Opinion - Dear gaming companies who constantly push out an endless amount of Live Service products: stop

That’s it really. I could stop writing here altogether and that would be the end of it. It pretty much speaks for itself, right? At a point in time, the live service market was a slightly exciting prospect: an online game (typically free to play but that isn’t really the norm) hooks in players and plans to keep them playing for years to come via a continuous stream of content, gameplay additions and updates provided incrementally down the line. In theory, this extends the longevity of a game way beyond a single playthrough, and as the game continuously makes more revenue, these funds can be used to further provide more of the aforementioned content additions. Seems like a sound practice, right? And in some ways, it is. In fact, one of the most popular games of our current generation is a live service title. Clearly there is a market for this, but what most gaming companies don’t seem to realize is that this market is intentionally designed to be small for a reason.

This simple equation sure sounds like a fool-proof idea to people who have an infinite amount of money to lose and still somehow never get fired for incompetency.

Live Service products definitely seem to be the current “trend” nowadays. It’s a typical gaming executive’s dream come true: a single product that can provide a seemingly endless stream of revenue for multiple years at a time, with a massive concurrent player base? What’s not to love? For a while, they seemed to be absolutely enamored with the concept. Live Service products were churned out at an astonishing rate as top executives constantly assured us (and by “us” I mean their investors) that the live service model is the “NEXT BIG THING IN GAMING!!!!” In fact, as of now, despite the model being on its way out, there’s still a lot of attempts from executives to try and keep this gravy train going for as long as they can. It’s only a matter of time before they move on to the next unnecessary scumbag gimmick to cling onto and desperately convince us that it’s “THE NEXT BIG LEAP IN GAMING!!!” as another stupid way to cut costs and squeeze as much money as they can into their pockets. There’s very audible discussions about executives clapping their hands and clicking their heels in glee that generative AI is making the rounds, apparently learning absolutely nothing from the years that proceeded every other trend chasing instance (yeah, how did the NFT and Lootbox scam go for ya? Didn’t yall say those were the “NEXT BIG THING” as well? No? Alright buddy).

Now one might be wondering at this point in the article, “why do you seem so agitated and hostile? Aren’t you enjoying a live service game right now?” The truth is, you would be right. In fact, I don’t inherently think the Live Service model is a bad one, but the problem is the massive influx of these type of games aren’t done because the genre is healthy and thriving, it’s pushed purely due to executive greed and incompetence. As the great James Stephanie Sterling once said, “executives don’t just want some of the money, they want ALL of the money.” And no where is that more blatantly obvious with the sudden spike in interest in the live service model. It’s simple math, really; getting an infinite amount of money from one game for years and years down the line is far more desirable than getting a finite amount of money off of one game or a series of multiple games with ridiculous monetization. So just make more of those types of games and profit! Simple, right? But what these clueless executives don’t understand is that these types of games are SUPPOSED to be limited success stories. See, we human beings only have so much time to live on this earth. Naturally, if we were going to invest some of that time into a Live Service title, it would only be around like, one or two max. The thing with Live Service games is that the main goal is to keep you hooked and playing for years to come, and that just isn’t sustainable with multiple games pumped out over the course of a few short years. We can’t physically divide our attention span and devote ourselves to every ongoing multiplayer game that comes out. There’s a reason that only a handful of live service games are currently thriving right now (Fortnite, Valorant, Apex, Overwatch 2) while others struggle to maintain relevance and fade into obscurity. Or worse.

I think it actually takes effort to have character design leave so little impact on me in every way. How did you guys even DO that?

I’m sure most here have heard about the cautionary tale of Concord. Probably one of the biggest, most spectacular failures I’ve possibly ever seen unfold in gaming history. A game that was in development for over 8 years and with a budget of over $400 million, it was pulled off the shelves, delisted, and shut down its online services in just 2 weeks. It failed to even top 700 players on Steam. A game with all that money dumped into it, with what appears to be a heaping helping of development hell, was simply wiped from existence in 2 weeks. Concord was a game that struggled in multiple ways, from being very visually uninspired and bland, to the mechanics and hero cast being incredibly generic. It was a game that you’ve seen before and done better countless times. And of course, one of the biggest components complicit in the contentious killing of Concord (phew!) was the oversaturation. Why would you ever want to pay full price for a live service title that has nothing interesting of worth to offer that you already haven’t seen done before (and better) in other live service titles, especially when the alternatives like Overwatch 2 and Valorant are free to play?

This is, of course, the most recent and most famous example of a live service title failing in a sea of other similar games practically begging for your attention. There’s also problems of releasing a terrible product (whether because of the Live Service model or without) and hoping the Live Service model can miraculously keep it afloat with glimpsed promises of an alleged “roadmap”. Games like Fallout 76 appeared to have defied the very rough launch the game was initially saddled with and has seemingly bounced back, while games like Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League very clearly have not. There’s also problems of games starting off with promising roadmaps, but then have said promised content underdeliver or be canceled due to a number of internal and external factors. While the trend of live service games seem to be thankfully winding down, it’s still very likely that we’re bound to see gaming executives try and desperately keep this trend trending until the next trendy money making trend trends its ugly trend. Once again, let Concord serve as the biggest cautionary tale of all: if you don’t take quality and oversaturation into account, it could very well be your downfall.