Building an Engaging Live Ecosystem for Players

Ahead of the Live Service Gaming Summit, we spoke to Matthew Laurence, engagement director at Avalanche Studios Group, who shared how to maintain player interest in the challenging, competitive live game space. Discover the key components of sustaining a living ecosystem and the importance of a streamlined onboarding experience and continuous real-world testing to create a successful live service game.

You are presenting on ‘Building an Engaging Live Ecosystem for Players’ at the Live Service Gaming Summit. Let’s give our readers a preview of what you may be covering. What are the essential components of a living product, and how can we integrate these elements to create a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts?

The key components of a living ecosystem are:

• Approachable

• Polished and Well-Supported

• Depth, Replayability, and Ownership

• Diverse Experiences and Social Systems

• Vibrant, Welcoming Community

As for how they can be integrated into a coherent, synergistic whole, the unfun-but-true answer is that it really depends on what you're making. Every genre, target demographic, and product will require the above elements to be implemented to different degrees and in different ways. The crux of the matter is that they all must be considered and wherever you ultimately choose to focus your efforts, you must do so with full awareness of why you're doing it and what you expect to achieve in the process.

Live game design is noted for its simplicity in concept but difficulty in execution. What are the hallmarks of successful live game design from day one? If a live service game isn't meeting expectations, what strategies do you recommend for salvaging its trajectory?

Hallmarks of success: An easy, streamlined, and polished onboarding experience that brings players into the heart of your game's core loop with a minimum of friction. You need to make your case as quickly and with as much delight and quality as possible, because from the moment a player opens your game, the clock is ticking.

As for games that miss the mark and fail to meet their KPIs, part of the answer to that question depends on when you've become aware of this failing - was there a closed beta? A soft launch? Remember, the longer you go without testing your game in real-world conditions, the more you risk a disastrous launch. Live games should not be treated with the same marketing and release strategies as premium ones, which means you don't necessarily want to engineer a massive launch unless you're certain your product is ready for it - your game will never be as bad as it is on day one, after all, so why would you want to direct the maximum number of eyes to it in that state? If you're F2P, you'll sacrifice your golden cohort and salt the earth for months to come, and if you're a paid product, then you'll make your launch money, sure, but you'll also be left with a dead (or dying) community, so what was the point of choosing live service in the first place?

In short, you shouldn't allow your game to release at a stage in which missed expectations will destroy you. You should test your product for as long as you need to be satisfied it will perform as needed on launch, and only then should you unveil it with a full marketing push.

Given the challenges in the live game space, why do so many fail to maintain player interest? How difficult is it to keep a game relevant and engaging over time, especially considering that gamers have many options?

Because your competition is entrenched, honed, jam-packed with years of content, and utterly ferocious, while your potential players are disloyal and spoiled for choice. If you release a casual battle royale, for instance, then you are competing directly with Fortnite, and you need to not only be better than them, but you also need to give players a value proposition that is higher than what they've already invested (not only in terms of money, but also time and social circles) in Fortnite and make that case in a matter of minutes. The same is true for most popular genres, which means perfection isn't some lofty goal - it's the minimum requirement for success.

Conversely, those same hurdles make it far easier to keep your game relevant and engaging over time - assuming you've actually managed to attract an audience and stake a claim on the live market, that is. You'll face a mountain of challenges in establishing yourself, but if you overcome them, then they will become firebreaks against destruction. At that point, the key is keeping your ecosystem alive, constantly refreshing the killer experience that landed you on the scene in the first place through new content and live events.

Success in live games is often viewed as merging a good game with a good community. However, many games still fail despite this integration. What key factor do you believe is often overlooked by game designers and business strategists in the live game industry?
If this happens - you manage to make a good game and connect it with a good community - then barring product-specific pitfalls, it's possible you neglected your mid-to-long-term retention. In short, you made a fun game, attracted a bunch of passionate players with it, and then had nothing for them to invest in after the first few weeks. As a general rule, you need to launch your game with three months of content and meta progression ready to go, and then immediately begin working on supporting and expanding things from there. After all, the hard work isn't over when you launch - it's just begun.

What discussions are you most looking forward to at the Live Service Gaming Summit?

I'm deeply curious about the future, and I'd love to chat with designers about what they see as new trends and opportunities, as well as interesting systems and best-in-class titles they're currently playing (or making)!