Support NeoGAF

[dDoc]

Some very interesting points about the (perceived) success of many live services games. Many think it is the model of the future, but is it?

Part 1

Part 2


Paging Men_in_Boxes

 

[Killjoy-NL]

It's not the future of the market.

It's just a part of the market in this day and age.

 

[tusharngf]

Best live games i have played so far are pubg and crew motorfest. Every month there is something new and exciting. Developers needs to understand what their audience wants.

 

[cireza]

They are comfort food, time wasters. They don't exist to last. They will all die and be forgotten.

 

[bitbydeath]

Best live games i have played so far are pubg and crew motorfest. Every month there is something new and exciting. Developers needs to understand what their audience wants.

That's too long.
Fortnite adds new stuff at least once a week, sometimes multiple times in a week.

That's why it's the best.

 

[rofif]

Because I don't like playing online with other annoying people and I don't want to play 1 game for years

 

[HRK69]

70 minute fucking video and a 2 sentence OP

Name a better duo

 

[dDoc]

70 minute fucking video and a 2 sentence OP

Name a better duo

Currently at work, but the chap makes a lot of interesting points . One bit of info though - Concorde was not the fastest LSG to be shut down...

 

[Laptop1991]

They need players in sufficient numbers to keep playing and paying and when they don't they die, and only a few live service games will succeed not loads of them.

 

[Generic]

They die because only the best devs can make successful live service. Average devs should stick to singleplayer games.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

They die because only the best devs can make successful live service. Average devs should stick to singleplayer games.

Where does this put a company like Hello Games?

 

[PeteBull]

They die because only the best devs can make successful live service. Average devs should stick to singleplayer games.

avg devs will bankrupt their studio/get laid off

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Some very interesting points about the (perceived) success of many live services games. Many think it is the model of the future, but is it?

Part 1

Part 2

Paging Men_in_Boxes

He says at 30:19 "There's no room for mediocrity in the Live Service space."

That's why it's the future of the medium. It's the more aggressive, competitive model. The planned obsolescence model will continue to shrink because it found it's apex predator. The videogame industry was soft bunnies in a field from 1970 - 2016. Then hungry wolves were added to the ecosystem.

I only watched 10 - 15 minutes of this but the guy seems to be fairly reasonable. Nothing too enlightening.

 

[NeverYouMind]

He says at 30:19 "There's no room for mediocrity in the Live Service space."

That's why it's the future of the medium. It's the more aggressive, competitive model. The planned obsolescence model will continue to shrink because it found it's apex predator. The videogame industry was soft bunnies in a field from 1970 - 2016. Then hungry wolves were added to the ecosystem.

I only watched 10 - 15 minutes of this but the guy seems to be fairly reasonable. Nothing too enlightening.

It is just a fad like MMOs. Sooner or later people get tired of the same shit. Also, the "hungry wolves" look ridiculous:

In a generation or two people will probably look back at this in embarrassment.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It is just a fad like MMOs. Sooner or later people get tired of the same shit.

Humans are the most social animal in earths history. Our desire to play with each other is baked into our DNA.

Hermits are the exception, not the rule.

 

[SHA]

I support gaas, f2p stuff cause
1 usually ahead of it's time technically
2 you get real players right from the get-go
3 you don't wait for the complete edition for whatever reason and when it happens, it's too late for it's graphics, gameplay, story etc...