According to Eurogamer.net, Fortnite generated a staggering $5.48 billion for Epic Games in 2018 alone, just one year after launch, and has continued making billions annually since. Meanwhile, Sony’s live-service shooter Concord spectacularly failed, shutting down after only two weeks with its studio closed. Warner Bros. Games continues pushing live-service titles despite Suicide Squad’s flop, while Sega admits the model presents its “biggest challenge.” Even Remedy expressed dissatisfaction with sales of its Control spin-off FBC Firebreak, and Wargaming’s Steel Hunters lasted just three months in early access. Former Blizzard CEO Mike Morhaime calls finding success in this space “the billion dollar question,” noting the market is “very saturated” with established giants like Minecraft, League of Legends, and Roblox dominating player time.
The money question
Here’s the thing about live-service games: monetization isn’t just important—it’s everything. You’ve got two main paths, and each comes with completely different challenges. Free-to-play games like Candy Crush, which has grossed over $20 billion lifetime, rely on microtransactions but need to avoid being “a squeeze” that causes player burnout. King’s executives emphasize making games “a natural part of your life that gives you a bit of joy” without paywalls or pay-to-win mechanics.
But premium models are making a comeback too. Sharkmob’s upcoming Exoborne is going premium, and executive producer Brynley Gibson argues it creates a “different agreement with the consumer.” Basically, when players pay upfront, they’ve already made an investment, making retention easier. Plus, there’s a fascinating side benefit: co-founder Martin Hultberg notes that requiring payment upfront dramatically reduces cheating because repeat offenders can’t just create endless free accounts.
Playing by the rules
So should you stick with what players know or try to reinvent the wheel? Beomjun Lee from Nexon’s The First Descendant says both. “Keep the established convention, but at the same time offer something unique.” But that balancing act is tricky—Nexon had to remove Destiny 2-inspired icons after players cried plagiarism. For premium games, Gibson says there are “areas to innovate and areas to do what’s expected.” The established stuff? Don’t mess with it too much. Save your creative energy for what makes your game unique.
The feedback trap
Now here’s where it gets really interesting. Live-service games live and die by community engagement, but how much should developers actually listen? Destiny 2’s principal designer Alan Blaine says there’s “a skill in not looking for what players are asking for, looking at why they’re asking for it.” Players aren’t game designers—they can identify problems but rarely propose good solutions. Gibson’s team uses data from public tests to see how players actually play versus what they say in surveys. You have to sift through everything and interpret what’s really needed.
dollar-alignment”>The billion-dollar alignment
Morhaime hits on what might be the core issue: alignment between business model and player experience. “Where your business model relies on its ongoing monetization is where your development team…are going to be incentivized to spend most of their time.” If outfits are making the most money, that’s where effort goes—even if that doesn’t actually drive long-term engagement. The internal structure matters too: “Where does the voice of the player sit in all of that, and how loud is that voice?”
It’s a brutal business. For every Fortnite making billions, there are dozens of Concord-style flameouts. The successful ones? They balance monetization with player respect, convention with innovation, and vision with community feedback. Basically, they solve the alignment problem that trips up everyone else.
