Visceral Games’ closure yesterday has raised questions in the industry about the state of the single player game. In a statement, EA seemed to indicate that the Star Wars title the former Dead Space developer was making was being re-tooled in order to boast an open world and (presumably) online functionality – a far cry from the linear, story-driven experience that Uncharted director Amy Hennig was hired to helm.
While it’s since been suggested that the project was proving problematic behind closed doors, the question regarding the future of single player experiences remains. And taking to social media, God of War director Cory Barlog has spoken out in defence of the old-fashioned campaign:
It’s interesting, isn’t it? We suspect that many of you reading and commenting on this website will be big fans of traditional single player experiences, but the market seems to be moving in an entirely different direction, with service-driven online games bringing home the big bucks these days. And yet every now and again, a Horizon: Zero Dawn drops by to rock the boat a little bit.
Where do you stand on the discussion? Do you think there’s still a market for linear, solo experiences at $60 – or do you demand more for your money these days? Cry like the Forever Alone guy in the comments section below.
[source twitter.com, via dualshockers.com]
Comments 70
the executives of these gaming companies only speaks one language. $$$
We still have Naughty Dog as well! And CD Projekt Red. And Rockstar. And many more companies.
As long as there is demand, we will get SP games.
I support this. I'm not against multiplayer, however single player games is how the market began. I love single player games for the memorable characters and amazing stories they tell.
Publishers like Sony seem to understand that variety is good. Uncharted, Horizon, God of War — all primarily single player games and all very different.
There is so much I could say about this conversation but I'll keep it short and sweet: I only play single player games, so when they cease to exist I will no longer be buying games.
Final Fantasy XIV is a good examples for a game that is purely online multiplayer with a great story.
But I think it is very difficult to get story and multiplayer right. How can your character remain special to you through the story, when there is 10 million other players? This is I guess one of the hardest parts of getting it right.
Destiny 2 does a good approach in making an online multiplayer and a good story. If games keep popping up like this, I am more than happy to support that. Games which allow me to play the story as a single player, just having matchmaking to make it possible to get through the main story content without the need of any clan/guild/friends. Other things can be harder content, which may need a clan/guild or friends.
And with a game like Battlefront we have seen how much a Story is needed to drive the players doing more online gaming. There needs to be some motivation behind all that killing.
Single player games still matter, but unless you are Monolith or Ubisoft they are difficult to monetize. This has been a great year for single player games and Mario is two weeks away. Single player will never die.
EA already has Battlefront 2 for the Loot/micro transactions, there was no need to close the studio or 'pivot' the game. Wonder how Anthem is gone to turn out.
The big companies can go thier own sweet way and I'll keep my money for the indie developers that will step up to the plate to give me what I want, after all some of the most interesting storylines have been coming from indy developers for a while now. Oh and I'll Always have nintendo.
Variety is good, innit? Luckily I think smaller developers and publishers will always keep releasing them, but it is becoming increasingly obvious that single-player focused games are becoming squeezed in the AAA space. Are ballooning budgets to blame?
Linear single player games will always have a place. I want games were I can just be shut off from the internet, and travel through a meticulously crafted level to get to the action, instead of having ignoring a ton of boring sidequests that are shoved in my face. The only reason less are sold is because there are less to buy.
I agree with this man. I hardly EVER buy open world or multiplayer only games. I love games that are good experiences that I can beat within 20 to 30 hours. 12 to 15 is good too. Anything after 30 and I get bored.
Feel sorry for Amy Hennig, 4 years of hard work down the drain, by the time she gets hired and starts development we won't see her game until 2022.
Of course there is a market for Linear SP games - most of these do tend to come with an MP though but I bet if SWBF2, TF2 BF1 etc - all EA games didn't have a SP campaign, the gaming public would be very critical.
Games like Fallout, H:ZD, Witcher 3, Tomb Raider etc all prove you can do a decent SP game - especially if its more open world and not that linear. Its not just Sony - as these prove. I doubt Wolfenstein will have a MP - like the previous - and Doom wasn't popular with its MP but still sold well because of its campaign.
The problem is that EA have ruined their own SP games and then wonder why they haven't done so well - look at Mass Effect: Andromeda, Mirrors Edge etc. Its EA's fault they killed off Dead Space because they wanted to monetise it and make it 'co-op'. EA's market will show how poor there SP titles have done, which no doubt influenced their decision to kill visceral! The problem is EA and their desire to grab as much money from their customers as possible. As much as I am looking forward to Anthem, I can't help feel they will go further than Destiny with its loot box system.
Thankful for Nintendo and From Software games, among others. Keep single player experiences alive!
Single player won't go away, but the amount of money from online, mp, and loot crates are going keep being the majority I'm afraid.
@BAMozzy That's a good point. You do start to wonder whether games like Andromeda start to get used as an excuse by the company to say "people don't want single player games".
Multiplayer games do technically have more replay value, thus more value, but I think if a singleplayer game is made well and enjoyable to play, it's still a good value for $60, and ensures I'll replay it down the line to enjoy myself again. I've particularly replayed Crash, Uncharted, Infamous, and Metal Gear Solid multiple times, because they're great to play. Give me a good experience and I'll keep playing.
Single-player games will be always my favorite games.
If the future is multiplayer only, microtransactions and e-sport garbage, i will leave this hobby.
I don't think I'd play games any more if AAA's stopped making them. At least we'd still have quality Indie games
I like single player game more than multiplayer, although the market has choose gaas game as a favorite, I'm glad some publisher like sony and nintendo still make single player games.
@ShogunRok I feel like Sony is the only one getting it, variety and the track record on PS4, they haven't had season passes or overkill of dlc this console generation. Bloodborne, Horizon, Infamous Second Son, Gravity Rush 2, Ratchet and Clank, none of these had season passed and most games in recent memory by them, if I recall correctly, add a single expansion and then they stop. I like that. An actually solid piece of content instead of those other horrible practices.
Another here who will drop gaming when it becomes solely a service. Variety in the industry is absolutely crucial, and the execs forget that. Not everything can become a destiny sized hit. It is just not possible. And players will only support a certain number of these types of game; hence why titles like the division failed.
Cory is absolutely right that agency is possible in a linear sp title. And no one wants yet another me too open world for the sake of it, with bland side quests to pad out the play time
The big threat to sp gaming is that there are only limited ways in which the execs can monetize the title to attract additional income, so I am worried about the future here
If they stopped making SP games, then great, I can work on my backlog.
I will always prefer fleshed out single player campaigns in games. And linear is generally better due to the controlled pacing. The trick is to make a single player campaign that is not a "one and done." Instead, gamers want something highly replayable like Ocarina of Time, Resident Evil 4, or Viewtiful Joe. Those are games that are worth replaying over and over again.
I spend 90% of my gaming money on single player, story driven experiences, and I’m embarrassed to say how much that actually is. I like a mixture of open world style (Dragon Age, Horizon ZD, etc) and linear (Uncharted, Batman Arkham Asylum, Visual Novels, etc). I play both AAA and indie. What I don’t play are multiplayer online only games. 👎🏼
Service based multiplayer games don’t interest me really. I see them as more geared for casual gamers, or those that don’t buy a lot of games. They buy just a few games a year that they play ad nauseam. I think we single-player gamers drive more of the gaming economy than these developers realize. I am happy to spend $60 on a high quality, polished single player game that I can savor for 30 hours and then move on. This trend toward service based games just makes me worry that the PS store is turning into the game section of the iPhone App Store with its Clash of Clans and all that crap that’s just glorified socializing with a background of shallow and repetitive gameplay.
Give me a solid single player game any day. If it intergrates multiplayer as well in an interesting or innovative way, that’s icing on the cake, but the main course better be a high quality well written SP campaign.
Like a poster mentioned above not every game can be a destiny. Idk know about anyone else but single player is where my bread is buttered. I only play like 2 maybe 3 multiplayer games a year. They are Battlefield 1, gears 4, and injustice 2. They ALL have a strong single player component which is what ushered me in the first place. These games came out last yr? Yea i skipped the division, for honor, overwatch etc. Not my thing. Online only sucks for gamers in the long run.... #jm2c
I'll always prefer single player. Typically that's all I play but recently I've gained an Overwatch addiction.
Single player games are the only reason I'm still a gamer, without them I'd simply have to get another hobby. I love how sales of single player flops are always bought up to justify this trend in single player games not selling, yet never mention the likes of Titanfall 2 or Battleborn which flopped hugely.
According to VGChartz the top 2 selling games this year so far (probably until the beginning of September) are Zelda and Horizon, 2 fine examples of this "dying" genre. If anything looking at the charts they should stop making Xbox games as nobody seems to buy them, with just 4 games in the top 40 and it's best seller only just above Zelda on the Wii U.
Single player games dominate the top 5 with Mario Kart the only one muddying those waters and there are plenty of single player games in those charts, even GTAV's success can't just be for GTA online. Sure by the end of the year the likes of Battlefront 2/COD/FIFA will be charting around the top but I'm tired of this myth that single player games don't sell, Nintendo didn't get that memo and Crash Bandicoot didn't read it when he was tearing up the charts this summer either
I have one thing to say FU EA.
It's obvious the market is moving in a different direction. Times change. I don't always like it but by the same token it is what it is. Developers are going to go where they think the money is and the market has clearly said gamers want free-to-play or early-access, open world, online focused games that have nonsensical microtransactions. My guess is in a few years we'll have seen the market shift totally to that and if Sony does deliver a 'traditional' console in PS5 I probably won't buy it right away because games are going to be more like GT Sport than something like God of War or Uncharted. That's fine, again, times change. Unfortunately I just can't see myself wanting to go along for the ride. There will be a game here or there that will pique my interest that probably makes me feel like I'll need one of the next-gen systems but I'm expecting those games to be very few and very far between.
I will never purchase or play a title that's online multiplayer only with no single player content.
I'm a story mode kinda guy
There is surely plenty of room for both types of games?
I'm not a big fan of multiplayer games to be honest, I don't mind the games like Journey and Destiny because you're playing with another player but not really in contact with them. I much prefer the single player experience especially with a open world where you can explore and tackle the missions/side missions in your own time without some troll coming along with the intention of ruining your day. There's more of a story driven goal with single player games in my experience which makes the games a lot more interesting.
I am a single player guy with the occasional online experience with friends and very, very occasionally with randoms but my online tends to be limited to co op not PvP.
Single player games are not going anywhere. It's possible that they'll become less popular and so less of them will be made, but there'll always be a market for them.
@Bliquid Pretty much. Journey is a good early example too. We've had a heap of traditional single player games recently and some cool great multiplayer games so I'm not worried.
The consumer side is not really moving in that direction it's largely the executives of these "AAA" publishers who are trying to steer the industry in that direction.
@Bingoboyop the most successful games are online right now, so clearly the market is down for these experiences. Certain developers and publishers are looking at that and want a big slice of the pie. But for every GTA online, Destiny and Overwatch there is a Lawbreakers or Battleborn.
I see the sjw pandering in sp games as major stumbling block in future for devs.Political statements in games are divisive by nature,cutting off a large portion of the audience.One isn't necessarily against disabled lesbian feminists for example (DDOTO) but how many people want to play as that character? Thats before a story that many may find objectionable,like communists are the good guys. (W2NC) ugh! i hope thats not strictly the case there..For mp games its not such an issue even if its a bit silly. Don't get me started on the ad campaigns.Make ad campaigns generic again!
@ShogunRok Pennies seemed to have dropped. Good.
EA are a joke, just like WB. Time to start a rebellion.
Whos joining the boycott?
Well said Cory. After playing open-world game after open-world game I've been itching for some linear, story-driven gaming recently.
Long live SP or I'm getting a new hobby...
Single player games are pretty much all I care about. If it went the way of the dodo I guess I'd have to start doing crosswords or something.
I play and prefer single player games I have yet to buy horizon zero dawn but I have skyrim to finish then start either the witches 3, mgs5 or finish dragon age inquisition?? I do have some mp games like titanfall 2 and most recently ghost recon wild lands for co-op only. But I play a bit of bf4 and tf2 for its frontia defence mode only. I once for an email from Sony about my 10 years of PS+ and I only had 100 hours of actual online gaming that was it
Singleplayer forever as far as I'm concerned. Especially linear ones. They've always been my favourite experiences and I can't ever see that changing. Can't wait for God of War! Open world is great - sometimes - but 9 times out of 10 I prefer more linear experiences.
I'm with you Cory. Getting sick of all these open-world games that tout "freedom" and the "ability to go anywhere you want" as the pinnacle of game design. It isn't, and it's actually gotten quite old hat by this stage. There are many titles this gen that had no business being open-world and suffered for it. FFXV, MGSV and Mirror's Edge: Catalyst come to mind.
I'll echo most and just say I'm only interested in single player games.
I play online about 2 or 3 times a year. Just doesn't interest me.
Single player games rule
There's an argument to say it doesn't matter if a bunch of us prefer single-player, story-driven games. If the publishers (which it seems to be more so than developers) see more money in service-based all they have to do is take away the option of single-player, as they seem to be doing. Then from our perspective it's either re-adjust and learn to get on with MP/service games, or give up on gaming. The severe lack of them in recent years has definitely seen a decline in the amount of time I play games. And it's probably also had a lot to do with the indies returning to old skool bullet-hell / dungeon crawler games etc and that being successful (that and the rampant addiction to nostalgia swaddling western societies right now) .
personally i will ALWAYS choose single player over multiplayer but i think it's all to to with the times you started gaming
for people born in the 80's or 90's where long single player games were the norm we tend to prefer those type of games but for people who started with the 360/PS3/Mobile generation it's all about quick simple 5 minute bursts
sadly i think it's coming to a point where people are too impatient for long games and just want quick fixes
It isn't that there isn't a market for single player games, it is that the ROI is always going to be less for a linear story game then an online MP so the investment won't return as much as a bigger MP game.
In the case of Dead Space 3, EA had a sales target of at least 5 million copies plus micro-transaction targets. That is the kind of ROI that they want to please annual revenue targets etc. It is highly unlikely that a linear SP horror/action game is going to hit those figures unless it becomes a massive success.
In the case of an open world MP enabled micro transaction heavy game, the revenue returns versus investment are more than likely higher.
No, they're just getting lazier. It's easier to put out multiplayer with microtransactions to bring in continued revenue for minimal effort than to make something original.
thank you, Corey, I feel the same way.
I still prefer single player games. They tend to have better stories and character development, and are replayable on harder difficulty levels, so you can get very good value from many of them. Also, purchasing them used can be a more cost effective way of gaming for many people. MMOs are ok, but the recent Destiny 2 debacle has taught me that sometimes I can get more playablity from a single player game
Quite convenient this article I've just been playing through God of War one, really enjoying it tbh.
Games shouldn't be a service, they should be an impactful experience!
Netflix, ps plus or my local barber are actual services. "Service-based games" on the other hand are (at times good) gameplay stretched paper thin through repetitive grind and exploitative, addictive systems.
I must admit, the campaign and MP of battlefront 2 look very tempting, but I find EA (as well as ubi, Activision and blizzard) should be boycotted. Maybe that will finally give them a reality check.
I mainly play single player games. We're already seeing a shift towards open world, and while open worlds work for some games, I also think that others overdo it, or may work better in a more linear fashion. But I guess I'll never understand the trends in this industry.
Anyway, good to see that God of War will be an no-nonsense straight up single player experience, I cannot wait for that game!
There are exceptions but to me the general rule is: Linear single player >> Open World single player >> single player + MP (MP as a complement) >> MP + SP (mp being the major part) >> MP only.
Probably my buying proportion is 9 to 1 with sp being the 9.
So if SP stop to exist I will find another hobby.
@ShogunRok If you look at all/most of EAs single player games, I can't think of any that really sold well but by the same token, I can't think of any that was reviewed highly either. TF2 had a great review for its SP but again didn't sell well - probably because of Battlefield and CoD but it still didn't really take the sales from CoD they were hoping for.
I know a number of SP Sequels - like Watchdogs 2, Evil Within 2, Dishonored 2 etc may not have sold 'well' comparatively but these followed on from games that either had issues or a 'niche' following but if you just look at the numbers, it would appear that SP games maybe on the decline overall. i know there are exceptions but also games like the Division, Battleborn, Lawbreakers etc didn't exactly set the gaming world alight either.
Destiny and Overwatch may well have given Activision a massive boost in their profits but at the same time, those games, regardless of what you think, have excellent game-play. Bungie may well have had a poor/disappointing story but the feel of the combat and 'game-play' is faultless (well I guess you could want 60fps but it still plays incredibly well at a 'locked' 30fps). That's what kept player engagement.
The Witcher 3 - a SP game - kept most gamers playing til the end and then i bet a lot invested in its DLC too. The success for CDPR will probably mean that Cyberpunk - another SP game will do equally, if not better than the Witcher 3. EA on the other hand seem to be screwing up their SP games, scaling back budgets, probably arguing with Devs about how to monetize them, trying to take to much control etc and then wondering why these games don't sell.
ME:A had a budget similar to Horizon ZD I believe but was far more ambitious. Not a criticism of H:ZD btw - but if you look at the amount of armour, weapons, side missions (and a lot more of those had consequence), dialogue, different worlds/environments, much more complex RPG upgrading system, Co-op MP too etc etc and then also look at the turmoil in the Studio, the amount of departures etc, is it surprise that it was 'buggy' and unfinished. Just imagine what they could have done with a few more 'million' and few more months invested into it. For many, it was also there first time with Frostbite 3 too and it looked as if the characters at least were ported in from the previous engine and didn't go quite as smoothly as they hoped. Despite all that, people were genuinely disappointed to hear that Mass Effect could well be over although a lot were not surprised that EA ruined them. Its happened again now with Visceral although this time we don't get to see what their SW game would have been - nothing more than a 2sec glimpse.
I am also a single player only gamer. I need a good story to keep my interest in the game I am playing. I feel the industry has been moving towards multiplayer for a while but there are still single player games around. If single player games do die out then I will become a retro gamer and play all the past single player games I missed first time round
@7yL3rB @Lumine Couldn't agree more. I'm exactly like you guys in that regard and if MP-only games become the norm, I will no longer be buying games as well.
I'm strictly a single player guy, save for the odd bouts of Worms or retro games of the co-op or splitscreen variety. This is also why the new Gran Turismo saddens me, as well as the lack of proper GTA SP DLC. Also why Doom, Ratchet & Clank, Witcher 3 and Horizon are among my favorites of this gen.
There’s a huge market in them. P5, Nier, Yakuza0, HZD, Fallout4, Skyrim, Red Dead....
@TimeforTravel While I doubt Rockstar will let us down anytime soon with Red Dead 2 coming, the pure multiplayer focus and proftability they have proved whith their model is worrying for the future of singleplayer games that are not tied to digital transactions and openworld formula.
I mostly only play single player games and I don't mind linear games either because I like to play it, finish it and move on
Sometimes these massive open world games put me off and online only games definitely put me off buying them
I hate multi player games and i say it again THEY ARE NOT VIDEO GAMES
For many reasons they could't be video games!
But look at big DEV they are making big things just to be a MMO game and that's the future of gaming ( iam sorry telling this ) but look at next GEN ( i mean MID GEN ) what do you see?! Antom! Star wars BF ! Overwatch! And blah blah blah. We have studios wich make a good story lines and story tellers games but what if many studios begain to make just MMO games and nothing else! I don't see it really far away because gamers wants it of you say "oh no gamers wants campain " i remind you 13 mil shipped of call of duty black ops III !
Iam watching the gaming dying and i could't do any thing for it...
This GEN and maybe next GEN would be the end of real video games
If a game is excellent will it matter if it's single player or multiplayer? Surely gamers will buy it anyway. And where EA won't go, won't it mean one less competitor in the single campaign market? Saying it's the end of single player games is like the doomsayers saying consoles are dead about a decade ago! Where greatness is produced... Great gamers follow!
i love online games like Destiny but the heart of gaming, my true love, is single player stories/experiences. Last of Us, Breath of the Wild, Uncharted. why is it that a in depth single player story mode is a negative? ill gladly pay full price for a great story.
also, when did EA become the bar to which we measure the legitimacy of single player games? 🤔
I really have enjoyed single player games over the years. However the challenge I see happening in the market place is more and more development of games are moving online. The issue I would address is that all though we have networks that support this I am still one of those individuals who does not have access to an internet connection that can support the amount of content that is being delivered online. Telecom companies also see to be only interested in charging more and more for bandwidth but are not doing upgrades to allow for expansion of online game development.
Tap here to load 70 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...