2 hours ago, theSG said:I think people nowadays understand live service game as game that generates continued revenues to the developer and publisher to create new content.
So technically game can require online connection for drm and/or anti-cheat purposes and not be a live service game, like Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands for example. I don't think anyone would call Forgotten Sands live service game just because it requires a permanent internet connection.
2 hours ago, daisekihan said:I don’t want to defend the company, but making it out that the definition of “service game” is as clear as 2+2=4 is just wrong. Neologisms like this tend to be very malleable. You seem to think that the exclusive definition for a live service game being that it connects to a server. But even the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service), a source that is written by the general public and as such should obviously reflect the most common definition in use, says games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, not by being connected to a server.
I think very often, you assume that your own definition of a word it’s so obvious that everyone should understand it the exact same way as you and that anyone who disagrees is not only wrong by trying to drive you insane. This game marketing guy is being sleazy by using the definition of a game as a service that best fits his needs at the moment, but that doesn’t mean he is trying to gaslight you.
You guys might want to check out my "Games as a service is fraud" video, I address these points head-on in that.
Some quick points:
-Wikipedia can sometimes be a good reference, in this case, it's not. It looks like they've changed it, but when I made my GAAS video, the first sentence contained factually inaccurate information, stating that games as a service started in 2004 with World of Warcraft. That's demonstrably false, there were games using subscription models and in-game monetization options well before that. The fact that false information remained on the entry until literally last year year suggests this is underdeveloped an not an authoritative source on this topic.
-Even if wikipedia has corrected all mistakes, the fact that we're seeing active propaganda in the wild means it could have bled into there also. In other words, if the only metric is general public consensus, well then that's malleable. The whole purpose of this video is meant as anti-propaganda. If it's that up in the air, maybe in a few years time it reflects how I define it instead.
-You say my definition of a service game is wrong, but I argue in the GAAS video it's the only one that holds up and I give examples in it, since I can come up with exceptions to every other definition (they're in the video).
-Going with your example saying that games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, that's a definition that is often true, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. For example, would you consider Oblivion games as a service? It had many pieces of DLC for sale, but had no online requirement. It had a revenue stream very similar to many GAAS models. What about Metal Gear Solid V? It's possible to play that offline and it has many microtransactions to purchase. If we're going ONLY by public opinion, I think most agree those are NOT games as a service, yet they use that business model under the definition you're referring to.
-Finally, it's important to not lose the forest for the trees. The ONLY reason I care about
this is that graphic in the video showing that THESE GAMES DIE. Games as a service is practically synonymous with game destruction. Games as a service destroys games in ways that were never possible in the past, is unchallenged by the legal system, and it would almost certainly be illegal in any other industry. I can play games from decades ago, but many games only a few years old are completely unplayable. I find this abhorrent. There's an active effort from the industry to normalize the destruction of gaming, which just has a shock value to me I can't get over. This has practice has caused more damage to games than anything else in history. You mention how this is malleable. Fine, give NO QUARTER on this, push BACK against dishonest narratives. The people who want you to second guess this are the same ones that have zero problem destroying games people love sometimes with tens of thousands of hours and millions dollars of assets behind them. Don't get bogged down by the semantics, it's a trap. Again, my definition is extremely consistent and logical. It requires a SERVICE from the publisher in order to function. If you don't like it, fine, but consider what the cost is for giving benefit of the doubt to the other side.