GoKawiilThis is The Stepback, a weekly newsletter breaking down one essential story from the tech world. For more on the slow-motion disaster of live-service games, follow Andrew Webster. The Stepback arrives in our subscribers’ inboxes at 8AM ET. Opt in for The Stepback here.
How it started
Two years ago, I stood at the top of the iconic red stairs in Times Square to experience the weirdest concert of my life. As glowing butterflies flitted about the various screens, a crowd steadily grew, knowing something was happening, but unsure of what. Then a countdown started, and a minute later one of the screens opened up, revealing Ice Spice and, later, Snoop Dogg, both of whom performed brief sets for the New York crowd. The really weird part is that it was a promotional event for Fortnite.
Epic Games’ battle royale is the poster child for a new type of entertainment experience: the live-service game, a never-ending treadmill of content that can become as much a habit as a game. When successful, these titles are massively lucrative and, unlike other types of games, they’re enduring. The Fortnite concert in New York showed just how culturally pervasive a live-service game can be at the very peak. It’s not every game that can manage a complete takeover of Times Square.
Plenty of other game developers and publishers have chased that same high. And while a handful have been successful, the live-service gold rush has turned into a graveyard stuffed with failures and casualties. Fortnite still reigns supreme, but much of the live-service games space is a complete mess.
How it’s going
What has changed is the speed at which games are deemed failures. The most infamous example is Concord, another Sony production, a 2024 sci-fi shooter that was in development for eight years but was ultimately canceled less than a month after launch, with its development studio shuttered alongside it. And just this week, Highguard — a squad shooter from a new studio made up of veterans from games like Apex Legends — shut down less than two months after it first went live. This came not long after League of Legends developer Riot laid off staff from its just-launched fighting game spinoff 2XKO because “overall momentum hasn’t reached the level needed to support a team of this size long term.” It’s not clear what, exactly, the expectations were for these games, but it seems like they weren’t close to realistic. They’re trying to compete with Fortnite, but are being given almost no time to do so.
It may sound like madness, but the appeal of live-service games is obvious for developers and publishers. Some of these games are free to download, others are paid, but all of them offer additional things to buy — characters, weapons, or seasonal battle passes — that aim to keep players spending. A hit live-service game is not only lucrative at launch but also a consistent form of revenue for companies.
But the same things that make these games so appealing from a business perspective are also what make the space so hard to break into. For starters, there’s player behavior. With a normal video game, players buy it, finish it, and then move on to something else. That’s not how live-service games operate; they aim to suck up as much of your time and attention as possible in order to increase the chances you’ll spend some cash.
Since time is a finite resource, only so many of these games can reasonably exist with a large player base. So once a game like Fortnite or League of Legends becomes established, it’s hard to sway players away because they’ve already spent so much time and money. You only need to look at the Steam player charts to see this concept in action: Aside from whatever the hot game of the moment is (currently Slay the Spire II), the charts are dominated by years-old titles like Apex Legends, PUBG, and Counter-Strike.
... continue reading