Why do publishers chase live service games?

[Iggy Wolf]

I swear, they're doing the same thing that they did back when zombie games and battle royale games were a thing. And of course, with Fortnite, battle royale still is a thing but that doesn't mean it works with EVERY game. Helldivers 2 may have made it work, but that doesn't mean that Suicide Squad or Skull and Bones will. Chasing "industry trends" doesn't mean they're a sure money maker. Honestly, who's telling these CEOs this BS?

Are the sharesholders somehow demanding it or are they somehow convinced that it's a "sure thing"? I understand that companies don't wanna depend on pure sales anymore these days, but there's probably better ways of achieving a consistent revenue stream. And if nothing else, then at least single player should be an option, even if the mainstay is multiplayer. Activision understood that with COD, and I'd never thought I'd defend THEIR business model.

[Krypto]

They want what Destiny or WoW has.

[potato]

cause proper live service games make loads of money

[Ganger]

Ask valve, they one of the kings of live service games.

[Hairy Hands Harry]

Money.

[GlaceonChireiden]

Live service games are easy profit and cheap to maintain. It's a lot easier to charge $20 for a few retextures than it is to make an entirely new game to continue a series. Longevity also helps a lot, keeping an active playerbase will make it easier to keep the money coming in.

[Goldias]

It's obvious if you look at successful live service games in the market.

With small investment to add contents and things to keep people addict and player will keep paying you, far more than what they pay for any AAA games on day 1.
And they don't even have to develop new games.

Which is also why some devs are so hell bent on making multiplayer games. It will keep people addict longer, and bleed out more money.

[Netaris]

Money

[HansCent]

Originally posted by Netaris:

Money

lots and lots and lots and lots of money.

[Haruspex]

Originally posted by HansCent:

Originally posted by Netaris:

Money

lots and lots and lots and lots of money.

Utterly obscene quantities of money.

[Original Cast Recording]

No games are a sure thing, I guess.

Film industry chased YA dystopia after Hunger Games, supernatural romance after Twilight, shared universe films after MCU. Other movie studios make cheap horror movies and have better profit margins, though on whole the majority of cheapo horror movies go unnoticed; straight to Tubi.

Games industry displays similar trends, I guess.

[Nightlight]

Because, to put it simply, they generate a bunch of money if they end up successful. The problem is that making a successful live service game is, actually, incredibly hard and the likelihood of one succeeding is minimal, at least in todays market. They're a high risk, high reward type deal.

In a perfect world, it wouldn't actually be a bad thing for gamers for their favorite video game company to have a successful live service game, even if they don't like live service games themselves. A video game company having a practically guaranteed steady stream of money coming in means that failures effect them less, which opens up the doors for said company to feel more comfortable making more experimental and niche titles.

Well, that's how it'd be in theory and, again, in a perfect world. In reality that's not what tends to happen. In fact, the more money a company has the less likely they seem to be to make experimental and niche titles. It's a real shame.

[Chaosolous]

Because they make absolute ♥♥♥♥ tons of money when they work and they're a tax write off if they fail.

Also, investors and CEO's are calling the shots in all the Developer offices, not the actually people who play games.

Investors and CEO's literally exist on a diet of Hype and Buzzwords, they don't understand anything beyond that.

[AdahnGorion]

Because it has stable running revenue.

[wesnef]

Originally posted by Haruspex:

Originally posted by HansCent:

lots and lots and lots and lots of money.

Utterly obscene quantities of money.

This.

Breakaway hit regular game = $$$$
Breakaway hit live service game = $$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

Because it is literally their board and CEOs' job to ensure the greatest return practical for investors, and a substantial investment in something that still might fail but has the potential long term monetization upside of a live service game (a "forever revenue stream") is still less of a risk than a similarly substantial (sometimes greater) investment in a single product dependent upon one-time purchases and hoping for a long sales tail to sustain it. At least, that's the calculus driving that decision making. Or, as wesnef put it above:

Originally posted by wesnef:

Breakaway hit regular game = $$$$
Breakaway hit live service game = $$$$$$$$$$$$$

It's sad, it's unfortunate, but it's true. That's why a game can be a financial success, and a critical success, and a studio can still be shuttered anyway because it didn't perform well enough for them to match or exceed their absurd projections.