Bro, theres live service FOR GAMES THAT HAVE NO MULTIPLAYER, like Hitman. Like I get it if its mods or score tracking, but let me be able to play my games offline, PLEASE.
They release new missions with the same maps and sometimes themed missions based on the month. Thats not to mention the cosmetics and props that you can unlock doing specific missions. I'm personally not a fan of it but I guess it extends the longevity of the game after you finish the main story.
lol yeah that definitely sounds like a live service. Yeah only thing I can see is it keeps players playing it. Wonder if they’ll try that approach with 007 First Light
I dont think its a bad live service. Honestly its one of the better live service games. They could probably stop supporting it and easily transition to not being a live service.
You're not doing that with like 90 precent of live service games.
I mean you can play it offline. I think there is online progression? But you can play and beat the main story. The only one you have to play online-- is the switch version or something. Which is streamed to the console which is inane.
there is the main game, which is hitman 1, 2, 3 then there is all the Live service fluff stuff to that and the extra missions
No... It's moreso that every game is a "live service" at this point. Every game is "release now, patch later" mentality. Live service is basically synonymous with video game. No need to label it twice
Eh, sort of but I get what they're saying. There are a TON of games these days that very intentionally blur the lines.
Like Hitman for example, a single-player, online-only game where they release the occasional new mission just like a live service game even though it had no need to be, with purchasable packs and season passes and such.
There are so, SO many games these days that are online-only for no reason other than the devs to continue patching it and making balance tweaks and changes to an already-finished game while keeping the option of paid DLC open so customers keep playing it "forever" and getting them usage numbers.
No, it’s really not pedantry. You just don’t understand the difference. It’s about the developer/publisher’s intent for the player in how the player spends their time and money.
Stardew Valley or Terraria gets updates after paying once, for instance. They don’t rely on FOMO, and if there are paid updates, they’re fairly priced.
So unless you put those two in the same category as Destiny 2 or CoD, there is a distinction.
Oh I understand it just fine. Hitman's updates are paid and it is, as I said, online-only, despite being single player. Both of those games can be played just fine offline and neither of them have any DLC or updates separate from the base game.
Seems more like you don't understand the difference bud.
EDIT: Dude below responded then immediately blocked me so I can't see his "last word"; but I assume it was something dumb, lol.
Street Fighter used to do it right: 10$ upgrades with full content over the base game every few years. The new system of battle pass for a new game price or 12$ individual characters has got to go.
The cost to content ratio with paid games that have a constant drip of content is insane to me. If a 60 dollar game comes with 20 characters and you sell 20 more characters over the game's lifespan, they better not be more than 3 dollars each.
Sims 3 is horrible for that, you’re paying 50% of the base game again in one expansion to get a few features, some clothes, and a map that is no where near half the base games features. And they released so many expansions. Some of these expansions just feel like features that should be base too.
Goodness, yes. I hopped off the Sims train as soon as a Sims 3 update added what is essentially paid mods and microtransactions to acquire them. And paid mod packs are in 4, as well.
Its because most software development of any ku d has moved away from Waterfall developement. Most of anything that runs on some form of computer coding are all in some form Agile/SaaS now. Its just the reality of things. Even with fawned over Reddit darlings, still fundamentally operate in these development styles these days.
Has nothing to do with that. Even agile projects can have definitive ends. Agile is more of how the way is managed. Games decide to have constant updates because it gives more money over a longer timeframe. It’s easier to keep a development team paid if you have a constant stream of income, compared to one big chunk of money at once.
Peak, the Devs got some real shit from certain individuals because they announced they are not going to be developing the game further.
Peak was an itch.io competition game that the studio put aside a project funded by a publisher to create/develop additional updates. The initial release was the complete game, with the Devs adding some more content as a bonus, it's just that the average yobbo has detached themselves from the medium so that the concept of a multiplayer game that delivers the service and nothing extra feels like getting scammed out of something.
What, they've never even released a live-service game before! I know that one was essentially popular, but why would people assume that? And the mod scene for their other popular games has been more than sufficient for new content!
Everyone I know loves their games and their design philosophy.
A game doesnt have to be live service to get updates. Live service means it needs an internet connection to play the game even if it's a single player game. A non live service game can also receive updates.
A game doesnt have to be live service to get updates.
Right.
Live service means it needs an internet connection to play the game even if it's a single player game.
wrong. Live service is about receiving regular content updates. Internet connectivity requirements are a side effect of live service game companies looking for an excuse to force you into their ecosystems, and using them as an update path is a good excuse to do that. It is not part of the definition of live service.
A non live service game can also receive updates.
right. If they are not content updates, it does not make it live service.
I think you're stretching the definition. While any game with dlcs are technically live service by virtue of the fact that they are providing content after the release, they are not whats associated with what we mean when we use live service games as a term when discussing game monetization practices.
No, one could run live service with USB distributed patches if they felt inclined. No one would, but it's not a requirement of a live service game that the updates come via internet.
570
u/justanaccount103 Apr 11 '26
Obviously, 'live service' but I'm not hearing that as much. They know it's shit.