Single Player Is Dead, Long Live Single Player

Saw this interesting and surprisingly well researched (for a blog post) article on Game Informer.

Single Player Is Dead, Long Live Single Player

Respected industry talent turned doomsday criers may have called for an end of days for single player, but they couldn’t have been more wrong. We don’t want to play exclusively in connected worlds – we want it all, the single player, the multiplayer, the VR experiences we can’t even comprehend yet, all of it. A good game is a good game – that’s what drives gamers, not trends. I hope the days of studios trying to cram a game into the same type of mold, even when the developers are saying it won't work, are behind us.

Thank God they got that wrong. I remember hearing the quotes from game developers saying SP would be dead in 3 years and being horrified. My only experience with MP at that point was 10 year old kids dropping F-bombs and racial slurs. This was not the future of gaming I wanted by a long shot.

Don't we do this every 5 to 10 years? Some big game comes out with a robust multiplayer mode, then the competition heats up for online play, then someone releases a game that has effectively no singleplayer, everyone says singleplayer games are dead, then the MP only games tank because people don't have time to play all of them so one dominates and everyone else goes back to SP games.

I feel like what happened in 2015 is not new news at all. It's a cycle that has repeated itself ever since Doom hit it big and online Deathmatch became a thing.

I've never liked multiplayer. I'm happy that it's there for people. but between my crazy work hours, being a husband and father I simply don't have the time to do anything meaningful with multiplayer. Also, the type of games I like just gravitate towards single player.

I don't remember going through this with MP like we did in 2011. Not only did several sources repeat that prediction, we also had big game companies like Valve declare they will only make multiplayer games.

I will grant you that predictions of radical change to the gaming world are common. We had the fore mentioned death of SP, and we had one about the rise of F2P and how that will be the primary business model in the future. We also have heard "experts" say all games will be open world games.

It is interesting (or not) that all these alarmist predictions are usually focused on something that (most or a lot of) gamers fear. We never see a universally positive prediction like "Thanks to the success of the Witcher 3 all future games will have superb writing".

RooksGambit wrote:

We never see a universally positive prediction like "Thanks to the success of the Witcher 3 all future games will have superb writing".

Because that would take significantly more effort than yet another slapdash tacked-on multiplayer mode.

Crazed Java wrote:

It's a cycle that has repeated itself ever since Doom hit it big and online Deathmatch became a thing.

I'm going to spend today condensing your posts to one quip that sums my POV up.

Spot on.

The more things change ...

I'm going to need to write more text.

Upon further consideration, the other baffling thing is that a lot of this hype around MP seems to be centered around Star Wars Battlefront. This is in spite of the massive tanking of Evolve, that most of the big MP games last year had a strong singleplayer component, and the mega-release of Fallout 4 which had no online component at all.

I tend to view the gaming industry like any business. As long as it makes money, they will keep doing it. Single-player isn't going away simply because there are too many people that have no desire to go online.

From my own personal viewpoint, I get enough crappy human interaction having to drive to work and back everyday not to mention dealing with a revolving door of people whose actions irritate, frustrate, and sometimes infuriate me. The idea of coming home and then dealing with more jackasses online, except with 1000% more racial and sexist slurs, is of absolutely zero interest to me.

That's a pretty strong demographic I represent in the over 30 crowd with a good sum of disposable income.

I come home and play Battlefront and don't hear a single slur or any other talk from people. It's glorious. I just run around having fun in Star Wars themed maps.

There's simply not much reason to listen to the chatter in mp games outside of your own peeps, if you're playing with peeps you know. If you want to dominate in mp games, sure, you need to talk to other people, but I would imagine most people are just out their doing their own thing and not talking to others.

I made a point to read the whole article before rushing in to breathlessly post about how much I like single player. In the unlikely event any of you read a lot of my posts elsewhere, you'll know I'm kind of a misanthrope, and just don't do MP.

I agree that the death of SP had been exaggerated, but it's also worth noting something that the article took pains to point out, and perhaps did not emphasize enough. Used game sales definitely gave the industry a push. Single player has been forced to evolve; you can't make an expensive single player game that can be finished in under ten hours anymore. We didn't get a single evolution, though. We definitely got more after-the-fact DLC. The games got longer, either in the form of epic RPG storylines or all kinds of collect-o-thon padding. The remaining shorter games are mostly indie and digital-only, which cuts costs and reduces resale.

But I can live with all this, and I look forward to games continuing to be a retreat rather than an engagement. For all that society changes, I don't think we're going to eliminate introverts, and entertainment will keep being made for us.

I did see the article as more positive about single-player but some of what they talked about, such as co-op modes, are not something that can easily be done in pure multi-player games. One of the reasons I've avoided SW: Battlefront is because the co-op is so limited, where I just bought Black Ops III for the purpose of having something to play with my sons. I really don't care for the traditional online component of COD and I think the SP is sh*t, but it is fun for a co-op romp.

I also think the industry focus on rental and used games is very short sighted right now. Digital distribution will largely solve that problem for them. Instead, the ongoing problem that used games SOLVED was a lack of price stratification. Sorry, but if you sell a game for $60 and the perceived value is $20 (even though someone may not consciously think $20 exactly) it won't sell well. Titanfall was huge when it was released but now you can get a copy by trading in a used pair of socks. MP games may not have legs because you rely on a community to stick around. Someone who buys a a copy of Spider-Man 2 for the first time will be able to enjoy it just as much now as people who got it when it was new.

The problem will be as things go more for a digital distribution it is going to take one publisher to break ranks to break apart the whole "console games just cost $60" mindset. I wonder what the average price point for a new game on Steam is?

Regardless, no matter what the state of the industry is we aren't likely to see single-player experiences die off altogether. If anything, the jump on the MP only bandwagon will likely kill some promising games in the future after enough high profile failures.

I'm definitely one of those that plays MMOs as a single-player game. As soon as a I reach content that requires parties or groups of players, that's when I know I'm done. I've had tons of fun playing WoW, FFXI, EVE and ATITD with only minor interaction with other players. If anything, playing solo has given me a better appreciation for the world, gives me time to explore the environment that you can't do when rushing around with other players, and means I don't have to schedule my real life around Guild Raids or mandatory events.

I'm fine with games becoming more multi-player focused, as long as there's still content for the single player.

Crazed Java wrote:

I also think the industry focus on rental and used games is very short sighted right now. Digital distribution will largely solve that problem for them. Instead, the ongoing problem that used games SOLVED was a lack of price stratification. Sorry, but if you sell a game for $60 and the perceived value is $20 (even though someone may not consciously think $20 exactly) it won't sell well. Titanfall was huge when it was released but now you can get a copy by trading in a used pair of socks. MP games may not have legs because you rely on a community to stick around. Someone who buys a a copy of Spider-Man 2 for the first time will be able to enjoy it just as much now as people who got it when it was new.

The problem will be as things go more for a digital distribution it is going to take one publisher to break ranks to break apart the whole "console games just cost $60" mindset.

I respectfully disagree. This might eventually be the case, but digital distribution is seeing a slower adoption than many people anticipated, and people who are releasing games NOW have to deal with the landscape as it is.

And although $60 is surprisingly standardized, I'm definitely seeing a lot of releases at different price points. I hope we see that more, but it's not like it isn't happening at all.

beeporama wrote:
Crazed Java wrote:

I also think the industry focus on rental and used games is very short sighted right now. Digital distribution will largely solve that problem for them. Instead, the ongoing problem that used games SOLVED was a lack of price stratification. Sorry, but if you sell a game for $60 and the perceived value is $20 (even though someone may not consciously think $20 exactly) it won't sell well. Titanfall was huge when it was released but now you can get a copy by trading in a used pair of socks. MP games may not have legs because you rely on a community to stick around. Someone who buys a a copy of Spider-Man 2 for the first time will be able to enjoy it just as much now as people who got it when it was new.

The problem will be as things go more for a digital distribution it is going to take one publisher to break ranks to break apart the whole "console games just cost $60" mindset.

I respectfully disagree. This might eventually be the case, but digital distribution is seeing a slower adoption than many people anticipated, and people who are releasing games NOW have to deal with the landscape as it is.

And although $60 is surprisingly standardized, I'm definitely seeing a lot of releases at different price points. I hope we see that more, but it's not like it isn't happening at all.

My last console game was a physical disc purchase. I did it because I could get the game for $40, but it was still $60 on digital. This is where digital keeps falling down for me. I'd rather do digital even if you lose certain benefits (lending to friends, trade-in value, etc.) because the convenience and new benefits of digital outstrips the benefits of physical.

But the digital marketplaces are slow to adapt to the rest of the overall market, which is odd because they should be the most flexible.

Plus we see no other benefits that everyone predicted. Even though there is no middleman and no physical product that has to be produced, shipped, stocked, etc. the pricing scheme is the same as physical copies.

The slower adoption rate is entirely a self-inflicted wound.

However, I think any prediction of physical going away forever are always optimistic. We do still get phone books delivered after all.

Can we get some citations on this "slower adoption rate", among other things we're talking about?

Crazed Java wrote:

The slower adoption rate is entirely a self-inflicted wound.

So you think if the industry focused on making digital distribution more attractive, they would no longer have to worry about rental and used? I can certainly see how that follows. I don't know if that's the case (not "I disagree," but honestly, "I don't know") because of other factors, both psychological and practical; but I get where you are coming from.

garion333 wrote:

Can we get some citations on this "slower adoption rate", among other things we're talking about?

I'll admit I'm speaking partially on anecdote, given how often I walk into stores full of physical video games for sale. One can find Internet penetration rate numbers and make a weaksauce case based on that (you probably aren't buying games anyway if you don't have internet?); I could also pull in anecdote about gifts and collectors and people I know; I could cite statista.com (which says it was about 50/50 in 2014 versus about 80/20 in 2009) not knowing if it is reliable... but ultimately I don't think I can provide a concrete case, which is why I used weasel words like "a slower adoption than many people anticipated."

The moral of this post: I'm very receptive to changing my position based on discussion.

Well, I still don't know what it was you were expecting, which is a problem. Reading between the lines it seems you are saying people claimed that we'd be all digital by now. As ever, predictions like that rarely come to pass as quickly as they think. Especially when there are forces actively working against that very goal.

We're 50/50 on hard vs digital in 2014? I'd say that significant.

Anyway, it was just such a vague statement I wanted some sort of numbers backing it up. I mean, the article in question above talks about how "SP will be dead in 3 years" and that's just baloney. Now we're talking about "games will mostly be sold digital by year X" and those predictions were likely as baloney.

I am trying to decide if we are getting too far off track but I'm going to post this here anyway.

I'm a little surprised that anyone is onboard with supporting the game industry focus on eliminating the secondary market. Basically it ignores Fair Use Laws. The gist of Fair Use is "You buy it, you own it"

The software industry has done a decent job of redefining "ownership" with licensing agreements, but I'm a little surprised how quickly people are willing to defend what is an anti-consumer practice. I don't say this as an anti-corporate statement. I work in corporate America and I love corporate America, but I am also pro-customer and being pro-customer has worked out very well for me. I'm also in the software field and the way a lot of licensing agreements are written my customers may have access forever but don't necessarily get support forever. However, most licenses are transferrable and in some cases can even be subcontracted. We have a vendor who is actually a 3rd party who holds the software license but does all the maintenance and support for us. It's not a great agreement but it was made before my time.

My point though is that I find it odd that corporate licensing agreements are often more respectful of corporate rights than individual software licenses, which are increasingly anti-consumer. Consumers seem to be increasingly ok with having less control over software they paid for. It's baffling to me.

The elimination of the secondary market in digital distribution doesn't bother me because it gives additional value add and I feel like what you lose is made up for by what you gain. I'm not going into those pros and cons right now as this is going to be long enough as it is.

However, the idea that you don't "own" a physical copy is completely foreign to anything else we have that we physically have in our house that was outright purchased. No one cares if you sell your car, your DVD player, a book, a DVD, or a CD to someone else. Likewise, you can lend all of those things to anyone you wish, or they can all be rented out, without any legal repurcussions (Obviously the car has some additional legal burdens but they have nothing to do with the car itself and more to do with the operation of it on public roadways)

So defending the practice of companies trying to eliminate the secondary game market is essentially surrendering your rights as a consumer when it comes to consumer software. When companies complain about the secondary market they are blatantly ignoring how that same market puts money into their pockets.

Now, I know these tactics aren't popular, but single use codes are a nice compromise to encourage buying new. I still think the real drive needs to be towards the digital distribution model, which gives consumers new advantages while impacting this secondary market that game publishers seem to think is so evil.

I think a lot of people forget that there used to be a secondary market for PC games, which struggled before Steam existed but the eventual success and maturation of Steam put the final nail in the coffin of any sort of secondary market for PC games. I really do believe they blazed the trail that the rest of the game industry needs to follow.

And down the rabbit hole we go...

Crazed Java wrote:

I am trying to decide if we are getting too far off track but I'm going to post this here anyway.
[...]
So defending the practice of companies trying to eliminate the secondary game market is essentially surrendering your rights as a consumer when it comes to consumer software. When companies complain about the secondary market they are blatantly ignoring how that same market puts money into their pockets.
[...]

How does a resale put money in the publisher's pockets? The problem the industry has with the secondary market is that they don't get anything from resales. Not anything tangible, anyway - I suppose arguments could be made about brand exposure and getting people into storefronts.

As you mentioned, no software is sold, it is only licensed. In fact, any more, no digital good is sold, they are all licensed. Digital goods undermine the nature of first-sale doctrine. US Courts have held that reselling a digital good is a violation of a copyright holder's right to duplicate. In the EU, digital *software* has been recognized as being resellable, but other digital goods still have not.

It's a hard question, because a digital good is not the same as a physical good. Resale of physical goods makes sense, because physical goods depreciate, while digital copies are identical. I suppose a specific argument could be made in the case of video games that digital copies of older games are not the same as digital copies of newer games because technology changes, and newer games will be "shinier" than older games. Of course, that argument doesn't hold up in light of the widespread popularity of lo-fi games designed to be retro.

Bringing it back around to single player vs. multiplayer, publishers love multiplayer, because it is a nice end-run around the question of resale. Multiplayer-only games can require that every player is also a primary purchaser. I don't think many actually do that yet, except maybe a few games that are only available digitally. Multiplayer-only games can also require subscriptions or feature more post-sale revenue in the form of microtransactions and the like. That changed too, though, with the successful (and to me, incomprehensible) rise of the free-to-play single player game. Resale becomes irrelevant when the revenue from a game doesn't come from the initial purchase.

To get back to the crux of Crazed Java's point, consumer rights in digital goods are fundamentally different than physical goods. You may think that the same rules should still apply, and the EU would agree with you in the case of softtware, but you have to admit that digital resale is really not the same as physical resale.

There has been a number of articles linked and published by Bill Harris at dubiousquality.blogspot.com that have talked about how trade-ins are often used to finance new game purchases.

Also, anecdotally, there have been a number of used games I have purchased that made me want to buy the sequel. A good example was Crackdown, which I paid a pittance for but knew almost nothing about because unfortunately it was marketed as "buy this game to get into the Halo 3 MP Beta!". However, I found Crackdown brilliant so I pre-ordered Crackdown 2.

There are a number of advantages the secondary market is good for publishers and it would take a lot more text to go into detail. However, I believe the publishers don't care because they can't make the direct line correlation even though numerous other industries have the exact same situation. Somehow they believe they are unique.

On the digital front though it's not a question of ownership so much. What I do find odd is that as a company licenses are transferable between entities. I know this because I've had to do quite a few sales, divestments, mergers, and support agreements.

However, what if I was giving my XBox One to my son? What about my purchases? Can I transfer those licenses to him? What if I die?

Thought it's a good thought exercise, I really do believe that digital versions offer enough benefits that issues like ownership transference is more than made up for. I really like the idea that if I uninstall a game I can reinstall it anytime I like. Again, just one example. I don't want to go into all the benefits but I think they more than make up for the disadvantages and what you lose with physical ownership.

Which is why I think the focus on the secondary market is self defeating. It is consumer unfriendly and wastes resources that would be better spent on encouraging digital adoption.

Part of the issue though, and I encountered this myself back during an early e-Commerce venture in 2000, is that the people who want physical copies don't want to compete with digital. A great way to kill the secondary market would be to simply offer the digital version for $10 less than a physical copy. Why don't they do that? I think if you dig into the answer it will come down to places like Wal-Mart, Target, and Gamestop who still hold a lot of clout. Though I would be nervous if I was Gamestop right now.

Digital games were sometimes offered at a cheaper price, but I think it was found that we were willing to pay full price for a digital copy anyway.

All of this has been offset by weekly, holiday and flash sales. Prices have been coming down on digital and physical goods much quicker than in the past. No, I don't have hard data on hand for that.

Crazed Java wrote:

Part of the issue though, and I encountered this myself back during an early e-Commerce venture in 2000, is that the people who want physical copies don't want to compete with digital. A great way to kill the secondary market would be to simply offer the digital version for $10 less than a physical copy. Why don't they do that? I think if you dig into the answer it will come down to places like Wal-Mart, Target, and Gamestop who still hold a lot of clout. Though I would be nervous if I was Gamestop right now.

Well, I would say the landscape in 2000 with e-commerce and what we see now is wholly different.

Of course Gamestop is nervous, that's why they've tried branching out in numerous ways, most interestingly to me that they've begun publishing games.

The landscape is different but what I was specifically referencing was that our physical stores did not want to compete with our website on prices, and in fact crippled our ability to compete on the Internet because they still held a lot of sway at the corporate level even though everyone could see the potential of eCommerce. We ended up failing at something that should have been a slam dunk. We were also never given credit for driving business to the stores, which I think we could demonstrate we did very effectively. I wish I could name the venture but there is some sensitive information around it.

Anyway, I suspect that a similar dynamic is at play in digital pricing.

I'm sorry for opening a big can of worms, and I apologize for having tried to put forth such a vague argument.

But we can probably agree on this: regardless of our feelings about it, I think many developers and publishers felt as though used game sales significantly hurt their profits, and they took steps to change the single player experience in ways that would reduce used game sales.

There might have been other good reasons for it, but I think combating used game sales (again, regardless of whether we think it was a good idea) was part of what lead to an increase in post-release DLC, adding/emphasizing multiplayer for primarily SP games, and padding the experience with collection quests.

Is that something you all would agree with?

I'd really like to have the ability to transfer my digital purchase/rights to play a game to whomever I choose. Tired of playing X game on the Xbox that I downloaded? Ok, gift it to so-and-so, or sell/trade it for something else. It gets deleted off my hard drive, the rights transfer, and the facilitator of the transaction (Xbox Live, Steam, whatever) gets a rake/fee - heck, even along with the publisher/developer if we have to. I'm not sure why this isn't a thing yet.

I was tempted to reply to this:

How does a resale put money in the publisher's pockets?

... but then I realized that it's pretty much a derail, and not what what interested me about the thread originally.

Rather, I thought that article was really interesting, in that 2015 really was a very strong year for single player gaming. And it's shaded right into 2016, with Tomb Raider and XCOM just in the last few weeks. (I guess Tomb Raider has a multiplayer mode, but I've never started it, and probably never will. I played through it in single player, twice, and shelved it. )

I was just saying in the strategy game thread a few days ago that I find the constant urge toward multiplayer to be kind of a pernicious influence on game design. It means that balance becomes the main focus, instead of fun. Even now, more than twenty years later, I still play Master of Orion 1 sometimes, and I love it to death, because your tech tree is randomized, so you never know what's going to happen, and it's filled with possible game-changing technologies.

You look at a modern game like Endless Legend, which is really very good, an excellent new take on a very old formula, and I don't find it that exciting to actually play, because.... it's too balanced. There's a basic way that each side plays, and it stays that way for pretty much the whole game. Almost all tech advancements in EL are bigger numbers, and everyone has access to them. Any given side will play about the same at the end of the game as it did at the beginning. There's not much to look forward to.... when your next milestone is upgrading from +4 swords to +6 swords, that's dull. Looking forward to Repulsor Beams, and rendering the entire enemy fleet obsolete? That's fun.

Roughly static gameplay is much easier to balance, and maybe putting exponential power curves into a multiplayer game is just a bad idea, but here's the thing: exponential curves are fun. (the perfect example: Cookie Clicker, which is nothing *but* an exponential curve. Addicting as hell!) Game-changing powers are fun. Random tech trees are fun. And multiplayer games don't usually have any of these, because they're damnably hard to balance to make all sides competitive.

With single player, that doesn't matter. You can be as weird as you want, as imbalanced as you want, as unfair as you want, and only the player and the computer are involved.

Obviously, there's plenty of room for multiplayer games. They're a huge, huge market. But... I'd like to see more aggressively SP games, and I'm quite happy that there have been so many of late. I'm much more interested in fun than in strategic balance.

beeporama wrote:

I'm sorry for opening a big can of worms, and I apologize for having tried to put forth such a vague argument.

But we can probably agree on this: regardless of our feelings about it, I think many developers and publishers felt as though used game sales significantly hurt their profits, and they took steps to change the single player experience in ways that would reduce used game sales.

There might have been other good reasons for it, but I think combating used game sales (again, regardless of whether we think it was a good idea) was part of what lead to an increase in post-release DLC, adding/emphasizing multiplayer for primarily SP games, and padding the experience with collection quests.

Is that something you all would agree with?

I do not agree because there are many games that release only digitally with no resale and still get copious amounts of DLC. Honestly, the 2 biggest reasons for DLC are 1) more money 2) publisher imposed deadlines not allowing them to squeeze everything into the core product. Of those 2, I think more money is by far the biggest. If I had to weight them, I'd say 80/20.

Malor wrote:

Rather, I thought that article was really interesting, in that 2015 really was a very strong year for single player gaming. And it's shaded right into 2016, with Tomb Raider and XCOM just in the last few weeks. (I guess Tomb Raider has a multiplayer mode, but I've never started it, and probably never will. I played through it in single player, twice, and shelved it. )

Yeah, that was the stinger in the article that really piqued my interest.

Tomb Raider 2013 had a multiplayer mode. Rise of the Tomb Raider has competitive features and leaderboards, but they are all based on single-player. Assassin's Creed is another great example from last year. I was actually kind of sad to see the co-op mode from Unity gone in Syndicate, because I had a lot of fun with it. The co-op-edness was optional, since if you were careful enough, you could complete almost all of the co-op missions solo without too much difficulty. The only Assassin's Creed games releasing this year are the single-player Chronicles games.

BadKen wrote:
Malor wrote:

Rather, I thought that article was really interesting, in that 2015 really was a very strong year for single player gaming. And it's shaded right into 2016, with Tomb Raider and XCOM just in the last few weeks. (I guess Tomb Raider has a multiplayer mode, but I've never started it, and probably never will. I played through it in single player, twice, and shelved it. )

Yeah, that was the stinger in the article that really piqued my interest.

Tomb Raider 2013 had a multiplayer mode. Rise of the Tomb Raider has competitive features and leaderboards, but they are all based on single-player. Which, by the way, is a feature I have been waiting a long time to make its way out of racing games into other single player experiences.

Assassin's Creed is another great example from last year. I was actually kind of sad to see the co-op mode from Unity gone in Syndicate, because I had a lot of fun with it. The co-op-edness was optional, since if you were careful enough, you could complete almost all of the co-op missions solo without too much difficulty. The only Assassin's Creed games releasing this year are the single-player Chronicles games.

Oh for f*cks sake.

Can we PLEASE move the QUOTE button AWAY from the EDIT BUTTON.

PLEASE.

BadKen wrote:

Oh for f*cks sake.

Can we PLEASE move the QUOTE button AWAY from the EDIT BUTTON.

PLEASE.

Quote is a button with little quotation marks which brings you to the bottom of the current page and edit is a pen which opens a new window. You're welcome.

Fascinating discussion, on the single versus multi as well as the digital versus physical. I, for one, laughed when I heard about the predicted death of single player. It's pretty much all I do. I used to play TF2 though. A lot. For hours on end while I waited for my husband to get home. But that was 2011, before our kids were born. In fact, it would be more accurate for me to say that 2011 was the death of multiplayer. Aside from a few bouts of Guild Wars 2 here and there, which I mostly play solo anyhow (European hours on a North American server), all the games I play are single player now.
Similarly, I haven't bought a physical copy of a game since Mass Effect 3 (or Guild Wars 2, whichever is the most recent). A series of overseas moves and dwindling living space means I've gone almost fully digital.

It's fascinating to see all the different takes and I certainly believe that we'll continue to see all trends (single and multi, physical and digital), if only because we have different lifestyles, and that gaming tends to adapt to that lifestyle.

Eleima wrote:

Quote is a button with little quotation marks which brings you to the bottom of the current page and edit is a pen which opens a new window. You're welcome. ;)

Yeah, but on mobile, all I see is an edit box unless I am super paranoid and check every time.

Anyway.

Single player rah rah rah!