Are single player games dying?

[Chelle]

Personally for reasons of bandwidth and choice I never play muliplayer ...I notice clearly heaps of games that are now muliplayer only...Opinions please :)

[s]

tons of new games rn are singleplayer

[Axer]

Damn are humans dying??

[Thop]

No. Multiplayer becoming more popular =/= single player becoming less popular.

Popularity isn't some finite amount.

[Ailes]

引用自 Chelle：

I wonder if it is simply down to $ and the speed to turf out MP only or maybe it is simply much more popular than I realise.

Either way it would be interesting to see what age groups prefer single player..My suspicions are us older lot born at the begiining of the computing era :)

Multiplayer can offer a certain or near-infinite replayability and challenge that a singleplayer equivalent may lack. There is a reason why some multiplayer-only games like Counterstrike have been played for a decade or so with little more than graphical overhaul. There are some singleplayers who get tons of love too, even more so if they support modding, but my feeling is that people move on sooner after having burned through those than they do with good multiplayer games.

I think PvP offers more replayability than co-op. I put lots of hours into Payday 2, but nowadays it bores me a great deal. Fighting against other humans always demands a certain kind of attention that other modes don't require. Humans directly interacting with each other can lead to situations that A.I. enemies will never create. As soon as you can predict the behavior of the A.I. (happens pretty quickly, calling bots "intelligent" is an insult to the term) or in singleplayer games break that threshold where you needn't worry about resources, ammo, health etc. anymore but become undefeatable and stomp every enemy you come across they can all appear pointless.

There are people who are put off by open world games like Skyrim that basically toss you into their setting and leave you alone to figure out what to do. Rogue-likes, top-down/sidescrolling/highscore shooters, survival games (both in multi- and singleplayer) can feel just as aim- and meaningless as your more genuine multiplayer titles. Not every singleplayer game is a gripping and well-written story experience; those get their fair amount of hate too, because some people don't want or can't afford to spend 60 bucks or so on games that are finished in 8-10 hours and then left to collect dust. Some lazy devs/publishers think that stuff like a bazillion collectibles to hunt would generate many more hours, but those are hardly enjoyable (Assassin's Creed).

Personally I have been playing many more multiplayer games in recent years than singleplayer, but I also appreciate singleplayers for what they can do. Story, characters, building a world and lore, dramatics, gameplay - all these things often feel more impactful and diverse in singleplayer. There are MMOs who want to do this stuff proper, and actually are doing pretty well (like The Secret World), but they could probably do even better if they haven't had to pay attention to people being able to experience everything in the same world/instance (like, you kill that supposedly super scary and unique boss or save that one village from an orc assault only to see everything respawn to its previous state a couple minutes later for another player to do - such details can be very detrimental to immersion).

[Kriya Takagi]

i sense an increase in the singleplayer market if net neutrality gets revolked

[NO RESTARTS YA WUSS!]

No they aren't, maybe in the triple AAA place but even then that's a stretch.

[Indiana Georg]

Na strategy and Bethesda got you covered

[Commander Makara]

The push ftowards multiplayer games is largely industry lead, rather than consumer driven.
Although a significant subset of games, such as FPS for prme example, are often considered to 'require' a multiplayer component to be iable amongst fans of the genre - this does not indicate any general direction of player interest overall across the videogame world.

Whilst of courtse there is an obvious enjoyment in sharing gaming experience and even in 8-bit days (when home gaming multiplayer invovled split screen or hot-chair) the essence of the actual REAL MAJORITY of "videogames"* is still largely a personal experience and therefore the consumer by and large will enjoy single player games.

The industry has vested interest in promoting multiplayer games, since this not only connects to the growing (and incredibly lucrative) esport world but also in regards to DLC content and cosmetics which are shown to be highly lucrative too but more "meaningful" when showed off to others.
There are other rreasoins too, but generally it is in the interests of the videogame industry to promote multiplayer gaming and to foster this notion that "singleplayer games are dying" or that "people want multiplayer" since there are far greater opportuinities financially from these models given that network capabilities and server space is already an expense.


*This of course includes mobile games and browser based titles, which are also a rare breed of involving shared server and network connectivity even if actions do not necessrily directly influence any other player. Pretty much all videogames include some network function whether DRM, patch availability or actual multiplayer connectivity introduces a certain abiguity.

[Joe Cool]

The big AAA publishers/developers are making a concentrated effort to push the market towards online multiplayer games because

1) They are easier to develop (no AI coding, no missions to make, no story to write, etc)
2) They are a billion times easier to monetize (Microtransactions, lootboxes, etc)


Plus it's also easier for them to limit the lifespan of multiplayer games (forced matchmaking, ending support after their next title is released, etc) and easier to justify yearly/bi-yearly releases of the same recycled content. (hello CoD franchise)



That's why Rockstar scrapped the promised single player DLC in favor of garbage cosmetic "free" upgrades that cost $20-$100 worth of in-game currency (if you buy shark cards) or why devs like EA pump out a Battlefront 2 with pay to win lootboxes up the wazoo..

Or why games like WW2k18 have literally 90% of the content locked behind a lootbox paywall, when WW2k17 had ALL of the exact same content included for free!


We are entering a very dark era of gaming. Guaranteed the upcoming Red Dead Redemption 2 won't be anywhere near as good as people are thinking as Rockstar has clearly shifted the vast majority of their focus towards monetizing their games with online play and "shark card" like microtransactions to nickel and dime gamers to death.


The mental idiots buying microtransactions, shark cards, day one DLC, etc.. They are the ones directly responsible for inciting the greed of developers/publishers, and thus they deserve to be burned at the stake.

/End rant.

[Ralph]

Sadly, yes.

[Vince ✟]

I always want to smack these indie devs who make these kick ass looking games, that are multiplayer fps only.

[Kingly]

I reckon single-player games won't go away or come in popular any time soon, because games like undertale and cuphead are single player and people play them lol

[{루루}RuRu]

It's like saying "Is Harry Potter dead? Not a lot of people are talking about Harry Potter"

[Rumpus]

Less and less developers are creating games for the single player experience. Of course, the current basis for a decent game is good multiplayer = good game. Despite how easy it is to create a multiplayer-based game it still amazes me how developers like EA will still find some way to milk consumers dry with unfinished games, lootboxes and microtransactions.

I still think there's place for singleplayer games in the industry today, it's just dominated by multiplayer AAA titles.

[{루루}RuRu]

引用自 traps are never ever gay imo：

Have you tried DDLC yet?
nope they aren't dying. It's just publishers are focusing on creating multiplayer games because

引用自 Rumpus：

lootboxes and microtransactions

It's almost sad.

Btw your name is wrong.