hes right tho, Live service would have gotten them more money than a single sale. There are always some r-slurera type r-slurs willing to keep paying and playing their self perceived favourite game. !g*mers
misterwiggerwig/gity
My father made wigs. His father made wigs. And his father... made... wigs!!!
realKongDick 2hr ago#7751832
spent 0 currency on pings
That would be true if we didn't have numerous examples of companies completely pulling the plug on their lives service projects after only a couple months online.
IVIayaelTheAnimaI/We
Iβm 100% certain that at least half the mods do not have Faith or the Holy Spirit.
RiverSong 2hr ago#7751842
spent 0 currency on pings
Live service means a game you can't play if the company stops supporting it.
If blizzard turns off the overwatch servers, nobody can even log into the game any more, so it's live service.
Typically it also involves the company being involved with the game, adding new content and adjusting existing stuff as time goes on, to justify people investing more money into the game either through microtransactions or a subscription fee.
IVIayaelTheAnimaI/We
Iβm 100% certain that at least half the mods do not have Faith or the Holy Spirit.
RiverSong 12m ago#7752070
spent 0 currency on pings
It's not necessarily a bad thing for games desu
Competitive PvP games generally only persist as long as there's a big enough playerbase. By the time a GaaS game is unprofitable and gets turned off, the playerbase would have died out anyway even if it was a one time purchase and you'd be left with a game you couldn't play anyway.
Plus, GaaS games tend to prefer a free to play model supported by cosmetic microtransactions which makes it easier for people to get into the game and expand the playerbase.
It doesn't make sense for single player games but that's an issue that will fix itself in time.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's why he gets paid the big bucks!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
hes right tho, Live service would have gotten them more money than a single sale. There are always some r-slurera type r-slurs willing to keep paying and playing their self perceived favourite game. !g*mers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
heck yea
3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th gender unlockables with dynamic logarithmic pricing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I said he's right!![:tayaaa: :tayaaa:](https://i.rdrama.net/e/tayaaa.webp)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
no u didn't![:marseyindignant: :marseyindignant:](https://i.rdrama.net/e/marseyindignant.webp)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
That would be true if we didn't have numerous examples of companies completely pulling the plug on their lives service projects after only a couple months online.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Thought it was the writing. But that's why Mr. EA gets paid $24M and not me.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
If he criticized the writing, Vanguard might withhold its ESG money.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
What exactly is "live service"? I looked around the intertubes but people don't give the same definition.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Live service means a game you can't play if the company stops supporting it.
If blizzard turns off the overwatch servers, nobody can even log into the game any more, so it's live service.
Typically it also involves the company being involved with the game, adding new content and adjusting existing stuff as time goes on, to justify people investing more money into the game either through microtransactions or a subscription fee.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
So it's like software as a service for games? That makes sense, though it's awful.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's not necessarily a bad thing for games desu
Competitive PvP games generally only persist as long as there's a big enough playerbase. By the time a GaaS game is unprofitable and gets turned off, the playerbase would have died out anyway even if it was a one time purchase and you'd be left with a game you couldn't play anyway.
Plus, GaaS games tend to prefer a free to play model supported by cosmetic microtransactions which makes it easier for people to get into the game and expand the playerbase.
It doesn't make sense for single player games but that's an issue that will fix itself in time.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
https://old.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/1ii4hnk/ea_ceo_claims_dragon_age_the_veilguard_failed_due/
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Snapshots:
https://n4g.com/news/2652804/ea-ceo-claims-dragon-age-the-veilguard-failed-due-to-lack-of-live-service-elements:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context