Support NeoGAF

[Thick Thighs Save Lives]

As part of a new survey carried out by Game Developer, 600 developers were interviewed between February and March and asked a number of questions about business models and monetisation in video games.

Participants were asked how concerned they were about the sustainability of live service business models commonly being used today.

Of those asked, 39% said they were “somewhat concerned”, while a further 31% said they were “very concerned”. A quarter said they weren’t concerned, while the remaining 4% didn’t know.

Live service games are generally defined as those which continue to provide regular content after a game has been released – such as regular seasons with Battle Passes, for example – in an attempt to keep the player engaged and, ultimately, encourage continued spending on the game through microtransactions or subscriptions.

Of those surveyed who said they were either somewhat or very concerned about the model’s sustainability, around two thirds said they were worried about players losing interest in live service games, or that competition from other live service games would affect theirs.

Rising user acquisition costs and development costs were also cited as concerns.

Last month Warner Bros Discovery reiterated its plans to increase focus on live service and free-to-play games.

Speaking at a Morgan Stanley conference, the company’s CEO of global streaming and games JB Perrette said its four main IP – Mortal Kombat, Game of Thrones, DC and Harry Potter – will be involved in these plans.

“The opportunity is to take those four franchises and be able to develop a much more holistic approach, particularly around expanding into the mobile and multiplatform free-to-play space, which could give us a much better and consistent set of revenue,” he said. “And you’ll see us launching later this year some mobile free to play games, which we hope will start building that.”

“And then secondarily live services, so rather than just launching a kind of one and done console game, how do we develop a game around, for example, Hogwarts Legacy or Harry Potter, that is a live service where people can come today and live and work and build and play in that world on an ongoing basis?”

A developer who worked on Knockout City also said last month that developers should consider releasing modified ‘private server’ versions of their live service games when they eventually shut down, in order to preserve them and make them playable in the future.

70% of developers worry about the live service model’s sustainability, survey shows | VGC

Nearly a third are “very concerned” about the future of the trend…

www.videogameschronicle.com

 

[balls of snow]

Devs finding out gamers have only 24 hours a day like every other human on Earth.

 

[DeathGuise]

100% of gamers are sick and tired of their lazy asses. Look at this study I found

 

[Kacho]

Obligatory Men_in_Boxes

 

[Danknugz]

live service games to me have their origin in marketing and business decisions to eek out as much revenue as possible from loser gamers who have no lives and want to spend all their time leveling up in literally one game and all the social clout that comes with it. it makes sense they will die out because the design doesn't come from a place of authentic ingenuity.

 

[Saber]

Well no shit. Most of live service games fails in crutial aspects like player retention and appeal. A player is never loyal to your game, if a better competitor arrives in the scene they can jump to them easly. So if you didn't please them and does not give them engaging content the churn rates will absurdly increases.
I guess they are starting to discover the phase of reality, that creating a sucessful live service is not as easy as the black suits think. It's a very high risk high reward thing, thats why a great amount of them fails, while just a few are sucessful.

 

[th4tguy]

Just look at the mmo phase the industry went through when wow was blowing up the scene. It’s the same deal. For the few projects that it works for, you have dozens that were driven to shutdown because of it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

RIP

 

[Northeastmonk]

I don’t know how they would survive. A lot of them seem to exist for the sole purpose of filling some time gap. It might be good for a week, but was it worth spending millions to develop?

I don’t see myself spending a lot of time on a service game beyond a couple play sessions or not even trying it. It’s not appealing when there’s so much to play with limited time.

Just look at the mmo phase the industry went through when wow was blowing up the scene. It’s the same deal. For the few projects that it works for, you have dozens that were driven to shutdown because of it.

It also felt like people would still buy that boxed expansion or pay for a game in general. A lot of it is word of mouth. If they’re relying on streamers then that’s possibly fewer copies if the game is some flavor of the week.

I won’t worry if these live service games cause these investors to lose millions. IMO it was turning into or it was already one of the worst parts of gaming history. When greed took over.

 

[FeralEcho]

It's almost as if there are TOO many live service games that they are eating eachother's meals...Shocking,who could've seen that coming.

Gamers only have 24 hours a day to spread among 500 live service games,job and life? I'm so shocked...

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Devs finding out gamers have only 24 hours a day like every other human on Earth.

I can assure you the games industry knew about this phenomenon roughly 20+ years before gamers started parroting it ad nauseam.

Obligatory Men_in_Boxes

It's the big leagues. Every college and minor league player is worried if they can make it to and last in The Big Show. That's what the greats do.

95% of baseball players still want to try...

Report: 95% of studios are working on or aim to release a live service game

Sign up for the GI Daily here to get the biggest news straight to your inbox A new report from Griffin Gaming Partners …

www.gamesindustry.biz

Just look at the mmo phase the industry went through when wow was blowing up the scene. It’s the same deal. For the few projects that it works for, you have dozens that were driven to shutdown because of it.

Thats always been true, and yet, the Live Service industry has exploded since WoW first blew up. I wouldn't bet your house that it's going to stop anytime soon either.

 

[JCK75]

Good.. they should be..
I mean there are cases where it's a good thing (COD Warzone, Fortnite, Minecraft) and most other cases.. not so much.

 

[midnightAI]

I'm not worried about it

 

[Griffon]

Guys I have a genius idea. How about we sell a complete game with a finished amount of content, and if it does well enough, we follow up with another complete game with a finished amount of content, called a sequel.
That way we wont have to assume gamers will play our game forever, nor waste our precious dev time making awful grinds to keep them on.

 

[Boneless]

Yes, because its not what players want, which leads to higher acquisition costs as you really need to force it down their throats.

If you give players what they want (e.g. Elden Ring), you can thrive off of reputation and keep acquisition cost low AND thrive on loyalty.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Guys I have a genius idea. How about we sell a complete game with a finished amount of content, and if it does well enough, we follow up with another complete game with a finished amount of content, called a sequel.
That way we wont have to assume gamers will play our game forever, nor waste our precious dev time making awful grinds to keep them on.

We did that for 40+ years. It doesn't work nearly as good as it used to due to rising development costs and players preferring different game types.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Similar issues happen with AAA singleplayer as well.
Same can probably be said for AA and A games as well.

Kinda obvious. If you don't offer enough value for the money consumers spend, you're going to run into trouble.

 

[Bojji]

We did that for 40+ years. It doesn't work nearly as good as it used to due to rising development costs and players preferring different game types.

Most live service games fail. How that help development cost?

 

[OmegaSupreme]

 

[Griffon]

We did that for 40+ years. It doesn't work nearly as good as it used to due to rising development costs and players preferring different game types.

It still works, every year the majority of successful games are just that.

What really happened is that executive are foaming at the mouth when looking at Fortnite and other F2Ps. They don't just want good money, they want ALL the money. And that's how you end up with Suicide Squad.

 

[Killjoy-NL]

Most live service games fail. How that help development cost?

Most games fail, going by that logic.

Companies ought the find a balance between traditional games and GaaS. Just like Sony is trying to do now.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Killjoy-NL and Men_in_Boxes dunking on the Live Service haters...

 

[DaGwaphics]

Well no shit. Most of live service games fails in crutial aspects like player retention and appeal. A player is never loyal to your game, if a better competitor arrives in the scene they can jump to them easly. So if you didn't please them and does not give them engaging content the churn rates will absurdly increases.
I guess they are starting to discover the phase of reality, that creating a sucessful live service is not as easy as the black suits think. It's a very high risk high reward thing, thats why a great amount of them fails, while just a few are sucessful.

This. In a lot of ways the failure rates seem higher with this type of thing than standard development.

The windfall for a hit is just too large for them to resist however.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It still works, every year the majority of successful games are just that.

No no no.

See your attempt to reframe what I said with a slight twist of words?

"It doesn't work as well as it used to" is not "It doesn't work".

Obviously if you have a talented team with a massive budget and can use a big IP...it'll still work.

The problem is that it didn't require all 3 ingredients to be successful 10+ years ago.

 

[AJUMP23]

Killjoy-NL and Men_in_Boxes dunking on the Live Service haters...

In this photo you are number 12.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Most live service games fail. How that help development cost?

Most non Live Service games fail as well. How that help development cost?

 

[MonkeyClaw36]

Players losing interest in Live Service Games

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Guys I have a genius idea. How about we sell a complete game with a finished amount of content, and if it does well enough, we follow up with another complete game with a finished amount of content, called a sequel.
That way we wont have to assume gamers will play our game forever, nor waste our precious dev time making awful grinds to keep them on.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

In this photo you are number 12.

 

[Plague Doctor]

Many people have been saying this for years. The live service, GaaS model only works in specific games and use cases. Though, it shows potential in a pitch meeting to bring in a fuck ton by nickling and diming your customer base and the bosses love the concept of it. This has always been a cynical, borderline scam financial decision. For every one success story people can cite, there are 10 AAA Live Service bombs,

This shit is a gamble at best that has ruined studios and franchises.

 

[AJUMP23]

 

[Griffon]

No no no.

See your attempt to reframe what I said with a slight twist of words?

"It doesn't work as well as it used to" is not "It doesn't work".

Obviously if you have a talented team with a massive budget and can use a big IP...it'll still work.

The problem is that it didn't require all 3 ingredients to be successful 10+ years ago.

But service games require the same ingredients and even more for the live part, it's even less realistic nor sustainable on a much more limited market (limited as in it's a "winner takes all" market and will only sustain a dozen winners for several years).

 

[LordCBH]

I mean if you’re not one of the lucky 10-15 games that catch fire then you’re just throwing money away by making live service titles.

 

[MonkeyClaw36]

Most non Live Service games fail as well. How that help development cost?

But they have a set budget. Live service is a bottomless pit in which developers can throw money after release. Even if it helps the game or not.

Standard games are made with a budget and that's that. The potential loss is WAY higher with Live Service if the devs keep throwing money at it to save it's life.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

But service games require the same ingredients and even more for the live part, it's even less realistic nor sustainable on a much more limited market.

Helldivers wasn't a big IP
It didn't have a huge budget.
I'd argue Arrowhead isn't all that talented either.

0/3 ingredients. Still massive success.

We're early days in Live Service. You can still succeed based on a good idea and marginal execution. In the other space that doesn't happen anymore.

 

[nush]

What really happened is that executive are foaming at the mouth when looking at Fortnite and other F2Ps. They don't just want good money, they want ALL the money.

Typically with these type of investors for other businesses is that they will invest in say 10 companies knowing that most will fail. However if 1-2 succeed then that will make enough money to cover the losses of the ones that don't. That's what's happening here and as gamers we can see the waste of resources.

 

[Griffon]

Helldivers wasn't a big IP
It didn't have a huge budget.
I'd argue Arrowhead isn't all that talented either.

0/3 ingredients. Still massive success.

We're early days in Live Service. You can still succeed based on a good idea and marginal execution. In the other space that doesn't happen anymore.

There are hundreds of successful indie games on Steam every year. Most aren't live services. So yes, the market works very well without the arbitrary ingredients you thought of.
And most indies didn't cost nearly as much to make as Helldiver, which you call "small" but is still a pretty big team backed up by Sony itself.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

is more sustainable than than one game per generation that's for sure

 

[yurinka]

Similar issues happen with AAA singleplayer as well.
Same can probably be said for AA and A games as well.

And for indies too. And before F2P became popular, to paid mobile games too.

All type of games suffer from market saturation, and most of them (the ones who aren't from the most popular companies) lack of visibility too.

The issue it's the same: there's a lot of games out there and a lot more being released every month. So it's difficult for devs first to get noticed if aren't already popular, and then to find that players have enough time and budget to get their game.

Successful GaaS keep their players for longer, and playing many hours there. Meaning, players are spending money there (the amount of money a player invests in a GaaS normally is somewhat proportional to the time played on it) and not in other games. Which means that the more time players spend in this game, less has to invest less money on user acquisition or worry about it. But at the same time, players busy there means players are buying and playing less other games.

And well, this issue also applies for non-GaaS games: if you are buying and playing other non-GaaS this is money and time you aren't spending on their competition.

There are hundreds of successful indie games on Steam every year. Most aren't live services. So yes, the market works very well without the arbitrary ingredients you thought of.
And most indies didn't cost nearly as much to make as Helldiver, which you call "small" but is still a pretty big team backed up by Sony itself.

Most indie games don't even sell 10K copies, only a tiny portion are successful. Basically due to two reasons:

• They are too bad, or unappealing to the market
• They may be good enough for a market segment but lack visibility because of being overshadowed by other more popular games

The number of game releases increases every year in console, PC and mobile, getting more difficult to get noticed by the players and decreasing the average number of sales per game. Most indies don't even sell $10K copies nowadays, and the percentage of devs who sell more than that every year is smaller.

Most live service games fail. How that help development cost?

On average live service games generate substantially more money because of their addons revenue, and on average the percent of live service games that fail is smaller than in non-GaaS games.

In both cases there's a tiny percent of games who make most of the money. And most of the money in the market is made by a few dozen live service games.

So all big publishers try to get their successful GaaS. The thing is, GaaS requires extra gamedev skills and knowledge, plus importarnt server costs and post launch development costs, so not everybody can afford making a GaaS or know how to make it in a successful way.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

There are hundreds of successful indie games on Steam every year. Most aren't live services. So yes, the market works very well without the arbitrary ingredients you thought of.
And most indies didn't cost nearly as much to make as Helldiver, which you call "small" but is still a pretty big team backed up by Sony itself.

That is (partially) true.

There's still many more indie games that fail than succeed, but you are right if you're just talking about # rather than %.

Generally, I think NeoGAF is more geared towards the big AAA games so that's basically what I'm referring to.

 

[Draugoth]

Monster Hunter World created the optimal model for long term single player game monetization:

* Support a game for 2.5 years with free title updates and release optional cosmetic DLC that dont rotate

 

[DonkeyPunchJr]

Typically with these type of investors for other businesses is that they will invest in say 10 companies knowing that most will fail. However if 1-2 succeed then that will make enough money to cover the losses of the ones that don't. That's what's happening here and as gamers we can see the waste of resources.

I think that’s exactly it. It’s a “winner take all” scenario. They KNOW that most live service games will fail, but they only need to hit the jackpot once to make an insane profit.

They’re basically just gambling. And if they lose, hey, they can always lay people off and shut some studios down.

 

[Complistic]

No need to worry about live service games. We know 90% of them are DOA.

 

[Roman Empire]

I didn't hear anyone complaining while looking for their lightning in a bottle? It is just now that the well is drying up that they show "concern" over it.

 

[wipeout364]

Live service will end up like MMO’s, a few titles taking up all the oxygen with the rest left to suffocate. Every once in awhile someone with deep pockets takes a crack at a new one but with such high risk there is little innovation.

Pulling people off live service games is hard and the maintenance costs are essentially prohibitive for anyone other than companies that can lay out hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

[Braag]

Yeah, you'd have to be a dumb dumb not be. Live service games require a lot of time from the player, they also require a lot from the developers to have a steady stream of content to come out every month or so.
It's a fragile union among players and devs, cause players can quickly lose interest and abandon the game while developers are constantly under pressure to pump out content in time.

Just like when WoW was huge and everyone was making a MMO to rival WoW and 90% of them failed. Same will happen with majority of live service games.

 

[TheUsual]

I can't wait to hear game executives talk about their bold, new, and innovative direction of making single player games that respect the players time.

 

[FoxMcChief]

is more sustainable than than one game per generation that's for sure

Or one game and 4 remasters.

 

[hybrid_birth]

70% of gamers don't want to be fed live service bs.

 

[FoxMcChief]

70% of gamers don't want to be fed live service bs.

Ehhhh. You’ll never make “gamers” happy. Making money off the whales in that 30% would make plenty of devs happy.

Personally, I don’t give a shit. I don’t mind live services. They have a purpose and fulfill some players needs.