Are Live Services Dying Faster?

[@pixelmafiaxbl]

I think the issue with Concord specifically is that it didn’t offer much to differentiate it from other big titles in that same genre. Then you take into account the price tag when alternatives are free to play. Theres so many live service games out there now and some studios seem to focus on making “their own call of duty” or “their own battle royale”, instead of actually introducing something unique.

[@MarkDarrah]

yup

[@realhumanbean21]

The competition in live service segment is so intense. Hopefully, it means more resources will be poured into singleplayer games. On the other hand Assassin’s creed example shows that monetisation is not restricted to online games only and it also doesn’t guarantee the quality of the games will be good

[@MarkDarrah]

indeed

[@julilla1]

I'd like to see the end of companies insisting everything has to be live service, so I guess I'm happy? I say that, but I feel bad for the people who spent time on making this game. I was surprised that they didn't put out a plan for making changes at all, just pulled it outright. That's a shocker!

[@MarkDarrah]

I THINK we may be seeing a pivot in thinking... Or I really WANT to be seeing that

[@julilla1]

@@MarkDarrah I see a change, at least in the gaming spaces that I peruse. More and more people are tired of these endless always online live service games. They're just aching for single player focused games without microtransactions. You know, like ye olden days.

[@jbutler8585]

They don't WANT to make live services. They WANT the next big long-term cash cow. And the biggest and cow-iest ones they know of are live service, so they ape that model as if that's the reason for success. And if it isn't a smashing 10/10 hit then they just got 'unlucky', scrap it and roll the dice on the next title. No effort is spent making things *good*, because they don't know how to control that X factor. Analytics can't tell them how to make a good product. So just keep attempting the same formula until it wins the lottery.

[@Knight1029]

It does suck that some games have to fail for publishers to get the idea that they should've be making those games exclusively. But I am glad that it may signal a shift towards more single player games.

[@MarkDarrah]

I hope so

[@CorinneO.O]

The people at Bioware that managed to convince EA to change shift Dragon Age from liveservice to singleplayer deserves a medal at the Game Awards 😭❤️

[@MarkDarrah]

The right conversation at the right moment.

[@batandy23]

Wasn’t this the other way around? I thought the reporting was BioWare pitched it as live service and EA ended up not wanting any more of those

[@htaylor9677]

@@batandy23 nah from my understanding ea wanted it to be live service with multiplayer the first iteration of the game was gon be single-player, then EA said nah we wont live service with mp components. anthem failed (made money) n jedi fallen order sold like hotcakes THEN EA was thankfully convinced to let BW do singleplayer only.

[@AnimeLover-xr6mc]

Thank God i would be devastated to see the franchise i grew up with to be "murdered" like that

[@b-l1969]

It's quite clear single player games at the scale and production value players expect are not a sustainable business model... 8 years of development on a trend that may or may no longer exist, or positioning it for players of an original who likely has moved on from core games at that point in their life. Live service *has* to be the future.

[@KiddDaPhoenix]

I'm playing FFXIV, mostly cause it's the most story- and character customisation-oriented MMO still getting updated regularly (really liked SWTOR back in the day for story too). At this point I'm 5 years deep into this and don't see myself playing another MMO "for real" any time soon. Trying something, playing around with it for a month or two? Maybe. But unsubbing from FFXIV to play something else? I just don't see it happening without FFXIV ending their content updates first, for many more years. Like you said, people who want a certain thing have probably already found their fix. (by the way, can't wait for Veilguard!)

[@MarkDarrah]

Yeah the stickiness of live services which i what makes them so attractive to the C-suite is also what makes competing so hard.

[@ahmadamir9104]

From my observation, the success of a live service game often hinges on the community it builds before and just after launch. Apex Legends, for example, gained traction in the crowded battle royale market by appealing to Titanfall fans, as it was seen as a repurposed Titanfall 3 project. Studios like Mihoyo excel at this, with four active live service games, each fostering distinct yet interconnected communities, often centered around characters like Silver Wolf or Himeko. Arrowhead Studios also excels by integrating community-building directly into their games through unique in-game interactions. The issue with Concord is its lack of a visible community. There’s no fan art, cosplay, or discussion about characters or lore. Live service games that fail to build a community before launch often struggle to succeed.

[@MarkDarrah]

I think there is wisdom here

[@shumworld]

It's marketing was well executed. They literally release the trailer at the same time the game itself was released.

[@Arauto_Kagnos]

I don't hate live-services but I do hate the corporate obsession with trying to turn every game into one, not every game needs to be like that so I am glad the industry is slowly realizing that. I used to play a live-service myself, SWTOR, but I quit last year due to feeling the game was not getting proper support from its publisher.

[@MarkDarrah]

Lt's hope the lesson sticks.

[@curiosity6580]

MMO's are in such a weird place. The most popular ones are quite old and despite them getting older and more stale, new stuff dont seem to cut it. I am without an MMO first time since 14 years and it will probably stay this way. But I am happy live services aren't push as hard anymore.

[@MarkDarrah]

It is very interesting

[@ziebus904]

1 mmo is garbage with today work mentality 2 old mmo are carried by nostalgia and fear of waste 3 new mmo are garbage 23/7 grind with p2w 4 oversaturation of multiplayer games and seperation of players

[@lilathrone]

Do you think being caught up in culture wars and releasing in somewhat an anti triple aaa or anti establishment culture that is getting traction (at least from what i see on the internet) can also hurt sales? I am really worried for Veilguard because of this, there are a lot of negative comments that are spreading on youtube, the core of it is a very popular (and populist) influencer. I would love to think this is a loud minority and the game will be judged based on its actual quality.

[@MarkDarrah]

I think it can. In Veilguard's case? Dragon Age has always been in the cultural conflict. I'm not sure that this is any different

[@SunderMount]

Is this "influencer" Asmongold by any chance?

[@lilathrone]

@@SunderMount That's the one I was referring to

[@LiraeNoir]

You said bigger organizations aren't interested of doing what Valve is doing, developing a new live service maybe more organically, or with a more public and longer iterative phase. While I agree, I think you have a unique position to explore why that's the case, in more details and personal experience. And it could touch on other background decisions affecting gamedev as a whole. Would be a very interesting topic/video.

[@MarkDarrah]

Yeah true… need to step carefully

[@SilentSigns]

Just to add to this, the incumbents have had years of "successful live service budget" that for the most successful games likely measures in billions of lifetime development dolllars and years of QA and iteration, you are with absolute certainty going to release a product that is technically worse than the incumbent. If you can't find a niche that is unoccupied your game needs to reveal some fundamental flaw with the current offerings that only your game can fill (that is not easily corrected by the incumbents), anything less and comparisons will inevitably fall back to "this is just the incumbent with less polish".

[@MarkDarrah]

Yes absolutely. You are competing with the launch product AND all the money spent since

[@Noname-sz5ui]

So is this partly the reason DATV doesn’t let us control companions like the previous games? (Because it was going to be a live service)

[@MarkDarrah]

We were talking about the change even before that… but yeah it probably is in there

[@Noname-sz5ui]

@@MarkDarrah Thanks for the reply! Does make more sense.

[@DarthKrytie]

I'm one that don't care for most live service games. Like you say, too many c-suites like the idea of maximum money for the minimum investment. I think the gaming industry needs a reckoning in various areas. Someone said somewhere one of the biggest issues is you can't satiate the rich. I know that gaming is a big risk/big reward industry no matter what, but I think bringing games back to a creative output that makes money instead of a money maker that has some creativity can only help heal the industry at large. Currently, I play SWTOR intermittently. I love it, but I need breaks from it.

[@MarkDarrah]

Not SOME money. ALL money

[@SpidersFace]

Warframe and FFXIV have my whole heart for lootershooter/mmos rn!!

[@MarkDarrah]

War frame is the live service who could

[@SpidersFace]

@@MarkDarrah yesss! And I am more than happy to spend all of my money on them!!

[@laureno4108]

I'm not a multiplayer or shooter person most of the time so I don't play any live service games that are still live atm, but I still play some formerly live service games (dead service?). I think the best example of a live service game I've played is Star Wars Battlefront II (2017)? I kinda wanted it only for the campaign because I'm a Star Wars fangirl but I also played the multiplayer also and I loved it so much! The game received like 3 years of content updates with new heroes/villains, new reinforcements, new maps, new modes (including co-op and offline modes, not only mp) and even a campaign dlc. There were also updates that changed core mechanics that weren't working, like when heroes/villains with lightsabers were given limited stamina instead of being able to block things infinitely like at launch. I'm not sure I understood how different it was to so many live services, because like... the live service kinda avoided all the negative aspects I've seen in different games? Like... all the content they released was added permanently into the game. I can only think of like one example where they released something that was only available for a limited time, but they added it later so anyone could unlock it if they completed a challenge. The game had microtransactions and players could use real money to purchase currency for different appearances for the basic classes and heroes/villains, but the different appearance options were always in the game and weren't locked behind a rotating store and everything could be unlocked with the credits you earned at the end of each round. Some of them were kinda expensive and would take some time to unlock, but it was possible for sure and most appearances were priced fairly. So imo, I kinda feel like the game's live service had so many positives and no real negatives, and the game had so much variety it never felt like a grind to me. If I felt tired of co-op I could fly a TIE Fighter or an X-Wing for a time or play Ewok Hunt and be hunted by some teddy bears in a dark forest with only a flashlight to help me navigate (it was kinda scary). I played the game on PS4 and I'm a PC player now but I still play the game regularly on PC. But I think it was great because I had the benefits of the live service (the new content and updates) without needing to engage in the live service elements like the microtransactions but they still existed for players who wanted to support the game or wanted to unlock the appearances immediately. If live services were all like this, I would be happy if more games included them. But most live service games I've tried have devolved into "you can only play or unlock this content for a limited time and then it will disappear" and "you have to grind for hours doing the same thing to unlock something small" and feel like they want to drain people of all their time and money more than being a fun experience that people will want to spend their time and money playing. I've tried some of them during free weekends and things, mostly because I'm curious, and they always feel to push me away more than they invite me to keep playing. Do you think singleplayer games are generally more reliable at generating profit than live services (even if the profit is lower)? Or are the consequences of unsuccessful live service games only felt more? I'm also curious if publishers are more or less capable of predicting profits from singleplayer games compared with multiplayer/live service games?

[@MarkDarrah]

Singleplayer games are usually more predictable. They can outperform (DAI) and underperform (MEA) buit you are a lot less likely to miss by orders of magnitude

[@greg3885]

So, like most things, live services are not inherently bad in themselves. Some of my greatest gaming experiences were online multi-player games. I remember "City of Heros" running into the gigantic Babbage at the end of the Clockwork taskforce, or in Wow during Wrath going to the elevator in howling fords to see entire unknown continent open up. These were exhilarating, and experiencing them with friends made it better. Modern live service games tend to be governed by cyincal monetization pumps. You can see this is Over Watch and Diablo. Battle passes and events trigger players rather than creating content to experience.

[@MarkDarrah]

Yes. The 3 issues are: 1. Everything can't be a live service 2. If you ARE making it a live service, PLAN to support it long enough to stabilize it and potentially find its audience 3. Expect that mot will fail / only pay for themselves

[@GoddamnitWray]

As part of a stream team I can say that most of our content creators just jump from new game to new game as it's extremely rare that a game holds our attention. Most feel like repaints of what released 2 months before. I stream DbD, and there's not another assymetrical pvp game that can step up to the plate even with how bad the game has gotten. Until a studio can break the mould that was determined with CoD, Fortnite, etc., live service games are going to continue to deadpan until there's a fresh idea that hasnt been done. Content creators will just continue to jump to what's hot for the minute, but a misstep, or lack of immediate content will give us all a reason to 'gg, go next' aka move on very quickly, and our communities go with us.

[@MarkDarrah]

Thank you for this perspective

[@GoddamnitWray]

@@MarkDarrah Sorry if it's off from the direction the conversation was meant to go. I just look at things from the thought processes of: a) what's my community telling me they want to see, and b) what are the other 139 creators in the team saying they're excited about? Concord was never mentioned. WoW, FFXIV, DbD, Once Human, Lethal Company, and interactive titles like Cult of The Lamb. These are what the larger number of small communities are into. Baldur's Gate 3 was massive for smaller creators, because it made it easy with Twitch integrations for our communities to join us on the journey. Apologies again for coming out of left field.

[@birdieey]

I think your point about the type of live service game is an important one. Live service games can be great to allow you to continually play in a world you love, but we need new genres and new ideas. Part of the problem is when you create something like WoW or FF14 or Destiny you run into a situation where you literally cannot make enough content to keep up with the demand and still make money (which I'm sure is why the first two are subscription services and the third is pretty expensive - source: I play Destiny). You spend months or longer working on an update and when the players get their hands on it, they complete in a week or a day and ask you what's next? It's not sustainable. If your live service consists of simpler things like new maps, new characters and themed events, that's more manageable from a development standpoint, but games that do that really well - Fortnite, Genshin etc already exist. It's going to take some real ingenuity to create the next big live service game, and I really don't think it's going to be something that's just a slightly different version of something that already exists.

[@MarkDarrah]

Yup. Someone will add to the space. But not me

[@richofarrell]

Live service games could probably still generate lots of money and user engagement, but live service games compete for people's time and the competition are already mature juggernauts. If its just another hero shooter, looter shooter, or survival game, then avenues for that gameplay loop already exist. But, there's still room for studios to create a successful live service game that has an innovative gameplay loop. Breaking into an existing market is probably a Herculean task at this point, but markets aren't a zero sum game, and people who are willing to risk a bit more rather than playing a safe by retreading the same old ground have a better chance of blowing up than doing something that already has a saturated market.

[@richofarrell]

Haha, I shouldn't have commented before I finished watching the video. You said essentially the same exact thing 😂

[@MarkDarrah]

Yes if you create a new segment, there are still people without an active live service

[@realizewave1513]

I play Halo Infinite and I am so glad it's still receiving support even after a lot of players left the game. I agree with all your points but I would also say you need to be able to actually support your live service game when you launch lol.

[@MarkDarrah]

Yes that isn't always planned for

[@saintallison]

I played it at launch and left shortly after since my friends jumped ship. Would you recommend revisiting it?

[@LateNightHalo]

@@saintallisonI’d check it out! It’s quite a good time now

[@saintallison]

@@LateNightHalo thanks! I will :]

[@matteodigallo561]

I think the issue is that live service have to compete to an higher standards than sp games. A sp game can inject many different hooks and variety, but in a live service game the inherent ripetition of the gameloop means that the moment to moment gameplay has to be immaculate. Sony put concord in direct competition with overwatch, a game that is still is going on really strong despite having a controversy per week, the base core loop of overwatch os simply that good despite balance issue. I like to point that there are medium tier live services that do really well within their niche, like the recent age of empire revival.

[@MarkDarrah]

Live services are more like a commodity. A such I directly compare them. Single player are better able to stand on their own

[@matteodigallo561]

@@MarkDarrah also a sp may have a weak gameplay loop but compensate with a better progression, be either be narrative progression, exploration (seeing new place is like a form of progression isn't it?), or new stuff like enemies, abilities, weapons in the combat. Live service my try to diluite their content to last longer but in the all the weapons will be unlocked faster than people can make them, so if you don't have a super strong core game loop you wont doing good

[@MarkDarrah]

@@matteodigallo561 true

[@hero_h]

Concord feels to me like it was a game made by following metrics through and through. Deadlock's success before even being monetized shows how great things can work when you put together something compelling and passionate (also helps to have a genius of a game designer like Icefrog behind it).

[@MarkDarrah]

I’m sure there are creative people on the team…

[@arodin]

The best live service experiences I've had are those that are part of a regular full featured game. Mass Effect 3 multiplayer for example. GTAV Online. Diablo IV more recently. Maybe it's because there's no sense of obligation to engage with these services. I can play through the campaign and be done with it, or keep going with the live services if I want to. But when the whole game is the live service then it feels like I'm making a commitment to spend a lot of time and potentially a lot of money on it so I'm wary about those games.

[@MarkDarrah]

Fair

[@NoName-ym5zj]

The only live service game I was ever invested in is Helldivers. Gameplay is fun, for sure, but it just has such a great concept and everything in the game works to bring that concept of "galactic war" to life. All players contribute to the overarching narrative and how the war develops, devs interact with the community a lot too, like how they added a special cape after all the memes about people dying defending Malevelon Creek. It got more going for it than just a constant flow of new updates and new content.

[@MarkDarrah]

I do like the integration of the game direction with player actions

[@LadyRav3nGaming]

I play Destiny 2, ESO, and Swtor. However, I'm taking a break from all 3 though because I'm super focused on single player games like replaying the Dragon Age series before Veilguard comes out, Skyrim, Fallout 4, and BG3. Those are all games that I will continue come back to. Though, I do also love to go to the 3 MMO's when they add more content, if only for a short time. I was a religious Destiny Player for several years but the past 4 years, it has died down for me. I have found that Single player RPG's are my go-to

[@MarkDarrah]

Fair enough

[@gun2334trx]

As someone who has played 10 years of Destiny I dont think it can be "killed" by anyone other than Bungie themselves. Only time it could have happend was if Anthem and Division 2 had come out a whole year earlier then they did when Destiny 2 was in a not so great place after launch, but knowing now about Anthems development not really a realistic secnario.

[@MarkDarrah]

I would concur with that assessment

[@AnimeLover-xr6mc]

I wonder if Leonardo Da Vinci would have this legendary status if he had big corporations, DEI teams and hundreds of other people all with different visions and agendas breathing down on his neck to control the result of his paintings instead of having his own free reign and creativity and message like he did over his products. I think I can see my answer to my "wonder" in various forms of art such as movies and games. Teams aren't allowed anymore to have full control over their products anymore. We are given lists with boxes to check, our work is changed our art is changed our ideas are changed i could go on.. and all just to force pander not be and do things the natural way. We aren't allowed to tell our stories anymore like great writers once wrote unique books and great teams released legendary game stories. We even have to fight to not include microtransactions in the games we create and often lose the fight because otherwise we lose our jobs that anyway are always in danger. I am tired of the gaming industry.

[@MarkDarrah]

Very few games are created by individual "visionaries" a such they are a team effort and a team comes with strengths and weakneses.

[@BoxingDawg]

It is hard for new live service games to establish themselves in a market full of live service games that people already invested lots of hours and money in and also received years of updated and tweaks and improvements. How can you compete with a game like that, only if you manage to add tons of vision and fun in a game.. the way helldivers did. That's a hard thing to do

[@BoxingDawg]

There s also a bigger problem after that. Ok somehow you managed to break through the wall on the succesfull side of live service games. Now will you be able to maintain the players till the new season drops?

[@MarkDarrah]

You aren't competing with Destiny at launch, you are competing with Destiny NOW.

[@MarkDarrah]

Content consumption peed i always massively underestimated

[@AnimeLover-xr6mc]

​@@MarkDarrahinteresting conversation you've got going, got me thinking...I wonder if Bioware realised at the time that with Mass Effect Andromeda they compete with the whole Shepard trilogy..

[@rd-um4sp]

it is hard to understand if you don't live inside the -hellscape- that is the financial market. The problem is these larger corporations don't want any money, they *want* blackrock or vanguard money and they know if their profit drops by 0.1%, these trillionaire funds will shift their position overnight. While there was an expectation that one of these perpetual-money live services would succeed, they were happy to wait around. But too many failures in a row means that the investors no longer have confidence that the publishers will be able to make one. Meanwhile, valve 'secretly' develops one and it is starting to explode.

[@MarkDarrah]

indeed

[@Desticia-Sisenna]

When Destiny came out there was Borderlands and Warframe, granted Warframe wasn't *that* big yet but had a good thing going for it.

[@MarkDarrah]

Yup. Those were the 2. I don't think they were yet seen as related

[@ultimategodgohan804]

Hello Mark.Will you make any video talking about Dragon Age Veilguard? Thanks

[@MarkDarrah]

I will but until launch I'm in a bit of a box due to my consulting with them

[@ultimategodgohan804]

@@MarkDarrah I understand.Cant wait for you to talk about it when you can.I preordered the game on EA deluxe edition and i am happy :)

[@aurorasun-qs1pg]

The market is more saturated year after year, older games don't just stop existing, they become shovelware, more and more often on release

[@MarkDarrah]

True

[@sanctun-3782]

There are a few reasons for the office be called human "resources".

[@MarkDarrah]

I’m not a fan of the name either

[@user-nw5ef3zh9t]

Not even live services, I don't think any of these insanely huge games with 9 years turnaround and thousands of hands on them are sustainable.

[@MarkDarrah]

Jut have to pull GTA numbers

[@jonathansidwell1]

2:57 Look, I know how bad ME: Andromeda and Anthem were. But I wish EA could give the development team a chance to redeem themselves. I'm one of the few who enjoyed both games, and all the years it took to develop them feel completely wasted because of one decision from higher-ups. We could have had Andromeda 2 by now or a lot of content for Anthem. This is the reality of the gaming industry today: if a game doesn't make money quickly, it's not seen as worth investing in long-term.

[@MarkDarrah]

Yeah opportunity cost is a dangerous thing

[@fakegeek5462]

I think another issue Concord had was its marketing. It was awful i saw the trailer and thought it was another generic looter shooter with co-op.

[@MarkDarrah]

I don't remember the marketing at all. Which is also bad

[@fakegeek5462]

@@MarkDarrah The only marketing I saw kzbin.info/www/bejne/o3PRhKeJbsllrsksi=yU5C1wUnIMECuOhl

[@OniFeez]

Obviously there is pro's and cons' to everything, but I don't think, even in larger company's that cancelling the game is really the right thing to do unless fundamental missteps were taken (and these, unfortunately, I think depend upon context of the game in question). I think a large issue is reputational damage to a studio and I think that is harder to quantitatively measure, but I think it should be just as important to a large studio like BioWare as it is to a start up company that just released their first game. I think that ultimately, a game studio is only as good as the last game they released but I think while game studio's might understand that, I don't think game publishers that own studios necessarily do. I think a game like Anthem probably should have survived to get their Anthem Next, mainly because I think that for the most part the systems were working, and while some pretty baffling decisions were made (no in-game chat for example), I think a bit of the old 'spit and polish' would have made that project much better. By contrast, I think a game like Redfall should be cancelled, mainly because it is riddled with bugs and not fun design elements. In terms of publicly released numbers; Anthem was at least initially quite successful compared to Redfall. I may be an outlier, but I have definitely purchased games in the past based entirely on the reputation of the developers (and it of course being a genre or system I know I enjoy). I am sure I can't be the only one.

[@MarkDarrah]

I don’t think reputation damage is adequately factored in

[@thomaskrogh1244]

concord focus on the wong pillars of games design. cause they on focus on mechanics and graphics and not aesthetics.

[@MarkDarrah]

Interesting. Mot live service design principles start from the core loop.

[@thomaskrogh1244]

@@MarkDarrah still game design is spilt into three mechanics, aesthetics, graphics. think live a three vile pressure puzzle you can have 80% for one and 10% for the other two. for a even split for two and let one lack. its impossible to 100% your sacrificing one. the game industry focus on graphics then mechanics, and never on asthetics. their a reason nobody plays a gray box game.

[@johndes66677]

Single player games is the way to go

[@MarkDarrah]

Live services will go on. The top 2-3 in a category make SO MUCH money

[@wittmannger1331]

Anthem 2 when?

[@MarkDarrah]

ummm... probably never

[@LastofAvari]

If you release generic trash 8 years too late then yes :D

[@MarkDarrah]

But it isn't trash. That's the point. It generic competence

[@LastofAvari]

@@MarkDarrah I'm not sure competence matters if we are talking about yet-another-multiplayer-hero-shooter #69420. Yeah, it's technically ok, but there's nothing new about it. Nobody was going to switch from their favourite live service title to this nonsense, which has quite predictably turned out to be a complete waste of money and development time. Knowing that one's working on a product that is bound to fail probably sucked during the last months of development. It just feels like the management was disconnected from reality.

[@timmygilbert4102]

Funny how fortnite is both, nurture slowly until it phagocyted itself when another mode sucked dry the previous one 😂

[@MarkDarrah]

Interesting

[@oxfordbambooshootify]

Concord didnt fail because it was a live service game. It failed because it cost $40 when all of its competitors are free to play

[@MarkDarrah]

Not all of them. But enough to mess up the comparisons for sure

[@BelieveIt1051]

Oh I know the answer to this one. Concord died because it was woke. As for Live Service gaming, I think the true series to watch will be Chrono Odyssey. And when I was younger, the online multiplayer game for me was Star Trek Voyager: Elite Force. That game went on for years thanks to fans being allowed to create maps, mods, and models for the game and host matches on their own machines online. Any game has to be fun to play, online multiplayers most especially.

[@MarkDarrah]

Alright.

[@BoxingDawg]

They focus too much on making the next Destiny.. the next Fortnite.. the next Cod or apex....IMO they should focus on making the next FUN game.

[@MarkDarrah]

But all the moneys!

[@_Thaery]

:(

[@MarkDarrah]

🫖

[@blazzmatazz9051]

Start charging 80 for games and stop nickel and diming everyone. $80 because a $50 game in 2001 adjusted for Inflation is $88. Fair is fair as long as Live Services die

[@MarkDarrah]

Yeah but right now publishers are making more than an 80$ price would give them on average

[@BicBoi1984]

No just the shitty DEI ones

[@MarkDarrah]

Cool bro

[@BicBoi1984]

​@@MarkDarrah Valve's still technically unannounced game Deadlock has 170k+ on steam. Live Service games are still very successful if there's actual content and the devs aren't vile Karens. The lead designer and artist have been calling anyone who criticizes the game evil bigots for months now. Pretty off-putting for anyone sensible.

[@if-not-now]

@@BicBoi1984 precisely. it's amazing how many in industry will blame literally anything but the obvious, obscene amount of political propaganda that's being injected into some games