Why Do So Many Live Service Games Suck?

Let's look deeper at what makes a live service game “worth it.”

Written by Cody Minahan (@mrzanadood)

Game releases started strong this year, but not every game is seeing the success of hits like Palword and Helldivers 2. Other live service games, such as Suicide Squad and Foamstars, have floundered, leading many people to ask why some of these studios feel so out of touch with what consumers actually want in a live service game. 

Live service games — otherwise known as Games As A Service or GAAS — can be defined as “games that are continually updated with new content, features, and events to keep players engaged and coming back for more” (Fungies). Some of these games, like Fortnite, are free and offer players the option for paid cosmetics in order to make money. Other games like Grounded ask the player for an upfront payment for the game, and additional updates come at no additional cost. There are other examples, but I want to discuss the issues surrounding these games, especially analyzing the ones launched this year. 

Why Live Service Games?

There has been a huge push for studios to create live service games, and according to Kotaku, over 500 studios are working on these types of projects. Looking at that number, you may be a little confused, but remember the definition from earlier. It doesn’t mean 500 games with battlepasses are coming out. It just refers to games with planned updates and content. Sony aims to have 10 live service games released by 2026, and this begs the question, why would they do this?

The answer — which is unsurprising to many — is money. Live service games are a bit of a gamble, but when they hit, the studio has a steady income stream that lasts long after the game's launch. Live service games also offer studios a chance at long-term stability through planned content that could attract new players and media coverage. A game like No Man's Sky has benefited greatly from the decision to be a game with long-term content updates, and without them, the game would have flopped after its rough launch. This game development strategy has evolved over time. It is not inherently bad, but now more than ever, we are seeing the results of bad executive decisions regarding live service games and their monetization. 

The success of long-running franchises like Destiny or League of Legends is enticing to major studios. It shows that players are willing to commit to games for extended periods if it feels worth their time. This allure is strong and has shaped long-term studio decisions, even if it sometimes feels forced or inauthentic. We have seen a massive uptick in studios normally responsible for single-player games — which can still be labeled as live service — tasked with creating multiplayer experiences that have layers of monetization. Redfall, the canceled The Last of Us Factions, and Suicide Squad are all games from well-respected single-player studios that felt forced to create a monetized multiplayer live service game to meet executive demands. Live service games don’t need to be like this, and many aren’t. Still, players are becoming increasingly cautious about where to spend their time and money, and studio executives need to recognize that. 

The Monetization Balancing Act

One of the biggest complaints against live service games is the added layer of monetization. If your game is free-to-play, adding cosmetics or battle passes would make sense to ensure you get a return on your investment. However, even paid games are now implementing this strategy against the wishes of most rational consumers. Video games are becoming increasingly more expensive to make — hence the push for additional revenue streams — but studios must find a balance between their pricing options to retain the trust of the player base and entice new players to join in. 

Let's examine a recently launched live service game — Foamstars. Foamstars is a multiplayer 4v4 shooter exclusive to PlayStation. It is similar to Splatoon and is free to play (for now, at least!) as long as you are subscribed to PlayStation Plus. It had what seems to be a pretty successful launch, ranking in the top 10 games on PlayStation, before dropping off and losing 54% of its active player base in just two short weeks. There are a lot of factors that could contribute to this, including the launch of the wildly popular Helldivers 2, but many players agreed the monetization system seemed greedy and out of touch.

That shark will happily take your money.

At the time of this article, Foamstars sells character bundles featuring one skin and some gear pieces for a whopping $45. It is optional, but it reeks of desperation, or at the very least, an out-of-touch executive in charge of pricing in-game items. This type of monetization isn't new — games like Valorant and League offer bundles at much higher prices — but for a newly launched game with no active player base, it is enough to turn players away to more consumer-friendly titles. 

Foamstars is just one example of practices becoming incredibly commonplace in the industry. Studios face increased pressure to create more revenue, especially if they are publicly traded. When these decisions are at the forefront of the conversation around a game, it is hard to see the game take off and become successful long term. I am not saying Foamstars would be the next game to blow up if they didn't have paid cosmetics. Still, the conversation around the game would be different. I am sure more people would give the game a chance if it did not include predatory monetization.  

Helldivers 2: When Live Service is Done Right

Helldivers 2 is, without a doubt, the most successful live service game to launch this year, and for good reason. Besides its incredibly fun and addictive gameplay loop, it has a monetization system that makes a lot of sense and respects its player base.

The game has a few in-game currencies — Requisition Slips, Warbonds, Super Credits, and Samples. This could be confusing, but I will break each down. All of these are earned from playing missions while exploring the map or completing objectives. Requisition slips and Samples can be spent to upgrade your skills, equipment, and ship. Warbonds are earned from completing missions and can be spent on armor skins, weapons, Super Credits, and much more. Super Credits are the only currency that can be purchased with money and are spent on armor skins in a daily rotating shop.

The decision to offer players the ability to earn the paid currency through gameplay feels very consumer-friendly in an age where paid cosmetics are almost the norm. I probably played for about 20 hours or so and earned enough of this currency to buy pretty much whatever I wanted from the shop. 90 percent of this game's content — armor skins, weapons, upgrades — is accessible to all of the player base. The $20 will give you that extra 10 percent, a few guns and skins, and access to a premium battle pass. The developer has said the battle passes are not timed, and you will have access to them if you eventually finish the free one and want to pay for the premium one to have a place to dump your Warbonds. This cohesive collection of gameplay and monetization design decisions come together to show that it is a game with the option of taking your money but not demanding it. 

Players feel like they are getting value out of the game whether they spend money on it or not. With enough goodwill from your community, they might be enticed to splurge and spend $10 here and there on cosmetics to customize their character in a more meaningful way or just to support the development because they enjoy it that much. In my experience in Helldivers 2, I was surprised at how many people I had played with who had purchased the game's premium edition. You can tell because you get access to a special armor and player title, which is a nice little perk, but otherwise does not change anything in a mechanically meaningful way.

Goodwill and Great Gameplay Go A Long Way

Launching a successful live service game requires a studio to not only create a fun and engaging game with replayability and planned content, but they also have to manage their relationship with the community and player base. The success of Helldivers 2 could largely be attributed to the word-of-mouth marketing it received, whether in person or on social media.

When players feel like they are getting good value out of the game, they are more likely to recommend it, whether in person to a friend or on social media to their followers. That isn't the only reason why Helldivers 2  took off. This is largely due to the gameplay clips and narrative directions that made it easy to post engaging content on social media. I do think there would be a different conversation surrounding the game if the monetization efforts had been more predatory. Striking this balance and rapport between studios and players isn't easy, but when it works, you can see it pays dividends. 

These types of games also need to ensure an engaging gameplay loop, drawing players in with various missions or game modes, or they risk players getting bored and feeling like there is no incentive to keep playing. This is no easy feat, and there is no clear formula for live service success, no matter how many people claim to understand what games need to have to succeed in the long term. To say that Suicide Squad’s endgame content was underwhelming is a colossal understatement. It didn't feel great as a player, instead feeling like they were checking a box that said, “Make sure there is something the player can do in between seasons and DLCs”.

Studios should feel comfortable taking risks in their game design and progression loops, but player experience should be at the forefront of those conversations and decisions. With many of this year's releases, I struggled to figure out how specific monetization and progression decisions were made because they felt out of touch and, at times, desperate. Not to sound like a doomsayer, but we are not going to see the last of these practices and out-of-touch decisions because too many executives and studios have locked themselves into the belief that this type of live service game is the future of game development and an easier way to higher profit margins.