Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

"The Live Service market is saturated."

We didn't really hear this 3 or 4 years ago. Now whenever a new multiplayer game gets announced, the phrase gets parroted endlessly in the comments. I'm skeptical, but I've been wrong before so I thought, why not ask the best of NeoGAF to hopefully help me gain some clarity on this issue.

When did the Live Service market become saturated? Here's four reasons why I'm skeptical...

1. Earlier this year, Steam, which is mostly just Live Service games competing against each other, announced a record high in terms of concurrent in game players (10+ million). If the PC market is a more mature, competitive market in terms of multiplayer, wouldn't we see player numbers plateauing before we can claim the market is saturated?

2. PlayStation apparently trusts IDG Consulting Firm enough to use them in shareholder conference meetings. According to IDG Consulting ADD-ON CONTENT will increase from 9 billion dollars in 2021 to 19 billion dollars by 2025. That's an absurd growth projection in a relatively short period of time. What is IDG Consulting not seeing that the "market is saturated" people are seeing?

3. PlayStation publishes their revenue breakdowns every year and their Live Service / MTX segment has grown quickly ever since the data has become available. This is particularly interesting considering how unimpactful PlayStations multiplayer efforts have been over the last 5 years. Wouldn't we see this data level off before we can claim the market is saturated?

4. If you look at company acquisitions over the last 5 years, the majority seem to be from multiplayer studios. Why would the smartest minds in the business be aggressively pursuing multiplayer if they believed the market was saturated?

I want to be wrong people. I want to learn! Help me make it make sense!

 

[feynoob]

Blame your pfp.

 

[Laptop1991]

Yes, because of the extra money they might make if enough gamers play them and spend real money in the game.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Blame your pfp.

The Live Service market has grown considerably since 2017 (the launch of Fortnite BR), so can it really be that?

 

[feynoob]

The Live Service market has grown considerably since 2017 (the launch of Fortnite BR), so can it really be that?

People are trying to copy Fortnite moto.
That game generates insane amount of money.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

People are trying to copy Fortnite moto.
That game generates insane amount of money.

I think that's a separate issue.

Copying Fortnite and failing (which games have done this again) and believing the Live Service market is saturated are two different things. I just don't see the logic in the latter.

 

[killatopak]

Mobile games. Scourge of the century. We could have gotten high quality mobile games and instead we got gacha...

I blame Farmville

 

[feynoob]

I think that's a separate issue.

Copying Fortnite and failing (which games have done this again) and believing the Live Service market is saturated are two different things. I just don't see the logic in the latter.

Nah, Fortnite success saturated the market.
We have plethora of gaming trying to capitalize these live service games because of that game.

Fortnite makes billions of dollars from live service games, that means everyone wants a slice of that money.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Nah, Fortnite success saturated the market.
We have plethora of gaming trying to capitalize these live service games because of that game.

Fortnite makes billions of dollars from live service games, that means everyone wants a slice of that money.

What does the word saturated mean to you?

If we're seeing all this data showing growth over the last 5 years, and we haven't seen anything level off, then why did Fortnite saturate the market?

I'm having trouble making the jump there.

 

[LRKD]

Imo, It's already 'oversaturated'. But only to a select portion of the gaming world. To the long time more dedicated gamer, the market is already oversaturated with live service games, that are now leaking at an annoying pace into games that shouldn't be live service.

However to the more 'modern', casual gamer who loves mobile/gaas. There is no market saturation to them, and they continue growing in install base size. These games will continue to release constantly, but only a few really blow up. The rest will either end up with continual support on a smaller budget & scale to retain it's whales, and small fan base until the well runs dry, or end up dying quickly receiving few updates before cancelation. Live service is just the extensions of mobile gaming into console gaming space. It will continue to grow despite market saturation. Just like mobile games, there are constant release of new mobile games, and constant cancelation of them as well, doesn't matter that they don't do well, just cancel it and release again until you end up with your hit game and make the big bucks.

 

[Loomy]

There's like 3 big live service games that aren't MMORPGs. It's not even close to being saturated.

 

[Guilty_AI]

welcome back Men_in_Boxes

 

[yurinka]

It's wishful thinking, it isn't saturated.

Data shows it kept growing and it's expected to continue growing for the years to come.

 

[ReBurn]

I don't know that I've heard that lately. I think the potential for most types of live service games to be successful is limited by the number of games of the same type. There are only so many players for a kind of game and if one game already has most of those players the options are steal them away or try to make new ones, both of which are easy to do. Tough to make your version of Fortnite popular when so many people alread enjoys Fortnite and see no reason to switch.

I think there's plenty of opportunity. Just have to be unique and fun enough to attract the players.

 

[Guilty_AI]

On the topic, the main issue with live service games is that they compete for the players time. They want you to dedicate your gaming time, or at least your lazy or multiplayer gaming time, to them and only them. This creates an issue where GAAS has trouble coexisting with each other.

These types of games won't die, there's still plenty of demand for it, but the vast majority won't takeoff. It'll be saturated in the sense where the market will be filled with way more of them than there are hours players are willing to spend on.

You'll have a few major ones printing money, a handful of smaller ones making enough to survive, and tons upon tons of failures.

 

[Werewolf Jones]

It won't stop. Games will live and games will die and some games won't even have a chance. After 2019 during the peak COVID era it started getting too much. A lot of MP wanted live service elements, some retracted it like EA but the push is still happening. It's just a fierce competition the only thing is these games are not eternal once the player base dies so do the games to the point you won't even be able to play them.

 

[Wildebeest]

The only people who argue this are hacks with rage bait YouTube channels who jump on every story of failure out there but ignore the successes. Same people who will argue that the last Tomb Raider games were huge financial success stories and that Square were just greedy.