Live Service
has now become a recurring term in the video game industry. The term has a negative connotation as it often describes questionable practices to keep players tied to a single game. The community manager of Palworld has now spoken out against this.
What is it about? Palworld was a massive hit at the beginning of 2024. The player numbers on Steam kept growing and growing. But of course, this couldn’t continue indefinitely. The survival game had fewer and fewer players. This sparked discussions about player numbers, to which Palworld advised the community not to participate in the debate.
In an interview with the YouTube channel Going Indie, the community manager of Palworld, Bucky, spoke about live service games and why players should not be made to play just a single game.
With the latest update, some players have also returned:
The Problem with Live Service Games
What does the community manager think of the current live service trend? Bucky is the community manager of Pocket Pair, the company behind Palworld. He often speaks publicly about the industry. In the current interview with Going Indie, he discusses the conversation around player numbers and live service games.
He finds it critical when attempts are made to make players only play one game.
I don’t think you need to be forced to always play the same game. It’s not healthy for us, it’s not healthy for the developers, it’s not healthy for the players, it’s not healthy for the medium of gaming, and it’s not healthy for our industry.
Bucky from Pocket Pair on live service games (Source: Going Indie)
Live Service as a Contrast to MMORPGs and MOBAs
He believes that this narrative leads large companies to create more and more soulless
live service games that are shut down months later. He cites MOBAs and MMORPGs as examples of games that can be played every day.
The difference he sees compared to the criticized live service games is that MMORPGs were designed to be played daily. In the current “live service” trend, he sees the pressure for daily play applied to games that are not actually intended for that. He explains that not every game needs to be playable indefinitely.
He does not like the discussions about player numbers either; one should play many games and support indie companies: Who cares if only 5 people play it […] just enjoy it.
A mantra that naturally also helps his company.
Is this perspective so simple? Unfortunately, no. Big games cost more and more money to produce. Maintaining an online game is not cheap, and the employees working on new updates must also be paid. The live service model is the easiest option for consistent revenue.
Nevertheless, the methods used to keep players engaged are often questionable, and the model live service
produces many games that die quickly as they do not meet expectations. But enough other games are released, allowing one to avoid the topic entirely. One of the biggest live service flops recently was the new DC game: Warner Bros. releases figures showing how hard Suicide Squad really flopped
