Site icon pcpixelplay

No More Forcing Singleplayer Studios to Make Live Service Games – A Call for Industry Change

Sony-Live-Service-Games

Sony-Live-Service-Games

Table of Contents

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:

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

Dragon Age: The Veilguard

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

Exit mobile version