There seems to be a flaw in the totality of the argument as the reasoning is just being used as a scapegoat right now. It really does come down to budget and sales/profit expectations. Unless the insinuation is that there are just too many games being released and there isn't enough room for some new games to be developed.
I have not played Gone Home so I cannot comment but the fundamental aspects of immersive sims include player control, agency and emergent gameplay. Firewatch has none of that. The only thing that it has common with immersive sims is maybe environmental storytelling and being in first person.IM-like
The devs have said they incorporated IM style design philosophies to tell the story and make the game they did. Same with Gone Home and Tacoma, both of which feature straight up Shock level design and storytelling just without combat.
IM-likes are mostly the result of budget constraints. As much as I think Gaynor would have loved to make a game as complete as Minerva's Den, I don't think it was even remotely possible on the budget GH and Tacoma had.
That's really /not/ what led to the genre though. The genre started with Ultima Underworld and forked off with System Shock. I used to the term IM-like because games like Tacoma, GH, and Fire watch implement immersive sim tropes in a different presentation as an experimentation in where the boundaries of the genre truely lie. Is the immersive simulation all that matters or is it the systems that matter? Agency is also a weird choice as arguably the most famous example of the genre, Bioshock, is ultimately about the lack of agency in games, including Bioshock and SS2 before it.I have not played Gone Home so I cannot comment but the fundamental aspects of immersive sims include player control, agency and emergent gameplay. Firewatch has none of that. The only thing that it has common with immersive sims is maybe environmental storytelling and being in first person.
On a side note I loved Firewatch and preferred it as a game to Dishonored 2 :P
Nier burned me out, but that's mostly just because of the staggeringly dull characters and boring world design combined with the whole "do it all again but as an even shittier character" second act.That makes sense, I've been lucky enough to avoid motion sickness in first-person games (except Talos Principle for some reason) but I can't imagine enjoying a game that's constantly disorienting. I suppose that's a pitfall of trends: since "immersive sims / shock-likes" are more prevalent in the SP sphere, those who can't stand them get left out until trends change again. That and 3rd person linear SP games without guns are pretty thin on the ground anyway, I bet Nier was a breath of fresh air.
Thing is, Bethesda games are technically immersive sims. Skyrim is an immersive sim and it sold like 40 million copies. Though, I think Fallout 4 really strayed from that path.I wouldn't give up hope completely. There's quite a few immersive sims and IS-likes out or coming out in the indie scene. Consortium and its sequel, Underworld Ascendant, System Shock Remake + SS3, Gone Home, Firewatch, Magic Circle, Tacoma, and there was this art deco immersive sim posted on here a few months back that I can't seem to remember the name of.
They're still popular and they'll still get made. They just can't sell 15 million copies so AAA has decided they aren't worth making.
I don't know how you can come to this conclusion when Call of Duty was the best selling game not only of December 2017 but the entire Year of 2017. Why does a game like Wolfenstein struggle when Call of Duty is so successful? Furthermore, 5 of the top 10 selling games of 2017 have multiplayer shooting modes.Lets pretend that its a fundamental truth that linear single-player games won't sell up to desired expectation. Would changing that specific game into a multiplayer shooter similar to the ones people have been citing in the Top 10 best selling games of 2017 make it sell more? Most likely not.
Thing is, Bethesda games are technically immersive sims. Skyrim is an immersive sim and it sold like 40 million copies. Though, I think Fallout 4 really strayed from that path.
The problem is Skyrim didn't inspire the right things from imitators. Everybody saw Skyrim's breadth of content and theme park-style world and tried to emulate that ,but didn't try to emulate its dynamic systems. Well, Breath of the Wild tried to emulate the spirit of some of those systems while coming up with its own. Minecraft might also be IM-like but I actually haven't played it, and it's like the most popular game in the world right now.
Essentially time is a more limiting factor than money. I prefer to play 10 games in 100h than just one. So i skip usually every side quest and scale the difficulty to very easy because i want to finish the game in a reasonable time.They cost too much. I always wait until the $20 point to pick up linear, singleplayer only games. There's no social aspect and I don't have to worry about player population years down the line. I know development costs are rising but I can't use that as a justification to buy a 10-20 hour experience for $60 when there are open world and multiplayer games available that I can squeeze hundreds of hours out of.
You might be overlooking the main point of my post. I will respond to this, but make sure to read the quoted text at the end for clarification purposes.I don't know how you can come to this conclusion when Call of Duty was the best selling game not only of December 2017 but the entire Year of 2017. Why does a game like Wolfenstein struggle when Call of Duty is so successful? Furthermore, 5 of the top 10 selling games of 2017 have multiplayer shooting modes.
There is an opening for linear single-player games to be considered complementary games as they require less time and effort of someone already devoted to their annual shooter, sports game or GAAS title. So now the goal should be to figure out a way to take advantage of this market.
There needs to be a way to get budgets under control and for publishers to accept that every game released is not going to be a homerun when it comes to profit or sales. Small profits build up over time and you have more than you had before.
Honestly i don't think that the 60 dollar price point is the problem. As you mentioned bargain sales and additionally the used games market is ruining the porfit margain of 6 hour single player games. The answer should be digital only and no price cut below 40 dollars for every single player focused game. Physical versions of such games should be only included in limited editions and expensive collector editions.I mean it doesn't take a genius to realize that if you wait a few months you can't get the same game used for $15 or $20 bucks at a lot of places. So even though there might be the same amount of people crying for these games, and still buying them, more seem to be buying them from the used game market which of course does nothing for the publisher/developer.
Young kids here don't understand this as they were not alive, but us older gamers have no problem remembering picking up SNES and Genesis titles that were $79 and $89 bucks....Killer Instinct was $79 dollars at the game stores when it dropped for the SNES and that wasn't alone. Obviously a lot of that had to do with the format these games were on, Carts, but that same priced game now would be around $120 or $130 with inflation taking into account. It make's zero sense to have the prices going down, and staying down for all these years since the switch to disc based and digital media when the graphics hardware has gotten to the level where the detail now in games is so high it takes soooooooooooo much longer, and cost sooooooooooo much more to make than it did 10 or 15 years ago.
Nobody is saying all single player games are destined to fail. There is no reason for most of the big publishers to chase after single player games anymore because it's not worth it.You might be overlooking the main point of my post. I will respond to this, but make sure to read the quoted text at the end for clarification purposes.
How did Battleborn and Lawbreakers do recently? Do you think Wolfenstein would sell more if it became primarily a multiplayer shooter? Wolfenstein already has a lower sales ceiling than Call of Duty. Besides that, look at that design of the campaign. Its an ultra-violent campaign based on killing Nazis. There is going to be a ceiling, but there is a market for it. If Wolfenstein became a Call of Duty clone then it probably sell even less. It would also add to development costs and make it necessary for it to sell even more copies. Oversaturation won't solve anything.
The games we are talking about in this discussion should not be compared to Call of Duty, Battlefield/Battlefront and Destiny (with the lineage of Halo) as those are established brands with established mindshare. I'm also not saying that new potential shooter games should not be developed. Overwatch and PUBG are successful new IPs that have broken through in recent times.
Five of the top 10 selling games in 2017 (including FIFA) come from annualized franchises. The point of my post was that linear single-player games can take advantage of the market and still be successful. I'll end this post with a quote from my last post for clarification purposes.
Because just like everyone that tried to be the "WoWkiller" back in the day, they'll fail and I'd like to think the billions this industry wasted trying to do that would put the suits off the pipe dream of beating the biggest game in the genre.
Disagree, just look at Blizzard.
Aren't they the exception than the rule?Disagree, just look at Blizzard.
They have copycatted every game they have made. (At least starting from Warcraft 1, I don't know their games before that. Hearthstone would be the only exception after that.)
And this is not a criticism because I'm a gigantic Blizzard fan. But I recognize that they copy genres, they just outdo other developers on coding polish, art design, production values. Which I think is great.
And multiplayer. And is not, strictly speaking, linear.
Which is pretty much the opposite of the linear SP games she is talking about.
Or you might need to read what she said again. She's talking about a game with all of these qualities:
Uncharted 4 is one game. Are there any other similarly linear story-based games that have sold well on the PS4? One example isn't exactly evidence of a trend.
You are telling the woman who wrote and directed Uncharted 1-3 that she is wrong about the decline in popularity and spiraling production costs of linear story-driven videogames. And your counterexample is an Uncharted game that is 15-20 hours long, massive acclaimed, part of an established series, and full of microtransactions. This is akin to telling James Cameron that he is wrong about the audience demand for Terminator movies.