Single-Player Games Are 'Finished'

Hers a little newsbit I came across.Thought I would share it and see your opinions.Here is part of the interview of the rest I will post a link with the interview.


Now, there's a rather depressing headline, wouldn't you say? But that's what certain reps of EA Games are saying, apparently. "It's not only about multiplayer, it's about being connected," says EA Games label president Frank Gibeau.

"It's one of my core cultural studio values to allow developers to decide more on what they want to build. And a studio's creative call needs to be balanced against a commercial imperative, and if you look at online these days - that's the place to be."

"I volunteer you to speak to EA's studio heads; they'll tell you the same thing," he continued. "They're very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay - be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services - as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you're out. I think that model is finished. Online is where the innovation, and the action, is at."

Well what do you think?

Heres a link
http://www.develop-online.net/features/1067/EAs-leap-of-faith

Well, noone here could deny that "connectivity" is not important to them, in general. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here.

Whether it belongs in your games, is another question...

He's not talking about the end of SP games; that's a misleading headline (not blaming you, I know it's carried over). He's talking about MP and co-op, but also about extending SP "life" through DLC. He's putting it a nice marketing spin on it, but he's just following the money. No more "fire-and-forget, packaged goods only." "Online is where the innovation, and the action [and the money], is at."

He's saying why build a product you can only charge once for, rather than something you can milk for years? Makes sense from an EA/business perspective.

But he's not saying "SP games are dead." He's saying no more SP games without lots of DLC they can charge you extra for, and a bunch of tacked-on MP modes you didn't want to begin with.

Well I for one am tired of seeing games with 5-10 hours single player campaigns tacked on a multiplayer game.

I am a bit older than most of you who frequent this site. I was an undergraduate student in college when the Atari 2600 came out. So, when I was a kid, there were no video games to play (arcades didn't exist yet); we played board and card games.

But there were some really annoying issues with board and card games. If you were in the mood to play a particular game, you had to find enough friends to play the game, hope they were all agreeable to playing that game, that they could be available to play all at the same time, and that all of them could commit to the necessary time to complete the game. Then you had to deal with all the arguments over the rules of the game, since people had their own interpretations of the rules or were used to using their own "house rules".

So, when video games came along, I was in heaven. I could play games whenever I wanted and for a duration of my own choosing.

That is why I find the trend toward multiplayer gaming a bit disheartening. I don't believe that single-player games are going away completely, but it does seem that the single-player component of games is receiving less and less love and care by developers and publishers.

I do realize that some of the complaints I lodged above against board games are alleviated somewhat by the online nature of multiplayer gaming, but a long term investment in a lengthy co-op campaign, for example, still requires players to be available at the same time and for the same duration.

Problem with online roleplaying is that most people are not roleplay-minded and playing with such people kills the immersion of the rpg. Also if you force yourself to play on rp rules while they ignore them youll just get your ass kicked.

Online gaming has it's place and purpose, but I've always prefered good singleplayer experience over multiplayer. Good storytelling is only possible in sp environment and I love to experience a good storyline. I don't belive that bioware for example can ever capture the same kotor feeling in their kotor mmo. To explore the unknown is something that mp games lack. Furthermore as the previous poster mentioned. Playing a role, immersing oneself into game is much harder in mp. I greatly enjoy good online gaming but deep thoughtfull gaming is nearly impossible unless you play with friends and other passionate gamers.

I must confess though that I lack the experience with MMORPGs, but I don't think that they are much differenct compared to other mp games. Naturally even I've played Ultima online, Everquest, LOTRO and WoW. Atleast those mmos don't differ much from action games in terms of players. Gameplay mechanics are different but people are more or less the same. (Although LOTRO playes were likely the nicest bunch i know ) Some of the action games i've played online regularely.

Quake 1 - Quakeworld team fortress mod, quake 2: action mod
Half-life 1 mods, Half-life 2 mods
AVP 1, AVP 2
Outlaws
Tribes 1, Tribes 2
Jedi knight 1 (yes on ms gaming zone back in the day..), jedi knight 2, Jedi Academy
RTCW, RTCW: Enemy territory
R6, R6: rogue spear, R6: Ravenshield

Well just to mention a few. Its not all bad. I have had great many games over the years. I've met online some of the most wonderfull people I know. I've been in clans and we have had dozens of real life meetings. We have shared joys and sorrow together. I've even gotten couple of good friends that way. So yes online gaming is a joy and it can change your life, but…

Then there is the downside. Sooner or later you'll realize that pub gaming is just meaningless. More you play, more you realize how things never change. Some people will always cheat or use lame ass tactics that ruin the fun for others. Some people don't want to even up the teams when they are clearly uneven. Then you have regular teamkillers, whiners and blockers, people who don't play for the objectives, people who just camp in their own base. Well the list goes on and on. Its just depressing how difficult it is to have a sensible game at times.

When your motivation is money, what you think about how games should be made is boring.

Anderson said:

He's not talking about the end of SP games; that's a misleading headline (not blaming you, I know it's carried over). He's talking about MP and co-op, but also about extending SP "life" through DLC. He's putting it a nice marketing spin on it, but he's just following the money. No more "fire-and-forget, packaged goods only." "Online is where the innovation, and the action [and the money], is at."

He's saying why build a product you can only charge once for, rather than something you can milk for years? Makes sense from an EA/business perspective.

But he's not saying "SP games are dead." He's saying no more SP games without lots of DLC they can charge you extra for, and a bunch of tacked-on MP modes you didn't want to begin with.

Click to expand...

Makes sense from a business perspective, not just "EA".

EA already follow this business plan with a lot of their games. Mirror's Edge had leaderboards for both the story maps and the extra time trials, Dragon Age: Origins had online character profiles, Mass Effect 2 gets in-game news feeds based on the game universe.

He's not talking about tacking multiplayer onto every game they make, but he's saying that he thinks that all single-player games will have some online component - A racer might have leaderboards and DLC, an RPG might get DLC and something else, a shooter would have online multiplayer - You get the idea. The lifespan of games they make will be extended in his eyes, as you won't just play it for 20hrs and then be done; You'll play it for 20hrs and if some DLC comes, you'll buy that and get X amount of hours from it, or you'll perhaps spend Y hours trying to climb the leaderboards.

I agree with him, to be honest. If you're playing Need for Speed and you're trying to climb the leaderboards, then your skill will increase if you play it long enough and you might even enjoy the game more. How is enjoying the game more a bad thing?

You're not forced to take advantage of these online components - I don't feel I have to be the best in the world at Mirror's Edge, but they're there if I want to use them. I don't have to have DLC for Game Y, but it's there if I want to buy it. Heck, with multiplayer for games, I don't have to play it but it's there if I want to.

Well, we'll see what happens.

For me singleplayer games is a form of meditation. It is my brain framed into a coded environment where I am in control over what I do even though I expect feedback from the environment. When I engage in this practice I am as interested in other people as a buddhist zen monk is during deep meditation.

It was when playing Star Wars Galaxies I lost my faith in humanity and built my nowadays conservative mindset. It opened up my eyes just how gruesome, animalistic, predative and vile humanity can be. All my expectations on the good of humanity was shattered at that moment and I haven't recovered since.

I understand the goal is to make money. This is very different goal from making a game, thus everything that can be associated with the essence of a "game" have been gradually removed. We are now expecting to see virtual environments that exploits social structures to make money, but these projects shouldn't be confused with games.

JemyM said:

For me singleplayer games is a form of meditation. It is my brain framed into a coded environment where I am in control over what I do even though I expect feedback from the environment. When I engage in this practice I am as interested in other people as a buddhist zen monk is during deep meditation.
.

Click to expand...

I remember seeing in TV japanese playing this game machine that had lots of small balls and they played them around in it. The idea behind the game was not explained but they said that the game had somkind of meditative/religious meaning to the japanese.

I believe that EA will be finished long before SP games

Couchpotato said:

"It's not only about multiplayer, it's about being connected," says EA Games label president Frank Gibeau.

Click to expand...

This is imho nothing but a mask/masking of "being connected = not pirated", because a "connected" pirate would be much easier to spot - and to eradicate.

they are - in my opinion - just using PR to make us all believe how "positive" online connections are - because - in their opinion, I assume, pirating = singleplayer.

Singleplayer pirates cannot be pursued. You just cannot go into the house of a pirate, search through his house, and find pirated games.

Connected pirates, however, can be easily spotted - through their "connections". And EA can revioke their connections/games at any time.

I predict for the future that he next step will be something built into the game's software enabling EA and others to de-install the game remotely - if they detect it to be a pirated copy.

Anderson said:

But he's not saying "SP games are dead." He's saying no more SP games without lots of DLC they can charge you extra for, and a bunch of tacked-on MP modes you didn't want to begin with.

Click to expand...

Good point, good point.

Necrosis said:

I don't believe that single-player games are going away completely, but it does seem that the single-player component of games is receiving less and less love and care by developers and publishers.

Click to expand...

This is what I'm saying/predicting for several years now.

The MP crowd was so loud in the forums they always got the attention.
And this is the result (among others).

JemyM said:

It was when playing Star Wars Galaxies I lost my faith in humanity and built my nowadays conservative mindset. It opened up my eyes just how gruesome, animalistic, predative and vile humanity can be. All my expectations on the good of humanity was shattered at that moment and I haven't recovered since.

Click to expand...

Wow. What happened, Jemy? An MMO caused you to lose faith in humanity? Was it how the players behaved was that so disturbing?

If I was meeting a few PKs, I'd lose my faith in humanity, too.

Or that horried story about horde members disrupting an online funeral in wow of a person which had died in RL.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

Or that horried story about horde members disrupting an online funeral in wow of a person which had died in RL.

Click to expand...

I remember hearing vaguely about that. Certainly not a nice thing to do, but I think it really comes down to an issue of blurring the line between real life and online life. The people taht disrupted it probably said "Who cares? It's a GAME!!!", while the people that were distrupted screamed "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND! This was our friend!!"

To some extent, they are both right. When online relationships replace real life ones, that is concerning (and I don't mean in terms like our message board here which is just a medium of communication), because there are no real societal rules.

Anderson said:

Wow. What happened, Jemy? An MMO caused you to lose faith in humanity? Was it how the players behaved was that so disturbing?

Click to expand...

It showed me how everything I had perceived as "good" and "just" had been completely mirrored. Brutalization, competition, ripping people apart, glorifying predators etc was celebrated and honored. People displaying compassion or care had received derogative terms like "carebear". The game really gave the term "sandbox" a whole new meaning, because people behaved like they were kids in a schoolyard, where bullying and physical force ruled without any inhabitations or signs of adult behavior.

I learned a lot from that experience and I got quite hardened in the process.

Alrik Fassbauer said:

If I was meeting a few PKs, I'd lose my faith in humanity, too. Or that horried story about horde members disrupting an online funeral in wow of a person which had died in RL.

Click to expand...

Well, yeah that is more brutal than seeing an in-game wedding getting trashed by PK's who then wen't on to boast about it on the forums.

blatantninja said:

When online relationships replace real life ones, that is concerning (and I don't mean in terms like our message board here which is just a medium of communication), because there are no real societal rules.

Click to expand...

Online cultures are similar to real-life cultures/societies. It's just that due to the limitations of the engine powerstructures are often built on learning how to exploit the game engine. Also real world societies have had 9000 years to evolve to the current standards and constitutions, one cannot expect a 5 year old game to mirror a such standard. What you have is a tribal barbarian society, usually made up by people who are misfits in the real world.

I think what is most sad... is that people have RL marriages / funerals inside WoW or other MMORPGS... they need to get a grip and realise there is a real world out there.