Aw sh*t, here we go again: it’s time for the classic contrarian video game website opinion to stoke comments and clicks. Most people are mad about Sony’s decision to make more live service games, and now this chump has come along to tell you why you’re wrong all along. It’s a tale as old as time, and clickbait at its finest, but hear me out – I genuinely think there’s reason to be excited here.
I actually acknowledged in my roundly criticised Game of the Year article over Christmas that I’m less enamoured with the one-and-done single player campaigns of yore, and I think I’m lockstep with Sony’s strategy here. I like service games; I enjoy titles that add new content regularly, and keep me entertained with time-based events, like in Fortnite and Call of Duty: Warzone.
Now to be totally transparent, I do understand the scepticism: service games can be expensive and consuming. I don’t like having to schedule my recreational time, and I do think there are definitely negatives to the way these titles are designed. At the same time I also think there are positives, and we shouldn’t be so eager to throw those aside; the industry needs to grow and improve.
PlayStation has a really bad reputation for supporting multiplayer games, but I think people focus far too much on the failures and not enough on the successes. Sony absolutely has wins in this space, it’s just that it doesn’t get talked about much in the mainstream. MLB The Show 21 is perhaps the best service-based sports game ever made, and its content updates are vastly superior to what you get elsewhere.
GT Sport is another successful service game that Sony’s published. Polyphony Digital supported this title for years, adding new cars and tracks, and curating a competitive esports scene that attracted huge audiences during events online. The game was even included in the Olympics, which is a testament to the Japanese developer’s efforts.
I think a lot of the scepticism stems from bad impressions. There’s an underlying idea that service-based games are multiplayer only and riddled with microtransactions. But that’s not strictly true: Assassin’s Creed is a service game, with regular new single player events and huge expansions, and it’s a successful one. Why wouldn’t you want more of what you like?
Genshin Impact may attract warranted criticism for its gacha-based gameplay loop, but it’s another example of a service-based game that’s not just an online first-person shooter. There’s plenty of potential here that’s not being explored, and if we trust Sony to create among the best single player campaigns on the planet, why wouldn’t we extend that same principal to its service projects?
Clearly, the company is seeing the sorts of money being generated by the likes of Fortnite and Apex Legends, and wants a piece of the pie. You can’t really blame it: the single player games it makes are award winners, but they’re absurdly expensive to create, and once they’ve churned through 10 million copies sold, there’s very little left to extract out of them.
I think it’s going to come down to balance. I am a little sceptical of the company having 10 of these in production at once; it feels like it’s going to throw a lot of crap at the wall in order to see what sticks. But I’m not against the principle at all: the idea of The Last of Us 2’s hotly anticipated multiplayer mode featuring regular gameplay events and updates entices me, rather than turn me off.
At the end of the day, the model will only work with investment and patience. Sony has a terrible track record for turning off servers prematurely, and that’s not going to fly here. It’s shown some belief in Destruction AllStars, and we hope that’s a signal of things to come. Ultimately, though, it needs to make high-quality games before it can look to exploiting them long-term. You may not like Fortnite or Apex Legends, but these titles succeed because their meat-and-potatoes gameplay systems are absurdly well-polished.
But I think there’s so much potential here, from an evolving Twisted Metal to a virtual reality social space, that we should feel encouraged and not threatened by Sony’s plans.
The launch of a game is no longer the end of its journey but the beginning, and I feel like we should be more welcoming of this. I grew up in an era when a single Nintendo 64 game cost almost £60, and you could be done with it in a weekend. Shouldn’t we be embracing a future where our favourite games always offer something new for us to experience in them?
Are you instantly turned off by the idea of live service games, or are you willing to embrace the model as long as the underlying content is of a high quality? Complete the latest Battle Pass in the comments section below.
Comments 89
Who Is This? And What Have You Done With The Real Sammy Barker.
Grabs popcorn! Sits back and watches the world burn.
@Areus The one thing Sony's doing that I think is good, everyone else is mad about!
I love Fortnite but if I had to choose between Fortnite and the AAA story-driven single player games that only Sony do well, I’d choose the latter every time.
What they need is a good balance of the two. Let them invest in the extremely lucrative live service games but also keep the story-driven single player games too.
I trust Sony will do that more than any other platform.
Well I think most of us are worried because it will be 10 Games in 4 years. If they said 3/4 nobody would really care
"Most people are mad about Sony’s decision to make more live service games, "
That simply isn't true, you don't know that, it's just you and others giving more weight to the feeling that most people are mad and the fact that mad people make more noise than people who aren't fussed or are content.
It's basic human pschycology. The fact that you're writing what you, a sensible, thoughtful young man who lives and breaths gaming even more than the average gamer, thinks that this is a positive move by Sony should clue you in to that the majority of people aren't 'mad', only the ones who shout the loudest.
I am not a fan of live service games at all, but i realise there are many people who do so its fine with me.
Just keep releasing the stellar single player experiences alongside it and its fine.
Don't really mind Service games as long as SP doesn't take the backseat. And my only problem with single player service games is, they sometimes lose focus. I mean I like Genshin Impact but at a point I didn't exactly know what I was playing for because you're being bombarded with new stuff week in week out you just sometimes lose track.
The problem with live service games is fourfold. They're designed intentionally to keep you attaching most of your entertainment time to a single product/service to keep monetizing it. That harms the industry far more than even the consolidation drama as the size of the companies don't even matter. The fact it's designed to keep locked mostly to a single product for all their spend and time naturally shuts out nearly all the rest of the industry from customer time and money, shrinking the market tremendously.
Second, is the fact that like TV shows of the 80's the game tells YOU when you need to play, forcing you to schedule around your entertainment.
Then there is the fact that by nature service content must be shallow, unfulfilling, and hollow. You don't perform the task to advance the experience or conclusion of anything, you play it as a time waster to tick off a box, ring a gong, gain a cosmetic, or boost a stat. It's glorified grinding without even having a clear objective.
Finally most inherently fail by default because they're all going after the same customer base. It's like when they build a new shopping center. Eventually the old one just goes downhill and closes because everyone just goes to the newer shinier one. It doesn't double the options, it just moves everyone from one to the other until the old one isn't sustainable. Even EA learned their lesson the hard way, and they were the original proponents of this.
I understand why SOME service games can be quite successful, and they have their place, but the whole industry chasing after them, again, is sheer insanity. Not just Sony, but everyone.
@get2sammyb bro you’re playing both sides of this lol. How can you not understand the Bungie purchase (which was a good price) and also love the future of some live service games on PlayStation? One will directly effect the other. You crack me up.
@shafedog247 Because these games were always going to exist with or without Bungie. And I'm not really seeing the $3.6 billion of value they're going to get out of owning them.
If it turns out that, for example, Bungie immediately swings in and saves The Last of Us 2 Factions from being terrible to the biggest game in the world then I'll happily eat my words.
As it happens, I think it'll make close to zero difference.
Haha Pushsquare seems on a roll with their content today from a community engagement perspective. Arguably the true winners of recent events lol. Honestly any smart gaming news blog would do the same. On topic, I wouldn't mind a truly creative live service game that deviates from dull grinding mechanics. The type of creativity that brought It Takes Two but applicable to this genre ofc.
@get2sammyb
Say what you want about Destiny and it's story or how it delivers its content, the game and shooting mechanics are some of if not the best feeling to play I've experienced. Far more satisfying that CoD and BF, so well balanced. For me only Killzone comes close. Sony owns that expertise now and I'm looking forward to what they do with it.
@NEStalgia Excellent write-up! Well said.
@riceNpea "That simply isn't true, you don't know that"
Well you're free to visit other larger sites like ign (is the same reaction over there btw) or Reddit (mostly same) to get a better measuring sample but I would say at minimum it's more mad then happy.
We can do it scientifically and just measure the reaction to all the popular sites but I don't think you're interested in that, you just want to spin this in a positive light or die trying 🙂
As a man in his forties with a job and kids, I want a game that quietly sits there waiting for me to have time to play it. I can't guarantee I'll be able to play at certain times, or even days, so I don't think these games are for me. But then there are hundreds of games that are for me, so let the people who want Fortnite or Apex play them. Doesn't bother me as I think there will always be more good and interesting single player games out there than I have time to play.
I can get sucked into sports games but I just don’t have the time at this point in my life for live service. They’ll always exist but I’m not exactly convinced Sony need to jump on that bandwagon.
Doesn't Bungie have more employees than Insomniac or Guerrilla Games combined. Could be wrong? They may not have many IPs but I don't think Sony wanted them for IPs. They wanted a massive resource with live service experience to pull into various new live service IPs.
The part of this market you didnt talk about is the pure man power it takes to keep these games going. Look at Rockstar, they have almost all there studios working on (ancient) GTA5 content. Sony will put out less and less new games the more of these GaaS they put out. What im getting at is anyone like myself that likes new games and new IPs have no place in this market where these games grow boring and take 10 plus years for sequels. Ive played Apex, Fortnite, Destiny, The Division, Rocket League, GTA5, and Warframe just to name a few GaaS ive played, and no matter how many content updates they had the core of the game was the same and grew stale after a few months. Also aside from GTA5's story all these GaaS feel soulless and don't bring near the connection I get from a well polish SP experience.
plenty of live service games already i get ps5 for single player story exclusives and them spending more resources on games i dont want isnt a good thing in my mind
I enjoy live services games, there's a place for good multiplayer games. The minute I am asked for Battle Passes or microtransaction money I will do what content I can for free and gradually move away to something else. Usually a single player game or 5.
I think the missing point is my favourite service games are all single player / multiplayer hybrids. Like the older Call of Dutys, Burnout paradise, Street Fighter 4, Forza Horizon, Tetris Effect etc.
The problems happen when you the get Street Fighter 5 with no real single player. I need the SP to git gud. And then can have the odd game of multiplayer as a side to the main course.
I feel many younger gamers just want the multiplayer.
@Juanalf that's my point. It's common knowledge that people are more likely take time to complain or leave a bad review about something online than be positive. I'm not trying to spin anything. I'm trying to do the opposite be rational about it. The fact is Sony making GaaS is not by definition a bad idea no matter how angry it makes people or not.
Yes yes we should dismiss it and it's not exciting it's terrible we shouldn't cheering for and encouraging more live service trash especially from one of the only companies that was haven from that sort of garbage
Good for you.
I’d like good solo player games.
Between this article and the Dying Light 2 review, I’m gonna pretend this is a Push Square nightmare and normality will be restored tomorrow 😂
After seeing Sammy's most played games of 2021 it does make sense that he supports a live service model. I ain't hating, he is allowed his opinion, but I take what he says with a grain of salt.
I'm sorry Sammy, your example of GT Sport being a service game is completely false. GT Sport did not launch well due to the criticisms with it being online only and the campaign being ditched. Not to forget that it was bare of content at launch which they had to commit to releasing more cars and tracks over the following years.
Also they didn't have seasons or dlc or unlocking skins that you had to purchase extra through the in game currency. I believe sometime in 2019 they introduced the option to buy cars with real money but that's as far as it went.
Coming to the main point though, I'm not a big fan of service games. I can understand why developers do it (cut development costs of new games and earn through selling you bits of the game) but don't agree with the direction Sony is going with this. Developing a few titles might be alright to dabble in it and see how it works for them but committing to 10 projects until 2026 tells me that they're dumping a lot of their finite studio capacities into something that the PlayStation community isn't built on. And that's not great.
Games as a service are ruining the industry for me. I can't stand the majority of them and hate that this is what's popular now. If Sony ditches great single player games in favor of what I consider trash, then PS5 will be the last Playstation I buy after being with the brand since Christmas '95.
Is this idea good? Yes, maybe?
Do I care for live service games? Kinda...but they all become boring eventually (Except League for me).
But imagine, 10 live service games from Sony, 10 battlepasses, all at the same time. The thought of it is a bit ridiculous. You won't be able to keep up with all of them...
@riceNpea I agree, the number of gamers who frequent gaming sites (even the bigger ones) is only a small percentage of the total gaming community. It’s not an accurate measure of how the larger gaming community feels. No more accurate than an angry topic on Twitter vs how most people in the real world feel.
More accurate to say ‘most gamers probably don’t care about this’ tbh.
As long as they keep pumping out great AAA single player experiences too, I’m fine it.
Sony needs a balance. We need Sony to go back to the latter half of the PS3. They had a varied 1st party portfolio at that time. They were launching great big budget single player titles, great multiplayer offerings, and were also pumping out oddball AA titles.
As much as I loved the PS4’s first party lineup over the years, I felt like the only games Sony was publishing and developing were the cinematic AAA single player games. Some would have multiplayer tacked on, but it was just that. Tacked on, with no real thought put into how to keep customers engaged with the multiplayer suite.
It was the exact opposite of the PS3 era. There was so much variety in the 1st party line up. And many games had well developed single player and multiplayer suites. Killzone 3 had a great campaign and a great multiplayer component. Both were handled with care. And it was one of my favorite games on PS3; I sunk uncountable hours into both the campaign (multiple play throughs on each difficulty) and a metric crap ton of multiplayer.
My point is that I’m not dismissing Sony’s move into live service just yet. As long as it’s handled with care and we get a larger variety of titles, I’ll be satisfied.
Lol c’mon Sammy leave the unpopular opinions to us dregs in the comments section 😅
Since the Activision-Blizz acquisition by Microsoft I don’t know the last comment I posted that didn’t get some kind of angry reply
Any excuse to mention MLB the show.
Sony needs to have variety, something for everyone. No matter what type of games you enjoy . Chasing that golden goose is not a bad idea in fact they need it.
@AFCC
I don’t think Sony intends for everyone to play each title simultaneously.
I’m hoping Sony’s idea is to release a variety of live service multiplayer titles in different genres to appeal to a bunch of different tastes.
One of the best Battle Royale service games I’ve ever played (and continue to play on occasion) is Tetris 99. I’m sure Sony has a bunch of genres planned out for this push. Maybe even their own puzzle service game.
While I definitely agree that PlayStation needs some of those desperately, 10 until 2026 seems overkill to me, lol. As long as the qualiyt experiences still have their place, I am fine with it.
Yeah, their track record is not great with GaaS.
Like, they had a first party studio doing that stuff, before Destiny and the likes took off (Sony Online Entertainment), and DC Universe Online didn't set the world on fire, but it was alright, and it's still going!
And what did they do? Sold off the company and cut all ties.
I wish them the best, but let's see where this goes.
@BritneyfR_ee yes. I could easily envisage most of the millions and millions of gamers worldwide couldn't give 2 figs what Sony is up to 👍
This is what I think a live service game entails
1) gaming on another persons timescale with timed events and seasonal content
2) reset of progress in order to allow newcomers to keep up
3) the need to continually buy new content and have older content already paid for rotated out or become empty
4) No real ending or resolution to a story
5) inevitably repetitive gameplay that stretches on for years, taking up time that could be used on new gaming experiences.
No, this does not appeal to me in the slightest.
I’d prefer sequels.
But if they can reformulate the genre then go for it (but please add new trophies for new content).
@BRT15 yeah I bought gt sport & was really disappointed with it I guess it was my own fault for not knowing it needed a constant internet connection & didn't really have a single player but I just assumed it would I'm not buying the new GT because they've made it always online again so I'd just be renting the game till they shut off the servers & wouldn't be able to play it if I lost my internet connection
@get2sammyb
It says by March 2026
Don’t you think it may take into account some more acquisition that are likely?
It maybe unwise to look at the 2026 landscape with what we know now.
I’ll give them all a shot, why not?
Live service games such as Fortnite ain't for me, just not my thing but I appreciate that people do love them and that's good, we all like different things.
If there is balance (as in all the GaaS efforts aren't online shooters) and there is still focus on the SP narrative driven games, then I don't see an issue really.
Can't imagine why anyone would be mad about it.
I’m excited to see where this goes, but my guard will be up. Huge potentials outside of just some copycat games. I think we will get both if they’re developing that many. I think an MMO or survival crafter or some other genre is just as likely as some sort of competitive shooter thing. I also think a fighting game is a real potential given their interest in EVO and the FGC.
You can be excited, but it's hard not to see this as Sony trying to edge their way into a market that is continuously hit-or-miss, putting their developers into a position where they'll be forced to support even failed live services for years on end. Fact of the matter is, few live services are truly successful, at least the sort of success Sony is likely looking for. And they already have one dud on their hands with Destruction All-Stars.
And if this slows or even stops Sony's single-player output, I'll have very little, if not no reason to get a PS5. And that is sadly likely, given the aforementioned bit about Sony's developers being forced to support these things for years. If the majority of Sony's first-party teams were as prolific as Insomniac, maybe it wouldn't be a problem. But....they aren't.
@get2sammyb but as this article says, Sony is pushing for live service games, on the console side, Bungie has excelled at this. It’s that expertise that will pay dividends going forward. I think people are too stuck on what Bungie is doing today and not looking past that. They are a studio of close to 1000 people. The majority of which are supposedly work on their next IP “Matter”
@NEStalgia Gold star analysis here. Everyone should read this. Thank you.
I hate liveservice with a passion because it bleeds through in my favorite games especially singleplayer gets damaged by liveservice.
Finished games are a thing of the past with my least beloved big publishers. R* makes 3 games in a generation now the new generation of players is lost already they dont know any better then that all the terrible practices are normal.
Ubisoft is the worst with this menu's that should only belong in a free to play game how is it possible we accept that microtransactions get their own tab in a game that costs €60 or lets be honest here €90. And even with all that monetization they still need NFT's that ruin the environment and add nothing.
I wont be playing any life service games the games that should be liveservice games decades still have their €60 release. Shooters are one of those and sportgames the last great complete fighter i could own is Injustice 2.
@Savage_Joe because those 3 companies suck next to king sony.
@BionicDodo That's the statement everyone should say here. "Not for me, but there's enough for me already.'
Aren't you the one who wrote the article about giving Activision a bit of credit and thanking Bobby Kotick?
Yeah, your hot takes are always on point.
Live service doesn't have to be terrible. Monster Hunter and Splatoon are technically live service. As long as the games have a strong single-player core to them and stand out from third-party offer unique experiences, it could turn out fine.
It'll be awful if Sony starts releasing a slew of competitive shooters/battle royale/etc. type games, though.
Will they be free, will they be good, more importantly, will they affect the GoWs or GoTsushis(the great solo games), etc. If the answers are yes, yes, no, then there is no problem, bring'em on!
I can enjoy a good F2P game. What I don't enjoy about them is the monetisation in most of them.
Take for example Apex Legends. Most of the legendary skins are around £20, which is a ridiculous price if you ask me. Around a tenth of that would be OK, and I would be fine with supporting the game for such a sum.
But instead its an economy based purely on whales - the 1% or so of gamers that are willing to spend (or might have a gambling problem) hundreds or thousand on digital finery. I think its just a predatory practice tbh.
And that's not to speak of the loot boxes, who should just be plain outlawed, imo. I registered myself as Belgian (I'm not) for EA, as they have banned loot boxes - so I don't see them in the store anymore and get crafting materials in the battlepass instead.
"Live service" is the reason why I didn't finished Assassin's Creed Valhalla yet and strongly loosing my will just to run that game. And I'm also really angry I bought Season Pass that is not even half worth of price...
No more live service games for me... If they are not able to bring full game from A to Z on release day, than I'm not interested...
I’m sorry, but you have terrible taste.
@MidnightDragonDX Well said, and they are designed to the bone to keep people addicted leading people to no real sense of smart financial responsibilities, this is why kids are engaged & lured into these live services the most because they are not the ones who are paying for the skins, all of these live services are not designed for working class adults that are smart with money, I could see Sony doing some shady tactics in the future.
Didn't read past the first paragraph but at least you were honest and got my click and temporary engagement.
as a fan of AAA single player games, i don't have a problem with live service games per se. the only thing that would make me mad is if they replace single player games.
Hmmm… the last live service games that Sony has done… what could they be? Oh — Predator Hunting Grounds (yikes!), Destruction All-Stars (yuck), and Dreams (ooofph.). One complete bomb of a game, one exceedingly mediocre game, and one brilliant game that apparently no one wants and has cost Sony probably millions of $ in opportunity cost.
MLB The Show seems to have done fine, but that’s hardly a jaw dropping feat when they have exclusive rights to the MLB so it’s not really a measuring stick of competence.
So when they say they have 10 GaaS coming out, I hardly can muster an ounce of excitement. Their track record is not good. Their record with SP games is stellar, however.
I’m not telling them to give up all efforts to try to join the GaaS party, but 10 games in 3-4 years sounds like throwing good money after bad. How about we try 1 or 2 and see if we can get those off the ground first, Sony?
I play a game for the story, learning new gameplay and finish it after a fulfilling amount on time. Whatever fulfilling is depends on the game. AC, nice but no dlc for me as I'm done with it. Gran Turismo 8 years, I'm fine. Cod, no thank you ever.
So most times I don't play mp games as I don't care for the loop and the garbage community and the lack of a good story .
@Savage_Joe It was a joke.
To be honest. At least d. All stars is not a recycled anual game reskinned game like activision and ea does. You seriously putting sony on those publishers level?
Ubisoft is just clueless. They aren't that bad, but they are clueless to what people want from them.
Last of us factions is my favorite multiplayer so. Killzone 2, Resistance 3 were great too from what I am hearing.
I wouldn't go as far as to say I'm excited for more GaaS games but they aren't necessarily automatically bad. Heck my GOTY last year is technically a GaaS. But it needs to be handled delicately if PS wants them to be successful. Avoid Pay to Win schemes, come out with fair prices for worthwhile content, and above all don't overshadow the single player epics. As I've stated before I'm not worried about the latter but for the first two we will have to see.
Just wait til Konami sells it’s ip, gets bought or merges with Sony.
The thing about multiplayer games (really live services nowadays) is that having a decent gameplay loop and the content that'll keep playing hook and coming back is apparently too tall an order to ask, so when Sony, a publisher who breezed their way through generations prior with supreme single player games, say that they're going in with live service initiatives, it worries me considering their own multiplayer games aren't getting that kind of love.
Example: The Last of Us actually has one of the best multiplayer suites I've ever played in the form of Factions, but five years of playing that has left me disillusioned after dealing with cheaters, broken weapons, pay to win skills & guns, and busted exploits. While Factions 2 could easily polish those mechanics and make a live service road map that easily elevates Naughty Dog to heights they only previously imagined, I have my reservations because of what I said previously.
On the other hand, Apex Legends has become my favourite live service game because it turns Titanfall 2 into a (mostly) boots on the ground BR shooter with fair monetization compared to what the competition offers. The Apex experience isn't perfect, but it's fun enough so that I can tolerate it's issues.
And I understand why PlayStation nerds are so hostile towards multiplayer/live service games (mostly because they're bad and couldn't get a kill to save their lives), but this does NOTHING in terms of how many single player games you're getting (Sony is still making more SP games than MP), so..... just shut up and let us enjoy what Sony has in store.
Whenever we discuss about this, I see most people often forgetting that FINAL FANTASY XIV, hailed by many as the best Final Fantasy game at the moment, is a live service game.
With the capability Sony currently has at their disposal, I'm waiting for them to make something new that is as grand and epic as Final Fantasy XIV. I know they are able to do it, so let's just hope they will do it right and it won't turn out into another failure like the Avengers game.
If live service means MMORPGs then I'm down. But if it's looter-shooters then I'll pass.
I have nothing but contempt for games as a service. It's a terrible trend because it's too easily exploitable by unscrupulous corporations. In an ideal world the idea of a live service isn't bad but we live in an awful world and so what we get is games launching broken, no content so they can add it back in later as DLC, microtransaction-laden, watered down busy work trash.
I've enjoyed some Live Service games in the past but nowadays I can't stand having to grind dailies, do events etc just to keep up. I want to play at my own pace and I want games to be finishable.
One of the most satisfying feelings in gaming for me is seeing those ending credits and be done with it.
I don't mind Live Service games existing if we still get solid AAA single player experiences.
reads the overly positive headline
sees the Mars Attacks avatar underneath it
dies of confusion
Others here have very competently described the issues with Live Service games. So I'm going to focus on something different.
"Clearly, the company is seeing the sorts of money being generated by the likes of Fortnite and Apex Legends, and wants a piece of the pie. You can’t really blame it: the single player games it makes are award winners, but they’re absurdly expensive to create, and once they’ve churned through 10 million copies sold, there’s very little left to extract out of them."
This is actually a very scary take.
Why be happy with success and millions of dollars, when you can have more? even at the quality of your games? When you can squeeze your content and audience for even more?
That's the opinion we want to go with here?
"Why wouldn’t you want more of what you like?"
Because not everything needs to last forever, especially single player games.
A good 10-hour experience with a discrete beginning, middle and end is way more worth it to me than a bloated 100-hour one.
I recently beat Prey and it's already one of my all-time favorites, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't have gladly shaven off a couple of hours from the last third.
It made me exhausted and had me playing the last stretch all frantically, as opposed to my glacial approach to this kind of game, just because I felt I had seen enough and wanted to see the end. It dragged, and it dragged hard, and I'm sure I would've loved the game even more if it had a cleaner ending.
It always comes down to what the game is: some games do benefit from being "endless", but let's not fool ourselves and pretend that grafting useless crap can only do good and never hurt a game.
And that's not even touching the fact that there are too many games and too little time.
@Richnj neoliberism at its finest, it makes me wanna puke 🤢
They're planning 10 live service games from 1st party studios, this will absolutely have an impact on their single player output whether it's the quality or quantity of releases this gen.
If the studios are concurrently working on both live service and single player games, they can't devote their full attention to one project without sacrificing things for the other.
This makes me think most single player releases will be Lost Legacy/Miles Morales/Rift Apart in length but still at £70, which is hard to justify given past games were cheaper and had more content.
I can't get behind live service games simply because they all have an expiration date. Once the servers shut down that's the end of that game's existence. These games also rely entirely on other active players to keep the game alive. There's no way most people will juggle between multiple live service games, they'll pick 1 or 2 max and stick with it, leaving the unpopular ones dead in the water. That's why the notion of having 10 live service games in development seems all the more absurd and out of touch with what the fanbase wants.
@IonMagi Oh, people would care alright. They had an issue with a 30-minute state of play dedicated to Gran Turismo. An event they could simply skip. You think they wouldn't have an issue with 3-4 games?
@riceNpea very well said
@Juanalf "Well you're free to visit other larger sites like ign (is the same reaction over there btw) or Reddit (mostly same) to get a better measuring sample but I would say at minimum it's more mad then happy.
We can do it scientifically and just measure the reaction to all the popular sites but I don't think you're interested in that, you just want to spin this in a positive light or die trying"
We could always ask the average gamer (i.e. people who don't frequent gaming sites, but buy COD, Apex Legends, Fortnite, Minecract, etc), but I'm afraid that wouldn't help your hypothesis much at all.
@truerbluer of course several of them will fail, so they're likely trying several ideas. If even one of them becomes the next Fortnite/Minecraft (who knows?), they could make huge profits. But the fewer games they try, the less likely it is they'll strike gold.
@clvr Same here. I loved Ni no Kuni to bits. The first 40(?) hours were just amazing. I didn't want it to end. Then I was reminded "be careful what you wish for". I still enjoyed it, but at times it felt a bit like a chore. It happens to me with all long games.
No thanks. I'm old-school (if you can really call this old-school) in that I love to anticipate a particular game, put down my hard-earned dollar to buy and play the game, and then either be done with it or revisit it sometime later. I don't want to be caught up in the cycle of 'BUY CONTENT 1', 'BUY CONTENT X' every time I open the game.
I do not want any live service games, especially on console. So far I've only played one again that does it right IMO (Azur Lane, on mobile)
@Rural-Bandit sounds just fine to me!
if you get hours and hours of entertainment out of a game isn't that the point to play games? i don't get why people are so worried in the first place , single player story games aren't going any where. there will always be room for both types of games.
@naruball " an event they could skip" , uh what? if you weren't interested in a racing game why would you watch in the first place. they wanted to show the game off some more to people that are interested in the game thats why they did it.
@twitchtvpat Well, I, of course, agree with you.
I meant that people made a fuss about the GT event being too long, though no one was forcing them to watch it anyway.
@TheRedComet yes, maybe I wrote my thoughts the wrong way. What I meant is, as fan of PS, I will probably at least try all of the games...if I end up enjoying them I will not be able to keep up with 10 different battlepasses lol
Well.. I guess I'm not part of your target audience anymore pushsquare.
@naruball The difference here is unlike a regular game that fails, the studio can't swiftly move onto the next game. The investment for a live service game is too high to abandon and they'll be forced to keep updating until it gathers a sizeable playerbase. Just look at Sea of Thieves for example.
It also means less resources will be put towards any single player games that could have been made in the meantime. More studios dedicated to live service will result in fewer single player games and longer gaps between releases.
Don't like live service games since they have time limited events and I either play it exactly at that time or miss out. Video games should run on my schedule not the other way around this isn't a job or Dr. appointment.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...