If Live Service games are trash then why are they curb stomping traditional single player games into the ground? The market doesn't lie. 70% of the videogame market is Live Service and it's still growing incredibly fast.
Airport novels outsell classical literature, Taylor Swift the opera, and heroin outsells fruits and vegetables yearly in the United States. The human trafficking market, at $150 billion a year, is also larger than the market for single player games (and about the same size as the live service market by your 70% estimate). These facts indicate nothing but that the broader lot of people, the mob, the lowest common denominator, have tastes as lowly and disgusting as themselves.
@@greendragoncvr On the flip side of that mentality...The Beatles outsold Yoko Ono records. Game of Thrones was more popular than Norm. The Ford F 150 outsells the Jeep Gladiator. You have raised some valid concerns about Live Service without exploring their strengths. You have also praised the old models strengths without exploring it's failts. For example, taking money up front, before experiencing a product, then making it impossible to return is fully anti consumer. We only need to see the dismal completion rates of popular single player games to see how anti consumer that practice is. You make a valid comparison to Live Service being sports, but the true innovation in Live Service has been their jump into narrative design instead. Fortnite Battle Royale tells a "Heroes Journey" narrative in a 24 minute match for example. The dominance of Live Service will only spread over the next 10 years due to it aligning with what people want more effectively.
@@bigbox1431 The Beatles and Game of Thrones are exactly the type of low-quality slop (engineered for the lowest common denominator) which we referred to in the previous comment. Further, as the most popular band and fantasy franchise ever, these do not contrast but constitute "the norm". If Peake or Wolfe had sold well you might have had a point but alas. We do not care what is or is not "pro-consumer". We care about integrous gestures of worldbuilding which possess merit apart from economic concerns or popular appraisal. The best works of art in history were widely disliked by the mob and were not remotely accessible, readable, affordable, etc. Lastly, it is not remotely clear why you think you should be able to "experience a product" before paying for it. Your subjective state does not magically erase the human labor involved in producing the thing before you... the thing money tends to be paid for. You call people expecting to be paid for their work "anti-consumer", but I call the expectation that price correspond to your pleasure deleterious to art and game development.
@@greendragoncvr The Beatles and Game of Thrones are both the best representations of what those genres can produce. If you're not into The Beatles, you probably just don't like pop music. You place an arbitrary value on "intergrous genstures of worldbuilding" when the medium isn't suited for such a paradigm. This is a pop medium and Live Service multiplayer services the population far better than the old style of games that you're stomping for. This is a matter of competitive evolution and Live Service multiplayer represents the mammal. The age of dinosaurs has ended. We're not going back.
@@bigbox1431 pop music is slop produced for the lowest common denominator... so no, I do not like it! It is comical this needs to be said and indicates much. That you think game of thrones is "the best the [fantasy] genre can produce" evinces that you have read none at all. And that you think video games are a medium unsuited to worldbuilding indicates you've played even less of those! In the age of Google, you can read Hashino, Takahashi, Miyazaki, Kojima, on and on, discuss why the exact opposite is true... or perhaps try their games yourself. I rather think the heap of extinct live service games, and the larger heap of failing ones, indicate these games have the same future as diapers or condoms. They may well be used in the satisfaction of baser functions, proving nothing about their quality, longevity or anything else. You haven't even told us why the popularity of live service "pop games" portends the extinction of single player games. You may not realize these are hugely profitable for developers invested in making nothing but them. They further target a different audience entirely (you know, comprised of those who don't like slop). Lastly, you keep repeating that live service games make more money, which no one ever challenged. To reiterate, the human trafficking market racks in more per year than live service, demonstrating only that the broader lot of human beings have a taste for shit. You should admire those creators who forgo making liveslop (with it the potential for extra cash) in favor of integrous acts of worldbuilding.
Just give me Chrono Trigger Remake and i can die happy
If Live Service games are trash then why are they curb stomping traditional single player games into the ground?
The market doesn't lie. 70% of the videogame market is Live Service and it's still growing incredibly fast.
Airport novels outsell classical literature, Taylor Swift the opera, and heroin outsells fruits and vegetables yearly in the United States. The human trafficking market, at $150 billion a year, is also larger than the market for single player games (and about the same size as the live service market by your 70% estimate).
These facts indicate nothing but that the broader lot of people, the mob, the lowest common denominator, have tastes as lowly and disgusting as themselves.
@@greendragoncvr On the flip side of that mentality...The Beatles outsold Yoko Ono records. Game of Thrones was more popular than Norm. The Ford F 150 outsells the Jeep Gladiator.
You have raised some valid concerns about Live Service without exploring their strengths. You have also praised the old models strengths without exploring it's failts.
For example, taking money up front, before experiencing a product, then making it impossible to return is fully anti consumer. We only need to see the dismal completion rates of popular single player games to see how anti consumer that practice is.
You make a valid comparison to Live Service being sports, but the true innovation in Live Service has been their jump into narrative design instead. Fortnite Battle Royale tells a "Heroes Journey" narrative in a 24 minute match for example.
The dominance of Live Service will only spread over the next 10 years due to it aligning with what people want more effectively.
@@bigbox1431 The Beatles and Game of Thrones are exactly the type of low-quality slop (engineered for the lowest common denominator) which we referred to in the previous comment. Further, as the most popular band and fantasy franchise ever, these do not contrast but constitute "the norm". If Peake or Wolfe had sold well you might have had a point but alas.
We do not care what is or is not "pro-consumer". We care about integrous gestures of worldbuilding which possess merit apart from economic concerns or popular appraisal. The best works of art in history were widely disliked by the mob and were not remotely accessible, readable, affordable, etc.
Lastly, it is not remotely clear why you think you should be able to "experience a product" before paying for it. Your subjective state does not magically erase the human labor involved in producing the thing before you... the thing money tends to be paid for. You call people expecting to be paid for their work "anti-consumer", but I call the expectation that price correspond to your pleasure deleterious to art and game development.
@@greendragoncvr The Beatles and Game of Thrones are both the best representations of what those genres can produce. If you're not into The Beatles, you probably just don't like pop music.
You place an arbitrary value on "intergrous genstures of worldbuilding" when the medium isn't suited for such a paradigm. This is a pop medium and Live Service multiplayer services the population far better than the old style of games that you're stomping for.
This is a matter of competitive evolution and Live Service multiplayer represents the mammal. The age of dinosaurs has ended. We're not going back.
@@bigbox1431 pop music is slop produced for the lowest common denominator... so no, I do not like it! It is comical this needs to be said and indicates much.
That you think game of thrones is "the best the [fantasy] genre can produce" evinces that you have read none at all.
And that you think video games are a medium unsuited to worldbuilding indicates you've played even less of those! In the age of Google, you can read Hashino, Takahashi, Miyazaki, Kojima, on and on, discuss why the exact opposite is true... or perhaps try their games yourself.
I rather think the heap of extinct live service games, and the larger heap of failing ones, indicate these games have the same future as diapers or condoms. They may well be used in the satisfaction of baser functions, proving nothing about their quality, longevity or anything else.
You haven't even told us why the popularity of live service "pop games" portends the extinction of single player games. You may not realize these are hugely profitable for developers invested in making nothing but them. They further target a different audience entirely (you know, comprised of those who don't like slop).
Lastly, you keep repeating that live service games make more money, which no one ever challenged. To reiterate, the human trafficking market racks in more per year than live service, demonstrating only that the broader lot of human beings have a taste for shit. You should admire those creators who forgo making liveslop (with it the potential for extra cash) in favor of integrous acts of worldbuilding.