The Ongoing Shift to Live Services | Opinion

For years, the conventional wisdom in game development has been that the introduction of new hardware would significantly increase costs. New platforms brought higher fidelity assets, new technical challenges, and increased consumer expectations, making it expensive to develop games for new consoles. However, the current hardware transition doesn't seem to be the primary cause of Ubisoft's recent struggles. Instead, the company is grappling with a business transition, shifting from monolithic software releases to live service games. This transition is not unique to Ubisoft, as many companies in the industry are facing similar challenges. Live services require a dramatically different approach to design, development, operation, and support, involving new competencies that may not be present in existing teams. As a result, many companies have treated live service components as an add-on to existing games, rather than re-engineering the game and team from the ground up. This approach can lead to bloat in game design and development resources, ultimately affecting player engagement and development costs. Ubisoft's ambition to focus on live services is driving its current problems, as well as those of other publishers in the industry. The company wants to transform its franchises, such as Assassin's Creed, into multi-platform live service offerings, but this requires acquiring new competencies and unlearning old ones. The assumption is that there's an audience for such offerings, but it's equally possible that existing fans may be alienated without attracting new ones. The coming years will see more of this, as live services become the norm, and publishers will be expected to focus on this business model. Sony's acquisition of Bungie is a wise move, but there are concerns about what this means for its IPs and live services. Other publishers and developers are also considering live service elements, and it remains to be seen how audiences will react as live services become more prevalent. The sustainability of this approach in terms of development resources and costs is also a significant question.