Batman Arkham Knight released in 2015 compared to 'Suicide Squad' Game which released in 2024. Which one is better in your opinion?Connect with me:Twitter:ht...
Eh, I don’t think the word loses meaning at all if applied to a franchise, especially since game developers insist games are services nowadays.
Besides, if it just encompasses online services, then it’s a pretty useless word and just a marketing ploy for the blogger who wrote the article about it.
But hey, Lemmy/Reddit/Mastodon/Matrix is full of pedants and contrarians, so life goes on.
The next game in a franchise isn’t opt-out, it’s opt-in. Netflix adding ads to your tier is opt-out (you need to pick a higher tier to avoid them). They’re not the same thing at all.
I could see if SS started as a non-live service game and then added live service nonsense later, but that’s not what happened. It was released as live service from the start.
The word just means the product you purchased gets worse because of changes the manufacturer makes. I can perhaps see it being used for physical products like cars, where the next model year adds a monthly subscription to something that used to be included for a fixed price (e.g. heated seats, remote start, etc), so buying the same model but newer would result in a degradation.
SS is a new IP, so it’s not really a new release of something that already exists, and it was advertised as having live service stuff from the outset. There’s no bait and switch there, just bad bait, and the bait and switch is a pretty hard requirement for me.
So they get a pass because it’s a reboot? For me, films and series become services at that point, because it is constantly servicing a fan base.
People could argue that SS is apart of the RockSteady series, because that’s how I interpreted it, that Arkham City didn’t lead to a natural conclusion of that iteration of Batman, which is standard in the comics industry.
Every story has a beginning, middle and end. When failing to come full circle, as just another IP to continuously milk, with no regard for overarching plot or any conclusion to any arc, at that point it’s a service.
I was hopeful for this game, because RockSteady’s Batman games have been some of my favourite story based brawlers. After reading that I won’t be getting any resolution to the plot threads or character arcs, I feel like I’ve sort of wasted my time paying attention.
At that point it’s become like Marvel films, which is technically just a babysitter - and that is a service.
Eh, I don’t think the word loses meaning at all if applied to a franchise, especially since game developers insist games are services nowadays.
Besides, if it just encompasses online services, then it’s a pretty useless word and just a marketing ploy for the blogger who wrote the article about it.
But hey, Lemmy/Reddit/Mastodon/Matrix is full of pedants and contrarians, so life goes on.
The next game in a franchise isn’t opt-out, it’s opt-in. Netflix adding ads to your tier is opt-out (you need to pick a higher tier to avoid them). They’re not the same thing at all.
I could see if SS started as a non-live service game and then added live service nonsense later, but that’s not what happened. It was released as live service from the start.
The word just means the product you purchased gets worse because of changes the manufacturer makes. I can perhaps see it being used for physical products like cars, where the next model year adds a monthly subscription to something that used to be included for a fixed price (e.g. heated seats, remote start, etc), so buying the same model but newer would result in a degradation.
SS is a new IP, so it’s not really a new release of something that already exists, and it was advertised as having live service stuff from the outset. There’s no bait and switch there, just bad bait, and the bait and switch is a pretty hard requirement for me.
So they get a pass because it’s a reboot? For me, films and series become services at that point, because it is constantly servicing a fan base.
People could argue that SS is apart of the RockSteady series, because that’s how I interpreted it, that Arkham City didn’t lead to a natural conclusion of that iteration of Batman, which is standard in the comics industry.
Every story has a beginning, middle and end. When failing to come full circle, as just another IP to continuously milk, with no regard for overarching plot or any conclusion to any arc, at that point it’s a service.
I was hopeful for this game, because RockSteady’s Batman games have been some of my favourite story based brawlers. After reading that I won’t be getting any resolution to the plot threads or character arcs, I feel like I’ve sort of wasted my time paying attention.
At that point it’s become like Marvel films, which is technically just a babysitter - and that is a service.