Export thread

I came across this Kotaku article recently:
http://kotaku.com/#!5795355/valve-probably-done-with-single+player-games

It says a journalist claims to have heard the guys at Valve say they're not going to make single-player-only games any more, that any games they make will always include a multiplayer element.

Now, setting aside the fact that the "my friend heard from his friend" thing is hardly reliable, and that the vague "no more single-player-only games" statement doesn't exactly tell us much, the article says that there are signs that game companies (not just Valve) are focusing more on multiplayer. Why would this be the case? Do multiplayer games sell more, ie if a game is meant for two players then it'll sell more copies than if it's designed for just one?

I personally prefer single-player games to multiplayer. I don't own a console, and game exclusively on PC, but I even tend to play multiplayer-focused games such as L4D in their single-player modes. I like RPGs and strategy games and shooters with good storylines, which all tend to be single-player experiences. I would be disappointed if the future of gaming is multi-player.

There will always being single-player games simply from an economic standpoint; they're easier to program and have less bugs. Also, a game having a multiplayer elements doesn't mean a death to single-player--that could just as easily mean any FPS they make will have a deathmatch or co-op mode.

My standpoint is a matter of age and console. As a teen, I loved single-player games. In my early twenties, I would pretty much only play multi-player. Now I'm getting back to single-player because my wife likes watching the stories for games she finds too difficult to play. If my PC were up to snuff, I'd be playing multi games on it like L4D (and with other people).

I've actually heard a theory done from a psychological standpoint on this.

Apparently, games that have a multiplayer element are far less likely to be traded in or sold used because the person who bought them figures, at least subconsciously, that they might come back to the multiplayer someday. At least this was found to be the case after Bioshock was traded in SO many more times that Bioshock 2.

I like a lot of my games to have a multiplayer element of some kind, especially co-op, but far and away I play games single player more often.

If they made the single-player of games as high quality as was Bioshock's, I'd not trade them in. For my household, Bioshock is like a great movie, to be played and experienced once every few months. Some games have stories, others are stories.

But I think you have a point. I really don't play Smash Brothers Brawl, but I couldn't trade it because someday, I might want to go back to it. Though if a game is terrible, I have no reason to keep it either way. And if enough people have moved on from the multi-player, you're not getting it anyway. Example being Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Before PSN went down, barely anyone seemed to be playing it anymore. It took forever to get a game going. Which sucks, because Wanted is the superb kick that multi-player needed for me.

To be frank, I always preferred multiplayer games rather than single player games in most game genres simply because the replayability of the game can last for YEARS.

Great games don't really need a single player element but one is always appreciate no matter the length of the game. For example, Return to Castle Wolfenstein in 2002. I played that for years!

Assassin's Creed 2 is a great game but now that I have finished it and got my 100% completion will I ever play it again? I think not. Left4Dead 2 is what I feel is a good game, not great but it is the multiplayer aspect, the daily mutations, COOP, that makes the game stand time.

To me, COOP games have best value, other modes far less, far too many companies "throw-in" the MP mode with shitty "deathmatch" or "CTF" options that bore the shit out of me.

It's a shame that games like ME3 won't have any MP, nor will Skyrim but they'll be great single player games.

First off, there will ALWAYS be single-player only games. For instance, RPGs. Your NEVER going to see a JRPG with a compelling story that also has a multiplayer component. It's always one or the other.

Secondly... the proliferation of multiplayer in games in simply a symptom of the further "casualification" of the industry and the need to add another bullet point to the back of the box to justify the price. This is neither good nor bad, but tossing in a multiplayer mode is usually cheap enough to justify it.

I don't think single players will ever truly die. There are times where people want to play multiplayer and there are times people want to play single player. Maybe more single player games will have MP options.

Hmmm after playing Portal 2 single-player and experiencing all the great work that went into making one of the best single-player experiences out there, I would be surprised if Valve came out with any sort of official statement that they are dumping single-player for pure multiplayer games.

Then again I thought they would support Left4dead like TF2 and look how that turned out.

Gryfter said:

Hmmm after playing Portal 2 single-player and experiencing all the great work that went into making one of the best single-player experiences out there, I would be surprised if Valve came out with any sort of official statement that they are dumping single-player for pure multiplayer games.

Then again I thought they would support Left4dead like TF2 and look how that turned out.

Click to expand...

Left4Dead 2 has received enormous support, if not as much as TF2. Not only does it have it's own original campaigns, but it also has all the campaigns from Left 4 Dead 1, plus The Passing and The Sacrifice. This is on top of the free weekly Mutations and the upcoming community campaign Cold Stream. They also released the free 4-part comic that dealt with The Sacrifice and what exactly happens to everyone at the end of it. In fact, they are talking about doing a free Midnight Riders comic now too.

You can complain that they decided to charge for the engine upgrade instead of making it free, but you can't say they haven't been giving out lots of free stuff, and you can't really compare it to the cash-cow that TF2 is now. TF2 gets more updates because it brings in mad money via the Mann Co. Store.

I wish they would make more single-player games with replayability. I can't stand most multi-player experiances, as most people are dicks online. Even when I played MMO's, I tended to solo most of the time. Very rarely did I meet people who were enjoyable enough to play with.

Maybe that's why Halforums is one of the few places I commune with people on the net. For the most part, you guys are actually enjoyable to talk with.

bhamv3 said:

the guys at Valve say they're not going to make single-player-only games any more, that any games they make will always include a multiplayer element.

Click to expand...

Technically, all they're saying is that they are planning on including multiplayer elements or modes in all their future games. The statement doesn't at all suggest that they are getting rid of, or killing, the single player experience.

It seems like the journalist is simply trying to get on Digg by using sensational headlines, whereas the reality is far more mundane.

Valve has probably noticed that their multiplayer games sell more (because you enjoy the single player, you're more likely to get your friend to buy in so you can shoot them in the head) and the return on investment, once you've already created the art and levels for the single player game, is good enough to pursue.

Cheesy1 said:

I wish they would make more single-player games with replayability. I can't stand most multi-player experiances, as most people are dicks online. Even when I played MMO's, I tended to solo most of the time. Very rarely did I meet people who were enjoyable enough to play with.

Maybe that's why Halforums is one of the few places I commune with people on the net. For the most part, you guys are actually enjoyable to talk with.

Click to expand...

me too!!

But the engine is tough I think. I mean you would need a really good engine to "churn out" random quest that is not so generic or something. Also making multiple ending is nice (a la FF series) but I haven't encounter a single player that is re-playable more than 4-5 times. (the only game I play at LEAST 5 times is Resident Evil 4)

Chibibar said:

me too!!

But the engine is tough I think. I mean you would need a really good engine to "churn out" random quest that is not so generic or something. Also making multiple ending is nice (a la FF series) but I haven't encounter a single player that is re-playable more than 4-5 times. (the only game I play at LEAST 5 times is Resident Evil 4)

Click to expand...

Try Fallout: New Vegas. It's got 4 different endings, each of which requires a substantial investment to get.

AshburnerX said:

Try Fallout: New Vegas. It's got 4 different endings, each of which requires a substantial investment to get.

Click to expand...

but after that then what? then again, a simple game like L4D and L4D2 it is a lot of fun playing with others on the SAME scenario. Kinda like Playing StarCraft for like 10 years!!

Chibibar said:

but after that then what?

Click to expand...

Then there's the 4 DLC (one of which is coming out this month...)

But then again, I've gone back and replayed Oblivion, Morrowind, and Fallout 3 I don't know how many times... and I've already done New Vegas 5 times (one for each ending, once in Hardcore mode).

As Gusto mentioned, companies are starting to notice that with structured multiplayer games (i.e. games with ranking systems, group trophies/achievements, in-game challenges specifically designed for multiplayer, public bragging rights and strategizing), the customer lifetime value is *much* higher per game than it used to be. It's a different kind of video game design which is actually surprisingly like pre-video games (games designed around promoting group play).

The single-player game, as a principle of design, is really very new as a historical concept, and in retrospect it's not really surprising that everything we've learned about how to drive player interest and participation in single-player is now being applied, with even greater success, to many multiplayer games.

Keep in mind that half-life, considered to be an excellent single player game, also had multiplayer. And that multiplayer spawned some classics of it's own, like team fortress classic (started with quake) and counter strike.

I like having a choice. I have single player games when I'm not in the mood for "people". I have multi-player games when I'm in the mood for "noise". It just really depends on my mood. I'd hate to see one or the other gone for any reason.

It's gonna be interesting to see how Brink fares. It comes out tomorrow, and claims to seamlessly blend single player, co-op and competitive multiplayer in its campaign, complete with dynamic quest objectives.

Chibibar said:

but after that then what? then again, a simple game like L4D and L4D2 it is a lot of fun playing with others on the SAME scenario. Kinda like Playing StarCraft for like 10 years!!

Click to expand...

I'll tell you what, you get all 4 endings, then let us know your time played.

Frankie Williamson said:

I'll tell you what, you get all 4 endings, then let us know your time played.

Click to expand...

Seriously. Over the course of my 5 games, I must have hit around 70-80 hours. Then again, I was trying to get all the achievements...

I don't really worry about replayability in games anymore. Between Steam sales, the Humble Bundles, free titles and other sources of discount games, I've got a fair backlog of new games to get to. Back when I bought one to three new games a year at $50+ each, I really cared about replaying them. Now that I buy a half-dozen or more games at $2 - $50 each, and most around $10 - $20, I'm spending about the same amount of money, but getting a lot more fresh playtime.

Last year I got Red Faction: Guerrilla for $10 (or maybe $5). It took me 30+ hours to finish and I never even bothered with the multi-player portion. Single-player was amazing, but I might never replay it. It was good enough to run through again, but I've got a lot of games that were even better that I'd replay first (Batman: Arkham Asylum and Zelda: Twilight Princess), as well as the backlog of new stuff. In fact, I've avoided getting some of the longer single player games, precisely because I don't want to take the time to finish something like Oblivion.

So, when I come across a game I will likely never replay (Ghostbusters, Metro 2033, Darksiders, etc.), that doesn't bother me. Big deal. I already have lots of games in my collection I'd gladly replay a half-dozen times or more.

Also, claiming "multi-player features" gives the publisher an excuse to force a constant online connection in order to play. It's a lot harder to explain that "requirement" away in a game that only has single-player content.

--Patrick

PatrThom said:

Also, claiming "multi-player features" gives the publisher an excuse to force a constant online connection in order to play. It's a lot harder to explain that "requirement" away in a game that only has single-player content.

--Patrick

Click to expand...

I think this is the case. Also with multiplayer, it is easier to "phone home" to the server for multi-play AND anti-piracy check

AshburnerX said:

Seriously. Over the course of my 5 games, I must have hit around 70-80 hours. Then again, I was trying to get all the achievements...

Click to expand...

My first DA:O playthrough is already over 60 hours... and that's not counting reloading to see what the alternatives are like...

AshburnerX said:

Seriously. Over the course of my 5 games, I must have hit around 70-80 hours. Then again, I was trying to get all the achievements...

Click to expand...

Is that your actual time or estimated. Steam has taught me that my estimated time and actual time I've spent playing are two VERY different things.

I'm reading this thread and a certain TV add was playing, and the complaints got me wondering, could a system like eharmony be established to find your ideal multi-playing partner?

Frankie Williamson said:

Is that your actual time or estimated. Steam has taught me that my estimated time and actual time I've spent playing are two VERY different things.

Click to expand...

Your right, let me compare my saves. Just need to boot up my 360... OK, here we go.

Mysterious Stranger (Small Arms, Free New Vegas, Hardcore Mode): 19 hours
Courier (Melee Run, Mr. House): 36 Hours
Chaya Chaar (Small Arms, Caesar): 37 Hours
Dr. Ashburner (Energy Weapons, NCR): 49 Hours

Total Time? 141 hours. So my estimate was actually very, very low.

That's without ever finding every location or doing ever side quest. I did, however, get all the achievements.

I still need to do a Caesar run. I feel like I'm missing massive chunks of the game.

Frankie Williamson said:

I still need to do a Caesar run. I feel like I'm missing massive chunks of the game.

Click to expand...

My problem with doing a Caesar run is that it's REALLY hard to get support for him without boosting your karma really high. I fully intended for my character to be an axe crazy, evil bitch... but because of the help I needed to give the Boomers and some of the others, my karma was boosted high.

In other words, it's nigh impossible to get an evil ending unless you literally run into New Vegas and start killing everyone. Even after slaughtering ALL of the NCR Outposts and Camps, to the man, I was still in positive karma.