Live Service is killing the industry

When is enough, enough? When will we as the Fans hold these companies accountable for releasing unbaked games? I just want to thank the developers for their hard-work and crunch but these Triple A studios and the companies are employing malicious and nefarious business practices that allow for stagnation and “cutting cost” methods which is damaging the industry.

2 Likes

Live services are the industry.

Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.

This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.

> 2533274796763552;2:
> Live services are the industry.
>
> Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
>
> This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.

The business needs to crash again then. As of now, all “Live Service” is is an excuse to finish a game later while shoving microtransactions in.

3 Likes

Yeh I’ve basically had enough of live service games. I see it too often where games are unfinished and games are used to exploit gamers with overpriced MT then dev’s are forced to work overtime in shorter time periods to deal with the player demands. This is why I wish 343i had stuck to the normal releases and just added everything on disc so I can enjoy the game as a complete game without worrying about how much of a grind armour pieces are going to take to unlock anything. Ever since 343i announced live service it feels like it’s been used to avoid criticism by others and I’m not sure it’ll be good for Halo in the long term. Heck even right now I see it too often where games use the “we’ll patch it later” excuse to try dismiss this and this would make the game partly unplayable if the servers ever go down due to content being restricted to download only.

> 2533274796763552;2:
> Live services are the industry.
>
> Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
>
> This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.

No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.

> 2533274796763552;2:
> Live services are the industry.
>
> Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
>
> This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.

There are in fact, particularly great games out these days that aren’t live services.

Its really only western shooter and looter games that have fallen into these cesspit.

> 2533274964189700;5:
> > 2533274796763552;2:
> > Live services are the industry.
> >
> > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> >
> > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
>
> There are in fact, particularly great games out these days that aren’t live services.
>
> Its really only western shooter and looter games that have fallen into these cesspit.

For a shooter like Halo?

Sure. Technically Halo could join the ranks of your Wolfensteins, or something like modern Prey…but so long as it has a multiplayer, it’s gonna need to play by the expectations of the market where it is right now.

What great games are out these days that are multiplayer shooters that are very successful, healthy, require the investment in tech and management as does a Halo game, and have no live service elements?

> 2533274796763552;2:
> Live services are the industry.
>
> Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
>
> This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.

This is demonstrably false. One only needs to look at the top selling games year by year for the past several years. I don’t recall The Last of Us or Ghost of Tsushima or Jedi: Fallen Order being live service games.

All of these games are single player only titles, yet they all sold as well as Halo 5 did. In fact, one of them isn’t even a sequel with a loyal fanbase.

> 2533274829873463;4:
> Yeh I’ve basically had enough of live service games. I see it too often where games are unfinished and games are used to exploit gamers with overpriced MT then dev’s are forced to work overtime in shorter time periods to deal with the player demands. This is why I wish 343i had stuck to the normal releases and just added everything on disc so I can enjoy the game as a complete game without worrying about how much of a grind armour pieces are going to take to unlock anything. Ever since 343i announced live service it feels like it’s been used to avoid criticism by others and I’m not sure it’ll be good for Halo in the long term. Heck even right now I see it too often where games use the “we’ll patch it later” excuse to try dismiss this and this would make the game partly unplayable if the servers ever go down due to content being restricted to download only.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274796763552;2:
> > Live services are the industry.
> >
> > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> >
> > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
>
> No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.

Can you explain how live services, in your opinion, are not the standard of the industry whereas it concerns shooters?

> 2533274816232010;7:
> > 2533274796763552;2:
> > Live services are the industry.
> >
> > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> >
> > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
>
> This is demonstrably false. One only needs to look at the top selling games year by year for the past several years. I don’t recall The Last of Us or Ghost of Tsushima or Jedi: Fallen Order being live service games.
>
> All of these games are single player only titles, yet they all sold as well as Halo 5 did. In fact, one of them isn’t even a sequel with a loyal fanbase.

The Last of Us.
Ghosts of Tsushima.
Jedi: Fallen Order.
There are some glaring issues with comparing these to an online multiplayer shooter–which Halo has been since 2.

> 2533274796763552;8:
> > 2533274829873463;4:
> > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > Live services are the industry.
> > >
> > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > >
> > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> >
> > No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.
>
> Can you explain how live services, in your opinion, are not the standard of the industry whereas it concerns shooters?

Re-read what you said you said “Live services are the industry.” as in you were stating the entire industry is like this when it clearly isn’t. Just because some popular games do this does not mean every single game out there does this and it’s up to each dev to make their own choices because not every game out there today is some stupid live service game. I’m happily playing my games and not dealing with this whenever I can because the live service models are irritating.

> 2533274796763552;9:
> > 2533274816232010;7:
> > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > Live services are the industry.
> > >
> > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > >
> > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> >
> > This is demonstrably false. One only needs to look at the top selling games year by year for the past several years. I don’t recall The Last of Us or Ghost of Tsushima or Jedi: Fallen Order being live service games.
> >
> > All of these games are single player only titles, yet they all sold as well as Halo 5 did. In fact, one of them isn’t even a sequel with a loyal fanbase.
>
> The Last of Us.
> Ghosts of Tsushima.
> Jedi: Fallen Order.
> There are some glaring issues with comparing these to an online multiplayer shooter–which Halo has been since 2.

How about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare then? Top 10 seller for three years straight and it’s not a live service shooter. You’re reaching in order to fit your false narrative in order to validate the poor decisions Microsoft has made.

I’ll say it again. It’s demonstrably false for ANY type of single-player or multiplayer game to need to be live service to succeed. It’s just that producers are becoming more and more greedy and people such as yourself are willing to accept this greed.

You’re absolutely right. Live service is just a tag slapped onto a multiplayer game so devs can defend themselves when they release unfinished and/or broken games at launch. And people actually defend this practice.
It’s not even needed. Look at older Halo games. Those were more successful than Halo 5, which was also a Live Service game.

1 Like

> 2533274829873463;10:
> > 2533274796763552;8:
> > > 2533274829873463;4:
> > > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > > Live services are the industry.
> > > >
> > > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > > >
> > > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> > >
> > > No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.
> >
> > Can you explain how live services, in your opinion, are not the standard of the industry whereas it concerns shooters?
>
> Re-read what you said you said “Live services are the industry.” as in you were stating the entire industry is like this when it clearly isn’t. Just because some popular games do this does not mean every single game out there does this and it’s up to each dev to make their own choices because not every game out there today is some stupid live service game. I’m happily playing my games and not dealing with this whenever I can because the live service models are irritating.

They are the industry, perhaps I should elaborate, for an online multiplayer shooter.
Yes, there are plenty of single-player only games that don’t have any sort of live service model or monetization format.
Halo is not a single-player only game and has, since Halo 2, been expected to be a multiplayer shooter.

So if you can name a successful, current, multiplayer shooter with no microtransactions that is as popular and requires the amount of infrastructure and management that Halo is aiming for, I’ll retract what I’ve said.

Live services just seems to be a label AAA studios can use to excuse lack of content at release and cover their ears when players and reviewers complain about it.
However, “live service” games don’t have to have these problems. Eg. Monster Hunter World was a complete game at release but had regular content updates added over time that just added value to an already complete game. WIsh more games would follow this example, especially Halo.

> 2533274796763552;13:
> > 2533274829873463;10:
> > > 2533274796763552;8:
> > > > 2533274829873463;4:
> > > > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > > > Live services are the industry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> > > >
> > > > No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.
>
> They are the industry, perhaps I should elaborate, for an online multiplayer shooter.
> Yes, there are plenty of single-player only games that don’t have any sort of live service model or monetization format.
> Halo is not a single-player only game and has, since Halo 2, been expected to be a multiplayer shooter.
>
> So if you can name a successful, current, multiplayer shooter with no microtransactions that is as popular and requires the amount of infrastructure and management that Halo is aiming for, I’ll retract what I’ve said.

Umm no. Live service games co-exist with normal games and are generally tolerated because they are usually ‘free’ because at it’s core games like Fornite are free and yet has barely any content worth playing and yet people defend it with the “it’s free” excuse to try dismiss criticism.
Umm even single player games can have live service models like AC:Infinity…which is known as a single player series mostly.

Popular games with no micro-transactions…well Quake 1 remastered seems fine with none and Doom 16/Eternal has none and neither does MCC.
It’s obvious that you’re trying to find any excuse to defend the predatory system.

> 2533274829873463;15:
> Umm no. Live service games co-exist with normal games and are generally tolerated because they are usually ‘free’ because at it’s core games like Fornite are free and yet has barely any content worth playing and yet people defend it with the “it’s free” excuse to try dismiss criticism.

Fortnite has microtransanctions.
Please name a multiplayer shooter with matching levels of success (or close to matching, perhaps falling around your Apex Legends or PUBG player counts) that do not have microtransactions.

> 2533274829873463;15:
> Umm even single player games can have live service models like AC:Infinity…which is known as a single player series mostly.

That game’s not out yet. We can’t use it as an example. It could be a total flop.

> 2533274829873463;15:
> Quake 1 remastered seems fine with none and Doom 16/Eternal has none and neither does MCC.
> It’s obvious that you’re trying to find any excuse to defend the predatory system.

Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?

And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.

> 2533274796763552;16:
> > 2533274829873463;15:
> > Umm no. Live service games co-exist with normal games and are generally tolerated because they are usually ‘free’ because at it’s core games like Fornite are free and yet has barely any content worth playing and yet people defend it with the “it’s free” excuse to try dismiss criticism.
>
> Fortnite has microtransanctions.
> Please name a multiplayer shooter with matching levels of success (or close to matching, perhaps falling around your Apex Legends or PUBG player counts) that do not have microtransactions.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274829873463;15:
> > Umm even single player games can have live service models like AC:Infinity…which is known as a single player series mostly.
>
> That game’s not out yet. We can’t use it as an example. It could be a total flop.
>
>
>
>
> > 2533274829873463;15:
> > Quake 1 remastered seems fine with none and Doom 16/Eternal has none and neither does MCC.
> > It’s obvious that you’re trying to find any excuse to defend the predatory system.
>
> Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
>
> And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.

Ok look you skimmed over what I said and micro-managed my points to try to dismiss my points. I couldn’t care less if you like Battle Royale games.
You asked for examples and you refused to accept things like AC Infinity despite the fact it is an example of a major single player series going this route.
You’re basically missing the point if you’re going into “meet the criteria of Halo Infinite”…modern games can and many modern games have no MT or Live service and do fine on their own and not every game needs to copy/paste the same formulae to stay afloat. I’m not interested in listing every known live service game in a list for you. These are games I listed because I actually enjoy playing them without resorting to some awful predatory live service game.

> 2533274796763552;13:
> > 2533274829873463;10:
> > > 2533274796763552;8:
> > > > 2533274829873463;4:
> > > > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > > > Live services are the industry.
> > > > >
> > > > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> > > >
> > > > No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.
> > >
> > > Can you explain how live services, in your opinion, are not the standard of the industry whereas it concerns shooters?
> >
> > Re-read what you said you said “Live services are the industry.” as in you were stating the entire industry is like this when it clearly isn’t. Just because some popular games do this does not mean every single game out there does this and it’s up to each dev to make their own choices because not every game out there today is some stupid live service game. I’m happily playing my games and not dealing with this whenever I can because the live service models are irritating.
>
> They are the industry, perhaps I should elaborate, for an online multiplayer shooter.
> Yes, there are plenty of single-player only games that don’t have any sort of live service model or monetization format.
> Halo is not a single-player only game and has, since Halo 2, been expected to be a multiplayer shooter.
>
> So if you can name a successful, current, multiplayer shooter with no microtransactions that is as popular and requires the amount of infrastructure and management that Halo is aiming for, I’ll retract what I’ve said.

This sounds like an easy cop out. Why does it need to be like current games? Just because those are what’s out? Why can’t it be content complete like they used to be? Oh thats right…

To release unfinished games and monetize them before they are even done! That’s the whole point of “Live Services”. You can defend the garbage all you want, but that doesn’t make it right.

> 2533274829873463;17:
> > 2533274796763552;16:
> > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > Umm no. Live service games co-exist with normal games and are generally tolerated because they are usually ‘free’ because at it’s core games like Fornite are free and yet has barely any content worth playing and yet people defend it with the “it’s free” excuse to try dismiss criticism.
> >
> > Fortnite has microtransanctions.
> > Please name a multiplayer shooter with matching levels of success (or close to matching, perhaps falling around your Apex Legends or PUBG player counts) that do not have microtransactions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > Umm even single player games can have live service models like AC:Infinity…which is known as a single player series mostly.
> >
> > That game’s not out yet. We can’t use it as an example. It could be a total flop.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2533274829873463;15:
> > > Quake 1 remastered seems fine with none and Doom 16/Eternal has none and neither does MCC.
> > > It’s obvious that you’re trying to find any excuse to defend the predatory system.
> >
> > Does Quake remastered and Doom meet the criteria Halo Infinite is aiming for? And does MCC bring in enough money and player counts for MS to basically use that as a core component of their business with Xbox as a brand?
> >
> > And no, I’m not defending this business structure. Were it up to me, all intellectual properties would be under open source licenses and would be free for use and adaptation.
>
> Ok look you skimmed over what I said and micro-managed my points to try to dismiss my points. I couldn’t care less if you like Battle Royale games.
> You asked for examples and you refused to accept things like AC Infinity despite the fact it is an example of a major single player series going this route.
> You’re basically missing the point if you’re going into “meet the criteria of Halo Infinite”…modern games can and many modern games have no MT or Live service and do fine on their own and not every game needs to copy/paste the same formulae to stay afloat. I’m not interested in listing every known live service game in a list for you. These are games I listed because I actually enjoy playing them without resorting to some awful predatory live service game.

Name the games then!
And AC Infinity is not out right now. How can you measure success of something that doesn’t exist?
And Halo has not been a “single-player” game really ever. It has always lead a double life as a multiplayer game. The models that single player games like, say, The Last of Us, operates on are impossible to consider for Halo unless you wanted Halo to be like The Last of Us: a single player only game with a very tight focus on narrative polish that somewhat comes at the cost of gameplay. Does that describe any Halo game to you? Would Halo be the same and be as successful as The Last of Us if it was sold in the same way?

> 2535449665894532;18:
> > 2533274796763552;13:
> > > 2533274829873463;10:
> > > > 2533274796763552;8:
> > > > > 2533274829873463;4:
> > > > > > 2533274796763552;2:
> > > > > > Live services are the industry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Halo can only survive if it is one. This was not a decision made “for” Halo or “for” people who play games. In order for Halo to even exist in the current landscape of the industry means that it must be one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is just what the business of video games is now. And has been for some time.
> > > > >
> > > > > No it isn’t. Just because some company’s do this does not mean every company is. I’m deeply concerned that live service games is what will kill Halo eventually due to lack of support will eventually come and in theory make this game unplayable except for campaign and maybe a few multiplayer modes if there ready on disc before launch. It’s been a common problem on platforms like PC but I have tolerated for long enough because there has always been options to avoid this on consoles and I’m certainly not going to pretend like it’s ok.
> > > >
> > > > Can you explain how live services, in your opinion, are not the standard of the industry whereas it concerns shooters?
> > >
> > > Re-read what you said you said “Live services are the industry.” as in you were stating the entire industry is like this when it clearly isn’t. Just because some popular games do this does not mean every single game out there does this and it’s up to each dev to make their own choices because not every game out there today is some stupid live service game. I’m happily playing my games and not dealing with this whenever I can because the live service models are irritating.
> >
> > They are the industry, perhaps I should elaborate, for an online multiplayer shooter.
> > Yes, there are plenty of single-player only games that don’t have any sort of live service model or monetization format.
> > Halo is not a single-player only game and has, since Halo 2, been expected to be a multiplayer shooter.
> >
> > So if you can name a successful, current, multiplayer shooter with no microtransactions that is as popular and requires the amount of infrastructure and management that Halo is aiming for, I’ll retract what I’ve said.
>
> This sounds like an easy cop out. Why does it need to be like current games? Just because those are what’s out? Why can’t it be content complete like they used to be? Oh thats right…
>
> To release unfinished games and monetize them before they are even done! That’s the whole point of “Live Services”. You can defend the garbage all you want, but that doesn’t make it right.

The industry doesn’t release games like they do 11 years ago.
You’re aware of how market forces can have a dramatic effect on what kinds of games get made and don’t get made, correct?