Although Bethesda Softworks continues to be one of the greatest proponents of single-player games in the AAA arena, the publisher believes it needs to adapt its approach to such projects.
Single player games still the best experience:)
I used to think that and there has been some great single player games but this gen the games I enjoyed the most were multiplayer with friends or family involved. Sea of Thieves while I think it's a horrible game with a lack of content I enjoyed it the most this gen.
You enjoy playing games with your friends and family, others like playing by themselves, you can have fun with the shittiest game if friends and family are there, but doesn't that's not a game experience, that's a social experience.
@Eidolon Well that's not true. A crap game is a crap game. There has been PLENTY of co-op games or online games that my brother and I stop playing because it just isn't fun
No one is saying a multiplayer game can't be great..
@Eidolon I didn't say I only enjoy playing games with friends or family, I said this gen I had better experiences that way mostly because multiplayer games continue to improve while single player experiences are going the opposite direction. Most of them have become shorter with overall bland story telling except for a select few Sony and third party games. I would say microtransactions are multiplayers biggest negative (other than servers) but then again single player games have them now too...
Single player has always been my best experience, it's hard to find friends with the same multiplayer games and it's even harder to get the to stick with it. When I think about it, the SOS system in Monster Hunter World works best for me and sometimes I get the same players helping me out on a semi-regular basis.
Multiplayer games have become even more popular this gen with free to play and also with kids getting more involved in multiplayer . However I think there is a renewal of single player experience in a more relatable, emotional or realistic approach, closer to the quality of experience you can find in other medium but with the more involving, immersive or fun nature of videogames. Edit ' single player experiences are going the opposite direction. Most of them have become shorter with overall bland story ' I strongly disagree with that one
You ruined your perfectly valid point by mentioning Sea of Thieves. Better luck next time!
Not me! Not at all. I do enjoy multiplayer games a lot. I love mmo’s. But some of the very best games made are single player experiences. Now, what I wouldn’t mind is the option in some great single player games to have a friend play with you. Because often it’s great to experience a grand adventure with a buddy, as an option though! I wouldn’t mind the ability to jump into a friend’s ES6 game and help him tackle missions or build his estate. But not an always online, pervasive world with dozens of ppl.
Eh, it's more like 25/75 for me. Most of my game time comes from games that have multiplayer or co-op.
Can you name these game????? This will be interesting
@Ninja Monster Hunter Dark Souls series Destiny Warframe PUBG Rocket League Battlefield Quake Champions I mean I could go on and on and the list would also include games with SP and MP like Gears, Halo, UC4 I spent more time in MP than the SP....
yet some of my best memories of gaming are playing multiplayer with a team of friends.
Me too, some of my best memories were multiplayer from unreal tournament to modern warfare. . . Couch multiplayer seems to be ignored though. Those local multiplayer games have also been some of my best gaming experiences but sp games have outnumbered the aforementioned.
Yes, but, taking a single player game, then just giving the option for a 2nd player to join without changing anything else, is okay in my book. I always wished they would add a player "drop-in/drop-out" feature in Skyrim so me and my wife or kids could play together. Change nothing else. Just allow one other person to join in if they want.
So they have been making good single player games and then they say the way they approach them now shouldn't be the same as before... I can't find any positives in that statement.
Me neither and will most likely end up with me not buying their games.
That's what I'm afraid of. The "article" adds nothing to the headline. (Don't bother clicking.) The vague "change" is all we know. But all the implications I can think of are negative. I will not be buying Bethesda games like Fallout 76, even if they do include a single-player component. If this is where the whole industry is going, including Bethesda, good thing I have such an extensive backlog. I can wait for the rare gems that don't fall into the monetization bandwagon.
Well....every dev and pub should always analyze how they approach games. It doesn't mean they have to make drastic changes to what they're doing. Could just mean that they have to make sure to analyze the way they approach the games. If that's the case, then he's not wrong. SP games have to be looked at in a way that can keep them profitable.
What's with the total 180? I'll say it again for the 100th time on here "SAVE PLAYER ONE" - The campaign they did at Christmas last year Now we have a complete 180 from them with Fallout 76 and statements like these, I mean what the hell is going on from them?
It sucks but i can’t entirely blame them since prey,Wolfenstein 2,dishonored 2 and evil within 2 all reviewed well with wolf 2,dishonored 2 and prey being outstanding but they didn’t sell at all so people aren’t putting their money where their mouth is
Their single-player games didn't do as well as they hoped and their advertising campaign hasn't helped. This is what happens when we don't buy the games we say we want.
I can think of a new way to do single player games... NO dlc. Make it worth my damn 60 bucks. Then maybe a year later... when I KNOW it wasn't simply cut from the game for extra $$$ release a MAJOR DLC instead.
And where did games like Wolfenstein 2 and Doom failed to deliver 60$ worth of content? Or games like Dishonered2, Evil2, etc...?
I never said they failed. I'm saying making singleplayer games is good, as LONG as it's worth the 60 bucks and not 120 bucks etc.. because of dlc
'That doesn’t mean that we should keep doing things the way we did five or ten years ago—we’ve got to CONTINUE to change how we approach it.” The statement is rather neutral actually
Me either. The problem is that the profits from mp games r exponentially better than sp. That’s the real issue that I wish publishers/devs and gamers could have, instead of all these BS cloak and dagger excuses. GTA5 is the single best selling SP game of all time and it’s profits pale in comparison to its online counterpart. When ppl invest money, they want little risk and the greatest return. AAA sp games r expensive and may end up failing miserably. Even if they succeed, they don’t make as much as many mobile games do. So, we need to work together to make sure that sp games continue to get made b/c so many are soooo good! Most discussions assume that players like sp or mp games and that’s not true. I love both. I don’t know the answer. But the answer isn’t changing or eliminating the sp experience.
well you have to think about marketing and release windows, Bethesda has been doing a little poorly in those regards for games they haven't developed themselves.
That single statement worries me. How would you go about changing your approach? What does that really mean? -Worried gamer.
Sounds fishy to me as well. Better not be hinting at single player games as a service or some hybrid of singplayer/multiplayer like destiny.
They can make that change if they want their games to end up in the 9.99 / 4.99 bin.
FO76 is proof Bethesda that you weren't happy with sales from(FO4)(which BTW made you billion with launch) Instead of having to change all you have to do is change the release window for some of the smaller games. Games like dishonored and wolfenstien would have done better if released during better part of the calendar so they didn't have to compete with other games
I think Bethesda is doing fine with Prey, Wolfenstein, Doom, and soon Rage. I would love if the games added Co-op. But, please don't mess with the formula too much Bethesda!
No...they are not happy with the sales of those IPs specifically actually. Bethesda invested a lot in remaking Wolfenstein, Doom and Prey. They invested heavily in the Dishonored IP. They are not happy with the financial returns on the games. Fallout and Elder Scrolls are their bread and butter so to speak. Let's hope they don't abandon the other underperforming IPs but I would not rule that out. They are in business to make huge profits.
The problem is any publisher thinking that all IPs should make the same amount of profit. They make a profit with those games, they wouldn't have made standalone expansions and ported them to current generation platforms as well for dishonored if they didn't make a profit. What they are rethinking is how much money they make, which is EA's problem. They need to realize that profit doesn't always need to be massive and if you stop making something, you're just giving profit to another company that will make what those people want.
@Christopher. Investors invest in Bethesda in order to get a specifically desired ROI. If they can't get their desired ROI they will go somewhere else where they can. Although from a gamer point of view we don't expect every game to be as profitable as a different game, that is not how investors look at things. I have bought many shares of many companies through my life. In each investment I am looking for a specific ROI. If an investment underperforms I decide when to cut it and then move my money elsewhere where I think I will make more ROI.
***Investors invest in Bethesda in order to get a specifically desired ROI.*** Bethesda makes enough profit that they don't need traditional investors. Shareholders are different and as long as the overall ROI is hitting above, then shareholders are fine. Furthermore, shareholders understand the concept of diversifying to maintain a hold in different areas of a market, even when profits in some holdings are less than others. The reason is they understand that making money in those areas while maintaining a focus elsewhere is better than not having those profits at all. Profit is profit, and higher profit margins is great, but if you ignore profit potential then you are limiting your overall market reach and potential. That's just bad business design for an environment where the diversity of the market to cater towards is very wide ranging.
@Christopher You are assuming that they can choose their investors. They are publicly traded and therefore anyone who wants to can invest and buy their stock. I have a diverse stock line but at the same time, I will never invest in game publishers or developers. The risk is just way too high. A couple of under-performing games can sink many developers. A few bad years and the major publishers can go under as well. Plus, games are getting more and more expensive to make. The formula for investing in games can be rewarding because the biggest games are highly profitable. But, knowing which games will truly do well is pretty hard to know.
Adding co-op to existing series' usually doesn't end well. I believe Co-operative games should be built from the ground up, and have a good reason for doing so, like A Way Out. Resident Evil 4 = masterpiece ===> RE5,6 = not great ===> RE7 = good again Dead Space 1,2 = incredible ===> DS3 = wet garbage, my favorite series snuffed from existence. Portal = great game ===> Portal 2 = okay they nailed it, but it was a separate mode.
Unfortunately the type of SP-loving people who comment on here are not representative of the consumer at large. While Bethesda keeps kicking out awesome single player experiences, the vast majority of average Playstation/Xbox owners are totally unaware of their output other than Elder Scrolls/Fallout. Bethesda puts out awesome non-annualized games in the Dishonored or Wolfenstein series and those games get demolished in sales by games we consistently complain about like Assassin's Creed (I know Ubi cut back on releasing AC every year, but I'm talking about the last 5-10 years).
Oh Ubis back to shovelling AC every years. Their determined to stomp out that IP like a spark in a California summer.
I don't understand why Bethesda should change an approach which has resulted in several excllent games to date. This sounds like the company is preparing us for what will be bad news for single-player game lovers - that MP and co-op features will be making an appearance in future games and effectively reducing the SP content. I think it is a mistake as there are plenty of purely MP and co-op experiences out there, certainly more so than SP games. All that will happen is that the quality of the game will be diminished in an attempt to please everyone. I hope they reconsider. If it ain't broke....
perhaps because ppl don't buy their game at release?
It looks like Bethesda is going to follow the same life cycle as Blizzard, EA, and Ubisoft. Game companies start out as a small group of developers with a common vision. They make a good game that's fun to play. It becomes a cult classic. They hire more devs, make bigger, better games that become AAA bestsellers. Then the company grows so big it takes on a life of it's own. Soul-sucking vampires (marketing advisors) decide that they know better than the developers, show them some sales models, push some beans around, and advocate "cost-benefit scenarios" that result in less time, less effort, and less work put into the new titles. The new titles are crap, stripped of the soul that the previous games had. The company becomes regarded as a cancer upon the world of gaming, and serious gamers loathe it but since enough noobs and casuals keep buying the product because of it's brand name it never dies, however the decreasing sales drive the marketing advisors to push for higher prices, more microtransactions, and DLC packs that serious gamers recognize as money grabs, reinforcing their ill view of the company. This is why indie studios are so important. Hopefully we see more Terrarias in our future. It's a shame that we likely won't see another Elder Scrolls title with the same level of quality and detail that Oblivion and Skyrim had.
Absolutely love the bethesda approach to single player games already so I'm nervous but I trust them outside of me passing on fallout 76 I normally buy most games from them
On one hand their SP experiences have been top notch, but I also have faith in Bethesda and if they dare to try something different, it could be cool. Sometimes you have to change sh*t up. It can break up the monotony.
Enjoy Doom online but have not completed singleplayer , played the opening chapter of Wolfenstein and Old blood may play them one day all purchased 2nd hand lol.I can not get into Fallout series so just auto skip them now even modded up skyrim on pc but only put in a few hours.
Stick to COD and FIFA noob
Thanks for the tip you have a point grow your hair no one will notice.
You must be new to gaming
Only been playing since their invention so i too consider me a noob.
Then you're just dumb
Thanks i appreciate that .
next gen more & more makes me less optimistic & excited. I ONLY play single player story driven games & it seems like that is becoming less & less of the market.
Cmooon, we didn't mean all the skyrim jokes, don't f up single player games. Also pls skyrim for nail clippers
Wolfenstein is the best f.p.s!!!
On one hand saying " We need to change our approach " while not that long ago " Next Bethesda games will be single-player " I guess they pissed off their shareholders LOL.
Wolfen II is the best game I played this year so far.
There are only 2 ways that Bethesda can go if they want to keep making profitable AAA single player games. 1) Become exclusive to Nintendo or Sony this way your AAA great games will suddenly become perfect 10 games and score some potential game of the year candidates. plus you can just copy ideas from others publishers and it will be called innovation. 2) Hire a super famous producer like Kojima and again have your usual great game get scored perfect while getting some game of the year award. 2 sure ways to get some massive sales boost.
Just keep politics out of games and you dont end up alienating anyone causing your game to hit the discount shelf a month after release.
That's another way of saying: "we're planning for more and new innovative ways to take your moneys".
you do you lad, let the other companies stick to their awesome formular for great single player games.
Not broken? Awesome, lets fix it. -Bethesda
This doesn't sound good at all.
both are great but different experiences. Playing god of war and getting lost in that new world is great, taking in the scenery, graphics, and contemplating how to upgrade my weapons and where to go explore next is great. it's also equally fun but an entirely different experience playing rocket league with a friend. I find that i equally loose my self in the game, not the game world. But the way you just seen to blend in with the game, like the idea of entering controls and pressing buttons don't stuck out. when you're in the zone with your friend lining up shots, passing, making assist and defending shots it's like the controller and by extension the car is part of you and you seem to control it by reflex. I consider both to be great gaming experiences and wouldn't like one without the other, if forced to play single player games for ever i would miss multiplayer gaming. same way i don't always play multiplayer, because at times i need to cut out the chatter of friends and focus on a story.
How about focusing on Single Player first, then add an optional multiplayer mode . Forcing those millions of players who supported past Fallout Single Player experiences to online only multiplayer is a big mistake. Fallout 76 is not getting my $100 that’s for sure.
Approach it however you want, but if you mess my single player experiences, I will never give you another dime.
No, Bethesda! Don't pull a Bioware! EA doesn't own you, so you don't need to drink the same water as them. Seriously though, it's like we are fast approaching a time when we need to collectively boycott any and all Western AAA devs who aren't owned by Sony (and maybe one or two Japanese AAA devs like Konami). Here's hoping it doesn't come to that, and I'm thankful that studios such as Guerilla and Naughty Dog aren't trying to bend us over and force their BS up our tailpipes. Still, Bethesda was one of few who hadn't gone to the dark side. Here's hoping they're not considering making their games GaaS, MT-fests with overpriced season passes. Singleplayer is less suited to that. I mean, the only approach they need to take with singleplayer is to...keep making games that people can play by themselves. That is the very definition of singleplayer. If they want to extend the experience with some DLC and make a little more profit that way, they should make it worth our while, which to be fair, they have a pretty good history of doing. That's about the only acceptable way to double-dip on the consumer's dime and they're already known for doing that. Hence, any "changes" they may be considering can't be any good.
Don't change anything you are doing great, wolfenstien and doom were amazing please don't fuck it up.