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

How about make a full fledged game first, make people fall in love with it AND THEN work on adding things into your game as GAAS.

It's ok to take some time after your initial release. Case in point, DIVISION 2.
Rather than trying to release barebone product with the main Menu screen looking like a PS-Store page.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
one game 4 remasters and ports of old games
Click to expand...
The golden age of gaming has already passed, hasn't it?

eShM7WbpEouJX8u91G95a1nQraXF9T2Rh_Qq4tyBERQ.png
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
A new age is just beginning to dawn.
Click to expand...
New ≠ good

I just see the output of most devs, mixed with their quality and the GaaS, and I can't help but thinking that gaming is at an all time low.

PS2/GameCube/xbox was the best generation ever. The output and quality was on a whole other level. Look at how many NEW games Rockstar made that generation, compared to last generation, or this current one.
 
A lot of it is issues on how they treat gaps in between gaming, returning players, and new players.

They use FOMO events and battle passes. Like good luck coming back to Destiny 2 after a year long hiatus.

These games would be better off and players COULD go try out a variety throughout a year when the mood hits, if they are designed from the get go to not be a fear of missing out simulator.
 
Yeah, no fucking shit.

If any of these devs took the time to review World of Warcraft and the collapse of nearly all of it's imitators, that's all the evidence you would need to know the pitfalls and risks of live service games. Those being:

1) Money is finite. Gamers cannot afford to buy every season pass and every micro transaction for every live service game.

2) Time is finite. Gamers can only play so many live service games at once.

3) Live service games that are late to market have to compete with other live service games that are already well entrenched and have to spend tons of money getting the new games up to the same level of quality.

4) Much of the appeal of live service games is the social aspect. Gamers will hang around whatever games their friends are playing or at least what is popular. Once a new live service game has a reputation of a low player count, people will not join and more people will rapidly leave it.

In summary, good luck convincing someone to give up a game that they've invested hundreds or thousands of hours and dollars into and in which they have an active social circle and which has had years of a head start getting fully functional and optimized.
 
Last edited:
FoxMcChief said:
New ≠ good

I just see the output of most devs, mixed with their quality and the GaaS, and I can't help but thinking that gaming is at an all time low.
Click to expand...

My thing is sound. If you recorded the voices of people playing modern GAAS games and compared it to the sound of someone playing... God of War Ragnarok for example, it's night and day. Art that elicits emotion is excellence distilled.

FoxMcChief said:
PS2/GameCube/xbox was the best generation ever. The output and quality was on a whole other level. Look at how many NEW games Rockstar made that generation, compared to last generation, or this current one.
Click to expand...

Prediction: As the old AAA model withers and dies, single player will get back on track and value innovation and creativity in the next 5 - 10 years. We just have to get through the momentum of these modern dinosaurs.
 
Griffon said:
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.
Click to expand...
This assumes that publishers have the goal of making quality games. Modern publishers don't have this goal. Their goal is to gather as much money as possible from the market using whatever method possible to prove constant growth to investors.

There used to be publishers that would do as you suggest, but they have since been acquired and merged into the handful of large publishers who have different definitions of success.
 
Live service games = boring standard gameplay to make money = players won't stay around for long, so it should be more than 70% that are worrying in reality.
 
ChorizoPicozo said:
is more sustainable than than one game per generation that's for sure
Click to expand...

It is if things click. If they don't the GaaS model is far more damning than the traditional model.

In the traditional model a game with a decent budget that misses targets still has a chance to breakeven down the road, via discounted sales etc. Many live service games in a similar scenario simply disappear all together. Look at Kill the Justice League, the studio spent years on that thing and I wouldn't be surprised if the plug gets pulled on that one faster than it did Avengers. At that point there is literally nothing left, whereas a game like Arkham Knight is still for sale today.

When these games hit and develop a bit of a whale culture they can be huge, when they miss they fall to absolute zero.
 
DaGwaphics said:
It is if things click. If they don't the GaaS model is far more damning than the traditional model.

In the traditional model a game with a decent budget that misses targets still has a chance to breakeven down the road, via discounted sales etc. Many live service games in a similar scenario simply disappear all together. Look at Kill the Justice League, the studio spent years on that thing and I wouldn't be surprised if the plug gets pulled on that one faster than it did Avengers. At that point there is literally nothing left, whereas a game like Arkham Knight is still for sale today.

When these games hit and develop a bit of a whale culture they can be huge, when they miss they fall to absolute zero.
Click to expand...
the issue is that these single player games are taking longer to make and are more expensive.

Devs can't keep up with the demand of the technology and the economics simply don't add up.
 
Live Service games are basically becoming glorified Interactive shops to spend money on meaningless digital crap.

When you develop a game and the core design is on 'how to get people to spend more and more money every month' then you're doing game development wrong...and it's starting to show and gamers are getting tired of it.
 
DaGwaphics said:
When these games hit and develop a bit of a whale culture they can be huge, when they miss they fall to absolute zero.
Click to expand...
Actually, you're missing out on the everything in-between. It's not just "mega hit" or "zero".

For example, how much money did Velan Studios (Knockout City) make before closing up shop? This is what the studios co-founder said...

"So the competitive environment changed for pricing. It sold fairly well but not well enough to as a mid-price premium title to continue to support an additional flow of content," the developer explained."
 
Not as good as 100% but ill take it. I wish someone reminded these devs that sometimes its ok to give up if youre too worried. I do it all the time
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
I'd argue we're still in the middle of AAAs brown age as the biggest companies rely more and more on IP to do numbers. Something has to shake that lose and it's going to be pain from competition.
Click to expand...
Not IP but rather brand recognition. Elden Ring was a new IP but it sold like it did because it relied on From Software's brand of game, their name also helped AC6 sell tons despite being a fairly obscure genre in a series that never sold much outside of japan. Baldurs Gate 3 was also immensely propeled by Larian's success with their Divinity OS venture, more so than the BG IP (which is rather niche all things considered) or D&D (plenty of other D&D games that don't sell nearly as much).

No new company with 0 experience of making games will be able to create something brand new that will "shake" the industry. They build those over time like the examples i just gave. Another great example in a smaller scale is New Blood Interactive, who almost single-handledy helped revive old genres that were more or less dead with renewed life.
 
Yeah, I'm part of the problem keeping them from raking in the cash by playing Phantasy Star Online: Blue Burst on a private server.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
Actually, you're missing out on the everything in-between. It's not just "mega hit" or "zero".

For example, how much money did Velan Studios (Knockout City) make before closing up shop? This is what the studios co-founder said...

"So the competitive environment changed for pricing. It sold fairly well but not well enough to as a mid-price premium title to continue to support an additional flow of content," the developer explained."
Click to expand...

It just becomes a question of what if anything did they really accomplish with that. How big of a failure was it if they couldn't even keep the existing content online. Keep in mind that there are games that maintain servers years after release.

The absolute zero is the end state, these things end when they fail.
 
Last edited:
Guilty_AI said:
Not IP but rather brand recognition. Elden Ring was a new IP but it sold like it did because it relied on From Software's brand of game, their name also helped AC6 sell tons despite being a fairly obscure genre in a series that never sold much outside of japan. Baldurs Gate 3 was also immensely propeled by Larian's success with their Divinity OS venture, more so than the BG IP (which is rather niche all things considered) or D&D (plenty of other D&D games that don't sell nearly as much).

No new company with 0 experience of making games will be able to create something brand new that will "shake" the industry. They build those over time like the examples i just gave. Another great example in a smaller scale is New Blood Interactive, who almost single-handledy helped revive old genres that were more or less dead with renewed life.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'd consider the golden age of SP to be somewhere between the PS1 / N64 through PS3 / 360 generations. Companies used to take more risks at that time because bets paid off at significantly higher rates back then.

I could see a things turning around in 5+ years.
 
DaGwaphics said:
It just becomes a question of what if anything did they really accomplish with that. How big of a failure was it if they couldn't even keep the existing content online. Keep in mind that there are games that maintain servers years after release.

The absolute zero is the end state, these things end when they fail.
Click to expand...

I don't love that definition because plenty of successful multiplayer games get shut down.

It really just boils down to level of investment vs level of income, not really server status.
 
They have to balance a fine-line between greedy/grindy with fun and repeatable content for player retention. Helldivers is a good one as of late.
 
Shake Your Rump said:
This assumes that publishers have the goal of making quality games. Modern publishers don't have this goal. Their goal is to gather as much money as possible from the market using whatever method possible to prove constant growth to investors.

There used to be publishers that would do as you suggest, but they have since been acquired and merged into the handful of large publishers who have different definitions of success.
Click to expand...

Yet Nintendo is more successful than ever. And last I looked, games like Hogwart Legacy, Zelda TotK and Elden Ring broke records in copies sold. Hogwarts fucking managed to even beat Call of Duty in 2023.

If Warner Bros and co are just too stupid to see that it still works (and always will), then too bad, someone else will take their place while they plummet with unsold trash live games.
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
Exactly.

I'd consider the golden age of SP to be somewhere between the PS1 / N64 through PS3 / 360 generations. Companies used to take more risks at that time because bets paid off at significantly higher rates back then.

I could see a things turning around in 5+ years.
Click to expand...
None of the companies that "shook the industry" back then were new either, vast majority had years of experience and multiple successful titles under their belt like Epic, Bungie Rockstar, Naughty Dog and Activision.

And i have to say, PS360 gen wasn't exactly known for taking risks. They take more risks today than they did back then. A lot of risk-taking from old gens was also simply due to not having many points of reference in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Guilty_AI said:
None of the companies that "shook the industry" back then were new either, vast majority had years of experience and multiple successful titles under their belt like Epic, Bungie Rockstar, Naughty Dog and Activision.

And i have to say, PS360 gen wasn't exactly known for taking risks.
Click to expand...
It's not about new company vs old company. It's about IP, production, and formula driving sales vs new ideas driving sales. Look at the GAAS landscape full of new IP and no name devs vs the AAA landscape today.
 
Griffon said:
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.
Click to expand...
😅 Honestly, it's this sort of sensible thinking that would baffle the industry. Their thinking is " all there cashes are belong to us" .it's just how it's extracted, either voluntarily, or rectally.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
Look at the GAAS landscape full of new IP and no name devs vs the AAA landscape today.
Click to expand...
Where? The vast majority of largely successful games in GAAS land come from companies with experience in the medium - and often experience with GAAS and MP games themselves.

Blizzard, Rockstar, Bungie, mihoyo, Epic, Valve, Gamefreak, Bethesda... the only "no name dev" that got extremely successful with a MP/GAAS overnight i can think of is PUBG Company and... thats about it.
 
Last edited:
Guilty_AI said:
Where? The vast majority of largely successful games in GAAS land come from companies with experience in the medium - and often experience with GAAS and MP games themselves.

Blizzard, Rockstar, Bungie, mihoyo, Epic, Valve, Gamefreak, Bethesda... the only "no name dev" that got extremely successful with a MP/GAAS overnight i can think of is PUBG Company and... thats about it.
Click to expand...

The GAAS landscape is littered with new IP and a frequent rejection of established IP (Suicide Squad) due to the value players put in innovation and gameplay first.

Modern AAA is the direct inverse of that.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
The GAAS landscape is littered with new IP and a frequent rejection of established IP (Suicide Squad) due to the value players put in innovation and gameplay first.

Modern AAA is the direct inverse of that.
Click to expand...
All this "litter" comes from small studios with lower budgets obtaining varying degrees of success, often with it veering towards "none at all".

Making a fair comparison with Single Player games, its a fairly similar landscape aside from the fact more SPs find a good degree of success.
 
Last edited:
Guilty_AI said:
All this "litter" comes from small studios with lower budgets obtaining varying degrees of success, often with it veering towards "none at all".

Making a fair comparison with Single Player games, its a fairly similar landscape aside from the fact more SPs find a good degree of success.
Click to expand...
Not even you believe that lol

To put it to you another way...

Helldivers 2 (irrelevant IP)
Concord (new IP)
Marathon (irrelevant/new IP)
Fairgame$ (new IP)

When's the last time PlayStation leaned on IP that little with their SP efforts? You'd probably have to go back to some time in the PS2 generation.

Also, don't be surprised when most of their other GAAS titles are new IP as well.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
Helldivers 2 (irrelevant IP)
Click to expand...
From an experienced studio.
Men_in_Boxes said:
Concord (new IP)
Click to expand...
Unreleased, know nothing about
Men_in_Boxes said:
Marathon (irrelevant/new IP)
Click to expand...
Unreleased, know nothing about
Men_in_Boxes said:
Fairgame$ (new IP)
Click to expand...
Unreleased, know nothing about


Men_in_Boxes said:
When's the last time PlayStation leaned on IP that little with their SP efforts? You'd probably have to go back to some time in the PS2 generation.
Click to expand...
Horizon Zero Dawn, from the PS4. Also, Returnal more recently. And yet to be released but already generating lots of hype, Stellar Blade.
 
The one and real problem with that PoS GaaS model is the constantly rotating/FOMO content.
I would have much less problem if the deal was to simply add content, not remove it.
That is my major gripe against it and the main reason i don't buy GaaS games. I hate being unable to get all content from a game i purchased.
 
Last edited:
Guilty_AI said:
From an experienced studio.

Unreleased, know nothing about

Unreleased, know nothing about

Unreleased, know nothing about
Click to expand...
You misunderstand.

PlayStation knows this business. Why are so many of their GAAS games new IP and so many of their AAA games established IP?

Because they know what's obvious. Multiplayer gamers don't care about IP. Single player gamers do. Clear as day to see.

Guilty_AI said:
Horizon Zero Dawn, from the PS4. Also, Returnal more recently. And yet to be released but already generating lots of hype, Stellar Blade.
Click to expand...

Those 3 titles (2017 - 2024, 7 years) were interspersed with a number of big IP AAA games from PlayStation. You're still doing the cherry picking thing rather than viewing the landscapes based on rates & percentages.
 
Men_in_Boxes said:
I don't love that definition because plenty of successful multiplayer games get shut down.

It really just boils down to level of investment vs level of income, not really server status.
Click to expand...

They do. But then we are talking about traditional multiplayer servers getting shutdown many years, sometimes decades after launch. Far Cry 3 launched in 2012 and got shutdown in 2022 as one example, NFS Carbon was shutdown in 21 (released way back in 2006), that is a completely different thing. If you didn't earn enough to bother giving the titles a legacy of any kind, it says a lot. Players are starting to take these lessons home, as now they realize that what they spend outside of the juggernauts is mostly just thrown away.
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
Those 3 titles (2017 - 2024, 7 years) were interspersed with a number of big IP AAA games from PlayStation. You're still doing the cherry picking thing rather than viewing the landscapes based on rates & percentages.
Click to expand...
Two more than Helldivers 2, which is all you got so far really 🤷‍♂️. Btw theres also Rise of the Ronin coming up, and between 2017-2024 there was also Death Stranding, Days Gone, Ghosts of Tsushima, Dreams and Detroit: Become Human, so its actually 9 brand new IPs in 7 years.
 
Last edited:
Guilty_AI said:
Two more than Helldivers 2, which is all you got so far really 🤷‍♂️. Btw theres also Rise of the Ronin coming up, and between 2017-2024 there was also Death Stranding, Days Gone, Ghosts of Tsushima, Dreams and Detroit: Become Human, so its actually 9 brand new IPs in 7 years.
Click to expand...
And what did the performance of those titles lead PlayStation to conclude?

Days Gone - Move Bend to new IP GAAS
Rise of the Ronin - Bomba, also not made by PlayStation.
Death Stranding - Fair, although how much was based on Hideo Kojimas name?
Ghost of Tsushima - Fair
Dreams - Bomba
Detroit Become Human - PlayStation servers ties with studio.

So again, look at the percentages. You skipped a lot of established IP released in the last 7 years too. New IP has a really poor track record in modern AAA SP.

What you're looking at is likely...

GAAS: 80% new IP, 20% established IP.
AAA SP: 20% new IP, 80% established IP.

As I said, night and day.
 
Last edited:
Men_in_Boxes said:
GAAS: 80% new IP, 20% established IP.
Click to expand...
You have a whooping 1 case example with Sony... now, there are other GAAS examples from them if you think hard about.

Gran Turismo -> Estabilished IP
Predator: Hunting ground - Estabilished IP + Bomba
MLB The Show -> Estabilished IP
Helldivers 2 -> Irrelevant Ip

So its actually more like 25% new IP vs 75% estabilished ones.
 
Guilty_AI said:
You have a whooping 1 case example with Sony... now, there are other GAAS examples from them if you think hard about.

Gran Turismo -> Estabilished IP
Predator: Hunting ground - Estabilished IP + Bomba
MLB The Show -> Estabilished IP
Helldivers 2 -> Irrelevant Ip

So its actually more like 25% new IP vs 75% estabilished ones.
Click to expand...
You have to go back all the way to when PlayStation didn't take Live Service seriously (plus include a 2024 game lol) to build a case.

Nevertheless, I don't think you actually believe any of this, so good show.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GDC's annual State of the Game Industry survey reveals 1/3 of 'triple-A developers' are working on live service games
2 3
131
7K
MagnesD3 replied
Halo live-service multiplayer game "releasing in 2026" - Rebs Gaming
2
57
155
RetroGamingUK replied
[GamesIndustry.biz] 87% of game developers are using AI agents in their workflows, says new survey
Business Game Dev 
47
1K
Loomy replied
[VGC] Former Call of Duty director says he’s ‘immensely worried’ about the future of the series under Xbox
2
89
251
Walliwallipaloo replied
Ex PlayStation Boss Shawn Layden says "Live Service games are not real games"
2 3
104
219
crackajack replied
Top Bottom