With recent news of DA4 going single-player only, how has your opinion of the games potential change

Then there is simply nothing live about it.
Listen, EA can interpret loot boxes as surprise mechanics and tell Belgium that they misinterpret their own laws. Sure, under those conditions, my dead cat can also be interpreted as a live service, while it lived. Bioware can say it, it doesn't make it true.

What makes anything that YOU say true?

That's not the worst one. Remember when EA tried to redefine the word "delay" to suit their purposes:

“Regardless of how it’s being portrayed, we’re not looking at that as a delay, we’ve chosen to launch Anthem in [the fourth quarter]. The date is chosen by by portfolio balance, not product readiness,”

Funny, I look up the meaning of the word "delay" and I don't see anything about "product readiness". Delay: Postpone or defer. I'm sorry but show me where it says to delay something is to postpone due to product readiness.

I'm not interested in corporations redefining words to meet their own agendas. They are not the authority of the english language, these terms have already established definitions and they are not the gatekeeper of those definitions. They make games, that is all. I'm not going to pretend they are something they are not.

ERP requires a connection to my company's server ... and the content is constantly changing.  LOL

Yep I need to be logged on ...

Our IT department develops stuff for our ERP system, but quality assurance get secondary attention, as QA doesn't produce or sell product.

I am not sure if it is subscription, but my company just bought an upgrade to the ERP software.

Yes this is an incredibly arrogant position to have.

1. None of us work in the game industry. Or very few of us so none of us are qualified to really speak on this issue... At least to the point where we can be bold enough to call people liars. That is incredibly arrogant. Sure there is corporate speak but even then its foolish...especially when...

2. It does not matter how Ubisoft defines live service, it does not matter how Microsoft defines live service, it does not matter how IBM or whatever this ERP is defines live service, for these purposes all that matters is how BioWare defines live service.

3. As long as their definition is logically consistent and looking around the industry...it seems pretty consistent.

What do games like Ghost Recon Wildlands, Breakpoint, Odyssey, Anthem, DAI, Avengers all have in common? Post launch support. Including patches, DLCs, road maps, etc. Yes there are some games that are obviously more 'live' then others but its perfectmy acceptable to me to consider live service or a live game as anything that recieves post launch support, including patches. Those patches make games alive and dynamic and not dead hunks of software.

If you're talking about Game Developers not knowing their place then yes, I agree with you. Game developers who don't know their place ARE incredibly arrogant. End of story.

1 - Has nothing to do with working in the game industry. As I said before, genres are not for them. The english language is adopted by the community, and genres are developed and maintained by the consumers. Game developers are not gate keepers here, and certainly not gate keepers of the english language. That is not their place. 

2 - Bioware does not get to redefine how people use live service to refer to their games. Ever. 

3 - If it's logically consistent then it isn't a problem. If it's against how the community uses the term then they're using it wrong. That simple. 

argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Its that simple.

However BioWare or anyone else defines live service, it must have been different enough from their standard patch/DLC post launch support routine to require a reboot of Dragon Age 4 (from Joplin to Morrison, and now back to single player only). If live service (according to BioWare) was defined as "patches and DLC post launch", then no reboot would have been necessary because they had been doing that for many years now. Patches can't possibly require a reboot, and neither should DLC, certainly not while the game is still in pre-production and DLC can be planned for accordingly. Whatever the reboots did, it must have been such a significant change to the game's structure that it could not be accomplished by patching or adding DLC.

Your argument is only compelling if you can find me the dictionary definition of what the term 'live service games' is or what 'games as a service' are. If you can find it in Meriam Webster or on the actual dictionary.com or some other similar source and that definition seems to contradict the BioWare one...we can discuss its merits...and it would be pretty compelling evidence.

Note though: This is specifically referring to games, I will not accept 'software as a service' since while all games are software...not all software are games. Actually @glitchcheater might give us a clue. A way for monetizing games after launch which I also find to be an interesting and apt take on it. So things like DLC, Seasons Passes, and Post Launch cosmetic stores which are added to throughout a game's 'life cycle' all can count as 'live service' under this umbrella because we are all having to buy that post launch content as it comes out. Things like patches, while maybe still a stretch, can also count under this umbrella. Yes you do not 'pay' for patches (thank God) but if a video game company does not take an effort to improve their games and squash bugs in a post release world then us, the consumer, will not be as inclined to continue to buy their products and their expansions after the fact considering how much of a buggy mess the game is. This is especially true in today's context since some companies are now using patches to actually release new quests and other content (like Odyssey) and live events in my experience usually comes with a patch right before it starts which sets up and changes the game's infrastructure to allow for it (Breakpoint, Vahalla, Anthem)

Now as for why BioWare needed to reboot Dragon Age 4 originally. Well we forget that Anthem was an utter tire fire at that time and all hands on deck for it so I am gathering that all production on DA 4 essentially stopped....and it might've been very awkward to start production, stop it, then start it again. But also consider:

1. The media might be being very fast and loose with the definition of what a 'reboot' is. Afterall the current article makes no mention that the project has been rebooted again (to the best of my knowledge)

2. While no doubt making the game 'more' 'live service' had something to do with it I do remember the original article also went into things like story and gameplay scope and I remember, while parts of it did sound good, I just got the feeling that it might not have been a compelling game and...while this may be reading too much into it...I also have the sneaking suspcion that bizarrely the original project didn't have much to do with Inquisition. And that it didn't fit in with EAs desires about scope and what they were trying to sell. So yes it was 'rebooted' to include more Live Service (which it still might) but there was also a lot more other changes which happened as a result of that reboot.

my bad.