But here's the thing, if literally everyone leaves the single player market then there will be a vacuum with many craved customers, ready to open their wallets... at some point developers will realize doing their own thing is more profitable than following trends. I too am worried about the lower amount of AAA single player games, but there will always be a market so it won't ever be the case that we live in a dystopian future full of PUBG/Destiny/Overwatch clones.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are single-player AAA games on the way out?
- Thread starter Bronx-Man
- Start date
But here's the thing, if literally everyone leaves the single player market then there will be a vacuum with many craved customers, ready to open their wallets... at some point developers will realize doing their own thing is more profitable than following trends. I too am worried about the lower amount of AAA single player games, but there will always be a market so it won't ever be the case that we live in a dystopian future full of PUBG/Destiny/Overwatch clones.
Nier automata and persona are both 60 dollar games.
It's just hard for me to see. Breath of the Wild, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Nier: Automata, and Persona 5 have all found success this year. Personally I've probably put about 300 hours combined into those games and I've still got a lot more Zelda to play.
Then there's big single player games like South Park: Fractured But Whole, Assassin's Creed Origins, Wolfenstein II, and Super Mario Odyssey that either just came out or will be coming out in the next couple weeks so we don't have sales data there.
Also I'm not sure what counts strictly as AAA budget. From 2017 there's Nioh, Yakuza 0, Shadow of War, Uncharted Lost Legacy (admittedly made on a smaller budget than Uncharted 4) that all may feature some form of multiplayer, but have strong single player experiences that can stand on their own. People may not like some of those games and I'm not sure on whether all of those had AAA budgets, but I'm throwing them out there as examples. Games like Cuphead, Divinity Original Sin II, and Pyre are a few examples of other games with strong single player (that also have some multiplayer), but I'm guessing they weren't made on a huge AAA budget.
We've just had such a wealth of single player experiences this year (AAA or not) that it's hard for me to call any part of it 'dying', 'doomed', or 'on the way point'. Honestly, the issues with EA and this Star Wars game speaks more to me about internal problems in EA (first Star Wars 1313 and now this game) than it does about single player games in general. If EA can't figure out how to make a good single player focused Star Wars game with whatever budget they consider reasonable, then that's on them. I think based on the games released in 2017 alone, there are plenty of other developers/publishers out there willing to put out both small and big budget single player games of a high quality.
Then there's big single player games like South Park: Fractured But Whole, Assassin's Creed Origins, Wolfenstein II, and Super Mario Odyssey that either just came out or will be coming out in the next couple weeks so we don't have sales data there.
Also I'm not sure what counts strictly as AAA budget. From 2017 there's Nioh, Yakuza 0, Shadow of War, Uncharted Lost Legacy (admittedly made on a smaller budget than Uncharted 4) that all may feature some form of multiplayer, but have strong single player experiences that can stand on their own. People may not like some of those games and I'm not sure on whether all of those had AAA budgets, but I'm throwing them out there as examples. Games like Cuphead, Divinity Original Sin II, and Pyre are a few examples of other games with strong single player (that also have some multiplayer), but I'm guessing they weren't made on a huge AAA budget.
We've just had such a wealth of single player experiences this year (AAA or not) that it's hard for me to call any part of it 'dying', 'doomed', or 'on the way point'. Honestly, the issues with EA and this Star Wars game speaks more to me about internal problems in EA (first Star Wars 1313 and now this game) than it does about single player games in general. If EA can't figure out how to make a good single player focused Star Wars game with whatever budget they consider reasonable, then that's on them. I think based on the games released in 2017 alone, there are plenty of other developers/publishers out there willing to put out both small and big budget single player games of a high quality.
More_Badass
Member
Divinity isnt but the rest are.
Fbh
Member
I think we will see less of them but I don't think they will dissapear.
While there have been several bombs in recent years there have also been plenty of success stories like The Witcher 3, Horizon , MGSV, Nier, , etc.
Moving forward I think we will see more single player games staying closer to the lower end of AAA budgets (or mabye AA budgets). Stuff like Nier, Nioh, Yakuza, etc can be financialy successful without having to sell 8 million + copies because they don't have the crazy budgets and giant teams of the average EA or Ubisoft game.
While there have been several bombs in recent years there have also been plenty of success stories like The Witcher 3, Horizon , MGSV, Nier, , etc.
Moving forward I think we will see more single player games staying closer to the lower end of AAA budgets (or mabye AA budgets). Stuff like Nier, Nioh, Yakuza, etc can be financialy successful without having to sell 8 million + copies because they don't have the crazy budgets and giant teams of the average EA or Ubisoft game.
ScherzoPrime
Member
Here's my thought; are Single Player experiences and Games as Services really mutually exclusive? I remember Nirolak talking about how SE sees FFXV as an example of a GaS game, which I don't think is bad for the super-high budget end of things.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
That's because Square Enix is weird. When publishers like EA talk about GaaS, they're talking about online games, usually with some kind of in app purchases. Whether it be subscriptions, microtransactions, or lootboxes.
On sorting these games out, the Japanese games mentioned in this thread like Nioh, Nier, Yakuza 0, Persona, and Gravity Rush are certainly not AAA. They didn't need to sell 5-plus million copies to make a profit. Each of those games could afford to focus on a relatively small audience. They're like Japanese films compared to Hollywood summer blockbusters.
Sony's big first party games are also in a slightly different situation because they have two jobs: selling copies on their own and selling PlayStations. Uncharted also has plenty of service elements.
Nintendo's first party games probably don't cost quite as much to develop as one of EA's tent pole AAA games. Nintendo doesn't spend as much money on voice acting and super-realistic art assets. Nintendo also sells a far higher percentage of its copies at the original full price.
Lastly, Witcher 3 was developed in Poland, where the cost of living and thus labor costs are a lot lower than San Francisco.
That's what I'm wondering. Are publishers going to find a way to make compelling singleplayer service games? I feel that in order to do it, they would need to get away from the story campaign structure, and figure out singleplayer modes that are endlessly replayable like multiplayer. And I think indie developers and mobile developers are kind of already figuring that out.
Sony's big first party games are also in a slightly different situation because they have two jobs: selling copies on their own and selling PlayStations. Uncharted also has plenty of service elements.
Nintendo's first party games probably don't cost quite as much to develop as one of EA's tent pole AAA games. Nintendo doesn't spend as much money on voice acting and super-realistic art assets. Nintendo also sells a far higher percentage of its copies at the original full price.
Lastly, Witcher 3 was developed in Poland, where the cost of living and thus labor costs are a lot lower than San Francisco.
That's what I'm wondering. Are publishers going to find a way to make compelling singleplayer service games? I feel that in order to do it, they would need to get away from the story campaign structure, and figure out singleplayer modes that are endlessly replayable like multiplayer. And I think indie developers and mobile developers are kind of already figuring that out.
ArkhamFantasy
Member
They've been able to get away with just making them open worlds and getting 40+ hours out of the player.
I think the linear focused studios are going to have to get very creative, build their games like Zero Escape for instance, where you play the game once, and only get a chunk of the story, then you replay it in a different way making different choices and you get another chunk of the story, etc etc.
Turn a 10 hour game into a 40 hour game.
As budgets rise, I can see single-player focused games taking up less of the AAA space, and more service-based games because they continually generate revenue.
Still, I highly doubt AAA single-player focused games are leaving, because there is still a multi-million market for them, and devs can budget under 100 million to still deliver a high-fidelity experience.
Also this year alone: Horizon, Persona 5, Nioh, Nier: Automata, Mario+Rabbids, and Zelda: BoTW all sold well. Shadow of War even looks to be getting good traction, South Park: The Fractured but Whole will likely do good, and I'd be surprised if Mario Odyssey, AC: Origins and Wolfenstein 2 didn't all do well too.
Still, I highly doubt AAA single-player focused games are leaving, because there is still a multi-million market for them, and devs can budget under 100 million to still deliver a high-fidelity experience.
Also this year alone: Horizon, Persona 5, Nioh, Nier: Automata, Mario+Rabbids, and Zelda: BoTW all sold well. Shadow of War even looks to be getting good traction, South Park: The Fractured but Whole will likely do good, and I'd be surprised if Mario Odyssey, AC: Origins and Wolfenstein 2 didn't all do well too.
FreedomFighter
Member
If single-player AAA games are on their way out, then I'd live off of indies and the occasional single-player game.
I like to make progress in games and beat them. Multi-player lasts forever. And that's great for replay value but I like to beat a game and move on to the next one rather than sink so much time into Multi-player. So if this is the end to a decent amount of single player AAA games, then I won't be supporting those games nearly as much
I like to make progress in games and beat them. Multi-player lasts forever. And that's great for replay value but I like to beat a game and move on to the next one rather than sink so much time into Multi-player. So if this is the end to a decent amount of single player AAA games, then I won't be supporting those games nearly as much
texhnolyze
Banned
Sony got you covered
The fact that people keep bringing up the same single publisher (and Nintendo) over and over again proves that the genre is indeed dying.
We've had so many publishers cherishing single player games, but nowadays you can only cling to the console manufacturers (not including MS which is another issue).
JimmyRustler
Gold Member
Just what I was going to say. Thanks.
We'll see a dip in SP games until publishers realize that the shared world game market also has it's boundaries and then traverse back. Fine with me honestly. With the SP games than Sony and Nintendo will most certainly keep making + the countless games from 2017 and before I should be covered until SP games are back in full force.
Leafhopper
Banned
Sony got you covered
Why is Persona 5, Neir or Yakuza in this list?
I don't play MP games so I hope not...
Maybe they are less than in the past, but I don't need a SP to be AAA to like it... so I'm ok anyway...
Evil Within 2, Horizon, God of War, Wolfenstein 2, Detroit, Spiderman, Last of Us 2, Yakuza 6, Nier... I'm covered for some time just with these... games to come out and already out that I still have to play...
I'm not so worried actually. Not at all.
Maybe they are less than in the past, but I don't need a SP to be AAA to like it... so I'm ok anyway...
Evil Within 2, Horizon, God of War, Wolfenstein 2, Detroit, Spiderman, Last of Us 2, Yakuza 6, Nier... I'm covered for some time just with these... games to come out and already out that I still have to play...
I'm not so worried actually. Not at all.
Yui's Empire
Member
Linear single player experiences are very expensive to make, and due to their limited replayability they risk being sold off quick. Publishers want you to stay in for the long run, this much was clear from EA's comment on the whole Visceral situation. How to make players stay? For a while, it was tacked on multiplayer components: suddenly, single player experiences like Dead Space, Uncharted, Spec Ops: The Line, Tomb Raider could suddenly not go on without a multiplayer. In many cases people didn't care about it at all, but hey, guess it helped some people stick to their copy. Regular DLCs also helps with this: if there's a constant stream of content coming, free or otherwise, and you know it's coming, you might wanna hold onto your copy and possibly invest in it more. Lootboxes and microtransactions fall in the same spot.
But the thing is, how many pure linear single player experiences do you get nowadays? Uncharted has multiplayer. Zelda and Mario are basically open-world at this point, thus not linear. Wolf2 comes to mind. The Evil Within 2 is selling poorly. With the costs of making videogames today, making a linear experience that is over in 6-8 hours is hardly feasible, hence a lot of single player only games from last gen that faded into nothingness despite the fact they could have been great franchises: WET, Remember Me, Vanquish. Those that sticked around were either open world-ish (Arkham for example) or had multiplayer elements, if not both.
With the prices of games also declining rapidly after release, it is increasingly difficult to justify 60 USD, 70 EUR and so on on a game that lasts you 6-8 hours and has nothing beyond that. It costs shitton of money to make and people will not keep their copy but will likely fuel the used market which doesn't earn them much, unless they put in MTs and DLCs and hope for the best. It is what it is.
But the thing is, how many pure linear single player experiences do you get nowadays? Uncharted has multiplayer. Zelda and Mario are basically open-world at this point, thus not linear. Wolf2 comes to mind. The Evil Within 2 is selling poorly. With the costs of making videogames today, making a linear experience that is over in 6-8 hours is hardly feasible, hence a lot of single player only games from last gen that faded into nothingness despite the fact they could have been great franchises: WET, Remember Me, Vanquish. Those that sticked around were either open world-ish (Arkham for example) or had multiplayer elements, if not both.
With the prices of games also declining rapidly after release, it is increasingly difficult to justify 60 USD, 70 EUR and so on on a game that lasts you 6-8 hours and has nothing beyond that. It costs shitton of money to make and people will not keep their copy but will likely fuel the used market which doesn't earn them much, unless they put in MTs and DLCs and hope for the best. It is what it is.
I do kind of wonder if Sony and Nintendo will be the last men standing wrt AAA games that aren't multiplayer games as a service bullshit.
And I do wonder what it means for the industry. I mean where you have people devoting themselves to one 'service' like COD or FIFA or Destiny, just how many can the market bear. In a way it reminds me of the MMO market.
And I do wonder what it means for the industry. I mean where you have people devoting themselves to one 'service' like COD or FIFA or Destiny, just how many can the market bear. In a way it reminds me of the MMO market.
AHA-Lambda
Member
SP only AAA games are not going to disappear entirely so calling it dead or dying is a bit emotive, but there will be less, a lot less. And it's been happening for ages now.
Saying "ah but Sony/Nintendo" doesn't change that if you're relying heavily on the impetus of 2 publishers out of a whole industry to prove your point.
Price tag doesn't make something AAA, budget does
The lines of what makes something AAA nowadays is increasingly blurry (massive project TS like Destiny really should be called something else imo like AAA+) but certainly something like Persona 5 or Nier 2 would never have budgets like this cancelled/revamped Star Wars game from EA.
Saying "ah but Sony/Nintendo" doesn't change that if you're relying heavily on the impetus of 2 publishers out of a whole industry to prove your point.
Price tag doesn't make something AAA, budget does
The lines of what makes something AAA nowadays is increasingly blurry (massive project TS like Destiny really should be called something else imo like AAA+) but certainly something like Persona 5 or Nier 2 would never have budgets like this cancelled/revamped Star Wars game from EA.
Serious Sam
Member
Many people don't care about multiplayer at all. And for those who do care, how many of these endless always connected games does a person need? Usually multiplayer gamers play 2-3 games tops. So if each publisher has multiple always online games, there won't be enough people to play them all. We already see this as only a handful of always online MP focused games remain, while others are dead and forgotten forever.
If we count all games, including indies, and smaller publishers, then single player games overwhelm these always connected games by a big margin. There is a huge market for single player games. Saying single player games will die is as absurd as saying movies will die.
Because they're single player games?