Games

31411 readers

775 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

Submissions have to be related to games
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No excessive self-promotion
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

126

Do you find the description Live Service Game off-putting? (lemmy.world)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Over the years, there've been various red flags in gaming, for me at least. Multi-media. Full-Motion Video. Day-One DLC. Microtransactions. The latest one is Live Service Game. I find the idea repulsive because it immediately tells me this is an online-required affair, even if it doesn't warrant it. There's no reason for some games to require an internet connection when the vast majority of activities they provide can be done in a single-player fashion. So I suspect Live Service Game to be less of a commitment to truly providing updated worthwhile content and more about DRM. Instead of imposing Denuvo or some other loathed 3rd party layer on your software, why not just require internet regardless of whether it brings value to customer?

What do you think about Live Service Games? Do you prefer them to traditional games that ship finished, with potential expansions and DLC to follow later?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I absolutely will accept it because it brings better gameplay. FPS games are more fun when there’s constant balancing changes and new content on a schedule. It’s infinitely better than older game models where if one thing is broken you’re stuck with it for the entire lifetime of the game.

Being able to run my own dedicated server isn’t even something I’d want to do, nor would I want to play on player hosted servers.

When games go EoL, sure, require them to open source the multiplayer engine. But really, it’s not a big deal that an individual can’t host a Battle Royale server.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I absolutely will accept it because it brings better gameplay. FPS games are more fun when there’s constant balancing changes and new content on a schedule. It’s infinitely better than older game models where if one thing is broken you’re stuck with it for the entire lifetime of the game.

How is this different than Valve continuing to patch Team Fortress 2 decades after its release? There's no Live Service model here.

Being able to run my own dedicated server isn’t even something I’d want to do, nor would I want to play on player hosted servers.

I think that's true for most people, but a small number of a community can support the vast majority. It would ensure a game isn't dependent on a company to exist, either.

When games go EoL, sure, require them to open source the multiplayer engine. But really, it’s not a big deal that an individual can’t host a Battle Royale server.

If that was an actual practice that'd be great. There's no incentive for the publisher to do this, however, and they're profit driven.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 months ago

TF2 was technically a Live Service when it was actively receiving updates. The fixes that are added by valve are an outlier, and doesn’t change game balance. Constant balance changes are a necessary part of any competitive game. I’ve got no interest in something that isn’t being updated semi-frequently.

Self hosted servers don’t make sense in most of these games anymore. Communities like this vastly overestimate the want for custom servers. Most gamers don’t really care, for better or worse.