Current Events > I don't understand the obsession in making live service games

(+) Yeah! (+)

As someone who plays live service games, I dont have time to play more. I use to play 2 but now I pretty much just play one. If everyone is making a live service game that means most of them will fail. Not to mention that you have to find a way to not only pull me away from the live service game(s) Im playing but keep me away from them. Why take that risk unless you are going to make a truly amazing game? Just make a good game that isnt a live service and people will buy it. People dont have infinite time and infinite money. I dont get why they just dont listen to gamers. They just keep chasing that big hit while burning money like crazy.

If it worked once, it'll work again.

Eventually.

Fortnite prints money, other companies think they can do it too

Just like all these streaming services

Approximately 5 of them make shitloads of money, people want in on that. Problem is that there's only a limited number of whales so you can't really add yourself to that 5, and those 5 games are so entrenched that wedging one of them out so you can be in the group is near impossible.

dancing_cactuar posted...

Approximately 5 of them make shitloads of money, people want in on that. Problem is that there's only a limited number of whales so you can't really add yourself to that 5, and those 5 games are so entrenched that wedging one of them out so you can be in the group is near impossible.

Its like playing the most expensive lottery in the world. No lie, I think these companies would do better if they took all that money and bought lottery tickets. Thats how bad this is

Because you don't need a large audience for the live service game, you just need a dedicated playerbase large enough to have a few whales that buy the cosmetics and battlepasses.

This guy used to work at Blizzard. Helped make SC2. He claims, probably correctly, that the one single Celestial Steed mount that they sold for $15 made more money than SC2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY

money

It makes a shit load of money (if done right).

pegusus123456 posted...

Because you don't need a large audience for the live service game, you just need a dedicated playerbase large enough to have a few whales that buy the cosmetics and battlepasses.

This guy used to work at Blizzard. Helped make SC2. He claims, probably correctly, that the one single Celestial Steed mount that they sold for $15 made more money than SC2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY

The problem is that most live service games cant even grab that anymore. Plus, it seems that it takes a lot more money to make a live service game vs your typical game which makes it harder to make your money back

Capitalism.

pegusus123456 posted...

Because you don't need a large audience for the live service game, you just need a dedicated playerbase

This. No one is trying to get the whole market. They just need enough people playing for long enough to make what they see as enough money; which they aren't getting with the traditional all-in-the-box game. Live service games aren't fundamentally different from anything else. They're just a way for publishers and developers to make more money in the increasingly expensive and inefficient development process. If you want to complain about something complaining about that. Not that companies want to support games for an extended period of time.

Like you say, most live service games are destined fail. But the few games that do manage to catch on make so much money that companies are going to try anyway.

DrizztLink posted...

If it worked once, it'll work again.

Eventually.

That's literally it.

If they strike gold, they'll be filthy stinking rich. So they keep trying.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/5ca92b48.jpg

Just make games that are long lasting instead of throw away.

I continually point back to Valhalla, but it's there, it was the most profitable Assassins Creed game they ever made, they consistently updated it with new content for nearly 2 years and the game had a ridiculous amount of content that people went back to it longer after it released.

Few games anymore have any sort of longevity unless it's built in, like GTA Online. Without that, nobody would touch GTA5.

Live service is barely sustainable with the big games already like Fortnite, Cod and Destiny but the money they make from it over that period of time seems to be worth the high failure rate so companies keep trying.

development has gotten way to expensive and time consuming so they've turned to this model to make a better return.

A live service can print money if they take off... But thats a big IF and the live service market only really has space for so many successes

So every company is trying to make it big with a success and am throwing every game they can at it in hope that one of them might succeed and hit the jackpot

you can keep making money without making new games

Because most game studios are run by dumb suits chasing after trends two years past their expiration dates due to development time.

apocalyptic_4 posted...

Live service is barely sustainable with the big games already like Fortnite, Cod and Destiny but the money they make from it over that period of time seems to be worth the high failure rate so companies keep trying.

development has gotten way to expensive and time consuming so they've turned to this model to make a better return.

This is a good point. Traditional game development is far more expensive than it once was, at least if you want to keep up with AAA production values. Selling some kind of add-on content is usually necessary for a game to be profitable. At what point you want to say that crosses over into being a live service model is debatable.

UnsteadyOwl posted...

At what point you want to say that crosses over into being a live service model is debatable.

Yeah, it's interesting that people are so upset about something that doesn't really have a set definition. At what point does post launch support become a negative?

These companies want w piece of the pie with none of the effort. They should learn from every live service game that dies rather than committing the same mistakes over and over. Eh, better for me I guess, hate those kind of games.

DepreceV2 posted...

Just make a good game that isnt a live service and people will buy it.

but they can also make a not-good game that is live service and even more people will spend money on it, consistently, for a longer period of time

so...

Money i think

Cosmetics cost the price of having an artist and modeler work on something for a few hours, so they have ridiculously high profit margins.

There, that's the reason.

GuerrillaSoldier posted...

but they can also make a not-good game that is live service and even more people will spend money on it, consistently, for a longer period of time

so...

Thats if the game can pull in gamers from other live service games. If they cant do that then the game dies before people will spend money. Weve seen countless examples of this