Examining Live Service Design

I recently discussed the challenges around gacha games, both in terms of their design and the way we cover them as games journalists. While there are those who vehemently oppose gacha games in principle, it's worth remembering that these games make serious money (often somewhere in the region of $40-50 million per month for successful titles). While their financial success doesn't grant them any "rightness" from a ethical standpoint, it's nevertheless true that game developers around the world are continually looking for ways to achieve similar success with their own projects. Despite this, I believe that many observers miss the two fundamental approaches taken around live service games by successful companies.

The pain is gone

Free to play (or F2P) design first became popular with League of Legends, Team Fortress 2, and the success of the MMORPG genre in the 2000s. The first approach developers tried with MMOs and early F2Ps was "fun pain". This involves creating intentional barriers or points of friction in the game so that players are incentivized to spend money to get rid of them. Modern fans may laugh at this idea - at it may seem counter-intuitive at first glance - but it was certainly the norm through the mid-2000s and into the early 2010s. The argument at that time was not about the presence of such pain points, but rather, the questions around which kind of pain should be inflicted on players.

As mobile and live service design evolved from about 2016 onwards, this concept has generally been phased out of popular mobile games. The most commercially-successful games today have moved away from in-game ads as well (which were clearly an annoyance to players). As I'll explore further later on, the adage here is akin to catching flies with honey. But if all this learning and progress has occurred in the mobile space, what of the AAA PC and console space? I'd argue that AAA developers have utterly failed to create live service games on par with the best mobile has to offer.

Multiplayer doesn't work

Have you seen this before? A studio decides to create a live service game and they make a chaotic multiplayer experience supporting up to four players where loot is the primary form of progression. Sound familiar? From The Avengers, to Suicide Squad, and many games in between, developers have all copied the multiplayer formula that arguably finds its roots in the original Borderlands. A popular alternative approach is the "hero shooter", as seen in games like Overwatch, Team Fortress 2, and the recently-deceased Concord.

And yes, while games like Dead by Daylight, Rainbow Six: Siege, Fortnite, and League of Legends are all multiplayer experiences - and thrive as live service games - developers need to understand that multiplayer itself isn't the selling point for live service experiences. Yes, it's a popular feature, but it's not what keeps players attached to the game and continually spending money. Multiplayer elements are akin to user-created content, in the sense that the players themselves are the content, but this can't be directly monetized. Developers have to be careful, too, because paid content that gives one player a physical advantage over another may become the death knell for a live service game.

The broader problem here is that some developers assume that multiplayer might act as padding to give them time to release new content (which itself might be monetized). But there's a problem: a new expansion every six months, new story content, or new maps don't drive monetization. Games like Genshin Impact, Arknights, and others in the mobile space don't focus on multiplayer yet manage to make eye-watering monthly revenue.

So, how do they do it?

What equals money?

This question is a lot tougher to answer than you might think. Live service design and monetization go hand-in-hand; you must have a monetization model that will consistently earn money each month if you expect your live service game to survive. This model must be a factor in your gameplay design itself; relying entirely on cosmetics simply isn't enough anymore.

What I mean is that there has to be something new - gameplay-related - on a frequent basis that adds substantially to the gameplay and that players will want to spend money on. The reason that gacha design has worked so well for many studios is the simple fact that these games sell the player more gameplay with each new character offering. Both Arknights and Dragon Ball Legends recently held anniversary events with limited-time characters, and I can guarantee that both games made a lot of money during these periods. Below is a promotional trailer from Limbus Company that, even without itself being a major event, received more interest and demonstrated more personality than most of the advertisements for games like Suicide Squad and Concord.

Focusing monetization around gameplay - whether single or multiplayer - is not the same as only building monetization into the multiplayer. The former involves introducing new and interesting characters that keep the meta changing and provide variety. The latter involves content that directly influences a player's ability to "keep up" in a multiplayer environment. In other words, your monetization model should ideally be something that an individual player can enjoy for its own sake/on its own terms. There are a couple of exceptions to this rule that I'll touch on in a moment.

Continued development

One of the big challenges inherent to live service design - and this might be the hardest part of all - is the idea of continued support. If your studio is only shipping updates every 6-12 months, then you've failed and your live service game will die. Live service design inherently requires shipping regular and consistent content that adds to and/or changes the current state of the game. New characters are an easy answer, but there are also seasonal events, story re-runs, new stories, gameplay events, mini-games, and so much more.

The gold standard is to bring something new to the table every single week. But at the bare minimum, I'd say you need to be doing this at least once a month. Relying on multiplayer to carry the game for months - without fundamental new support/content - is the fast track to a dead game. The opportunity to play the "standard" version of your game should always be available, but long-time players will need something new to keep them coming back once they have mastered the standard game. This is also why content needs to be evergreen; this way you can re-use or re-run content and game modes for people who missed them the first time. We see examples of popular live service games doing something like this (where they might rotate levels, modes, and characters in and out of circulation over time).

However, it's a mistake to ship content that is only intended to be experienced once.

Some games do something like this with "seasons". I think this is a problem in games like Fortnite and Suicide Squad, where new content takes months to build but it's only available to players for a single season. This cycle specifically creates once-off experiences without adding to the longterm value proposition of the game. You can build a longterm content strategy either by establishing - right from the beginning - an overarching story that you keep adding to progressively. Alternatively, you might use new content as a form of experimentation to see what ideas land.

In Arknights, for example, every side story and new story chapter introduces some new mechanic, new enemies, and a new twist on the gameplay. Once the event is wrapped up, this content remains accessible all year round (and may even be returned later as a re-run event for bonus resources). Also, Limbus Company is telling a long-form story, where the side stories act as intermediary chapters that all contribute to the broader/overall narrative. In this case, every new piece of content aligns with the broader story and progression of the game. Even if veteran players don't return to it, it becomes another part of the overall story that players must experience if they want to see everything.

Mind you, everything I've said so far is predicated on one essential point: on day one, the game must be great. If your gameplay doesn't excite players through its base/day one offering (and without spending any money up front), people simply won't play it. Genshin Impact worked because it presented gameplay on a scale nobody else was going for at the time in the F2P space. Even if you have no intention of spending money on it, you'll still get something of great value: a fully-realized 3D open-world action game to enjoy. Many less successful games appear to bolt monetization on as an afterthought, which is always a limiting factor in terms of their revenue growth. Again, gameplay and monetization strategy must be considered as one, and right from the beginning, to increase the chances of longterm success.

Exiling frames

Let's now discuss two exceptions to the rules I've described above. There are two games that do not follow these rules at all and yet have become incredibly successful. They are Warfare and Path of Exile, which both came out in 2014, are both free to play, and have (by a large margin) the biggest monetized shops in any video game ever made. There are thousands of dollars of content available to buy, and new stuff is constantly added. What's driving their success?

I think it comes down to one simple fact: spending money is not required for anything gameplay-related. In Path of Exile, the monetization - while extensive - does not in any way, shape, or form involve the act of playing the game. Yes, you can buy quality-of-life upgrades, but none of them are actually required if you want to play through the entire game from start to finish. The bulk of the monetization is built on cosmetics, while all new gameplay content is added for free. Without spending money, you can play one of the largest ARPGs released in the past decade, which continues to get bigger with each new season.

Warframe's extensive store does sell resources and items that are required for quests and certain events, but everything you fundamentally need to play the game can also be earned through general play. Using the in-game 3D printer, it's possible to manufacture new frames and weapons provided you have the required blueprints and materials. So, you can "spend" time or money - both are valid options to acquire new stuff.

To expand on these two points: spending money in games like Warframe and Path of Exile isn't comparable to the slew of mobile F2P games. In these two examples, you're spending money for a direct and predictable benefit (no gacha, no 50/50, no "pity systems"). If I want X, I can spend Y money and I'm definitely going to get it. The content you acquire is also evergreen in nature; some cool, shiny armor piece or quality-of-life feature will always be useful into the future, theoretically no matter how long you are playing the game. This is true for both new and veteran players alike. Many gacha and other live service games will introduce content that "decays" in terms of its usefulness, which itself can provide incentive to purchase "the next hot thing". Likewise, in these two examples, there's no FOMO (fear of missing out) because content remains on the store forever and the only limited-time offers are sales or special events.

This works because, unlike every other live service game that has to balance its gameplay with its monetization model, Grinding Gear Games (Path of Exile) and Digital Extremes (Warframe) have sidestepped this problem. They don't have to worry about adding something that will conflict with their monetization model. This, in turn, affords them far more creativity and options for adding game modes and features that are different from anything else already in the game. The latest Path of Exile season, for example, adds a light city builder/management mode on top of the existing additions from previous seasons. The player is free to interact with this new content as much or as little as they like.

It's simply not possible to create modes that extend the gameplay this far without worrying about the monetization model in almost all other live service games. And while these two examples I mention have player-versus-player modes, the PvP element isn't the focus of the whole experience, which means they can avoid the balancing problems inherent in a competitive multiplayer atmosphere.

As an aside, and speaking of Path of Exile, I'm very curious about how the game will fare when its sequel is released. Sequels for live service games can be risky propositions; you're not only splitting your fanbase, but you're also effectively sunsetting any and all monetized content delivered to date. This places a great deal of pressure on the new game to succeed. And this is an example of something that hurt Payday 3, which was released with far less content and polish compared with its successful predecessor. Fans who have played Path of Exile 2 suggest that the developers are doing the smart thing: the long-awaited sequel is going to be an entirely different beast compared to the first game. I think this reduces the likelihood that the sequel will significantly cannibalize the original. And if the sequel succeeds? It could become the first example of a live service sequel that stands side-by-side with the original in terms of its own success.

Concord concerns and the future of live service

At the time of writing, Concord had just been released and was already showing signs of failure. There's a lot to study here - and I could delve into this as a marketing case study - but rather than doing this, I'll instead point you to my recent video that discusses the major points.

Far from being the latest success, Concord is a cautionary tale; a canary in the coal mine for developers and publishers, and a warning that the multiplayer-based live service model just isn't going to keep working the same way as it has historically. Just as Genshin Impact set a new standard for the scale of mobile games, there needs to exist some new concept in the multiplayer arena (everyone's seen a 5v5 hero shooter by now).

There are two sides to the formula for a successful live service game today: you need to make players care about the gameplay and keep them interested in what's coming next. Games like Arknights and Genshin impact (really, the entire miHoYoverse) keep moving the ball forward with new content and stories. Even seasonal events or anniversaries can only work if the fundamental/core game is exciting to begin with.

Conclusion

Making a good game simply isn't enough anymore. That good game needs to have a plan for the next six months to a year's worth of content, and further, that has to be understood by players on day one. If your game isn't interesting enough to play - or there doesn't appear to be a plan for meaningful support - people won't stick around.

Remember, finally, that consumers are already flooded with live service games. There's a limit to how many games players will invest in at one time (their entertainment time budget is obviously limited). Taking an existing game and improving on elements of it ("My game is just like X, but better") is an increasingly risky approach. Your new game - on day one - isn't going to be able to automatically compete with other long-standing and successful live service games with years of support and highly invested players. If you don't create an experience that stands out, you may dash your chances of success right from the beginning.

Note that at the time of publishing, we now know that Firewalk (developers of Concord) has been shut down by Sony and there won't be any attempt at salvaging the game. This is horrible news and feels like a missed opportunity to improve the situation.

If you'd like to read more of my thoughts on live service design, check out my book Game Design Deep Dive: Free to Play.