Over the past few years, live service games have dominated the gaming industry.
The likes of Fortnite and Apex Legends have become ingrained into the culture, whilst other developers have attempted to catch this lightining in a bottle.
However, this focus on live service as we know it seems to be coming to an end, with a bunch of always online titles shutting down.
But how did the live service model go from the new era of gaming to the latest trend set to crash and burn? Let's discuss.
From DLC to live service
The origins of live service titles can be traced back to the early days of online gaming, with many online multiplayer games like Call of Duty, FIFA, and GTA offering hints of whats to come.
However, the best example of what we know as live service games today were Massive Multiplayer Online games (MMOs). Games like World of Warcraft and Runescape were the first mainstream offerings to lay the groundwork for games that required constant connectivity for content that was constantly evolving.
These games also exposed the positives and negatives of the always online model. I still remember the South Park episode that covered World of Warcraft, in which they brought up some of these truths using their typical dark humour.
(Explicit content warning!)
However, most of the biggest developers didn't follow this trend during the 2000s, with MMOs and other always online games being restricted to PC. Instead, most games developed for consoles would use DLCs as a way to provide additional content to popular titles.
During the Xbox 360 and PS3 era in particular, downloadable content (DLC) seemed to be everywhere, with every well-received game getting at least one or two expansions. However, these add-ons usually came with an extra cost.
Many gamers caught onto these methods and disliked how sections of a game's story were being locked behind a paywall, resulting in DLCs becoming frowned upon. This spelt bad news for gaming companies, as they would have to find alternatives way to make up the lost funds.
Whilst DLCs are still used to this day, they are a lot less prevalent or often disclosed ahead of time via deluxe editions and season passes to avoid backlash. These adaptations to the DLC would pave the way for a new form of monetisation that would go beyond the restrictions that came with DLCs.
After years of experimentation with content delivery, companies began to devlop new ways to monetise their most popular titles. But out of all the methods that would be tested, live service games slowly became the popular choice for both consumers and developers.
It's hard to put a foot on when this turning point happened, but the emergence of games such as Destiny and Fortnite led the way for live service games to flourish during the past decade. As their popularity grew, other developers looked for ways to enter this environment successfully.
With the routes that technology and gaming were destined to take, live service games seemed like the natural evolution. Having to be always online wasn't as much of an issue compared to the days of World of Warcraft, and the introduction of more free-to-play titles benefitted a lot of gamers.
During the years of the PS4 and Xbox One generation, the amount of live service games on the market only continued to grow. Because of this, the future of live service games looked very promising, even with the downsides that had already began to surface.
The Lockdown Boom
Without a doubt, the pandemic has permanently changed a lot of industries and lifestyles, but the gaming community was one of the few sectors that actually received a lot of benefits from the outside being put on hold.
Whilst there were definitely a lot of issues for the gaming industry at this time, mainly due to the shortages of harware and game development, more people were spending their time playing games and enjoying them with friends as a way to distract from the chaos of the real world.
With the next-gen Xbox and Playstation consoles releasing just a few months prior to the lockdown and the Switch bringing Nintendo's popularity back to an all-time high, console gamers had all the tools needed to escape into a different world.
On top of this, the release of RTX 3000 and Radeon 6000 cards gave PC gamers the greatest jump in gaming performance in a long time, even if these cards were impossible to buy at an affordable price. As a result, the gaming landscape was set for a boom in relevancy.
During the lockdown period, there were plenty of gaming trends reaching a wider audience than usual, leading to a larger player base on a range of different platforms and titles.
Animal Crossing took the world by storm on release, Esports became the solution for sports fans wanting a way to root for their favourite teams, and many were using their spare time to attack their backlogs or replay the nostalgic classics.
Live service games acted as just one of the many trends to receive a huge boost during the lockdowns, as they quickly became the go-to way for friends to play games together. With their free-to-play nature, competitive environment, and focus on communication, it was clear to see the appeal.
The likes of Fortnite, Apex Legends, and Rocket League were already a worlwide phenomenom, but the increased player bases during this time allowed them to grow their audience and reach new heights, standing on top of the gaming industry.
However, the games that benefitted most were the live-service titles releasing around the time of the first global lockdowns. Combining the pre-existing hype from gamers with a bunch of newcomers looking for a social game that can eat through the hours created a perfect environment for these games to thrive.
What was Your Favourite Game During Lockdown?
Fortnite
Fall Guys
Among Us
CoD Warzone
You can vote for more than one answer.
CoD Warzone is arguably the first example of a game which received a major following in lockdown, releasing as the world was forced to stay inside for the foreseeable future. After that, Fall Guys helped cheer people up who couldn't enjoy the sunshine throughout the summer, and Among Us came out of nowhere to try its best to ruin our friendships.
It's possible that these games would have received the same response without the influence of the pandemic, especially games from popular franchises like CoD Warzone. Among Us is the best case study of the impact of Covid-19, as the game originally released in 2018 but boomed in popularity after the inital lockdown.
These games acted as the catalysts for the live service approach becoming a mainstream gaming model, with lots of gaming companies seeing the results and deciding they want a peice of the pie.
Always Online Adaptations
After multiple games had found success with the live service approach, many developers were quick to jump onto the bandwagon. Whilst these moves would have likely been made before the pandemic, the lockdown surges acted as confirmation for these developers to know their plans were heading in the right direction.
This resulted in a constant stream of live service titles hitting various platforms each month, with games that had already released serving up season updates inbetween. Competition for live service games has its pros and cons, but the sheer amount of releases over the past couple years has left the live service market very congested.
As a result, it was very hit and miss as to whether an upcoming title in this category would be received well by the gaming audience, or whether it would be lost in the shuffle.
Between 2020 and 2022, a flurry of live service games arrived on the scene, with a combination of new IPs that put twists on the games which inspired them and spin-offs of existing franchises. For example, EA's Knockout City took a dodgeball twist on the foundations laid out by Rocket League, and Halo Infinite continued Master Cheif's story while putting a heavy focus on battle passes in the free-to-play multiplayer.
Either way, the reasoning behind these games felt pretty transparent to enthusiasts. As more games were launching with battle passes and microtransations, it was clear to see that companies were looking to jump ship to live service for the financial benefits.
And honestly, who could blame them? The model had been a proven method throughout the years and the momentum wasn't looking to go away anytime soon. So live service quickly became the priority for a lot of AAA developers, who were looking to replicate the momumental figures that the trailblazers were able to acheive.
These new games arrived with many different styles and ideas, but most could be seperated into a few distinct categories, all of which used a very similar template and monetisation strategy.
Arguably the most popular live service games were battle royales, a competitive game mode that resembles the format of the Hunger Games. The ultra-competitive nature and thirst to be the best really drove gamers to play the likes of Fortnite, Apex Legends, and Fall Guys over and over again until they tasted the thrill of victory.
To help incentivise players to keep going for gold, these games would provide winners with special cosmetic items that can't be unlocked without being victorious. On top of this, the battle pass system would be there to give the unsuccessful players a reason to be satisfied after each dogged attempt.
On the other hand, Arena games relied more on the traditional close quarters combat of PvP to offer adrenaline-filled spectacles. In a similar way to battle royales, users would be rewarded with items each time they played, which undoutably convinced them to play 'just one more match'.
Both of these strategies were very effective in convincing gamers to play these games on repeat for weeks, months, or even years. However, as more developers moved towards the live service strategy, the cracks began to grow, and more gamers started to see the true intentions behind these titles.
Bored with Battle Passes
When the fog and choas from the pandemic started to clear, it seemed like the gaming industry as a whole took some time to reflect and evualate on the current practices and opinions. Like many industries, the lockdowns exposed a lot of the good, bad, and the ugly within gaming.
As the dust settled and we tried to move on from the devastation caused by covid-19, there were many changes in perspectives and strategies across the gaming sector. For lots of gamers, the live service model was the first thing on the chopping block.
During the times of isolation, the abundance of time to kill and urge to socialise with friends made live service games a very attractive prospect. But as society reverted back to normality, the time investment needed to get the most out of these games was no longer possible.
On top of this, the shifting priorities from quality-time with friends and family back to the old motivators like money and power made a lot of people realise that spending money on a battle pass or games subscrisptiion simply wouldn't be worth it going forward. Add a cost-of-living crisis on top and all of a sudden, the general concensus of online game monitisation was turning sour once again.
Don't get me wrong, there have always been problems with the live service model, a lot of which has been discussed for years, perhaps even decades. Personally, I never really understood the appeal of these games, as I would much rather spend my time playing a game with a specific narrative to follow, or somewhere in which I can create my own.
However, the aftermath of the pandemic certainly felt like the first time in which the general population also came to this conclusion. Because of this, lots of discourse over the tactics used by these games began to rise, with many questioning the morality of the monetisation methods used within these online platforms
From the outside, it seemed as if the main criticisms were targeted towards battle passes, in a way that resembled the loot box debacle from years prior. At that time, authorities and gamers were concerned about the effect of gaming loot-boxes on adolescent gambling, and rightly so!
EA were considered the main culprits, with randomised in-game packs from their sports games like FIFA and Madden causing gamers of all ages to spend countless amounts in an attempt to receive the best players, along with other lucrative in-game items.
The tipping point however, came with the release of Star Wars: Battlefront II, as the loot boxes within this game would determine which upgrades players would have access. So instead of working towards better items and upgraded weapons, gamers would instead have to pay money on random items until they received the upgrades they wanted.
This seemed to be the last straw for loot boxes, as developers slowly faded these systems out of their online titles and replaced them with battle passes. But fast-forward to 2023 and it seems like battle passes could be heading towards a similar fate.
Whilst plenty of popular online multiplayer games are still getting thousands of people signing up to their in-game subscription services, lots of games have struggled to get gamers to sign up. This lack of interest either comes from gamers not wanting to commit to playing through multiple batlles passes, or because gamers are getting sick of the tactics used by corporations to grab as much money as possible.
If You Had to Choose One Monetisation Method, What Would It Be?
Loot Boxes
Battle Pass
I would argue that battle passes are less harmful than loot boxes -when applied correctly- due to consumers knowing what they will receive before buying. In addition, most of the items are purely cosmetic-based and gamers still have objectives to fulfil in order to get their rewards.
However, when these systems are applied with ill-intent, they can come off as lazy cash grabs, leaving them open to criticism for frustrated gamers. For example, when battle pass seasons are very short but makes reaching the max level incredibly difficut, it appears as an intentional way to ensure gamers aren't getting their money's worth.
But no matter what appraoch live service games take for their battle pass, recent times suggest that more gamers are becoming hostile towards these methods. For one reason or another, the initial appeal of battle passes has slowly faded away, which has lead to some major consequences for a bunch of live service games.
Closures & Cancellations
Despite the controversies surrounding the genre, live service games seemed indestructible from the outside. However, recent years have proven just how volatile this practise can be, with many attempts being shut down forever.
In many cases, these games had been online for a matter of months before being unplugged. This is very unfortunate for those that have spent years developing the games and shows how competitive and cut-throat these types of games can be.
The example that I always think of is Knockout City. As one of the first games I reviewed in-depth, the futuristic take on dodgeball was a fun experience that certainly had potential. However, the heavy competition with other sports titles and the optimistic expectations caused Velan studios to shut Knockout City down, simply because they didn't have the infrastructure to continue supporting the game in its live service fortmat.
A lot of sports-based live service games suffered a similar fate, with Rumbleverse lasting a mere months, as well as games such as Roller Champions failing to gain momentum. But these closures are by no means restricted to the sports category.
One of the biggest examples of a game that surprisingly failed to gain popularity was Marvel's Avengers. With famous publisher Square Enix being backed by such strong ties to a world-famous franchise, this game seemed destined for greatness.
Unfortunately, the focus on live service was prevelant throughout the game, leaving a bitter taste in the mouths of gamers everywhere. With many gamers stating that the repetitivie missions and reliance on an outdated loot box systen as the main reasons for its downfall.
As a result, this title was discontinued in September 2023. This shows that the even a title with all the tools needed to do well in the live service genre can fumble the delivery, resulting in dire consequences.
These are just a few examples of the multitude of live service games that have been taken offline in 2023 alone. More cancellations are bound to be announced too, as more developers are forced to cut their losses on underperforming projects.
So are live service games slowly dying out? Not exactly.
What Now?
Whilst live service games are not as popular as they were in their heyday, there are plenty of publishers keeping the model with varied success. This suggests that we've not seen the last of live service games, even if they might look a little bit different from what we're used to.
Even in the months in which I have been putting this discussion together, there has been plenty of developments on plans for more live service releases, along with multiple games receiving somewhat of a revivial.
For example, PlayStation have already made their intentions to focus on live service well known, with games like Foamstars and Bungies latest project, Marathon, set to arrive in the near future. However, it is important to note that these announcements haven't been received well from most gamers.
As for recent revivals, Halo Inifinite's recent season 5 update has given the game a new lease of life, adding lots of game modes and customisation that were missing from the initial release. On top of this, Fortnite has gone back to their original map, which has got OG players excited for the game once again.
So whilst the biggest titles and coorperations are still finding plenty of sucess with the live service model, there are still plenty of warning signs that could lead to catastrophic fates for those that don't take them seriously. Hopefully, tyhese companies will look at the past failures and learn from them, but it may already be too late.
First of all, a number of publishers have started to see the live service platform as a way to put out a half-baked game and develop it over time. This is a very risky tactic, as gaming enthusiasts have now caught on to this trend, causing a lot of unfinished titles to receive very poor receptions on release, which kill them off before they have a chance to implement any monetisation tactics.
The best example from recent times is Redfall, a co-op shooter from Bethesda that was clearly rushed into a release, leading to awful reviews that caused players to steer away from a title that was meant to be one of Xbox's biggest exclusives of the year. If you want a better understanding of the impact of Redfall's poor reception, check out Phil Spencer's interview with the Kinda Funny XCast just days after launch.
Secondly, the financial woes that most people are going through is bound to have an effect on these games, as more gamers will have to limit their spending to prioritse the essentials. In the gaming sector specifically, we've already seen an abundance of layoffs at various studios, including Bungie, Epic Games, 343 Industries etc.
Because of these factors, it's hard to see the live service model growing in its current state, as the focus on microtransactions and battle passes will become more and more offputting. Instead, games would be better off using live service strictly as a way to develop the game over time, creating new expansions of stories and game mades.
But money talks, which means that as long as it is profitable, the current practices are here to stay. I've personally never been too fond of the live service model, but after reflecting on it in some detail, I can see the ways in which it could be beneficial when treated with care.
Do You Think Companies Should Continue Using the Live Service Model?
Yes
NO
Though I tend to stick to single-player experiences for the most part, lots of the sports games I play have incorporated this tactic for years. Plus, I play Halo Infintite semi-regularly, and I'm glad to see the live service structure used to imporve the multiplayer aspects over the years.
So no, I don't think live service games are going to die out anytime soon, but I think the way in which they have been implemented previously should be.
Comments