• McDuders@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Kind of mixed on this one for me. On one hand it’s a win against microtransactions, since a big name like Marvel isn’t enough for people to buy it, so much that it has to be delisted. I think that’s a huge win and I think it’s worth mentioning.

    On the other, preservation is a thing and I’m wondering if this game could somehow still be played if it’s taken off the store. Granted I’m not familiar with this game so I don’t know if physical copies work, or if they’re just codes with a plastic shell. Or even if this game would be playable once the servers go down. I know it’s not the best game to keep around, but history deserves preservation, etc

      • OscarRobin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        What is and isn’t worth preserving is not something that can be known at the time of preserving. The point of preservation is so things can be accessed later if and when they’re needed. Even shitty games like Avengers may be relevant in many ways in the future, even if just to reference as ‘a shitty game’.

      • McDuders@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree. I think games are definitely worth preserving, even if they aren’t that fun. Regardless, this game has historical significance and should at the very least be playable after it’s delisted.

      • PastaGorgonzola@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        I recently saw this video about the British Library. They collect everything that’s published in the UK (books, magazines, papers, leaflets, flyers, …). One of the librarians makes a pretty good case about the use of collecting and preserving everything. Even (or especially) the things you don’t think are worth preserving.

      • Pxtl@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        “Good” is not the metric for preserving things. “Important” is. Marvel’s Avengers is important to preserve because this failure is a major historical milestone.

        Like, imagine if somehow every copy of ET for the Atari 2600 vanished. Would anything fun be lost? Of course not. But would we lose some critical context in an important historical event? Yes. Very much so.

        Fortunately, Atari games aren’t the kind of ephemeral media where we have to worry about that like cloud-service games or pre-code cellulite films.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is preservation of GaaS actually important though? We’re not talking about niche shovelware that somebody is nostalgic for, we’re talking about preserving a thing that wasn’t meant to ever be preserved, that hurt the gaming industry and represented gaming’s modern backsliding into corporate greed.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    This game was mocked when it was announced as late to the party, mocked when it was demoed as looking like some wish.com avengers characters, mocked upon release as being a shallow experience, and now it’s being delisted. My backlog remains resilient. Thank God I put on my Himalayan Walking Shoes!

    • Saledovil@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a social cost associated with buying it, namely, that you support live service games. So please don’t buy it.

      • raptir@lemdro.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t know about that. The game has now removed all of the live service elements, so I would say it’s showing that there is interest in this type of game without the live service.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I do support live service games though. I prefer them and that’s pretty much all I ever play.

        What they’ve done with handling this game in delisting it is quite frankly fantastic - get rid of all micro transactions and bundle every single one with the game and basically give the game away for free at its end of life. Now anyone what wants to play it like a regular single player offline game can for a few bucks, and I believe are least in pc it uses steam for online play so it will still be playable multiplayer. Everyone wins.

          • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Huh? I bought it because one day one of my kids might want to play it, or I might however unlikely.

            Why are you trying to stop people buying it, just because you don’t like constantly updated games? Why are you against them?

            • yata@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              “Constantly updated games” is a ridiculously disingenous description of live service games.

              • Kaldo@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Isn’t that literally what they are though? Fortnite, WoW, Runescape, Warframe or Hearthstone are all vastly different genres of games but they are still live-service games at the end. What else could the term mean besides “constantly updated”, they are a living, evolving long-term service?

                • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah that’s literally what live service games are 😂. Would love to hear what they would call them, but doubt we’ll get a response.

                • dandi8@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Live service = always online.

                  It means once the servers go down you will no longer be able to play the game.

                  A game doesn’t need to be always online to be constantly updated. See: Project Zomboid, No Man’s Sky, Minecraft etc.

            • Haui
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              I think the discussion has become a bit muddy.

              The argument against live service games is that you are dependent on the servers hosted by the developer/publisher (afaik).

              In normal circumstances, they are able to stop you from playing or alter the terms at any time however they like.

              This is a dominant/subordinate relationship which is quite risky. Especially for young people who are still learning what a healthy relationship looks like.

              The alternative is a equality relationship where you decide if you buy something based on the price.

              One argument against that would be that you can „rent“ an apartment as well. But legislature has shown that states will intervene on a vendor (landlord) redefining the terms of the contract. Not so much with gaming.

              Now you are arguing that the game is taken off live service and you will be able to play it offline. I don’t know if that is the case but if so then buying it now would actually send the message that doing the right thing after all boosts sales.

              TL;DR: Live service games are badly legislated imo but truly making such a game offline playable with all dlc would be a good thing in my book.

              Just my personal opinion. Have a good one.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                This game is 100% offline playable now with all dlc and microtransactions included for like $4.

            • HidingCat@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry you got downvoted by this Lemmy circlejerk. There’s a certain toxcicity in these parts; basically anything not Linux and offline with the slightest hint of privacy issues is downright hated here.

              • Kaldo@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Which is funny since the fediverse by its core principles has 0 consideration towards privacy.

                It is really astonishing how reddit-like the hivemind here has become already, people don’t care about even objectively discussing the terminology if they can circlejerk about “GaaS is bad ehmahgerd” instead, just going straight for extreme viewpoints and seeing it black and white. Really thought I got away from that when I joined here…

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because literally every live service game ever made goes out of their way to constantly dictate your engagement with it in a way that is exclusively designed for the sole purpose of taking money from you.

              There are no exceptions. There is no game that has ever done live service in a way that is in any way forgivable.

              • Kaldo@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Just because there are many games that do it badly doesn’t mean the genre label means something different. I’m playing GW2 and Warframe which are very much live service games and I rarely, if ever, feel exploited or manipulated into giving money to them - if anything it’s the opposite and the only occassion when I do spend extra on them is when I’m happy with content or updates and want to support them.

                There are no exceptions. There is no game that has ever done live service in a way that is in any way forgivable.

                This is subjective and I believe this might be the case for you, but it is demonstratively absolutely not true for everyone. You framing it like some absolute authority on the subject is just shortsighted and inaccurate.

              • Xanvial@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve been playing Dota more than a decade, the game that technically introduce Battle Pass. I don’t even feel pressured to buy microtransaction, the community even disappointed when Valva stop selling the yearly battle pass

                • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Everyone should grab a copy of warcraft 3 with TFT (not reforged!) and jump on W3Connect for some old school DotA. No filler, all killer.

              • hoi_polloi@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve been playing Old School Runescape and I must say it’s fantastic. Selling drops os enough to pay for my subscription and there’s no microtransactions.

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                That’s strange because I’ve spent about $15 all up on micro transaction since they became a thing yet I have tens of thousands of hours in live service games and I’ve had a ball.

                • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The fact that you can “play them” without spending money doesn’t change the fact that every single element of every single feature is designed to make you want to spend money, and every interaction with every menu has ads shoved down your face.

                  There is exactly one design conceit for live service games, and it’s “rob every player you can blind”. It’s the exact business model of every single one. There are zero exceptions.

            • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Live service games represent lazy, copy and paste style game mechanics. They’re insulting to the gaming consumer’s intelligence, and they’re basically just jobs. Daily inconsequential tasking that eventually allows you to do an inconsequential raid, where you have a 1 in 1000 chance of dropping a rare item. All so you can stand around in the game world’s hub and show off your meaningless cosmetic item that isn’t really all that useful because you’ve accomplished all of your mundane, copy and paste goals. Oh, and the casino mechanics that psychologically incentivize buying microtransactions.

              The game being “constantly updated” isn’t the issue. The issue is that the “constant updates” are basically nothingburger, repetitive tasks that you’ve already done a thousand times.

              Do I care enough to go on a crusade and slap boxes out of people’s hands? Fuck no. But they are a stain on gaming

              • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                You clearly don’t understand what “live service” games are if that’s what you think.

                What did PUBG copy paste and from what? Overwatch? Diablo? Battlefield? Counter strike? Forza horizon and Motorsport?

                Your definition of them seems to be a super narrow scope of basically a F2P mobile game.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You probably wont’ be able to play it soon. Servers will get shut down sooner or later if they’re delisting the game.

      • Whirlybird@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’ve explicitly talked about this, the game is entirely playable offline after the delisting.