Living Games vs. Timeless Games

The last 15 years or so has seen a huge shift toward "living" games--i.e. games that are regularly changed through patches and expansions. The business world loves these because they are typically monetized for continued spending of the players that you just can't get from an unchanging game.

Though I am not opposed to living games (I have played and enjoyed several myself), I am going to make the case that they are overvalued and have non-obvious drawbacks from both a business and a gameplay perspective. And I am going to start with a story. 

The Rise and Fall of Warmachine

For those who are not familiar, Warmachine is a tabletop miniatures game that had a huge burst of popularity (at least among the wargaming crowd) for a few years before falling to a shadow of its former glory. 

I played a little bit of the first edition (Mk1) but really started getting into it during Mk2. Once I realized how brilliant of a game it was, I sold my whole collection of Warhammer and WH40K miniatures, which I had enjoyed so much over the previous ten years. I just couldn't see myself ever going back to the game I had once loved but was so clearly inferior. I heard similar things at game stores and on gaming podcasts. Privateer Press, the makers of Warmachine, had created something so much better than the giant that had dominated tabletop gaming that people were moving over and not looking back. 

During Mk2, new models were not released very often, and direct changes to existing models were VERY rare. Though there could certainly be hype for new stuff, the general culture was just to play what was there. With a game that good, who needed to chase the lastest releases? 

And then they fell. Fast. They announced Mk3 with the reasoning that they had learned a lot over Mk2, and they wanted to apply all of that to make a better version of what we had. Player reaction was mostly positive, and we got excited reading the spoilers. They had another announcement: Mk3 was going to be a living game. Model stats and rules would be tracked on an app rather than cards, so they could make changes as needed to keep the balance. This, too, was well received. At least until reality hit. 

In Mk2, they had the concept of theme lists where you could build an army under certain limitations but get small bonuses for doing so. In Mk3, they decided to make the theme list bonuses so strong that you had to play in one to be competitive. Suddenly even people with decent sized collections had to buy a bunch of new models to field an effective army. Some models couldn't be played in any theme until after a few updates. 

Next, the balance was terrible in ways that should have taken very little playtesting to figure out. The natural conclusion (whether right or wrong) was that putting everything on the app for easy updates had made them decide to release an unfinished product and let the players do their testing--a strategy all too common among video game developers. 

The third disaster came when they tried to fix these problems. As Privateer Press quickly nerfed all the overpowered models and strategies, people's purchases were invalidated. This is mildly frustrating in a video game, but it's on a totally new level on a tabletop game where you purchased, assembled, and possibly painted those models that just got nerfed into oblivion. And as one disaster leads to another, game stores stopped supporting them. Gaming nights faded, tournaments stopped being hosted, and everything from Privateer Press was put on clearance to create shelf space for other things. My local game store was struggling to sell models at 75% off by the end. 

Attempted Recovery

During this time, Privateer Press was releasing a lot of new models, including new factions. They also moved into the all-too-common trap of releasing blatantly overpowered models to drive extra purchases. Finally, they came out with their next big move: Mk4. They explained that to keep a business running, you need new purchases, and they were going to fundamentally change Warmachine. A lot of your old models would become invalidated, and staying with the game would require new purchases now and then. 

Their reasoning seemed good, and most of the community was even sympathetic. But there was one big problem: The community wasn't excited. We could all understand the business reasoning, but most of us had quit playing, and nothing about Mk4 made us want to pick it up. Warmachine isn't dead. Mk4 is running, some people are really enjoying it, and Privateer Press is still selling models. But it's far from what it once was. 

A Ray of Hope

Story time is almost over, then I'll get to some analysis. A few weeks ago, some of us who hadn't played in years decided to play under the old Mk3 rules. My brother even contacted people going to a gaming convention he was attending and persuaded a few to dust off their old armies and do the same. All of us had quit halfway through Mk3, so we didn't have any of the overpowered models they released at the end. The conclusion was unanimous: The game was incredible. We all walked away planning armies, discussing tactics, and eagerly planning our next game. However good Mk4 is (none of us have played it), Mk3 had eventually made it to a great place, and all our old excitement was back.

Fundamental Weaknesses

And now we get to my title. Though the borders are blurry, I think most games would fit into one of three categories: 

1. Living games (Fortnite, Magic, The Gathering, Warmachine Mk4): Heavily supported and regularly modified. Often difficult or impossible to return to an older version.
2. Dead Games (the vast majority of games ever made): Games that do not have a meaningful number of people playing them, whether or not they ever did. 
3. Timeless Games (Chess, Chrono Trigger, Ocarina of Time): Games that rarely, if ever, receive changes but are loved and played by many long after their release. 

Warmachine Mk2 was on track to be a mostly timeless game, particularly if they had chosen to further slow new releases, and at that, they were succeeding. When they decided to imitate the big names in the video game world and turn it into a living game, they lost most of their fan base, even though they ended up at something brilliant in mid Mk3. 

So why does a living game work so well in some cases and completely fail in others. Let's take a look at the limitations and weaknesses.

1. A living game tends to require a high level of continuous time commitment from its players. If I go back to Dawn of War after a two year break, I can have fun playing whatever number of games I want. If I go back to League of Legends after a six month break, I'll be fighting champions I've never seen (who are critical to understand if you want to have a chance), champions I thought I knew that have been heavily modified, a different item shop than I remember, and likely other changes. Players have to stay up-to-date.
2. Building on #1, most people can only make time for 0-2 living games at a time. Playing more consumes far too much of most people's lives to be feasible. For some people, even one living game is too much.
3. Good game design is at war with money making: Because it takes so many resources to maintain a living game, you have to constantly hunt for ways to keep the cash flow up. Pay-to-win mechanics, easy rewards to keep your attention, time sinks, immersion-breaking microtransactions ("Look, you can get a cool car in this medieval fantasy game."), and detrimental content releases are just a few ways living games try to hold your attention and keep you spending.

Making Profit from Timeless Games 

In a way, this was all there ever was until broadband Internet became mainstream. You would release a game and be done. What's wrong with this model? Nothing really, unless you're trend-obsessed. I'm sure many readers saw what I said there and immediately thought, "But nowadays players expect regular updates", and yes, many do. Many others don't. In fact, this could be considered a follow-up to my previous post where I talk about busy hardcore gamers who are numerous, often wealthy, and generally ignored by the industry (https://indulgentcreativity.blogspot.com/2022/10/get-money-from-underserved-demographic.html). We like to be able to take breaks then come back to the same game we remembered. 

The main thing is to set expectations from the beginning. There's a totally different mentality between a player who expects something overpowered to get nerfed and a player who knows it never will, so he just has to learn better counters. 

To be clear, I'm not saying that the industry should quit making living games, I'm saying that it's an overused trend, particularly in the multiplayer realm. 

And lastly, this does go against the popular model of releasing broken games and fixing them after release. You have to get it right before you let the players have it.