Xbox & PlayStation Owners Are Obsessed With Live Service Games Right Now

Yes I am sure they are ...well the ones under a certain age....both my kids don't do single player games....like a foreign concept to them...just sit playing fortnite ...sprinkled with odd occasion of GTA online

No just no this couldn't be true!!

Live service games tend to be quite 'simple' games that don't require a lot of thought - more repetition and 'reward' for just playing. That makes these very easy to pick up and play and often have 'instant' reward from earning XP, Looting etc.

A lot of Single Player games are not so easy to pick up and play as they have story, plots, character development, maybe long periods of cut-scenes, lack of rewards/progression etc and when you've 'finished' have little reason to return the next day.

Even if you only play a Live Service for an hour - just to get your Daily 'rewards' etc, over a year, that adds up.You may have spent 100hrs in an RPG too - but ended up with 500hrs in a Live Service game.

Live Service are also 'social' games that many play with their friends/family. They are all playing 'live service' together which adds up too.

So not only do Live Service games generally have incentives to play regularly, they are Social games so 'groups' play together, have multiple seasons with new Content and are relatively 'simple' and 'repetitive' - like Comfort food/social dining

I play Rocket League and a bit of eFootball when I'm 'between games' or just want a quick game of something without having to think about stuff like story etc.

The problem is though, that publishers all want the next big live service game, but don't seem to realise that there are only so many players, and dragging them away from whatever live service game they are already playing, (and have maybe invested a fair bit of cash into) is extremely difficult. No-one has time to play 4, 5, 6 different Live Service games, so they'll stick to what they, and their friends are already playing.

@BAMozzy "Social games" - yeah...way to put a nice positive spin on what is essentially an enabler for toxic behavior. I have heard the social aspect of these games...it's pretty sad.

It's also sad that people don't take the time to invest in a single player game. I guess it's an age thing, but video games in the 90s were my books - especially since there was no voice acting. Games actually made me feel something. Discussing games was like being part of a book club. There was actual substance.

I feel like people are losing their ability to disconnect and enjoy a good story. All the kids want to do now is cause grief for other people and laugh about it on Discord.

PS: Get off my lawn!

This is why I don't get why people are so confused when a company tries to make a live service game. A successful one is so much more money than any game without live service.

@BacklogBrad I think more people are annoyed when publishers "chase trends" with Live Service games rather than try to come up with an original Live Service game.

Ever notice that the popular Live Service games actually had something unique about them when they first started?

Making another clone of something with a huge following isn't the answer.

@themightyant True. There is definitely less experimentation with ideas these days than there used to be.

@themightyant I would tend to agree with your observations. However my counterpoint would be that there are roughly 60% of gamers not playing live service so we are indeed in the majority. It is just the charts are weighted to show live service as popular. 40%/10 live service is 4% which much higher than the 60%/1000 games. The problem is both models are unsustainable… only so many players for live service and so much backlog for regular games.

Haha so much for GaaS being the spawn of satan.

Definitely not in the 70%, unless Metaphor Refantazio, For the King 2, or Marble It Up! Ultra are in the top 10 live service games.

But I'm sure I'm in the bottom 1% in game time thanks to old dad status so nobody would be courting my $ anyway.

If that is the case then it isn’t odd that companies are chasing the live service money cart.

I think I've played two or three in my whole life. Realized it wasn't for me and never tried again.
Would love to know other countries' statistics too.

I know in South America where games are absurdly expensive, yeah, a lot of people prefer free-to-play instead of having to pay a lot of money for one game.
Even more so when you don't have to pay Game Pass or PS+ to play something like Fortnite.

Why am I not shocked to see Microsoft attempting to jump on the Live Service bandwagon? I mean, it's worked out so well for Sony, hasn't it...!

@themightyant I'd say that the actual game-play loops are relatively 'simple' and repetitive - not that it means they don't have a skill-gap - I wouldn't say Professional Call of Duty gamers aren't on a different Skill level to the majority, but it doesn't stop the most 'casual' from being able to play CoD and have fun with friends. Maybe there is some element of 'improving' that keeps bringing gamers back, but I'd say the new content, the next 'reward' for levelling up, the daily 'XP' bonus, the relative ease to which you can 'jump in and out' too etc all help. Even if you aren't great at playing, you still earn XP, still unlock loot, still level up and get rewards. A lot of Single Player games will send you back to a check point, not 'reward' you, not earn XP...

Live Service are 'accessible' and tend to have a simple Game-play loop. Yes they may have a skill gap, but the worst player can still have fun and a laugh with friends, still earn rewards and feel like they achieved 'something'. There is almost always something to do, daily/weekly missions/challenges, daily/weekly rewards to earn etc which encourages gamers to return and those hours add up over a year. Even if you just log in and play for 20mins a day, that's 120hrs a year - more hours than a LOT of Single player games.

@GamingFan4Lyf Some people prefer to play games 'Socially' - much like some may prefer Team Sports over Solo sport. Its more about interacting with other Humans, having a laugh and enjoying 'human' company in a shared hobby.

Games like Mario Kart, Goldeneye etc had me playing hundreds if not 1000's of hours 'Socially' compared to their 'single/solo' modes/campaigns. Its the 'live/social' aspect that kept me playing years later, racking up hours and hours and hours in 'Social' games - compared to maybe 10 hours on its Single Player, another 8-15hrs here and there on other 'Single' player games. Whilst I ended up playing 'more' Single player games/modes, I spent 'more' time in a few 'Multi-player' Live games.

For example, I could spend 1000 hrs playing with friends in 1 or 2 live service games over a year, but only have 300 hours in 20+ Single Player games - some of which may only be 2-3hrs worth. So whilst I prefer Single Player experiences, Stories etc and play a LOT more Single Player games in general, I accumulate more 'hours' in Social games.

I play quite a few 'more' single player games than Social/Live Service Games, but if I'm honest, I spend more 'hours' in those 'few' Social games than all the Single Player games combined - mostly because SP games don't keep me playing all year, often finished in less than 20hours so no reason to spend more time in that.

@Fiendish-Beaver I am not surprised at all - MS have always had a much higher focus on Live Service/Online gaming and all their 'big' IP's - especially the 3 IP's they've relied on for decades (Halo, Forza and Gears) have ALL had online which has become more and more 'live' service as the technology and Social gaming has evolved as the Internet and Bandwidth has improved too.

Sea of Thieves and Minecraft - games from MS's other Studio's they owned before their 2018 Studio Acquisition growth, are also very much Live Service games. Yes Halo, Gears and Forza games may have Single Player options, but I'd argue that their 'online' is where the 'money' and therefore focus is - new Cosmetics, DLC, content, loot etc etc and where the majority of 'hours' in games are spent.

Gears or Halo campaigns can be beaten in 20hours (or less), yet some will have 1000's of hours. That 20hrs of Campaign can be the best 20hrs you spent in a Game, the reason you 'love' the IP, the Studio etc, but in terms of just 'time/engagement', Online can easily eclipse single player. Not saying that Live is therefore 'better', but as this is more about time spent, I am NOT surprised that Live Service games rack up more 'hours' of gamer time than Single Player. As I said, I can play 20+ Single Player games to completion and still not spend as much time in those than logging in to play a single Live Service game for 20mins a day to get my daily log in rewards/bonuses...

I hate this reality 😭

I’m not even coming at it from a singleplayer vs multiplayer angle. Just a quality and monetisation standpoint.

Give me more high-quality co-op games like Split Fiction and It Takes Two and less live service microtransaction-ridden slop!

I get all that you said, @BAMozzy, and agree with you. My comment was meant in a sarcastic way basically ridiculing all the other silly decisions that Microsoft have made since 2010, which have led to them being where they are today, and I was more thinking of them attempting to create a game from scratch, not one evolved from their popular franchises.

What I would say though, is that Halo and Gears became popular in the first place due to their campaigns and characters. The Live Service elements have evolved since then. The multiplayer components were very popular, but weren't the basis of that popularity, albeit that the Live Service parts are now quite probably the focus of Microsoft these days, and are indeed where people spend the majority of their time...

Makes sense, loads of people play Live Service games and probably don't always realise it, or class their game as one. I myself have put about 30 hours into WoW Classic this week and despite being known as an MMO it 100% fits under the Live Service umbrella.

@Kaloudz I don’t see how them being this popular exempts them from that status, if anything it does the opposite. As far as I’m concerned it’s mission accomplished for these greedy corporate A holes. It’s been their goal all along to “onboard” the masses to these addictive cash machines. It’s really no different than the arcade business of old, gaming kinda went full circle, sadly.

But alas, for as long as regular offline games still get made, I’ll try to not complain too much. While I’m thrilled live service constantly fails lately, it’s such a ludicrous waste of money and ultimately leads to a waste of jobs.

I think the second statistic is more telling than the first.

The first number is 70% and refers to players who played one of those top 10 Live Service games in the month of January. That could be someone like me who played Marvel Rivals one time for like 30 minutes.

The second number of 40% represents total time spent playing one of those same games. Like others already pointed out, there are other Live Service games that aren't included in that number because they're outside of the top 10. That number is huge! It's almost half the total time played in January is dedicated to just those 10 games....all of which are Live Service.

I also find it interesting that the Switch is probably the opposite. Most of those games aren't even on the system. (this is just a guess, don't kill me if that info is out there somewhere)

I'd love a bit more granularity to this data.

I do wonder if I'm part of the 70% having played single player modes in live service games - efootball and Cod.

And what is the definition of live service. Push Square has posited a very wide definition of live service - one i don't subscribe to but it highlights that you need the definition to be clear on what this really means.

@themightyant Yes, my interpretation was a bit hopeful… I hate that technically I did play a couple of those as a single player experience and got included in that stat….

I think this is less “obsessed with live-service games” and more “people really like the few really good ones”

Marvel Rivals is great btw! I’ve been having a lot of fun with it on my brother’s PS5 and my PC.

Big issue is so very, very, few live service games hit. And even if they do, the market is so incredibly narrow that it hurts itself with self inflicted wounds, like, Seasons.

Good example, from my experience, is Fallout 76. Do I like it? Yes. Did I play it often? Yes. Did I buy the Power Armor Edition? Yes, I was one those fools. Did I play a lot of the seasons? Begrudgingly, yes, with utmost distain, that eventually had me wash my hands of the game entirely.

What Fallout 76 did, like many live service games, make it so THE ONLY GAME YOU HAVE TIME TO PLAY. That turned me off since it was THE ONLY GAME I could play and it demanded two+ hours a day, every day, and work my heavy work schedule it created a point that I missed completing a season, and have never returned since annoyed missed out on things.

If they made it where could complete a season in couple days to week, I would still enjoy the game AND be playing the game. They chased me away by holding me prisoner to that game, only able play that game, if I wanted to complete the Season and not miss anything. They absolutely chased off a person that loves Fallout world so much, they bought the Power Armor Edition. Yes, it's worth mentioning that momentary lapse of reason, again.

Elder Scrolls Online is doing this same mistake in form of Golden Pursuits. At least as of now, I'm able to complete it in about week or longer. But the window of the event usually 10 days, so you still MUST play everyday. If they make it more demanding I'm out. Again, this is a person that loves Elder Scrolls Online so much I have purchased EVERY physical collections edition expansion until they stopped releasing those. And just like Fallout, they will lose a long time player and frequent consumer.

Live service games need to really decrease the forced and needed level of engagement. It burns out, frustrates, turns off, players.

Of course someone on here will obviously not read the entire comment and just say, you don't have play the game, no one is forcing you. Well, no one is forcing or asking that a season be so demanding so it's the only game you'll be able to play. I like to play different games during the week. Not same thing every day.

@InheritNegative I don’t see how them being this popular exempts them from that status, if anything it does the opposite. As far as I’m concerned it’s mission accomplished for these greedy corporate A holes.

That made me laugh Lol. And this bit...

It’s really no different than the arcade business of old, gaming kinda went full circle, sadly.

...made me feel old as hell lol. Back when those super large 50 pence pieces would get you a few extra lives in TNMT.

You're not wrong either but much like you, I'm not much of a moaner so long as they continue to make great single player games (which as far as I am concerned, are the best sorts of games you can play).

I understand the social aspect of live service games but don't get the need to play for 100s of hours just to unlock a new outfit. I remember playing Alan Wake on the 360 socially with my mate back in the day. We kept pausing so we were at the same point in the story.

I’d love to kno who all these filthy casuals are supporting live service games to such a degree

It would be interesting to see age statistics for live service games. I bet the majority of kids are not spending any time with AAA single player games.

Gamers aren't obsessed with live service games.
They're obsessed with "A" live service games.

If they do play one it's probably one or two and that's it. They're not going to go around trying every single live service game that comes out. That's why so many of them are failing. Someone who loves Fortnite won't have much in common with someone who loves Marvel Rivals. This is like grandma giving a Star Wars obsessed grandchild a Dr Who shirt because they like "Sci-fi".

Comments are stupid here. Adults can enjoy live service games ALONG with their single player games like me.

@Kieduss strange adults with a shifty look in there eyes, sure 👍

I mean the same loop could be made for no additional money but with gacha mechanisms and the near legal gambling mechanisms they have, it makes total sense they put all support towards players with money. It's like having the quarter machines in our house. I love supporting one particular game and I do buy cosmetics for it to support the developers. The more I've done that the more I've spent in the game and real world currency. Makes total sense.

@somnambulance
I don't see this as much different then the film industry. Movie of the year is usually something not a lot of people actually watched during its theatre run or didn't even release in theatres. The live services in movies are the constant sequels for popular franchises.

To me there is art and there is sports gaming. The story/campaign games are the art and the live services and multi-player games are the sports. Story/campaign games may not be much in the market but they are still worth making and can be profitable. Just not as much as sports gaming.

I once worked for a major music publisher. They gambled on a a lot of music acts because only 1 out of 30 signed would make money and 1 out of every 200 signed would make enough money to justify the publisher staying in business. The problem is that no one can ever figure out which one is the 1 in 30 or one in 200. So, they had to take a chance on a lot of acts. It is the same in gaming. There are not a lot of games that make a lot of money, but the ones that do are justification for everyone else to make their games.

@BAMozzy I think couch co-op is way different than online play. There is a sense of healthy competition and light jesting at each other.

I loved playing Super Street Fighter II tournaments with friends on SNES. Amazing memories.

I remember playing Smash and Goldeneye on N64 in college and having a blast.

Heck, I played Mortal Kombat in arcades with random strangers and it was awesome!

I just think the anonymity and lack of physical presence has really made people less capable of having healthy competitive behaviors.

I have to admit, the only time I can really game is for like an hour after work, and usually something like fortnite which is simple to gauge is suitable. I can't concentrate or have the time for these big story games.