Thats why I cant play them, whats the point, cant open it in 10 years and have nostalgia over it, none of them seem that fun to me, but visual progression is my favorite part of games so they aren’t really meant for me, I miss cool looking stuff meaning the person nolifed the game
Comment on Has the live-service dream crashed back down to earth? | Opinion
BroBot9000@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Games as a service has always been a scam. They use literally addictive gambling traps to keep people hooked to a money drip feeder with season passes and loot boxes.
All that only to rip the plug out when the servers are on life support.
Avoid them just like preordering. They are no benefit to the players.
dil@lemmy.zip 23 hours ago
0li0li@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Funnily enough, I want an offline addicting loot machine to play with podcasts or youtube. That’s why I play arpgs, but only-only games, for money? FUCK NO!
MoreZombies@aussie.zone 1 day ago
Hard disagree -before it went Free to Play, Team Fortress 2 was a shining example of GaaS! A steady stream of updates and external media that constantly kept that game in the limelight.
Games As A Service is not a scam in and of itself - the issue is the greedy people often behind them.
SynonymousStoat@lemmy.world 1 day ago
At least with Team Fortress 2 they have always had dedicated servers you can host yourself. Most GaaS never provide a server that you can run and host yourself.
BroBot9000@lemmy.world 1 day ago
One shiny red apple on a pile of rotting fruit does not make an apple pie.
Games as a service was always enshittification wearing trench coat. TF2 and MMOs back in the day were merely bait.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
they weren’t bait, the MBAs just hadn’t invented all the ways to scam users with it yet.
Strider@lemmy.world 1 day ago
While that might be true it was foreseeable. And they always do it.
Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
There are lots of good examples, they’re usually smaller studios/indie though. GaaS sucks when you get the people with business degrees in on it. It’s great for people who are working on a game they’re passionate about and just want to keep adding more content.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
well that’s the thing, it went free to play. Pretty classic enshittification arc.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t remember any one thing getting worse with TF2 after that change. What would be enshitified for it? Microtransaction cosmetics? I’ve never had a problem with those, as long as they are just cosmetic. If they change the balance of a game though, I simply refuse to play those games.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 1 day ago
to me, loot boxes/crates are an unethical gamifying of monetization, even if it’s only for cosmetic items.
MoreZombies@aussie.zone 1 day ago
While Overwatch and CS:GO are often games pointed to as the one that popularized and lead to the loot box/gambling popularly, TF2’s implementation of crates/keys is a clear point of inspiration for those games :(
However I agree, the initial Free To Play decision wasn’t a bad thing for TF2, though the culmination of that with the store/creator relationship and how things evolved in the company have lead to a less than desired development cycle for TF2 content when you look at what Valve actually provides in modern updates. And we waited how long for that comic? :P
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 day ago
How was TF2 (pre-FTP) a GaaS? I bought it in the Orange Box for a one-time cost. Where is the as-a-service component to that business model you’re citing?
MoreZombies@aussie.zone 1 day ago
They performed multiple free content updates over several years. I believe Gabe is quoted as saying the GaaS model had replaced the episodic model for them, the idea being that they weren’t selling a product, but a service that would continue passed the exchange of funds. We saw that in their games during that period like Left 4 Dead 1/2 as well.
As time has gone on, we’ve seen approaches to the idea morph to the anti-consumer versions we see and associate with the name, but there was a time when it wasn’t a negative.
ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I don’t think Unreal Tournament 2004 would have been considered live service just because they occasionally gave out a free new map. It was a form of marketing for the thing they already made. TF2 at least was a product when they sold it up front before it was free to play, when it had no microtransactions and they weren’t the goal for getting paid for having made TF2.
partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think you may be using a different definition of GaaS than mine. My definition includes a regular fee to play or a subscription as a continuous revenue generation from the product. From your replies I don’t think your definition does. That leaves me more confused about your definition.
What is your definition of Games-as-a-Service?