4 ms·

> In 2008, those three publishers released 98 games; in 2018 they released just 28, not including expansions. In short, the single-player game was not sustainab

> In 2008, those three publishers released 98 games; in 2018 they released just 28, not including expansions. In short, the single-player game was not sustainable. So why should we think the current model is? The single player game was 'dead' because video game companies decided they were dead, not because of any market forces. They realized that games with multiplayer features sold a bit better, so they decided to focus on those, to the point of (mostly) abandoning single player games. Big publishers decided to make fewer, bigger games. But indies (and other mid-tier devs) filled a huge market gap (Kickstarter, anyone?), so nothing really changed much.

CM30 7y ago
Also because multiplayer games are easy to implement dodgy monetisation methods in. Few people would consider paying for lootboxes/microtransactions/whatever in a single player game, whereas a decent percentage (unfortunately) would for a multiplayer one. By comparison, DLC for a single player game is often more effort and a one off deal.
- brianpgordon 7y ago
  They tried their damnedest with Middle-earth: Shadow of War! Critics didn't seem to mind very much but the Metacritic user score tells you what the community thought about being coerced into buying lootboxes to finish a single-player game.
  - hi5eyes 7y ago
    >Critics didn't seem to mind very much yongyea and jim sterling disagree dont know about whatever gamespot/ign have been saying but they're becoming irrelevant
- ReidZB 7y ago
  The latest Assassin's Creed games have single-player microtransactions. It's crazy: https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-explains-assassin-s-creed-odyssey-s-microtransa-1829635195 https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-explains-assassin-s-creed-odyssey... For instance, you could buy things like XP boosters, unique-appearance gear, map unlocks, etc. Though if I remember correctly, you could pretty easily use Cheat Engine to give yourself as much of the microtransaction currency as you wanted—after all, it was a single-player game.
noobermin 7y ago
Right. If anything, as a gamer, I feel like there are in fact too many games that I can't keep up. It seems like it would be better for a slow down rather than to have even more large overly chalked full games.
- seer 7y ago
  Well one doesn’t have to play _all_ the games out there right :) I used to stay on top of new games and at least try all the top grossers, but as time went on I started playing fewer and fewer ones because of a lot of factors. Less time in general, and I’m also more demanding, meaning I’ll skip obviously sub-par ones since I’ve already tried ones like them didn’t enjoy it. And my tasted have sharpened - I know better beforehand what I would like exploring. So yeah all in all I think instead of partying hard and drinking whole bottles of cheap vodka, I know prefer a glass of good brandy in agreeable company now and then. To be honest I think its a good thing.
agent008t 7y ago
I may be wrong on any of these points, but: 1. Keeping up with latest technology (graphics) is important for games, as those create the first impression. It is difficult to market a game built on outdated technology. 2. The above means that making games gets more and more expensive, probably faster than the market expands (if it is still expanding). 3. Multiplayer games are more profitable than single-player games. This means that getting funding to make a single-player game gets more difficult, as it may provide a very poor return on investment, if at all. Only exceptions are low-risk existing franchises, which is why we mostly see those in the single-player scene. The original Deus Ex, System Shock 2 or even Metal Gear Solid would be nearly impossible today as those projects would be considered to be too high risk / low reward.
- dangerface 7y ago
  1. Minecraft is the biggest selling game, or was at one point. Games should be fun, pretty is an after thought. 3. Its harder to pirate multiplayer games than single player only, thats why they ditched them. I don't think single player games are high risk / low reward but the games industry is defiantly laser focused on high risk / unrealistic rewards.
  - friendlybus 7y ago
    >pretty is an after thought. Pretty is a design choice (or should be). Minecraft's low resolution works well with people who appreciate low resolution worlds, aka kids. Minecraft's true genius, intended or not, is being a game that grows up with the kid as they play. You start off singleplayer by yourself just getting by in survival mode and you end up building massive city sized projects in multiplayer learning to co-operate on a grand scale. That learning process can cover 5yr old to 16yr olds. Photoreal is going to become cheaper and cheaper so making an artist aesthetic is going to be more important for standing out than 'better' graphics.
  - faissaloo 7y ago
    Minecraft may no longer be the best selling game, but it is the most searched for once again. It's going through a bit of a renaissance.
Hitton 7y ago
Big factor in switch to more multiplayer is that the games are much more resistant to piracy, thus selling better as you said. Sadly this brings also single player games which could be be easily offline, but they need access to server anyway.
taneq 7y ago
Multiplayer is a shortcut to replayability. Developers saw games like Counterstrike get played literally for decades due to compelling multiplayer and wondered why they were spending millions of dollars implementing single player campaigns.
skizm 7y ago
If companies saw that multiplayer games sell better, so they decided to optimize towards those, that is the definition of market forces. Right?
- theandrewbailey 7y ago
  They forgot the part where there's a market for single player games. It might not be as large, but still plenty lucrative.
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    They know there's a market for single player games. They also know that single player games are trivial to pirate, unlike multiplayer games where the company controls the server. Who says piracy is a victimless crime?
    - baud147258 7y ago
      Single player games are often protected by Denuvo, which sometimes takes weeks or months to crack. Except that the duration during which the game stay protected doesn't seem to have any impact on the sales.
      - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        > Single player games are often protected by Denuvo, which sometimes takes weeks or months to crack. The first Denuvo game was in 2014, more than a decade after the trend towards multiplayer games got rolling. > Except that the duration during which the game stay protected doesn't seem to have any impact on the sales. The game publishers who continue to pay to use Denuvo indicate otherwise. In a hit-or-miss industry like video games, publishers are not in the habit of being stupid with their money.
        drucik 7y ago
        > The game publishers who continue to pay to use Denuvo indicate otherwise. In a hit-or-miss industry like video games, publishers are not in the habit of being stupid with their money. I could say that the game publishers who continue to release games without additional protections indicate exactly this, as publishers are not in the habit of being stupid with their money. That doesn’t seem like a good argument, does it? The only reason, at least the one I could think of, why some publishers still push aggressive DRMs into their products is that someone is selling them this solution and management believes that they protect themselves from “bad pirates”. If someone wants to buy the game, he will buy it. If someone wants to pirate it, he will do just that. The only 100% working way around it are multiplayer games. The other almost as successful method seem to be just making good games, as Nintendo, From Software, CD Projekt etc show again and again.

CM30 7y ago

Also because multiplayer games are easy to implement dodgy monetisation methods in. Few people would consider paying for lootboxes/microtransactions/whatever in a single player game, whereas a decent percentage (unfortunately) would for a multiplayer one. By comparison, DLC for a single player game is often more effort and a one off deal.

brianpgordon 7y ago
They tried their damnedest with Middle-earth: Shadow of War! Critics didn't seem to mind very much but the Metacritic user score tells you what the community thought about being coerced into buying lootboxes to finish a single-player game.
- hi5eyes 7y ago
  >Critics didn't seem to mind very much yongyea and jim sterling disagree dont know about whatever gamespot/ign have been saying but they're becoming irrelevant
ReidZB 7y ago
The latest Assassin's Creed games have single-player microtransactions. It's crazy: https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-explains-assassin-s-creed-odyssey-s-microtransa-1829635195 https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-explains-assassin-s-creed-odyssey... For instance, you could buy things like XP boosters, unique-appearance gear, map unlocks, etc. Though if I remember correctly, you could pretty easily use Cheat Engine to give yourself as much of the microtransaction currency as you wanted—after all, it was a single-player game.

noobermin 7y ago

Right. If anything, as a gamer, I feel like there are in fact too many games that I can't keep up. It seems like it would be better for a slow down rather than to have even more large overly chalked full games.

seer 7y ago
Well one doesn’t have to play _all_ the games out there right :) I used to stay on top of new games and at least try all the top grossers, but as time went on I started playing fewer and fewer ones because of a lot of factors. Less time in general, and I’m also more demanding, meaning I’ll skip obviously sub-par ones since I’ve already tried ones like them didn’t enjoy it. And my tasted have sharpened - I know better beforehand what I would like exploring. So yeah all in all I think instead of partying hard and drinking whole bottles of cheap vodka, I know prefer a glass of good brandy in agreeable company now and then. To be honest I think its a good thing.

agent008t 7y ago

I may be wrong on any of these points, but: 1. Keeping up with latest technology (graphics) is important for games, as those create the first impression. It is difficult to market a game built on outdated technology. 2. The above means that making games gets more and more expensive, probably faster than the market expands (if it is still expanding). 3. Multiplayer games are more profitable than single-player games. This means that getting funding to make a single-player game gets more difficult, as it may provide a very poor return on investment, if at all. Only exceptions are low-risk existing franchises, which is why we mostly see those in the single-player scene. The original Deus Ex, System Shock 2 or even Metal Gear Solid would be nearly impossible today as those projects would be considered to be too high risk / low reward.

dangerface 7y ago
1. Minecraft is the biggest selling game, or was at one point. Games should be fun, pretty is an after thought. 3. Its harder to pirate multiplayer games than single player only, thats why they ditched them. I don't think single player games are high risk / low reward but the games industry is defiantly laser focused on high risk / unrealistic rewards.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  >pretty is an after thought. Pretty is a design choice (or should be). Minecraft's low resolution works well with people who appreciate low resolution worlds, aka kids. Minecraft's true genius, intended or not, is being a game that grows up with the kid as they play. You start off singleplayer by yourself just getting by in survival mode and you end up building massive city sized projects in multiplayer learning to co-operate on a grand scale. That learning process can cover 5yr old to 16yr olds. Photoreal is going to become cheaper and cheaper so making an artist aesthetic is going to be more important for standing out than 'better' graphics.
- faissaloo 7y ago
  Minecraft may no longer be the best selling game, but it is the most searched for once again. It's going through a bit of a renaissance.

Hitton 7y ago

Big factor in switch to more multiplayer is that the games are much more resistant to piracy, thus selling better as you said. Sadly this brings also single player games which could be be easily offline, but they need access to server anyway.

taneq 7y ago

Multiplayer is a shortcut to replayability. Developers saw games like Counterstrike get played literally for decades due to compelling multiplayer and wondered why they were spending millions of dollars implementing single player campaigns.

skizm 7y ago

If companies saw that multiplayer games sell better, so they decided to optimize towards those, that is the definition of market forces. Right?

theandrewbailey 7y ago
They forgot the part where there's a market for single player games. It might not be as large, but still plenty lucrative.
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  They know there's a market for single player games. They also know that single player games are trivial to pirate, unlike multiplayer games where the company controls the server. Who says piracy is a victimless crime?
  - baud147258 7y ago
    Single player games are often protected by Denuvo, which sometimes takes weeks or months to crack. Except that the duration during which the game stay protected doesn't seem to have any impact on the sales.
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > Single player games are often protected by Denuvo, which sometimes takes weeks or months to crack. The first Denuvo game was in 2014, more than a decade after the trend towards multiplayer games got rolling. > Except that the duration during which the game stay protected doesn't seem to have any impact on the sales. The game publishers who continue to pay to use Denuvo indicate otherwise. In a hit-or-miss industry like video games, publishers are not in the habit of being stupid with their money.
      - drucik 7y ago
        > The game publishers who continue to pay to use Denuvo indicate otherwise. In a hit-or-miss industry like video games, publishers are not in the habit of being stupid with their money. I could say that the game publishers who continue to release games without additional protections indicate exactly this, as publishers are not in the habit of being stupid with their money. That doesn’t seem like a good argument, does it? The only reason, at least the one I could think of, why some publishers still push aggressive DRMs into their products is that someone is selling them this solution and management believes that they protect themselves from “bad pirates”. If someone wants to buy the game, he will buy it. If someone wants to pirate it, he will do just that. The only 100% working way around it are multiplayer games. The other almost as successful method seem to be just making good games, as Nintendo, From Software, CD Projekt etc show again and again.