Single-Player Games are Thriving, and Live Service Games Are Not

In the last few years, single-player games are as strong as ever, whereas live service games are struggling to get a foothold.

[Atom666]

"Live service" games are currently facing a quality and quantity problem that we've seen affect various other gaming trends over the years. It's only compounded by the type of commitment these games require of their audience, too. But the market will dictate when its hit its limits.

There's only so many users and only so many hours in the day to go around. But unless you start looking at actual engagement numbers, or even just revenue, you can't get a full picture of what the landscape is looking like.

From the article, they bring up Fallout 76. A critical flop that has, kind of unfortunately, sold very well. They then mention a dip last quarter from Activision. COD is going to sell 15-20 million copies again, and many gamers will play its online modes all year round. Destiny is no longer under their umbrella, so it makes sense that its recent little resurgence isn't in their reports.

I haven't touched a service game this year as I blow through my backlog. I have plenty more to get through. Point being- SP games have continued to be there for me to enjoy.

I also see companies are also making money hand over fist on service games despite some duds. There's been some SP flops recently too, though. It seems to me that devs pubs are managing to strike a balance between the types of games going to market like they've always done.

It's almost like all of these "SP vs. Services" talk has been overly exaggerated.

[ArchangelMike]

Yeah it's actually quite depressing that other Anthem and GR:Breackpoint sold well despite being critically panned and not hitting their sales target.

It does call into question. 'sale targets though. When a game sells millions of copies and makes a profit - but still is branded as a commercial failure by the publisher; then you know the rot has well and truly set in.

[Atom666]

"We wanted to make even more money" is fair for any business I suppose. I agree though, I laugh at some of these reports for similar reasons.

Not every service game is going to be as popular as Fortnite or a GTA Online. They have to know that, so I'm not sure what expectations are being set.

Not every SP game is going to sell like Spiderman or GoW, but we see most pubs are better at gauging projected sales with those SP games. I'm sure you'll still get the occasional surprise commercial flop like Control, but pubs like Ubi seem to expect that the millions of players already invested in another service game will suddenly shift over to a new one, often of lower quality.

All of those billions of $$ coming from service games says they're not going anywhere. All of the competition in that genre hopefully continues to weed out the bad ones though, just like we've seen with other genres of games over the years.

Anthem, Ghost Recon, and Fallout 76 sucked. They didn't suck because they were service games per se. They sucked because they were bad service games. Yet, they still sold tons of copies.

[JEECE]

I don't understand why this concept is controversial in video games. For movies, it is widely understood and accepted that a film can gross hundreds of millions of dollars and still be categorized as a flop or failure. Even if that film turns some profit, if it is far less than expected, it can be insufficient to justify the time and money involved. Maybe they didn't lose money technically, but if you invest a ton of time and resources into Movie X and launch it on one of the prime weekends of the year, and it only generates 30% of the profit you intended, that is lost money in a sense, because you could have used that time and those resources on a more profitable movie.

The same thing is clearly true for games, but potentially even worse for GAaS because they anticipated a certain number of sales, a certain percentage of those sales to play online for a long period, and a certain percentage of that to spend on MTs repeatedly. Even if the first number is still high in absolute terms, if it's much lower than expected, the second two numbers will be much lower as well. Thus, not only will the game miss profit expectations initially, but they also won't generate the planned continuing revenue.

This doesn't even factor in the fact that games like Anthem have gotten abandoned post release, despite high initial sales.

[indysurfn]

Take that all you......single player games are old and we cant do anything about it. Take that all you. Micro transactions are here to stay and we cant do anything about it. (yeah sellouts Im talking to you). See we DID do something about both of these(multiplayer vs single...and Microtransactions vs full games with not MT's ). We voted with our wallets but not buying that stuff(your welcome sellouts).

[bluefox755]

Yeah, I remember when everyone and their grandma were trying to replicate the lightning in a bottle success of Fortnite, but it's not that easy. Publishers want nothing more than a future of Fortnites, because it's incredibly profitable. Fortunately for the rest of us, gamers are more fickle. BR games (and service games in general) tap a demographic that aren't necessarily dedicated gamers, who are quick to move on from the latest fad. The same thing happened with the Wii.

[rainslacker]

That chase to replicate what was popular goes all the way back through gaming history. Just the ones chasing after the popularity often made good games as well before last gen rolled around.

Mario got sonic and a slew of platformers, although technology was limited on what could be done at the time.

Ff7 saw a surge in JRPGs, much to my pleasure.

COD and Halo saw an entire generation be over saturated with FPS.

Mobile game paradigms and the above stated FPS games saw all these publishers suddenly lamenting on how expensive it was to make games.

This gen saw even more push towards service games, which is just a fancy marketing term to include the monetization with the good types of service games.

In the end, all this chasing after the lucrative online market which costs less to develop for caused it to be over saturated. Last gen, games were praised for having online even if it wasnt that good, and criticized for not having it. This gen, some of the best selling games have been SP games. A lot of this is that the SP market isnt as over saturated as it was last gen, and the high quality sp games are having more chances to stand out from the crowd.

[Muzikguy]

I read this title and think "and that's the way it should be". I was hoping that gamers would figure that out someday. Service games are selling though it's just that people can't play all of them. Companies are making too many. Everyone seems to want to grab subscription revenue over making quality games. I stopped paying for Plus years ago and have had so many games to play. There are a few I still want to get yet my backlog is huge. I'll be playing PS4 games on PS5 for quits some time at this rate 😂

[Fist4achin]

Exactly. The service games market is oversaturated. Id imagine a lot of their success lies in, "what are all of my friends playing" mentality. Instead of trying to pump out a similar product with a new shiny bow attached, the market has to give some time for the newness to wear off and then push a newer product that is improved or does something really different.

Im pretty happy sticking to my SP games and i sure have a backlog to keep chipping away.

[UltraNova]

Atom,

That's the power of Marketing generated hype.

Pubs spend millions in marketing their games before release so they can ensure maximum possible pre-orders and day 1 sales. This is especially true for "troubled" GaaS games where the publisher knows it might go sideways when reviews come out and word of mouth spreads.

They whole problem starts and ends with people getting sucked in the hype and pre-preodering. As long as they sell millions of copies up until day 1, make their development money back and then some, they wont care.

Hell, EA/Ubi/Activision must have knowingly doing this on purpose at this point. That is, announce a GaaS game then market the shit out of it with false promises and the usual BS and people will eat that shit up buy the game in the millions and even make a profit. Meanwhile if it flops who cares its not that they spend time, effort and money on a complete game full of content from the get go... no, its barren at launch because they "promised" a live service game remember? so that means a bare bones game at launch, if it's working its a bonus otherwise they can fix it "later" and if it bombs critically they can put it in hibernation until we forget it and move on.

Its a win win for publishers...all thanks to us.

[Einhander1971]

Long live the single player experience. Not the diluted MP stuff.

[IMissJimRyan]

The whole article is based on the author's perception of some specific releases. There are no numbers.

The day some of the major GaaS publishers say these grow less than SP games I start agreeing with the article. Until then, this is more desire than reality.

[Newmanator]

Agreed. $ earned/day for GaaS is lightyears ahead $ earned/day for Single Player games.
So if you look at it financially, the reverse is true for who is "thriving."

[rainslacker]

There are quite a few service based games which have failed miserably this gen compared to last gen where it seemed like everyone was demanding it, and every publisher was chasing after it.

But, with those types of games, you can have 10 failures, so long as you have one that hits it big. For the most part, there have always been 2-3 of these service based games dominating the market at one time, while the others were just trying to make a dent, or become the next big thing.

SP games are doing what they've always done, and I think the reason it seems like SP games are doing so much better is because there is less big ones being made compared to last gen. This leaves more room for them to get attention, and less competition for the players time and money

[FanboySpotter]

Isn't fortnite still doing crazy good?

[cochise313]

it's free

[FanboySpotter]

Microtransactions aren't. They generate billions of dollars for fortnite. There are still other non free games doing well. The headline is weird

[Sciurus_vulgaris]

Isn’t Borderlands 3 more of multiplayer player focuses co-op game? I don’t think it’s the best example to use for supporting the author’s opinion.

[Dragonscale]

Yeah but BL3 has a proper campaing, proper story, great progression, in game loot boxes without the usual scalping bullcrap and can be played entirely in single player. It's not really a gaas game tbh.

[dumahim]

More of? No. It can be played completely by yourself which I have done since launch. Online is the same game just with extra people.

[JEECE]

I think we need to start drawing a distinction between more traditional styled games that can be played cooperatively online (i.e. Borderlands) and semi MMO games that require you to be connected to a server even to play by yourself or with one friend (Division, Destiny). There is obviously a difference between having online features and being GAaS, and it isn't helpful to conflate the two.

[rainslacker]

They certainly do promote co-op MP in a big way in design. It's probably how they'd really like it to be played. But the game scales it's difficulty based on the team size, and the game is completely playable as a SP game.

BL is a real good example of GaaS done right, although it's more a traditional release model, with service models released after the fact.

[NeoGamer232]

To me, it is more about story centric vs. eSport centric games.

Story centric games are focused on the art. eSport games are competitive and focused on money.

[senorfartcushion]

Can we call them "story driven?" Calling them single player is alright and all, but Co-op games with story are still valued and something as blank as a training mode can be called single player.

[Hardiman]

Good SP games especially the ones that are narrative and character driven will always resonate. We as a species love story telling. Been doing it for thousands of years. Hell there's story's done in picture form in caves for gods sake. It's why we enjoy great movies, tv shows and even music. All because of good storytelling.

Another plus is as it pertains to SP games is that as long as you have the hardware and software you can play them 20 years from now. Games dependent on servers will not fare as well.

[AnubisG]

Oversaturation. There are too many live service games. How many can you actually play? One, maybe two at the time? However, single player games you can play for 1-3 weeks and move on tot he next and they will give you a better experience most of the time anyway.

[rainslacker]

I think SP has more potential to leave a lasting impression. I dont play MP games, but are people really still going on about how they were moved by the COD game that released two iterations ago, that they have since moved on from? You rarely see that with mp games, except maybe some MMOs. But. At any time, you can see people or the media bring up and talk about why they really liked a SP experience, and its can happen frequently, especially with the more popular titles.

[CYALTR]

The name of the site is "Only Single Player" so there may be some bias. I think both formats are doing just fine and there is no reason that they can't both be successful.

[Xaevi]

when updates and DLC were introduced last gen I had a pretty neat idea, and I think most did too. Personally I thought how cool it'd be if they kept adding more to a well made Spider-Man game through dlc. Unfortunately updates were instead used to fix a broken game later and DLC was used for 15 dollar map packs. Ff a gen later and developers finally had the same idea, but instead of making a good game and keeping it alive through updates, they make a bad game screw break the game further through updates, and screw people over with overpriced dlc with as little content as they can get away with. I think the idea is still great, but everyone's doing it wrong. Don't even bring up Fortnite, it might be a success but those overpriced digital costumes set a horrible standard

[rainslacker]

Kind of depends on which live service game one is citing. Some live service games are doing very well, even with typical player drop off that happens with natural attrition.

Not all live service games are doing well, and that's because there are too many of them as every publisher chases after the next big thing.

[PlayableGamez-]

These companies have unrealistic expectations out of us gamers when it comes to these live service games. They want us to pay 60$ for the base game, spend hundreds of dollars on MTs, and put hundreds of hours into the game. Having a few live service games isn't all that bad, but when the market is over saturated with these live service games, it becomes overwhelming to the point where we just don't want to buy them anymore. That is why single player games have been regaining popularity again because people have been craving authentic games that isn't trying to force more money out of us outside of buying the game.

PS: The quality of live service games have been abysmal. Especially with EA.

[KwietStorm_BLM]

I'd like to think that good games are thriving, while the ones with bad design and lack of content are not. There are some people who feel like single player games are the end-all be-all of gaming, and multiplayer or live service games are *all* a bad thing. I never subscribed to that closed minded ideal. The death of single player experiences are obviously greatly exaggerated, but I play good games where ever they come from. There's a place for everything when done well.

[W34KN35S]

the only reason this is happening is because the live action games that developers are making are low quality they are developing with money in mind and sacrificing quality. The single player cant rely on that for the most part , their only downfall atm seems to be microtransactions that take away from the game.

[sprinterboy]

@article
Who would have thought.

[EazyC]

T2 said the other day that the Outer Worlds is performing well above expectations -- that is fantastic news and augurs well for the viability of future single-player only games. Can't stand the live-service/MT model. Even the newest CoD has been decidedly tame in its MT approach...still,it's only in its first month yet.

[nibblo]

How about we just separate games into enjoyable games and not so enjoyable games. I don't even know if I am playing a GaaS or not half the time I just know whether it is good or not and that is the only thing that matters to me.

[Kaedro]

OMG! who would have though consumers would prefer single player games over LIVE SERVICES???/s

[Thundercat77]

I wonder what Phil Spencer would say about this since he said something about GaaS taking over and not single players.

I gotta say this is one of the reasons I like Death Stranding. I am playing my single player game while at the same time I am connected to thousand of gamers helping each other and seeing their actions in my world. Is amazing.

[SolidGamerX]

Good

[BlaqMagiq1]

As it should be

[1nsomniac]

Like everything else, the industry and the media will continue to bombard you with news of the opposite until it is accepted and they get what they want.

[toddybad]

That's because they're boring.

I want to play a game for a shortish period, with it being hand crafted to tell a story with purpose.

The problem with online services as games is that they try to keep people wedded to something purely to rinse them financially. Quality suffers as there isn't a pure story to be told, instead some sort of extended 'content' which will kill the industry if left unchecked.

[Nodoze]

Outer Worlds is absolutely fantastic. I went in with limited knowledge, and have been absolutely hooked. Great game. The soundtrack is other worldly. Day 1 Vinyl soundtrack purchase for me.

[SixFragz]

Rainbow Six Siege.

Nuff said.

[Juusterey]

You're hardly telling me that ea was wrong and out of touch?

[Phantom68]

Too many live services games and not enough good single player games. No surprises there. Sony is aware that single player games are the way to go hence the focus of their exclusives on single player. To think publishers thought single player was not on trend anymore (EA?). Even COD had to come back with a single player campaign after the stupid move last year to have no single player campaign.

[Realms]

There seems to be a huge casual gaming audience that doesn't really care or is even bothered by MT and GaaS. This is why many greedy publishers felt the need to try to make everyone of their titles with this model in mind. Looking at you EA. I get that there is a market for games like these but it's foolish to think that every developer should follow this trend specially if it's only motivated by their bottom line like EA.