The allure of the live-service game model has been undeniable for over a decade. Imagine a game that never truly ends, constantly evolving with new content, retaining players indefinitely, and generating recurring revenue streams that hum like a well-oiled machine. For many publishers, this vision became the holy grail, promising a future where a single successful title could sustain entire studios for years. Yet, recent market signals suggest that this promised land might be more mirage than reality for many.
The Architect`s Cautionary Tale
At the heart of this evolving narrative is Harold Ryan, a figure intrinsically linked to the very foundation of the live-service phenomenon. As the former CEO of Bungie, Ryan presided over the development of industry titans like Halo and Destiny – games that, in their respective eras, pushed the boundaries of what persistent online experiences could be. One might expect such an architect to remain a staunch advocate for the model. Instead, Ryan now offers a sober assessment, suggesting that the live-service approach is far from a universal panacea.
“I think that model is appropriate for some games, but I don`t think it`s appropriate for all games. And I believe consumers are telling us it`s not appropriate for all consumers.”
This sentiment, delivered after years observing the industry from outside Bungie`s immediate orbit, reflects a growing consensus: players are indeed speaking with their wallets, and their message is becoming unequivocally clear.
The Unraveling of the “Forever Game” Dream
The evidence of this consumer shift is stark. The gaming landscape is littered with the digital tombstones of live-service titles that launched with grand ambitions, only to wither and die within months or even weeks. High-profile examples abound, from the critically divisive Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League to the recently shuttered Concord, a title whose studio, Firewalk Studios, was acquired by Sony only to be closed down a year later. These aren`t isolated incidents; countless other less-publicized games have quietly faded into obscurity.
The problem isn`t that live-service games can`t succeed. Titles like Fortnite, Genshin Impact, and, yes, Destiny 2 continue to command massive player bases and generate substantial revenue. The critical distinction, however, is the sheer concentration of player time and money. A relatively small handful of these “evergreen” titles are absorbing a disproportionately large share of player engagement. This leaves the vast majority of new live-service hopefuls vying for scraps in an increasingly saturated and unforgiving market. It`s a high-stakes lottery where most tickets are duds.
A Return to Roots? Or Just Diversification?
Interestingly, this live-service fatigue is also prompting a re-evaluation of more traditional, linear game experiences. Publishers, ever sensitive to market signals, are beginning to acknowledge a demand for games that don`t demand perpetual engagement or endless grind. The pricing strategy for games like Mafia: The Old Country, which reportedly launched at a more modest $50, suggests a recognition that there`s a lucrative audience for complete, finite narratives that respect a player`s time and wallet without an expectation of infinite commitment.
Harold Ryan, through his current venture ProbablyMonsters, is navigating these complex waters. His company aims to provide “early stage infrastructure and support” for developers. While he remains open to building another live-service game if the “right game idea and the right audience” align, his core philosophy emphasizes that the business model should never be the primary driver for game creation. “We can`t just pick a business model and say that`s a reason to make a game,” he asserted, a subtle but pointed critique of past industry practices.
The Path to Sustainable Success
The current turbulence, even affecting established giants like Bungie itself (which has seen significant layoffs and restructuring), underscores Ryan`s point: the old, reliable ways are no longer so reliable. The industry is in a state of flux, grappling with inflated development costs, shifting player expectations, and an increasingly competitive landscape.
Ryan`s ultimate hope for the industry is not the demise of live-service, but rather the discovery of “sustainable business models” that genuinely satisfy players and, crucially, allow studios to “pay the bills.” The harsh reality, he notes, is that “everyone can`t be the number one most successful game.” But, with a touch of pragmatic optimism, he concludes, “I think we all could be shipping successful games.”
This future likely involves a more diversified portfolio, where compelling gameplay and innovative concepts dictate the business model, rather than the other way around. It means understanding that while some players crave endless journeys, many others simply want a great story, a challenging adventure, or a memorable experience that knows when to conclude. For the health and longevity of the gaming industry, this rebalancing act may be precisely what`s needed.
Ellis Thorne