In fact, 90% of live service games are the exact opposite, and quality of many have dropped off a damn cliff.
In fact, 90% of live service games are the exact opposite, and quality of many have dropped off a damn cliff.
10 Comments
If the benefit was not overwhelmingly ‘to the company’ they wouldn’t invest so much time and effort to do it.
It’s just a lie. And you don’t even get cake.
I think they make so much money with it they really couldn’t care what we think. Somebody is always going to pay for it too.
Rainbow is a treated as a free to play game by the devs however it costs $60 to play
What they meant to say is that it’s better for the wallets of the developers.
There’s one thing in the interest of players and it’s because players prioritizing this that these have become such a big thing which is amount of time you can play it. Sites like how long to beat and people measuring games with how long it takes to beat them constantly makes live service games very attractive. We brought this on ourselves
In an ideal world, live service game means we get a full playable game with hours of content at launch on top of constant update and support post launch. In reality, we get a half-complete game that drip feeds content and preys on FOMO.
The sky is blue, more at eleven.
I agree, if we weren’t *also* paying the 70 dollars to buy the game.
Until players start voting with their wallets, top execs won’t change these business practices
Uh I have to disagree cause uh Helldivers 2 is one of the best games ive ever played.