Recently, I noticed one problem nobody is really calling out that’s becoming more prevalent in today’s gaming industry: live service.
Live service is where a game gets released with the intention of being supplemented over time by updates. Games that go through live service are usually disappointing at launch for different reasons, but what they all share is that they involve the status of being incomplete.
First, this concept seems like a way to cover up rushing an unfinished game out. Would you rather buy a feature-complete game that you will play for a long while, or a game that has some content, but to play more of it, you will have to return in a few months? I think this should be easy to answer.
Thus, one of live service games’ shortcomings is usually its lack of content. Note that this annoyance is separate from episodic games like “Telltale’s The Walking Dead” or “The Wolf Among Us” with a scheduled format for releasing its content. Rather, live service makes the game look like it’s in early access without the actual label.
One recent title, “Killing Floor 3,” stacks up its predecessors with its high-end gore, action, and heavy metal playing in the background. However, its eight maps will only keep you busy for so long. Luckily, you can expect the developers to release more for free over time.
That’s better than future content being purchasable downloadable content (DLC). Given the recent rise in prices of new video games, haven’t we paid enough for the game already?
Look at Overkill Software’s “PAYDAY 3.” It launched at $40 with eight heists that you could complete in half of a day, but like its predecessor, most of its future content arrived as DLC, costing about $5 each.
Then, there are games that aren’t finely tuned. Maybe they’re not broken, but there’s plenty of places where you wonder if the game was ever play-tested.
Take “Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Siege,” for example. It’s a whale of a time now, but 10 years ago when it launched, it lacked substance, progression took longer, and it was slightly more difficult at an unsatisfying level.
Bugs and glitches are notorious in live service games.
A big offender, as well as the most infamous example of live service, was “Cyberpunk 2077.” Even if critics or reviewers loved it, it’s hard to find one that didn’t cite technical issues as a flaw. Sometimes, getting into your car would blow it up. Other times, your companion Jackie couldn’t find the elevator and kept getting shot. The game was worse on consoles where the frame rate and graphic quality took a nosedive, causing players to boycott it.
Combining these issues allowed me to suggest one solution: Why can’t companies just release the game when it’s finished?
Yes, sometimes, deadlines are hard to meet, or quality isn’t up to par. However, it wouldn’t hurt to work on the game some more. This is the reason why Rockstar Games keeps pushing back “Grand Theft Auto VI,” because they want it to be a masterpiece. Every company in general should adopt this practice to maximize sales by selling the product gamers have waited on for so long.
All in all, the live service model of a video game is ridiculous. It entails that the developers will keep working on it, but that’s a risky move to make since what little content exists is what defines the game until it is updated. We buy games expecting a fun time, not part of one.