Seems to work fine. After you click quote, you need to click the 'insert quote' beneath your avatar
-
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
Seems to work fine. After you click quote, you need to click the 'insert quote' beneath your avatar
Of course they are expected to have good gameplay, every game is....and the best selling games are not graphical marvels. I don't agree. a sp game today does not need bleeding edge visuals, just standard to what everyone is pushing. A good art style will win over gamers more than pure technical graphics. Publishers are bringing this upon themselves by chasing the next fad at every turn.....they don't need to. Just ake a good game that appeals to folks and it will sell regardless of graphics. This issue is a publisher one, nothing more, because they think every game needs top of the line graphics, the market shows this is simply false.
It is kind of confusing, but quote is for if you want to quote multiple people. It adds them to a list that you can then import into your reply box. Using the insert quote button. The reply button in the post will quote that post.
Thanks guys I got it lol. I assumed when I clicked quote it's all I had to do.
Fallout 4 sold gangbusters and everyone seems to hate it. Next Bethesda RPG will probably sell the same. You can make a killing off Single-Player games, but you have to budget correctly. And I think Fallout 4 and The Witcher 3 proved you can monetize those experiences as well
Exactly, you can easily monetize SP games, and if done right they are still very successful. Publishers are trying to convince people otherwise though so they can move everything online, which is what they want.
To be fair Fallout 4 was riding on the good will of new vegas and 3. We've seen a pattern of sales decline in sequels to disappointing hyped games like Destiny, Watch Dogs, Titanfall, Evil within and the list goes on, so i cant see Fallout 5 selling more or even remotely close to its predecessor.
I guess we will see. Though, Im willing to bet the next Bethesda RPG will go on to sell a metric ton and then more. Because if anything, the modding community eats those games up.
Destiny 2 had a bigger launch revenue wise, it was hardly a disappointment,neither was Destiny 1...people need to stop looking at metacritic , especially for GAAS games.
I agree that Destiny 2 was not the best example because it was still very successful unlike other sequels unfortunately but its no lie that it sold less then the first game. 50% drop on NPD, big drop in UK and Japan. It had bigger revenue because of day one microtransactions and maybe bigger adaptation of the expansion pass.
I remember when the first Destiny released Activision were screaming from the roof tops about breaking records and Revenue hitting 500$ million in 24 hours.
You're damn right. Metacritic was the reason i bought this stupid, overrated, over-marketed game.
Problem is how expensive making games even small ones are. Just look at the indie scene the majority of the big indie to AA games and how they need to go to kickstarter sometimes multiple times to make games. Hell blade is was an attempt to make AAA at AA costs and the game is still about 200k away from breaking even.
Your post has zero to do with anything in this thread or what I said. Also opinions and all that.
No, not "better among sim racers". Sim racers are an enthusiast niche, and being more realistic doesn't inherent make something a better game. Sure Forza may not review favourably on sim enthusiast sites, but more sire aren't that, and most players aren't that either, which is why we don't just crown one of the handful of hardcore PC sims the best racer ever and be done with it. Popular opinion right now is that the Horizon branch of Forza is better than the Motorsport branch, but that's certainly not based on its credentials as a sim. The racing genre isn't just about how accurate a simulation each game is. And if Forza Motorsport's only merit was sticking to GT's template. it probably wouldn't have been received better critically than GT in its very first outing, and nearly all subsequent ones. This is the first time GT itself has stepped away from the typical GT formula, and somehow that didn't make it magically bulletproof in the past.
Also, if you don't see the irony in dismissing popular critical opinion of Forza on reviews sites, whilst simultaneously looking to substantiate your claim of GTS being better with "look at sim reviews and sim sites", then I don't know what to tell you tbh.
As covered before, the best selling games either tend to be graphical marvels (which is standard to what everyone is pushing, and is the entire issue), or they have a heavy multiplayer focus. There are very, very few games that get anywhere near being top sellers without adhering to one of the two that I just mentioned. And even in the case of Nintendo games, the Switch is a hybrid console and their best selling games are basically the best graphics portable games in existence. The Wii U, and its games fared far worse.
Maybe you should try listing all the recent top sellers with underpar graphics (and/or noticeably low budgets), that aren't multiplayer GaaS oriented?
The problem is the perceived pressure AAA publishers feel to deliver absurdly state-of-the-art graphics and spectacle in a $60 package. Obviously the economics of that don't work out and so they're trying to nickel-and-dime their way into a positive return wherever possible.
The solution? Slash these damn bloated budgets. The graphics modern devs are trying to put out these days are not only economically but also technologically implausible, and games are suffering for it. Battlefront II looks incredible, but it comes with bad slowdown. Final Fantasy XV does not even run well enough to be comfortably playable on the damn device it was supposed to be made for. And of course, non-cosmetic loot boxes destroy games and make us question why we even spent $60 on an incomplete product. This whole culture of promising the moon needs to stop, because it is hurting literally everyone involved. The general consumer does not want this, they just think they do and they won't miss it. I guarantee you people will still line up to buy Battlefield and The Last of Us if they look slightly less gorgeous.
This year Nintendo launched two of the greatest games of all time, they're selling like hotcakes, and they run at freaking 900p. Undertale does not look great and The Binding of Isaac looks like a Newgrounds flash game. They have both made their creators filthy rich. If you can't understand risk vs return your business will fail, and rightly so.
The solution? Slash these damn bloated budgets. The graphics modern devs are trying to put out these days are not only economically but also technologically implausible, and games are suffering for it. Battlefront II looks incredible, but it comes with bad slowdown. Final Fantasy XV does not even run well enough to be comfortably playable on the damn device it was supposed to be made for. And of course, non-cosmetic loot boxes destroy games and make us question why we even spent $60 on an incomplete product. This whole culture of promising the moon needs to stop, because it is hurting literally everyone involved. The general consumer does not want this, they just think they do and they won't miss it. I guarantee you people will still line up to buy Battlefield and The Last of Us if they look slightly less gorgeous.
This year Nintendo launched two of the greatest games of all time, they're selling like hotcakes, and they run at freaking 900p. Undertale does not look great and The Binding of Isaac looks like a Newgrounds flash game. They have both made their creators filthy rich. If you can't understand risk vs return your business will fail, and rightly so.
But don't forget that there are some successful examples out there. For example, CD Projeckt Red almost faced bankruptcy before the release of their major hit, The Witcher 2. Then after their first success, they have enough money to make The Witcher 3, which is the most critically acclaimed AAA game for quite a while, winning majority of GoTY awards. Now they are developing AAA games(Cyperpunk 2077) instead of some AA budget games.
Another example would be Larian Studios. They enjoyed their first successful title, Divinity Original Sins. After that, they made Divinity Original Sins 2 with the money from their DoS 1, and the sequal proved to be more successful than the first game. After 1 month after release, now DoS 2 have sold over 800k copies on Steam alone, not even counting the sales on GoG. If they are going to make games again, I doubt they are going back to make AA games.
Its hard to make AAA at AA costs, but there are indeed some successful cases out there. Someone will fill in the void eventually.
If she's referring to AAA games then I think she has a point. MP, GaaS, lootbox games just sell better than single player only games and I don't see how anyone can dispute that but what I disagree with is that for many pubs its AAA or gtfo. None of the major publishers would fund a game like Neir: Automata, Persona 5,Yakuza 0, etc because those games turn a nice profit but they don't print money like COD, BF, and Destiny do. So I think the issue is the publishers focus on making the next COD instead of just making games that are profitable.
While I agree, it does suck for devs that don't have such established and viable IPs.
I think the economics are complicated for a publisher like MS who dont see the value in a satisfied userbase and have also seem to have have preconceived notions as to what projects should be (GAAS, microtransactions, Kinect, loot boxes a mix of the above etc).
Might seem like a stupid comment but MS ain't no charity they dont see the value in their userbase liking something and them being happy like say, Sony appear to be, MS will pull the plug on a game/franchise when they dont think it'll do well and when you aim for the stars and unfortunately miss on some of the things they have then it makes the economics complicated because how do you justify it?
I dont think they do a particularly good job of marketing certain games either, though, which certainly doesnt help.
Also I think its a concern that every game kinda feels like it needs to be the next Halo or Gears, sometimes its ok to tell a story over 2/3 games then go and do something else.
Might seem like a stupid comment but MS ain't no charity they dont see the value in their userbase liking something and them being happy like say, Sony appear to be, MS will pull the plug on a game/franchise when they dont think it'll do well and when you aim for the stars and unfortunately miss on some of the things they have then it makes the economics complicated because how do you justify it?
I dont think they do a particularly good job of marketing certain games either, though, which certainly doesnt help.
Also I think its a concern that every game kinda feels like it needs to be the next Halo or Gears, sometimes its ok to tell a story over 2/3 games then go and do something else.
Yup. Persona 5 and Nier Automata, too. I feel like most of the year's best reviewed games have been single player, and they're games that have sold very well. So I don't really get where this is coming from all of a sudden.
This really isn't sudden. Also those games did well, but Popular $60 with Lootboxes will probably do much better with worse review scores
Sure, but that's only if you're talking about churning out games as a raw profit-maximizing commodity without regard to the artistic desires of the creators. A lot of developers still want to make single player games, and the question is whether or not those are still viable, and the answer is that they undoubtedly are.
I mean, it seems obvious that the more modern loot box/microtransaction type business model is lucrative and works well for risk averse publishers. It's probably here to stay. I could definitely see single player going more towards mid-tier budgets outside of first party, with the big third party publishers focusing on stuff you can monetize more easily. Which, honestly, is fine. The alternative would be raising the retail prices of games overall, and I think that'd be received much worse.
I've yet to pay for any kind of microtransaction. The closest I've gotten is DLC, which in some cases has been fair (Dishonored, Bioshock 2/infinite DLC, TLOU:LB, etc. have been well worth it).
I've yet to pay for any kind of microtransaction. The closest I've gotten is DLC, which in some cases has been fair (Dishonored, Bioshock 2/infinite DLC, TLOU:LB, etc. have been well worth it).
Hmm again, name 1 game that is a technical marvel and is a top seller...you keep saying it, yet in reality it simply is not true. Why are you bringing up GAAS or multiplayer? I never once said otherwise, I am talking strictly graphics...graphics today mean less than they ever have. Games look good enough for most.
I am not dismissing, i am simply stating they don't mean it makes forza better neither does GT selling more make Gt better. Mainstream reviews, are more out of touch than ever, even more so for racing games.. I mean Destiny, Rainbow six, Wildlands, all 3 reviewed with mediocore reviews, and all 3 are top sellers....., ..Not sure if reading comprehension is you'r best suit?
In fact, you are just making my point for me...GAAS games by default are reviewing lower, because by nature of what they are. Which makes reviews of forza and GT almost pointless to compare.
Why are you bringing up Horizon? It 's an open world arcade game....a sim game like forza/GT will be judged differently than Horizon lol. That should not have to be stated.... It isn't just realism, again putting words in my mouth..GT drives way better, and I am not talking just realism. GT with a wheel is simply sublime...There is a reason GT has a bif hardcore following amongst petro heads.
hhmm most people you see praising gt go on and on about the realistic lighting and graphics,that's just the nature of the beast,you have a lot of forums with threads dedicated just to photomode and not about the best lines for each track. The real petrol heads that I know,prefer sims and not simcade games like forza and gt.
In the singleplayer realm? Naughty Dog games. I could name a lot more also, like Halo 4, Gran Turismo, Battlefields and Battlefronts, Grand Theft Auto V etc... but most of these also fill the GaaS role as well. I'm mentioning multiplayer and GaaS, because they by their nature can gain a lot of sales for their social appeal as much as for the game itself, whereas singleplayer games tend to be bought more for their experience, with graphics being a large part of that. There's no point talking about how much Minecraft of PUBG sell, because those aren't at all related to the type of games this topic was about in the first place.
I'm not saying that Forza is factually better than GT. I was opposing you scoffing at someone else suggest that was better, whilst acting like the hardcore sim community dictates that GT is a better racer. Neither are hardcore sims, and so neither really hinges their quality on how accurate to life they are. 90%+ of people playing either will be doing so with a controller, and so concessions that make the games fun for the majority make sense at the expense of the accuracy that causes more strict sims to not fare as well on consoles. The point is saying "Sim racer fans don't rate Forza highly" means very little when so many non-sim racer fans do. These are still games, they don't need to be highly accurate to be good games.
I'd like to drop this part of the convo here, because it's completely off-topic really.
Naughty dog games have great gameplay and multiplayer...again, name one game that is a tech marvel and sells just because of it? All those game have MP and good gameplay lol.
So, I don't think that the complicated economics of single-player games will push them into the minority. In a similar fashion to dead genres like the 3D platformer collect-a-thon or the Metroidvania(Well, at least until Samus Returns had hit), the indie scene will simply adapt to meet the market demand for these titles and we'll get them that way. I don't see AAA developers staying afloat on single-player content for much longer simply because of the amount of money that they need to dump into creating them.
This seems to be the trend for gaming. It's becoming less consolidated and more spread out, resulting in an oversaturated market that fails to implode upon itself because of the diversity of demand in the gaming industry. Anything that the so-called "mainstream" development teams abandon merely get picked up by smaller studios that are likely to create a more polished, more loveable product anyways.
This seems to be the trend for gaming. It's becoming less consolidated and more spread out, resulting in an oversaturated market that fails to implode upon itself because of the diversity of demand in the gaming industry. Anything that the so-called "mainstream" development teams abandon merely get picked up by smaller studios that are likely to create a more polished, more loveable product anyways.
What article to I need to read before people just admit they don't know how to make videogames anymore and everything is going to be profit driven until we die.
You explicitly said:
I already stated that a terrible game likely won't sell regardless. You can't say if a game is selling just because of its graphics, because we can't go to an alternate universe where Uncharted and The Last Of Us have awful graphics, whilst Spec Ops The Line looks like Horizon Zero Dawn. But looking (very) good is a consistent trend in top selling single player games. If it's not singleplayer, then it's not applicable to this discussion. So again, what game are you thinking of that imply singleplayer games don't need high budgets and impressive graphics to be top sellers? If you can't easily rattle of a decent size list in the way someone would very easily be able to rattle off a huge list of top selling GaaS games, then you don't really have a viable argument.
I recently traded in a 1tb Xbox One S I just recently purchased this spring and a bunch of games to get over $500 in GS credit. The plan was to get a One X but now after the commentary about single player games i'm thinking about not getting one and instead just getting a bunch of PSN cards or a Switch. I already bought Forza 7 and I have a bunch of digital Xbox One games along with almost 29,000 bing points to get free year of gold so I'm still probably going to buy one but why would the head of publishing make that comment?
What good single player games are coming out for Xbox next year that won't be available on the PS4?
What good single player games are coming out for Xbox next year that won't be available on the PS4?
