Single Player Poll

[ChillaxedUpgrader]

Hi all

Does anyone feel that games developers are focusing too heavily on multiplayer/MMO content and not enough on single player satisfaction?

Titanfall is the most glaring example of late, although I think the problem covers many games and genres.

This problem has led me to purchase fewer games than I used to.

Any thoughts?
Cheers
Chillx

 

[Interocitor2]

Word! I hate multiplayer but that's what people want and play. There will be less and less straight up singleplayer games in the future. Sad times.

 

[Rationale]

I like some cooperative multiplayer, but competitive is highly repetitive. And I still prefer single player.

 

[ChillaxedUpgrader]

Word! I hate multiplayer but that's what people want and play. There will be less and less straight up singleplayer games in the future. Sad times.

Yeah it's been bugging me. I understand the appeal of multiplayer, but for me, gaming is escapism. I interact with real people all day so when I sit down to play the last thing I want is more of them up in my face!!! Bit harsh but that's what it's like.

Thing is, IF there are sufficient numbers of people who are spending less per year on games because of this, there is an open market! Money to be made! I guess the recent upswing in indie low-budget games is filling this to an extent, but quality is understandably lower.

I would have bought Titanfall if it contained a good single player mode. Same for some of the Space Combat Sims I've seen about recently.

Anyway, that's my moan!

Surely it ain't just us two who feel this way....?

 

[TheProMaster]

The only reason studios create a multiplayer is so the player doesnt return the game right after speedrunning through the singleplayers , it's a hard decision to make wether or not to lose money or have an awesome singleplayer experience. Most companies just say screw you these days and just want to make some quick money off a poorly optimised game , with an old engine , and with same gameplay. The gaming industry has gone down in recent years due to these money hungry companies , thats why I stick to indie games.

 

[ChillaxedUpgrader]

Well, so far I agree with everyone's responses. I do appreciate indie games and love the idea of crowdfunding (e.g. Star Citizen) and early access (also with S.C. and on Steam with, for example, Dayz). However, I personally have no time so spend assisting alpha development, so await with bated breath for games like these to be finished and released.

I wonder, though, whether the involvement of so many consumers with development causes alpha to take longer - leaving end-product purchasers waiting...

 

[ChillaxedUpgrader]

Hi again - this hasn't been the busiest thread in the world (and I think I should have titled it better). However, I think this is an important topic for single-player fans. This might be a long shot, but I think this thread merits a response from someone in the know. If there's anyone involved with or knowledgeable about games development who looks at this forum, would you please consider giving us your views. In particular:

1) Whether you agree that single-player fans are being neglected.
2) Whether early access is delaying game releases, therefore neglecting people who are eagerly waiting for the finished product.

***And of course, if anyone else has opinions about this, please feel free to share!***

Thanks, Chillx

 

[Pinhedd]

Hi all

Does anyone feel that games developers are focusing too heavily on multiplayer/MMO content and not enough on single player satisfaction?

Titanfall is the most glaring example of late, although I think the problem covers many games and genres.

This problem has led me to purchase fewer games than I used to.

Any thoughts?
Cheers
Chillx

Whether or not they are focusing too heavily on multiplayer/MMO content is a matter of opinion, but it's hard to deny that they are focusing more on multiplayer/MMO content than they used to.

I predicted that this phenomenon would occur about 8 to 10 years ago, right around the time that the internet started to become almost universally accessible in the developed world (albeit not always at the highest speed).

I believe that there are two related drivers for this change in focus.

First, multiplayer content is extremely recyclable. The bulk of the production budgets for AAA titles doesn't go into writing game engines, it goes into art design. Millions of dollars gets put into creating detailed cut scenes which most people will view only once. Millions more goes towards art assets and level design which, if used in a single player environment, get appreciated once at best. Multiplayer content typically capitalizes on the existing material and allows it to be used over and over again. Many multiplayer maps are simply subsections of single player levels. It's easy to do. Whereas most players will spend on average a dozen hours in a single player campaign, they'll spend hundreds of hours enjoying the multiplayer take on the same content. If players are willing to spend hundreds of hours playing the same multiplayer game over and over again, why even bother developing a singleplayer game that costs twice as much? Which do you think cost more to develop, de_dust2 or one cutscene from Final Fantasy X? Multiplayer content simply offers the greatest return on investment, so developers are pursuing it.

Second, multiplayer content can't be pirated efficiently in the same manner as single player content can be pirated. I've heard all of the tired "but piracy does x/doesn't do y" arguments, they're baseless and every C-level executive knows it. Why bother investing money into a project that people will enjoy without paying for it when they can invest money into a project that people can't enjoy unless they do pay for it?
No one at EA cares if anyone pirates Battlefield 4 because it's worthless without Battlelog, and Battlelog is subscription driven.
No one at Valve cares if anyone pirates CS:GO or TF2 because it's terribly difficult to enjoy them without access to VAC secured Steam servers. Valve probably knows more about piracy than anyone, which is why they've focused exclusively on developing multiplayer cash-farms and selling other developer's games.

 

[chimera201]

To not have the problem of piracy
Edit: I think the last AAA singleplayer PC exclusive game that I played was Crysis 1 and it's not a PC exclusive anymore

 

[Pinhedd]

To not have the problem of piracy
Edit: I think the last AAA singleplayer PC exclusive game that I played was Crysis 1 and it's not a PC exclusive anymore

Crysis 1 in its original CryEngine 2 glory is still a PC exclusive. The Crysis that was ported to the consoles was reworked with the CryEngine 3 which scales down much better.

 

[LucoTF]

I like some cooperative multiplayer, but competitive is highly repetitive. And I still prefer single player.

Co-op is brilliant. There are a few indie games that I'm playing with frands at the mo that are just so much fun

 

[Interocitor2]

Word! I hate multiplayer but that's what people want and play. There will be less and less straight up singleplayer games in the future. Sad times.

Yeah it's been bugging me. I understand the appeal of multiplayer, but for me, gaming is escapism. I interact with real people all day so when I sit down to play the last thing I want is more of them up in my face!!! Bit harsh but that's what it's like.

Thing is, IF there are sufficient numbers of people who are spending less per year on games because of this, there is an open market! Money to be made! I guess the recent upswing in indie low-budget games is filling this to an extent, but quality is understandably lower.

I would have bought Titanfall if it contained a good single player mode. Same for some of the Space Combat Sims I've seen about recently.

Anyway, that's my moan!

Surely it ain't just us two who feel this way....?

Hah. It's not often that I meet someone who has the same opinion about multiplayer. Immersion is important for me too. I did try an MMO once. The global chat was constantly filled with useless chat room-like chatter. After eventually going F2P the developer sold ridiculous vanity items. Immersion and roleplay (!) was nonexistent at this point.
The rest of the mujltiplayer games usually devolve into constant repetition. CS:GO, L4D, ME3 (terrible shoehorned garbage)
The only thing that I can play in multiplayer is Minecraft.

About early access. What incentives do developers have to finish their game? They get paid and are shielded from criticism ("It's still in alpha!"). There is no pressure to deliver.
I'll wait till SC is done. I don't want to get sick of a game before it's even done (happened to me with Starbound)

 

[cats_Paw]

I Like Both.
If A game ahs only one of them, it better be amazing, or Ill probably skip it.
The reason I think taht multiplayer is getting so much traction is because its very easy to make a rather simple PvP game since the key element in the game will be the players.

You make a game with only knifes and a jump system and BOOM, a game is done. Throw in some maps, perhaps some vehicles, some weapons... easy.

Getting a good single player experience is like writing a book. You Have to do it right.
Also, Multiplayer dies fast nowdays. This means you can make a new game and profit again.

THIS IS THE HUGE DIFFERENCE from multi to single:

----------EXAMPLE-------
In multi:
1- We play battlefied 3, its the hot game.
2- Battlefield 4 comes out, 80% of the players migrate, the 20% remaining slowly migrates. (this includes friends clan mates etc).
3- Battlefield 3 slowly looses interest and the company can transfer server resources to the new game.

In Single:

1- Im playing starcraft broodwar, Oni, Fallout 2. in 2014 and I can play many more that I still got. I dont need the community or the servers... hell dont need Internet (well except for broodwar 😀).
2- Since I have limited time, I dont buy new games often, companies suffer losses.


Obviously its not that simple, and its not in 100% of the cases, but as a rule of thumb, If I was a company trying to make money, Id go for the multiplayer option.

 

[ChillaxedUpgrader]

Hi Pinhedd, (sorry about the delay getting back on here

Really like your post - thanks. Your two drivers for this situation have made me think, and I would really value your opinion about my ideas. Anyone of course is welcome to respond.

"why even bother developing a singleplayer game that costs twice as much?"

Essentially the fact is that single player games have lower profit margins. We know they can be profitable from the work of, for example, Bethesda, who make wonderful single player games. Before online multiplayer came along, every games company was profiting from single player games. Therefore the current situation is clearly divided into two separate markets: Multiplayer and single player. The multiplayer market is being exploited well. But put yourself in the shoes of a games studio shareholder: You see the single player market being considerably under-exploited, despite the fact that it brings proven profit. The fact that the margins are lower is essentially immaterial, because we know that the company could further stimulate its own growth by exploiting both markets to the full, rather than just one. By analogy: Say Heinz, for example, produces two versions of its tinned soup: one under the 'Heinz' label and the other labelled for various supermarkets. The margins for each version will almost certainly be different. Therefore one is lower... Now if Heinz were to behave like many of the games producers, it would axe one of these two brands on the basis that the margins are lower - despite the obvious existence of a significant market for the product. In this scenario, the company's shareholders would justifiably be up in arms, as they are missing out on profit from a significant market. To conclude this bit: Any shareholder in games companies should be wondering why on earth the company isn't maximizing its profits, by exploiting the single player market.

"multiplayer content can't be pirated efficiently in the same manner as single player content can be"

This is true as far as games on removable media go. However, look at Steam and Uplay. I'm pretty certain that reports of piracy on these services are either minimal or non-existent. So it is entirely possible to sell single player games without any significant threat of losses through piracy.

Would you say that my comments are reasonable? Are there other angles on this that I am missing? I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this.

Cheers,
Chillx

 

[Pinhedd]

Hi Pinhedd, (sorry about the delay getting back on here

Really like your post - thanks. Your two drivers for this situation have made me think, and I would really value your opinion about my ideas. Anyone of course is welcome to respond.

"why even bother developing a singleplayer game that costs twice as much?"

Essentially the fact is that single player games have lower profit margins. We know they can be profitable from the work of, for example, Bethesda, who make wonderful single player games. Before online multiplayer came along, every games company was profiting from single player games. Therefore the current situation is clearly divided into two separate markets: Multiplayer and single player. The multiplayer market is being exploited well. But put yourself in the shoes of a games studio shareholder: You see the single player market being considerably under-exploited, despite the fact that it brings proven profit. The fact that the margins are lower is essentially immaterial, because we know that the company could further stimulate its own growth by exploiting both markets to the full, rather than just one. By analogy: Say Heinz, for example, produces two versions of its tinned soup: one under the 'Heinz' label and the other labelled for various supermarkets. The margins for each version will almost certainly be different. Therefore one is lower... Now if Heinz were to behave like many of the games producers, it would axe one of these two brands on the basis that the margins are lower - despite the obvious existence of a significant market for the product. In this scenario, the company's shareholders would justifiably be up in arms, as they are missing out on profit from a significant market. To conclude this bit: Any shareholder in games companies should be wondering why on earth the company isn't maximizing its profits, by exploiting the single player market.

"multiplayer content can't be pirated efficiently in the same manner as single player content can be"

This is true as far as games on removable media go. However, look at Steam and Uplay. I'm pretty certain that reports of piracy on these services are either minimal or non-existent. So it is entirely possible to sell single player games without any significant threat of losses through piracy.

Would you say that my comments are reasonable? Are there other angles on this that I am missing? I'd really appreciate your thoughts on this.

Cheers,
Chillx

What you describe is a core element of corporate strategy. There is no deterministic way to pick which markets to pursue when approaching the question from the perspective of marketing. However, it's a little bit more clear cut when approaching the question from the perspective of finance and that's what shareholders are concerned with.

A company has a certain amount of capital to work with and dedicate to pursuing new and existing projects. This capital is drawn from retained earnings and new investments.
Lets say that a fictional company has $100,000,000 in its coffers to do with as it pleases.
A profit maximizing company will pick projects that have the greatest net present value and pursue them in a top down fashion.

Right now market research and industry trends would seem to indicate that those projects would be comprised mostly of sports franchise iterations, cheap mobile pay-to-win games, and AAA budget multiplayer titles such as CoD/BF4/Titanfall.

Established singleplayer franchises such as The Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, Fallout, and Assassin's Creed will be on there too, but usually a little bit farther down. Existing popular franchises have immense brand power and are far less risky than creating brand new intellectual property.
If a production company has an unlimited amount of funds to work with they will pursue any and all profitable projects available to them. However, rarely do companies have sufficient funds to do this, and very rarely do they ever run out of new ideas that might pan out. They have to pay out some of their retained earnings to shareholders (if they are incorporated) and the cost of debt financing increases as they take on more debt.
The above is a very idealistic and very academic approach to corporate decision making. In reality, it is often wise to invest in projects that are a "sure thing" even if the possible returns are lower than would be acceptable with existing financing. This is called hedging, and serves to offset the risk of failure in other projects. Franchises such as The Elder Scrolls will be profitable no matter what; they may not be as profitable as some new IP but the risk of failure is much, much lower. Skyrim is approaching it's third birthday yet it's still being shopped around on Steam, almost as if it's on autopilot.

I'm not sure if I discussed this above, but the big publisher's change in focus from single player PC content to mobile and multiplayer PC content has left a rather large vacuum in the market (which you described) which is being filled by independent and non incorporated developers/publishers that do not have to answer to anyone except their own families. They can pursue development of new IP and risky ventures because they are passionate about them with far less regard as to whether or not they will be profitable.

 

[Interocitor2]

I'm not sure if I discussed this above, but the big publisher's change in focus from single player PC content to mobile and multiplayer PC content has left a rather large vacuum in the market (which you described) which is being filled by independent and non incorporated developers/publishers that do not have to answer to anyone except their own families. They can pursue development of new IP and risky ventures because they are passionate about them with far less regard as to whether or not they will be profitable.

But I do miss the production values of the big budget AAA single player games of yore.

 

[chimera201]

I am just waiting for Valve to release HL3. Just hope it doesn't have microtransactions or multiplayer

 

[Pinhedd]

I'm not sure if I discussed this above, but the big publisher's change in focus from single player PC content to mobile and multiplayer PC content has left a rather large vacuum in the market (which you described) which is being filled by independent and non incorporated developers/publishers that do not have to answer to anyone except their own families. They can pursue development of new IP and risky ventures because they are passionate about them with far less regard as to whether or not they will be profitable.

But I do miss the production values of the big budget AAA single player games of yore.

Yeah me too. However I constantly find myself going back and playing games from 10-20 years ago. I just played through Doom II for the... 20th time? There are many older games such as Thief Gold / Thief 2 which are undeniably better than AAA reboots such as the mockery that is the new Thief. Modern AAA titles may look better, but they are often quite shallow and less creative than they used to be.

I am just waiting for Valve to release HL3. Just hope it doesn't have microtransactions or multiplayer

I'm sure that Valve is too smart to mess up a valuable IP such as Half-Life. If you have a winning formula, don't change it. HL3 will be a traditional single player game along the lines of HL2. However, they also know that there's easy money in TF2 hats and DOTA crap so that stuff is getting more attention.

 

[ChillaxedUpgrader]

What you describe is a core element of corporate strategy. There is no deterministic way to pick which markets to pursue when approaching the question from the perspective of marketing. However, it's a little bit more clear cut when approaching the question from the perspective of finance and that's what shareholders are concerned with.

A company has a certain amount of capital to work with and dedicate to pursuing new and existing projects. This capital is drawn from retained earnings and new investments.
Lets say that a fictional company has $100,000,000 in its coffers to do with as it pleases.
A profit maximizing company will pick projects that have the greatest net present value and pursue them in a top down fashion.

Right now market research and industry trends would seem to indicate that those projects would be comprised mostly of sports franchise iterations, cheap mobile pay-to-win games, and AAA budget multiplayer titles such as CoD/BF4/Titanfall.

Established singleplayer franchises such as The Elder Scrolls, The Witcher, Fallout, and Assassin's Creed will be on there too, but usually a little bit farther down. Existing popular franchises have immense brand power and are far less risky than creating brand new intellectual property.
If a production company has an unlimited amount of funds to work with they will pursue any and all profitable projects available to them. However, rarely do companies have sufficient funds to do this, and very rarely do they ever run out of new ideas that might pan out. They have to pay out some of their retained earnings to shareholders (if they are incorporated) and the cost of debt financing increases as they take on more debt.
The above is a very idealistic and very academic approach to corporate decision making. In reality, it is often wise to invest in projects that are a "sure thing" even if the possible returns are lower than would be acceptable with existing financing. This is called hedging, and serves to offset the risk of failure in other projects. Franchises such as The Elder Scrolls will be profitable no matter what; they may not be as profitable as some new IP but the risk of failure is much, much lower. Skyrim is approaching it's third birthday yet it's still being shopped around on Steam, almost as if it's on autopilot.

I'm not sure if I discussed this above, but the big publisher's change in focus from single player PC content to mobile and multiplayer PC content has left a rather large vacuum in the market (which you described) which is being filled by independent and non incorporated developers/publishers that do not have to answer to anyone except their own families. They can pursue development of new IP and risky ventures because they are passionate about them with far less regard as to whether or not they will be profitable.

Hi again Pinhedd

Yes I absolutely agree with every statement - thanks for that, very interesting again.

I feel conflicted when thinking about this situation. On the one hand, I love independent enterprise and generally despise huge corporate business. But on the other hand, the big companies have more potential for producing fully modernised games with full-on graphics, sound, sophisticated gameplay and so on. I'm not knocking the indies at all. They have some fantastic work going on in terms of game structure, innovative ideas and cool stories. I consider it my own limitation that as a seasoned single-player I'm nowadays only satisfied by and all-round bells and whistles!

So I guess the best to wish for is that the indies increase the showy stuff as they grow. In the same way as during the games industry's early growth. In this instance they become tomorrow's big companies, with the potential to fully expand into the market that many of the big'uns are ignoring. Hopefully they would then remain in the single-player market, perhaps because the MMO side undergoes more corporate consolidation and is further enabled to saturate the MMO market...

...perhaps...?

 

[Pinhedd]

On the plus side, many of the big engine vendors (Crytek, Epic, Unity Technologies) have altered their licences to be more friendly to small developers than ever before. It's now possible to start serious development with little to no cash burn, rather than the quarter to half million dollars required a few years ago.

 

[ChillaxedUpgrader]

Word! I hate multiplayer but that's what people want and play. There will be less and less straight up singleplayer games in the future. Sad times.

Yeah it's been bugging me. I understand the appeal of multiplayer, but for me, gaming is escapism. I interact with real people all day so when I sit down to play the last thing I want is more of them up in my face!!! Bit harsh but that's what it's like.

Thing is, IF there are sufficient numbers of people who are spending less per year on games because of this, there is an open market! Money to be made! I guess the recent upswing in indie low-budget games is filling this to an extent, but quality is understandably lower.

I would have bought Titanfall if it contained a good single player mode. Same for some of the Space Combat Sims I've seen about recently.

Anyway, that's my moan!

Surely it ain't just us two who feel this way....?

Hah. It's not often that I meet someone who has the same opinion about multiplayer. Immersion is important for me too. I did try an MMO once. The global chat was constantly filled with useless chat room-like chatter. After eventually going F2P the developer sold ridiculous vanity items. Immersion and roleplay (!) was nonexistent at this point.
The rest of the mujltiplayer games usually devolve into constant repetition. CS:GO, L4D, ME3 (terrible shoehorned garbage)
The only thing that I can play in multiplayer is Minecraft.

About early access. What incentives do developers have to finish their game? They get paid and are shielded from criticism ("It's still in alpha!"). There is no pressure to deliver.
I'll wait till SC is done. I don't want to get sick of a game before it's even done (happened to me with Starbound)

Hi there, sorry I didn't respond to you sooner. Far as I can see you're right about early access. Although I suppose the dev team on one would point out that as there is no deadline or incentive to finish, the game is more thoroughly produced. I am waiting for the likes of Dayz and SC before forming full opinions on this. From the system requirements and other info they look potentially great for my needs!

I do think there are more single players in the world than we see on forums. By our nature we are choosing to game locally - and perhaps some of us just don't cant be bothered with forums.

 

[ChillaxedUpgrader]

On the plus side, many of the big engine vendors (Crytek, Epic, Unity Technologies) have altered their licences to be more friendly to small developers than ever before. It's now possible to start serious development with little to no cash burn, rather than the quarter to half million dollars required a few years ago.

That's really interesting. Didn't know that. Makes me even more optimistic about the upcoming games currently in early access. I'd love to get involved in all that if I had the time. As it is I just want the finished product! I do appreciate they need to take time to make a good game - look at Bethesda's development times for example! But I'm assuming that once it's early access a lot of the tough coding is done... so hopefully we've not to wait that long!

The other plus is that although good SP action/open world games come out quite infrequently, when they do they are often really really good rather than just good. e.g. Fallout 3 & NV, Skyrim, Witcher 2 (kind of open world), Dark Souls 2 (from what I'm told - although not buying because of lazy porting of control scheme). Despite various bugs and glitches, you can tell that loads of effort and care has gone into production.

Just for all developers though: There are plenty of SP gamers who would spend more on games if suitable products were available. You might not see them here, but they're there - just aching to spend!!!