I’m really frustrated with how almost every new game these days is being forced into this “live service” model. It seems like no matter what type of game you want to play—whether it’s an RPG, shooter, or even something traditionally single-player—you’re stuck with always-online requirements. And for what? It adds nothing to the experience for most players and, if anything, it makes the game worse.
Take Fallout 76, for example. You can’t play it offline, period. You’re expected to pay $100 a year for a subscription to play by yourself, but even then, you’re still online, and any slight hiccup in your internet connection—or their terrible servers—means you get kicked off. It’s absurd. Fallout has always been a solo game experience, but now we’re locked into an online system no one wanted. Who actually benefits from this? Not the players, that’s for sure.
Another perfect example is Once Human. This is a game that could have been incredible, but instead, it’s trapped in the live service model from the start. I’m sitting there playing, and there’s no one around. So why am I online? Why can’t I just enjoy the game offline? It’s not like I’m asking to avoid multiplayer altogether—just give players the option! If I want to jump into a server and play with others, fine. But the fact that I’m forced to connect even for big chunks of the game that should be playable offline just feels unnecessary.
One of the worst offenders in recent memory is Temtem. It’s like they tried to make a multiplayer Pokémon and failed miserably. The game is fully online, yet it’s a ghost town. Steam shows fewer than 100 players on at any given time, but they still force everyone to play online. And one day, the servers will go offline entirely, and what happens to your game then? It’s completely gone, and so is your money. It feels like a scam.
The worst part is, nobody seems to be fighting against this trend except for the EU. They’re already working on passing laws that would require games to be playable offline if the servers get shut down. Imagine that! A game company actually having to care about whether you can play the game you paid for after it’s abandoned. It’s crazy to me that this isn’t already standard everywhere. The fact that we even need a law to ensure you can still enjoy your purchase after the servers are gone is telling.
It’s just sad to see so many great games ruined by forced online connectivity. Live service works for some titles, but not everything needs to be connected 24/7. Developers need to wake up and realize that players want the choice, not a one-size-fits-all approach that makes everything worse in the long run.
I left the pc gaming scene about 20 years ago and only came bacj this year. I found my steam credentials from when they were initially seeking players and revived my account (I closed my email on the account back in 2009, so i couldn’t recover).
I’ve mostly been playing vSkyrim, BG 3, and a few emulated Zelda games. I finally ordered a new gaming laptop because Cyberpunk 2077 is hard to rrad on the Deck, even on a 50" tv on hi-res.
All that is just so you all know where I’m coming from, i am both a newb and a veteran!
From a business standpoint, looking ant it form the non-gaming financial point of view, the move to online-only makes very compelling sense.
It fully implements the licensing model, gives them total control over the property, enables them to generate reports that accurately identify trndsvin user populations, pinpoint steady revenue figures, and they can kill the game as soon as it isn’t valuable to them anymore, and they don’t have to worry about losing revenue from sharing, passing the copy to an otherwise paying customer for free, or a significant pirtiin of piracy loss.
Itvis the end state of the “we are mearly licensing it to you until such time as we decide ee want it back” model.
It sucks, and if i can know it is online only before buying, i will pass. All of us should. Revenue is king to them, and if they lose even a little, they will try something else.