• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

This video game trend is killing Single Player games

What do you prefer to play?

  • Single Player (Awesomeness)

  • GaaS/Multiplayer


Results are only viewable after voting.

Topher

Identifies as young
Correct. Bottom line is some studios like Arrowhead are great at making live service games and that's what they should do. That doesn't necessarily apply to traditional single player studios. Bioware, Rockstead, Arkane and Crystal Dynamics should stick to what they are good at: kickass single player games. Same is try for Sony's single player studios. Naughty Dog realized that and noped out of Factions, thankfully. There is still plenty of money to be made in single player as much as some want to pretend otherwise. Hogwart's Legacy proved that. Now Warner Brothers is going to try to ruin that studio just like they did Rocksteady. It is just stupid.
 
Last edited:

HL3.exe

Banned
It's tough. Game development hasn't gotten cheaper or easier. Controversial take, but maybe prices should go up if it means premium products are not hinging on 'quantity sold + recurring spending to break even'. Otherwise you get this shit storm we're in right now.

I always felt that mechanics and systemic innovation are more underappreciated then a bolt setting and a promise of infinite content. I wish more value was placed on that.
 
Last edited:

Portugeezer

Member
6hzby05.jpeg
 

lh032

I cry about Xbox and hate PlayStation.
i think another problem here is the game price, which i understand due to game dev cost.

But still if you are a gamer especially the young adults, 60-70 dollar game is really steep in this current economy

Combine with lack of time, its understandable why people go for mobile or free to play games.
 
Last edited:
Single player games are still imo the staple of the industry. We need them even if they do become a minority. Not everyone wants to always be online and engaging with others. That can become tiresome and frustrating at times. Nothing like losing yourself in immersive single player game with worlds and characters that pull you in. Just you and the game building your own unique experience and adventure. Just my two cents worth. Good day all.
 

T4keD0wN

Member
Combine with lack of time, its understandable why people go for mobile or free to play games.
Which is funny since many of those mobile and f2p games demand even more time with busywork daily quests and stuff like that, not to mention grindy progression systems.
In the end such games demand even more time, but conveniently they sell the solution to that problem for money. Given how much they make i guess youre right.
 
Last edited:
Make games that people want to play is the problem, not GAAS.

Very few people want a gorgeous walking simulator. So why is it a surprise that people don’t buy it? Is it because the game is single player instead of GAAS?

No! It’s because nobody wants that shit.

Game developers can make games to express their artistic flair or game developers can make games that people want to play.

A very small amount of people want a walking simulator!
 
Once models like FIFA Ultimate Team and season passes became accepted it was only going to go one way.

You only have to look at social media apps and YouTube, basic features withdrawn to entice subscriptions. And the more it’s accepted, defended and normalised the worse it will get. It was inevitable Twitter was going to turn into a service and in turn a lesser experience for the non subscribers.

It’s the same problem with games. The service model has people sucked in, so they invest their time and money into a particular game and it results in less purchases of other games. Look at the buying habits, I’m sure there are a substantial amount of people who only buy Call of Duty for the year.

The publishers want the money but players time and investment can only spread so far. Service games and their model, which is basically to draw out the experience , takes up a considerable amount of player investment so if you are going to flood the market with that kind of model there are bound to be flops.

The single player experience is my favourite and I hope it sustains but as each year passes it’s going to be more difficult. For all the technology we have I feel in some aspects the industry has regressed.
 
Last edited:
I think gamers are just selfish and haters , this is in any business . Ppl take what works and try to make it better on there own sometimes it works sometimes it don’t .

Like sports , teams copy tactics that work , football teams take successful plays from other teams. I know sports is different then gaming. But Still .
 

Humdinger

Gold Member
Very true, although as someone noted in a recent thread, about 90% of most-played games are GaaS games, so you can't blame companies for wanting to chase the cash. He implies in the video that only 3 or 4 GaaS games dominate the market, and while 3 or 4 may be top-earners, if you look at the market itself (at least judging by most-played), it's not just 3 or 4 Live Service games that dominate -- it's a whole load of them. You have some SP games among them, but they are the minority. So if you are a corporate type who wants profit, you'll chase the Live Service games.

I don't like it, but I understand it. The main issue (as far as profitability goes) is what he points out in the video - using SP teams to develop GaaS titles, when their expertise lies elsewhere. Square peg in a round hole = bad results. But they will keep trying.

I play only SP games, so this is a drag to me. But I don't expect it to go away.
 

Allandor

Member
There are still plenty of single player games. Just not so many in the press as the live service user bubble is bigger.
Also it is way more complicated to make a great looking game now. From art to animation, to the voice cast, everything has much bigger budgets now.
So maybe we must accept, that the next single player title, has its weaknesses in those regards. You can't have everything while the costs rise and inflation is almost not a thing with game prices. A long time inflation was captured by bigger audiences, but at some point the peak is reached and something has to be sacrificed.
 

Jaybe

Member
Saw Gameranx and was hoping it would be Jake B. doing the opinion piece. Seems like some new kid. Could only get about a minute in. He seemed to miss the publisher pressure acting like it was the studios themselves that came up with these concepts and pushed to do these lover service games themselves.
 

Topher

Identifies as young
Very true, although as someone noted in a recent thread, about 90% of most-played games are GaaS games, so you can't blame companies for wanting to chase the cash. He implies in the video that only 3 or 4 GaaS games dominate the market, and while 3 or 4 may be top-earners, if you look at the market itself (at least judging by most-played), it's not just 3 or 4 Live Service games that dominate -- it's a whole load of them. You have some SP games among them, but they are the minority. So if you are a corporate type who wants profit, you'll chase the Live Service games.

I don't like it, but I understand it. The main issue (as far as profitability goes) is what he points out in the video - using SP teams to develop GaaS titles, when their expertise lies elsewhere. Square peg in a round hole = bad results. But they will keep trying.

I play only SP games, so this is a drag to me. But I don't expect it to go away.

Yeah, but if you look at the most played games it is the same shit all the time. Call of Duty, Fortnite, Pubg: Battlegrounds, Apex Legends, Destiny 2, etc. Helldivers 2 and Palworld, two of the big hits this year, haven't been able to sustain their popularity. So just breaking into that group is difficult enough, but maintaining that success is even harder. Sooner or late, for a lot of these games, there will be no game once the servers are shut down. For studios like Bioware, they would have been better off just sticking to what they are good at......if the damn publishers would just let them.
 

DryvBy

Member
I have a friend who thinks this is "leaving money on the table" by not going GaaS and then at the same time complains gaming sucks now.

You're leaving money on the table by not focusing on single player games if you're a single player company. Like this video points out, there's a small piece of the pie to grab. Something like GTA Online isn't going to hit twice. Even Rockstar saw this with RDR2, but at least they were smart enough to include a terrific single player with it.

We saw all of this during the MMO craze. They saw WoW and thought every game should be an MMO. Guaranteed money, right?

It's amazing that companies pay the top brass anything. Every company seems to be ultimate ran by overpaid morons.
 

JCK75

Member
I cycle between Skyrim, Stardew Valley, Valheim, Elden Ring, BG3, Fallout 3-4, Witcher 1-3, etc over and over
when enough time passes I start back up on one of the above.. I'm sure it's bad for the industry that I'm replaying single player games over rather than buying new ones.
 
Anyone else find it fascinating that these types of videos always cherry pick and NEVER bring up the larger long term trend?

It's almost as if the people running these hyper successful companies know what they're doing.
 

ProtoByte

Weeb Underling
You're leaving money on the table by not focusing on single player games if you're a single player company. Like this video points out, there's a small piece of the pie to grab.
That piece is extremely lucrative.
Something like GTA Online isn't going to hit twice. Even Rockstar saw this with RDR2, but at least they were smart enough to include a terrific single player with it.
Not everyone is R*.

It's amazing that companies pay the top brass anything. Every company seems to be ultimate ran by overpaid morons.
They're not stupid, they're working within their incentive structure.

Yeah, but if you look at the most played games it is the same shit all the time. Call of Duty, Fortnite, Pubg: Battlegrounds, Apex Legends, Destiny 2, etc. Helldivers 2 and Palworld, two of the big hits this year, haven't been able to sustain their popularity.
Helldivers 2 and Palworld weren't on that list until they were, and they were very recent. Yes, they haven't sustained their popularity to the same degree, but they've made a shit ton of money and the former is still doing very, very well for itself.

So just breaking into that group is difficult enough, but maintaining that success is even harder. Sooner or late, for a lot of these games, there will be no game once the servers are shut down. For studios like Bioware, they would have been better off just sticking to what they are good at......if the damn publishers would just let them.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter. As long as the possibility of getting some live servive is reasonably perceived, there is going to be someone at these publishers and studios who uses those prospects to get a project going and boost their profile/career. And the companies are going to take the risk because this is a high-risk business anyway, and for a lot of the decision makers, being big and daring is better than being restrained and consistent. Especially when you start taking stock price incentives into account.

Gamers are at primary fault for creating this environment. They wouldn't do this if there wasn't an insane amount of money in it.
 

Loomy

Thinks Microaggressions are Real
The problem is forcing studios that have spent years, or decades in some cases, mastering single player games to make MP live service games. Live service by itself is not bad. There are a lot of 80s+ live service games doing well out there.
 

Havoc2049

Member
Clickbait titles are killing journalism
I agree. The video was crap and he ignored a bunch of recent single player games that have been successfull and other recent live service games that have been successfull. But you need outrage in order to manipulate people and get clicks.

I also like how this Falcon dude tried to shoehorn a recent high profile flop like Redfall into the live service category. Redfall was a single player campaign with a co-op option, nothing more. Redfall had no live service.

What is really killing the industry is inflation, the large number of people it takes to create a game and dev cycles that last like 4-6 years. Making a game, whether it's single player or live service is one big massive money pit.
 

AV

We ain't outta here in ten minutes, we won't need no rocket to fly through space
The worst people in the hobby are those pretending the two can't and won't co-exist for the rest of time

GAAS was around before we called it GAAS, if you played EverQuest in 1999, guess what
 

KyoZz

Tag, you're it.
GAAS are nothing new. I mean technically, Counter Strike is a GAAS, same for Anno 1800 (best game in the series) or many other popular and great games that have been supported for years. So I have nothing against a good GAAS if it means good support.
Problem is studios/editors chasing trends and not knowing what to do with an IP (see Suicide Squad for example) and destroying an universe people loved for years (again, Suicide Squad is a good example with how it shitted on the Arkham Verse).

So no, GAAS are not bad.
 

Buggy Loop

Member
GAAS existed before GAAS term was coined

World of Warcraft
Eve online
Counter-Strike
Team Fortress 2
DOTA 2
League of Legends
Final Fantasy XIV
Arma 3
GTA 5 online
Rocket League
Rainbow Six Siege

More recently
Overwatch
Fortnite
Destiny 1 & 2

It's nice that a term exist now for your punching bag stress relief but it's too general to hate. There's bad GAAS for sure, there's also good ones.
 

ungalo

Member
That doesn't solve the problem of inflated costs. This is the main problem.

As long as players want to play the same thing over and over again, meaning open world action/adventure that has to fill all the boxes (action, RPG, stealth, exploration with beautiful and vast environments, 30 hours long story with a lot of cutscenes), thinking we're going to reach the objective ultimate video game experience with 200 hours of meaningful content, single player games are dead.

Funny to make it look like publishers are for the first time in history pushing studios to do something they rather not do. Every studio started to make shooters during the 7th gen, then open world bloated crap during 8th gen, because more money was involved and players (for the most part) made it absolutely clear they didn't want to buy different things.
 

TGO

Hype Train conductor. Works harder than it steams.
I prefer a Single Player game that will leave an impression on me for years to come and be fondly remembered and loved 20 years later and even remade and outshine newer GaaS games because it was that damn good.
Rather then a shitty GaaS game I will forget about in a month
 
Helldivers 2 and Palworld weren't on that list until they were, and they were very recent. Yes, they haven't sustained their popularity to the same degree, but they've made a shit ton of money and the former is still doing very, very well for itself.

The chances of atleast recoup a decent amount is becoming negligible each day for many other gaas titles. Now these titles have to keep up with the other gaas games to compete and maintain a selective player base which is the real struggle. Both genre makes shit ton of money if the game's hit but devs who pursue SP titles will move on to making a better and trending titles, while the gaas one will HAVE to stay and keep on catering the old and dated one.
 
Top Bottom