GDC Report Claims Studios Are Embracing Live-Service Games Model In Abundance

Given how robust the gaming industry is, it’s not unfair that there are multiple “ways of viewing” video games as a whole. For example, it used to be common practice for them to be dedicated titles for console games and then handheld games, which both Nintendo and Sony took part in. Then, the handhelds “went away” when the mobile gaming market came in. That market dominates Japan, which is why physical game sales aren’t as abundant there. But one trend many people aren’t fans of is Live-Service Games, or titles that technically are released “in full” but have loads of content that come afterward that gamers need to pay for.

It’s that “monetization focus” that ticks gamers off because it shows that companies are trying to give as little as possible while getting as much money as they can. Yes, there are plenty of games that make a killing off such practices, but it still infuriates gamers because those games are MEANT to be that way in the overall, versus making games that don’t need it into “live-service machines.” We can all think of games that had that kind of thing, and its sucks. Capcom actually showed its hand on that matter yesterday.

But the reason we’re bringing this up is that a special GDC report was published and reported on by GameIndustry.biz that notes that of the 537 studios they interview, 95% of them are interested in doing Live-Service Games. Just as bad, 66% said that it was “vital” for the health of the gaming industry.”

“Multi-year game development forms production processes and pipelines that are intended to deliver a few key milestones in what is essentially a waterfall process. Production in live services, however, is a constant state of planning & adjusting game parameters to enhance player experience while designing and deploying new features to add new player value.”

While that SOUNDS like a good thing, we all know where this can lead. We’ve already seen robust gaming titles being bogged down with live-service crap in the past, and companies like Electronic Arts don’t learn lessons from that until they’re caught. Activision Blizzard was another company that tried the live-service model with one of their big game sequels, and it blew up in their face for various reasons.

The fear that gamers will have upon hearing this is that not only are we going to get more of these live-service titles, but they’ll take away from the “fully complete” games that are often actually good, and thus, we’ll get less of them, because the companies want “maximum profit.