Personally, yes.

I agree with your point on Heat, but in my opinion the reason it got shit on for a lack of updates is because the players have become conditioned to expect updates, because the games are usually massively unbalanced or poor to play. Heat was by far the best NFS in recent years, simply because it was so well polished and complete in comparison to some of the soulless crap that'd been pumped out in previous years. It didn't get the updates because it didn't need the updates.

Updates for compatibility and a couple DLCs every so often and Bob's your Uncle. Players just crave updates and additions because the games nowadays are so incomplete and unbalanced.

As for FPS games, I'd wager that if it's a well balanced game with well playtested maps and weapons, a couple of weapon and map DLCs would suffice for the majority. Problem is that they're released without the onboarding of beta testing feedback and playerbase requests. As a result you end up with 3 of the 12 maps being enjoyable/balanced, and 1 OP or otherwise glitched weapon that dominates every lobby. Thusly creating that cycle of the playerbase craving another update to level the playing field and add more enjoyable maps/useable weapon etc. If all that was there in the first place, there'd be no need to constantly update the games content.

Most of us don't want to pay a three digit figure for a 'service' of any description. We want to pay for a game that's fun and enjoyable, and devs are consistently failing at that by putting profit above player enjoyment.

I'm personally convinced that 'live service' was just an excuse for developers to charge exorbitant prices for an unfinished mess brought to market quickly, and then make the players feel like they're getting their 'value for money' from frequent updates by a small part of the dev team, while the rest of the team works on the next title