The real problem with live services is that they demand too much from players; Suicide Squad and Skull and Bones can't expect players to give them time.
It's a strange start to the year for the game as a service market. “Minor” titles (at least in terms of budget and sales price) such as Palworld and Helldivers 2 have garnered public approval by selling figures beyond expectations, while the more important names such as Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League e Skull and Bones they don't seem to have convinced.
In fact, the truth is that in neither case we can speak of a total rejection by the public. Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League continues to have a “Mostly positive” rating on Steam, certainly not what you would expect from a major disappointment. Skull and Bones, on the other hand, despite having a very low user average on Metacritic (3.6) and certainly not convincing press ratings (average of 60), seems to be absolutely loved by the fans who actually play it.
In fact, Ubisoft talks about four hours a day on average for Skull and Bones users. Of course, it doesn't specify how many these users are and an excellent level of 'engagement' (the second best ever for Ubisoft, no small feat) cannot forever offset a poor level of sales, since supporting a AAAA costs money.
The impression, however, is that these are not total failures, but simply games that have convinced a small group of players, which however risks not being enough to justify the support of high-budget live services.
Live services demand too much from players
Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League
So the problem is always the same. Live services aren't like old-fashioned premium games, which are started, finished, and then there's room for more. They are founded on the idea of retaining the player always glued to the screen, for months if not years. The public knows well that it makes little sense to buy the new live service for €80 and then play for only a couple of weeks and is now increasingly reluctant to trust a new live service, because it knows that the commitment would be too much, with then perhaps the risk of seeing the servers closed within a year.
Con many solid, appreciated and active live services (Fortnite and the various Call of Duty games are the simplest to mention), asking the player to find space for something new is really complex, especially if the player still wants to play a classic game that can be started and finished (which However, it can take a long time.)
Gamers' time is limited and betting on Skull and Bones, Suicide Squad Kill the Justice League or anything else coming in the next few months doesn't just mean spending €80, but it also means spending dozens of hours before deciding if it's worth continuing. When there are even small pre-launch doubts (and the two games mentioned have made the public doubt on several occasions), it is obvious that many prefer not to take the risk.
The cure for this problem it is inherent in the nature of the live service itself: since the game does not die immediately, the public may decide to give it a chance later, after seeing that it is actually supported. It will all depend on how good this post-launch support is.
This is an editorial written by a member of the editorial team and is not necessarily representative of the editorial line of Aroged.