Very much so, because to me it openly announces that the game is centered in its design about something between:

• Microtransactions
• Extrinsic motivation
• FOMO

None of those are a good story, great characters, good world building or good intrinsic gameplay design. And they don’t need to be for a live service game, but it also means it’s inherently worse as a game than the same underlying idea not developed as a money squeeze service.

I find the word “service” off-putting. I want to buy things outright and own them. I do not want recurring fees.

Live service comes across as life service. A game made to monopolize my time and become a significant part of my life by using addictive systems. By the very nature of enjoying the variety of games, it will immediately turn me off a game.

deleted by creator

I simply don’t buy live service games. I hate them

I have nothing against mmo/live/gaas games but the quality is never there to justify it. If anything gaas have less content than a singleplayer offline game. It’s a total bait and switch.

On one hand constant updates and continuing a games longevity can be nice, but in reality it usually just means fomo which I despise.

I don’t have a problem with the core concept since it can technically be done well (Fortnite, despite it not appealing to me personally) but since everyone wants the “live service” staying power and money without putting in the “live service” effort it’s become a red flag to me to prepare for an unfinished, buggy, likely money-grubbing “game” with a shaky future - case in point, Halo Infinite’s campaign pretty much going nowhere and being Act 1 of what will be pretty much nothing now since all the campaign staff went bye-bye.

In anno 1800 (which is the only game I’ve played with denuvo) it still needs to have a connection to the ubisoft servers to run, so live service isn’t just about dodging 3rd party drm

its perfect really, they all should put it front and center! cause it tells me right of the bat i i never should touch said product, its a money saver really.

Theoretically it’s not a turnoff: for example, I was fine with paying the subscription for World of Warcraft back in 2007. But in practice I know what it means today, and that means being psychologically manipulated and crit in the wallet, so hell freakin no.

I actually am in favour of government legislation against them since they generally appeal to the young, who are essentially psychologically defenceless against most of the trickery. I don’t quite think they’re “spiritual opium” as the PRC would say, but the line was crossed long ago

I don’t have the long term attention span demanded of live service games, since once I’m done with a game I move on.

Live service games/ games a service are an automatic no from me. Too many have little to no content, constant delays on content, a dying community, or ridden with predatory monetization. Not to mention I dont like to pay for games that i cant play when the servers go down.

I just stopped buying main stream games for the most part. Indie games is where it is at. Often better gameplay loop and comes at a better price and I would rather see my money going to creative people instead of some greedy CEO.

Live service is a no from me.

Butnot a problem in free to play games, not in full price games