The Elimination of Single Player Has Dark, Ulterior Motives.

We just learned from a leaked memo that Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag will "feature" online connectivity even when playing single player as to "benefit" from a "huge community presence." Ubisoft just joined EA (Crytek soon will join). The reason for all this? Here is a clue; its not to "benefit" anything. It comes down to 1 word and billions of dollars.

[Jek_Porkins]

It's our own fault, we as consumers have shunned single player only games. Its gotten to the point where games like Tomb Raider, Mass Effect and lord help us even God Of War are stricken with lame multiplayer game modes that people will abandon within two months.

Sadly, we are headed towards a DRM style of always online, which is probably why Destiny the new Bungie game requires an interenet connection to play any part of it.

[Tyre]

This is not genuine game buyers fault. It's the fault of Piracy and The notion by developers that 2nd-hand games hurt the industry (which is entirely wrong). A misconception by developers is the reason for the Elimination of the SP.
The games with the biggest sales this gen are still games that have a big SP campaign and a good MP. MP only will fail. Games with an SP will be definitely needed nextgen.

[negative]

I sure as hell hope that you're right!

[Shadowstar]

I dunno about that. People for years have been complaining about single player games that don't have online. "If it doesn't have online, I'm not buying it! I'll rent it!" (Which deprives the creators of the sale-- it's certainly legal, but when more and more people do this, it means that people are rewarding games with ridiculous multiplayer, even if it's shoehorned in at the expense of single player.) I've hated this attitude for a long while, because I'm all about SP experiences, and people like that make it so that SP games will be made less and less well. Companies will spend less time on SP gameplay because people only pay for MP.

[oOMICHAELOo]

I don't know I blame it on a lack of creativity. I am the type of person I will not spend $60 on a game that is only 5 hours. That is not worth it. That is the biggest problem.

You get these rip off companies like EA. Who will release a game like dead space for $60, and it can be beat within one sitting. So of course people will ask for MP. Then because the game doesn't call for it they will get bored & leave it alone, but in the end it all comes back to the lack of creativity.

Lack of creativity when it comes to the story, gameplay, and MP. Which makes for a mediocre experience. Same thing can be said with Crysis.

[Shadowstar]

Okay, but you're not going to get 100 hours of story. No one can write something like that cohesively. Best you'll get are WRPGs, where they make 100 hours of content by adding missions that don't affect the main storyline.

If you don't want Dead Space, fine, don't buy it, I didn't mean to say you had an obligation to buy it (Edit: or any other game, for that matter). But if the content everyone wants is multi-player, because 5-8 hours of focused, story based gameplay isn't enough, then... well, we're going to get mostly MP. (Which sucks for me, because I don't play online. Well, not on consoles anyways, other than for Journey.)

Edit: the point is really that we do control what gets made, and it's silly to pretend that gamers' buying choices, which are pretty strongly MP biased, don't make a difference.

[3-4-5]

Single player is still the best way to game in my opinion. You can get lost in that game's world when nobody else is around to distract you and those are the games I have my greatest memories of/with.

The Developer that releases a GREAT single player game next gen will be ahead of the game by a lot.

[Tyre]

Hell Yes dude, if there wasn't any SP next to the MP, i would have no reason to game anymore. I would seek different entertainment to get lost in. The SP makes the games worth while to buy.