Table of Contents[Hide][Show]
We exist in an ever-changing gaming landscape, and the changes that have happened over the course of a short period of time have made many wonder whether gaming is truly heading in the “right direction” or not. One of the biggest detriments to the gaming industry right now is arguably the “games as a service” platform that many developers and publishers are attempting to make happen more and more. Live-service games may have started out as a “niche” thing, but now, it’s everywhere, and while there are some “fair times” to use such things, many would argue that it’s evolved into a monstrous practice.
How It All Started…
For the longest time, and we do mean that, video games only had one kind of release method: all at once. Whether it was a handheld game, a console title, or an arcade cabinet, game developers had to release their games all at once, or not at all. After all, both then and now, no one wants to play a broken game at launch. Gaming companies even had to close up shop at times because they would make a game, send in the wrong gold disc, and pay the ultimate price.
However, when the 2000s hit, and the internet grew to be a more dominant presence in our world, certain things…changed. Specifically, technology had grown powerful enough that developers could do more over time versus all at once to deliver better, grander experiences. At least, in theory.
The ones that arguably popularized this the most are the MMORPG genre. These games, like World of Warcraft, were subscription-based titles that you had to pay a monthly or yearly fee for, but in return for doing that, you had access to all manner of updates, big and small. Sometimes, it would be fixes to the gameplay, or some new content to enjoy, like mounts. Other times, there would be full-on story content for you to enjoy, or new raids to take on with your friends.
This opened up the doors to things like “Expansion Content,” where developers could release the main game, and then build things on top of that main title so that gamers would keep playing over a longer period. That, in many ways, was the rise of DLC, or downloadable content, which is a type of live-service that we see done to this day.
Depending on how it’s done, expansions and DLC can make a great game even better, and certain titles have legitimately improved due to this method.
Then, live-service took a step that would change it forever…for better and for worse.
The Rise of Free-To-Play Titles
Much like how video games used to only have “one release method,” they also used to have one payment method…pay in full to get the game.
And that was fair! Because these games cost a lot to make, you needed to pay for them in one form or another to enjoy them. Fair’s fair, right? When the internet came about, things slowly started to change. There were websites where you could play small titles for free without issue. These were a “novelty” in many respects because they were simple titles to prove that certain people could make games, and they just wanted people to have fun.
However, the true shift in the live-service part of the gaming industry happened when certain developers tested out the “Free-To-Play” model. As the name suggests, you can play the game for free without issue, and then, if you want to spend money on things, it would be additional content like skins, weapons, customizable elements, and so on.
Obviously, the biggest one of the bunch both then and now is Fortnite. That game makes a killing and was the inspiration, for better and for worse, for many of the free-to-play titles that you see out in the world right now. The core gameplay loop is addictive, but most people play it to dress up as their favorite video game, movie, TV, anime, or comic characters and see them dancing and shooting guns at other players.
Since that title “took over,” many have been trying to knock it off its podium, with limited success. Yet, there are plenty of AAA titles that aren’t free-to-play that also embrace the “microtransaction model” to, in their minds, “elevate the experience.”
To be fair, there are titles that do this in the right way, including offering free content to gamers for them to enjoy via “seasons.”
Yet, the more this has gone on, the more that gamers are realizing that this method isn’t always about improving the games, but instead, about increasing the profit for certain developers and publishers.
Live Service = Money > Quality
Here’s the thing: while not all live-service games are bad, that doesn’t mean that every video game needs to be a live-service title in any meaningful way. Just look at certain recent titles across the single-player and multiplayer arenas, and you’ll see great sales that have nothing to do with live-service or monetization at all. Nintendo is big on that, as they always try to make quality games right at the start, and the only true “live service” games they have are ones with DLC fighters, which every fighting game has nowadays, and their beloved ink-shooting title, Splatoon, which gives away free content regularly and only asks for pay for expansion content.
In contrast, companies like EA, Microsoft, Sony, Bandai Namco, and many, MANY others sometimes litter their games with microtransaction content to the point that it’s downright predatory. You might recall a certain Battlefront 2 game by DICE that was so predatory that it was a “pay-2-win” system, and even the US Congress got involved in that fiasco.
Or how about Suicide Squad: Kill The Justice League? That game by Rocksteady was supposed to be their follow-up to the great trilogy they made with Batman, and yet, Warner Bros told Rocksteady to make it live-service focused…when they had never made a live-service game before! The game bombed hard and cost WB a LOT of money.
Think we’re done? Not even close. Tekken 8 by Bandai Namco was a highly anticipated title, and when it was released, it was really good! But, a month after launch, and after all the main sales and reviews had been placed, they started dropping all sorts of monetization content, and the fans have been calling them out ever since.
The problem here isn’t that the live-service model exists, but that it’s being abused to the point where many of the games that come out with live-service as the focus are terrible, die quickly, and then the teams are punished via layoffs when they’re not the ones to blame for going this route.
And notice we didn’t mention Concord here, which we really could’ve.
if things don’t change in a positive way, and live-service elements aren’t tailored to being MEANINGFUL to games again, then a lot of gamers and developers will continue to suffer because of bad choices.
