Newell: Valve to Replace Single-Player With "Single-Player Plus"

[ddq5]

every gamer has a Facebook account.

I don't have a Facebook! I deleted it because I hate people. All of my favorite games are purely single-player and to me, SP is inherently more compelling than multi-player. As far as the "social" aspect, I think he's missing the point. My friends and I play single-player games independently and the talk about them afterwards. There's nothing wrong with multi-player games, but it's just a little sad that Valve is taking this stance.

 

[Ris]

That didn't clear anything up for me at all. All I want to know is, are they going to continue making a single player game where I don't at some point have to rely on input from somebody else to complete my game?

Is it truly optional I guess is what I'm saying; or will it lead to things like Left 4 Dead 2, where you're given an illusion that you can complete it playing single player with bots, only to find that the final act is impossible to beat on your own (like The Sacrifice)?

 

[finiii]

What he says is true for me, even when playing a singleplayer game like oblivion, hl2 etc, I still can't help but talk to people about the game as I'm playing it or in breaks, It improves the game immensely for me.
Of course, that doesn't mean the social aspects they want to add will improve much for me, but I have faith in valve.

So they're ripping off Minions of Mirth now? First Prey and now this.

You realise narbacular drop predates prey, right?

Prey was in and out of development from 1995, and the portals were in from the start afaik.

 

[Dr. wonderful]

How about this Newell.

Just finish making Half-life 3 or episode 3 THEN you can do whatever you want.


Please? I'll send you a cake? 2 chocolate cakes?

 

[Norris IV]

I'm fine with multiplayer aspects that can be turned off/not interfere with the singleplayer, it's when they do that starts to annoy me

 

[General_Qwetch]

i see a problem with this!
who would want to play gordon freeman's sidekick if you can play as, gordon freeman !

 

[zehydra]

"Every gamer has facebook account"

That sentance is everything that's wrong with gaming today.

yeah, that sentence definitely rubbed me the wrong way. I'm not sure if this is what he means, but please don't turn your games into some kind of single-player game with some cheap farmville aspect slapped on.

 

[Woodsey]

I'm not sure Valve have the bull entirely by the horns here.

Sometimes I love to be in multiplayer games, but sometimes I like the solitude of a game like Tomb Raider or Peggle.

And Bookface? Cold day in hell before I go near that virus.

I don't have a facebook account.
And If I had one, I wouldn't want valve to touch it.
Just like I wouldn't want company XY to touch it.

So don't use the features...

AS for people bitching about everyone not having a FB account, it has a population twice that of the US, so chances are people do have it (when someone says "everyone", they're often not being literal).

He's not even talking about integrating with Facebook specifically, just that things and people are a lot more connected now.

And how on Earth did we get from what is essentially better community features to dumbing down games?

If they start making people 'like' them on Facebook to unlock trailers like other companies do, then yeah, be annoyed, but there's really nothing here for people to get pissy about.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

My GOD people... what the hell?

He said, pretty clearly, there will be "SINGLE-PLAYER"... not multi-player or Co-op, but SINGLE PLAYER!

What I believe he meant was further exploiting the steam interface so that it allow you to Integrate games and the social platform they provide. This is distinct from the current setup in that its not just a glorified DRM with bonus game cataloguing and friends list.

Things like Time trial ladders in Single player, or achievement hunts... and of course, extra Co-op and competitive features.

The single player will be there, standing on its own legs, supporting its own weight... but will have a fully integrate social system that you can choose to embrace or ignore.

Jesus... say boo on this forum and people think you killed all their most loved relatives.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

Yea, because facebook made Starcraft 2 SOOOOOO much better.

 

[messy]

"Every gamer has facebook account"

That sentance is everything that's wrong with gaming today.

Quite a large number do though, and I wouldn't say that anything is "wrong" with gaming just that is changing. I imagine if you don't have a FB account it won't effect your experience massively.

 

[gunner1905]

I trust valve to make a good game, so I don't really care what they do.
if their next game is shitty (because of the social thing or anything else) then I'll just won't buy it
Simples

 

[danhere]

Personally, don't have a Facebook. Just sayin', Gabe.

By increasing people's reliance on Facebook, Valve is just increasing Facebook's lifespan. Like Myspace, Facebook will one day die, as people (oh, how fickle they are) will move on to something more new and more innovative. However, Facebook is already surely to last longer than Myspace, since almost everything on the internet is somehow connected to it. Unfortunately, this will just create an inconsistency down the line where this "single-player plus" will be connected to an obsolete system no one can take advantage of; at this point, it will just be "single-player" again.

Steam has its own networking thing as it is. It has the instant messenger and a place to comment on your friends. Instead of riding the coattails of a social network, Valve needs to work on increasing the pervasiveness of their own system. And surely as hell, Valve is probably the only company with the ability to succeed with this. The only problem here is that they will then be a game developer, a digital distributor, and a significantly large social network. Good for them, but bad for competition.

 

[HerbertTheHamster]

hahaha oh wow

this is why episode 3 will never get made

 

[elilupe]

I play games as a form of escapism, and if it is a single-player game, I want to be concentrated on that and that alone, no friends bothering me about it constantly. If there is an option in a game to play a co-op campaign with friends, I will always choose to go it single player first, and then maybe co-op after I finish that.

 

[ThreeKneeNick]

I think i hate the future. In general, this is just a little bit of bonus icing. There are things single player is good at, and there are things multiplayer is good at, but the two can't mix. Single player games don't need social features. Lets face it, facebook and other networks aren't about sharing. From the point of view of the companies who want to employ it, facebook is about free viral advertising and data mining. If they just said so i might be inclined to shrug and let it go.