Another Live Service game, always Online, without a campaign and I haven't seen any complaints?

[Alecmoon]

Strange to see people's silence and passivity when it comes to this Live Service game and always online, with microtransactions and invasive DRM.

Where are the angry Youtubers or Websites to boycott something so bad for the gaming industry?

I thought no one else wanted this type of game, when I based Hate on top of GAAS games in recent times. What has changed?

[Alecmoon]

Originally posted by JG Wentsworth:

Helldivers had what, maybe 15k total players ever? The original was a pretty niche game on PC and only gained popularity due to sony/gaming site promotion then faded fairly quickly as well. They aren't shooting for the moon here. 99% of the people you see playing on launch day were already Helldiver fans to begin with so its safe to say there isn't much backlash to the business model because the small amount of fans are just happy to see a sequel.

But that's not what I'm talking about. This is Sony's first Party game in 2024, and it is a GAAS with microtransactions. Something that has been repudiated on all websites and Youtubers, but I wonder why no one is saying anything about "another" GAAS launched. Especially coming from a company that is acclaimed for its Single Player games.

[lockwoodx]

Originally posted by <3 Beepy <3:

It's an on-going campaign shared by everyone playing... The mentality that every. single. title. MUST have a SP story is tiresome. DRG is proof you do not need one. Elite Dangerous is proof you don't need one.

I absolutely loved the concept of a shared campaign in the first Helldivers. Too bad the internet beat it in a week.

[Alecmoon]

Originally posted by Ravenegade:

Originally posted by Mhick:

And Sony didn't focus on Single players? How contradictory is your post.
And by the way, the media has carried out heavy campaigns against GAAS.

It's strange to mention SS, as it is highly rated on Steam, Live and PSN. How do you explain this?

In fact, Helldivers 2 and SS share the same GAAS style with Skins microtransactions and free post-game content.

That might be the case if the first Helldivers wasn't also a coop driven game with shallow campaign/story elements. This isn't a case as if the God of War franchise suddenly released an online only PvP brawler or something and is instead Arrowhead following their previous formula. Not sure what people were thinking if they suddenly wanted a fleshed out SP campaign experience unless they hadn't looked into the previous entry at all.

You can be sure that people would want a single player campaign, I would buy this game myself if there was a solo story.

[lockwoodx]

Originally posted by Mhick:

Originally posted by JG Wentsworth:

Helldivers had what, maybe 15k total players ever? The original was a pretty niche game on PC and only gained popularity due to sony/gaming site promotion then faded fairly quickly as well. They aren't shooting for the moon here. 99% of the people you see playing on launch day were already Helldiver fans to begin with so its safe to say there isn't much backlash to the business model because the small amount of fans are just happy to see a sequel.

But that's not what I'm talking about. This is Sony's first Party game in 2024, and it is a GAAS with microtransactions. Something that has been repudiated on all websites and Youtubers, but I wonder why no one is saying anything about "another" GAAS launched. Especially coming from a company that is acclaimed for its Single Player games.

You need to do more research on the origins of the studio and how popular GAAS games are coming out of scandanavia right now. They all went to the same seminar on milking customers.

[Alecmoon]

Originally posted by <3 Beepy <3:

It's an on-going campaign shared by everyone playing... The mentality that every. single. title. MUST have a SP story is tiresome. DRG is proof you do not need one. Elite Dangerous is proof you don't need one.

But isn't that what everyone is asking for, that there are no more Live Service games? That they end mandatory Online? That they focus on narrative games, as Sony has always done?
At least that's what I've seen in relation to several Live Service games, but apparently, with Helldivers 2, this no longer applies. I wonder why?

[Alecmoon]

Originally posted by JG Wentsworth:

Originally posted by Mhick:

But that's not what I'm talking about. This is Sony's first Party game in 2024, and it is a GAAS with microtransactions. Something that has been repudiated on all websites and Youtubers, but I wonder why no one is saying anything about "another" GAAS launched. Especially coming from a company that is acclaimed for its Single Player games.

You need to do more research on the origins of the studio and how popular GAAS games are coming out of scandanavia right now. They all went to the same seminar on milking customers.

We're talking about a first-party studio from Sony, specialized and acclaimed for its single player games, without microtransactions, the media loves it, YouTubers love it. But it seems that now, microtransactions and always-online play will be tolerated without any criticism. It only exposes widespread hypocrisy.

[lockwoodx]

Originally posted by Mhick:

Originally posted by JG Wentsworth:

You need to do more research on the origins of the studio and how popular GAAS games are coming out of scandanavia right now. They all went to the same seminar on milking customers.

We're talking about a first-party studio from Sony, specialized and acclaimed for its single player games, without microtransactions, the media loves it, YouTubers love it. But it seems that now, microtransactions and always-online play will be tolerated without any criticism. It only exposes widespread hypocrisy.

The only thing "First Party" about a Sony joint is the marketing.

[Ravenegade]

Originally posted by Mhick:

Originally posted by Ravenegade:

That might be the case if the first Helldivers wasn't also a coop driven game with shallow campaign/story elements. This isn't a case as if the God of War franchise suddenly released an online only PvP brawler or something and is instead Arrowhead following their previous formula. Not sure what people were thinking if they suddenly wanted a fleshed out SP campaign experience unless they hadn't looked into the previous entry at all.

You can be sure that people would want a single player campaign, I would buy this game myself if there was a solo story.

True that many players may want it but that doesn't mean that it is something Arrowhead did with the first one or even advertised for this one. They haven't set themselves up for such expectations so being upset that it didn't cater to a group outside their target audience would be a little ridiculous. It would be like going to a Ford dealership and then being upset that they don't sell Nissan vehicles so while they are both 'cars' in this example the unrealistic expectations are on the consumer that was going to the wrong place.

[Alecmoon]

Originally posted by Hussar:

4 player Coop Games like Helldivers 2, Darktide, Payday, LFD, Deep Rock Galactic, Vermentide don’t need a campaign. No clown points for you !

And practically all of these games you mentioned do have a campaign, but played in co-op.

But the question is, don't specialized sites and Youtubers keep criticizing and openly saying that Live services are a cancer of the industry? Which games without a campaign, with mandatory online, need to disappear for good? That's what they've been saying until recently.

But then Sony comes and launches a game with microtransactions, without a solo campaign, always Online, and it even looks like a church outside of mass, it's so quiet.

[Alecmoon]

Originally posted by Ravenegade:

Originally posted by Mhick:

You can be sure that people would want a single player campaign, I would buy this game myself if there was a solo story.

True that many players may want it but that doesn't mean that it is something Arrowhead did with the first one or even advertised for this one. They haven't set themselves up for such expectations so being upset that it didn't cater to a group outside their target audience would be a little ridiculous. It would be like going to a Ford dealership and then being upset that they don't sell Nissan vehicles so while they are both 'cars' in this example the unrealistic expectations are on the consumer that was going to the wrong place.

Sony wanted to sell a GAAS, but now people try to hide it or accidentally do it.
EVERYONE complains about Live Service games until Sony shows up and launches one, then everyone stays silent, pretending they aren't selling it. Until a third party game from any other studio appears and the anti "Live service" discourse returns to the agenda. What I'm talking about is the hypocrisy that has been happening.

[BlackFlame1981]

People expecting solo content like a campaign from this game should just move on.
This game is not for you.

[♥ Beepy ♥]

Originally posted by Mhick:

Originally posted by <3 Beepy <3:

It's an on-going campaign shared by everyone playing... The mentality that every. single. title. MUST have a SP story is tiresome. DRG is proof you do not need one. Elite Dangerous is proof you don't need one.

But isn't that what everyone is asking for, that there are no more Live Service games? That they end mandatory Online? That they focus on narrative games, as Sony has always done?
At least that's what I've seen in relation to several Live Service games, but apparently, with Helldivers 2, this no longer applies. I wonder why?

For some titles, it's warranted. Others? Not so much.

[Meowser has not]

there is absolutely nothing wrong with a live service game, it is simply a formula for making a game, I have played good live service games I have played bad traditional singleplayer campaign games, whether a game is good or bad is down to the developer/publisher and is not wholly decided by whether a game is live service or not.

[Alecmoon]

By the way, where are the reviews? No one suspects why Sony didn't send early evaluation keys? The game comes out tomorrow and we don't have any reviews or website previews.

[Alecmoon]

Originally posted by Meowser:

there is absolutely nothing wrong with a live service game, it is simply a formula for making a game, I have played good live service games I have played bad traditional singleplayer campaign games, whether a game is good or bad is down to the developer/publisher

There's nothing wrong? But that's not what the media and YouTubers say. Or will a Live Service from Sony change their point of view? And why haven't there been any previews of the game on sites like IGN, Gamespot or similar? Why is there no review yet, with the game being released in a few hours? Isn't this something worrying?