Seriously, how many live service games have to be flopped to understand we gamers “DO NOT WANT” live service games?
Seriously, how many live service games have to be flopped to understand we gamers “DO NOT WANT” live service games?
27 Comments
So not another Hogs of War?
I’m do excited to go grind out a battle pass i couldn’t give a fuck about
I’m so exited to pay $70 for a terrible experience
A follow up in the exact same mould as the first would literally print money. WB have lost their damn minds.
For every flop there’s a runaway hit too, and developers won’t stop chasing that dragon. Gamers are voting with their wallets, and they’re voting in droves for live service titles or equally “hated” formats.
Suicide Squad may have been DOA, but Helldivers 2 is a massive success, exceeding the wildest expectations for the game. Even with huge launch issues, the game stays popular. Folks can deride them all they want, but right now, live service games sell, and they sell very well. GTA 5 is 11 years old and still prints money for TakeTwo/Rockstar. Warframe–same story. Diablo 4–same story. FIFA–they update the backend database and release it as a new game, and it stays one of the best selling games in the world every year.
There are game companies out there in it for the art, and they make cheap-to-build games that are fun and novel. But that doesn’t change the fact that epic-scale games like Cyberpunk cost a ton to make, and the companies expect to make that money back and then some. Or they spent a fortune on the licensing rights and want to get the most out of them, like FIFA. If the customers will do it, why change behavior?
Nobody’s going to pour $500M into the pit for the art, unless your name is Chris Roberts and you’ve designed a marketing machine of such terrifying effectiveness that will be a business case study for decades to come.
I could totally get on board with a fully fledged out Harry Potter MMO set in the Hogwarts timeline. It’s been a long time since someone produced a new good MMO. And that’s because they are hard to do, especially with today’s graphical expectations and server requirements.
What I’m sure we’ll get is;- half an unpolished and short single player campaign, which then pivots unexpectedly to a three player squad based live service game. Hogwarts will then become a social hub for you and two mates to “fly” via a loading screen to a series of uninspired and out of place “missions” where you zap your wand at a meagre selection of generic bad guys to earn half a dozen or so currencies, with which to buy new scarves or wand designs. Coincidentally more fancy ones can also be purchased from the in-game store for real currency. There will be a Battle pass which will reward you with a character skin from the actual HP movies, despite none of the characters existing for 100s of years into the future.
You will likely be able to pinpoint the exact time the Devs got the instructions that this needed to be a live service game.
I think I need to go have a lie down now at the absurdity of AAA publishers.
The thing is people DO want live service games. Two of the biggest and most popular releases of 2024 so far are live service in Helldivers and last epoch. And of course the past run away hits like wow, Fortnite, apex, destiny, etc.
They want good single player games too of course, but the numbers don’t lie as far as interest in live service.
The disconnect comes from people wanting QUALITY live service games that respect their time and money. And instead large developers are churning out half baked live service games that don’t respect people’s time and money so they flop horribly.
Good. Warner can go ahead and become bankrupt.
I pray the game fails then
Step 1: Catch lightning in a bottle
Step 2: Release the lightning even though it was 100% under control somehow
Step 3: Complain about fickle customer base
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Lose profits
I really don’t have a dog in the race between GAAS and somehow blander than Ubisoft open world slop like Hogwarts.
This is just a guess nothing was confirmed.
The reason they are doing this is because they’ve decided as a company that unless a game requires you to pay $$ every 3 months, while strongly suggesting a huge number of microtransactions in between, its not worth making.
Well, and this game will meet the fate of Fantastic Beast – death of the franchise. Creating the live service game is the best way to ruin your reputation and went to bankruptcy.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Shitty Business Decisions
What does a live service game mean? Does it mean I have to pay a monthly fee to continue playing? Seems short sighted if it’s a campaign only game.
The first one was already bland and repetitive. I don’t see how they could possibly justify charging even more for that experience
Execs HATE being wrong and will literally go to 1000% until they lose that job.
Waiting for this to come out so I can buy HL1 on a deep discount.
Make it a MMO and I’ll deal with it.
Dead before even arrival was planned. Those CEOs sure do know how to get results fast.
Younger kids don’t know better and their parents’wallets are even more ignorant.
This is not a news article. This is that same quote we all saw, about WB shifting to F2P games, but it attaches “Hogwarts 2” to the news. The site has no evidence there will ever be a Hogwarts 2, just an assumption, so they of course have zero info on what the game will be like.
How…expected of them.
HAHAHAHA
Although Hogwarts was by normal measures, a commercial success, and one of the VERY FEW that WBD had in 2023. But based on what I’ve read – and this is totally just my opinion – but rather than seeing the success of HP as a win for the company/their gaming division, they probably look at it like, “We left so much money on the table by not making it live service” which begs the question, was a main cause for its success the fact that it wasn’t live service and if they had LS’d it, would it still be as successful? The gameplay makes me wonder, because while Hogwarts is fun, the game kinda loses the novelty after you’re sent into the world. THe world is not as fleshed out as I would have liked, the late-game areas have almost no reason to explore unless you’re a completionist.
Also, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Harry Potter fan so maybe I would have felt more novelty in the surrounding world if I had been familiar with the lore, but yeah. Anyway.
Also the ending was super fucking easy, like after beating the final boss, I was super let down, I think it was a 1 try boss encounter.
“Seriously, how many live service games have to be flopped to understand we gamers “DO NOT WANT” live service games?”
“As always, at least once more, Ms Swann.”
My wife loves Harry Potter. She will not play the game if they try this garbage.