[Nirolak]

As I promised earlier, here's the thread where I wanted to talk about Phil Roger's potentially controversial statement.

So, I was curious, do people agree with his sentiment, and why or why not?

Phil Rogers, CEO at Square Enix Europe. ... Socialize to survive Square Enix has really started to push its online and social presence in recent months, with growth in revenue and profit to show for it. Is the founding of Gameglobe, then, a sign that Square Enix is shifting its business to focus more on social gaming over console and retail gaming, or will its console efforts remain a key factor of the company? Says Rogers, "We're not seeing a shift to social games as such, but rather, the industry as a whole is realizing that all games, whether they be on console, PC or handheld, need to be social to survive. "There are, of course, many different aspects to online play, but we see social and collaborative play as something that players of all types are increasingly interested in," he explains. "But this isn't really new; I remember discussing the book Homo Ludens (The Playing Man) with our chief creative, Janos Flosser. I think the book was first published back in the 1930s, but Janos quoted from it like it was a headline from that day's newspaper -- that it's clear that creating social groups is an essential element of how humans 'play.' I think what you're seeing now is that realization: that all games are social and that's something that's driving our business for sure." "Now that's not to say this means we've got less emphasis over console or PC, boxed or download, handheld or online games -- triple-A PC and console titles are still a primary focus for us, so we would certainly see our work with social and collaborative gaming as an expansion to what we do, rather than a change in direction. Clearly, we believe our experience in crafting great games is something that will be of great benefit as we look at newer platforms."

Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/1..._Gameglobe.php

[ctrayne]

.

[DragonKnight]

The day I can no longer have a single player experience with a game is the day I stop gaming.


Edit: As long as single player does not suffer at the expense of multiplayer, i'm fine with this mentality

[Nirolak]

Note to Square: Do not fuck with Deus Ex or Thief as single-player experiences. Thanks.

Where have you been? :P

Resumes: Thief 4 Has Online, Is Using Unreal Engine 3, Other Info

[Emitan]

I will rely on smaller, indie studios for my single player games if this trend continues. Social is great, but I don't want it in every game and I'm sure many will use this as an excuse to use always online DRM to "preserve and enhance the social elements"

[Slair]

I have no idea how the whole "social features" shit in games these days is "needed" to survive? What does it really bring to the table? I avoid social shit in games like the plague, i play games to escape not to get tied to everyone whos ever added me on facebook.

Online play is different, some games are made for it and some aren't, shit multiplayer for the sake of multiplayer wont help your game survive.

[aidan]

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. I miss old Squaresoft and Enix. I miss old videogames.

[fluffydelusions]

[Meccanical]

This thread will be fun.

[Salvadora]

They can both co-exist.

[Emitan]

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. I miss old Squaresoft and Enix. I miss old videogames.

Dark Souls is social.

[Glix]

This is such fucking nonsense. Geez. Yeah, all those old FF's are worthless garbage. Stupid Single entity experiences.

[Zee-Row]

Maybe Final Fantasy Versus 13 will shift its development to Facebook.

[Orayn]

I think the real message we should take away isn't "FACEBOOK GAMES LOL," but that nearly all games, whether or not they include multiplayer, have some sort of social component to them.

We have OTs on GAF. We talk about our experiences with our friends. We get hype. 99% of the time, we share some aspect of how games make us think, feel, or act with others. This is very, very hard to deny, and it's to a developers' benefit if they want to further enable interaction between players, whether it's through the game itself or other channels.

This is such fucking nonsense. Geez. Yeah, all those old FF's are worthless garbage. Stupid Single entity experiences.

That's not the point at all, but okay.

[Kinyou]

Did Deus Ex HR sell well? If yes then they have no reason to force "social" into every game.

Seriously, if I should ever need to beg my facebook friends that they need to "help" me leveling up in a RPG, I'll quit gaming.

[Eusis]

"Social" is actually seeming kind of nebulous beyond the obvious (like Facebook games). You don't really even SEE much of that on consoles unless you count silly Twitter/Facebook integration, or perhaps the Souls games. Well, maybe there's achievements, but that's kind of frivolous.

Still, I don't think video games can be compared to traditional games in that regard, there is a general trend for social functions as a part of human nature, but not every single thing we do or want to do MUST be tied to those either. I sometime wonder too if this is actively a clash of extroverted and introverted mindsets, a lot of people (possibly the ones that say this more?) are really into socializing with other people and perhaps want this in everything they do, while others just find it exhausting to put it in as much as possible.

EDIT:

I think the real message behind we should take away isn't "FACEBOOK GAMES LOL," but that nearly all games, whether or not the include multiplayer, have some sort of social component to them. We have OTs on GAF. We talk about our experiences with our friends. We get hype. 99% of the time, we share some aspect of how games make us think, feel, or act with others. This is very, very hard to deny, and it's to a developers' benefit if they want to further enable interaction between players, whether it's through the game itself or other channels.

I wonder if this may be, in a sense, all that's REALLY needed. Forcing this on me will be exasperating unless done cleverly (Souls games), it's something I'll have to want to seek out.

[HyperBitHero]

But...why?

[Femmeworth]

I'd be okay with every game having leaderboards, but that's about it.

[sphinx]

I think is Bullshit if you ask me. Sure, I can understand that having all games being "social" and "multi" brings a lot of benefits for them as a company: monthly fees, effective anti-piracy measures and everlasting appeal, but games don't need the social component to deliver or even get an enhancement.

Business company bullshit.

[Withnail]

IIRC, Phil Harrison was saying the exact same thing about five years ago.

[Stumpokapow]

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. I miss old Squaresoft and Enix. I miss old videogames.

The great news is that there are probably more than a thousand excellent old videogames that you haven't played. And they're mostly quite cheap and easy to get. And since time has allowed thousands of people to write tons of articles and reviews about them, you won't be duped into buying something that's super crap. To say nothing of all the videos and screenshots out there.

[ronito]

You know, some people play games to get away from other people.

[Mutanthands]

Nope. I need my single player experience. I don't have the time or energy to schedule my playtime around my friends, with two kids and a wife. What little time I have.

[Coxy]

OF COURSE they jump on this bandwagon the very day all social gaming companies crash and burn, I guess being 6 years late is their thing now.

[TommyT]

The game needs to be social to survive... to survive what?

edit: Oh, they're saying that their (whichever company) needs to have some type of social aspect to their games so that they (the company) can survive. Right?

[Orayn]

I'd be okay if every game had leaderboards, but that's about it.

we need to go deeper.jpg

A leaderboard is just one way of connecting single player games to each other, but there are so many other ways it can be done. Think more along the lines of the aspects of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls that didn't directly involve co-op or combat with other players. There's a TON of uncharted territory there, but people aren't willing to open their minds to those possibilities because they're too busy recoiling in horror at the thought of all games being multiplayer-focused or on Facebook.

[Kusagari]

What if DQX bombs?

[laika09]

IIRC, Phil Harrison was saying the exact same thing about five years ago.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/02/21/ph...-social-gamin/

Yeah, basically.

[kurahador]

Versus becomes f2p mmo confirmed?

[aidan]

The great news is that there are probably more than a thousand excellent old videogames that you haven't played. And they're mostly quite cheap and easy to get. And since time has allowed thousands of people to write tons of articles and reviews about them, you won't be duped into buying something that's super crap. To say nothing of all the videos and screenshots out there.

Oh, I know. It's funny how, as I get older, I find myself just going back to earlier generations to find my gaming fix, despite owning all of the current gen consoles. I suppose a more apt way of putting it is, "I miss the old days of gaming." But as much of that could be attributed to nostalgia and fond childhood memories as the games themselves.

[greyshark]

The problem with traditional single player experiences is that you can easily rent a game like that, play through it once and never look at it again. In order to encourage gamers to actually buy and continually play their games developers have moved towards adding multi-player experiences. Look at the some of the most successful franchises out there like Call of Duty and Madden. Both games have yearly updates that continually get purchased, and it's because of the multi-player.

[Divvy]

Square should not be giving anyone advice.

[ctrayne]

.

[Tex117]

The day I can no longer have a single player experience with a game is the day I stop gaming.

Yup.

[Eusis]

I'd be okay if every game had leaderboards, but that's about it.

There is not one single feature EVERY GAME needs. Leaderboards are pretty high on the "potentially useless", especially in more modern games. Seriously, who needs them in many graphic adventures? More importantly, how can they be implanted to even make sense?

[Pie and Beans]

Demon's Souls ambient 'social' stuff was some of the most intelligent online stuff since console games first clambered online.

Dont think it was 'needed' to survive, but more non-obstructive stuff like that rather than TWEET THIS, GET HELP FROM YOUR FACEBOOK FRIENDS shit please.

[Deified Data]

This is dumb and will be proven wrong.

[injurai]

The dawn of a new era begins...

I'll jumping from the nearest open window...

[Wilsongt]

Everyone else: Square-Enix needs to learn how to properly develop a game within a particular time frame.

[Raptomex]

The day I can no longer have a single player experience with a game is the day I stop gaming.

Couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Torraz]

Let me put it like this: I would not have stuck so many years in WoW if I had not had the guild I had. I stuck around for the people not the gameplay (beginning during the first expansion). Finally the guild died after shrinking and I left.

That said, they better not kill off singleplayer experiences because that would prompt me to drastically reduce/stop gaming.

[Femmeworth]

we need to go deeper.jpg A leaderboard is just one way of connecting single player games to each other. Think more along the lines of the aspects of Demon's Souls and Dark Souls that didn't directly involve co-op or combat with other players.

I wouldn't mind if it was commonplace for RPGs to have a hint system like Demon's Souls.

There is not one single feature EVERY GAME needs. Leaderboards are pretty high on the "potentially useless", especially in more modern games. Seriously, who needs them in many graphic adventures? More importantly, how can they be implanted to even make sense?

True, but I was thinking more about future output from SE.

[Emitan]

This is dumb and will be proven wrong.

Everyone sure hates those D___ Souls games...

If you mean social in EVERY game, then I agree. But social features are very interesting and need to be explored further.

[greyshark]

There is not one single feature EVERY GAME needs. Leaderboards are pretty high on the "potentially useless", especially in more modern games. Seriously, who needs them in many graphic adventures? More importantly, how can they be implanted to even make sense?

The trophy/achievement system is essentially a giant leaderboard, and it's very popular.

[Orayn]

I wouldn't mind if it was commonplace for RPGs to have a hint system like Demon's Souls.

But hint systems and leaderboards are two implementations of the same idea. Who's to say that there aren't other, brilliant possibilities in the same ballpark?

[GillianSeed79]

Didn't Skyrim sell like 12 million copies?

Anyway, I'm not against social gaming per se, but I do get annoyed when it encroaches on traditional single player experiences like in the case of RE5 with forced co-op. I'm fine with optional multiplayer modes and co-op campaigns and I actually think the Demons Souls/Dark Souls online component was brilliant for a SP game.

Essentially, I fine with social gaming, but I just don't want to see single player die out because of it.

[ctrayne]

.

[RurouniZel]

Versus XIII GREE incoming.

[KorrZ]

If by social they mean Demon's/Dark Souls style community elements, then yes I do think it enhances the experience. Tacked on death match modes and co-op for no reason? Facebook/Twitter integration BS? No thank you.

[Ratchet]

I have no interest in social aspects in single player games.