The State of Live-Service Games: A Disarrayed Landscape
This is The Stepback, a weekly newsletter diving into a key story from the tech world. For insights on the ongoing challenges of live-service games, keep an eye on Andrew Webster. The Stepback lands in subscribers’ inboxes at 8 AM ET.
How it started
Two years ago, I found myself at the top of the iconic red stairs in Times Square, witnessing one of the most bizarre concerts of my life. As glowing butterflies danced across the screens, a crowd gathered, sensing something significant was about to unfold. Then, a countdown began, and moments later, one of the screens opened up to reveal Ice Spice, followed by Snoop Dogg, both delivering short performances for the New York audience. The surreal twist? It was all a promotional event for Fortnite.
Epic Games’ battle royale has become the face of a new entertainment model: the live-service game, a continuous stream of content that can become as addictive as gaming itself. When these titles hit the mark, they can be incredibly profitable and, unlike traditional games, they have lasting power. The Fortnite concert in Times Square showcased just how deeply a live-service game can penetrate popular culture. Not every game can claim a complete takeover of Times Square.
Many other developers have chased that same exhilarating success. While a few have managed to find their footing, the live-service gold rush has left behind a graveyard of failures. Fortnite remains at the top, but the landscape of live-service games is chaotic.
How it’s going
The trend of live-service games failing isn’t new. Numerous titles have been canceled in recent years due to an inability to attract the necessary player base: Sega’s Hyenas, Ubisoft’s Hyper Scape, Amazon’s Crucible, Valve’s Artifact, and WB’s MultiVersus are just a few examples. This doesn’t even include projects that were in development but never launched, like live-service adaptations of The Last of Us and God of War from Sony. The fallout isn’t just about games shutting down; it also leads to layoffs and studio closures.
What’s shifted is the speed at which games are labeled failures. A notable case is Concord, another Sony project, a sci-fi shooter that spent eight years in development but was canceled less than a month after its launch, resulting in the closure of its development studio. Recently, Highguard—a squad shooter from a new studio with veterans from Apex Legends—was shut down less than two months after going live. This follows Riot’s layoffs from its newly launched fighting game spinoff 2XKO, citing that “overall momentum hasn’t reached the level needed to support a team of this size long term.” The expectations for these games seem unrealistic, especially when they’re competing with giants like Fortnite, yet are given little time to gain traction.
The allure of live-service games is clear for developers and publishers. Some are free to download, while others require a purchase, but all offer in-game purchases—characters, weapons, or seasonal battle passes—to keep players spending. A successful live-service game not only generates revenue at launch but also provides ongoing income for companies.
However, the same factors that make these games appealing from a business standpoint also make the market difficult to penetrate. Player behavior plays a significant role; traditional games are bought, completed, and set aside, while live-service games aim to monopolize your time and attention to encourage spending.
Since time is limited, only a handful of these games can thrive with a large player base. Once a game like Fortnite or League of Legends establishes itself, it’s tough to lure players away, as they’ve already invested significant time and money. The Steam player charts illustrate this: aside from the current hot title (like Slay the Spire II), the charts are dominated by long-standing games such as Apex Legends, PUBG, and Counter-Strike.
Maintaining these games is also costly. After launch, they require constant updates, bug fixes, and new content to keep players engaged. Many operate on a seasonal model, with major updates every few months. Fortnite even undergoes complete resets every few years to keep things fresh. This demands a lot of effort, and it doesn’t always yield results, which is why companies are quick to pull the plug when a game shows signs of faltering.
These challenges affect even seemingly successful titles. Last year, EA made a significant push into the live-service arena with Battlefield 6, a massive shooter developed by four of its studios. Just days after its launch, EA touted it as the “biggest launch in franchise history.” Yet, this week, all four studios faced layoffs to “better align our teams around what matters most to our community.”
What happens next
Live-service games are here to stay. The established titles remain relatively strong—even if Fortnite recently raised its prices “to help pay the bills”—and new releases like Marathon from Bungie show promise for longevity. However, there are indications that publishers are starting to pull back. Notably, Sony, which once aimed to launch 10 live-service games by March 2026, has since halved that number. Both EA and Ubisoft are also restructuring to focus on creating fewer, higher-quality games.
While the potential rewards of a successful live-service game are enticing, these shifts may signal that companies are recognizing the risks of developing a hit don’t outweigh the very real costs of failure, which is often the more likely outcome. After all, one of the most consistently successful companies in the industry, Nintendo, has thrived by selling games the traditional way while only dabbling in live-service models and subscriptions.
Fortnite is a battle royale where 100 players drop onto an island until only one remains. The live-service game landscape isn’t quite as cutthroat—but it’s not far off, either.
By the way
* One of the more disappointing attempts at a live-service shooter was FBC: Firebreak from Remedy, known for its single-player action games. Firebreak flopped so badly that Remedy’s CEO eventually stepped down.
* While Sony has heavily invested in live-service games, it still produces some fantastic cinematic adventures, like last year’s excellent Ghost of Yōtei.
