Maybe for EA, but not for the rest of us.XD We'll still be playing games like Assassin's Creed, Mario, Zelda, Skyrim, Xenoblade, and plenty of other great big budget single-player titles well into the future. EA would like you to think single player is dying because the only thing they can make money off of recently is multiplayer sports and shooters that survive off of their pay-walled and transaction-laden online.XD
Most of the entries in those games have very linear story paths, though, if you disregard side missions, which is why I listed them. Some, like BotW, might diverge from that by letting you complete main story objectives in any order you want, but by and large they've all had a pretty fair dose of linearity in their past entries.
You’re right. If Bethesda has anything to say about it, we WILL continue to be playing Skyrim well into the future!
OT: This is really a non-story. It’s just the latest story people are latching onto, and writing about. We all know better than to second guess the future of great single player games.
Open World games are thriving. They aren't going anywhere. It is just Linear Story based games that are declining. or somewhat anyhow. I don't think they will ever go away, but they aren't as popular as other genres right now and unfortunately more expensive to make due to the graphics having such a big role in this type of game and also harder to monetize since you can't usually customize things in linear story games.
I don't think this is an issue for a lots of Publishers I simply think it's an issue for Electronic Arts and even Microsoft. I think they're trying to paint it as if single player games are difficult for them to make money and comparison to other multiplayer games as service-type games, but that is an issue regarding those Publishers individually that is not actually an issue regarding gaming as a whole.
Enough for them to keep selling record number of games.
If anything Electronic Arts should have made sure the statement was exclusively for their situation currently and not towards gaming as a whole.
I've noticed that Microsoft Electronic Arts Activision or sort of in this situation. I think it's simply because they cannot see huge profit margins like they can with games as a service crap. Publishers like Sony and Nintendo have had game developers for multiple Generations that have been able to craft single-player experiences and reap huge Rewards.
I mean if anything look at Ubisoft they're probably the only publisher regarding this that has been able to successfully craft single player experience on top of multiplayer experiences successfully in regards to big third party.
This is why i not bought a EA game since dead space 3 and crysis 3... I loved those two franchises, they ruined ds3 loads... If you dont want ea around to make shit games dont buy their games!
I spend significantly more on single player games, I don't really own that many multi-player games and I spend most of my time in half of them by myself. If single-player games disappeared, I'd hardly purchase any games.
This statistic is so easily explained, it shouldn't even be an article. Due to a huge increase in gamers in general, and the fact that most of those are casuals with an affinity for MP/Co-op games, the core gaming community is a minority in pure statistical terms. Not saying it's a small one, but it still drowns in the amount of people who just wants to play a couple of online games with friends.
Companies like EA doesn't care about the minorities in gaming. They only go for marketing potential with a statistical success rate, which leads them to believe that only online gaming is profitable. Essentially it's an MP=numbers=most revenue situation.
SP games are selling more than they used to as well though. Its not like their numbers have remained stagnant with the increase in software sales. There are just more Sp games being made than there used to be across the board....although it doesn't seem like that since it's mostly the MP games which get the marketing dollars....so the actual sales aren't isolated to singular titles like they used to be mostly placed on the biggest marketed titles.
Well considering we still get singleplayer games from M$ I wouldn't be to concerned. What I meant by what I said is that those publishers are actively making fun of singleplayer. Phil only said that in terms of maintaining engagement in those games and of course the majority of the industry is in love with multiplayer online games. Whether that be something like online cod or the division or destiny.
Only when daft publishers like EA are (or in this case WERE) developing them. Ask Guerrilla Games this question. Or Sony, or Nintendo. The answer is no, they are not in trouble. Let EA go down in flames with their MT models designed to fleece players. Everyone else will be fine.
Yes maybe for EA not for me, the likes of Uncharted shit over everything EA has ever made. Visceral were amazing with the likes of Dead space, dantes inferno, obviously EA couldn't respect the quality of Visceral.
No. Never have been. Just because they make less money than multiplayer doesn't mean that they don't make a lot of money and that there's still a market for them.
Yeah i am done with them just rather play Kiilling floor , maybe if all the stories were not good guy bad guy save the world trash i would play more . It is not just games though last decade of movies has been sleep inducing. Loving games that dont shove a story down my neck saves me hitting the skip button. You can tell they are failing as trial versions show up a month after launch .
Linear is dead my ass. You know how many games in general I quit playing because they're open world? If all open world's played like The Witcher 3 did, I'd be more inclined too. I'm currently playing Dead Space 3, (Its in EA access) and I've had more fun with it, then I did with almost all the open world currently out there. Linear keeps you focused on the story. Open world feels like a chore 99% of the time. The Witcher 3 made every little thing feel meaningful. They took a chance, and it paid off. Maybe EA should take chances, not just take.
Myself i cant stand online gaming, i love a rich full single player offline game with no worry of dlc and all that shit... EA talk so much crap! They ruined one of my fave franchises (dead space) with awful online options... This is why i still buy games and play my gamecube/wii, im going to buy a ps2 after xmas coz i want to play aload of old ps1 games i loved and ps2 obvs lol ... If developers bust ass to make a high quality game, then it dont need online...
Well, if single player games are in trouble, if they are going to disappear, i say goodbye to the gaming world. I don't like playing online unless it's a MMORPG (WoW, FFXIV: ARR). And when there are more than 2 trophies online different form "join a match" or "complete a match" i swear in 99 languages and i forget the platinum on those games. Another story is couch co-op with my friends.
Maybe for EA, but not for the rest of us.XD
We'll still be playing games like Assassin's Creed, Mario, Zelda, Skyrim, Xenoblade, and plenty of other great big budget single-player titles well into the future.
EA would like you to think single player is dying because the only thing they can make money off of recently is multiplayer sports and shooters that survive off of their pay-walled and transaction-laden online.XD
Since when did EA actually know what gamers really wanted?
Nope - every gamer should be catered for. Bloodborne, Zelda, Horizon, Uncharted, TLOU, Dark Souls - gaming wouldn't be the same without those titles.
fuck EA they couldn't care less about the consumer all they care about is money
Fuck no. And if it ever does, I will stop gaming altogether.