​I opened this post with the hope that it will remain active for a while, at least to gather opinions from the entire community. I want to start by saying that I am a gamer with extensive experience: I’ve been playing since the days of Monkey Island, Doom, Duke Nukem, Quake, Ultima Online, Descent, and other titles that have shaped gaming history. Back then, being original was easier; every idea was something new. However, what stood out was that games often included a map editor, allowing modders to create endless content. This ensured extraordinary longevity for many games, some of which are still played today alongside their sequels.

Today, times have changed. When I saw titles set in the Warhammer 40K universe emerge, I was convinced they would be groundbreaking. I always had high hopes for Space Marine 2, especially after the failure of projects like Eternal Crusade , Dark Millenium (THQ) , Warhammer online ... etc.. and other titles that, unfortunately, didn’t make it . But now, analyzing the situation, I see a game that has created false expectations.

On one hand, there are the Champion Packs, which are not cheap and, together with the game, have resulted in significant sales. From what I understand, Space Marine 2 has sold about 5 million copies, although verifying the exact numbers would be beneficial. On the other hand, what is lacking is a steady flow of content. For a game like this, patches and updates must be released frequently and with impeccable quality. Instead, we’re faced with content released with errors (like the Dark Angels or the poorly represented Salamanders, with their misfit role as snipers. While they can exist, snipers are certainly not emblematic of the Salamanders).

Then the worst ...  there is unfortunately a segment of players who claim, "Better let the game die, play something else," just because someone from Saber said, "You can also play something else." Let’s set the record straight: such statements reflect ignorance and a lack of understanding of the industry. These players, who believe they understand gaming, often argue that old school games never had live service elements. However, how can they even make such claims when they weren’t around to witness or experience those times? This type of attitude demonstrates a fundamental lack of perspective and highlights how detached their arguments are from the reality of gaming’s evolution.

Critical Reflection It’s important to reflect: this could be a somewhat dishonest marketing move. Knowing the hype around Warhammer 40K, I could create a game, launch Champion Packs, make a ton of money, and then slow down the release of content until the game is left in a semi-abandoned state, full of bugs and issues. This is unacceptable and represents a lack of professionalism in the gaming industry.

An entrepreneur in the gaming sector knows that building a solid reputation requires consistency, coherence, and respect for the player base. Games are no longer just products sold once: they are services. Neglecting a game after launch not only loses the players' trust but also erodes the long-term value of the brand. Successful companies like Valve or Digital Extremes have shown that supporting a game over the long term creates a virtuous cycle: trust generates loyalty, and loyalty brings a steady stream of revenue.

A title like Space Marine 2 needs a long-term strategy to remain competitive in a crowded market. This means:

• Regular updates: Not just patches, but meaningful content that keeps players engaged.

• Transparent communication: Informing the community about roadmaps, goals, and progress. While they do this, the issue lies in the slow progress and delays in achieving these goals, which frustrates players and undermines their trust in the developers' commitment.
  

• Continuous innovation: Adapting to market changes and technologies to offer an experience that stays relevant.

Moreover, a development team must see their game as a platform in constant evolution, not as a static product. This involves investing in data analysis to understand player needs, leveraging direct feedback, and adopting an iterative approach to development. Keeping an active and satisfied community not only extends the game's lifespan but also creates opportunities to expand the title’s universe through media, merchandising, and collaborations.

Examples of Successful Live Services Let’s look at examples of well-managed live services, like Planetside 2, released in 2012. This game, born as a live service, peaked in popularity due to its massive faction battles and continues to have an active community, with players engaged from morning to night.

Another example is Team Fortress 2, launched in 2007 and transitioning to free-to-play in 2011. Originally a traditional game, it was transformed into a live service through a system of regular updates and microtransactions for cosmetic items, which have kept it relevant for years.

Finally, Warframe, launched in 2013, is a prime example of a highly successful live service. Born as a free-to-play game, it thrived due to a model of constant and significant updates, expansive content, and a monetization system considered fair. This approach has allowed the game to attract millions of players and maintain an active and loyal community for over a decade.

These games demonstrate that a well-managed live service model can ensure longevity and satisfy both new users and veterans.

Game Sustainability A game like Space Marine 2 requires consistent support to survive. This involves:

• Frequent and significant updates.

• Additional content that respects the Warhammer 40K universe.

• A transparent and non-predatory monetization model.

• Professional management that shows respect for the community.

​

Losing a segment of players who don’t understand this necessity? So be it. Those players only want the game to die and have no interest in its continuity. What they fail to understand is that keeping a game alive comes with costs, and a live service model can be the ideal solution to balance revenues and content, ensuring a solid future for the title. Losing players who resist progress or advocate for the game’s demise is not a problem; in fact, it can be a benefit. By shedding this negativity, the game can regain vitality, free from the dead weight of misguided opinions. This shift would attract back those who had lost interest, reigniting activity and creating a positive cycle of engagement and growth for the community.

Conclusion It’s time to think clearly. Let’s stop talking nonsense and accept that the future of games like Space Marine 2 depends on their evolution into well-managed live services. If you don’t like it, play something else. We, true Warhammer 40K enthusiasts, want this universe to continue thriving, not to be abandoned due to short-sighted decisions or a lack of developer support.

Lol didn't read, Fortnite kids whining. The Sabers simply did not initially have enough resources for life service crap, what happens with such games was sufficiently shown by the story with the Enternal Crusade, only triple AAA studios can take this out, but then clown skins and Nicki Minaj Marine will be waiting for us. They would focus more on PVE PVP, bugs, and new single player content would be great because I don't have enough company.  Would you still complain that the game is not an extraction shooter what's popular now . Life service is literally the modern evil in the gaming industry, which is why it is in shit . I don't want the game to require me to kill 100 gaunts in the head every day to get the rank of ultra ultra ultra sucker, live services usually come with a battle pass, without which it is absolutely impossible to grind for something worthy from the shitty rewards for your efforts, I want to play the game and not sit in it every day doing shitty tasks to farm the rank, this is just a waste of time, and the story of the donkey and the carrot is a promise of a reward that does not exist, that's what a life service game is, you log into the game every day like to work and do not get pleasure. They don't need a live service. They need beta servers where we can see what changes they are making and collect feedback about it from us. And to identify the slightest bugs before the patch is released

​

Naus_ wrote:

​

gjronin2001 wrote:

I fear if this game becomes live service we will never see a new campaign 

so, no

I ask again, what makes you think that? In my head devs getting more money means bigger possibility of seeing campaign DLC. This possibility is very small, because in such games campaign is nothing more than long tutorial before you engage in multiplayer which is main part of it, but still. I cannot understand your thought process. 

You mean you won't see new campaign because game will be alive for 10 years so they won't make SM 3...?

As for this post, I wrote what I think about live service in other, simmilar one so I won't just copy and paste. In short: I think it is good idea as there are many benefits and really no downsides. To name some of benefits:

1. More frequent, better content drops - which game NOW dramatically needs.

2. Longer life of game - what we hope for. 

3. Better replaybility potential - which game NOW dramatically needs. 

What are arguments of the opposite side of barricade?

1. Lol, fortnide kids crying.

2. Destiny has live service and is ****.

3. Go play other games. 

There is really no discussion here. 

In the end we have to believe Devs knows what they are doing. 

But after seeing this new Champion pack it is really getting more and more difficult. It looks a bit like ambition of devs peaked before release and after release it is in slow decline. Might not be like that in fact, but I see this from other, limited player perspective. Noone knows what happens in devs offices, maybe they work 20h/day and keep hiring new people, who knows.

We will see what future brings.:)

Because you don't understand how business works, developers don't count on the successful success of the game, they were allocated a budget, initially. And the fact that the game took off doesn't mean that they will immediately throw all their efforts and go to saw content for the game, now they will count the profits and perhaps allocate more money for support, secondly, you don't know what kind of contract they have, most likely most of the money went to the Publisher, the copyright holder Games Workshop. Perhaps the developers generally have a fixed profit without a percentage of sales. Therefore, they work within the limits of their roadmap, money has already been allocated for this, something new has not yet been agreed upon, and you forget that developers do not come out of thin air, they may simply not have enough people, considering that their new game Turok has already been announced, the main backbone is obviously working on it . It comforts me that Saber has been supporting their games for quite a long time, look at Snowrunner getting content, WWZ as I said recently got another DLC

​

nikof135 wrote:

​

Naus_ wrote:

​

gjronin2001 wrote:

I fear if this game becomes live service we will never see a new campaign 

so, no

I ask again, what makes you think that? In my head devs getting more money means bigger possibility of seeing campaign DLC. This possibility is very small, because in such games campaign is nothing more than long tutorial before you engage in multiplayer which is main part of it, but still. I cannot understand your thought process. 

You mean you won't see new campaign because game will be alive for 10 years so they won't make SM 3...?

As for this post, I wrote what I think about live service in other, simmilar one so I won't just copy and paste. In short: I think it is good idea as there are many benefits and really no downsides. To name some of benefits:

1. More frequent, better content drops - which game NOW dramatically needs.

2. Longer life of game - what we hope for. 

3. Better replaybility potential - which game NOW dramatically needs. 

What are arguments of the opposite side of barricade?

1. Lol, fortnide kids crying.

2. Destiny has live service and is ****.

3. Go play other games. 

There is really no discussion here. 

In the end we have to believe Devs knows what they are doing. 

But after seeing this new Champion pack it is really getting more and more difficult. It looks a bit like ambition of devs peaked before release and after release it is in slow decline. Might not be like that in fact, but I see this from other, limited player perspective. Noone knows what happens in devs offices, maybe they work 20h/day and keep hiring new people, who knows.

We will see what future brings.:)

Because you don't understand how business works, developers don't count on the successful success of the game, they were allocated a budget, initially. And the fact that the game took off doesn't mean that they will immediately throw all their efforts and go to saw content for the game, now they will count the profits and perhaps allocate more money for support, secondly, you don't know what kind of contract they have, most likely most of the money went to the Publisher, the copyright holder Games Workshop. Perhaps the developers generally have a fixed profit without a percentage of sales. Therefore, they work within the limits of their roadmap, money has already been allocated for this, something new has not yet been agreed upon, and you forget that developers do not come out of thin air, they may simply not have enough people, considering that their new game Turok has already been announced, the main backbone is obviously working on it . It comforts me that Saber has been supporting their games for quite a long time, look at Snowrunner getting content, WWZ as I said recently got another DLC

Fortnite whiners"? Really? Coming from someone whose idea of a solid argument is stringing together baseless assumptions and juvenile insults, that's hilarious. Let me guess—you’re one of those people who think yelling louder makes you right? Here's the reality: I’ve been gaming since the golden age of Monkey Island, Doom, and Uol, etc.. as i told in the first post, while you were probably still figuring out how to double-click a mouse. So, spare me the Fortnite comparisons; I was playing old school before you even knew what a GPU was.

Your rant about Turok and "evil live services" is a masterpiece of cluelessness. Let me explain something simple enough for you to understand: abandoning a successful game like Space Marine 2 to focus on another title isn’t "business sense"—it’s incompetence. If you think that’s how game development works, you’ve probably spent more time whining on forums than actually understanding how the industry functions.

Oh, and your caricature of live service as "grinding 100 gaunts to be an ultra sucker"? That’s so outdated it might as well be a meme. If that’s the extent of your knowledge, do us all a favor and stick to single-player games where your lack of perspective won’t drag down actual discussions.

Let’s go through the ridiculous points you’ve made :

1. They’ve shifted their interest to Turok, so we shouldn’t expect more content for Space Marine 2."

   • This is an incredibly weak justification. Abandoning a game to focus on another does not reflect good business or development practices. If a company commits to developing and releasing a title, especially one tied to a beloved IP like Warhammer 40K, it has a responsibility to its community. Diverting resources without maintaining proper support is not only a betrayal of player trust but also a self-sabotaging business decision. Games thrive on long-term engagement; leaving one game "as is" while focusing on another risks alienating players, damaging the brand, and reducing future profitability.

   • Moreover, the success of Space Marine 2 should encourage continued support. As you pointed out yourself, Saber has maintained games like Snowrunner and World War Z with updates and DLCs. Why should Space Marine 2 be any different? Suggesting that a studio can’t manage multiple projects when they’ve done so in the past simply doesn’t hold up.

2. "The developers are working within their roadmap and budget constraints."

   • This argument is partially true but misses a critical point: budgets and roadmaps are not immutable. If a game performs beyond expectations (as Space Marine 2 reportedly has), additional resources and adjustments to the roadmap can and should be made. Publishers like Focus Entertainment and Games Workshop are not oblivious to profit opportunities; they can easily allocate more funds to support a game that has proven successful.

   • Furthermore, a rigid roadmap with no room for community feedback or additional content demonstrates a lack of adaptability. Modern game development thrives on player engagement and evolving post-launch plans based on player reception. Refusing to adjust is a surefire way to stagnate and kill the game's momentum.

3. "Live service is inherently bad because it forces players to grind endlessly for rewards."

   • This blanket statement oversimplifies and misrepresents what live service can be. Not all live service games are created equal. Yes, there are examples of poorly implemented systems (Destiny or Anthem), but there are also examples of live service done right (Warframe, Planetside 2, Sea of Thieves). Live service doesn’t have to mean mindless grind; it can mean regular, meaningful updates that keep the game fresh and engaging.

   • The comparison to “working 100 gaunts daily to earn ranks” is reductive and shows a misunderstanding of how live service can be tailored. A well-designed live service model would focus on delivering new storylines, cooperative gameplay experiences, and engaging challenges that align with the Warhammer 40K universe—not turning the game into a mindless chore.

4. "Developers might not have the resources or enough staff to work on additional content."

   • This argument ignores how scalable development can be. If Saber lacks the manpower to support Space Marine 2 adequately, the logical step is to expand their team or outsource specific tasks. Large studios routinely hire additional staff or partner with external developers to handle post-launch support. Suggesting that a game should stagnate simply because a studio has resource constraints reflects poor understanding of industry practices.

   • Saber’s history contradicts this claim. They’ve shown they can manage long-term support for multiple titles. Why would Space Marine 2, a game with significant sales and a passionate community, be an exception?

5. "Live service is the modern evil of gaming."

   • This is a hyperbolic and outdated argument. The gaming industry has evolved, and live service is no longer inherently "evil." It’s a tool, and like any tool, its success depends on how it’s implemented. Games like Warframe and Final Fantasy XIV prove that live service can create thriving communities and offer value for years, rather than fading into obscurity shortly after launch.

​