Topic: Live service future

So another week another acquisition, this time Square Enix selling off a large part of their western studios / IP. Various media outlets are reporting that the low sale price is due to the worth of the single player content traditionally made by these studios, and the fact that even something as big as Tomb Raider can't turn the profit of a live service game. Sony have said as much with their Bungie purchase, and the news that they are currently working on more than 10 live service games. It does seem that most of the industry is moving that way and that the sort of games that many of us love will take a back seat in pursuit of higher profit from always online, constantly evolving, MT driven experiences.

I don't play anything live service as such I'm not a big fan of this approach for various reasons. I find playing single player games I can experience lots of different genres, lots of different stories and worlds and in the most part experience some really tight gameplay and great story telling. I know you can get some of those things from live service games but you definitely can't get all of them. The live service ethos is to lock you into playing something long term, locking in your loyalty to that game so that you spend the majority of your time and money there. Destiny 2 is a good example as it sounds like if you haven't got into the game or dip out of it for any length of time then you are likely to miss out on content or in game items which, correct me if I'm wrong, might hinder your understanding of the universe or progress in the game.

I think most games are going to struggle with this and for me it would take a lot of the love out of gaming if all the games I enjoyed were run this way. I can't help thinking about how the games I enjoy would work as live service and what would tempt me over the fence. GT7 is as close as I've come so far as it's a great racing game and could be extended a load to include new events, championships, tracks etc. Some of those they are already doing but would I be prepared to pay additional money for them? I'm not sure I would but then perhaps if I hadn't paid for the game that might change things and yeah then I might buy a car or two if I could try them first, or maybe pay a small amount of cash to enter an event. But something like Horizon or Elden Ring, how do they work in a live service world. I can imagine that they could do additional content that's released to expand the world, and weapons and things could be earned through grinding or MTs but that would really take the fun out of finding those items or being given them by an NPC etc.

So to those that don't play anything live service - which single player game going live service would tempt you to play it, and what would get you to part ways with your hard earned? Try not to say things like "Hell will have to freeze over first" or "I'd sooner give up gaming" and try to think about what you'd find acceptable. For those that already play live service, do you spend any money on MTs and are you happy with the way your preferred live service game works?

@render I’ll play The Last of Us: Factions 2 (or whatever it ends up being called). I’d also play a bit of Warhawk/Starhawk if either were rebooted. Apart from that though I’m far more into single player experiences like yourself.

@render The only live service game I've spent money on microtransactions is Halo 5 though that was because I mistakenly thought some of the REQ packs (the game's loot boxes) were normal DLC rather than loot boxes.

Regarding preferred live service games, the ones where it's questionable whether it's actually live service (as a result of no microtransactions) are generally the ones I'm most happy with so like Splatoon 2 for example got plenty of free updates for new weapons, gear, maps and modes but the game doesn't have any microtransactions. Does that count as live service?

Most disappointing live service game I've played is Halo Infinite as there's not enough maps and modes so things get repetitive after a while. I did complete the free battle pass and the free event passes (there's achievements attached to both) though won't be bothering with that from Season 2 onwards.

I’m just not into the repetitive gameplay that most of these games rely on. I played The Division and the sequel but treated them mostly as single player games with the occasional bit of co-op.

I like variety of gaming experiences too much to get involved with these games. I loved Fall Guys when it first came out but had got bored of it before they even got to the first lot of new content.

I’m not sure how it would be possible to do live service on the games I predominantly enjoy really. They couldn’t really charge you extra for going to Caelid in Elden Ring.

Could they????

live service keeps me playing games longer and for something more to look forward to with games i enjoy . i have no problem spending money (MTX) on games that i like , it’s all for my enjoyment and i get my moneys worth because of the good time i’m having with the game .

i have no problem spending money on games i like . tbh , i rather just buy it anyway than grind for it .

The crazy thing is that only like 10% of these GAAS really do any real numbers. For every Fortnite and Rocket League there a bunch of games that fall flat on their face. I reckon that there’s a real chance that the more and more GAAS that release, the market for each will continue to be more and more elusive. All the while single player games (good ones at least) will remain healthy sellers.

@colonelkilgore well live service games have players playing for years and years whereas single players are significantly less time spent , even with DLC (which i think is live service too )

so it’s ok if some live services games flop at a higher rate than single players

@nomither6 so my point was that there are a lot of GAAS flopping now… imagine how many will flop as the industry becomes completely saturated.

@colonelkilgore @velio84 I'm with you on Factions 2 - especially as they've spent so long on it now. The world of TLoU is quite interesting in general and the game play is quite satisfying so hopefully that will shine through with the multiplayer. I'm kind of hoping that with these PS Studios live service games that they do something with PS+ where they either don't charge for the base game or they give you free stuff for subscribing.

@velio84 I didn't play the original version of Twisted Metal but I've heard good things so would be interested in giving that a go now you've mentioned it. I also think you've hit the nail on the head with regards to matchmaking as it should be something that takes into account the differing amounts of time people have to game.

@Grumblevolcano I've never sure how far the "live service" banner can be stretched. I guess in this sense I'm thinking about things that have constant additions to them over a fair few years but also include ways to monetise them past the initial purchase, as that's where the industry see their profit coming from. I had heard that Halo Infinite was having a job keeping hold of players at the moment so it's interesting that it seems to have put you off the game altogether. If there was a big content drop you can't see yourself going back?

@Thrillho Yeah I have the same trouble seeing how something like ER would still be attractive in the live service world. It would really destroy the game as a lot of that mystery could be simply bought away or if you did have to pay to play Caelid then it might just put a lot of people off, I mean who wants to pay for scarlet rot anyway!

@colonelkilgore @nomither6 It does seem like really low odds producing a live service game that's going to be successful. Less successful single player games can still go on to be relatively successful and played by people years after release, but a live service game that isn't successful just gets shutdown. From a developer point of view that must be soul destroying knowing you've put effort into something that just gets binned because enough people didn't get invested in it. Like you state colonel, the more of these types of games there are the less likely you are to succeed.

I think the only series that could get me playing a live service game would be Persona or Mass Effect.

But it would be a totally begrudging play. Like I'd play but I wouldn't be happy about it. Like being forced to go to a party you don't want to go to and trying to put a brave face on it kinda vibe.

The main lesson devs need to learn is that not everything needs to be live service. Even the new sports game on the Switch has become a live service game that funnels you into their paid online and has limited time customisation items. It’ll only get worse with the rise of NFTs.

@render It's not that I don't play it anymore, rather that the frequency I play is less so like Season 2 comes out today and I'll play it but within about a week I imagine I'll return to just playing a few matches here and there every so often.

@johncalmc Been to plenty of those parties so I know what you mean! I'd probably apply some alcohol to that problem though and things start to look a lot better, even if in reality they aren't.

@JohnnyShoulder Better let @Thrillho know you can buy access to Caelid 😅

@nessisonett If Nintendo, with a family game, are getting in on the act then you know things have gone to s***. I'd expect better of them but then it shows that they are willing to risk their reputation against making more money.

@Grumblevolcano That's probably not a bad thing as it gives you chance to play other things at least 😀

@render Yeah, I do sometimes miss the days of playing lots of Halo 3 and Halo Reach though. That said I did just remember a live service game I find a lot worse than Infinite, Chocobo GP.

It all comes down to the gameplay and how repetative it is. I personally don't like masses of repetition in games unless I feel it is building towards something. So, to give Elden Ring as an example, yes you do a lot of the same things but it always feels worthwhile. With many GAAS, there can be no real end but more of the same. I guess i like to finish things and then move on to the next thing.

This isn't a diss on those that like them but I do think the market is a lot smaller than publishers think. There is the opportunity for massive ongoing success but it is hard to achieve and even harder to maintain.

@Grumblevolcano That looks pretty awful. I guess that really shows the place that Square Enix find themselves in at the moment. They must be making a reasonable profit from something that essentially looks like a mobile game.

I mean compare that with something like Tomb Raider where there's years of work before they even get started on any coding. Then they've got all the mocap to do and assets to build. It's insane the amount of work that goes into a AAA game so to make more money off of, if you'll excuse me for simplifying, a Mario Kart knockoff I can totally get why they'd follow that path from a business perspective.

@lolwhatno It obviously does work for some people and some games and that's great. I agree with you to a certain extent on it not being the big bad guy that it's been made out to be either but there are certain publishers that have unfortunately not helped its cause e.g. EA with the FUT stuff in FIFA.

In general though live service games do rather stuff the monetisation aspect in your face somewhat, maybe not quite as bad as that Elden Ring video above but still enough to make them feel all the cheaper for it. Couple that with talk of big publishers looking at tech to inject adverts into games and soon it will look like going on YouTube where you can't watch a video without being hassled to buy something or sign up to their subscription service.

I’ve been thinking about my response to this, not sure how I could possibly spin things in a positive direction. My disdain for the live-service model is well documented. I don’t even like single player DLC, except in rare circumstances.

If I’m to evolve and keep up with the times, it’ll have to be with a strong story driven third person action game that I feel a close bond to. Avengers is probably the classic example, and I have flirted with buying it for a long time and it just hasn’t come down in price quite far enough. That, and I feel dirty whenever I consider spending money on it.

But some kind of similar third person Star Wars story driven game with monthly updates of new characters and chapters might get me involved. If you had a Fallen Order sequel with Cal’s follow up campaign, and then an update with another player’s storyline, and then another with the two meeting up together, and then a fourth season with a multiplayer battle, etc, etc. I don’t know.

I also am a big fan of Lord of the Rings and I think the IP hasn’t had much done since Shadow of War and something in that universe could draw me in.

I guess this is what they are doing with Gotham Knights and Suicide Squad: KtJL if I understand correctly. Those will be sort of multiplayer enhanced and probably have live-service elements. We’ll see how those go.

I still have it as a personal gaming goal for the year to try an online-centric, multiplayer, live-servicey game this year. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.

I am not at all bothered by Sony wanting to branch out from their Cinematic Single Player games that don;t really offer a 'big' reason to replay - and I am not talking about replaying or jumping back to play on higher difficulties, new game+ or to complete Trophies you missed.

I am referring to 'new' content - whether that's new story content, new activities (seasonal or otherwise), new ways to play etc. AC:Valhalla is an example of a Single Player, story driven game that has 'grown' over time and whilst the main 'DLC' is extra, there is still a lot of free new content and seasonal activities/quests for everyone.

I really do not see how that is a 'bad' thing. Not EVERY live service game is an Online MP game like Fortnite, Apex Legends etc. Hitman 2 was a GaaS title, delivering new maps over a period of time.

GaaS is not necessarily the same as F2P type models that are all about Selling the latest Cosmetics. They are games that are designed to offer those who 'enjoy' the game-play, more reason to return to do something 'new', something different, maybe even something related to the season (Halloween, Xmas etc) with new rewards etc.

Sony are known for their Single Player games and these will still continue - whether they also become GaaS as well or not, you can still play the entire Story content and 'finish' the game - not return for the free Halloween, Xmas etc seasonal content etc. But I really don't expect things to be radically different. It makes sense to 'expand' on the diversity of Games you deliver and not have to rely on 3rd Party Publishers to offset that lack of diversity. Sony are in a 'stronger' position than those as they are the Platform Holder too so don't need some of 'nefarious' business practices 3rd Party rely on. You have to remember they get far less per sale than Sony does as they have to pay Sony to release games on their platform, use their trademarks etc. Sony also gets the '30%' retailer profits for every game sold in their store so its far more 'profitable' without the need of NFT's, Loot Boxes etc...

Not every game appeals to everyone and whilst many may 'love' Single Player games and play those exclusively, many others enjoy a wide range of games, enjoy playing with friends etc so I think its better to have that Diversity and to ensure they do it right, it makes sense that they are targetting those with a lot of experience.

As they say, time will tell, but I'm not bothered by this at all as I'm sure that Sony will continue to make 'great' games that I'll want to play regardless of whether they are a Live Service or not...