Most live-service games fail. So it seems untenable that, per a recent survey conducted by GDC,one-third of triple-A developers are currently working on a live-service gameof some sort.
We remember the successes because the nature of the game-as-a-service business model means that the hits stick around for years after launch. But for everyApex Legendsthat breaks out with a fresh take on multiplayer, there are many moreSuicide Squads,Redfalls, andConcordsthat never find an audience. And that’s not even taking into account games likeRadical HeightsandThe Last of Us Factions 2that die on the vine before reaching full release.
The Cordyceps Canary In The Coalmine
In fact, Naughty Dog’s TLOU multiplayer projectmay have been a canary in the coal mine for what was to come for PlayStation as a whole(which may be a canary in the coal mine for the rest of the games industry). A raft of live-service titles have recently been canceled at Sony, with aHorizon Zero Dawn MMO, aGod of War live-service game, and an unannounced Bend Studios multiplayer title getting canned recently. That allfollowed in the wake of Concord, which was a massive failure for the company, as it barely survived two weeks after launch despite several years in and spending milions development.
Naughty Dog seemed to see this carnage coming when it canceled Factions 2 in December of 2023. In astatement on the company website, the company had this to say:
“In ramping up to full production, the massive scope of our ambition became clear. To release and support The Last of Us Online we’d have to put all our studio resources behind supporting post launch content for years to come, severely impacting development on future single-player games. So, we had two paths in front of us: become a solely live service games studio or continue to focus on single-player narrative games that have defined Naughty Dog’s heritage.”
The Insatiable Hunger For Content
This is the harsh reality of launching a multiplayer game in the current landscape. It’s an all-or-nothing endeavor, where a game either receives tireless support to keep fans engaged in new content, or players peel off for greener pastures.XDefiant fell victim to this; though itlaunched to massive numbers, Ubisoft couldn’t keep up with its players’ hunger for new maps, new factions, and new cosmetics to unlock. It ended up losing much of its player base to Call of Duty: Black Ops 6, and Ubisoft has since announced thatit will shut down on Jul 24, 2025.
Single-player games aren’t a sure thing by any means. But they have a much longer tail than most live-service games. That seems counterintuitive, so let me explain what I mean. If you go to your storefront of choice right now, you can buy South Park: The Fractured But Whole. It’s currently on sale for $8.99 on Steam, so I’d bet a decent number of people have given it a shot recently. And whenever someone new buys the game, even seven-plus years after its 2017 launch, that’s revenue generated for Ubisoft.
The Weird Economics Of A Thanos Snap
That game’s developer, Ubisoft San Francisco, went on to lead development on XDefiant, which would have ideally maintained its initial success and continue to make money for years to come. But it failed, and once it shuts down in June, it will become impossible for the game to make any money.
You can spend the same amount of time and effort launching either kind of game, but one continues to exist — regardless of its popularity — even if it’s deemed a failure. When someone decides they want to try it five, ten, 15, or 20 years down the road, they can spend money to do so. The other is just gone, and with it any chance for passive revenue as the company works on whatever is next.
Unless it gets delisted, that is.
Most of these studios don’t get a “whatever is next.” Ubisoft San Francisco shut down, as did Firewalk Studios (Concord), Arkane Austin (Redfall), and Boss Key Productions (Radical Heights). Rocksteady is still kicking, and will likely go back to its tried-and-true Arkham formula after Suicide Squad’s failure. But, that’s the exception that proves the rule.
That’s the problem — not the live-service game, per se. When games are this expensive to produce and this quickly determined to be abject failures, the industry is collectively risking too much. And the developers are the ones who pay the price.
