Highguard, a new game that came out this week, probably wouldn’t have gotten much attention if it hadn’t shown up at last year’s The Game Awards. It was a surprise reveal at the end of the show, which was unusual for a game nobody had heard of before. This sudden spotlight led to a lot of people looking at it closely, and some were confused. Even though there wasn’t much information about the game, it started getting a lot of negative comments, mostly because it was another “live service” game. Now that Highguard is out, there’s more to discuss about it. But its release made us think about the “live service curse” – the strong doubt and dislike that seems to follow any new game of this type, even before it’s had a chance to show what it can do. So, this week’s big question for us and for you is: are we being too hard on live service games?

It’s understandable why people are suspicious. Over the years, live service games have often used tricky ways to make money and keep players hooked. Think about things like loot boxes, endless “battle pass” challenges, and special items that are only available for a short time. These tactics have made many people distrustful. However, there are also live service games that have found a better way to work, earning praise for being more player-friendly, even if they had to work hard to earn that trust.

Eurogamer’s own Connor Makar says, “It’s easy to just call live service games bad – a waste of time, money, and effort – if you only look at the worst examples. But that would mean ignoring the games that actually care about players. These are the games that understand that if players are going to spend a lot of time, the game needs to *respect* that time. Games like Warframe, Helldivers 2, and Old School RuneScape are good examples. If you take a step back, you can see that there’s a good way to make live service games, one that doesn’t involve chasing trends, using crazy money-making schemes, or relying on limited-time offers.”

But it’s hard to point to a live service game and say it’s the *perfect* one, because many games that started out well have slowly become less player-friendly over time. Take Sea of Thieves, for example. It’s not the worst case, but after it added a paid store in 2019, people noticed a change. It started by only selling ship decorations with Rare’s own themes. Now, its “Pirate Emporium” is full of all sorts of outfits, dances, pets, trophies, and ship sets that can cost over $20. The free decorations that aren’t time-limited are becoming rare, and game updates often feel more like ads for the paid store. Plus, they added a time-consuming seasonal battle pass in 2021 and are using more limited-time offers. This suggests that even with good intentions, if a system *can* be used to make more money, it probably will be, whether by the company or others.

Eurogamer’s Dom Peppiat has a similar story. “I used to play Destiny 2 a lot and didn’t mind paying extra money for new content several times a year,” they explain. “It felt like the old way of playing online games: pay money, get a good amount of new stuff regularly. That was fine. I knew what to expect for my money. But after Bungie made the game free to play, the way they updated seasons became less clear and more likely to change at the last minute. Suddenly, there was no real expectation of value from updates or seasons. Then, the coolest cosmetic items started showing up behind a separate payment system that you couldn’t really earn in the game.”