Following the recent closure of Visceral Games, the future of its upcoming single-player Star Wars game was called into question. Heavy doubts then arose over EA’s supposed shift away from single-player experiences in general.
Nothing is doomed. If there is a market someone will will that gap, it's a simple as that. How can anyone complain in 2017? Horizon, Zelda, Mario, South Park, Shadow of War, XCOM War of the Chosen, Divinity 2, Warhammer 2, Persona 5, the list goes on. Problem is some people just focus all their attention on things like loot crates and microtransactions that most times have no impact and are optional. Those games that are still $60 as they were in 2005 are going to try and find more ways to increase the price. Get used to it or stop buying AAA titles, there are thousands of non-AAA games out there too. That's the millennial way, I want I want I want.
The problem is that it has become more common. The U.K government against this microtransaction and loot crates BS. What worse is that younger generation will use this without realizing the real consequences. Parents can teach younger generation not to use it, but some other parents just ignored their children and let them abuse that system.
More common? Sure in the AAA market. There are hundreds of games released per year yet you guys want to concentrate on maybe 2 or 3 titles that will impact your enjoyment because of them. It's simple, games today require more peoiple and more investments and longer development time. Why wouldn't they introduce them? People would be just as upset or more upset if games had a base price of $80. You know how much some games costs back in the day on the SNES? Some were $60 and even $70 back then. Like I say, if people think it's so easy to make money in this business then make your own games.
So bungie should just keep adding to and monitoring destiny for free then? Or maybe find a way to keep paying the huge team that support destiny 24/7? I'm all for loot boxes if they're just cosmetic because U DON'T HAVE TO ****ING BUY THEM!!!!!
And some children ignore parents so.
@Moldy Maybe, just maybe, those 2-3 games will be the biggest games of the year. The games that will be played the most, sell the most, marketed the most and they get to set a standard for their next games and others that want to see such success could and will copy them. Just because you luck the foresight doesn't mean others don't
It's lack the foresight, not luck and no I don't lack the foresight. People enjoy multiplayer games, that's why they are so popular. The industry also doesn't like the used market which is why high profile developers like Naughty Dog tried online passes and other things to either help curb the used market or to extent the game from being sold right away. It's simple, the AAA market is highly competitive and very expensive. Don't like it then support the smaller games more.
you are right. not doomed by a long shot. only thing is some big players like ms and EA dialing back on sp games. like the list of games you listed... none are exclusive on xbo. cuphead is though. but if u looked at the up coming xbo exclusives, sea of thieves, crackdown3, PUBG... it is clear ms's priorities are not on sp games
These articles really need to go away.
It's only in gaming that something must die, or things are doomed and killed.
maybe so. but it is also mostly in gaming that you go around killing stuff (in the game), so i guess it's inline with gaming
Uncharted 4 has multiplayer
So do a lot of games. What's your point?
It was being listed alongside other single player only games
No one buys Uncharted 4 for the MP.
You don't know that for 100% fact. A game with both single player and multiplayer shouldn't be listed in an article like this that's talking about single player only games regardless. That just goes against the entire message the author is trying to make.
Super Mario Odyssey, Zelda Breath of the Wild, Metroid Prime 4, Yakuza 0, Horizon Zero Dawn, Hellblade, Persona 5, South Park FbW, Shadow of War, Skyrim, Fallout and others would also beg to differ.
You see MS, EA, or Acti anywhere around there? Yeah, screw them.
I don't see why they would be There's been plenty of successful single player games recently
No, the industry goes through phases and this year has shown us single player games are still a big deal. I mean just a few years ago there was this thought of console gaming dying and then gen 8 hit and there are what, 60 millon PS4's out in the wild now so to me it just shows that if you bring a quality product to customers they will respond. Whether it's multiplayer, single player or what have you.
And PS3/360 were going to be the last true consoles... So much for no name sites making bold claims about the future.
Under the line, Games as a service make publishers more money. Best example: Minecraft and GTA V. And money is what they want the most, guess where the industry is going?
All depends on the Industry and weather its worth it to them ......
You're getting disagrees because you spelled "whether" wrong. Apparently N4G turned into a Harvard study hall when I wasn't looking.
Nah i gave him 1 cause he's a john without an "h". Sort of like kellys with an "i", or brads with 2 "d"s. Dont like their name. I went to EWU though, shortly after i dropped out of EWU also.
What's more memorable? TLOU, RDR and Witcher 3. Or Overwatch, PUGB and Battleborn
TLOU, RDR and Witcher 3. by a mile and a half
As I've said before, if single player is being pushed out then I'm quitting gaming altogether
Action/adventure, RPG's, action RPG's. platforming and story driven games are what I mainly play and if they cease to exist I guess I'll be done as well but there is room for all genres and while there are some publishers and companies that focus on multiplayer there are those that also focus on the single player experience so I think we're good.
Pokemon alone invalidates that claim.
Something I don't understand about this whole "Single player games are dying" debacle, is why would someone want a whole game type to die out altogether? It's disturbing that people keep pushing this idea down other's throats and try to convince the masses it's real. Without single player games, the industry would be in shambles and there would be an inevitable crash and burn. This industry exists today because of those games.
This article seems like bait to me.
Only to a lesser extent on xbox
I'd be willing to pay a 100 bucks for a full fleged game the problem is publishers don't won't a set price because they want endless amounts of money . .hell if you think about it games are starting to cost 100 bucks along with micro-transactions and loot crates lol so now they've surpassed the 60+ threshold while still trying to pick our pockets
Offline bots and local split screen (minus Nintendo) are continuously ignored - even though there are threads and threads of people wanting them in games. MP games aimed at casual players (ie quick and cash) seems to be the greedy model developers are using. Depressing.
Horizon Zero Dawn and Zelda Breath of the Wild did quite well in my opinion.
Bethesda... wolfenstein. Elder scrolls. Fallout. Nintendo... smo. Botw. Guerilla... horizon Etc etc etc. And elder scrolls/fallout was 60$ and company raked in insane cash
No, singleplayer games are not doomed. There are so many to list from this year alone.
They say Disco is dead! yet theirs probably a couple of new Disco songs per year. The same applies here about big single player game. Sure some dev will continue to create single players but the majority will now put the focus on GAAS or Online (with some single-payer component). And saying look at Zelda, Horizon, etc.. for proof is the same as saying Smoking isn't bad for health because you know a 100 years old smokers. How about the 95% of single players experience who get discounted at 50% after 3 months because they failed. And ask yourself why there's still no single player DLC for GTA5.
Look at all the multiplayer focused games that completely bombed and are dirt cheap already, or are losing players by the minute. Just this year alone there's been way too many.
Kratos IS COMING BABY!
If they were, I’d quit gaming. But they aren’t and won’t be.
Nope, they're just less lucrative to publishers, so I presume that many in the industry would like to promote the idea of them being doomed. The day single player games stop being developed, is the day I give up gaming.
Multiplayer games are like reality tv shows. There are lots of them because they require less creative talent and far fewer dollars to produce while keeping the masses entertained. If reality tv shows were all that were available I would quit watching tv. If Multiplayer only game are all that are available I'll quit playing new games and keep replaying the old ones.
Games journalism is doomed with crap like this.
The greed of the bigger companies say that SP games are doomed, but there will always be SP games. The direction SP games go from those greedy companies will change, but I'd like to think that there will always be other companies that will want to give a fair, complete product for a fair price. In the last few years I've stopped buying certain games that have included these greedy practices. The last game I bought that had them in, one of the games that really tested the waters, was Dead Space 3, and it sickened me tbh. Here was a sequel in a franchise I loved that basically spat in the face of fans of the franchise.That game took a huge jump off the cliff when I saw what they did with it. Then Deus Ex Mankind Divided landed, a franchise I've love since the first game (2nd game was iffy) and I didn't buy it when I heard about the Mt's and the poor length. And I won't buy Middle-earth: Shadow of War either, if it's got Mt's in it you can fuck off. I pay for a finished product, not a product I need to pay extra for. Keep that shit for mobile games or MP games, and with the MP games it needs to be for things that don't really matter, a scarf my character can wear or a pair of flashy glasses. Any decent SP game will get my money, every time. I refuse to pay for a game that begs me to pay more to finish it quicker because it's been engineered that way.
Mankind Divided didn't have any MT's... Story wise, Human Revolution is so much better though.
The industry will find that there is only so much the gaming audience will take. After awhile they will stop buying and there will be an industry 'correction'. The greed factor on display by EA, Activision, Warner, and others is simply becoming too much. Enough is enough. These publishers prey upon the weak willed. They won't see a red cent from me. Thanks to the developers that still support and create games that provides a compelling story and single player experience. Those of us that are looking to escape the daily grind and sink into a new environment/world without being forced to login and deal with the virtual shake down for money appreciate what you do. If you don't like where gaming is going. Don't support the developer's/publishers that are putting these practices in place. The ONLY thing they understand is $$$.
How long have they been saying SP games are doomed? It's like the bum that you see in movies, standing on the corner, holding a sign saying 'The End is Near' :)
No only if EA get there way, the market will be flooded with multi player shit. And they aren't the only offenders.
I hope not because I'll be done with gaming if so.
Not doomed but online is slowly dominating life it's self. People like to be connected and usually in groups.
I would have left gaming long time ago if single player games doomed.
Hell to the no!
I get sick of articles like this. If people actually give up on single-player games, then they are stupid. The Witcher 3 is a great example of a single-player game. Persona 5 is another great one. It might not be for everybody, but these games have hours of content to offer. Games like OW and even the Battlefront 2 beta got boring to me. Here is a question, who wants to usually deal with many of these toxic communities? When you play a single-player game, then you do not have to put up with the garbage.
Also with single player games, I don't have to worry about my game disk becoming a paper weight because the servers get shut down barely down the road after release. Paying 60+ for a temporary game and people trying to get them to charge MORE is completley obsurd in every sense.
Nope, next question.
Yes. Stop buying AAA titles.
Are Single-Player Games Doomed? NO! I only play single player games that doesn't require mandatory online connection. There are large number of players that does not have fast and cheap internet like in the 3rd world countries.
Super Mario Odyssey & LoZ:Botw are game of the year candidates and are both single player experiences. Zero Dawn Horizon + the two I mentioned above are arguably the three best games of 2017, and they are all single player experiences. Certain media outlets just want you to believe this bs.
As long as we allow games to change their set out maps and 'nerf' classes to their hearts content until it becomes a different game and eventually abandoned by users, probably, worst case scenario. Most people seem unusually happy with that. Gaming to be is all about the single player experience and solely focusing on anything else is a devolution of what developers have achieved, especially art departments and narrative. Difference is you can't patch a bad single player game for it to become a whole new game later on, personally I think more mistakes can be made with MP games as people expect them to get patched, you can't do that with Single Player, it needs a more, refined, cohesive vision and a confident developer. MP games are lazy as anything not quite right can be fixed later and I don't like that attitude with developers.
Only doomed at EA....nowhere else. Just look at all the successful Single player content in this year alone.