Current Events > Warner Bros. wants to double down on live service games

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/warner-bros-discusses-volatile-aaa-console-games-will-lean-into-free-to-play-and-mobile/1100-6521597/

During a recent Morgan Stanley speaking event, Warner Bros. Discovery gaming boss J.B. Perrette discussed some of the company's strategy for gaming going forward, and it includes more live-service, mobile, and free-to-play games.

He said, "We're doubling down on games as an area where we think there is a lot more growth opportunity that we can tap into with the IP that we have and some of the capabilities we have on the studio where we're uniquely positioned as both a publisher and a developer of games."

Perrette said WBD's recent gaming output has focused on AAA games for console, and that's great when a game like Hogwarts Legacy sells 22 million copies and becomes the best-selling game of the year, but this kind of success is never guaranteed in what Perrette said was a "volatile" market. He pointed out that one of WBD's latest big games, Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League, was a disappointment for the company.

So the plan going forward, he said, is to help reduce volatility by focusing on core franchises and bringing at least some of them to the mobile and free-to-play space, as well as continuing to invest in live-service games that people play--and spend money on--over a long period of time. This will help WBD generate more consistent revenue, he said, going on to tease that WBD had some new mobile free-to-play games coming this year. Also worth noting is that just because WBD may push into new places, that doesn't necessarily mean it will stop making big single-player AAA games.

"Rather than just launching a one-and-done console game, how do we develop a game around, for example, a Hogwarts Legacy or Harry Potter, that is a live-service where people can live and work and build and play in that world in an ongoing basis?" he said.

Yes, because that's exactly what the people who complained about these things want. Despite them showing they don't want them with how most of them fail.

Jupiter posted...

Despite them showing they don't want them with how most of them fail.

Success under capitalism doesn't mean that the product has to succeed/be good, just that the people supplying capital are getting more out of it than they started.

Imagine thinking the AAA game market is too volatile, so you decide to move towards mobile and live service games - which is historically volatile.

ellis123 posted...

Success under capitalism doesn't mean that the product has to succeed/be good, just that the people supplying capital are getting more out of it than they started.

"What's popular and what's 'popular' are two different things." -JS Sterling

Doesn't surprise me. Companies keep trying to do the live service games because they see games like Fortnite making billions a year on microtransactions and they want in on that action. Hopefully these games fail enough that they start to feel that the risk outweighs that potential profit

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Their customers want GaaS.
The key there being that their customers are the shareholders. People who play the games are consumers.

Welp have fun making shitty games.

Live service is more volatile than a high concept Adaptation of a megaton property

I'll continue not giving them money I guess

These guys have really sucked ass for such a long time

It's like watch Gambling Addicts, they must keep "Doubling Down" on the most riskiest ventures in gaming, just to see them fail.

This is your brain on MBA

Good to see they've learned a lesson from the Shadow of War and Battlefront 2 debacle.

Unfortunately it was the wrong lesson.

Imagine if they sold battle passes or some other pre-order shit to you, only for the game to be canceled before launch for a tax writeoff.

From a purely greedy personal standpoint this makes sense for a company that holds so many licenses, especially with other entertainment media tie-ins.

Perhaps they will start with cancelling their games for tax returns?

Live Service/Mobile is more volatile than AAA but they can churn out those shitty half-assed "games" packed with MTX a lot more cheaply which is what all that business bullshit language was actually saying.

It really sucks to see WB killing Monolith...

WB is extremely bad at making money

KFHEWUI posted...

It really sucks to see WB killing Monolith...

I still want a 3rd Condemned game. I don't care if it doesn't end up being as good as 1, just let them finish their story.

Of course, this would require someone worth a damn buying Monolith. And I just don't see that happening.

industry crash when

Jupiter posted...

an area where we think there is a lot more growth opportunity

Translation: we don't want people to spend $70 on games. We want people to spend $700 on games.

Studio suits not understanding the market example # 8,013,447.

Biggest sales success of the entire year is a single player game and almost all the other big games outside the usual annual sports/COD are single player or have (often) somewhat tacked on co-op but are not even remotely live service

Baldu's Gate 3
Spider-Man 2
Super Mario Wonder
Legend of Zelda Tears of the Kingdom
Resident Evil 4
Final Fantasy XVI
Star Wars Jedi Survivor

And many of the evergreens, successsful new AA titles or breakout budget/indies are traditional or single player focused

Pikmin 4
Super Mario RPG
Suika Game
Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild(6 years old, zero multiplayer, still sells 2m+ a year)
Dead Space
Armored Core VI
Sea of Stars
Lethal Company
High-Fi Rush
Etc.

Its also worth noting "Live Service" doesn't need to be strongly monetized to bring in money. Monster Hunter drops a year or so of free updates, some tacked on cosmetics for pocket change, then does a huge paid expansion, and another year of dlc and tacked on cosmetics. Elden ring does balance patches and an arena, drops a meaty paid expansion just like games used to do instead microtransactions.

Splatoon just does it all for free except a single player expansion and maybe some bonus side content.

And they go "WE NEED MORE MEGA BUDGET LIVE SERVICE"

No. You need quality and follow ups. Live service isn't inherently bad but if you aren't already entrenched its too packed a space to make an impact. And it can't be obnoxious or too inorganic. People swallow nonsense from FIFA because their friends play it and they bought it every year for years. Something new has thrice the work to do in recruiting and keeping players.

Who is gonna play Warner Bros IP live service for years when COD, Fortnite, Genshin/Star Rail, Roblox, EA FC, Fighting games, MMOs and phone games etc got like 95% the playerbase already? And you have Nintendo, Monster Hunter etc. eating most the less aggresive live service market?

People want Batman solving crime, teaming up or beating thugs up not Batman using his bat credit card to get batbucks.

Dark_Arbron posted...

Their customers want GaaS.
The key there being that their customers are the shareholders. People who play the games are consumers.

Yeah, you're right.

And to be honest, that's the way I want it. I stopped buying games a couple of years ago when they went to shit. These days I buy software companies instead.

And yeah, I want dividends 4 times a year, not just once.

Deyestus posted...

I still want a 3rd Condemned game. I don't care if it doesn't end up being as good as 1, just let them finish their story.

Of course, this would require someone worth a damn buying Monolith. And I just don't see that happening.

Monolith no longer owns Condemned. Jace Hall, creator of the series, bought the IP.

https://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2015/02/02/condemned-creator-contemplating-outsourcing-franchise.aspx

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Right? This is a problem when you create games to please shareholders instead of people who actually play your games. This is why I say you know it's a problem when you have execs who have zero knowledge of the gaming market know predatory terms like "loot boxes", "gatchas", "season passes", etc. They know what makes money, but they don't know what makes a good game.

Deyestus posted...

I still want a 3rd Condemned game. I don't care if it doesn't end up being as good as 1, just let them finish their story.

Of course, this would require someone worth a damn buying Monolith. And I just don't see that happening.

Condemned was such a unique and fun game.

They have been trying to kamikaze themselves since Zack Snyder fucked up the movieverse

The companies that do this dont understand what Fortnite does that makes it so successful lol

The only company that seems to is hell divers 2 but the jury is still out for them

I4NRulez posted...

The companies that do this dont understand what Fortnite does that makes it so successful lol

It doesn't do anything to make it successful. It just got lucky. Once you build momentum you get more coverage and you're the biggest by default (see eBay, Facebook, even Windows).

But still, 80% of live service games fail to make a profit. Just like 80% of product games fail to make a profit. The only difference is the amount of money per player is open-ended, with no upper limit.