the way you are, as I'm positive you know as well what the term is referring to in the minds of the gamer and the greed driven investors that keep trying to push it.
Feels like a click bait article...
@riceNpea I find it Bizarre that we continue to cite hell divers 2 as An example of a live service success. It isn't. It was an intitial sales success that exceeded expectations.
We continue to reference this game Over and over again despite the reality that that if the pc player count is any indication, which it almost always is to some degree, then Hell Divers 2 has lost 95% of its player base in just 7 months.
It has been largely Mismanaged since release and had it not had a price tag It for entry it would be considered a live service failure just like the many others that have flopped in the last two years. In fact I would say that helldivers too is a prime example of what Sony was hoping would occur with concord and a prime reason why they chose to charge an initial price for the game. While Concord was an immediate failure, Hell Divers 2 has failed to stop the hemorrhaging of players in just over half a year of its live service lifetime.
Ok, so tgis is a game of words. Live service is a bad word because it is same word for pay to advance. What astro did was nothing of the kind. It made no difference, it was just reason to play more if you wish. And if this is a live service, then it is good. But right now the result is :
astro 1 - 1000 others.
One more reason to support it and show everybody the right path.
I love this community.
@get2sammyb
Oh I don't disagree. I'm not one of the "Live Service=Instant bad" folks. I play SF6 on the regular and would definitely consider that a live service game because it's meant to be supported for years to come.
However, it's still a bit of a stretch to call Astro Bot a live service game though. By this logic Sonic Frontiers, Stellar Blade, Bloodborne, etcetera are all live service games and I just can't agree with that. Is Uncharted Drakes Fortune a live service? It got a trophy update but of course no one would call that a live service.
Astro's Playroom just simply got a few nice free updates. It isn't meant to be supported for years to come and so I personally at least would not call it a live service.
@get2sammyb There is no possible way you can't see the difference in calling Mario Kart 8 a live service game and calling Genshin Impact a live service game. This is utterly bewildering how you're choosing to fall on this sword on top of this hill. This one article has done more to make me question if Hookshot is just gunning for clicks than anything else I've read here or on any other affiliated site.
This is like when Nintendo took heat for having low-powered hardware and fired back by saying "the Wii U is HD, so that problem is solved, now", like people couldn't understand the difference. I genuinely cannot tell what this article is seeking to accomplish, or why you're pretending that people can't tell the difference. Utterly baffling.
@get2sammyb I understand that these past two weeks it was hard for you to see your fav game Concord got beaten and slap around by gaming community and it finally got killed by their own parent, Sony.
So i think you need a vacation and forget about Concord. I mean, sorry to say this but this is one if not the worst article i ever see in PushSquare. No way you can claim Astro Bot / Playroom a live service just because it has some free DLC. Like come on man 🤦♂️
This was a well written piece 👏
I would argue Concord was launched well, the game function perfectly, largely bug free, it had a good ad campaign an budget. An a on going marketing support plan, Secret Level for example. An a regular release of new animation shorts.
Games just didn't take to the game and didn't buy it, that doesn't mean it wasn't launched well.
This reminds me of a friend who once tried to sell me on Phantasy Star Online because it has live service elements "just like Nights." Nice try, guys.
Regardless of when a single player game is updated with new content post-release, it isnt live service as you don't need to log into an online service and have an active connection in order to play it.
A nice attempt at bait though.
@get2sammyb You don't have to have an active (live) connection (to a service) to play many of those games you've used as examples.
If anything, these games are just games with downloadable updates, online features, or (at a stretch) "live service" elements.
I agree, to a point, that the definition of live service can be stretched to include games with regular updates.
But when we got bombarded with statements like "get used to not owning games", publishers frothing over the thought of scummy subscription models and updates that removes content (like the recent Alan Wake music track). It's no wonder most people try to push back IMO.
If the industry believes that GAAS is the only way for gaming to grow an thrive economically, which the majority seem to think. Well, we're in for a wild ride. Gamers are nothing if not stubborn and protective of their hobby. 😁
Sammy's going down swinging
Is no man's sky a live service game so?
Knew who the author would be before clicking the article. Can't help yourself can you?
@get2sammyb Dont try to be very clever : NMS isnt depend on internet like live service games do !!!
The weekend is here so maybe someone drunk too much beer before writing ?
Bad definition.
Live service games depend on an internet connection while playing, for one. Nether Playroom or Astro Bot require this.
This article is a major reach. You might as well say that the packs of items you gradually get from a couple of Yakuza games after launch is “live service” too.
Hell, using this asinine definition, you could say friggin CYBERPUNK 2077 is a live service game because it released in a broken state and got updates to make it, you know, work properly. The original Wolfenstein 3D shareware back in the day was a “live service” game because of the additional episodes.
Astro’s Playroom is simply a game that got updated to add benefits to another single player game. Zero comparison.
@get2sammyb Big difference with the current liveservice. The freely installed Astrobot game already was a full game without the small extra content.
The current liveservice world is all about FOMO and time pressure and a in lot of the times a incomplete game to start with.
The first Guild Wars did it even better just release a big expansion to sink your teeth in you could almost call it a part 2.
Glad I had removed the Astro playroom from my PS5 machine once I get PS5 machine in June 2024 so I have nothing to worry about from my PS5 machine.
Someone has really been going to great lengths to promote/defend/justify live service games. This is a massive reach, as others have pointed out. That said, it achieved its purpose- clicks and comments!
@TrickyDicky99 I'll show you on the teddy bear where the live service game touched me
Just don't let us have an opinion that's different to yours is probably best, hello Hogwarts legacy. Or maybe it's April 1st and I've overslept. Love your stuff guys but read the room, you're wrong here
Knew it was Sammy before even clicking. JFC, what an embarrassment. So desperate to defend Sony over Concord's failure. Take the freaking L.
Gotta give it to Sammy. Got people talking about something current without any trash culture war bait. I mean it, good work.
@gollumb82 it's okay to have an article that's just a thought exercise when you're an enthusiast of a thing.
@LieutenantFatman then by your own assertion that executives can abandon the term 'live service' on a whim, and that 'people' shouldn't get worked up by semantics, the article shouldn't have been written in the first place. That's the root cause of why people are 'worked up', and it's the origin of the flex over semantics. That should be the focus of your post if you think this is all pointless, surely.
Live service?? The only thing here is that ASOBI properly marketed and supported their game(s). More developers should take an example of this instead of always trying to milk money from people. Live service games are what society is nowadays: i want lots for doing nothing. Instead ASOBI now have a fantastic bonding with their community and if there is ever a sequel coming out, people will be all over it. All without trying to nickle and dime their customers. Heck, maybe they bring out DLC for Astro Bot later, and i'll happily pay for it. Because it is called DLC and it adds value to the game. None of this cosmetich skin bs that devs asked 20 or more euros for!!
Nice bait.
I respect the hustle.
Aah Sammy. You know people dont like to be challenged on their beliefs, and those without the intellect to consider more than two positions, like their black and white interpretation and want a 'live service = bad' uncertainty.
Anyone displaying a modicum of thought will understand that many games have benefitted from their live service elements, and the vast majority of titles these days have at least an element.
However people dont like complicated naunces, so they will simply argue that your definition is wrong, certain in their belief that the world is black and white.
You know the above of course, so I applaud your article stirring this hornets nest - maybe one or two will change their outlook rather than double down on the 'all live service is garbage' falicy.
@Titntin
Mr Anderson, You’ve been living two lives. In one life, you’re Thomas A. Anderson, program writer for a respectable software company. You have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you... help your landlady carry out her garbage.
The other life is lived in game websites, where you go by the username alias ‘TinTin’ and are guilty of agreeing with Sammy's terribly argued point about live service games.
One of these lives has a future. And one of them does not.
I’m going to be as forthcoming as I can be, Mr. Anderson. You’re here because we need your help. We know that you’ve been contacted by a certain individual — a man who calls himself Sammy. Now, whatever you think you know about this man is irrelevant. He is considered by many authorities to be the most dangerous man alive. He doesn't know the difference between monetised live service games and games that receive live service support after launch, and thinks we don't either.
@get2sammyb
Yo, Liam did this article four years ago. He did a soapbox article calling Witcher 3 a 'games as a service' title because it had some free content updates after release.
He got crucified in the comment section (hope it goes better this time). I think you did a better job than he did last time, more of an open to interpretation approach. Really, 'live service' is pretty nebulous and vague so I guess it just depends on how you define that. Does it require a game's ongoing content be monetized, or does it include free stuff too? Online only versus offline games?
If so, Silent Hill 2 on PS2 was live service as the greatest hits release added a story chapter. How far do we take this definition? As by this logic, virtually every modern game is 'live service', which isn't how that term is generally meant or how it's used in context. Well, I don't claim to be the decider of definitions. Interesting topic, I think the goal posts are moving slowly on what makes "live service" what it is.
I dunno, YOU decide!
@LiamCroft
Well I still think you were a champ for trying. You waded into the comments section like a gladiator ready for battle. Sammy's turn I guess 😆 Got any tips for him?
As a random aside, it's gotta get pretty old getting slammed with comments and insults from strangers online. Sticks and stones right, but that would just get to me after awhile. Well, props to you guys anyways.
Not sure what kind of special bots you all are talking about.. I haven't played Playroom in over a year haha.
That said, if a game doesn't require internet or an online account to work, it's an instant win in my book.
This article is why we should be able to block anyone
Jeez Sammy you need a detox dawg, didn't know anyone could love Concord this much 😭
@get2sammyb
An interesting hot-take in the article, but I rather like your comment better as it communicates your point. Let's not poo-poo live service games.
I would be the most vocal opponent of Chinese gacha-games and Fortnite Honkai shenanigans in principles alone, but you might regale me of how the gameplay is actually comparable to real games that are designed to create a sense of joy and exhilleration, that the stories are anything near what real stories from passionate artists and writers are like, or that the overall price of participation isn't as costly as buying a game at full price. But we both know what my answer will be.
@riceNpea Lol! Nice reply 😂
To me a live service game is any game which has post release content and features, weather the extra and new content are paid for or not. If you watched the countdown in Astros playroom, you cant deny it has a live service element.
GAAS games however are designed to monetise extra content and are fundementaly desined to encourage 'engagement' to make purchases more likely.
There are of course a lot of crossover areas, and it certainly would appear many people have their own definition. People still dont like naunce, its black or white, left or right etc etc. In reality everything is a different shade of grey.
This hot, steaming, take reminds me of when I used to claim anything with multiplayer was a moba to wind people up. Good times. Upset some “real gamer” types a fair bit.
Sorry Sammy but I can’t disagree more, this is promotion and nothing more. By this definition any game receiving an update is a live service.
@Titntin
Thanks 😊👍trouble is, gamers are the ones being nuanced about live service gaming, not Sammy. We are the ones making the distinction between games like NMS that offer live service updates and monetised GaaS.
When we complain about live service games we don't want, we're not mentioning or even lumping in games that are supported past their launch date. Because technically, you could class ALL games that receives updates, patches, content free of charge after launch as 'live service', so we make the distinction.
Same is trying to argue a point using those types of games as collateral damage when people are vocally negative about live service GaaS, and that isn't what people do, neither is it what they mean.
He's not being nuanced, he's aggregating all games that are supported beyond launch day and classifying them all as the same (which technically it is in the strictest sense) and saying when we complain we demonise them all equally because they share a loose definition of what live service is.
Gran Turismo 7 is actually a Live service game but nobody complains about it from the content updates to weekly races and the push towards micro transactions not forgetting it is always online
@riceNpea
Appologies, I must have been unclear. I never intended to suggest Sammys viewpoint, as expressed here, was naunced. I intended to suggest that for many titles, the differences between Gaas and live service elements may be naunced, so trying to characterise things merely in terms of 'good' or 'bad' is a little simplistic.
I believe Sammy is a smart guy and knows exactly how to get site engagement. You dont get that by being naunced, you pick a direction. He wont be troubled at all by what us rabble are saying, as long as we are saying something.
I liked they did it but the solutions where so convoluted I just copied them from YouTube. The 4 bots where fun but the process was not.
I don't think the author knows the difference between a live service model and a content update.
@Titntin ahhhh, understood. And agreed. He's trolling, and I'm ok with that. As long as his grammar is correct, he doesn't use Americanisms, and doesnt just copy and paste posts from reddit and present them as news 😁👍
checks calendar
Nope, it's not April 1st.
🤔
I get why people had an issue with this article to an extent, but also everyone uses the whole "live service means being charged for additional content" shtick. But the fact of the matter is live service just means being continually updated, so their definition is incorrect
"live service effectively just means ongoing development".
So every single game is live service, up until it receives its last patch? Righto. My favourite live service game is Deus Ex, released in 2000, until it stopped being live service in 2001.
@Dampsponge As a long-time GT fan, I actually complain about it. I would greatly prefer if it didn't have MTX.
Oof this didn't go down well, don't people get angry over a difference of opinion, I get where the guys coming from , do I agree ,well not really , but some of these comments, really 😂
Now that Push Square has seen how many hits this topic had received, prepare for a lot more articles similar to it, because all they actually care about is generating ad revenue.
There is a very clear difference between
Removed - unconstructive feedback
@Titntin I'm guessing your meaning nuanced, cause what your typing sounds much worse 🤣
@PloverNutter free updates are also live service games , like no mans sky has had a million updates , and is a live service game. people only assume live service means fortnite and only fornite with battle passes. when single player games can be a game as a service like assassins creed.
@Deljo lol! Thanks for the correction, never was a speller, if its not red I'll post it 😊
Playroom was a great primer, but none of it was live service.
A live service is characterised by being constantly online, which isn't the case with Astro. You can play it without internet and microtransactions, which Astro did not have.
What Playroom says is that a free demo that is well received will go great lengths into promoting a fully realised version.
I just hate clickbait!
What a baffling take. So by that definition any game that gets a new game + mode added after release ( happens a lot these days) is a live service game. You could argue if a game got multiple updates/content that could be classed as a live service game. Astro had 1 update!
The thing is Astro could become a good live service game they could add a new time trial or challenge levels each week/month to keep people coming back. I think you may have lost a bit of respect from a lot of readers for this article
Ill never understand the hate for live service games. I love them personally. The idea that I can play a game that will constantly be updated but isnt as time consuming as an mmorpg is great.
The problem has been more on the execution side. Content has to be quality and balanced. Otherwise you end up with anthem. It also has to remain fresh or you wind up with the division.
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...