Usually when games are revealed as live-service, the reaction is generally looked down upon. Most people assume a live-service game means content will be held back, or cost extra, or in general just feel less like a complete package. Most of the time, those assumptions are misinformed or flat-out wrong.
For those who jump in with both feet, it usually makes the game better in the long end, giving it more content than it would have received upon release, and usually a bigger player base. It also doesn’t usually detract from people who just want to jump in and out, or play solely the campaign.
The problem comes from using the structure of live service holds back bug fixes and other kinds of support, until you have new content.
Live service, games as a service, and other catchall phrases can all mean the same and different things, so I should probably clarify what I mean in this context. For me, live service means there is on-going support to create new content for new and existing players. This often heavily relies on asset generation, creating new art, new models, and new features and game modes. Support, on the other hand, means bug fixes, UI updates, and balancing. These are usually game systems that work on their own, but could be handled better. This usually doesn’t involve asset generation, and is mostly a way to create new content within existing systems for the existing players.
The fact that I have to clarify what I mean by live-server is also part of the reason people often have a problem with it. Depending on how it’s handled, it can either be a detriment or benefit to players.
Borderlands 3, as much as I wouldn’t classify it as a live-service game, tried to reap the benefits of the structure with its Shift Keys, codes you could redeem for in-game items. The problem was, not only were these codes were distributed all the internet in different places, making them hard to track down, but they also had an expiration on them. So for someone who picked up the game months after release, if they managed to hunt one down, chances are it was already expired.
Diablo 3, while it had a rocky start, eventually grew into a live-service game after its Reaper of Souls expansion. Every few months a new seasonal theme gives new opportunities to experiment with different character builds, as well as a challenges for cosmetic rewards.
Battlefront 2 followed the live-service formula with double XP weekends and special events for new hero skins, though this started a year after release due to DICE overhauling the progression system after launch.
Warframe, probably the best example of a live-service game, released in 2013 and seven years later it’s still in the list of top games played each year. It’s had new classes, maps, events, and expansion consistently and the player base grows bigger because of it. I have no doubt that I would’ve gotten heavily into Warframe had it came out around the time I was playing Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer.
With all this in context, it’s been a little disappointing to see Star Wars Squadrons, which released nearly a month ago, flounder with bug fixes and support.
I was invited to its first technical alpha and wanted to try it out, but for a game where controls are so important, some of the keybinds and mouse controls weren’t working, which makes testing it out very frustrating. Now even after release, new controls bugs have surfaced. EA Motive has said time and time again that Squadrons is a game that you can play how you want, whether that’s casually with a controller, or more hardcore with a flightstick. But the control puts are putting a damper on actually trying to get any of that to a point where it feels comfortable and satisfying to use.
Squadrons wasn’t meant to be a live-service game, so I’m not expecting new content or features or constant updates. But when bug fixes are slow or held back to coincide with support, rather than pushed out when they are ready, it’s at that point the live-service structure starts to do more harm than good.
The Trench Run 