Are single player games going to die?

[Serguei2]

I found this news: https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/singleplayer

 

So do you think we still play solo in the future or do you want more playing online instead?

 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Serguei2

[Osgeld]

I used to play online quite a bit, but I cant tolerate it and prefer just to have a single player experience

[Video]

I prefer single player, and have very few multi player only games. I like multi player with friends, but Don't care for it with random people.

 

I could see some games losing single player, like call of duty, but for the most part I think single player is safe.

 

I also stay away from "online only" games. When the internet is down, your just screwed, and I can't think of a single good reason for a single player experience to be locked online (destiny?)

Edited April 22, 2018 by Video

[Tanooki]

They're never going to go extinct. There are plenty out there who don't at times want to deal with other people, or in particular want a richer story (or no story) based gameplay experience that doesn't have interruptions, heckling, pop in and out of interlopers. Some genres just entirely would have to die as they'd fail under such pressures. There's a place for both.

[Flojomojo]

Of course they're going to die, they must! In the near future, every game will require constant connection to the internet, login with Facebook, mandatory voice chat, and micro transactions for every action. There will be no exceptions, it's the law. Oh, and if you get caught with physical media, you'll be in very big trouble.

 

Every trend must be taken to the extreme in alarmist ways. Reducto ad absurdum, because, web forum!

[Eltigro]

I have not bought games simply because they did not seem to have much if any single player game.

[Osgeld]

I have not bought games simply because they did not seem to have much if any single player game.

 

ditto

[Tanooki]

Obvious ditto on that too. I buy FPS games for a solid campaign, so, my options tend to be limited since most are just garbage to help sell lootboxes and multiplayer maps. If I do buy because it has an ok campaign, I base how much they put into it on how long I wait for an appropriate price cut too. Neither extreme should be allowed to take over.

[Skippy B. Coyote]

Of course there will always be single player games, if for no other reason than the fact that the company Nintendo exists and they understand the internet about as well as your grandparents did in 1995. Plus all those indie games that the hip kids drinking their lattes out of avocados like playing these days are, for the most part, single player offline experiences.

 

As long as there's still people who want to play them there will always be single player games.

 

 

Obvious ditto on that too. I buy FPS games for a solid campaign, so, my options tend to be limited since most are just garbage to help sell lootboxes and multiplayer maps. If I do buy because it has an ok campaign, I base how much they put into it on how long I wait for an appropriate price cut too. Neither extreme should be allowed to take over.

You might want to check out Moon Chronicles and Dementium Remastered on the 3DS eShop if you haven't already. Both are single player only first person shooters with some great stories to tell. You can also get physical copies of them for the original DS, minus the 3D and dual analog control options of course.

[+Random Terrain]

Multiplayer only = no need for enemy AI and that means more money for less work! Yay for game companies!

[omegadot]

If people want to keep telling stories I imagine we'll continue to see single player games / campaigns. I'm not sure I'd trust EA that much about trends. I imagine while they have a huge % of profits they have a small percentage of all games actually made at this point. Single player games are probably the way of the dodo for them. I doubt they even consider trends that don't maximize sales over all.

[zzip]

I found this news: https://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/singleplayer

 

So do you think we still play solo in the future or do you want more playing online instead?

Problem with building an online game is building the community of users to support the ecosystem. A lot of times they'll go to a more popular similar game (Overwatch instead of Battleborne) and some games die due to community inactivity

 

So there's an inherent extra risk in online games that single-player games don't have. I think some developers will realize this and continue to make single player experiences.

[Tanooki]

I had Dementium and Moon back in the day, don't anymore and you're right they were quite well done in the style and substance you don't see as often on a handheld from that period.

[StickerPeeler]

I've never played an online game. I seek out video games to avoid people, not to interact with real people. I can guarantee I am not the p1 audience that modern designers are catering to. I'm playing goat simulator and pac-man championship edition. I'd rather show off scores on a leader board than interact. I also can't fathom watching someone live streaming their playing a game. I'm old apparently.

[MrMaddog]

I prefer story based games (if I have time for them) and have a whole backlog to last me since the "gamer" industry is more interested in selling $60 freemium games with lots of IAP DLCs...

 

Ironic that people are praising Sony for having story based exclusives on the PS4 instead of the Xbox One with mostly online based stuff that EA wants the whole industry to move towards completely.

[Tanooki]

It's all part of the push back by those who are slowly wising up to the crap the industry has been shoveling and pushing so hard. I mean you can't really entirely blame EA and the others as much as they do deserve it, it's the peoples fault because they're the enablers of it, much like on those 600lb fat people shows where it's usually the parent, lover, or friends who put 3000 calories into that persons face every day. Both are to blame but one enables the other because it's a benefit to both. In gaming the groups like EA or mobile with the IAP, lootboxes, overkill essential DLC packages, and other fluff only exist because they found a group of whale idiots who feel they must have this stuff at any cost or they can't enjoy life in gaming. EA is the enabler while the buyer is the morbidly obese fool in it.

 

People are realizing that system is slowly bloating out of control and killing off things people care for in the hobby. That's why you see more and more push back in a couple ways. One being PS4 getting the love over the story driven games, the second would be again more recent the large push on Nintendo Switch and on others too where digital games are getting side by side or later(due to age beyond the Switch system) physical releases where they never would before. These games getting this delayed or same time treatment are greatly influenced in the pool of the single player and story driven experience. People want it, some developers are realizing it, others slowly are turning back to it too because they realize they can get more fun and value there than a whale baiting online turd factory that appeals to the lowest common denominator in gaming which unfortunately turns for some(like EA and Activision) the highest profits.

 

It's not to say you can't have a measure of both, but it's fairly rare. Nintendo has made steps with the truly optional IAP model with a freemium game that doesn't suck or seem light on story or features with Fire Emblem and Animal Crossing on android/ios. It's not the normal thing, but more I imagine will copy it given how well the place with sales on those titles.

[negative1]

I never play games that require online if it can be helped.

 

I only play single player games, period.

 

later

-1

[digdugnate]

i've played lots of LAN games of Quake and Warcraft II, i've done my share with WoW and Ultima Online, plus some multiplayer here and there with Forza 7 and Star Wars: Battlefront.

 

That being said, I always will prefer single-player, if anything so I don't have to interact with anyone else. I like playing games that can be 'paused' and resumed when i get real life out of the way.

[Flojomojo]

I play a few MMORPGs very casually, always solo. I like the sense of the large, living world, and the option to interact or group with others, even if I never do. They call it PvE, "player vs. environment," which is fine with me.

 

My point being it doesn't have to be either-or, some games offer the choice for people to play the way they want.

[keepdreamin]

I don't think single player games will go away. A player who's invested tons of time in a MMO RPG most likely isn't going to be bouncing around to other ones. Companies competing in that online market need a player base that is going to stay put. Players naturally are going to flock to the larger and more popular communities. Having a ton of similar games just isn't going to work, that's why I think there's always a place for single player games.

 

Alienating players with pay to win micro transactions isn't a key to long term survival. We've seen the blowback from micro transactions recently.

 

I think evenly spaced expansion packs is the best bet for long term player investment. Offer new content to keep people interested, but in large chunks that are spaced out. That way it doesn't look like a dev is just constantly milking for $$, and you're actually getting something substantial.

Edited April 25, 2018 by keepdreamin

[Hyper_Eye]

That article is at least four years old. Yet here we are. Breath of the Wild was widely seen as Game of the Year last year with Super Mario Odyssey following closely behind. God of War is a contender to be Game of the Year for 2018. Rumors of single player gaming's death seem to be greatly exaggerated.

[+wongojack]

The online multi-player game I've played the most all time is Settlers of Catan for X360. I also played Dr Mario on the Wii against online opponents quite a bit. Give me more of that experience and I'll dip in occasionally. Otherwise, I pretty much avoid multi-player games.

 

From another thread on a similar topic:

 

 

For me, gaming is single player. I like to enjoy and discover the gaming world that has been laid out. I want to understand the characters in that world and make my own progress through the story and various interactions. Modern gaming does this better than ever before.

 

I'm just not interested in multi-player gaming. I've decided that I will never intentionally buy or play a predominantly multi-player/online game again. If it happens on accident - great, but the good experiences are just so few and far between that its not worth it. If I was 16 and all my friends were online playing Overwatch, I would be there, but I'm not going to go out and get good at that game when I might encounter 1 or 2 people I know who actually play it over the course of owning it for X years. The good multiplayer experience is just too hard to capture and plan for. In that way, I consider the emphasis on multi-player gaming to be sort of a bad thing about modern gaming. However, I'm willing to wait for it to evolve into something different and more interesting to me. I've got plenty of games to play in the meantime.

 

[Flojomojo]

It's like the difference between books and sports. You can run up and down the same field all day with your friends in a sport, I can see the appeal, but it's not for everyone.

[Shawn]

If there isn't a solo play mode or a campaign fo sorts, I'm not interested. Online only is for the birds

[Andromeda Stardust]

Single player offline games will always exist. What is dying however, is "play on the couch with friends" type offline games...