Live Service Games Can Be Remarkable If Devs Weren’t Greedy

I think we’ve all figured out by now that the live service genre is the bane of the gaming industry. Countless promising titles under that controversial umbrella flopped or were forgotten soon after they came out. The hatred against the term has grown so much that many of us scoff at just hearing about it. On the flip side, however, there have been equally excellent games in the genre that have thrived like no other.

So, what’s going on here? Is the model at fault here, or are the devs who implement it in their titles? Instead of blaming how ridiculously lousy live service games can be, I think we should explore what led them to become that way. The short answer is the greed of the developers. 

Not All Live-Service Games Are Created Equal

After getting over my cemented disdain for the genre, I recently started enjoying the exceptions in the mix. That is when I further understood that the live-service junk we’ve been seeing over the years is not because of the model; rather it’s the priorities of the studios that release these games.

Entries like Sea of Thieves, Warframe, GTA Online, and the sort also prove that as much as the genre currently sucks, the potential it holds is arguably the greatest in the whole industry. In other words—and I’m stating the obvious here—the live-service games that work truly end up sticking at the end.

Unfortunately, that did not encourage devs to make player-friendly live-service entries. Instead, most got greedy and began pumping out as many projects as possible to reach the big leagues. If only devs were to give up on predatory monetization models and greedy mechanics, then even more titles in the genre would prove to be successful instead of failing miserably.

Are there any live service games that are actually good?
byu/Berry-Fantastic invideogames

Helldivers 2—A Recent Example—Understood The Assignment

I remember when I first got acquainted with the genre through PUBG and Fortnite; it sounded like the best thing ever. It’s awesome on paper to have a continuous stream of content for a small price. After playing through countless live service titles, though, even thinking about them can be tiring.

Helldivers 2 especially stood out to me because of how well it utilizes the live-service model to create a dynamic, continuous storyline. The sense of unity in the community is amazing, which wouldn’t have been possible if it were not for the controversial genre.

I think the genre would have proven to be the most-liked in the industry if all the devs followed the same approach.

The Name Of The Genre Has Been Tainted With Bad Apples

I don’t think gamers are to blame for the hatred that the live service genre faces these days. Only a couple of live-service titles let you earn the money you spend on the battle passes, which is truly a shame.

Why do people hate the idea of live-service games?
byu/PJ-The-Awesome ingaming

On the other hand, titles like Rocket League and Helldivers 2 are quite a charm to play even after a while. The content they receive feels complimentary and worth it. There are no special gameplay perks for Helldivers 2 players who spend a lot of cash during battle passes. In fact, it’s truly up to you to enjoy the game without paying anything extra after the purchase.

The Live-Service Genre Still Has Much Unrealized Potential

Although many gamers claim that the live service genre is finished at this point, I feel like it still holds a lot of unrealized potential. So far, most games we’ve seen in the genre have not been catered to players’ interests, which has narrowed our view. I am sure that we can count all the good ones on our fingers alone. 

I think the genre still deserves a fair bit of chance in the hands of devs who are not greedy but able to come up with unique ideas that benefit from the model and prioritize gameplay content instead of profits—like how Helldivers 2 handled it. That would allow studios to whip up projects that are not only fun but also long-lasting.