Live Service Games Aren’t the Investment They Used to Be

Destiny 2 is receiving its final live service patch, and this shift away from the live service style isn’t unique to Bungie or Destiny 2. Instead, it’s a trend that’s been building in the game industry over recent years. It’s surprising that the genre has lasted this long already with how many live service games have launched and been shut down not long after.

While it’s possible to have a successful live service game that maintains a sizable playerbase for several years, this isn’t the case for most of these games. The reasons why different games are shut down can vary depending on the situation, but the overall pattern signals a shift toward single-player games and games with limited co-op, such as the classic two to four player options.

Live Service Games Require Investment and Risk

The nature of a live service game requires regular updates, and that means that the company running the game has to keep a dedicated team working on those updates. A live service game without updates ceases to be a live service game, and if the updates are released at irregular intervals and don’t maintain a decent level of quality, then the playerbase is going to shrink. The expenses make live service a risky option, and the demand for live service options isn’t high enough to warrant taking that risk in most cases.

Destiny 2 has been successful in the live service realm, having lasted almost a decade before its shutdown. However, many other games weren’t able to justify keeping their services active for that long. Concord famously lasted two weeks before it was shut down, but most live service games seem to last around one to three years before being shut down because they don’t have enough players, for budget reasons, or the investment is just not bringing in enough returns.

Single-Player Games Are Safer Investments

The demand from consumers has clearly shifted away from live service and toward primarily single-player games, some that might have co-op elements. In general, single-player games don’t require continued content patches after they’re released, although some games might receive them. This makes the investment easier to budget, and the return on that investment is apparent earlier, thanks to elements like wishlist numbers and pre-orders.

You can look at the games that have gotten all the attention in recent years and see that there’s been a shift towards single-player games. Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 and Baldur’s Gate 3 both dominated the market when they were released, and then they swept award shows. In the years before these two games, you had Elden Ring and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild — and its sequel, Tears of the Kingdom — see massive levels of success.

We’re ending the era of live service and entering the era of single-player games, which I am completely here for. While you might be able to get more hours out of live service games, that doesn’t mean the quality of those hours is good. Meanwhile, you have these single-player games with worlds to explore and emotional stories to tell, and when you finish one, you end up needing a new option to fill the void it leaves behind. Live service games were never going to outlast the classic single-player games.