Like fashion, the type of the best-selling Video Games, year on year, come in ‘trends’. 1998’s ‘Doom’ spawned dozens of pixelated First-Person Shooters, Grand Theft Auto fathered countless attempts at living, breathing worlds you’re free to roam, and 2020’s terribly received Cyberpunk gave rise to a whole generation of potential game creators thinking twice about making a game at all……
Well, the current ongoing trend that has lingered like a bad smell since 2019 is “live service gaming”, a non-genre specific approach to creating a game that means it is designed from the ground up to have ongoing updates (such as new maps, skins, weapons, playable characters etc), therefore prolonging its shelf-life and, in very cynical terms, squeezing as much money out of the player as physically possible.
It is a dirty phrase amongst gamers. Synonymous with the monetisation of playerbases (which for some games are predominantly made up of children) and a distinct focus from the higher-ups at companies to create games where players are worried about missing out on content if they don’t play, rather than playing out of pure enjoyment.
Household names like Call of Duty and Fortnite have made BILLIONS of dollars over the last few years orienteering their games towards this style, relying on ‘season passes’, which usually come with character skins, XP boosters and other incentives, to generate money and playtime from its players all year round, rather than the £50 purchase once a year they would have previously received when their latest title released.
Jump on any Twitter thread, Reddit comment section or official forum regarding a new game being announced as ‘Live Service’ though, and it will be a constant stream of negative, anti-monetisation, anti-corporate bile. And yet, in essence, it is a brilliant idea. Consumer prices now frequently hit £70 for a ‘Next-Gen’ title, production costs of games rival Hollywood blockbusters, and gamers have grown tired of yearly franchise releases. The conception of ‘Live service’ games could have signified a shift to a more customer orientated and accessible way of creating, shaping, and playing video games.
Of course, community input is always involved in any game made. Open Betas, feedback sessions and polls are commonplace, but if ‘live service’ is becoming the norm, why is constant community management and customer input so seldom seen?
Last year’s rather short-lived hit ‘Fall Guys’ dipped it’s toe in to invigorating community input and management. From surveying players on the homescreen of the game regarding their favourite levels, what maps should be played, and what playlists should be added, to constant social media posts and newsletter updates showcasing the future of the game. “Players mostly just want to feel like they’re valued and are being listened to” said Fall Guys’ community manager, Oliver Hindle.
“You don’t always have to act on their feedback, but you should always be listening to their concerns and acknowledging their feedback”.
Games companies want to build multi-year sustainable communities without considering that they need to be an active participant in that community for it be nurtured and for it to grow. Most companies treat subreddits and official accounts as platforms for PR, not for two-way communication. Social media could act as a constant channel for the monitoring and evaluation of a game’s current distribution and future downloadable content strategy, while simultaneously acting as a tool to grow a games player numbers. And the best thing is, the company doesn’t necessarily have to take the feedback onboard!
Gaming behemoths like Call Of Duty will, of course, announce future content ahead of time to generate buzz, and there’ll have some inkling as to whether it’ll be popular, but why not offer EVERY player or social media follower an avenue to contribute to the shaping of what content they release long before the developers get to work on it?
The most recent spate of skin releases for Call of Duty Warzone were based off 80s movie stars (playable versions of Rambo and Die Hard’s John McClaine) which both fit the aesthetic of the game’s Cold War era setting. But most of its player demographic are between 15 and 30 years old. Far too young to remember either character outside of ironic Christmas traditions. Why not put the available options to a poll?
Licensing issues are, of course, one of the biggest hurdles for this kind of concept, but you could still offer a limited choice with the licenses that already in discussion and offer an opportunity for participants to request others.
It’s a no brainer. And it gets your game labelled as one that actually listens to the concerns and desires of its players – something as rare as hen’s teeth in today’s market.
Matt Adkin 