the greed in live service is killing games .

Sellouts that spam sponsorships and ads always get a thumbs down

My main question is why should the dev of manor lords care about player retention? I mean he already has your money, and I really doubt there will be much paid DLC any time soon. He needs to worry about attracting new players so he needs to fix bugs and produce enough content that the people still playing don't review bomb him. But if someone forgets about the game and doesn't come back for a new update, it really doesn't matter because again he already has their money.

Manor lord dev only give key to shills, see Volound community channel for proofs

The trick is to have about 10 of those games so major updates are always coming out for something you have

12 hours and same

This pretty much says it for me.

I'll buy the if they get with the times and put LGBTQIA2S+ themes in the game. But according to my research they use outdated 14th century cultural themes.

@@Bone_Thug Not every game needs to have those themes tho? it is based on the Middle Ages, it should use the cultural themes of those ages. We can acknowledge that homophobia is bad while also keeping games grounded in their own time periods.

That was my thoughts exactly. I also love TLD, but in 7 years they haven't really added a massive amount of content. Especially the newer dlc stuff which kinda sucks

I got The Long Dark early in its long early access period and the initial game was functional but pretty bare bones, and updates were small, and few and far between. I remember one particularly long period of hype not too long before the full launch when we were all breathless and excited about the addition of meese to the game, one single rare animal added to hunt. That game succeeded in early access for two reasons imo, the quiet and contemplative nature of the world and gameplay, and the existence of the brutally difficult Interlope survival mode. Unfortunately, with hundreds of hours in Interloper, when the game launched with Story mode I was one of the many early access fans who lost interest almost immediately because the main game was trivially easy in comparison.

Absolutely agree, TLD storymode has been a disaster, entirely because of development choices. It overpromised, it tried too many tech switches, and even if I imagine they had executed perfectly on what they intended, while I am playing the game I'm struck by how dumb and often cringe their intentions were. I do love survival mode tho. If you think TLD is "done" ,let me ask you this, how is that full season (spring, summer, fall, winter) experience treating you?

​@@fssstyuniafthey are still supporting a game after 7 years. Think about that first

Yeah its not like its survival mode isnt done but considering they have a story thats been sitting for years in limbo it really shows

For entertainment as a whole, actually.

Helldivers 2 took away things like running two different mechs strats. I'm having fun playing other games though since they took away the fun in helldivers.

So releasing a product with limited content/scope and basically stopping development after cashing in on the hype is not greedy?

Why get just loads of money? WE NEED ALL THE MONEY!

@@ioanwib HD2 is such nerfed meta heavy trash. I still can't understand how badly they f*cked themselves out of success. Those devs still sucking themselves off for ruining their fifteen minutes as if all the attention they got was somehow bad (240k daily for two months straight). Zombie studio that'll be chopped up like a turkey for parts by next year.

I have no idea how someone expects 1 guy to do quick updates.

@@noxy4966 dude also talked about preparing for the massive hype. Slavic Magic did something for the hype namely controlling expectations or putting it in a crass manner : bringing the hype down. All in all i think Lierop's point makes some sort of sense but he lacked the 2 critical information needed namely the team size (or in this case a solo poject) and how Slavic Magic handles the hype

@@hoshi314 Yeah when Slavic Magic did that I was like wow: Sure enough you are killing the hype but that is the rational thing to do. The speculators are crying and they better be. Speculators are parasites.

​@@noxy4966 Most people don't. If the thing that was made by 1 person is good & previous updates are good people will tell them to take their time. Look at ConcernedApe & Stardew Valley. Yes the guy has a team now that helps with small things but the majority is still done by him & him alone. People are hyped but they're not rushing him.

@@noxy4966 It's actually going to be a lot faster because it's one dude, especially with people telling him directly what the issues are. Have you ever wondered why it takes such a long time for a studio like bethesda to release major content updates for their games? It's because they have to deal with stupid social drama that actively slows down the development time. In a one man studio, he doesn't have anybody fighting against him, he can literally add code whenever he wants to, test it, make sure it works, and move on to the next bit of content. A single dev studio with contractors can actually be way faster than AAA.

I mostly agree with you, although TV shows that are actually good do grow their audience over time.

To be fair, it's probably less expensive to buy a new printer when it runs out of ink, but I get your point.

It's because of cost and benefit. Take _Call of Duty_ or _FIFA_ for example. Those games are annual, and usually 95% reused assets from the previous entry, yet they're sold for "full price" every year. If the game's audience naturally dies out with time, why put more effort and resources into one dying game, instead releasing a new one, with mostly reused assets, so that players' progress is reset and they have to do it all again? Scummy, greedy, sure, but it works, and I can't really blame them for doing what the system is all about.

@@Toonrick12 No, it is not cheaper to buy a new printer than to buy an ink cartridge.

@@fakecubed Even that's not completely true. The Simpsons, one of the longest running TV shows ever, has had a steady decline in viewership almost every single season. It was still a mega-hit pulling in over 15 million average viewers per episode per season after ten years. Yes, it probably should be cancelled by now with how far it's fallen. At this point, I think most people agree it was at least good for the first 8 seasons. If they had followed the "Oh no! Line go down a little!", so-called logic, we'd probably have lost it after season 2...When every episode was still managing "only" 24 million viewers per episode instead of 28 million in season 1.

I only stopped playing banished to play manor lords 😂 and I backed banished at the start

and by "they" you mean "he" since it is a solo project

@@sowianskizonierz2693 solo dev.... with a publisher

That's not good. ​@@emdeo

@@San_Vito why?

Players certainly have no reason to care, and the developer and publisher only need to care about the total sales. If I sold a million of something, and it turned out nobody even used the thing, I'd still be pretty happy to have millions of dollars.

The players don't care about anything but getting a FUN experience for their money. When a PUBLISHER addresses a SUCCESSFUL DEV, expect to hear utter bullshit. Because right now publishers, especially AAA publishers, are EXCEPTIONALLY BITTER about the amount of risks they assume when chasing trends, and EXCEPTIONALLY ENVIOUS of devs who innovate, give the customer what they want, and PROVE that those AAA publishers ARE the CANCER that the average gamer now SEES they are. These indies are not just making more successful product at much lower assumed risk, they are winning hearts and minds; they are teaching a new generation of gamers that listening to AAA Publishers trying to TELL US WHAT TO LIKE is fairly STUPID, compared to actually using our power as the Customer - i.e. THE BOSS - and using our VOICE to tell the industry what we want - and watching indie devs quickly provide us that. AAA Publishers don't want that - they don't want an abundant and generous market that WORKS, where people get what they want. They want a scarcity market where the customer has no choice, and reaches deeper and deeper into their wallet trying to get something they can't find anywhere. TLDR: Indie is taking over, and AAA SUITS are getting more and more bitter and vocal about how much they hate it, every day.

Simple answer: it's a performance indicator that let's a suit know if their investment performs well. Rant answer: most of the people who fund games have likely not played anything more complex than candy crush. Players can argue about engines and genre and art direction for hours, but at the end of the day, a very important group of people only cares about "bigger number = better game". With that being such a big part of the industry and media, the thinking has filtered down to players.

@@freighttrain7143 I play indie games as well, but the indie side of the game industry is in arguably worse shape than AAA. A lot of indie developers have been folding lately, and they are getting hit harder by investment funding drying up.

@@freighttrain7143 Except in this case, the shade was thrown by another indie studio head and the counterargument was made by the head of Hooded Horse, who are a very successful publisher.

Yeah pretty rich from that developer talking shit while their game isn't finished yet

I thought the entire point of this video was to point out that the dev isn't talking shit

Also I would like to point out that the long dark that was advertised in early access (survival mode and challenges) IS FINISHED. Both story mode campaigns are post release content

So is star dew valley and terraria not "finished" cause the devs keep adding content They finished their early access content everything else is extra

@@heliumfreak5364 Except The Long Dark dev has yet to deliver what he promised 6+ years ago. The fact they relabelled the game as "released" in the meanwhile doesn't really change anything, especially since they opted to make a DLC to the game instead. Neither Stardew Valley or Terraria have any DLCs (you can buy the separately OST to listen to it in your free time, I guess), all updates are free, so on that front alone you're cultivating false equivalency.

It's a fine line imo. Apparently has made millions off of it already? Surprised he hasn't hired some help

It is not. He has had others working on it for ages now.

@@michaelh878 Yeah it's literally impossible for one guy to have made everything included in the game. More like a team of 10, contractors or not

Man, If I make other people do my homework and when I hand it over to the teacher and say that I alone worked on the homework, does that really make me the only one that worked on it?

I don't expect quick updates. I just expect him to not lie about actually news articles that have been out since the first trailer. But if you bring it up that one dev will ban you on any platform he can.

But didn't you know if a game doesn't make _ALL THE MONEYS_ it's bad??

@@custos3249 Apparently. And let's be clear, Manor Lords made LITERAL BUCKETS OF CASH, but even then it's just not good enough because he isn't charging extra for every little thing via Live Service to milk gamers out of ALL THE MONEH!

Publishers look at sales. (Most) Devs look at quality. And gamers just want a god game. It boils down to that it seems

@@nickh4354 Indeed, but there's a difference between the type of "suits" that demand Profits above all else (EA, Sony, Zenimax, etc) vs those that also likely jump the asses of Devs to increase profits but don't outright require them to add shitty micro transactions and "surprise mechanics" to the game.

Yeah, ENVY clothed as ADVICE is pretty obvious to spot. And a desperate need to tell others they have to do it your way, is the weapon of the weak; those suffering from an inferiority complex.

Starsector is probably the most value I've had out of any game I've ever bought. It was $15 in 2015 and I've had way more value out of it than that. It's still $15 now.

@@MareSerenitis It's not even that you have to buy it, because any CD-key works for the game and not only Sseth made his own public, the developer doesn't really mind, because all the publicity Sseth brought likely doubled or tripled the playerbase, including the paying one.

Yeah this perfectly encapsulates the helldivers 2 problem... lots of frequent updates but most are full of half finished buggy shit.

​@@godleftelmo7710Helldivers problems isnt small updates with bugs, it was Sony pulling their usual shit and the devs getting bullied into identity politics. Which is something that irked a large part of the player base.

Even rimworld has blunder of releasing anomaly dlc which is just theme DLC adds nothing to base game.

Almost like people have different interests… also one is just a wild straw man.

Most of these people are children or incells without other things to do.

@@YourBlackLocal and there's millions of games out there. So you would think instead of harassing game devs they would just go play a game they like

@@sowianskizonierz2693 They have this idea that everything should conform to them even if they will not play it in the end. Pandering, its called and it doesn't only happen in gaming industry sadly.

@@sowianskizonierz2693 The two arguments given had literally nothing to do with harassing game devs. You’ve just added on a completely separate element as though it’s responding to anything being said.

I disagree, you should not buy an early access game if you do not expect to be satisfied by the current offering of the game. I have bought a decent number of early access games, but every single one was one where I bought it because I liked what was on offer at the moment and was willing to pay the listed price to play it at that moment.

And then you get titles like secrets of grinder that spent 10 years in early access before finally leaving it.

You're treating early access as if it's a kickstarter. If you have a kickstarter, and it met its backing targets, then they may have some responsibility to their backers to fulfil their promises. But early access is just that: early access. Development is an on-going process, and you're getting access to the game early on. But development stops for all sorts of reasons. Maybe it didn't reach its sales goals so they'd hemorrhage money if they continue development - money that they might not even have in the first place. Maybe stuff happened in the lives of the devs. Maybe they made exactly the game they planned to make, that matches their public early access goals, and it's just that YOU don't consider that a "full" game. And public early access goals isn't the same as kickstarter promises. Early access goals is just making your development plan public, but development can still stop for all sorts of reasons. If you buy a game early access, you can either do so because you like the game in its current state enough, or you can do so to support the development process. If you do the latter, you're taking the risk that the development process might just stop before the game reaches a state you're happy with. It's up to you to decide whether you're happy to take that risk. Maybe there are some devs exploiting early access to make money from a half-finished game. But that would be something for you to evaluate on a case-by-case basis to decide whether you want to support any given game or not. Whether you support or don't support a game is entirely your own choice.

@@colinhobbs7265 If I sold you a game and called it "full accesses" then gave you half the game. Would that bother you? Why? is it because "Full" has a meaning? I don't see why you should care about that meaning when you clearly don't care about the meaning of "early". Being early to something that you don't know is going to happen is not being early. Being early to something that may not even happen at all requires faith or foolishness. We could be using more accurate words to describe what is currently called "early accesses" But instead we are using a word that conveys intention that may or may not exist.

@@blueredingreen see my response to colinhobbs7265

I wouldn't say insane, it's more not understanding just how much work goes into everything, especially 'under the hood', and being trained to expect consistant novelty with new things to gain attention, perhaps you can thank (or not) the bigger companies to setting this trend.

They have content addiction.

No, they're insane. How can something being a solid, finished product be alien to them? All these games that end up being ruined because the devs can't stop tacking shit on, why are new gamers demanding live service bullshit when it ALWAYS ends bad?

Well... in this situation, Manor Lords by no exaggeration has no content/replayability and one dev means it ain't getting finished. People are coping so hard for spending $60 on the game. Has nothing to do with live service. The base game has no content..

These call outs are just an extension of how out of touch publishers are anymore; they don't understand games, they don't understand fun, and they damn sure don't understand the customer. They only understand money and spreadsheets anymore. Don't expect them to say anything that relates to a gamer, and don't expect them to speak the truth. They prefer to lie in the direction of where they HOPE the market will devolve into, not be honest about where it is. Where it IS, is trending HEAVILY INDIE, and BOY do publishers want to DENY THAT and gaslight the shit out you if you can see that objective reality.

Yeah. 'Lashed out' is a gross mischaracterization. But the click bait worked. Here we are.

@@omniblue1333 here we are indeed

its so much clickbait and tribalism these days. its absolutely wild

Stating "facts" doesn't mean you aren't lashing out, what is lashing out depends on the person hearing or reading and the person supposedly doing it Whether or not you're stating factual information has no correlation to how you're speaking, and honestly I think a LOT of people lashing out are in scenarios where they're being brutally honest, saying something they think or feel even if it's hurtful - but regardless, you can lash out and be truthful, or state facts, just as you can do so without "lashing out" and could also lash out with complete and totally made up things I'd also say lashing out is generally personal, so if someone says something while lashing out, even if you don't think it's right or true, they could think it is, which would be their truth, or a "fact" to them

Yea the title is shitty and completely disingenuous. Hooded Horse’s rebuttal is beautiful 👏

Hiring isn't instant, it takes time to find someone qualified/shares the vision for the game so things being slow is normal.

@@DaLoler1 Or he just doesn't hire anyone and enjoy all that money by himself.

​@@DaLoler1It take time, sure, but he could hire the people that already have done work for him.

The initial msg didnt make any sense that is the problem. Manor Lords is a SINGLEPLAYER game.

Personally, I don't even care if it takes 1 or 4 years. I just wanted to play a version of the game, now I've scratched my itch, when the game is finally done I can come back and enjoy it again.

it looked too much like banished for me

6 hours wasn't even enough for me to get my first village up to current max level.

Yeah i found it had to many fundamental issues to build a large village like houses complaining about no food when a stocked food market would have been visible from their door or how annoying the hauling stand/stable is why can't i move the animal from one stand to another. It really feels like it went to EA a bit too early

I still havent beat the game at the hardest mode (3 years to build up your army to prevent an invasion), so I continue to come back trying to beat it in that mode. It's a really good game. Basically, Banished without the amazing mods, but with invaders and raiders involved.

Simple, no suits involved.

*developer

Sounds like a you problem

@@davidmorris6254 did i infer it was anything different? Did you read my words and for once you understood what was said? Congratulations on reading comprehension. Keep it up and you’ll be reading books instead of eating them in no time.

Yeah, live service is a drag. I realized this when I was first exposed to it playing Battlefield 5. I felt EA was telling me what game modes I should play to get the rewards that were being offered. It was that or shell out money for slop. Didn't take me long to drop that game and haven't played Battlefield since.

Yup. I like buying games, finishing those games and then moving on. I hate it when it feels like the game is trying to get me addicted to a progression cycle instead of just… delivering a quality experience for a reasonable amount of time.

@@davidmorris6254 bro got toasted

I hate that sentiment about gamers being entitled. Yes, yes we are entitled. We're entitled to get a quality, finished product that we gave you money for. This isn't us putting out our hands and demanding free things. This is us paying for a product and expecting it to perform as advertised. And in comparison to other products on the market! It isn't entitlement, it's commerce. Devs or journalists that call that "entitlement" can fuck off and get no more of my money.

Was "shit down the servers" intentional?

​@@keit99😂 I didn't catch that untill I Read your comment

A drain for your money? Certainly. Require little effort? The polar opposite. Live service games have the expectation to constantly be pumping out content, meaning devs don't get a break. You *always* need to be working on something new for that same game, whether it be 5 weeks, 5 months, or 5 years past release. It's a real brain drain and source for dev burnout.

@@keit99 didn't notice that... Typing from a phone is at times interesting.

@@GhostyOcean well, for the most part just copy pasted asset flips of new skins etc. Not really anything requiring much work. No story line, no writing. The typical season pass repetitive crap. It's probably even nothing but a tedious chore to those tasked to continue to work on the game.

Slavic Magic is the dev. HH is the publisher

@@sowianskizonierz2693 Actually watch the vid @ 5:06 and read the title.

@@sowianskizonierz2693 it was the publisher that responded, not the developer

Bro, thats me and Helldivers 2 right now!

That is why Early Access is a form of stupidity tax. Buyers of Early Access games deserve to get taxed for the stupid action of buying Early Access games. No need to feel concerned for them.

@aquapendulum Would you say the same thing about people who subscribe to live service games? That's a mistake I'll never make but I will continue to support interesting early access games that appeal to me, because I would prefer they exist even if the final product doesn't always appeal to me.

@@lorrygoth Not to the same extent, no. In order for a decision to be a stupid one, there has to be a clearly better decision you could make. In the case of an Early Access game, that clearly better decision is to defer purchase decision until 1.0. Buying Early Access is a pre-order of 1.0. There is no such clearly better decision to make for a live service game. Buying a live service game isn't a pre-order of its future maintenance-mode state

@aquapendulum Ok then, that is a valid argument. I still don't like being called stupid but I'm clearly doing something with a known risk of a bad result regardless of my motivations why. You have every right to think I'm stupid for it.

Mods have kept Valheim alive and modders have done a better job of finishing the game than the original devs. Great game w/ mods tho.

To be fair, the game tells you up front that it's still WIP and it takes very little time to see all the WIP stickers, it doesn't obfuscate the progress, it sets in place-holders. You have plenty of time to decide if you want to own the game or get a refund. Even so, it's playable, it's casual, it's a good game if you don't want to worry about anything and just game.

Better to hear "we will constantly milk you" and not have a finished game even after 7 years, amirite guys?

I think its agaisnt the agenda or narrative to push out bad games as live service. that their gimmick is the added content and skins. because the base game is really bad and not authentic/ doesnt have a sou l.

Anything taken to an extreme is bad. By the same logic its exactly the business people reigning in the creatives' bullshit that results in almost all things in life you probably enjoy.

If you ever worked on software, you'll see it's 50/50. Management does kind of hamper creativity sometimes, but if you leave artists and devs working unsupervised, with no deadline, they'll never get anything done in a realistic timetable.

​@@ne0nmancerI work in an engineering/science company and it's not 50/50 in our industry because we're actually intelligent

Yeah maybe should have just been a small scale game for $20 dollars then make a sequel a few years later.

Fucking big red flag as well. It's like "i already got payed so fuck y'all" bad thing to say if you're intentions aren't to take the money and run

Drinking the capitalistic kool-aid by the gallons I see. "Audience has a right to get what they were promised and payed for" does not mean they get to micro-manage and demand how it will be done.

Yeah, even though I'm not currently playing it, I am a happy customer (haven't reviewed it yet, but if I do it'll be a positive review) and I check on the Steam forum every few days or so just to see what people are saying about it. My attention isn't going anywhere, and I will be back for the next big patch to put dozens of more hours into it. Then again, and again, and again, all the way until release when I'll play it for however long it takes to get my satisfaction out of it.

Kinda but Stronghold was a better balance

I'd say stronghold was more "an RTS with city-building/economic elements" while Manor Lords is more "a city-builder with RTS elements," but I do love both games. Also it's kind of funny that you say stronghold 2, since the actual stronghold 2 tried to expand on the economics of stronghold and that's what most people don't like about it (personally I mostly liked 2, it was 3 that really dropped the ball).

@@alekssavic1154 True I mean look at stronghold crusader The best experence i feel like the mix of the 2 elements makes it the best one you cant just build overly simple economy like age of empires but it doesnt take up the entire game

@Ladyjuliet-uv5qt personally I love a good economic management game, so for me Manor Lords is perfect (although I do hope we get the tools to build proper castles sooner rather than later) and I always liked Stronghold 1 more than Crusader (although both are great games, and Crusader is closer to a more conventional RTS so I completely understand why a lot of people prefer it).

@@alekssavic1154 Sure

Satisfactory is EA done right.

What bothers me about the HD2 situation is they tweaked the game mechanics and enemy spawn rates too much. Turned it into a game I wasn't very interested in anymore sadly.

You're not going to find a game made by a single or few people selling for AAA game prices. And you'll probably find less bugs in the smaller game, because AAA doesn't understand how to combat scope creep.

Maybe you should read The Little Red Hen and don't buy into things that are in development only to complain they aren't finished. Food for thought

It is hypocritical for any dev of the perpetual beta game to have the gal to say this

That's correct.

Well.Helldiver (the first game) also died and wasn’t a live service.

All games die, some die faster because of bad practices ​@@SpottedHares

I think they'll get HD2 back on track. The Jungle planet is neat, and it seems they're refocusing away from monthly warbonds. Seems that monthly cadence wasn't sustainable or realistic.

Sadly palworld is probably going to go the way of slopdivers pretty soon. they just recently got into a partnership with sony and their subsidiary company aniplex. shaking hands with the devil wont end well.

I fail to see the difference between early access and live service Actually i see them being more of an scam for especially devs just doesn't giving a damn to finish it taking decades to finish anything if just dropping it and running away

Early Access was originally supposed to be for beta testing purposes, not funding. So Early Access is now putting the onus on customers to fund games...

@@lycanwarrior2137 , Yeah, and then it became the new type of crowdfunding when things like Go Fund Me turned into a shitshow. What it started as, and what is is NOW are different.