The live-service market is now more competitive than ever. In today’s busy world, people have limited time, and live-service games take up a big part of that time. There are still chances in the field, but breaking through is tougher.
Each new live-service hit makes it even harder for the next one to gain traction. Many central console and PC studios continue to double down on live-service strategies. Yet, the data shows that 53% of gamers still prefer single-player experiences.
MIDiA’s new gaming report shows why it’s time to invest more in single-player games. It breaks down player preferences by platform and age. It shows what makes gamers try new things. It also examines key themes in puzzle, action-adventure, sports, shooters, and RPGs. These insights offer actionable, data-backed recommendations for developers, publishers, and bettors exploring gaming-related markets like 22Bet AZ.
The Cost of Chasing Live-Service: How AAA Studios Lost Their Way
Many single-player studios had to make live-service games, but this trend didn’t pay off.
AAA developers continue to embrace the live-service model, hoping to achieve success. They want to copy the success of Fortnite, League of Legends, Roblox, and other hits.
Even studios famous for great single-player games are shifting to live-service models. They are chasing trends instead of focusing on what they do best.
For most, it’s been a losing game—with a growing list of failed projects to show for it. SEGA canceled Creative Assembly’s Hyenas. Also, PlayStation canceled Naughty Dog’s The Last of Us Online after years of work.
Other well-known single-player titles have tried live services, but the results weren’t great. Crystal Dynamics had a tough time with Marvel’s Avengers. EA’s BioWare also struggled with Anthem. Platinum Games flopped with Babylon’s Fall. Microsoft’s Arkane faced issues with Redfall. The list goes on.
This underlines an undeniable opportunity cost:
- Ironically, those same studios have made hundreds of millions from their solo game successes.
- How much revenue and consumer goodwill were lost when these companies had to focus on live-service games?
- Most publishers find the market too fragile. In a crowded market, there’s little room to take massive risks.
Consistent small wins often beat swinging for a big hit and missing completely.
The surge in live-service games couldn’t have come at a worse time—oversaturation is killing momentum. Publishers need to cut costs. This helps them handle a tough economy and fix overspending from the pandemic.
The solution for many studios is simple: return to their roots with intense single-player experiences.
New live-service games have struggled, but single-player games keep winning. They break records and rake in hundreds of millions or more. Big IPs like Zelda and Spider-Man are doing well. New franchises are also thriving. Just look at the numbers—Elden Ring moved 25 million units, and Black Myth: Wukong has already hit 20 million.
- People under 25 are more likely to enjoy multiplayer games than single-player games. This shift points to the increasing popularity of online gaming ahead.
- The market is crowded. Yet, younger audiences enjoy solo play. About 30% of 16–19-year-olds and 35% of 20–24-year-olds prefer this style.
- Life gets busier in your mid-20s. Younger generations also value social play more.
- That said, players aged 25 and up are still the top target for single-player success.
With their self-contained format, single-player games are a better fit for today’s fragmented attention spans.
Live-service games have fostered strong communities. So, asking players to switch for good is a hard sell.
Yet, players are more willing to take a break from those games to enjoy a solo experience. Releasing during quieter times for major live-service games can be a good idea. This could happen in the later parts of their seasons.
Busy gamers over 25 find it easier to play single-player games. Handheld options like the Steam Deck or PlayStation Portal make it even easier to dive into single-player titles.
Single-Player Isn’t Just Nostalgia—It’s a Smarter Bet in Today’s Gaming Landscape
AAA single-player games cost a lot to produce. For instance, Spider-Man 2 had a budget of hundreds of millions. But there’s growing potential for studios to create smaller, more focused single-player titles.
Live-service games can be even costlier. Genshin Impact costs $100 million to build and needs $200 million annually to keep running.
Many publishers may consider taking a break to reassess. The live-service space is quite saturated right now, and they could enjoy investing more in solo experiences.
This article touches on the basics. Our report examines what gamers want, why they buy, and where publishers can find easy wins.
