Support NeoGAF

[LectureMaster]

I've seen enough: No more forcing singleplayer studios to make mediocre live service games

We're leaving this one behind in 2024.

www.pcgamer.com

---

We began 2024 with Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League and ended it with Dragon Age: The Veilguard. Both are new games from beloved institutions of 2010s triple-A single player games, their first outings in many years⁠—a full decade since Arkham Knight and the last Dragon Age game, while it's been five years since BioWare's Anthem-shaped failure. Both were⁠—at least for part of development, with The Veilguard⁠—attempts at making live service, persistent multiplayer games in the vein of Destiny.


After Anthem was critically panned and failed to maintain an audience, with BioWare and EA ultimately ending content updates for the game, Veilguard reportedly went through a soft development reboot from a Destiny-style experience back into a fully singleplayer RPG more in line with previous Dragon Age games. Suicide Squad was delayed an extra year after a poorly-received initial gameplay reveal, but crucially kept that live service model, with its campaign followed by repeatable missions, "endgame" content, and seasons of further support that have been unceremoniously cut off.

Trying to retrofit a singleplayer studio into a 'live service machine go brrr' moneymaker is not a smart bet.

I look at this and see The Veilguard pulling back from a disaster, while Suicide Squad charged into a trap that has burned many established, well-respected studios. Live service games are among the most popular out there, but they are resource-intensive and require long-term commitments from developers and publishers. Players have understandably high expectations of games that, by design, demand so much of their time, while that time demand incentivizes players to settle on a single go-to live service game to the exclusion of others, heightening the competitiveness of the space. The demands of a live service game are different from those of a singleplayer experience with a set ending, and many of the biggest success stories come from new, dedicated studios, or ones with strong institutional knowledge of making multiplayer games:

• Escape From Tarkov: debut effort from Battlestate Games.
• Roblox: First released in 2006 and is the only game developed by the Roblox Corporation.
• Fortnite: Epic had a long multiplayer history with Unreal Tournament, as well as incredible resources from owning and licensing the Unreal Engine.
• Final Fantasy 14: Dedicated MMO studio, "Business Division 5," within publisher Square Enix.
• Diablo 4: It's Blizzard, man. They made World of Warcraft.
• Path of Exile: To date, the series is the sole focus of Grinding Gear Games.

Among singleplayer studios that successfully transitioned to live service, I see only early adopters, edge cases, or extenuating circumstances. Digital Extremes and Bungie were the first formerly singleplayer-focused studios to find major success making MMOs with more action-heavy gameplay and a focus on smaller instanced missions rather than open worlds⁠—they were some of the first on this scene, and now even Bungie has run into significant difficulties while Digital Extremes has managed to stay the course.

BioWare's The Old Republic was a more traditional MMO that came from a very different era of development. After explosive initial success, it's settled into an⁠—admittedly impressive⁠—long, slow burn of popularity and updates. Valve is Valve, a company with no real direct parallels in the industry, and its successes with Dota 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive were preceded by years of multiplayer hits in Counter-Strike, Half-Life: Deathmatch, and the prototype live service of Team Fortress 2, to name a few. Apex Legends was a middle period live service game, but an innovator and relatively early adopter of battle royale gameplay, and Respawn had its own prior multiplayer bona fides. Obsidian's Grounded, meanwhile, might be one of the more extreme edge cases: A much smaller-scale live service survival game that proved modestly successful while the studio as a whole remained focused on singleplayer RPGs.

The late 2010s and early '20s have seen a large number of failed live service games, particularly from highly-regarded singleplayer studios. Here's a quick overview:

• Redfall: 44% review score from PC Gamer, contributed to the closure of beloved studio Arkane Austin, Bloomberg suggests it had a contested, confused development.
• Outriders: 63% review, failed to turn a profit within its first, most successful year, received a single expansion and does not appear to be getting updates anymore.
• Anthem: 55% review, underperformed in sales relative to budget, BioWare/EA history, continued content updates and a planned 2.0 refresh canceled after two years.
• Marvel's Avengers: 69% review, official support ended after just over two years.
• The Last of Us Online: Canceled before release as the studio believed it would "severely impact development on future singleplayer games."
• Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League: 67% review, underperformed in sales, continued content updates canceled after less than a year.

Surely we've seen enough to know that trying to retrofit a singleplayer studio into a "live service machine go brrr" moneymaker is not a smart bet, nor the best use of these incredible amalgamations of talent, experience, and institutional knowledge. It's like trying to make a sports car go off-roading: That's just not what the machine was built for, and you'll probably damage your suspension.

---

 

[Topher]

Maybe there is hope for pcgamer yet. For all its faults, I'd rather play Veilguard than the vast majority of live service shit like Anthem.

 

[R3TRO]

Couldn’t have said it better.

 

[Dacvak]

Man it’s almost like we should leave the creative decisions up to the creatives, instead of boardroom executives.

Nah that can’t be right.

 

[Alexios]

Then why they've shilled for Epic so much, the whole company's game development has turned into Fortnite labour camp and all other ideas including big franchises like Unreal Tournament are shut down. Oh yeah, money's good.

 

[BennyBlanco]

They’re right. And then you look at Marvel Heroes, made by a company who specializes in GaaS and it’s great. Appealing character design, instant matchmaking, great netcode, great art style, etc.

 

[LectureMaster]

Our revered member Men_in_Boxes POV:

 

[nial]

Then why they've shilled for Epic so much, the whole company's game development has turned into Fortnite labour camp and all other ideas including big franchises like Unreal Tournament are shut down. Oh yeah, money's good.

Epic funds and publishes stuff like Alan Wake 2 and Project Robot, though?

 

[TintoConCasera]

They’re right. And then you look at Marvel Heroes, made by a company who specializes in GaaS and it’s great. Appealing character design, instant matchmaking, great netcode, great art style, etc.

You mean Rivals?

That game looks great tbh. And imo gaas can be fine if done properly, just as with any other kind of game really.

 

[Reizo Ryuu]

They’re right. And then you look at Marvel Heroes, made by a company who specializes in GaaS and it’s great. Appealing character design, instant matchmaking, great netcode, great art style, etc.

Marvel heroes was killed bruv, I think you mean marvel rivals ;P

 

[BennyBlanco]

You mean Rivals?

That game looks great tbh. And imo gaas can be fine if done properly, just as with any other kind of game really.

Marvel heroes was killed bruv, I think you mean marvel rivals ;P

Yeah you know what I meant lol

 

[Alexios]

Epic funds and publishes stuff like Alan Wake 2 and Project Robot, though?

Yeah that's publishing not developing, might as well attribute all their store's content or every game using UE to them as well if you're gonna go that route.

Anyway, I said game development & meant it, you're saying something else altogether unrelated. So sure they throw some of that Fortnite money where it'll get them attention and any other publisher could/would and otherwise, where they have full control and their own devs, Fortnite labour camp.

 

[64bitmodels]

Then why they've shilled for Epic so much, the whole company's game development has turned into Fortnite labour camp and all other ideas including big franchises like Unreal Tournament are shut down. Oh yeah, money's good.

Because Epic's studios aren't "singleplayer" studios. The article itself mentions this.

"Fortnite: Epic had a long multiplayer history with Unreal Tournament, as well as incredible resources from owning and licensing the Unreal Engine."
How many "singleplayer" games have Epic made? How many of them exist without incredibly fleshed out and popular multiplayer modes? they've had the chops since their inception, thats why Fortnite's so big.

 

[Danjin44]

Obviously!

 

[Alexios]

Because Epic's studios aren't "singleplayer" studios. The article itself mentions this.

"Fortnite: Epic had a long multiplayer history with Unreal Tournament, as well as incredible resources from owning and licensing the Unreal Engine."
How many "singleplayer" games have Epic made? How many of them exist without incredibly fleshed out and popular multiplayer modes? they've had the chops since their inception, thats why Fortnite's so big.

So they did the damage control in the article itself and you abide by it. So now every multiplayer shooter in history is a gaas, even those that became popular by being awesome products out of their box and getting "traditional" expansions/updates/dlc, no MTX, k.

They had the chops to throw money at being a PUBG clone and now a clone of everything they can get their hands on on top, greeeeat creativity and chops, have a runaway hit clone and then throw your labour camp at licencing or just copying everything popular...

And even they started single player focused with Unreal and Gears of War anyway, just saw the opportunity to go up against Quake which also went multiplayer (but still not gaas) focused around the same time but hey, id still makes awesome campaigns nowadays.

 

[64bitmodels]

So now every multiplayer shooter in history is a gaas, even those that became popular by being awesome products out of their box and getting "traditional" expansions/updates/dlc, k.

Never said that. Just said that Epic never primarily made "singleplayer" games. They always had their eye on multiplayer since the Unreal days. Of course they're gonna transition to Live service well when they're capable of making a good multiplayer shooter and have the resources for server hosting.

Totally different case from a developer like Rocksteady.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Our revered member Men_in_Boxes POV:

Honestly, it is such a lame headline / story.

As if these studio heads all don't say "Let's try to make a multiplayer game." No, it's some big cartoony CEO who is "forcing" industry professionals into the dungeon to slave away on something they hate.

Yellow journalism.

 

[bitbydeath]

Then why they've shilled for Epic so much, the whole company's game development has turned into Fortnite labour camp and all other ideas including big franchises like Unreal Tournament are shut down. Oh yeah, money's good.

They already have Fortnite, making another MP game like Unreal is Unnecessary.

 

[hinch7]

Bioware is the first studio to come to mind. Anthem totally destroyed anything that was left of them. If Andromeda didn't already.

EA had a golden goose and they shot it.

 

[Buggy Loop]

RIP Arkane Austin

And then...

Fuck Todd Howard

Almost RIP Eidos Montreal (who knows how Embracer will treat them.. not much hope)

And then Square Enix had the brilliant idea to put Eidos Montreal and Crystal Dynamics on this project

 

[dreamstation]

I'm fine if a single player studio wants to try their hand at something different off their own bat, but really dislike when it's forced on them from above.

In saying that, people seem to complain when Sony or anyone else acquires or starts a new studio with their primary goal of creating live service online games which is stupid. So what should they do then?

 

[thegame983]

Looking forward to pcgamer smearing Kingdom Come Deliverence 2.

 

[Wildebeest]

The industry has always been brutal for companies that couldn't adapt. Origin couldn't adapt to the 3d era. Looking Glass couldn't adapt to the gamers being morons who don't care about good games era. And so on.

 

[Alexios]

The industry has always been brutal for companies that couldn't adapt. Origin couldn't adapt to the 3d era. Looking Glass couldn't adapt to the gamers being morons who don't care about good games era. And so on.

I get your point but Origin pioneered in the 3D era with Ultima Underworld, Wing Commander & Privateer, Strike Commander, Jane's Combat Sims, System Shock, etc., they really only had one major fail (Ultima IX, that EA management is also to blame for) and EA killed them as they used to do...

 

[Sinfulgore]

"Forcing" developers who make single-player games to make live service games isn't the problem. A good developer can make a good game in almost any genre because what makes a game great is universal across most genres. Most developers making live service games are backed by major publishers who have almost limitless resources. WB Games, EA, Microsoft, Sony, etc all have the resources to support any live service game if it's successful.

The problem is bad decision-making. Rocksteady's Live service game should have been a game where you play as the Justice League or at the very least a modern version of DC Universe Online. EA should have separated the Dragon Age Live service game from the main-line Dragon Age games like Bethesda did with Elder Scrolls so the games wouldn't impact each other. Concord should have been an Overwatch clone like Marvel Rivals with characters from Sony's IPs. These publishers and developers just need people at the company who actually play games or at the very least understand the consumer. Some of the decisions these companies make are so bad it almost feels like they are intentionally trying to make bad products.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

good developer can make a good game in almost any genre because what makes a game great is universal across most genres

I think that reasoning is not realistic or pragmatic.

making a game in a genre that a developer is not familiar with involves a lot of learning, trial and error, and a lack of institutional knowledge, which can make the development longer and more troublesome than it already is, even with expertise in a specific genre.

there is a reason why when a dev is imposed to make a game in an unfamiliar genre, the first thing they do is hire people familiar with such genre. And what happens? Ego fights, lack of direction/vision, and/or unfit tech/tools, etc.

 

[Killer8]

They think Veilguard pulled back from disaster?

 

[Ribi]

No thanks I'll keep playing games that have added content for years to come instead of 5hours of fun

 

[Sinfulgore]

I think that reasoning is not realistic or pragmatic.

making a game in a genre that a developer is not familiar with involves a lot of learning, trial and error, and a lack of institutional knowledge, which can make the development longer and more troublesome than it already is, even with expertise in a specific genre.

there is a reason why when a dev is imposed to make a game in an unfamiliar genre, the first thing they do is hire people familiar with such genre. And what happens? Ego fights, lack of direction/vision, and/or unfit tech/tools, etc.

It definitely requires lots of learning but if you are or want to be a good developer you are learning(I.E playing the best games available) all the time. It depends on the context, Institutional knowledge could be necessary if you are making a game radically different than what you made before(like going from a third-person open-world game to a 1v1 fighter) but most developers don't do that. In the past developers were able to branch out to other genres, Mass Effect 3 had a good multiplayer mode for example, but to be able to do this you have to be good developer first. And if you are a good developer you won't have to worry about Ego fights, lack of direction/vision, or unfit tech/tools.

I don't think any of these things are the reason why Suicide Squad flopped or why Dragon Age 4 performed the way it did though. Both games were made by bad developers who don't understand their audience and that almost always leads to a bad game.