The recent launch of Highguard has ignited discussions regarding the criticisms surrounding live-service games. With Highguard being the standout reveal at The Game Awards, it faced harsh scrutiny as a new contender in an already skeptical market. Many live-service games have garnered distrust due to manipulative monetization tactics like loot boxes and battle passes, leading to a dichotomy of opinions on their existence. While some live-service titles have found success by focusing on player experience and engagement, others have faced backlash for exploiting players and prioritizing profits over creativity. This introspection invites gamers to rethink their stance on live-service games and whether they deserve a fresh slate despite historical failures.

Are we being too hard on live-service games?

While skepticism is understandable given the history of exploitative practices in the live-service genre, it’s essential to recognize that not all live-service games are created equal. Some developers prioritize player engagement and satisfaction, providing lasting value rather than just short-term profits.

Highguard is developed by a team known for their work on Apex Legends, aiming to blend strategic gameplay with competitive elements. It highlights the potential for innovation in the live-service space, offering a hopeful outlook that not all such games are driven solely by corporate interests, but sometimes by passion and creativity from dedicated developers.