That's the question asked in this article:
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-live-service-game-bubble-looks-ready-to-burst/1100-6511171/#comments-block-33597461

A brief recap of what it says ('cause I know we're all to busy to
click on it and read it for ourselves ;-):

While some games - Fortnite in particular - are thriving, a number of
live-service games - including Knockout City, Anthem, Apex Legends
Mobile, Rumbleverse, Marvels Avengers - have closed or are closing
soon. Which ones live and which ones die seems disconnected from their
quality or value; even popular games with users numbering in the
millions are being shuttered. Is a sign that the live service 'bubble'
is going to soon burst? And what does that mean for the industry and
the hobby?

Now, the article makes a number of assumptions, the largest being that
there is a 'bubble' with live services. God knows I've little use for
games that (often pointlessly) embed live-services and
microtransactions into their games (often to the detriment of the
gameplay itself). There might be a bubble in people trading for the
hats and other cosmetics they get from these services (but probably
not), but the services itself? Probably built on far sturdier
foundations based on psychological manipulation tactics of getting
people to buy stuff they really don't want or need. If that's a
bubble, so is the almost the entirity of the Western economy.

Still, there article does - somewhat tangentially - bring up the fact
that these services aren't only demanding our money, but our time. In
order to get real value from these services, you have to dedicate much
more time to a game. A product like Fortnite might, ten or twenty
years ago, have occupied a player for a few hundred hours tops before
they moved on to a different game... now - with its hats and seasonal
passes - people play the same game for months or years. And if you
vary your gaming 'diet' a bit, there's only so many free hours in a
day that you can waste on games. Which means there's only so many
games you can play per year. Which means that - with live services -
people are going to buy fewer games.

All of which makes the market for games smaller, not larger. It's sort
of like how streaming video services (Netflix, HBO, Disney, etc.) have
expanded to the point where you have to select one or two. You just
can't afford - because of limited time or money - to have them all.
And then the services wonder why they're losing subscribers.

Except games - not backed by major media networks - have much smaller
margins and their developers can't afford to keep them running long
enough to establish an audience. Hence the closures.

So another reason to hate live-service games. But a bubble? Still
don't see it.

On 16/02/2023 01:13, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>
> That's the question asked in this article:
> https://www.gamespot.com/articles/the-live-service-game-bubble-looks-ready-to-burst/1100-6511171/#comments-block-33597461
>
> A brief recap of what it says ('cause I know we're all to busy to
> click on it and read it for ourselves ;-):
>
> While some games - Fortnite in particular - are thriving, a number of
> live-service games - including Knockout City, Anthem, Apex Legends
> Mobile, Rumbleverse, Marvels Avengers - have closed or are closing
> soon. Which ones live and which ones die seems disconnected from their
> quality or value; even popular games with users numbering in the
> millions are being shuttered. Is a sign that the live service 'bubble'
> is going to soon burst? And what does that mean for the industry and
> the hobby?
>
>
>
>
> Now, the article makes a number of assumptions, the largest being that
> there is a 'bubble' with live services. God knows I've little use for
> games that (often pointlessly) embed live-services and
> microtransactions into their games (often to the detriment of the
> gameplay itself). There might be a bubble in people trading for the
> hats and other cosmetics they get from these services (but probably
> not), but the services itself? Probably built on far sturdier
> foundations based on psychological manipulation tactics of getting
> people to buy stuff they really don't want or need. If that's a
> bubble, so is the almost the entirity of the Western economy.
>

I presume part of it was a bit of a clickbait title so although I don't
think the bubble has burst the great cull of 2023 (how many more are to
come) possible will make companies rethink the idea that they are the
never ending money tap they think they are and it's very much a winner
takes all market. For players, possibly it's another wake-up call that
is it a good idea to throw your money at a game when it can disappear
without the company batting an eyelid.

> Still, there article does - somewhat tangentially - bring up the fact
> that these services aren't only demanding our money, but our time. In
> order to get real value from these services, you have to dedicate much
> more time to a game. A product like Fortnite might, ten or twenty
> years ago, have occupied a player for a few hundred hours tops before
> they moved on to a different game... now - with its hats and seasonal
> passes - people play the same game for months or years. And if you
> vary your gaming 'diet' a bit, there's only so many free hours in a
> day that you can waste on games. Which means there's only so many
> games you can play per year. Which means that - with live services -
> people are going to buy fewer games.
>

Oh yes, the more time you can get a player to sink into a game (a boy
are live services games riddled with that) the more invested in it they
become along with all the money they also invested in their account. You
see it with World of Tanks where players who clearly are no longer
enjoying the game say things like they'll wait until their paid premium
time runs out before stopping (that's a bit like finding out you don't
like a book but reading it to the end anyway) or even just the simple,
they don't want to let go of all they've invested in their account.

> All of which makes the market for games smaller, not larger. It's sort
> of like how streaming video services (Netflix, HBO, Disney, etc.) have
> expanded to the point where you have to select one or two. You just
> can't afford - because of limited time or money - to have them all.
> And then the services wonder why they're losing subscribers.
>

Streaming services are definitely getting a bit out of hand with the
amount of them. As you say people only have so much time on their hands
so exactly how many do you need. IS it really worth taking out a
subscription just for that must have show?

> Except games - not backed by major media networks - have much smaller
> margins and their developers can't afford to keep them running long
> enough to establish an audience. Hence the closures.
>
> So another reason to hate live-service games. But a bubble? Still
> don't see it.
>