(graphics chiming) - [Falcon] Live service games. The games that keep on giving and taking. They're designed to keep you
playing for months, even years, with regular updates and content drops, but arguably the real reason they exist is just to keep you paying
for months, even years. They're clearly a lucrative business model so people are playing them. But despite their popularity, it seems like no one likes 'em. Hi folks, it's Falcon. And today on "Gameranx," let's talk about why everybody
hates live service games. So like I said, this isn't
exactly a type of game that no one plays. In fact, there are a few of these games that are incredibly beloved. But for every "Destiny," there's several "Anthems." For every "War Frame," there's more than a few
"Marvel's Avengers." And although live service games can span a vast array of genres, I think most people have the same kinds of problems with them regardless. One of the biggest criticisms
I see for live service games is that they're rarely, if
ever, a complete experience. And there's a pretty
obvious specific reason for this that we'll get
to in just a moment. But before I blast you out
of the water with a huge duh, let's consider the type of game that we're comparing live
service games to inherently every time we talk about
why people don't like them. Regular games. Now, I'm not gonna say that
regular games are perfect, and even a lot of the
time they're gonna have a lot of the problems I'm gonna talk about over the course of this video. But ultimately, the
point of a regular game is to take you on a journey. Point A to point B. Ideally, point B is this
big polished spectacle that you feel awesome after,
but really the main thing here is that the game eventually ends. There's a certain degree of
satisfaction that somebody gets from completing something
that you really can't get with something that goes on forever. Case in point, a lot of TV shows that people have fallen off of after they've had one great season, and then lots of, you know, other seasons. Sometimes it's like, well, it'd be better if this was a movie because
the movie would have to end. Sometimes what started as
a great story gets ruined by being endless and, you know,
lots of people have lives, things to do, or maybe just
like having more games to play, having a variety of experiences. So a game that you can A, complete in a reasonable amount of time; and B, complete, period,
is often just a lot better. It's harder to get sick
of something that ends. It's not impossible,
but it's a lot harder. The time commitment involved
with a live service game is, put simply, just a lot more. Keeping up with a live service game can feel like a full-time job,
and not one you get paid for. In fact, you pay into it,
which is the massive duh I was talking about earlier. I didn't wanna hit this
up front because frankly, you know this, but I also didn't want to save it for too late,
because frankly, you know this. But live service games
exist to make money. Really, all games do, but most don't exist to make money on an ongoing basis. Live service games, on the other hand, are monetized in several different ways. I'm gonna put 'em into
two main categories, which is expansions
and micro transactions. So arguably, a game that goes on forever is something that sounds
like an interesting goal, but really it's just business. These games wouldn't get made if they couldn't make
money on an ongoing basis, and therefore, they need to
go on on an ongoing basis. The problem of a game never finishing and the time commitment involved is the problem of the business model. Yes, there are ways to monetize a game that don't significantly impact gameplay or piss people off even. And the first of the two
that I mentioned, expansions, I think it's more likely
to fall into that category. For instance, "Destiny" expansions are essentially new campaigns. So if you like "Destiny," a "Destiny" expansion
definitely isn't bad. That doesn't mean an expansion is automatically a good thing, and one way or another
they add up quickly. Often racking up bills for the player that may have already
paid $60 for a base game. And then there's the second
category of monetization I wanted to hit, which
is micro transactions. Oh, micro transactions. The disruptive, exploitative
hell that somehow became normal sometime in the last decade or so. Seriously, I don't want to
be reminded by a video game that I can buy in-game items or upgrades. I don't wanna hear it. I don't like being reminded that the world I'm attempting to lose
myself in is a money grab, and I don't like feeling like
I'm being taken advantage of after I've already paid for something. Again, a lot of these games
have $60 base game price tags, and that's just the
regular micro transactions, nevermind loot boxes or some
other randomized reward. For people who know these things, they're supremely irritating
and signify a game is probably going to require them to play much longer than they intended to in order to grind their way to the point that another eight bucks can
get them in five seconds. And then the people who don't know them, don't understand them,
aren't familiar with them, may not understand that they might not get anything for their money. The focus of the game is just changed when micro transactions are involved. Like with a regular game, the
product itself has to be good. And for a game, that means it's fun and engaging in some way. Oftentimes, these games
aren't really designed with that in mind. Instead, exist to kind of
find ways to incentivize you to spend money and make you
feel good for spending money. And then of course,
there's pay to win crap which I don't even
think we need to explain as to why that's bad. The live service business
model requires developers would normally have to
think about satisfaction, guiding the player to a
point where they feel good, and that their purchase
of the game was worth it, to creating experiences where satisfaction is just outta reach. Maybe if you pay for this little
thing, you'll be satisfied. That might do it, but it doesn't do it because it's not supposed to do it. In fact, a live service game
might be the only kind of game where some game director
might go to a mission planner and say, I think there's
too much catharsis at the end of this. When you beat it, you feel too complete. What can we do to restore
players to that empty state where they feel like
they need to fill a hole where their heart once was? All of this also creates a
situation in which oftentimes, the games have an always
online requirement. In order to continually update the game and also continually have access to that ever important in-game store, you gotta be connected to
the internet at all times, and while a lot of people do
take it for granted nowadays, not everybody has access to
the internet all the time. And if you want to play a game alone, it feels weird that you
have to play it online. And if you're having some
kind of connectivity issues, you can't play the game. That's dumb. I'll bring it up another time, but these games often have a base price. 60 bucks and you're in. Well, unless you have connectivity issues, then you're not in. And speaking of issues,
let's talk about the state these games often launch in. Now I don't need to tell you that this isn't just a problem
with live service games. Many, many video games have been launching in a terrible state in the last few years. More so than ever before. We live in a world where the day one patch is normal on pretty much everything. It's quaint to imagine a
situation in which a game just worked outta the box,
metaphorically speaking. Obviously none of them
come in boxes anymore, but we don't even live in a world where the day one patch is good. And then there's live service games. They are much worse. There are live service games
that we now consider good that launched in quite a state. Do you remember "No Man's Sky" at launch? Over promising, under delivering, and really just being underwhelming
in every possible way. But I mean, even they had
a bit more of an excuse than EA did with "Star
Wars Battlefront II." But hey, let's talk "Fallout 76" a minute if we wanna talk the king of bad launches. Somehow "Fallout 76" is still around, and there's actually people
that play it and like it, which is shocking because at launch, it was probably the most
hated game related thing ever. Not only was the game a buggy mess and just devoid of content, it also had a bunch of real
world merchandise weirdness that I don't know why happened at all. Like, I don't really
understand why I was supposed to be excited about like a
duffle bag for an online game that I hadn't played yet. And then when people played
it, they were much more angry. But even with good live service games, often they start out as something with the bones of something
that might be good. And if you're lucky, that's
what they eventually become. Oftentimes, that feels like
what they're ultimately selling. The idea that something could become good if enough people buy it, which no. Bad game publishers. Bad. And again, I don't just wanna sit here and say like every single
live service game is bad. There's good ones. "World of Warcraft" is
technically a live service game, and that has been making people happy for nearly two decades now. It's not been without its fair share of controversies and
problems, but ultimately, it's something people love. And in truth, some people
really do just like to stick to one game. It might be that they're working very hard to be good at a specific game, and that's the game they wanna play, or it might be some form
of comfort food even. They just keep going back to
it because it's what they know. There's no judgment for any of that. But those live service games are few and far between, the
exception rather than the rule. Ultimately, people hate live service games because there are only a few
that are actually really good. The vast majority of them
either die a painful death or limp along in purgatory forever, and often they are embarrassing as hell. Like "Anthem." "Anthem" is just the worst thing. It came from a respectable game company, it looked like a cool
idea, and it was "Anthem." It's just that there's so many examples of terrible live service failures that it's hard to like live
service games as a whole. When you hear live service
or live service elements, there's a good reason why your heart sinks on a potentially cool sounding game. It's because the priority of that game isn't necessarily being a good, satisfying, immersive experience. Instead, it's closer
to a carrot on a stick that you're supposed to follow forever. A hamster wheel of a game. But what do you think? You got a live service
game you love or hate? Why not talk about it in the comments? If you like this video, click like. If you're not subscribed,
now's a great time to do so. We upload brand new videos
every day of the week. Best way to see them first
is of course a subscription, so click subscribe. Don't forget to enable notifications. And as always, we thank you very much for watching this video. I'm Falcon, you can follow
me on Twitter @FalconTheHero, and we'll see you next time
right here on "Gameranx."
