-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Single Player Games Are Not Dead, But Their Economics Are 'Complicated'- Shannon Loftis
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
I'm ok with lower fidelity and not quite as shiny graphics if it means that games I love can do well without exploitative business models. Look at games like Nier: Automata or Souls games for what I mean
The responsibility to stockholders and the ideal premise of maximizing profits force all big publishers despite their intentions to go towards consumer retention, which stuff like lootboxes and games as service motivate. Goldman Sachs' report really showed the financial capitalist focus on the current (financial) bubble in games. As long as the competition and structure of the industry is what it is, big publishers are forced to move towards such type of profit-maximizing game designs.
But singleplayer games will always exist. So many game developers are in the industry in large part thanks to singleplayer games.
But singleplayer games will always exist. So many game developers are in the industry in large part thanks to singleplayer games.
I think this mostly paints a depressing picture for xbox users who enjoy single-player exclusive games, but it shouldn't come as a surprise considering what Microsoft went through with these kind of games this generation - from commercial flops to outright cancellations.
As for the rest of the industry though, I'm not too worried. The usual publishers are still enjoying great success thanks to SP games and I don't think they'll let go of that anytime soon as they're important for their image.
As for the rest of the industry though, I'm not too worried. The usual publishers are still enjoying great success thanks to SP games and I don't think they'll let go of that anytime soon as they're important for their image.
On the producers' side: The idea that SP and bigger budgets are somehow married is a fallacy.
On the consumers' side: The idea that a game is overpriced if it costs over sixty dollars when that has been the standard price for two decades worth of inflation is wrong. Game prices going up by 10-20 dollars USD as a standard wouldn't be some cash grab by the companies.
Speaking generally, of course.
On the consumers' side: The idea that a game is overpriced if it costs over sixty dollars when that has been the standard price for two decades worth of inflation is wrong. Game prices going up by 10-20 dollars USD as a standard wouldn't be some cash grab by the companies.
Speaking generally, of course.
That's what a God of War Dev says.
I wonder what Sony's future games will look like. It seems like third-party are the ones to go towards what makes the most money, while first party are able to experiment and take more chances (I guess)
Basically justifying not making single player games and shoving gaas down our throats. This shit is so transparent lol.
OP
OP
The sad truth is that Microsoft has always been better at making multiplayer games than single player and Sony has been better at making single player games than multiplayer.
It just so happens that third parties are basically going all in on multiplayer games so Sony and Nintendo focusing on single player games stand out more vs Microsoft multiplayer games kind of blending in with every other multiplayer game.
Pretty much, this translates as "Single Player games are harder to milk the hell out of so fuck them". Good thing stuff other than AAA exists.
OP
OP
I'm not so sure about this. Halo took off because of its great campaign for the first game (and its marketing through to Reach revolved around the single player); Fable was a great single player franchise Microsoft used to have; the original Gears of War, again, sold on the strength of the campaign, with the multiplayer becoming a sleeper hit that subsequently went on to dominate the Xbox Live charts.
Yes, their core competencies are in multiplayer games, but think of it this way- Sony is better at making SP games than MP games, they still invest in multiplayer games and properties for the sake of diversity on their platform. Nintendo is Nintendo, they do everything well. Microsoft must learn from Sony and start to focus on more kinds of games.
Maybe not enough, but I'm encouraged by Rare Replay and Recore being slightly smaller, cheaper affairs. I hope MS keeps up that price point. I haven't been able to keep up with mostly $60 games.
Halo may have took off initially due to its campaign, but I'm not sure I'd attribute the majority of its success to that. Even without being online, it basically replaced GoldenEye as the multiplayer console FPS of choice, with many people lanning Xboxes together for it. Halo 2 hitting Xbox Live was such a big deal, because multiplayer Halo already was. And Gears was popular for it's multiplayer co-op campaign, bringing with it the era of crappy AI stand-ins for those without friends. So I'd only really put Fable as a standout singleplayer success for MS, with stuff like Halo, Gears and Forza all being primarily multiplayer wins.
I think they don't realize we're more than fine with getting games that are 5-10 hours and don't look amazing, as long as they're not $60. When you're asking us to shell out that much money, it better look good and play for a long time. I'd gladly pay $20 each for 3 unique 3-4 hour games instead of $60 for a long, generic 15 hour blah-fest.
OP
OP
Yeah, that's what I am saying- quality SP experiences don't have to be AAA (in terms of budget or price)
Okay, maybe so- I will concede the point, MS's core competence is multiplayer games. Even so, my point about diversification and loss leading does stand still.
Yea, I definitely don't disagree that MS needs to make a better effort in regards to singleplayer-focused content than they have been recently. Whilst multiplayer has always been their strength, they were at least competitive in terms of singleplayer offerings last gen, and at the beginning of this gen, but now they seem shy on anything beyond what would be considered a larger indie budget. I look at Recore and Horizon Zero Dawn, and the main difference I see between them is really the time and budget required to fulfil its potential.
In that case, I think Microsoft should be open to more riskier multiplayer ideas, stuff that stands out from the crowd. Though it's easier said than done.
As for the article, I think Microsoft would be better off funding existing indie titles to help indie devs expand their vision, as well as helping Microsoft keep a consistent number of console exclusive titles coming in, bonus points if they're Play Anywhere.
Making new IP isn't easy, especially one that can click with a large audience. I don't think there's any interest in reviving older franchises Microsoft Studios owns, either, so that's a toughie.
Well, they have kinda been doing that really, the main issue is that success produces imitators, and over time imitators become really fucking good. When both Halo and Gears blew up, there wasn't actually a whole lot that you could look to as an alternative, but then both just ended up kinda standardising what we expect from a console FPS and TPS respectively. Forza has stood out amongst racers mostly because the racing genre isn't something most publishers are falling over themselves to get a piece of today, but even then it's very likely that Need for Speed Payback is the way it is because of Forza Horizon 3's success.
Sea of Thieves is definitely a risky multiplayer idea, that there's very little to compare it with... as was Fable Legends whilst it was alive. There's also Minecraft that's stands out amongst other multiplayer experiences, but that was hardly risky at the time MS picked it up, and isn't restricted to Xbox platforms. Hell, even Halo Wars is both risky and mostly unique on consoles.
MS had been producing rather unique MP experiences since the beginning with XBL. It just seems less so now because that's the arena all the other publishers are now scrambling to compete it also, whereas singleplayer games are what they're transitioning away from. Sony's offerings stood out far less during the PS1 and PS2 eras (both largely defined by their third-party offerings), because everyone else was competing in that same space back then.
I recall quibbling with a down-to-earth bloke working for a publisher last year, after one of the high-profile single-player releases riddled with microtransactions bombed badly.
I put it to him that it was an easily explicable case of dodgy word of mouth and other avoidable failings, and that realistically there'd always be a meaningful market out there for substantial offerings of this kind if released in good faith, with good enough luck. I had blockbuster cinema on the mind; not exactly in an uncompromised or healthy state by any means, but it hasn't ceased to exist or warped into something fundamentally different either.
He was insistent that the gimmicks and the anti-consumerism were just getting started, and would not likely be going away unless somehow legally forced to. Doubly confident that single-player adventures would continue to dwindle into obscurity over time; that the potential for profit is just not comparable between those mediums, and whatever can be gotten away with will be attempted. And that more could be gotten away with than I supposed.
Wouldn't give him full credit yet, but the landscape is certainly moving in his direction after twelve months.
I put it to him that it was an easily explicable case of dodgy word of mouth and other avoidable failings, and that realistically there'd always be a meaningful market out there for substantial offerings of this kind if released in good faith, with good enough luck. I had blockbuster cinema on the mind; not exactly in an uncompromised or healthy state by any means, but it hasn't ceased to exist or warped into something fundamentally different either.
He was insistent that the gimmicks and the anti-consumerism were just getting started, and would not likely be going away unless somehow legally forced to. Doubly confident that single-player adventures would continue to dwindle into obscurity over time; that the potential for profit is just not comparable between those mediums, and whatever can be gotten away with will be attempted. And that more could be gotten away with than I supposed.
Wouldn't give him full credit yet, but the landscape is certainly moving in his direction after twelve months.
I think where the cinema analogy breaks, is that there isn't really a multiplayer equivalent for blockbuster movies to be competing with, whether one person watches a movie alone, or a group of 15 watch it together, the movie itself doesn't need to (and can't) make any adjustments.
Even in this scenario though, you'd have TV shows written specifically to cater for commercials, effectively representing the f2p equivalent.
From what I'm getting out of this "complicated economics" means they can't gouge their customers even more.
Costs more to market those, and less likely that players are going to buy them all. Makes more sense for them to sell 1m $60 games vs selling 2m $20 games.
I think the solution lies in a new pricing tier of games, in between indie and AAA like we saw with Hellblade. That way more people will be willing to buy shorter or more niche titles up front rather than waiting for sales etc
Right now they're always trying to make a self contained 10-12 hour single player adventure compete with huge open world games with online multiplayer etc then complaining when it doesn't sell as well
Right now they're always trying to make a self contained 10-12 hour single player adventure compete with huge open world games with online multiplayer etc then complaining when it doesn't sell as well
Interesting that she said Game Pass can give Microsoft the possibility of funding more single player games. Guessing if it takes off and the numbers show good retention of users primarily playing single player games. They'll work Game Pass deals into their publishing contract with indie developers. would be interested to see if Cuphead, Ori, and Super Lucky's tale wind up on the service in a few years.
I can see it both ways. If you already have the studio and talent set up then it's easier to budget but if you are starting from scratch the expense is much higher.
Microsoft has a few good studios but they are mostly built around multiplayer experiences which is fine but you won't see a Persona/Nier type game if that's what you are looking for and thats why it's tricky market for them
Edit: still need to play cuphead, looks amazing
Microsoft has a few good studios but they are mostly built around multiplayer experiences which is fine but you won't see a Persona/Nier type game if that's what you are looking for and thats why it's tricky market for them
Edit: still need to play cuphead, looks amazing
I think this is symptomatic of a larger problem for the industry. Game development costs on AAA titles continue to skyrocket. On the flip side you have publishers like Sony who continue to crank out rock solid single player narrative focused games and you have to ask, how do they do it?
I get why publishers would be spooked to pour millions into a single player game and not know if it'll sell. But EA comes across as greedy and very "corporate" because they decided to scrap this sp narrative game with 1.Amy Hennig as creative director and 2. A Star Wars game. Both those things alone would have sold the game.
To be fair to MS they have backed and publishers several single player games that their base did not shower it sales. Ryse, Sunset Overdrive and the criminally underrated Quantum Break.
I get why publishers would be spooked to pour millions into a single player game and not know if it'll sell. But EA comes across as greedy and very "corporate" because they decided to scrap this sp narrative game with 1.Amy Hennig as creative director and 2. A Star Wars game. Both those things alone would have sold the game.
To be fair to MS they have backed and publishers several single player games that their base did not shower it sales. Ryse, Sunset Overdrive and the criminally underrated Quantum Break.
Last edited:
There's no reason to be worried. If there's a significant audience that wants single-player games, that audience will be catered to. If not by EA or Microsoft or whatever trend-chasing company you want to name, then by the plethora of other developers.
Good points, and you're right that Microsoft has been pumping out unique multiplayer experiences for a long time (like 1vs100, for example). Not quite sure why it slipped my mind though.
Exactly, this is the crux of the issue.
As much as games like Nier or Persona are viable that doesn't take away from the nature of the biggest AAA companies which Atlus and Platinum are not in.
You're right that the underlying economics aren't going to vanish, but:
1) the more developers neglect traditional single-player, the more market opportunity there will be for the remaining developers.
2) there are relatively "player-friendly" ways of getting repeating revenue streams from primarily single-player games. Witcher 3-style "expansion pack" DLC, Paradox-style mini-DLC to expand and elaborate on systems-driven games, episodic models like Hitman...these are some examples. More will arise.
3) Publishers have misread trends and business models over and over. Lootbox-driven multiplayer seems ascendant right now, because it's easy to look only at the success stories and it's easy for an analyst or manager to quantify the extra revenue a game might get from aggressive monetization. But what about the many failures? Are companies accounting for the Battleborns and Lawbreakers along with the Overwatches? Are they factoring in potential lost sales from people not interested in monetization-heavy models? Do they really understand that moving away from single-player can mean bigger rewards, but also much bigger risk? I'm not convinced they're properly factoring in any of these things. That means the typical game industry pattern will continue to assert itself. Companies will flood into the hot new paradigm; many or most will get burned; and then they'll chase the next hot industry wisdom. That means single-player might suffer from underinvestment for a while, but the pendulum will swing back eventually, just like it always has.
This is happening because a few years before the "Games as a Service" model took over the industry, there were a ton of companies making single player games that bombed and they would lose tons of money.
On the flip side even if the game didn't flop they would make a small profit or break even from their budget, so not companies are trying to correct that by making multiplayer only games that don't cost much to make and if they hit bank on them then they have a steady revenue coming in instead of one big pot of cash.
Rockstar has become the quintessential Daniel Day Lewis of the gaming industry with RDR and GTA they release one game every 5 to 6 years and then make a fortune to keep them afloat while they work on creating their next game, and while that works for them it does not for all other much smaller developers. Games that release yearly like CoD and AC have increasingly lower sales each year, and this is because there is no longer an excitement for the game, and this is where Rockstar thrives.
In the end, "Games as a service" will probably be the future as it is the only foreseeable way for small developers to stay afloat without striking hot on a low budget Indie game.
On the flip side even if the game didn't flop they would make a small profit or break even from their budget, so not companies are trying to correct that by making multiplayer only games that don't cost much to make and if they hit bank on them then they have a steady revenue coming in instead of one big pot of cash.
Rockstar has become the quintessential Daniel Day Lewis of the gaming industry with RDR and GTA they release one game every 5 to 6 years and then make a fortune to keep them afloat while they work on creating their next game, and while that works for them it does not for all other much smaller developers. Games that release yearly like CoD and AC have increasingly lower sales each year, and this is because there is no longer an excitement for the game, and this is where Rockstar thrives.
In the end, "Games as a service" will probably be the future as it is the only foreseeable way for small developers to stay afloat without striking hot on a low budget Indie game.
GaaS is attractive as - in theory - you can have relatively low initial development costs with ongoing development being supported by MTX, Loot boxes or whatever. It's close to the model property developers use - build a show home to sell off plan and use those sales (or the promise of them to secure credit) to fund the rest of your development.
The problem with GaaS is that the successful ones are, currently at least, absolutely huge. There aren't many 'mid-tier' GaaS, and the financial model is heavily reliant on whales to sustain the service.
MatPiscatella could probably comment on whether GaaS titles are growing or cannibalising gaming spend, but that's also a potential downside too.
The problem with GaaS is that the successful ones are, currently at least, absolutely huge. There aren't many 'mid-tier' GaaS, and the financial model is heavily reliant on whales to sustain the service.
MatPiscatella could probably comment on whether GaaS titles are growing or cannibalising gaming spend, but that's also a potential downside too.
That's what I get out of it too. To be honest, I see "games as a service" as something of a misnomer. In virtually every other sector where a product has been replaced by a service, it is provided by either supplying a free product and making money by selling extra features, ads, etc, or by a subscription model where you never own the product outright and have to pay to continue using it. If I want to use Photoshop for example, I have to sign up to Adobe's Creative Cloud, but I pay a monthly fee and that's all. GaaS in the AAA space is different: publishers don't want to fully embrace a service model, they want to have their cake and eat it. They still expect people to pony up the same $60 they always have for games, but nickel and dime their customers into paying more and more on top of that. The main game isn't a service, it's the same product that they've always sold us, only now with extra bullshit and potential for less content and game design based around whale hunting. Sorry, but I'm not interested; continued movement in this direction will push this veteran gamer away from AAA games for good; the youngsters are welcome to them.
Mini rant over.
Last edited:
That's what a God of War Dev says.
Good to see this since also Cory mention single player games when the EA stuff happened. i wish them success with God Of War
I believe this as well. I still hope the Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice model will find success with other developers. I wouldn't be playing if it weren't for single player games.
They won't go away, but I fear that the landscape is gearing towards multiplayer and retention schemes. However, how long until the multiplayer market has become so saturated and loot boxes (or similar/even worse monetization schemes) have become so ingrained that sales will eventually decline. Jim Sterling argued that the long term impacts aren't cared for with these schemes and I absolutely agree on that. I can only hope that a change for the better comes sooner than later.
The economic problem seems to be rooted almost entirely in the AAA arms race. Your game has to look better, have more cutscenes, have a bigger world, etc, etc than any other game on the market. And you're gonna hit a wall long, long before that where you're no longer getting as much out of project (quality) as you are putting into it (money, work). I mean just... stop that shit. Knock it off. You can make an extremely high quality single player experience without spending a billion dollars on it. The three frontrunners for Game of the Year (by MC rating) are modestly budgeted single player games - Zelda, Mario, and Persona.
Not sure I agree with her statement. Some of the best reviewed games this year have been SP games. In fact, I'd say 2017 has been the year when SP rose again - Horizon Zero Dawn, Persona 5, BOTW, Mario Odyssey and Mario X Rabbids all reviewed extremely well. BOTW and Horizon are all selling well, as is Mario X Rabbids and I suspect Mario Odyssey is going to sell gangbusters as well.
I mostly agree with this. There is debate actually mostly because EA and Activision are greedy and want to generalize GaaS and "high price with micropayment" on their games, and thus scand that multiplayer is the only viable option.
But EA and Activision have not specially been supportive of SP games these last years, they are only pursuing their own logic. Rockstar is still working on a strong SP for RDR2, I believe Naughty Dog is going the same way with TLOU2. Ubisoft added optionnal multiplayer components to AC but didn't break the SP core of the IP... There will still be a strong demand for good SP games, while P2W multiplayer games will quicly meet their limit.
I was about to say the same thing. I may be talking out my ass but I'd wager that the average western software developer costs MUCH more to employ than Japanese developers. The economics probably are not nearly the same in the west as in Japan.
It's not surprising to see MS turn away from singleplayer titles. You can argue the quality of these titles, but they all did poorly financially:
-Dead Rising 4
-Sunset Overdrive
-Quantum Break
-Recore
The only successful singleplayer titles have been budgeted titles like Ori and Cuphead.
-Dead Rising 4
-Sunset Overdrive
-Quantum Break
-Recore
The only successful singleplayer titles have been budgeted titles like Ori and Cuphead.
What mostly changed I feel is that there's now very little room for mistakes. Polish, release date, marketing, story/gameplay quality ; if all of this doesn't align (almost) perfectly, single player games are a lot more prone to failure. Just look at Microsoft's single player exclusives. There are just too many great games to choose from nowadays
Some GaaS can afford a tepid start (Siege is a great example) because the community will stick around if the game gets improved through patches. If a single player game has issues or gets overlooked, mainstream market will never give it a second chance.
Some GaaS can afford a tepid start (Siege is a great example) because the community will stick around if the game gets improved through patches. If a single player game has issues or gets overlooked, mainstream market will never give it a second chance.
