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.

  • Katana314@lemmy.worldEnglish
    131·
    1 month ago

    I genuinely fault gamers for some of this too, though.

    There’s a very small indie game out called “Liar’s Bar”. It’s simple and fun. But, there were still people in forums savagely complaining that the game’s pointless XP system didn’t save correctly after a match - and that it didn’t have skins/emotes to earn for investing time into it.

    There’s also MP games I play that I find fun, where I see popular, level-headed streamers complain that there’s been “nothing new” in its past two months. For most players, this wouldn’t even matter because they’re not able to play it nearly as often.

    Then there’s games like Back 4 Blood, the late-grown attempt to reinvigorate Left 4 Dead’s magic. For those who don’t know; the game is still fully playable right now. It’s still fun. The developers just don’t add more to it anymore. Yet, as soon as they made this announcement that they were moving on to other games, there were conclusive, prophetic statements out about “Why Back 4 Blood DIED” as though the game is completely gone.

    It’s wrong to claim that publishers moved to the constant-update, live-service model forcefully in their own decision-making vacuum. People (maybe not even the people in this thread) asked for this.