So what exactly is a 'live service game'?

Probably why I can't seem to find a standard definition of the term then.

One thing's for sure. If DA:4 does turn out to be some kind of multiplayer-only game then Andromeda will be the last Bioware title I ever bought.

Well, all mmos are live service games. But are all live service games necessarily multiplayer? Not really. Assassins Creed Odyssey is single player, but apparently has live service features. That’s an exception to the rule though. I doubt you can find many other similar cases.

EA however, as someone else said, is all in on multiplayer so chances are...

It is a very vague term.

A "Live Service Game" can apply to any game which receives additional content after launch. Anything that helps keep players engaged in the hopes of capturing additional revenue after the initial sale.

But for DA4, I would not expect it to turn into a MP-only game. The playerbase for DA is firmly in the SP camp (DA:I proved that), so moving the entire game to MP would be a huge gamble. Just imagine the backlash BW would get.

Yeah, my worry isn't that DA is going to become a MP-only game, it's that its playerbase is so MP-adverse it probably doesn't do the franchise any favours. They want that generous long-tail revenue stream, so that's one avenue they can't count on to produce it for them. There are other avenues ofc, but will they be lucrative? And then in turn what that might mean in terms of budget and resources future DA games will get.

I think the safest model would be something along the lines of how AC:OD does it. It's still not great, but I think it would be more acceptable to the playerbase. Though whether BW has the resources to continue to generate post-release content like Ubisoft can would be another question.

Wait a minute. Does it make sense to call Anthem MP-only? I think at some point in the campaign you do have to activate the MP feature for a mission or two, but that's it.

I assume PlayStation plus

I take it that’s needed for all online multiplayer games

Their latest in MTX is Apex Legends for the Iron Crown event, go take a look. AL players are riled by the over $100 paywall put up by the devs and their responses to the unhappy player posts. The CEO of Respawn has stepped in with an apology to calm the waters. 

Given EA's track record, I expect them to do something sneaky for the SP (if there's one) and call it a "surprise mechanic".    

On one end, you have games like Destiny, Warframe, Fallout 76, and other online-only experiences that persist by giving players regular/seasonal updates, which are supported by microtransactions. On the other end, it's simply providing continual updates to the game through new mechanics, story missions, balance changes, and bug fixes.

One typical (and I do emphasize the term) thread among all these live service games is that they're normally supported through microtransactions. This gets offset by new content being free. Under this criteria, Mass Effect 3, Andromeda, and Dragon Age multiplayer could be considered as live service, as those modes received several content updates, new mechanics, new kits, and various balance changes. Another game that would fall into live service territory is Assassins Creed: Odyssey, as it released several free story missions, with the addition of new content being supported through the games microtransactions store. Players obtain most items from the store, as they were offered on weekly rotation by an NPC players could meet at some point in the game. If you brought this NPC a rare currency (called Orichalcum), you could buy said items. Getting that currency revolved around doing daily and weekly challenges, and you'd have some challenges that would also reward you a cosmetic for your ship, or a new legendary weapon. The controversial aspect of AC:Odysseys were the XP/Gold time-savers which, in a game whose story is level gated, was seen as a ploy to get people to spend $10 (IIRC) on a way to make the game easier to finish.

I think what really bothers most people about the term isn't just poor microtransaction practices from major publishers; most notably - EA. It's also that, for games such as Destiny, Fallout 76, Anthem, The Division, Battlefield V, Battlefront 2, these titles have by in large released in mediocre - if not poor - launch states. It's the gaming community linking the less than stellar launches of these games with the term, and there's now a stigma with any game attached to the title. There's of course other factors involved to; like not wanting always online.

Technically speaking, if BioWare wants DA4 to fit under the live-service banner, then all they'd have to do - in my mind - is do the exact same thing they did with DA:I's multiplayer. Based on Mike Gambles tweet, it sounds like there also planning on releasing story missions (for free) as the game continues on after launch. This would theoretically put the game more on the AC:Odyssey spectrum than an Anthem or Destiny. My guess though, is that they'll also include daily/weekly events which offer up a new currency that can used at a cosmetics store. If you don't want to grind those events for said currency, then you can buy said items and cosmetics with real-world money. Everything's just a "wait and see" game at this point.

They release a 'free' game you can download every month with it...for no additional cost.

It also comes with online cloud storage for saves and special discounts and sales on digital games. Probably a few other goodies but its been a very long time since I had an account.

I would like to see DA4 following GTA5/RDR2 where the story mode and the multiplayer mode are separated. I would bet Cyberpunk 2077 will also use that model. Why not just focus on the story mode at first and release the multiplayer mode later? Everyone would be happy.

For what it is worth, pre-DAI (but after Multiplayer had been announced) a number of people on BSN Prime (myself included) asked if this sort of thing was possible.  I think it was Allan who said there was a "non-trivial" cost associated with doing that.  Something to do with having to pay Sony and Microsoft twice to host the same amount of content, plus a notion of "missed opportunity", meaning; if it is all bundled, then some SP only people might try it out of curiosity.  Whereas if it required a separate download, those same people would be far less likely to try it.

As for "live service" definitions - something in or around Assassin's Creed Odyssey would be perfect for me.  I was apprehensive about it before I played it - Ubisoft don't have the best reputation on this front - but found it to be about as benign as anyone could have reasonably hoped for.  Everything in-game was better (and/or better looking) than the premium content.  The Lost Tales were free.  *shrug*  Other people's mileage may vary, but if DA4's "live service" offerings follow that model...they can consider me a happy customer (assuming the game itself is actually fun, but I'm not too concerned on that score).