So, after over a decade of every big game publisher trying and (mostly) failing to make their own money-printing live service game, they’re finally realizing that most gamers don’t actually want them. Or, perhaps they knew all along and now they’re just running out whales to extract money from. Whatever the reason, they’re now saying that “evergreen” games (that is, traditional games) are where the money is, since gamers now overwhelmingly favor them. The thing is, though, I wonder if this is going to go the way we hope it will.

One of the many lessons to be learned from studying the gaming business is that trends and money-making schemes never truly die. FPS is still largely the go-to for new multiplayer titles, albeit with a hero shooter skin; loot boxes are (largely) gone, but gotcha and other RNG heavy systems are still everywhere, and in-game cash shops are still a standard feature of many new AAA games. 

So, while it’s really cool to see games like The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt get expansions over a decade later, I can’t help but wonder how long it’s going to be before these companies start trying to retrofit older favorites into yet another flavor of live service, one they’ll likely think players will be more accepting of.

I can see the defenses for it already: “You already got to enjoy this game for years and years, so why should you care if it now has cosmetic skins and a cash shop?” Or the ol’ favorite, “games are expensive to make, so developers have to do this if they want to stay afloat and make new games.” Or the ever dismissive, “it’s their game, so they have every right to change it. You don’t get to complain.”

As you might imagine, I disagree with all of these. For one, not everyone has played every game. Even 10, 20, and 30 year old games are still being played for the first time by somebody. Shouldn’t they get to experience these games as they were? The versions that everyone’s enjoyed since they either launched or received their final DLC? The version uncompromised by cynical and unnecessary live service features?

For another, yes, games can be expensive to make, but they don’t have to be. If a developer needs to compromise and hollow out their past work in order to fund development of their next, then perhaps they should instead be considering reducing the scope of that next project. Gamers like smaller games with style more than giant ones with photorealistic graphics anyway. There’s no need for these disgustingly bloated budgets in the hundreds or even tens of millions.

And, no, while we only technically purchase a license to play the game (which is ridiculous already), once you put a game out there, it’s no longer just yours; it’s the community’s too. If old games start getting mined for extra value, then everything from game preservation, to ownership, to mods (especially mods), becomes threatened. I hate to be a downer, but there’s a lot that could go very wrong here if the gaming community fails to keep a watchful eye on this.

Okay, if you made it this far, thanks for hanging in there and bearing with me. Of course it’s not all doom and gloom. This renewed interest could mostly just mean new entries in all our favorite single player series. 

Heck, Crazy Taxi, Spyro, Stuntman and Onimusha are all already poised to make comebacks, and Capcom is still all in on Resident Evil and new single player IP like Pragmata. The potential for a true return to greatness is there, we just have to do our best to keep holding these companies accountable so that they don’t immediately slip back into their worst tendencies

---

What’s your take on all this? Are you feeling optimistic, or do you think they’ll try pulling something stupid sooner rather than later?

Image from Flickr user: Rob Obsidian (cc)