Xbox made 1.6B revenue with software and service, why should they take any risk.
Making AAA single player is high risk low reward, can't blame publisher want to bet on something with high return instead.
-
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.
Single Player Games Are Not Dead, But Their Economics Are 'Complicated'- Shannon Loftis
- Thread starter Deleted member 249
- Start date
Xbox made 1.6B revenue with software and service, why should they take any risk.
Making AAA single player is high risk low reward, can't blame publisher want to bet on something with high return instead.
It's not like the full on have given up on single player games. The only game they have upcoming that seems like it won't be able to play solo is Sea of Thevies.
I get the criticism of Single Player games generally being no post launch sales content, and they're games that often get traded in because of it, but I think we see plenty of games that do it well with story expansions. Witcher 3 had fantastic DLC, Horizon Zero Dawn has upcoming DLC, Uncharted 4 had the Lost Legacy, though that got spun off onto a second disc, Dishonored 2 recently had a good DLC option as well, Zelda BOTW, the list goes on.... I get that's not a way that's "targeting whales", but it's also not only being consumed by only 3-5% of the userbase either. I would speculate those were (or will be) fairly successful ventures for those companies. I would think that would be part of the business model of these types of games going forward. If you create content worth coming back to, and we know you are, you can fend off some of the trade in stuff too.
But I think you see in comments like this a general sense of them mistaking the scale we need. "Well if you want games at the graphical fidelity you want", well, who said that we want everything to be photo-realistic? Why can't you do something interesting with the artwork instead that might not require 50 artists making hyper detailed rocks? Who said we want open worlds the size of actual real-world cities? If you can pull that off, great, but there's plenty of room for games that don't. One could argue some games, like the Batman Arkham Series got worse as the scale of the games expanded.
But I think you see in comments like this a general sense of them mistaking the scale we need. "Well if you want games at the graphical fidelity you want", well, who said that we want everything to be photo-realistic? Why can't you do something interesting with the artwork instead that might not require 50 artists making hyper detailed rocks? Who said we want open worlds the size of actual real-world cities? If you can pull that off, great, but there's plenty of room for games that don't. One could argue some games, like the Batman Arkham Series got worse as the scale of the games expanded.
For me it just feels like Sony and MS have different philosophies on exclusives. Sony see them as ways to boost Playstation sales even if they might not make as much money as they could. MS seem to see them as ways to milk people out of as much money as they possibly can. I know which one I prefer as a customer. I say this as someone who was Xbox OG and 360 first. It's only really the PS4 era that I focus more on the Sony stuff.
Look at the mess MS have turned Forza into. Easily the best in class racing games, but almost brought to the point of ruin by MS execs wanting to make every penny they can out of it. So sad :(
Look at the mess MS have turned Forza into. Easily the best in class racing games, but almost brought to the point of ruin by MS execs wanting to make every penny they can out of it. So sad :(
Exactly how I feel. Sony is focused on diversifying their portfolio of games and they may not max out each games potential but they feel like the money will trickle down to them in their ecosystem one way or another.
More like Sony is bad at making profitable GaaS so they do the only thing they do well. It's not like they choose to do single player.
They tried free to play and fail, so they stop trying, no different from MS try single player game and fail and stop trying.
They just do what they does best.
Its hard to match the talent that Nintendo and dedicated indie devs have when it comes to single player content. Its not even a fair comparison for someone like Microsoft.
I think it is fairly clear SP games won't go away as a major segment in gaming, but it's no longer where the money is seen to be. So the Activisions and EA of this world will devote less and less resources to it.
As dev costs rise, it makes sense to get as high return as possible on each dollar spent. I think we sort of saw this trend start with move to HD a decade ago, but even then it was just nickle and diming gamers with DLC
That said, with the departure of the big AAA publishers from the space, there is opportunity here for everyone else. SP will probably increasingly become the domain of smaller studios/indies and Nintendo. I hope that people support the people who choose to stay in the space. I think this may be a win-win in the long run as less competition for highly capitalized cash rich publishers,except for Nintendo and a few other big players, will allow smaller pubs and devs to shine.
As dev costs rise, it makes sense to get as high return as possible on each dollar spent. I think we sort of saw this trend start with move to HD a decade ago, but even then it was just nickle and diming gamers with DLC
That said, with the departure of the big AAA publishers from the space, there is opportunity here for everyone else. SP will probably increasingly become the domain of smaller studios/indies and Nintendo. I hope that people support the people who choose to stay in the space. I think this may be a win-win in the long run as less competition for highly capitalized cash rich publishers,except for Nintendo and a few other big players, will allow smaller pubs and devs to shine.
If Nintendo can pull it off, all companies could. Executives are making game design decisions they shouldn't.
With MS in general getting more and more about their cloud services, it's hard for me to see them championing single player experience with their platform going forward. Their focus on maximizing profits would also be in line with this trend and judging by their latest E3 showing (Darwin, PUBG, etc.) they are already on this path.
I think Nintendo, as a hardware manufacturer also has a slightly different math from say an EA or Activision.
When Nintendo makes a major AAA game, they count the console attach rate the game will generate as a net positive as well.
A game could very well sell 3-4 million units. Nothing spectacular in today's terms, but if it pushes a % of people who bought the game to buy Nintendo hardware, that's added dollars.
EA won't have that, so they're all about maximizing game sales and revenue generated from said games.
Personally, I haven rarely touched an EA/ACTVISION published game. Maybe one title a year from each pub, and with the loss of Sim City, I pretty much uninstalled Origin from my PC. So I don't really mind if they go elsewhere.
The rise of indies to replace the old mid-tier pubs is the best thing to happen in this industry in a long time. And I'm also glad Nintendo is doing well again.
Expecting the next Halo to be some sort of Destiny clone when it comes to story mode. Shared world, loot, levels, lootboxes etc
Dont know how they would fit it with a master chief storyline but I still believe this to be the case. Perhaps everyone plays an instance of master chief - he has no real personality so i guess everyones chief could be customized
Dont know how they would fit it with a master chief storyline but I still believe this to be the case. Perhaps everyone plays an instance of master chief - he has no real personality so i guess everyones chief could be customized
I think it's more that the SP willl be normal halo but they will spin out Warzone into the destiny clone. Where everybody can customize their spartan and do PVE strikes or Warzone matches. I think that's the best way to go about it. Your standard SP, arena, server browser, forge, Destiny-ish Warzone
I'm sorry but this is nonsense. Forza and GT Sport are the same price at retail and Forza offers a ton more value and content right out the box, as reflected in their respective review scores - and without any lootbox purchases required.
The fewer single-player games are being made, the fewer video games I will purchase. It's always been this way with me and it always will be. I've accepted that financial considerations have shifted the industry wayward of my interests.
At one point in the interview, the Red Wedding from GoT is mentioned. This strikes me as a rumbling of a publisher who is looking toward episodic single-player releases. This has been my prediction with Dragon Age 4 for some time, too, actually.
"You won't want to miss the crazy events of Dragon Age 4's third season, out today digitally and at retailers nationwide."
At one point in the interview, the Red Wedding from GoT is mentioned. This strikes me as a rumbling of a publisher who is looking toward episodic single-player releases. This has been my prediction with Dragon Age 4 for some time, too, actually.
"You won't want to miss the crazy events of Dragon Age 4's third season, out today digitally and at retailers nationwide."
When you see games like Overwatch, a premium version of TF2, which is allowed to be published with such meager content at launch and is able to maintain/engage a large player-base through mostly pricey event skins, web comics and occasional Pixar-like cinematic "backstories": why bother with costly motion capture, extensive screenwriting and other high production values? Of course you want your company to focus on that kind of super effective multiplayer game.
I hope there still will be some studios able to break the current industry trend of taking the worst model of F2P monetization and shoving it in their full priced premium AAA games. Fight the inflation!
I hope there still will be some studios able to break the current industry trend of taking the worst model of F2P monetization and shoving it in their full priced premium AAA games. Fight the inflation!
On the one hand, I get it. Video games have always been a boom or bust business model for the most part, and GAAS/microtransactions/loot boxes all both create more money total and let the successes better mitigate the losses. On the other hand, it really sucks as a fan of single player games. What I'm surprised by is that no one in the industry is trying the next step in the current industry line of logic- namely the netflix style subscription model.
Can you imagine if Bethesda charged $10/month this year for their service, offering Skyrim and Fallout 4 (and the rest of their past catalog), but also Prey, Evil Within 2 and Wolfenstein 2? Granted, the catalog would probably need to be a little more robust than that, but as a principle, by offering 3 new games (plus legacy titles) for the price of two games over the course of a year, a lot of people who would have otherwise only bought one game would be giving more money to Bethesda. And that player would be getting way more out of the deal, too.
That model changes everything. It's GAAS but in a whole new light. Instead of actions within the game being the service, games within the library are. Single player games especially shine in that environment. It's pro-consumer (customers pay more than they would right now, but they get far more value). It encourages variety in game styles to offer a robust library, not just lots of one thing. And its subscription model mitigates individual game duds financially, helping the business side.
I really believe that's the light at the end of this anti-consumer tunnel. It's the future of non-indie third party gaming. And the sooner one of the big guys sees that, the better.
Can you imagine if Bethesda charged $10/month this year for their service, offering Skyrim and Fallout 4 (and the rest of their past catalog), but also Prey, Evil Within 2 and Wolfenstein 2? Granted, the catalog would probably need to be a little more robust than that, but as a principle, by offering 3 new games (plus legacy titles) for the price of two games over the course of a year, a lot of people who would have otherwise only bought one game would be giving more money to Bethesda. And that player would be getting way more out of the deal, too.
That model changes everything. It's GAAS but in a whole new light. Instead of actions within the game being the service, games within the library are. Single player games especially shine in that environment. It's pro-consumer (customers pay more than they would right now, but they get far more value). It encourages variety in game styles to offer a robust library, not just lots of one thing. And its subscription model mitigates individual game duds financially, helping the business side.
I really believe that's the light at the end of this anti-consumer tunnel. It's the future of non-indie third party gaming. And the sooner one of the big guys sees that, the better.
I think single player game economics are just fine. Wolfenstein 2 is going to sell HUGE. You just need to make good games that people want. If the game sucks then it won't sell whether single player or multiplayer.
Please use the quote feature so there's no confusion as to which post you're replying to.
Those highest selling games with bad graphics are precisely the GaaS games the industry looks towards as the preferred option versus AAA single player games. You're not actually making a point against the argument by bringing them up. Hell, you've actually named the two games that attracted MS' direct attention...
It was bigger than basically everything that wasn't CoD or Battlefield at the time, despite the middling critical reception. If 2m despite a small userbase is supposed to be average, then there are very, very few actual single player successes... and you'd likely struggle to name ones that aren't considered graphical showcases.
Hmm don't know about that. I think a few games are gonna sell big in October. Wolfenstein not being one of them
I have to admit my interest in gaming began to wane when industry began to move toward multiplayer . All the industry needs is 2-3 good single player games and that would be good enough but they are too focused on mp.
You look at elder scrolls, oblivion, mafia, half life, fallout, RDR, bioshock, doom, Mario, Zelda, halo
To me most Had single player only and when I saw multiplayer attached with them I saw they compromised quality on sp experience
You look at elder scrolls, oblivion, mafia, half life, fallout, RDR, bioshock, doom, Mario, Zelda, halo
To me most Had single player only and when I saw multiplayer attached with them I saw they compromised quality on sp experience
Yeah that's a good point. Still, I believe a single player game can really be successful, even for EA, etc. They just haven't figured it out yet. They've gone via the cheap/easiest road.
Regardless of whether Sony is bad with GaaS games, it isn't like Microsoft is putting up some line of F2P games in place of their failures in the realm of SP games.
Their last 3 biggest titles are Cuphead, Forza 7, and Halo Wars 2, none of which really scream 'GaaS game' to me, though do have GaaS elements in them.
And as for Sony's 'hard' GaaS games there's what, Fortnite and GT Sport? Fortnite can't hope to beat PUBG obviously but the Battle Royale side of things seems to be doing okay.
GT Sport is a new turn for GT and while word of mouth isn't great it remains to be seen how it will do.
The important point is that Sony has these games in addition to compelling single-player experiences, and they have a willingness to make follow-ups to games even if they are only nice (if well-liked).
Gravity Rush 2 is a good example of this, server shutdowns aside. GR1 didn't exactly sell gangbusters but it gained a small following on the Vita, and so they eventually came out with a remaster and sequel.
Isn't that ideally what you want. Looking at Microsoft past line up of games and upcoming slate of titles.
Halo 5 and Gears had traditional styled single player while the multiplayer is GAAS. The Gears implementation is really bad, while Halo's is probably my favorite in any game I've played. It's all cosmetic and the non cosmetic stuff is set to one mode.
Recore, Cuphead, and Lucky tale are pure Single Player games.
Forza has Mtx but I'm not sure how that effects gameplay.
Halo Wars has a large campaign and the GAAS like Halo 5 is set to one card game based game mode. They also had a single player dlc.
Looking at Microsoft upcoming games it seems to be a mix of the three which doesn't seem all that bad tbh.
I actually said that Forza is the best racing game, literally in the post you quoted me. But you can't deny that it is harmed and not as good as it could be due to the lootbox bullshit they decided to implement, which is only there to milk people who don't have the time and patience, for money. It's not there in any way to improve player experience.
Yep,i agree with this. Companies do what works for them in terms of profit. That said,it wouldn't hurt Microsoft to try something fresh once in a while. I reckon they did that with some titles but it's not enough to sway people to their platform.
That's actually not correct in his situation. Sony does absolutely see first party games as a way to broaden the base and push their entire platform, and part of that is encouraging games and genres that might otherwise not be made.
Fortnite wouldn't really count as a Sony GaaS. It's an Epic game, that is also on XB1 from the start. Gran Turismo Sport would definitely count though.
As for MS, you wouldn't really be thinking of what their most recent released games are. The whole point about games being GaaS is that they remain relevant long after their initial release date. Halo 5, Gears 4, and Forza Horizon 3 all remain as prominent titles for them currently, and then there's Minecraft also.
Quotes like this are a bit reductive, because for how well BOTW did, Destiny 2 and Wildlands did much better and have those sweet sweet loot box hooks.
As a multiplayer player mostly, I'm happy with microsofts games. I do enjoy single player games too but mostly smaller indies like cuphead, ori and hyper light drifter etc. So it doesn't bother me that much. Most AAA single player games I hardly ever finish. Start off loving them but by the end just get burned out.
BOTW is an exception though. Loved that game but by the end I had to force myself to finish it. Was gonna pick up origins yesterday and told myself it wasn't worth it cause I wouldn't finish it after the initial beginning hype.
So the whole gears, halo, for a thing is good for me. One of those games gives me more play time then 10 uncharteds ever will.
BOTW is an exception though. Loved that game but by the end I had to force myself to finish it. Was gonna pick up origins yesterday and told myself it wasn't worth it cause I wouldn't finish it after the initial beginning hype.
So the whole gears, halo, for a thing is good for me. One of those games gives me more play time then 10 uncharteds ever will.
lol no it wasn't...at all. Again...name 1 game that sold well on just graphics alone...
Best racing game how? It depends..if you want the typical car pokemon sure..on the track it is not close to the best.
Sony is bad at GAAS games? lol what ones? GT Sport is literally the first, and that looks to be well on it's way to being a big success,
Forza best in class racing game...lol. People think more cars/tracks = best in class? No sim racer thinks sorza is even on par with GT sport on the track, let alone other sims.Forza is a good franchise, but it does not come close to the best core racing, it is the best car pokemon game that's about it.
Saying "name one game that sold well on graphics alone" is a silly request because no game is made only of graphics, and misses the point of this conversation entirely. Nobody is saying that you can ship a graphically amazing Big Rigs and have it sell. The whole point is that singleplayer AAA games are expected to have both good graphics and good gameplay, and lacking either greatly diminishes its chances at success. I don't think a single person in this entire thread has argued that gameplay doesn't matter to sales, so I'm not sure why you're trying to use that argument to imply that graphics don't matter to sales. The argument is that they both do. Hopefully I won't have to repeat this again...
Maybe dial it down a bit?
Not every racing game is judged purely on how much of a sim it is. Forza, both Motorsport and Horizon have consistently been received critically amongst the best racers since its original release... and not simply for having more cars and tracks. It's outscored Gran Turismo at nearly every release since the IP first starting existing, with Forza Motorsport 5 (vs Gran Turismo 6) being the only exception. This include releases where Gran Turismo had notably more content.
Forza being a better racing game than Gran Turismo (and other sims) is just an opinion. It's hardly an uncommon one also.
Last edited:
While making games is getting more expensive every year, I'm not sure this spells anything near death for single player titles. This gen also isn't the first time they've tried to sell us on this idea. Just look at the horror genre cratering in the middle of last gen. Several industry figures were saying horror games don't sell and most people will buy them pre-owned to save money. Then Let's Plays and streaming happened. Now we have titles like Resident Evil 7, a solid game made on a presumably low budget, selling pretty damn well, most copies sold at or near full price (though not meeting Capcom's ludicrous expectations). This isn't always the case, as some signs are pointing to Evil Within 2 unfortunately flopping, but you get a marketable name, with a marketable premise, and you can sell good games to consumers, with or without multiplayer. New IPs may be harder to sell, but it's certainly not impossible. I don't think this argument has "single player titles won't make us a profit" in mind. I think it has "we could make x times MORE profit if we have a service model people continue to pay for, and continue to grow our business" in mind for major publishers.
I wanted to participate in this discussion when I saw it elsewhere, I'll read the thread in a sec but just wanted to say that unlike other publishers I feel MS as a platform holder (and ergo Sony, although Nintendo might have more pressing priorities) has an additional set of objectives to increase the diversity of the games released on their platform and I think this is an tangible benefit to the health of the platform while not directly improving their bottom line.
I think a platform holder should make games that aren't going to give them direct profit as ultimately these unfavoured games will have an audience and there's no harm in trying to be as attractive as possible. Otherwise you end up having a fanbase that's just wants a narrow spectrum of games which at some point will eventually become satiated/bored...
Its a sad day when we have to talk about linear single player AAA games this way and the comments made by someone like Loftis can't help but turn me away from Xbox. Ultimately I don't expect the big multiplatform publishers not to go with whatever the current zeitgeist is (look forward to the PUBG clones), but yeah I want the platform holder to recognise that there's still value, beyond monetary, in these forlorn genres.
Believe me I don't mistake myself as someone that has a viewpoint that most gamers have...
ps3ud0 8)
I think a platform holder should make games that aren't going to give them direct profit as ultimately these unfavoured games will have an audience and there's no harm in trying to be as attractive as possible. Otherwise you end up having a fanbase that's just wants a narrow spectrum of games which at some point will eventually become satiated/bored...
Its a sad day when we have to talk about linear single player AAA games this way and the comments made by someone like Loftis can't help but turn me away from Xbox. Ultimately I don't expect the big multiplatform publishers not to go with whatever the current zeitgeist is (look forward to the PUBG clones), but yeah I want the platform holder to recognise that there's still value, beyond monetary, in these forlorn genres.
Believe me I don't mistake myself as someone that has a viewpoint that most gamers have...
ps3ud0 8)
We'll see how this pans out, but it seems just a continuing trend in the game industry to me that started in the 2000's. AAA budgets are pretty much unsustainable so the consequence of that is that less and less types of games are seen as workable for the big publishers.
A decade or go that would have made me very worried, but these days most of my enjoyment comes from indie and mid-tier developers.
A decade or go that would have made me very worried, but these days most of my enjoyment comes from indie and mid-tier developers.
Single player games mostly died when people decided every 8 hour linear game was a "rip off". Games are always better with a low scope that gives them more time to be mega polished. I'll take a perfect 8 hour experience over a slightly less good 30 hour game.
Granted, I don't often pay full price for games so that's probably why I feel that way. I also don't care about reviews, games being broken at launch, etc because of that.
Granted, I don't often pay full price for games so that's probably why I feel that way. I also don't care about reviews, games being broken at launch, etc because of that.
The flip to that argument would be that Resident Evil 7's sale expectations weren't that crazy considering f the sales of 4,5,6 and their repesctive remasters.
Streaming can also be doubled edged sword while many games have gotten big off of them, you have a generation that's less interested in playing a Horror game than watching them.
The Xbox division presumably has a set budget for games. So to maximize their investment they are going for the tried and true money makers. If a single player and a MP focused game are both gonna sell idk 3 million copies but the MP game has service hooks that increase its longevity and increase live usership along with microtransactions, it'd be kinda irresponsible to not put your investment towards that
Honestly, I'm so disenfranchised with what remains of AAA single player gaming that companies like EA moving away from it doesn't make a difference to me. The developers that are still making the best SP games aren't the ones who are about to stop.
Being better among sim racers lol, no it is not a common thing at all. Go to any sim review or sim site..the reviews are just that, opinions of the mainstream press who are the least in tune with racing sims. Forza reviews better because it checks all the typical AAA racing games of the last 20 years. On the teack Gt is better and it's not really close, especially with a wheel. Too many cars in forza do not drive like they should or their real life counterparts. Gt sells well because they have perfected the Sim model while still being arcade enough for the casuals. It is incredible to drive, and the onlije is far better. GT's only issue is content, and that is easy to fix. Forza is a greats eries for simcade guys and car pokemon though. For real racing, gt is better where it counts.
I get a kick out of the "But forza reviews better". GT sells better, but then you will say sales <> better. Well, mainstream reviews <.> better either. Like I said, it is just because forza sticks to same typical formula GT invented....Gt does need more content, they deserved to be knocked for that. The gameplay, you know that thing that should be way more important, is sublime. Forza is good yes, it's simcade though, and the driving is not near as refined, nor is it online setup,
I get a kick out of the "But forza reviews better". GT sells better, but then you will say sales <> better. Well, mainstream reviews <.> better either. Like I said, it is just because forza sticks to same typical formula GT invented....Gt does need more content, they deserved to be knocked for that. The gameplay, you know that thing that should be way more important, is sublime. Forza is good yes, it's simcade though, and the driving is not near as refined, nor is it online setup,
Yeah I think MS is really focusing on positioning themselves well revenue wise for getting out of the hardware business—at least on the console side. If the Xbox One X isn't a big success I'd be surprised to see a successor unless they go with some Windows 10 box.
They've mostly been an OS and software company over their lifetimes and haven't had a lot of hardware success aside from 360 (and RROD issue ate into a lot of their profits there) and Surface tablets. Not surprising their focusing on ways to further monetize their software be it through games as service to cloud storage subscriptions to Office 365 subscritptiosn to organizations and individuals to get money yearly or monthly instead of selling them Word, Excel etc. once every few years (most never need to upgrade if their usages are basic). Etc.
When I click quote.....it is not working, anyone else having this issue? SP games are not dying, i mean there are a bunch releasing and more coming....There will always be a market for them. Will there be less, sure, but dead...no.