Table of Contents
- 1. Introduction – The Problem with Live Service Conversions
- 2. The Rise (and Fall) of Live Service Ambitions
- 3. Why Live Service Games Are Not for Everyone
- 4. The Case of Suicide Squad vs. Dragon Age: The Veilguard
- 5. Successful Live Service Games – A Different Breed
- 6. The High Failure Rate – Lessons from Recent Flops
- 7. Why Singleplayer Studios Struggle with Live Service Games
- 8. A Better Path – Let Studios Focus on What They Do Best
- 9. Conclusion – Protecting the Future of Singleplayer Games
Introduction – The Problem with Live Service Conversions
This year has been a rollercoaster for fans of beloved singleplayer game studios. From Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League to Dragon Age: The Veilguard, we’ve seen what happens when studios known for story-driven, singleplayer experiences try to pivot to live service games. The results? Mixed at best, disastrous at worst.
In a landscape where live service games dominate the charts, the temptation to chase that model is understandable. But forcing singleplayer studios into this mold often leads to disappointing releases, layoffs, and even the closure of once-revered developers. It’s time to acknowledge that not every studio is meant to churn out the next Fortnite or Destiny—and that’s okay.
The Rise (and Fall) of Live Service Ambitions
The live service model, where games evolve over time with constant updates, expansions, and monetization, has reshaped the industry. Games like Fortnite, Destiny, and Apex Legends have set the gold standard, drawing millions of players and generating billions in revenue.
However, these games are not easy to replicate. Live service development requires not just game design expertise, but also long-term support infrastructure, multiplayer knowledge, and robust server management. Simply slapping live service mechanics onto a singleplayer-focused title rarely results in success.
Why Live Service Games Are Not for Everyone
Live service development requires a fundamentally different approach than singleplayer game design. Singleplayer titles offer crafted, finite experiences with a strong narrative arc, while live service games focus on longevity, multiplayer interaction, and repeatable content.
Key differences:
- Narrative focus vs. Systems-driven design – Singleplayer games often hinge on strong storytelling, while live service titles prioritize mechanics that encourage endless play.
- Development cycle – Singleplayer games are released as complete experiences, whereas live service games are expected to grow and evolve over years.
- Monetization models – Singleplayer games are sold upfront, while live service games rely on in-game purchases, battle passes, and expansions.
The Case of Suicide Squad vs. Dragon Age: The Veilguard
Two prime examples from this year illustrate the live service dilemma:
Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League
- Developer: Rocksteady Studios
- Legacy: Creators of the acclaimed Arkham series
- Outcome: A live service attempt that underperformed commercially and critically. Ongoing content was canceled within a year of release.
Dragon Age: The Veilguard
- Developer: BioWare
- Legacy: Known for epic, singleplayer RPGs
- Outcome: Initially designed as a live service title, but reverted to a singleplayer RPG after Anthem’s failure. Early reception suggests this was the right move.
The difference is clear. By pivoting away from live service, BioWare likely avoided another Anthem-like catastrophe, while Rocksteady’s adherence to the model may have contributed to Suicide Squad’s struggles.
Successful Live Service Games – A Different Breed
Few singleplayer-focused studios have successfully transitioned to live service games. The ones that did often had significant multiplayer experience or unique circumstances:
- Fortnite (Epic Games): Epic had multiplayer expertise with Unreal Tournament.
- Destiny (Bungie): Bungie built Halo’s multiplayer and had a live service foundation.
- Path of Exile (Grinding Gear Games): Built from the ground up as a live service ARPG.
- Escape from Tarkov (Battlestate Games): Developed specifically as a live service shooter.
These games weren’t retrofits—they were designed as live service from the start.
The High Failure Rate – Lessons from Recent Flops
Here are notable examples of live service misfires from singleplayer-focused studios:
- Anthem (BioWare): Failed to captivate audiences, with post-launch support eventually abandoned.
- Marvel’s Avengers (Crystal Dynamics): Struggled to maintain player interest; support ended after two years.
- Redfall (Arkane Austin): Critically panned; contributed to the studio’s closure.
- Outriders (People Can Fly): Struggled commercially despite initial interest.
- The Last of Us Online (Naughty Dog): Canceled before release.
The pattern is clear: studios not built for live service often falter when attempting it.
Why Singleplayer Studios Struggle with Live Service Games
Forcing singleplayer studios to develop live service games introduces several problems:
- Cultural clash: Singleplayer studios prioritize narrative and polish, while live service games focus on longevity and constant iteration.
- Resource drain: Maintaining a live service game requires ongoing resources, often pulling teams away from developing new singleplayer experiences.
- Player fatigue: The market for live service games is saturated, making it harder for new entrants to stand out.
A Better Path – Let Studios Focus on What They Do Best
Instead of chasing the live service model, studios should be encouraged to stick to their strengths. Singleplayer games still have immense value and dedicated audiences.
Look at the recent successes of:
- Elden Ring (FromSoftware) – A purely singleplayer experience that sold over 20 million copies.
- Baldur’s Gate 3 (Larian Studios) – Critically acclaimed RPG with no live service elements.
- The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom (Nintendo) – A singleplayer masterpiece with immense commercial success.
There is still room for narrative-driven, singleplayer games to thrive.
Conclusion – Protecting the Future of Singleplayer Games
Live service games are not a one-size-fits-all solution. Forcing singleplayer studios into this mold risks alienating players, damaging reputations, and wasting development resources. By allowing studios to focus on what they do best—crafting incredible singleplayer experiences—we preserve the diversity and richness of the gaming landscape.
Let singleplayer studios stay true to their roots. The gaming world will be better for it.