Is the era of "Live Service" games coming to an end? And are
publishers looking for new revenue models now that it is?

So postulates an article in Gameindustry.biz.* Admittedly, it's an
opinion piece but even so, it feels fairly sloppy reporting for what
is normally a fairly reputable trade magazine (or website). Because I
don't really see signs that live service games are a 'fad' and their
'moment has passed.' I mean, I wish it was true, but companies are
more and more investing into 'games as a service' in all its many
forms.

If there are diminishing returns, it's less because players are
turning away from the model (despite their vocal protestations against
it) and more because the market is becoming too saturated with the
'live service' games. Where once the billions of dollars gamers were
willing to spend on GAAS titles were spent on five or ten games a
year, now that money is spread across dozens or hundreds of titles.
But that problem isn't a sign of imminent collapse; it's a sign that
the market has matured.

The fact that "Suicide Squad" isn't doing well isn't a sign that
people are rejecting live service games; it's a sign that the game
isn't very good. Gamers have been bitching about games-as-a-service
since the term was coined, and yet they still funnel billions of
dollars to the publishers because video-game players, in bulk, are
notoriously stupid and refuse to ever stand up for what they believe
if it might cost them the opportunity to play the newest shiny game.
And unfortunately I don't see this changing any time soon.

And publishers aren't going to turn their back on the concept. Game
development is notoriously expensive and risky. Live service games
allow them to milk their investments in a title for far longer. It
used to be a game that cost $100 million USD's profitable lifespan was
about six months. Now that same game can keep earning significant
income for years... even decades. There's no way publishers are
turning away from that sort of revenue.

Is there 'market exhaustion' for looter shooters? Possibly... but
looter shooters aren't the only sort of live-service games and just
because "Fortnite" isn't doing quite as well today doesn't spell doom
for the entire business model (or even the genre).

Honestly, the whole opinion piece is a disappointing article, and
sounds very much like an apologist trying to defend "Suicide Squad's"
failure in market. "This game isn't doing well, it must be because
live service games are out of favor and not for any other reason, like
poor mechanics or a divisive storyline!" Because it's hard to
otherwise justify how out of touch with reality it seems.

----------------------
* read it here
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/the-live-service-model-is-all-played-out-opinion

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>So postulates an article in Gameindustry.biz.* Admittedly, it's an
>opinion piece but even so, it feels fairly sloppy reporting for what
>is normally a fairly reputable trade magazine (or website).

There's nothing sloppy about the article. Your post however here however
is as sloppy as it comes. Rather than argue against what the article
actually says you've chosen to argue against a strawman.

Seriously, what did you smack your head into that caused you to believe
that this was written by a Suicide Squad apologist:

Suicide Squad's poor reception isn't entirely down to its business
model -- all manner of issues with its writing and game design
have also been the subject of significant criticism, and at heart
we still lack an answer to the broader question of which Warner
Bros executive hit their head incredibly hard a decade ago,
waking from their concussion with a deep-seated and entirely
baseless conviction that the world really, really wants a lot
of Suicide Squad movies and games.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //