EOS? or Future DLC

[🐾Todd The Fox🐾]

seems the game may be at it's end of the rope with content, we have yet to see any single new region, like come on new bosses fair enough though seriously devs... please for the sake of keeping the game alive give us more actual VISIBLE & FRESH regions to explore.

[🐾Todd The Fox🐾]

Will they abandon production like they did on the consoles?

[931numbers]

1. Just because there is no roadmap currently, doesn't mean they've stopped adding content. They've completed the previous year's roadmap, and now they have to put together a new one.
2. We have been given a new region. Beiting Remnant. It's only 2/3rds of a whole act, but that still counts as it has new maps with a different look and new enemies exclusive to it.
3. We have been given a new boss. Gluttony wasn't there at official release.
4. Duoyi Games didn't abandon consoles. The company they gave the porting rights to, 505 Games, did and are refusing to give back the rights. Blame them for their total lack of work instead of Duoyi Games.

[🐾Todd The Fox🐾]

1. Clearly you did not read "Regions" & understand the concept behind it, a new map in the desert is not a fresh new region to explore.

&

2. Acknowledgement of new bosses was made

[Nodoka]

The game for all intents and purposes is fully complete. Any content they add just be a bonus. People gotta stop expecting every game to feed them content every few weeks/months.

[Losk Osmanthus 路渐秋凉]

Oprindeligt skrevet af ⎛⎝Todd The Fox⎠⎞:

1. Clearly you did not read "Regions" & understand the concept behind it, a new map in the desert is not a fresh new region to explore.

&

2. Acknowledgement of new bosses was made

Let's say
1. There is just one region.
2. There is no new boss.
so what?

What kept a game alive? Well, as long as the producer see potential profit from it.

If the game is dead for you, move on.
if the game is alive again, come back anytime.

[Over Under]

Insane to me that people think a game has to keep pumping out content endlessly these days. At some point a game is complete and if you've played through everything then move on to something else.

[Foxassassin]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Over Under:

Insane to me that people think a game has to keep pumping out content endlessly these days. At some point a game is complete and if you've played through everything then move on to something else.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nodoka:

The game for all intents and purposes is fully complete. Any content they add just be a bonus. People gotta stop expecting every game to feed them content every few weeks/months.

It's almost like this is a live service game and they haven't made any official remark about ending development.

[Nodoka]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Foxassassin:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Over Under:

Insane to me that people think a game has to keep pumping out content endlessly these days. At some point a game is complete and if you've played through everything then move on to something else.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nodoka:

The game for all intents and purposes is fully complete. Any content they add just be a bonus. People gotta stop expecting every game to feed them content every few weeks/months.

It's almost like this is a live service game and they haven't made any official remark about ending development.

You are a moron.

[FreshMint]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Foxassassin:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Over Under:

Insane to me that people think a game has to keep pumping out content endlessly these days. At some point a game is complete and if you've played through everything then move on to something else.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nodoka:

The game for all intents and purposes is fully complete. Any content they add just be a bonus. People gotta stop expecting every game to feed them content every few weeks/months.

It's almost like this is a live service game and they haven't made any official remark about ending development.

Periodical updates don't immediately make a game a live service.

The game is playable offline, the only thing you can pay for is permanent DLC and the developers have made an effort to avoid FOMO.
The term 'End of Service' would only apply to the devs shutting down the multiplayer servers (assuming they aren't just hosted by Steam itself), and the game will likely still remain playable even if that happend.

Fortunately, it's safe to assume that the devs still seem to intend to keep on supporting the game with periodical updates and DLC for the time being.


Honestly personally I think it's great that they still support the game the way they are, and stuff like characters and seasonal modes help keep the game more fresh for me than another environment to just kinda steamroll over.
Though I wouldn't be against an additional extra stage build to expect the higher end of successful builds...

[Foxassassin]

Oprindeligt skrevet af FreshMint:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Foxassassin:

It's almost like this is a live service game and they haven't made any official remark about ending development.

Periodical updates don't immediately make a game a live service.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Foxassassin:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Khergit Horse Archer:

i mean if you google the term like someone did previously, it has an accessory to it's definition that includes predatory practices.

even if you disagree with my "in my eyes" deferment of cosmetics dlc.

anyways, i think you can decide on what constitutes a live service on your own.

I'm just going to drop a quote I made from a different thread on Gunfire Reborn where someone was arguing semantics, trimmed for non-relevant information;

Oprindeligt skrevet af Foxassassin:

Edit: Decided, for humor, to google Live service games. These are the first two responses I got;

"Live service games are video games that are designed to be continuously supported and updated by developers, providing ongoing content, features, and experiences to players"

"Live service games differ from traditional games in that they provide ongoing content updates, events, and experiences. Traditional games typically have a fixed storyline or limited post-launch support, while live service games evolve and grow over time, offering new challenges and features"

And while Games as a Service half-ties into the phrase, all of the topics are prefaced with 'typically'. The monetization aspect is not mutually exclusive.

Again, Live service is entirely long-form content delivery. Planned updates..

Subscriptions/Monetization, Season/ Battlepass content (Another thing people frequently demand as a requirement),Always online, etc..., These are -not- required. They are -not- mutually exclusive.

If you want to be disgusted by awful practices, by all means, they deserve it. But the term is not a catch-all for all scummy tactics. It's a broad descriptor that is just content delivery;

Deep Rock Galactic is a Live service game: Cosmetic only DLC/Season content/Free updates/No Always online.

Gunfire Reborn is a Live service game: Content DLC/Free updates/Season content/Not always online.

Payday 2 was a Live service game: Content DLC/Free updates/Not always online.

Payday 3 Is a Live service game: Content DLC/Free updates/ Always online requirement.

Battlefield 5 was a Live service game: Free updates/ MTX coins for progression boosting and cosmetics/ Multiplayer content (Obviously) always online requirement.

Terraria is a Live service game(Just because it was made before the term existed doesn't mean it's excluded from terminology): Free content/Not always online.

Compare those examples to something recent and popular; Elden Ring. It had updates that fixed bugs but not really added content. It had a singular, paid expansion. It is not a Live service game

I've see the argument that 'updates make everything LSG'. No. Bug fixes do not count. Tangible content is different than bug fixes, and not done on any kind of plan.

Early access games are a grey area as the content they receive is building up to what would be considered "Full release", although, the developers could have problems or abandon the game at any time, leaving the game to be judged as complete at any step of development. The end result is a foundation that is getting updates on a planned schedule, regardless of time between those content drops. Frequently most EA games are given more post launch content anyway, solidifying the tagging.

----------

TL:DR

Be angry at the bad practices not what phrases is used to describe something.


Edit: My stance on this is yes; MHW was a Live service game. Base game got tangible content updates, then an expansion, which got tangible content updates.

[Losk Osmanthus 路渐秋凉]

the real question is, when does the revenue of a game, stops?

[Matrix]

A game does not need infinite content. This game is already overpacked. It's good as it is. I would rather want them to do Gunfire Reborn 2 than develope another 2 characters and a few new weapons for this game.

[Punchy]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Foxassassin:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Over Under:

Insane to me that people think a game has to keep pumping out content endlessly these days. At some point a game is complete and if you've played through everything then move on to something else.

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nodoka:

The game for all intents and purposes is fully complete. Any content they add just be a bonus. People gotta stop expecting every game to feed them content every few weeks/months.

It's almost like this is a live service game and they haven't made any official remark about ending development.

no it isn't, it's a single purchase game with a very small handful of character dlc packs. play until you are satisfied and then stop. it lacks any monetization traditionally associated with live-service games that would compel them to create infinite content.

please understand that I am not making fun of you when I say this but you really need to like, unlearn whatever got into your head about how video games work because treating every game this way is bad for basically everyone involved, yourself included. Your long-form post unfortunately does not change this, as you simply wrote a lot of words to be wrong. Monetization really is the defining trait here.

[Foxassassin]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Punchy:

Monetization really is the defining trait here.

Mhh. No. No it's not.

Besides the fact that I had google searches with popular definitions, as well as games that used that descriptor themselves, with varying levels of 'monetization'.

The only thing that term means is prolonged content.

It's an extremely vague term that people like to throw at anything they deem bad practices.

Would you like to try to explain how, explicitly, Gunfire isn't?


I decided to -once again- google the definition;

"A Live Service Game, sometimes also known as Games as a Service (GaaS), is a model where games are designed to be continuously updated and supported long after their initial release. Instead of a one-and-done experience, these games evolve over time with new content, features, and events. Dec 1, 2024".

No mention of monetization.

That's -three- different definitions of that phrase that says nothing about anything other than long-form content.

Would you care to try to argue how Gunfire, as well as many other games, somehow do not fit that definition?

Edit: during that google search there were articles about Minecraft, both Bedrock and Java being a live-service game.

Loads of MTX in Minecraft Java, as we all know.

[Punchy]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Foxassassin:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Punchy:

Monetization really is the defining trait here.

Mhh. No. No it's not.

It is and you can keep writing massive walls that I'm not going to read but you will remain deaf to the realities of game production. Live service is a business model first and foremost and business models tend to be defined by the monetization structure. Nothing else is really germane to this discussion. Gunfire lacks just about any form of live service monetization, ergo it is not one and should thusly not be subject to the same weird, unhealthy expectations you are imposing. Have a nice day!