Ubisoft insinuated this week that it cancelled production on a more "traditional" game in order to bolster the content pipeline for its suite of "live games" – titles like The Crew, Rainbow Six: Siege, and The Division which are being iterated upon with regularity. But while this is clearly the future that publishers see for the PlayStation 4, is it what you want?

First, let's define what these so-called "live games" actually are. It's perhaps easiest to point to the industry leaders right now: Destiny and Overwatch. Both games were actually criticised at launch for shipping with small amounts of content, but they've flourished since, seeing constant updates from their respective developers to keep them relevant and cultivate an engaged audience.

YouTube Video
Subscribe to Push Square on YouTube150k
Watch on YouTube

Consider Blizzard's gigantically popular first-person shooter: it's been augmented with themed events, extra maps, and even new heroes – all for free, fuelling a larger business model involving Loot Boxes. While Destiny has received big-budget expansions at retail, it's also been subject to a multi-year plan, which has seen everything from Sparrow Racing to festive events keeping the game feeling fresh.

Live Games PS4 PlayStation 4 1

And it's something that all publishers want in on, but is it what you want? For this author in particular, games have always been a bit disposable, and not in the negative sense. Moving from one game to the next is what many have done for decades now, the variety that the industry affords offering all sorts of different experiences that can be enjoyed and then set aside.

But it seems like the major publishers are less keen on creating those breadth of games, and want to keep you engaged with a handful instead. It begs the question: is that what you want – and can the industry even sustain a large number of these "live games"? It all feels reminiscent of the race in the MMO space, doesn't it? Many battled for World of Warcraft's crown, but few find their servers online today.

Publishers may argue that a small and dedicated audience is sustainable, and that may be true – but do you want new and original ideas to be cancelled while content quotas are filled for The Crew? It's an interesting discussion, isn't it – and it's one that's probably going to run and run. Make no mistake, fewer games with longer tails is the future that the majority of third-party publishers are looking to – but is it what you want?

Which "live games" do you find yourself returning to on a regular basis? Do you feel that you have room in your life for more than a couple of these? Do you like the idea of games living long beyond their launch date, or do you prefer the older model where software was more disposable? Drop a big update in the comments section below.

Are you a fan of the "live games" business model? (150 votes)

  1. Yes, I only buy a few games a year so this is perfect for me6%
  2. Hmm, it very much depends on the game37%
  3. No, not if it means less variety and original ideas I'm not57%

Please login to vote in this poll.

Which of the following "live games" do you currently play? (112 votes)

  1. Battlefield 119%
  2. Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare7%
  3. Destiny30%
  4. Overwatch19%
  5. Rainbow Six: Siege7%
  6. The Crew4%
  7. The Division14%
  8. Other  0%

Please login to vote in this poll.

[source bit.ly]