Helldivers 2 is a "live service" game?

[Shoah Kahn]

So, HD2 is some always online, server reliant affair that will have a strictly finite operability based on server support that's tied to revenue? That's what this IGN preview alludes to...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGd0m1qjOJ4

If so, what a waste... Given it was looking like a more polished cousin to the EDF franchise 😓

[real hideo kojima]

have you even played hd1

[jajomba]

Originally posted by pep:

have you even played hd1

Not being able to play offline is what OP is probably concerned about.

I doubt hd2 will flop, so servers shutting down shouldn't be a concern for the next 10 years or so. But yeah, thats how things are with live service games.

[Ludewich]

They already confirmed that HD2 will have a peer-to-peer networking protocol, i.e. the games as such are serverless. Only the galactic war requires a central, global server - and that needs little to no resources, I suppose.

The same is true for Helldivers 1.

(I cannot tell for sure what that means. For HD1 it means that you can play offline, but cannot participate in the galactic war. For HD2, it could mean that even if all goes wrong, they might be able to simply keep the galactic war server and players can continue to play - just as for HD1).

[Proclivitas]

You're posting this on a live service website for a live service game client on a live service forum for a live service game.

What's your point?

[Shoah Kahn]

So, is the game an effective, subscription based MMO; or will it be a stand-alone title that one can play without a server connection?... That's all I'm asking. The IGN previewer said "live service", which usually means an MMO or the like.

[Happy Helldiver]

Originally posted by Shoah Kahn:

The IGN previewer said "live service", which usually means an MMO or the like.

No. It, in no way, means an MMO or the like. Look up what live service is.

[Blackdeth]

Originally posted by Yewen:

Originally posted by Shoah Kahn:

The IGN previewer said "live service", which usually means an MMO or the like.

No. It, in no way, means an MMO or the like. Look up what live service is.

I mean in this case you are 100% right. This is not an mmo. However mmos are live service games and can be described as such.

[Raymond]

it will takes a while until EDF 6 hit global, so I am still gonna give HD2 the benefit of doubt and play that game anyway.

[Happy Helldiver]

Originally posted by Blackdeth:

Originally posted by Yewen:

No. It, in no way, means an MMO or the like. Look up what live service is.

I mean in this case you are 100% right. This is not an mmo. However mmos are live service games and can be described as such.

Yeah but I think that's like the square and rectangle thing. All MMO's are live service, but a vast majority of live service games are not MMO's.

[tzeneth]

Originally posted by Shoah Kahn:

So, is the game an effective, subscription based MMO; or will it be a stand-alone title that one can play without a server connection?... That's all I'm asking. The IGN previewer said "live service", which usually means an MMO or the like.

It's an always online game. You must have an internet connection to play. It is not an MMO because there is no subscription fee and matches will consist of small squads like Helldivers 1. However, it is full of micro/macrotransactions via warbonds that act as never expiring battlepasses that you have to unlock the equipment in them via medals. Purchasing warbonds is done via the premium currency.

[Shoah Kahn]

Originally posted by tzeneth:

It's an always online game. You must have an internet connection to play. It is not an MMO because there is no subscription fee

Well, then it's an effective MMO with a full RRP buy-in cost... Which is far worse than if it were a free live service + micro-transactions, like Smite or Vindictus.

This retail model will likely kill the game very prematurely, if not render it DoA, as few will cough up for a TPS that's an effective rental. For servers will only remain up while the revenue warrants it, and 99% of these kinds of games don't pull anywhere near the numbers to make them sustainable.

They should have just released a stand-alone game, as with its predecessor... Allowing greed to dictate game design, never ends well.

[tzeneth]

Originally posted by Shoah Kahn:

Originally posted by tzeneth:

It's an always online game. You must have an internet connection to play. It is not an MMO because there is no subscription fee

Well, then it's an effective MMO with a full RRP buy-in cost... Which is far worse than if it were a free live service + micro-transactions, like Smite or Vindictus.

This retail model will likely kill the game very prematurely, if not render it DoA, as few will cough up for a TPS that's an effective rental. For servers will only remain up while the revenue warrants it, and 99% of these kinds of games don't pull anywhere near the numbers to make them sustainable.

They should have just released a stand-alone game, as with its predecessor... Allowing greed to dictate game design, never ends well.

You really aren't familiar with modern gaming trends if you describe it as a "rental" and determine it's dead on arrival just because of that. I don't plan on getting it for multiple reasons but there's a decent fan base interested in it and it's already gotten a lot of pre-orders.

Also, no one would consider this an MMO because it doesn't have the indices we come to expect from MMOs and broadening that definition starts to get things like Apex, Fortnite, and other games into the definition and it becomes a useless definition.

As for greed, I'm not entirely sure of that. I'd expect a lot of the onerous aspects probably come from Playstation since they've wanted more live service games and had originally advertised to investors that they were going to get many more (before live service games started dying like a lot of gaming fads, see the death of lots of MMOs after WoW). Does it change what we're getting? No but most devs aren't necessarily the source of the bad aspects of modern game design.

[Porkwhitemeat]

Its not your typical "life service game" It's going to implement some cool features as well like a Game Master role where you can send someone like a resupply while theyre actually playing.

[tzeneth]

Originally posted by Porkwhitemeat:

Its not your typical "life service game" It's going to implement some cool features as well like a Game Master role where you can send someone like a resupply while theyre actually playing.

It has battle passes that must be purchased via a premium currency and only unlock things on those passes via a secondary currency. (Only good news there is no current FOMO because they don't expire or disappear). The game is always online, which means you are dependent on their servers and if something happens or the game doesn't make enough, it cam be shut down permanently like all the other live services.
I'm also highly suspicious/paranoid the pay model will stay the same for the entirety of the game's life. The execs will put pressure on them if they don't make enough money and then monetization could very well become worse. All of this is a consequence of being a live service.

As for sending resupplies, that's not really that impressive to me. A lot of multiplayer or social games have that aspect, so it's not something innovative or some feature that makes the always online component worth it to me.

[Shoah Kahn]

Originally posted by tzeneth:

You really aren't familiar with modern gaming trends if you describe it as a "rental" and determine it's dead on arrival just because of that.

I'm very well "familiar" with the trend, and it's why I posted this topic -- to clarify whether or not another franchise is about to bite the dust. Sure, this is a Playstation game, and it may (italics for emphasis) buck the trend somewhat compared to if it were PC only... However, given Playstation already requires a subscription fee to play online -- read: gain access to full game functionality for games Soynumbskulls have already paid full RRP for (😂) -- it's not an apples-apples comparison.

The fundamental point being, a game that really has little business being a live service, any more than, say, the EDF franchise does, is shooting itself in the foot by going this route... If nothing else, I've crossed it off my list for the very reason in question 😑

Originally posted by Porkwhitemeat:

Its not your typical "life service game" It's going to implement some cool features as well like a Game Master role where you can send someone like a resupply while theyre actually playing.

That's all contingent upon how much money the game makes; and if you believe in what modern-day games promise, relative to what they deliver, I've got a monorail filled to overflowing with "safe and effective vaccines" to sell you! 👌😏

The reality is that if the game does not light the world on fire, it could well be dead within a year (still within the patch-happy period of its lifecycle), and likely rendered inoperable, due to its server connectivity reliance. Just look at what's happening with the behemoth, Mortal Kombat 1 (an effective "live service" game) and how only a few months post-launch, there is already rampant speculation that it might not get support beyond its locked-in, first tranche of character and story mode DLC. That is to say, if a game as big as MK, backed by a corporation like WB can be unceremoniously dumped because it didn't turn out to be droids players were looking for, so too can can a comparative minnow of an I. P., like HD2.