Single player games on the way out, says Phil Harrison

[Gregory DG]

Single player games on the way out, says Phil Harrison.

 

Phil Harrison has claimed that the games industry will move away from making standalone single-player titles like Alone in the Dark.

 

Speaking to Eurogamer, the Infogrames president explained how consumers increasingly want network connectivity and embedded communities in their games, and that he expects the industry to reduce its focus on solely single-player titles.

 

"Alone in the Dark is a beautifully crafted single-player adventure game. I don't think the industry is going to make many more of those," said Harrison.

 

"I just don't think consumers want to be playing games that don't have some kind of network connectivity to them, or some kind of community embedded in them, or some kind of extension available through downloadable content."

 

"The industry is changing, and the role we play as creators and publishers has to reflect those changes. I don't think I'm alone in having those views, either," he added.

Translation: "We don't want to spend the time and effort to make a single player game with a storyline where people pay a one time fee. We'd rather focus on multiplayer games that people pay $12.95 per month on."

[Atari5200]

this coming from Infogrames tells enough of the article.

[+Cobra Kai]

Yeah, I like Infogrames telling me what the future of gaming is.

[liveinabin]

I bet Shigeru Miyamoto begs to differ.

[godslabrat]

Yeah, I like Infogrames telling me what the future of gaming is.

 

Gunstarhero, that's even funnier coming from someone with an Atari logo for an avatar. My hat is off to you!

 

Laughing aside, I think there's more truth to Harrison's words than I'd like. Most genres are leaning havily toward multiplayer. Shooters used to be excellent on their own, now they're scoffed if they don't offer both online and offline multiplayer. Heck, even RPGs are considered half-assed unless they become MMORPGs. Criminy... there was a time when RPGs were the ultimate way to avoid human contact!

 

Yet another reason to invest more in portables, if true...

[moycon]

You don't have to pay 12.95 a month if you don't want to play online.

No one will force a person to pay for extra content and no where in that prediction does it say all games will be multiplayer only and you have to pay additional fee's to play anyways

 

Most games already offer both single player games, with multiplayer games included.

This isn't anything new. It's like a person predicting in the future someone will take a shower.

All 3 of this generations systems can connected to a network and to the internet. Of course game makers are adding multiplay and downloadable content to games. It's been going on for years now guys.

 

This isn't a prediction, it's overstating the obvious.

[Reaperman]

generally being a bit of a retro forum, it's natural not to be thrilled about online gaming. It will certainly make any games without a serious offline mode obsolete after just a short time, and many games will probably require multiplayer to unlock some kind of widget.

 

I don't think single player games will be totally out in the next few years, but sadly they're not exactly the future anymore.

There will still be some offline only games, but we've already seen a lot of online features wander well into the realm of offline gaming.

 

The DS is the only current gen system I own, and it's managed to take quite a few games online in one way or another.

Thankfully it can never be an online-only system thanks to its portable nature, though as cell networks start to take over, I suppose it's just a matter of time before even handhelds start forcing online play.

 

then we'll all be jumping from game to game as they'll go obsolete in a few years. Yay fetchquests.

Edited May 29, 2008 by Reaperman

[+kisrael]

Hmm.

This might widen the divide between "serious" and "casual" games...

 

I see casual games as the spiritual successor of the games we honor here (i.e. retro).

"serious" games may well me more and more multiplayer but I think casual gaming will hold its own.

[christianscott27]

Its bugs me, when I play a modern FPS often the solo mission seems tacked on to justify the online, like Halo 3. I'm not a big fan of playing shooters online since its usually a matter of seconds before someone kills you. I like escapist immersion, games that suck you in and make you want to play on to see where the story goes. I dont feel transported when I have to listen to idiots on xboxlive trash talk.

[Reaperman]

Oh boy, I can hardly wait for gaming to die.

 

Then I can hang out online for 4+ hours a day waiting for enough people to gather for the pointless fetch quest that just might keep my levels up. Those will be the good days. On bad days I'll be teabagged by a 40-year-old virgin and cursed at by a pre-teen.

 

There's only two choices online. Lose the game or live in it forever.

Some games I don't at all mind being terrible at.

[BydoEmpire]

Well, good thing my classic consoles will still be running, because that's what I'll be playing. Online games certainly have their place, but I don't always want my fun to depend on other people.

[moycon]

Its bugs me, when I play a modern FPS often the solo mission seems tacked on to justify the online, like Halo 3.

 

Yeah that perfect lag-free 4 way co-op was tacked on at the last second I'm sure.

 

If anything, it's the multiplayer portions of games that get tacked on. You guys make it sound like in a couple years all game are going to be death match and MMORPGs. I think maybe you're mis-understanding what Phil was saying. Having downloadable content and online multiplayer option isn’t a bad thing and the multiplayer only games are as rare as the single player only games, both for the same reason..... they don’t sell as well. The single player game isn’t going away. However the single player with no network content ONLY game is and has been for awhile. If Nintendo had a network worth a crap you can bet they would take full advantage of it, and Sony and MS has been for awhile.

 

Why is it some folks always seem to see video games as a whole, on the verge of being ruined because of some petty statement that was made and why would they give a crap when there are literally a million of games from the past few decades they can play that fit their criteria of what makes a video game good???

[+Random Terrain]

I have no desire to play multiplayer-only games. I just want to play how I want, when I want, as fast or as slow as I want. I'm there to have fun. I'm not there to be harassed or judged by pimply-faced teens or creepy nerds with a "King of Kong" attitude.

[moycon]

I have no desire to play multiplayer-only games. I just want to play how I want, when I want, as fast or as slow as I want. I'm there to have fun. I'm not there to be harassed or judged by pimply-faced teens or creepy nerds with a "King of Kong" attitude.

 

Right.

 

So get this. On a game menu screen where it says, "Multiplayer" You don't highlight that option and hit hit the start button.

Instead you go to the option that says "Single Player" and highlight it and hit start button.

Unless peoples beef is they can't stand to see those options on a menu and it ruins the game for them, it's a non-issue.

The single player game isn't going the way of the dodo ever.

 

Think about it, Do you honeslty think producers of these games spending sometimes million of dollar to produce and market them would isolate their return profits to folks with an internet connection? No of course they wouldn't. Here's a trick. Pick any of this generations consoles and name me even a half dozen retail video games that was made in the last year that is online multiplay only. That's a measely 6 titles out of hundreds. Can anyone?

[shadow460]

Multiplayer? Wasn't wipEout near kiler app status back in the day? Oh, yes, I love how quickly I can get into a pulsE game, never mind the ones that aren't traveling at breakneck speed down Metropia Black in a floating typewriter. Another thing I hate--downloadable content that they won't release worldwide. There's a reason Auricom is a part of wipEout, and those of us here in America would like to enjoy their ship. Granted, I'm railing on only one game, but are the rest any better? Do I really want to sit down and wait for Way(slow)Port_Access to load just to play an online game at McStarbuck's? Do I wanna fight the PS2 or fork over hundreds of dollars for a broadband adapter for my Dreamcast? Maybe I should just pay the long distance charges for some online Saturn Bomberman.

 

I think not.

 

Seems that most of the games I have that can get online over the net just aren't worth playing that way. The last one I really enjoyed was Emperor: Battle for Dune (OK, Yuri's Revenge was later, but it's an add on pack).

 

The newest systems I own are a box PS2 and a couple of PSPs.

[+Random Terrain]

Think about it, Do you honeslty think producers of these games spending sometimes million of dollar to produce and market them would isolate their return profits to folks with an internet connection? No of course they wouldn't. Here's a trick. Pick any of this generations consoles and name me even a half dozen retail video games that was made in the last year that is online multiplay only. That's a measely 6 titles out of hundreds. Can anyone?

Once consoles are online by default and when most gamers decide that multiplayer-only games are just too cool, I can see a time when most one-player games will only be 'classic' games.

 

Similarly, there was a time back in the 1980s when I thought everyone would demand replayable games, but we went down the path filled with static action puzzles instead where randomness became a dirty word. I also thought that more people would demand cooperative games. Instead of fighting each other or trying to beat each other's scores, people would play cooperatively. Gaming almost always seems to go down the shittiest road, so I have no doubt that a time will come when it will be hard to find a new game that you'll be able to play by yourself.

[moycon]

Once consoles are online by default

 

Who's going to pay for the internet connection? The gaming companies are going to? Or maybe they are going to build a HUGE game network and let everyone use it for nothing? When they spend the gazillion dollars to do this... Who is going to buy a $60 game that's online play only? There are several out now. But they weren't huge sellers. In fact people bitch hard when a game is online only. Ever seen the neg feedback Shadowrun got from gamers? Why would any company stop selling single player games and single player games with online options and start churning out online only product that doesn't sell as well as the other product? Why would a company force people to play online only, when folks don't like online only and it's more expensive for them? Just to be mean? If that happens, you guys are right, it would suck for sure!! Forgo profits and spend money just so they can release online only games. Damn that is cold.

 

I’m curious. What's going to change to make people want all games to be online only and when is all this change supposed to happen? When is the world going to all of a sudden want every game to be P Vs P or co-op with no other option. I want to mark the date on the calendar, so if it doesn't come we can pick up this conversation.

[+Random Terrain]

I’m curious. What's going to change to make people want all games to be online only and when is all this change supposed to happen? When is the world going to all of a sudden want every game to be P Vs P or co-op with no other option. I want to mark the date on the calendar, so if it doesn't come we can pick up this conversation.

The trend will move towards you not having much of anything on your end except the advanced console or whatever we'll be using (toaster, lamp, key chain . . .). You won't go to a store and buy a game, you'll just buy into an online game. All of the games will be somewhere else and you'll just join in for a price. Things change fast. How you connect, who pays for it, and how fast it will be can change in the blink of an eye. Some games will be stuffed full of advertising while others will be brought to you by this or that company with limited advertising breaks that you'll have to sit through. A crappy new world of gaming is on the way.

[Reaperman]

I’m curious. What's going to change to make people want all games to be online only and when is all this change supposed to happen? When is the world going to all of a sudden want every game to be P Vs P or co-op with no other option. I want to mark the date on the calendar, so if it doesn't come we can pick up this conversation.

I say 2018-2020. About the middle/late section of the generation 2 gaming generations from now. Generally everybody who can afford a next gen system can afford to at least steal internet from their neighbors, and with more and more cities providing free internet to large areas (ours does), it's just a matter of time before people take advantage of it. I say 10-12 years is enough time to have the networking leap to enable that plus some.

 

10 years ago online gaming was the realm of a few thousand nerds, and now look at it--it's dominating the PC market. (granted there are a lot of single player pc games that nobody gives a rats rear about) But the switch of PC games to 'online mainly' is where I start to figure that we're about halfway there.

 

In consoles/handhelds now, the reviewing media pretty much has 'online features' as a checkbox on the way to good ratings. So many games have at least token online downloads/missions/combat. Soon I think the online will become more important than offline console wise. And that's really the thing. Single player gaming's not going to go away, it's just going to become an afterthought online games throw in to get their checkbox on the review sheet over at ign.

 

all those nifty dreamcast games had an offline mode too. it was not fun...

Heck, in theory you can play PSO offline--I actually tried it back on DC. All the negatives of online gaming (minus teabaggings) with none of the positives. Actually by the time I started buying online DC games, the servers were pretty well empty, so I've pretty much only played all of those offline.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Reaperman

[moycon]

You won't go to a store and buy a game, you'll just buy into an online game. All of the games will be somewhere else and you'll just join in for a price. Things change fast. How you connect, who pays for it, and how fast it will be can change in the blink of an eye. Some games will be stuffed full of advertising while others will be brought to you by this or that company with limited advertising breaks that you'll have to sit through. A crappy new world of gaming is on the way.

 

This whole conversation kinda reminds me of magazines you can pick up off eBay from the 50's. You know the ones that tell and show you what the future 1980's is going to be like? Flying cars and plastic domed push button houses. It's good entertaining reading.

 

I'll just ignore Reapermans sugestion that in 10 years Microsoft and Sony are going to rely on consumers who steal internet connection to profit off of. This is good stuff, but like Temple of Doom we don't want to get ridiculous. So.....

 

In a decade, all games are going to be online only and all console by default will be connected to a free network? Well the internet isn't free and it's not available in all locations so that's out. So like maybe in spite of our crap economy, very soon all locations in the US (or will this fictional network be worldwide?) will have access to the USGN (US Gaming Network) is that right? Or will the folks in remote area's just not get to play these new systems?? In spite of the great cost of this huge network, The gamers who purchase a system can connect to this network for nothing?? Wow bandwidth and networking equipment must be in cheap and in constant supply in 10 years eh? Anyone want to bet on this is what happens? If I had a billion dollars I'd bet EVERY PENNY that's not what direction gaming goes in.

 

Although less exciting. I suspect in 10 years we will see single player games with more robust and better implemented online (via the plain old internet) options.

That's something I'd bet on for sure.

But who knows, anything is possible right?

Any of you guys want to buy a jet pack?

Edited May 30, 2008 by moycon

[Reaperman]

you have a magical way of twisting words. I don't think anybody suggested that this online gaming wasn't going to happen over the internet. The internet will however likely be much faster--I wouldn't doubt 50mbit connections for those paying, and I believe free internet, while slower, will continue to grow in size. 10 years ago most of us had 56k or so, now most of us have 3-6mbit, so 50mbit may actually be shooting a bit low. And last I heard the city only had good to say about their free service, and many cities are following along.

 

The city had the wireless network the whole time, it was just a matter of beefing it up and letting people on.

 

as for hooking all consoles to the magical world wide network, everybody I know locally with a 360 has it on xbox live, and I see the trend continuing. We're not exactly 'cultured folk' out here, so I doubt we're far from the norm.

Edited May 30, 2008 by Reaperman

[moycon]

you have a magical way of twisting words. I don't think anybody suggested that this online gaming wasn't going to happen over the internet.

 

Silly. Neither MS nor Sony owns the internet!! You mean they are going to design and sell games that only work over a network that they don't own!!??? I'm not twisting words around. The network you are refering to does not exist and never has.

 

You know how many people that own a 360? Let's be generous and say 50. Do you know how many 360's are in the US? Over 11 MILLION. Do you know how many aren't connected to the internet because they cant or do not want to be? Millions. How do you explain this all happening in a decade? How do you explain everyone getting free reliable internet connection for nothing in 10 years? The cost just to cover all areas in the US would be astronomical. The internet isn't a natural resouce. Bandwidth cost money. Lots of money. Many higher speed conections can only be so far away from a pop site or they are out of specs. In order to reach many remote areas a site has to be built and often times it's not worth the cost because the equipment needed is expensive. Networking equipment? Do you have any idea? You could pay off your house with the cost of one single routing engine card. Not that it matters, like I said, no gaming company owns the internet so unless they want to just cut free millions of consumers, they will have to build up their own network, not only to connect to a GSP but to connect to their customers who don't have access to the internet. Sony is trying this (To build a free game network for folks who do have access to the internet, NOT reach the millions who don't), it leaves a lot to be desired. Once they get their shit together. You can bet not only will you pay for internet access (remember Sony doesn't own the internet)...you'll also pay for access to the Sony network. I'm honestly not trying to be a smart ass. (Its just sounds like it in my posts) You make it seem like people snap their fingers and networks are built. People push a button to get bandwidth. It's not like that. It's crazy expensive to build and maintain a big network. When you consider the fact console gamers don't even like online only games....Well I just don't see any of it happening. What's the game producers motivation exactly? To spend a crapload of money to give consumers a product they historically haven't shown an interest in? I don't get it.

 

For the record. I do think one day everyone will be able to connect wirelessly to some sort of super network that'll be government owned and acessed from anywhere in the US. It wont be 10-15 years from now though I don't think, maybe more like 30 or 40. My understanding is the US goverment doesn't like the internet as it is now. Wouldn't suprise me in the least to see it get redone at some point and it'll have mega bandwidth. That fact still remains. I can't imagine what big event is going to make consumers only want to play P Vs P and MMORPGs in the future.

Edited May 30, 2008 by moycon

[Math You]

I think he's got the right idea about creating embedded communities, I mean, just look how popular the Atari Age forum is

[MCHufnagel]

Phil Harrison is right. Ten years from now Infogrames won't be making any single player only games. As a matter of fact, they won't be making any games at all!

[ninjarabbit]

Games like Super Mario Galaxy and Wii Fit are proving Mr Harrison wrong.

 

There's plenty of room for both types of games. It's just like 10 years ago when everyone was saying that 2-D gaming was going to die, 2-D gaming is a strong as ever right now with recent 2-D (in terms of gameplay, not graphics) titles like new Super Mario Bros being blockbuster.