I’m really frustrated with how almost every new game these days is being forced into this “live service” model. It seems like no matter what type of game you want to play—whether it’s an RPG, shooter, or even something traditionally single-player—you’re stuck with always-online requirements. And for what? It adds nothing to the experience for most players and, if anything, it makes the game worse.

Take Fallout 76, for example. You can’t play it offline, period. You’re expected to pay $100 a year for a subscription to play by yourself, but even then, you’re still online, and any slight hiccup in your internet connection—or their terrible servers—means you get kicked off. It’s absurd. Fallout has always been a solo game experience, but now we’re locked into an online system no one wanted. Who actually benefits from this? Not the players, that’s for sure.

Another perfect example is Once Human. This is a game that could have been incredible, but instead, it’s trapped in the live service model from the start. I’m sitting there playing, and there’s no one around. So why am I online? Why can’t I just enjoy the game offline? It’s not like I’m asking to avoid multiplayer altogether—just give players the option! If I want to jump into a server and play with others, fine. But the fact that I’m forced to connect even for big chunks of the game that should be playable offline just feels unnecessary.

One of the worst offenders in recent memory is Temtem. It’s like they tried to make a multiplayer Pokémon and failed miserably. The game is fully online, yet it’s a ghost town. Steam shows fewer than 100 players on at any given time, but they still force everyone to play online. And one day, the servers will go offline entirely, and what happens to your game then? It’s completely gone, and so is your money. It feels like a scam.

The worst part is, nobody seems to be fighting against this trend except for the EU. They’re already working on passing laws that would require games to be playable offline if the servers get shut down. Imagine that! A game company actually having to care about whether you can play the game you paid for after it’s abandoned. It’s crazy to me that this isn’t already standard everywhere. The fact that we even need a law to ensure you can still enjoy your purchase after the servers are gone is telling.

It’s just sad to see so many great games ruined by forced online connectivity. Live service works for some titles, but not everything needs to be connected 24/7. Developers need to wake up and realize that players want the choice, not a one-size-fits-all approach that makes everything worse in the long run.

  • 667@lemmy.radio
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Planned obsolescence hidden behind a “feature”.

    In ten years, when they want to pull the plug on this game, they will cite dwindling users and “exorbitant” per-user maintenance costs.

    They don’t want playable legacies. They want something they can leverage for nostalgia marketing in 20 years, and if you break out the original game, they won’t make any money. Production companies want you to buy what they are offering today, because it pays for new yachts.

    • dustyData@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      In ten years? If I had to guess the average life span of live services games I’d say about 18 months. Heavily skewed by the survivors. The shortest lived one only worked for 13 days. Only the very popular ones survive past 5 years and there are a handful of 10 plus. I know it’s hard to believe, the average gamer is oblivious to how over saturated the videogames market is. Despite executive’s delusions, time and money are actually finite. Not all games can demand all of it, at the same time.

    • Buttflapper@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      In ten years, when they want to pull the plug on this game, they will cite dwindling users and “exorbitant” per-user maintenance costs.

      TemTem has been accused of exactly this. It’s nonsensical how they won’t allow people who bought the game to play offline. Here’s an example from 7 months ago on reddit where someone said: “they’ve literally said that they will keep TemTem playable one way or another, including if they need to make an offline mode”. The game has under 1k players now according to Steamcharts, about 700 today. It launched with 27k players. It’s virtually unplayable since it’s designed as an MMO fully online, but has barely anyone playing it. But they STILL refuse to develop an offline mode.