Topic: Live service future

@BAMozzy Returnal and Ghost of Tsushima are both recent examples of games that had free add-on content, and I think that’s a good way to try to make a few more sales on a game after the initial buzz of the release window has trailed off. In those two cases, the Tower of Sisyphus and GoT Legends Mode, it probably helped build goodwill for the respective game, and possibly bolster sales. (Edit: after seeing the article today — Dreams is another example of Sony doing the free updates for keeping a game relevant) I’m a much bigger fan of this approach. Same could be said for something like No Man’s Sky. Evolving with free updates is a win-win.

It’s the ‘nickel and diming’ (apologies for the American colloquialism, not sure what the British term might be) with a drip feed of empty content that has me concerned. Especially if that content builds to a point where the original game is completely outdated and defunct, a la Destiny 2.

Your point is well-taken, as I agree that Sony needs to diversify their games to include the group of players who don’t like isolated single player story driven games that have a definitive conclusion. More and more people want to just have the ongoing play with their favorite game. But the perceived ratio of live-service emphasis for future projects sounds too heavy on this element for my tastes. I’ve mentioned before, but a 70/30 break of traditional game experiences/live service games is what I’d be happy with. Even 50/50 would be palatable. But it ‘feels’ like Sony has more of a emphasis on the GaaS model. It seems to get 70-80% of their attention right now. But that could be just marketing and media overreaction.

@Th3solution Those are some great examples, and actually sounds like something I'd be interested in myself. I know that there was another thread discussing episodic content and many not being a fan of that model so I know it wouldn't appeal to everyone, but the way you've described it could actually be a benefit here as you can get the initial game out and have people play it one way but then tell the other half of the story and potentially even have different gameplay with later seasons. With stuff like Star Wars and Marvel you've already got a pretty solid fanbase that's likely chomping at the bit to get something new and I suppose there's always a potential tie in with their respective movies / TV series.

@BAMozzy I can absolutely see that there are many different sides to the live service thing and it's really hard to tell how far those boundaries extend these days. It's great when we get content for free for games that we've bought, and Sols example of Returnal and GoT are both good ones. I've played both games and later gone back to enjoy the free content that's been added, and they have allowed me to enjoy the same game in a different way all over again. It gives those games a bit of extra life and also throws some good light on the publisher, which for Sony is particularly good.

It's great that Sony are looking at producing games for loads of different types of players as it's never good getting locked into one particular thing as a business. It also means that we all might find something else that we enjoy playing and broaden our own horizons at the same time, which can only be a good thing. Getting that balance is going to be tough but I guess I have my fears like Sol does with regards to things moving towards a bigger ratio of live service games, and in my head those are the types of live service games that are more akin to your Destiny 2s and Fortnites as those are where the big money is at.

@render As I think about it, the ‘extended single player story driven action game’ idea is just a modification of what Sony has done with Infamous, Uncharted 4, and most recently Spider-Man. They could have easily released the standalone extended story games for Fetch (First Light), Chloe (Lost Legacy), and Miles (SM: Miles Morales) as add on content to the base game to extend its life. I bought and played all three of those expansions, despite not liking DLC or GaaS, because they were actual full games in and of themselves. In reality, each of those smaller full release games are just re-skinned tweaked versions of the original full game with a new protagonist and some new settings and storyline.

I mean, I haven’t played AC Valhalla yet, but the multiple expansions and DLC packs all seem like a similar idea, just that they are linked to the base game. I guess the protagonist stays the same, I’m not sure. But I wonder what the financial implications are — 1) releasing a meaty story campaign that adds another 10-12 hours onto the game and selling it for $30-40, versus 2) making it DLC for which you have to buy the base game and add it on (so base game is $60-70 and the DLC is $20). I would suspect there were a fair number of people who played Mile Morales but didn’t play the first Spider-Man game. Same for Lost Legacy. So the publisher misses out on capturing some of those sales if they link it to this base game they keep adding onto.

I hate to keep harping on Destiny 2, but it’s an example the other way for me — the new content is supposedly great, but there’s a barrier to entry for new players because it’s all so linked to this one evolving world and storyline.

When The Last of Us 3 or Uncharted 5 comes out, if we get a 20-25 hr game with the main protagonist (whoever that is), then later regular expansions with the story from another point of view or some side stories, will it really sell more than having them as separate games? I don’t know.

I'm not keen on the live service thing, or anything subscription related. I've never had a mobile phone contract. I'm very wary of these contracts that lock you in and make you pay month after month, I try to avoid them wherever possible.

Having said that, if a live service game comes along that is really fun and well made, and some of my friends play it, I'll definitely consider giving it a go. Final Fantasy 14 ticked all those boxes but didn't quite sway me and so I missed the boat when I had friends playing it. I'll be interested to see what ND do with The Last of Us multiplayer, that will probably be quite tempting.

@render Again, this is where that confusion between Live Service and Online only MP games get confused. Destiny was built as a Co-op Online only game and not a Narrative Driven Single Player Story. Yes it can be played Solo, but the Missions are designed in a way that makes then able to be 'played' over and over and over again and each with a similar, but not too long play. if you are playing the weekly missions, you don't want lots of exposition, you just want to blast through to get the rewards. That is why its NOT great if you want a good solid Story. All the other examples that tend to get mentioned, Fortnite, Apex, BF2042, even CoD (although that may have a SP campaign, its only the MP that is 'live service') are all Online Based Multi-player games - generally competitive.

Take CoD for example. It may have a Single Player Campaign, but that is not part of the 'Live' service aspect. Before Live Service games came along, if they expanded on the Map list, you had to buy the Map Pack. This then splits that community between those with and those without. As more and more Map Packs come out, that Community gets more and more split making it increasingly complicated for matchmaking and/or limiting the amount of 'value' you got if they rarely (or never) crop up in Rotation. With Live Service, EVERYONE gets the Maps regardless, therefore Matchmaking is so much easier and so the Community is not Split.

That's why its often used for Online Games because the Alternative isn't the 'better' option and creates more problems as a result. Those who buy Map Packs are annoyed they don't crop up and can't play them with some friends because they haven't got them etc, For Devs it gets harder and harder to match people together with the same content as some may have 1 map pack but only a few of those may have the 'same' map pack with 4 available. Therefore it makes sense that Competitive MP games, when its better that 'everyone' has the same content (excluding cosmetics) do tend to adopt the Games as a Service model.

However, that is not the only type of game that GaaS can work with. As I said, AC: Valhalla is a Narrative Driven Single Player RPG. Since it Launched, it added new content at fairly regular intervals with new missions/quests, new types of weapons etc and of course updated the Map to incorporate seasonal content - like the Halloween festival, Christmas, Easter. They introduced River Raids with new gear, Mastery challenges etc etc - ALL FREE. Of course they did also make Expansions too that are Paid for but the 'base' game has also been expanded free of charge...

Horizon could do something similar, add new Content, new challenges and/or side missions - maybe related to the current season, add new NPC's and Enemy types (Some Rare beast that can only be found for part of the year? a red nosed Robot Reindeer for Christmas?) more 'raw' materials to seek out to craft 'new' gear, a new type of weapon or ammo type for different way to play, new arenas etc etc to add to the Base game and give fans 'more' to do over a longer period of time instead of finishing everything in a few weeks and then have to wait for months, maybe years for DLC or a Sequel to come out.

Not every GaaS has to be an online Competitive game - like Fortnite or designed in such a way that the Story suffers because the Missions have to be like 'strikes' (co-op missions for multiple players but can't be played Solo - unlike Story missions) to be played over and over, not be too heavy narratively, not too long etc. Some games can just 'build' upon the Base content based on feedback, on engagement etc - if a LOT enjoy playing certain missions (orlag, Gwent etc) then build on those - add more decks, add more places to play, maybe even have seasonal based events (the Xmas Gwent festival in Novigrad) etc.

Its that 'online' aspect that I think confuses people. The instance they hear GaaS or Online game, they think of Competitive Multi-player, playing against 'others' and don't want to be shown up, don't want try hards or brats screaming at them for whatever reason, don't want that 'competition' when they just want to 'relax' and escape the real world. I much prefer Co-operative (PvE) content because there something great about working together as a TEAM to overcome the Enemies instead of having to face them alone, having someone cover your back, get you up if you go down, split the enemy focus so they are not so fixated on you etc. Having these as GaaS too is beneficial as you get 'new' content to team up and beat instead of being limited by whatever they gave out. As its against AI, you don't get sore losers sending obnoxious messages either...

Point is, Games as a Service are NOT limited to Online Competitive MP games. In Single Player Racers, they can add 'new' cars, new circuits, new Cups etc, in Single Player RPGs, add more missions, more quests, more gear, more weapons etc and update the Map to incorporate Seasonal changes instead of being so static. There is so much they can do, its not as Black and White as GaaS games are Online MP Competitive games and as I don't play those, then ALL GaaS games must be terrible and can't stand Sony's decision here to invest in...

As I said, GaaS could well be implemented in games like Spider-Man 2, Wolverine, God of War: Ragnarok without impacting on the Narrative driven single player story at all. In those, its just about giving you 'reasons' to return to it if/when you want for 'new' content. It doesn't have to be a 'new' MP Map, it could be a 'new' Narrative driven side Quest or two set in the SAME environment with some 'new' rewards, new gear/weapons etc that can change the way you play. Kratos could have Thors Hammer that does more AoE when thrown to block off the enemy from charging at you, maybe a Great Sword that has a spin attack and greater reach than the Axe but can't be thrown etc but to get them, you have to do some new quests with new abilities/skills etc to unlock...

It doesn't mean that Single Player Narrative driven games will suddenly disappear because they can't be GaaS - they can!! If anything, maybe that's the direction Sony will go as that's where they excel - its just that 'few' ever bother playing their Single Player games after finishing and as they don't get 'new' content regularly, don't get much PR after release to keep in the Public consciousness and therefore drop out of mind and sales charts...

@Th3solution I think Destiny 2 is a good one to use as an example in that it has content that keeps people playing the game but also does seem to work against getting new players interested. I don't see how that is sustainable in the long term due to erosion of the existing player base over time, and not being able to replace those players leaving with fresh blood.

I'm happy to pay for and play DLC if it's of a good quality and the Spider-Man DLC does fit into that for me personally. I enjoyed the main game and was happy to have more of the same gameplay. I think one of the things that annoys people with DLC is that you know there's going to be an addition of the game down the road that includes the base game and all that DLC in a single package, and probably for less. That wouldn't put me off if it's something I really want to play but I can imagine that a lot or people can't be bothered to go back to a game or pay for DLC if they've moved onto something else and weren't so invested in the game.

@LieutenantFatman @BAMozzy Friends does seem to be an important reason to get into an online game of some kind, and those are definitely the experiences that I would prefer myself. I'm never going to be the most competitive person on the planet and just get destroyed when I have tried to play PvP stuff but I'm much more likely to want to get into something that's team based or co-op PvE type stuff.

@render It occurred to me that the extended life of a game through DLC, expansion packs, weekly challenges, holiday events, new weapons and armor, added side missions, new cars or maps or tracks or characters or cosmetic packs, etc, etc, etc…. largely relies on whether a person is a day 1 adopter or not. GaaS doesn’t really mean much to someone who buys and plays a game a couple years after launch.

So taking the AC Valhalla example, if I play it (which is a big “if”) I’ll be jumping in another year or two down the road and the live-service elements will all be not-so-live anymore. The free add-ons will be there for me day 1, the timed events will be over with, the DLC may even be included in a complete edition. The game will not be evolving at that point, most likely. I’ll buy the game for $20 and it will have 200+ hours worth of content from the get, so it’s more than I could even fathom needing. Why would I want more when I will probably barely be able to complete the base content available? So the value of GaaS is only for those who jump into new games early on.

I probably only buy and play a new game at release 2-3 times a year, if that. 90% of my recent purchases are “old” games. Purchases so far this year: Kena (on sale), Disco Elysium (on sale), Hades (on sale), Cyberpunk (pre-owned and steeply discounted). Perhaps that’s why I just don’t get the concept. Don’t people have backlogs? 😅 my constantly replenishing backlog is my live-service repellant.

@render

I would look to Final Fantasy XIV and other MMOs here for a potential solution to this.

There's so much content for FF XIV at this point. It looks very daunting for new users.
However, you can pay for a package that lets you skip everything right up to the most recent narrative expansion. You get some good gear and are appropriately levelled to take part in the latest adventures.

It's not perfect by any means and I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it does help new players keep up with the established community when otherwise they would be years behind, and it adds to the revenue stream for the devs.

@BAMozzy I think MK8 Deluxe handles the avoiding community split situation better than live service. Booster Course Pass is normal DLC like you saw in the 360 era with franchises like Halo but the tracks are playable in matchmaking without needing to own the DLC and only 1 person needs the DLC for it to be playable in private lobbies. If you do want the DLC for stuff like GP and Time Trials, you can either buy it outright or subscribe to the NSO Expansion Pack. The best thing about this approach to additional content is there's no microtransactions are which are extremely common across live service games.

I do see Nintendo edging closer to traditional live service in other games though which is concerning. For example Switch Sports has a cosmetics system that is like a hybrid between a loot box and a battle pass. Each level up grants you a random cosmetic from a limited time cosmetics collection you choose from, all cosmetics in the collection are viewable and once you get a cosmetic there's never repeats.

@Th3solution If you were to jump into something like AC: Valhalla today, you will of missed several of the 'festivals' where your camp was given a Make-over and offered new quests and gear as part of that. Just like if there are 'season' specific modes in a MP game - once that Season is 'over', its gone.

Does that really matter when certain other things that have been added - like River Raids in 'new' areas added post launch and related loot, Mastery challenges etc have become part of the main game. Does it really matter that you missed the first Halloween/Xmas etc festival that takes a few hours to complete, when the Base game is also been expanded on in more 'Permanent' ways so you actually get MORE content than those who may of played the game through at launch and moved on and probably paying a lot less these days too. Its like not being able to get any 'pre-order' Cosmetics anymore because you bought the game after Launch...

If you join a GaaS late, there is still that 'core' content that 'everyone' got. You may miss out on doing a mission or two to get some 'season specific' cosmetic loot, but that doesn't mean you are getting 'less' value - you are also paying Less. Its like having a 'badge' for being at that party and the more parties you were able to attend, the more badges. It doesn't change the fact that the ENTIRE game as it was on Release is still there and instead of maybe being 'tempted' long after finishing to come back for new permanent content - like River Raids, they are there from the get go. You may have missed getting the Halloween or Xmas based cosmetics to decorate your Camp, your character etc and the associated quests that went with that festival to earn those, but you are getting a 'bigger' game for less money (thanks to more permanent additions). Fans of AC:Valhalla bought the game early, paid more for it, and had the 'opportunity' to return for those festivals if they wanted.

@Th3solution The old backlog is always there, and to be honest I'm not making much of a dent in mine. I keep buying new games and playing those instead of playing stuff that I already own. Really must stop doing that! For the most extreme examples of live service I would imagine that they are very anti-backlog due to them wanting to keep you playing the game. The more you play the game the more money they are likely to extract from you so it's not surprising that they will try and lock you in. That's not every game though, as has been highlighted here, but that's certainly going to be a factor.

It's the same way that things like Facebook (or Meta or whatever they want to be called these days) work. They want your eyeballs and for you to keep scrolling to see more adverts, post status updates to draw your friends in, and possibly even sell you things. The metaverse will only take that further as they aim for total control of the network, and being the gatekeeper for any content within. Anyway enough of dwelling on that dystopian future... 😂

@Shepherd_Tallon @Grumblevolcano It seems it can be done then. Both sound like great solutions to the problem of getting new users involved without the feeling of being left behind.

@BAMozzy If those things aren't instrumental to the game then I don't see a problem with missing those timed events. If it was that a timed even introduced a load of cool gear that made progressing in the game much easier or something like that then I can understand that being an annoyance for those late to the party but otherwise as long as you get the permanently added content then that's fine.

@render If you were to play AC: Valhalla today instead of at launch, you actually have 'more' options on how you wish to play, what 'gear' you wish to use, even what weapons/weapon types are available to you because the Game has 'expanded'.

By the time the 'first' new weapon type was added (I think 1 handed swords), I had completed the game. Whilst a specific 1handed sword related to the 'timed' event may no longer be available, other 1 handed swords are - and you can get the gear from River Raids, Mastery Challenges, even those 'paid for DLC weapons, skill upgrades etc to 'help' you beat the main game - perform skills against bosses etc I couldn't.

Of course you could just play ALL the 'base' game content, follow the exact same Story path, with the exact same side quests and Gear to find, before tackling any other content. The 'opening' of the game, is almost a tutorial and set-up for 'why' you end-up in England but once you reach England and establish your Camp, you can literally do ANY of the additional content (inc DLC) before reaching the end of the game IF you choose. No weapon type (as far as I recall) cannot be obtained regardless of whether you were there from the start or joined late, regardless of whether you 'bought' DLC or not - yes you may not get a 'specific' weapon with its 'specific' bonuses and aesthetics because that was part of the DLC, or no longer have the option to change the look of your 'bird', your mount, your hairstyle, the tattoos, your ship, the cosmetic items you can place around your Camp etc because those Cosmetics were related to certain seasonal festivities - but there are a LOT of others you can earn and/or 'buy' - inc Premium items they have introduced since launch (inc new weapon types) without actually spending money. Finding/earning Opals in game is the Currency for buying Premium items so if you have enough Opals and a 'new' weapon type is in the store that week, you have a 'new' weapon to help you that those at Launch didn't - not that it gives you an Advantage I didn't, its just a 'different' option...

Point is, the Base game is still there and (apart from the patches and balancing tweaks) the base experience is still the exact same - but now you have more options than I did to customise the look of certain things (Character, Camp, Ship, Bird, Mount, Weapons etc) and a few more weapon types which don't really change the game (a 1 handed sword vs 1 handed axe is very similar).

Its a bit like having more Cars than at launch to compete in races and maybe a few new tracks and Cups to take part in, the original cars, tracks and cups are still there. Maybe you missed out on a few Liveries for your Cars - one specifically designed to celebrate Halloween or Xmas, but any particular model of Car that also came is now available to all anyway - when it wasn't to those at Launch. If that, like 'pre-order' cosmetics, are so important, then buy 'early', if not, join in when you want.

If I wanted to jump in to play Apex Legends now, considering I have never played, I have many more Characters to pick to suit my preferred playstyle than I ever did. Maybe I can't change the look of them as much because some of their Cosmetics were 'locked' to previous season rewards. Same with Fortnite - doesn't matter that certain cosmetics aren't in the game for me to earn/use, I could still jump in. Those being Competitive, of course I'm at a bit of a disadvantage to those with a lot more experience, but you can't 'improve' if you don't jump in and start learning...

Saw the article on another site which showed NPD’s report of the most played games of Q1 2022 and it was really telling. The top 10 most played console and PC games are: Minecraft, GTAV, The Sims4, Fortnite, Among Us, Animal Crossing, Warzone, Madden, COD Vanguard, and NBA2K22.

For me, that’s a depressing list. Despite all the hoopla about Elden Ring, or other single player story games, they just don’t dominate the average players’ attention like live-service games.

The only game on that list I’ve even spent a few minutes with was Fortnite, so I can’t be sure, but I’m fairly confident all of them have some kind of microtransactions, season passes, or copious DLC. Except maybe Minecraft and Animal Crossing… I’m not sure.

Regardless, it’s making more sense why Sony wants part of the market share. This is the way the overwhelming majority of gamers spend their time.

@Th3solution That's the thing about multiplayer games in general. Elden Ring is a massive game so you'll spend 150 hours playing it.
At the same time, Gulity Gear Strive is lacking in content compared to some other games in the genre, and yet I've probably played it for 800h or more by now
Players will keep playing their game if it adds new content regularly (and is good at doing its thing in the first place), and live service not only does that but also makes the player feel like they're missing out if they take a break.

@Th3solution @Voltan I still don't know how to feel about it. It's great that there's loads of different types of games out there and that everyone gets to play what they like, how they like, but still it feels like the more publishers can see that that's where the money is the more there's going to be this push for experiences like that instead of the ones that I prefer.

I'm currently playing GT7 which is a sort of live service game but I don't think it's really live service in the sense that it's going to be able to keep printing money for Sony. It doesn't really push you to spend extra money on MTs as the only thing you can really spend in game credits on is cars and limited upgrades. They don't have paid for tracks as that would mean you wouldn't be able to use them in the online modes as everyone would need to have them. It also has a livery editor so that has meant then can't really sell you any skins and that sort of thing. That's all good thing in my book as it effectively means that I don't have to spend any more money on it than I paid for it initially. For playstation though it means that they've in the most part fixed the amount of money they can make from it which is probably not what they really want as they need people to keep spending on a game for it to be that live service unicorn that they are after.

I guess a lot of those games in the top 10 are the opposite of that with them being heavy on the paid for content and skins / emotes etc. If I'm right then that's how Fortnite makes the majority of it's money and I think some of the others are similar. Really it's all about showing off that you've got the latest stuff. It's definitely to their advantage that they make you feel like you might be missing out on something.

Here's my uneducated 2cence worth.

First off I'll give some of my own experience with "live service" games, I've played many, from World of Warcraft and final fantasy 14 along with other MMORPG's to Fortnite, Apex Legends, CoD, Fifa, NBA and the n dabbled with Destiny 2 and played The Division 2 Heavily, there all great and not great in there own ways. I absolutely love been able to game with mates and complete strangers (this is coming from some one who will call himself a single player guy) there's a bundance of fun to be had either on games like fortnite and cod where its more competitive or you are working together through PvE content like WoW, FF14, The Division 2. Raiding and completing all that content and figuring out how to complete certain scenarios with other people can feel really rewarding and everyone will be having a laugh and a good time. I think intentionally the people who created these games/ideas had this type of fun in mind, try to remember that most people actually working on these games are gamers themselves and they want to be proud of what they've created and want other people to enjoy it.

Now the flip side of the coin is that 1. For alot of people they are really really addictive. (we already spoke about this on another thread a while back and alot of members had the same issue) The game play loop in most of these games is basically designed to get you to spend as much as your time as possible playing the game so that in turn you will keep spending money on them( monthly subs, cosmetics, DLC's, new maps or area's ect.) This is where the "darker side" comes in, effectively its a business and businesses want to make as much money as possible and while the people who are designing these games probably have care and love for their games and want people to have the best experience and fun with it, the ceo's the company they don't care, they want money, profit and more money. I will openly admit that I have a right addictive personality and that these type of games really can hit that week spot because why I'll start playing for the fun with friends and so on I'll stay for the grind to the point where it becomes very very much not fun, playing because I have to rather than I want to, this is for me atleast where the biggest problem lies. I have basically banned my self from playing most "live service" games (which to a degree is really sad isn't it, something that is supposed to be fun and lighthearted I have to actually restrain my self from doing because I will basically become obsessed and then a sort of gaming depression will occur when I realise my gaming behaviour or habit is actually not satisfying). Now in total honesty some of them do it better than others or are at least more subtle than others for example FF14 is fantastic in that it really does offer something for everyone from the most Hard-core to the casual who wants to just spend a few hours when ever they can. Like it really does know what it's doing, it's there to make money which it does in buckets but it's also there to be enjoyed, there's so much content that you choose what you want to do, you don't even need to worry about end game or raids or anything like that, it doesn't create that pressure that other games in its genre do like WoW which is all about end game and if you don't do certain things at certain times with certain people your left behind, you feel almost compelled to play and keep up and buy the next expansion or the next sub. A lot of FPS multiplayer games are very similar CoD was always one of my worse, I love CoD for years playing with friends and strangers on a friday night until 3 or 4 in the morning was a great laugh and then one day it became that you had to play every night to keep up with others and then play even more to level all your gear, not so you where better just so you had it. When I realised what was going on just like wow I'm not even enjoying this anymore I'm just playing for the sake of it.

There is a few games that I think get it right, Fortnite for example can be played for fun, jump in and out when ever you have a bit of time, it's completely free so brilliant for people who don't have or want to spend money on games. They have more competitive scenes like leagues and cups if you want to do that. Yes they have battle passes and they have cosmetics and don't get me wrong there is still people who get addicted to this loop but it's completely optional, you can actually still play the game without paying for any of these things, you don't need the battle pass or the skins to actually play or enjoy the game, they can add to your experience if you chose but to actually play the game you don't need them. Now I also know that this is a fantastic model to make money, Apex, Fortnite, Warzone, Genshin Impact do this tremendously successful and yes ultimately they are looking for the type of gamer who will spend hours and money on them, otherwise they wouldn't exist, as gaming has become more main stream and cool over the years the biggest attraction for company's has been the money. Its why companies like Sqaure Enix seem hell-bent on shoting the kitchen sink at anything related to "live service" or anything that will successfully have Micro-transactions in it and I think that we will see alot more of this from other developers as they all try to claim a piece of the pie.

As mentioned by a few already alot of single player games are now introducing a lot more "live service" type models into them. Ubisoft love it with there games and with each new one they make where it be an Assassins Creed or a Far Cry they seem to up the anti so to speak with what they add. I've commented before that I'm not the biggest fan of DLC or atleast I wasn't prior to games like The Witcher or Horizon Zero Dawn but if a game that is single player and has a much shorter life span and profit making life span than live service games can extend it replay ability or its life span by adding DLC that is worthy then to be honest I'm all for it. Personally from my own experience I'd much rather spend a bit more money and invest a bit more time on a game that has given me enjoyment and that I can feel that there's an end result in playing it more and that there's an actual feeling of achievement than I would jumping into the next event on a game like The Division 2 or Warzone or WoW.

But truth of the matter is that these games are very very profitable and really in terms of business that's really what counts the most, so I think live service is not only here to stay but is definitely going to become more prominent in the future whether we like it or not so the best thing to do is do what you enjoy doing most and for me as you can see that talking complete and utterly ball-icks

@MaulTsir Really great perspective there, Maul. Good to hear from someone who’s been through the highs and the lows of the genre.

I’ve said it before, but at this point in my life, time is my most valued commodity. So hundreds of hours on one thing doesn’t appeal. Little 14 year-old me would have loved these F2P grindy games, but now that I earn a [albeit modest] paycheck, the money isn’t necessarily the limiting factor usually. I just can’t spend hundreds of hours in the same activity. And you bring up another good point about the need to keep competitive in some of these games to make them enjoyable. If you’re not spending hundreds of hours being proficient and skilled, then it’s miserable just getting killed over and over as a noob.

The addiction aspect is a really good point too, and I can see that being a problem. We (as in humankind) have already created a monster with our technology where millions are addicted to their phones. With all our progress, the main thing we seem to excel at is capitalizing on monetization of our advancements.

@MaulTsir Like @Th3solution I was also interested to hear your perspective as it sounds like you've seen more of that side of gaming than most of us. Being a parent I do worry about that addictive side of gaming myself as this is what my kids are going to grow up with. I've felt that addiction too when wanting to finish a game and spending all my available time trying to do just that when I should be doing other things so even non live service games can be bad sometimes.

It's a good point you bring up about phone addition Sol as that's very much something that's been in the spotlight before. Both Apple and I think Google put somethings into their respective OSs to help manage that addiction e..g screen time, but I'd imagine that's had limited success. Those that are addicted probably don't realise it and that sort of thing is easily disabled or ignored. There's also the same thing happening with social networks e.g. Facebook purposely being setup to keep you in there scrolling incase you miss out on anything, and then the negatives that come with that such as thinking that others are living better more exciting lives etc.

Ultimately businesses should take more responsibility for that but they usually only care once they are being pressured by a government to do so as they are afraid of giving an inch to the competition.

@Th3solution yeah the same as you in that the money side isn't really the issue in a personal sense and as long as you have the money and are able to enjoy the games for what they are then have at it I say, there's much worse sins to be throwing your money at lol. But it's the time factor that I think the addiction side grabs, the actuall impulse to feel like you NEED to play or be active, this can impact a person social life, miss a party or an event because you need to be online at the same time as everyone else or while there's an exclusive event on. Then of course there's is the money side some people will spend enormous amounts on these games I worked with a guy before who was spending £200 to £600 a MONTH on Fifa UT and this was about 4 or 5 years ago, that's a mortgage or a car payment!. Luckily like I say mine was always more a time thing, don't get me wrong I would paying £7 a month for WoW or £15 on the 3 monthly map packs that cod would drop but it always felt affordable and never extravagant.

@render you make a great point about kids, I have children my self and 1 who only exclusively play fifa but never online, only career modes but my youngest has been through them all, minecraft, roblox and fortnite which is the big one when it comes to time and money, always wants new skins always wants the battlepass, the older they get though they do seem to fall out of these habits. I love that my kids have picked up the passion for gaming but I do worry that their experience is being some what tainted.

Your also right about single player games, they can be just as if not more addictive, I think it's just human nature something that releases dopamine we become easily reliant on. The thing is technology is way more advanced than our little brains so the more reliant we become on it the more we're going to fall into that trap.

With out being political I agree that money and the monetization of everything and anything is a massive reason that most industries are in the state there in and the technology/gaming industries are no different. While I believe that none of the creators of these games have ever intended for the negative impacts they have caused the money men who rule the roost will happily continue the current trend despite all the negativity and all the media and public outrage because at the end of the day its still profitable and we suckers will all Still spend our money on it.

@MaulTsir It’s veering a little off-topic, but if you’re interested in the concept of creators of technological services unintentionally developing addictive monsters that snowball out of control due to corporate monetization schemes, then you should check out “The Social Dilemma” on Netflix. It’s focused mainly on social media but the concept is the same — the longer you can keep a users eyes on your product, the more advertising moneys you can generate so the idea is to keep this person’s attention as long as possible, regardless of whether you are distributing truthful or virtuous information. Just eyes on the platform is all they want, at whatever cost. As the some of the early creators of Google, Facebook, Snapchat, Twitter, etc. have started to see how the ecosystem they created turned into an addictive and manipulative platform some of them jumped ship. One of the most telling things is that these early developers don’t even allow their own kids to access the product they helped create because they know how habit-forming and predatory it has become. Many of them say this was never their original intent, but it snowballed into what it is.

The same could be said for live-service, to a degree. At its core it serves a good purpose, but the monetization aspects of it will encourage taking advantage of that addictive nature the games tend to create.

I’m not trying to be doom-and-gloom and judgemental, so I hope no one feels like I’m on a high horse. There are plenty of other industries that become an unhealthy addiction (sports, eating, gambling, travel, politics, etc, etc….)