Highguard Fails: Is It Too Late to Save Live Service Games?!

Highguard's launch this week might have gone unnoticed were it not for its surprise appearance at last year's The Game Awards. Unusually for a game with no prior buzz or established reputation, it was unveiled as the show's grand finale, immediately drawing intense, if somewhat bewildered, scrutiny. Even as concrete details remained scarce, it continued to attract criticism, seemingly for the mere "sin" of being yet another live-service game.

Highguard Fails: Is It Too Late to Save Live Servi...

Now that Highguard is out, there's much to discuss, but its arrival has sparked a conversation about the "Live service curse" – the deep skepticism and inherent negativity that seems to greet every new contender, even before they have a chance to prove themselves. This week's Big Question: are we being too harsh on live-service games? It's a valid question, considering the sheer volume of these games hitting the market. I've personally scrolled past so many trailers and announcements, it's hard not to feel a bit fatigued myself.

Skepticism is understandable. As a whole, Live service games have fostered considerable distrust over the years, adopting increasingly manipulative and exploitative tactics to sustain themselves – from loot boxes and battle pass grinds to limited-time FOMO (fear of missing out). It's like the wild west of gaming monetization, and a lot of companies seem to be testing just how far they can push it.

However, some have found a more player-friendly formula for survival, earning praise for their approach, even if it was hard-won. "It's easy to decry live service games as awful – a waste of time, money, and development resources – when you focus on the rancid stuff," argues Eurogamer's Connor Makar, "but that ignores the player-minded games out there; the ones that understand that with great time investment must come great respect for that time: your Warframes, your Helldivers 2s, your Old School RuneScapes; the finer few that float above the rest. Step back, and there's clearly a good way to approach live service development, away from the trend-chasing, absurd monetisation, limited-time FOMO slop." It's a good point. We tend to remember the bad apples, not the ones diligently working to build a community and offer genuine value.

Eurogamer's Dom Peppiat shares a similar sentiment. "I was a hardcore Destiny 2 player and didn't mind paying for content multiple times a year," they explain. "It was based on an old MMO-style way of thinking: pump in money, get a chunk of content. Fine. Good. I pretty much knew what to expect and what my money would get me. Since Bungie made the game free-to-play, though, the seasonal system of updates became more vague, and more prone to last-minute changes – suddenly, there was no expectation of value to updates or seasons, and gradually all the coolest cosmetics began to disappear behind a separate, currency-based paywall that you couldn't really earn in-game." This highlights the slippery slope that some live-service games can fall into, where the focus shifts from providing content to maximizing profit.

As Dom notes, a Faustian bargain lies at the heart of any live service proposition: "either you pay to keep things going, or you eat the ads in order to have the developers keep their lights on." It's a tough balance, and ultimately, the success of any live service game hinges on finding that sweet spot where players feel valued and the developers can continue to support their creation.