-
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
Honestly I'll take 1080p 60 until costs stabilize for higher res and textures.
And as others have pointed out, Sony and Nintendo are doing fine with SP that doesn't have microtransactions.
There is something to be said for the West Coast dev scene driving up costs, but if you don't pay your devs you don't get the talent. The crunch is also a factor.
I think publishers also have a tendancy to chase trends that increase their costs. But that's a side issue.
And as others have pointed out, Sony and Nintendo are doing fine with SP that doesn't have microtransactions.
There is something to be said for the West Coast dev scene driving up costs, but if you don't pay your devs you don't get the talent. The crunch is also a factor.
I think publishers also have a tendancy to chase trends that increase their costs. But that's a side issue.
I'm guessing that the problem with big single player games is that they cost more or less the same as GaaS games but they have limited or zero potential for recurring revenue or sustained player engagement over time. So if you're a publisher the question is, do you spend $80 million on a singleplayer game with no potential for extra revenue or on a GaaS which will be making you more money every single day?
I love singleplayer games and I hate GaaS but if I was CEO of Activision or EA I know what I would choose.
I love singleplayer games and I hate GaaS but if I was CEO of Activision or EA I know what I would choose.
Seems like bad timing for this to come out in arguably the best year ever for single player games. Plus not to mention a bunch of major single players games announced this year too.
I mean, they've not been wholly immune to this.
That's what a God of War Dev says.
God of War Ascension debuted at less than half what God of War 3 did in the UK, despite them working on it for three years.
Now, an obvious counter would be "The game was only rated an 80 on Metacritic while God of War 3 was rated a 92", but then this speaks to having to make Game of the Year quality level game to succeed at big budget AAA gaming, whereas games like Rainbow Six Siege (73 Metacritic), Dying Light (74 Metacritic), and Ghost Recon Wildlands (70 Metacritic) are some of the best selling games this generation.
I'm sure suits will make ever increasing efforts to chase the GaaS golden goose, but I think there's always a demand for good SP experiences and the GaaS trend hasn't reached saturation point yet even in the AAA industry. And if it does, I believe others will pick up the slack - yes, those games might have a lesser budget, but they can still be enjoyable and successful (relative to their cost to produce).
I wonder how the interactivity of GAAS and market saturation will play out. There are simply too many games for people to play every game they would enjoy, and as the number of titles dials back due to GAAS spreading out efforts, consumers are allowed to buy a higher percentage of the releases. It essentially allows the publishers to avoid the game of chicken in being the first to reduce title output in an effort to achieve higher sales per title and man hour spent.
https://twitter.com/tenkay23/status/923941967456641024
Stop saying graphics are what gamers want. It's what a subset of gamers do.
Stop saying graphics are what gamers want. It's what a subset of gamers do.
A $30 low budget, low risk 3D platformer that they're also not bothering to market in any way at all. MS just isn't good at this whole single player thing.
Amazing that that's all it will take. Such a fantastic game.
The game looks good, but I'd agree that Microsoft sucks at marketing single player games or games that aren't generally in their wheelhouse.
Going buy her comment I wouldn't be surprised if they're looking at the Netflix model. Fund AA games that can bolster the gamepass line up six months after retail release.
But if most game coming out recently have many things to do and alot of side activities etc. That it'll feel disappointing if it's a linear single player experince. Most of what we play from AAA now is open world and sometimes it hurt the game rather than make it great.
That's why in my opinion is that indies go wild becuase no certain expectations of what a 60$ game should be.
Last edited:
Every single one of them makes GAAS games. A GAAS game is any game with post-launch dlc, so GT Sport and Breath Of The Wild are both GAAS games, for instance.
I remember this debate at gaf.
Persona 5 I guess is a GAAS game. They put out DLC costumes after. Gravity rush 2? GAAS game. You can download a free costume a few weeks after. Infamous: Second Son? GAAS game because the expansion pack First light. Bloodborne? GAAAAAAS.
...yes?
I'm not sure why you're acting like your previous Bloodborne being GAAS means it's bad or something.
Is this a valid concern, or just a publisher talking point? YouTubing a game for only the story seems to miss the point to me. The fun of games is actually playing them. They're still largely inferior to books, movies and television as a literary delivery medium.
Are there any studies or surveys that corroborate this?
Because it's kind of ridiculous to classify something with anything that has DLC as GAAS.
Take it up with the games industry then, that's how they use the term.
Maybe you should just admit that the term "GAAS" incites an irrational level of distaste in you for no real reason?
I would tend to agree, but I think we deal with the gray area of whether content has been withheld to monetize later. To me, a game doesn't become GAAS until the user can purchase non-unique content (loot boxes) or a continuing subscription.
I don't hate GAAS games. I just don't think it's properly used.
How is Bloodborne a Games as a service game? What service? It had one expansion pack and thats it. No little bits of dlc every week. No reason for you to come back and play every day because there was something new. No lootcrates. It was a single player game you bought. Then a few months later they released an expansion for it, then it was done.
But somehow Destiny 2 and Bloodborne are both considered GAAS.
No, I do NOT want higher fidelity and "higher resolution graphics" LOL what even is that statement? Cant' we just have some damn games with lower budgets that have none of this loot crate/microtransaction bullshit in them? How was the industry able to survive for 30 years by creating nearly all games with none of this crap in them? I think it's greed plain and simple. There is money to be made in single player games that do not have additional revenue streams beyond the purchase of the game, but I have the feeling that just isn't enough for them.
What really sucks is that they say that game development is about delivering experiences and telling stories. I've got a news flash for you: You can still do that with a lower budget game and not have it come out looking like an Atari 2600 game with a horrible story.
The whole thing infuriates me and it feels like gaming as I've always known and loved it is slipping away.
Slightly related: I'm fine with any game having cosmetic microtransactions. A great example is Path of Exile. The game is free, it is massive, it is amazing and rivals the best "Diablo-likes" - and the only thing you can buy from their store is cosmetics - effects on weapons and abilities etc. I don't even think you can buy more storage? Regardless, they are not selling loot boxes for my chance to win a legendary weapon that will skew my power in the game.
What really sucks is that they say that game development is about delivering experiences and telling stories. I've got a news flash for you: You can still do that with a lower budget game and not have it come out looking like an Atari 2600 game with a horrible story.
The whole thing infuriates me and it feels like gaming as I've always known and loved it is slipping away.
Slightly related: I'm fine with any game having cosmetic microtransactions. A great example is Path of Exile. The game is free, it is massive, it is amazing and rivals the best "Diablo-likes" - and the only thing you can buy from their store is cosmetics - effects on weapons and abilities etc. I don't even think you can buy more storage? Regardless, they are not selling loot boxes for my chance to win a legendary weapon that will skew my power in the game.
Well, I think that it's interresting to remember that all this "SP games crisis" started with this story : https://kotaku.com/the-collapse-of-viscerals-ambitious-star-wars-game-1819916152
Single-player is not "complicated". It's just "not enough money for EA executives". And EA have had this reputation of "we are only here for big bucks" for many many years.
But it doesn't mean there not enough a market for SP games, just that EA won't bother with this because they want only FIFA-like : low risk, high profit, which was always more the exception than the norm.
Single-player is not "complicated". It's just "not enough money for EA executives". And EA have had this reputation of "we are only here for big bucks" for many many years.
But it doesn't mean there not enough a market for SP games, just that EA won't bother with this because they want only FIFA-like : low risk, high profit, which was always more the exception than the norm.
I get the main point, and agree to an extent, that we aren't going to see as many big single player focused games in the future. I see more NEW properties drifting in that direction for one reason or another. I sort of hope that happens honestly. Gives more space for smaller titles from the mid-tier and indie studios without big budget single player games clogging the market place. And that's where the weird new ideas are going to come from.
I think a AAA WRPG would be a big boost to their portfolio and is one of the few Single player only attempts that could be successful for them if done right. If they wanted though they could add a horde mode to it. Looking at their history WRPGs have been successful on the platform and compared to other genres there isn't an abundance of them on the plat form. The ones that are coming out are doing really well and it's being said that there is a resurgence in the genre so maybe it would be a good idea to give that a whirl, I personally would love if they invested in one.
this whole single player nonsense is still sounding more and more like female lead games or minority lead films rhetoric of the last 999 years
I believe the issue is that high quality cinematics are a big standard and gamers don't want to them to be reduced. Creating them, voice acting, script, many people planning and executing... lots of salary payments not to mention marketing campaign costs to advertise those cinematics.
I wish more casual gamers gave a chance to more gameplay-oriented games in other genres than "most popular ones", but of course they are lesser known.
I wish more casual gamers gave a chance to more gameplay-oriented games in other genres than "most popular ones", but of course they are lesser known.
Yeah, I still do not understand how media still critices GoW Ascension. Media have destroyed this game when it came out. Such a shame, it wasn't so bad after all.
still want to know where everybody is getting this "gamers demand massive graphical fidelity" thing from. I can't recall a time when the best looking game has ever been the highest selling one.
But the most recent high rated, most fun (for me atleast) and most definitely will be most selling game is one with gibirish voice acting and generic story. Not saying it's low quality or low budget but maybe they should refocus on why we play games in the first place. It's gameplay.
They need to find a way to encourage more people to go digital so the creator's share of game cost goes up.
Just look at the CRPG boom. Very high content with minimal assets like that.
Last edited:
Right, we don't really need fully mo-capped and voice acted cut-scenes. If anything I'm becoming increasing impatient with these gameplay "breaks" and just skipping your budget bloating waste of disc/bandwith space.
They're not dead? Only economically complicated?
What will I freak out about now? "Economically complicated" will not garner anywhere near as many apocalyptic threads, nor generate clicks.
That being said, I think single player is fine. It's just no longer dominates pretty much 100% of the market anymore.
If the future of single player games is anything like 2017, then I think I'll be fine.
That being said, I don't know how much longer I'll be able to put up with the open world "look at the great big number of content we generated" model that is ever increasingly popular. Not because of the economics, but moreso because I'm getting tired of open world, and specifically how it affects both pacing and repetition.|
I skip most-all sidequests as it is. The more single player shifts to sidequests and do small loops of grinding, the less I feel I get out of individual games.
What will I freak out about now? "Economically complicated" will not garner anywhere near as many apocalyptic threads, nor generate clicks.
That being said, I think single player is fine. It's just no longer dominates pretty much 100% of the market anymore.
If the future of single player games is anything like 2017, then I think I'll be fine.
That being said, I don't know how much longer I'll be able to put up with the open world "look at the great big number of content we generated" model that is ever increasingly popular. Not because of the economics, but moreso because I'm getting tired of open world, and specifically how it affects both pacing and repetition.|
I skip most-all sidequests as it is. The more single player shifts to sidequests and do small loops of grinding, the less I feel I get out of individual games.
Being GOTY has very little to do with the conversation though. This is meant from the business view of actually creating the games and seeing a return on them. Whilst there are definitely some single-player success stories, there have been far more failures in recent years. When your counter-argument is the existence of two games that are the highest rated ever... maybe consider it may not be viable to suggest everyone else just follow the simple template of "create highest scoring game ever" for success.
It's not really a case of having the best graphics, but rather not having what would be considered to be bad graphics... and the bar for what graphics are considered acceptable for these types of games keeps climbing. The best selling games may not have the best graphics, but they tend to either have graphics that sit in the upper-echelon, or are serviced based games. Many (such as Destiny) represent both at the same time.
Unimpressive graphics, or a clear lack of budget often hampers a game's ability to draw hype and awareness right out of the gate. There are countless examples of games that saw interest plummet when revealed to not be graphically up to expectations (Recore, Marvel vs Capcom Infinite, Crackdown 3... hell even Gran Turismo Sport upon reveal). Even when talking about games on Nintendo's weaker hardware, it's typically the games that are amongst the most visually impressive that gather the most attention (which just happens to usually be Nintendo's own offerings).
I'm assuming you're not referring to Mario Odyssey here, because that has practically no chance of being the highest selling game this year, based on previous 3D Mario performances. PUBG likely has that in the bag at this point (service-based game), along with stuff like Destiny 2 (service-based and graphically impressive).
I mean not the best of the best but COD, Battlefront, GTA and Destiny are all very good looking games.
right but the way theyve continually described and contextualized it is about the best. there's a difference bad graphics are different from ones that are par for the course. unimpressive graphics are def an issue but as for your examples: Recore wasnt a AAA game, MvC had issues with specific character faces, not general graphics, Crackdown 3 is a stylized game, not to mention one that was basically a tech demo, and GT Sport was being judged on unfinal code.
all games from the biggest publishers in the business and are running on name not graphics. CoD sells on name, BF sells on Star Wars name (But granted it is one of the better looking games of the gen), GTA is a remaster, and Destiny graphics are not top of the line. (not at all saying theyre bad)
I am a single player and coop player first and foremost, so I hope to see a lot single player experiences in the future! I am not so happy about the fact that for instance they added MP on Mass Effect. I understand the business reasons but that time would have done wonders on the last game!
Many of the top selling games could honestly be argued as having "the best" graphics subjectively though, being amongst the best is par for the course, and being notably below that is a cause for mockery. By "bad" graphics, I mostly just meant games that basically nobody would throw into a graphics war willingly. That definitely would apply to something like Marvel vs Capcom Infinite, and not just the faces. I won't link to the GAF thread, but it was being compared with Tatsunoko Vs Capcom, lol. And most games are judged on non-final code. Final code may change people's perceptions, either for the better (in GTS' case) or for the worse (Ubisoft in general). But the fact remains that everyone goes nuts when something like Horizon Zero Dawn, Quantum Break, Spiderman or God of War are shown, even with unfinished code... whereas Gran Turismo Sport received a much more negative welcome, almost entirely as a result of how it looked, before other aspects of the game were even considered. This applies even to games that don't necessarily look "bad", but don't match up to the high graphical expectations for a AAA title, like Halo 5.
Recore not being a AAA game is basically entirely the point. It didn't look like a AAA game. We didn't even need the actual details of its budget. And being stylised is fine in general, often even applauded. It's when being stylised draws comparison with graphics with a previous generation (without being intentionally retro), it becomes an issue.