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

[nukethetuna]

I'm not really a fan of massive social integration with all the games I play. Steam already does it fairly well if you're looking for that. I don't need it to post "I played Shogun 2: Total War for 200 hours last week" on to my facebook as well.

Unless games are designed with the intent to allow a friend to hop in mid-way, as in it is essentially a single player game but you can add in some friends/help if you need/want, (Demon's Souls) I'm not particularly interested.

 

[Dogstile]

Gabe Newell clears up the situation by saying: "What we're trying to talk about is the fact that, not that we're not doing single-player games ... It's more that we think we have to work harder in the future, that entertainment is inherently increased in value by having it be social, by letting you play with your friends and recognizing that you're connected with other people. That's the thing we're trying to say."

No. No it isn't. At all.

Can someone please explain this thinking? What's wrong with a fully single-player experience?

He's not saying its wrong, he's saying its better.

Which plenty of people can agree with. Hell, me and my friends can sit down and play Fallout 3, a massively single player game, and enjoy it far more than if we were on our own.

 

[kebab4you]

"every gamer has a Facebook account"
I take offence on this... Facebook is crap anyway why would I want to use it? ...

 

[John Funk]

So, pretty much what we saw with StarCraft 2? A more thoroughly integrated Steam?

I'm actually fine with this. And for all the whining about OH NOES FACEBOOK, speaking of StarCraft 2, it actually worked great in that game as an optional feature to find real-life friends playing the game. It should never be mandatory, but what's wrong with giving players options?

 

[mjc0961]

every gamer has a Facebook account

Go ahead. Find my Facebook page and link it here. I dare you. Just bring some snacks because you're going to be looking for a long ass time. Eventually you'll realize that it doesn't exist because I don't have one.

Anyway, add all the "Single player plus" you want, as long as I can just ignore it and play my games like I normally do.

 

[Baresark]

I like single player games. As long as future games don't require integration with something like facebook, then it doesn't matter to me. The only reason I even have one is because my GF likes to be listed as in a relationship with someone who is on there.

Go for it, social integration isn't all bad. But don't fuck up the single player experience for us folks who don't get a chubby by blowing our friends faces off in Blops.

For the record, I don't see how you can integrate a multiplayer experience with a single player game and call it single player still, but I am not a game designer, nor do I feel the need to design games, so this isn't my area of expertise at all. I mean, Left4Dead 1 and 2 kind of did this, but the AI was downright retarded, so calling the game anything but multiplayer is really a fallacy in my opinion. Though, to be quite honest, the completely vague way he talks about this doesn't fill me with confidence.

 

[Xanthious]

So, pretty much what we saw with StarCraft 2? A more thoroughly integrated Steam?

I'm actually fine with this. And for all the whining about OH NOES FACEBOOK, speaking of StarCraft 2, it actually worked great in that game as an optional feature to find real-life friends playing the game. It should never be mandatory, but what's wrong with giving players options?

What's wrong is that changes like these are slowly but surely removing us further and further from the days of "insert disc, play game". If every developer out there decides to follow in Blizzard and Valve's footsteps then it won't be long before we are creating accounts on god knows how many social networks we want nothing to do with just to be able to play single player content.

As it is now for a PC gamer you have a Steam account, and Games for Windows account, a Ubisoft account, a Battle.net account. a whatever the hell EA calls their "social" network account, etc. If these were optional features I wouldn't ***** but they aren't. These "options" are becoming more and more mandatory. At this rate I think it's fair asking how long until there comes a AAA game that requires a Facebook account just to be able to play the damn thing.

In the end publishers and developers are forcing this on us slowly and every little change here and there is just another baby step towards going from "optional feature" to mandatory pain in the ass. If we don't put our feet down and rail against these "features" now before we know it it will be too late to do so.

 

[NickCaligo42]

I'm not convinced by the "everybody's got instant messaging/wants to stay connected" logic. I can see where he's coming from, but I don't see how adding features relating to these things is going to improve my experience in a single-player, story-driven space. :\ It just seems out of place, doesn't it? Almost like adding facebook features to a movie. I'll hold off final judgment until I see what the hell he has in mind, but in the meantime, as someone who hates being bothered on AIM and someone who only begrudgingly has a facebook account because nobody will reply to Email... juuuust not convinced.

 

[Sartan0]

"Every gamer has facebook account"

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

I strongly agree! I actually like single player games more then multi-player ones all things being equal. i don't need added social content mucking up my single player experience.

Understandably Valve is trying to create more "value" for Steam by adding social elements to their single player games moving forward. It makes sense for them.

However, focusing on Facebook and assuming everyone wants a portal between them and the internet is silly and misguided. Even if Steam hopes to be a similar portal for computer games.

 

[John Funk]

So, pretty much what we saw with StarCraft 2? A more thoroughly integrated Steam?

I'm actually fine with this. And for all the whining about OH NOES FACEBOOK, speaking of StarCraft 2, it actually worked great in that game as an optional feature to find real-life friends playing the game. It should never be mandatory, but what's wrong with giving players options?

What's wrong is that changes like these are slowly but surely removing us further and further from the days of "insert disc, play game". If every developer out there decides to follow in Blizzard and Valve's footsteps then it won't be long before we are creating accounts on god knows how many social networks we want nothing to do with just to be able to play single player content.

As it is now for a PC gamer you have a Steam account, and Games for Windows account, a Ubisoft account, a Battle.net account. a whatever the hell EA calls their "social" network account, etc. If these were optional features I wouldn't ***** but they aren't. These "options" are becoming more and more mandatory. At this rate I think it's fair asking how long until there comes a AAA game that requires a Facebook account just to be able to play the damn thing.

In the end publishers and developers are forcing this on us slowly and every little change here and there is just another baby step towards going from "optional feature" to mandatory pain in the ass. If we don't put our feet down and rail against these "features" now before we know it it will be too late to do so.

But these "features" can be actually very useful. I don't use Facebook much, but I do have some old high school and college friends on it. I linked my RealID to my Facebook page on a whim when it was added to StarCraft 2 - and found out that a bunch of my old buddies who I hadn't spoken to in years played SC2. Now we play team games together, and it's helped us reconnect.

That's an unambiguous plus. There IS good in these "Features," and refusing them entirely in the name of a slippery slope is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[SovietX]

Oh dear. Single Player is dying. We have all noticed the decline in the past few years. Single Player experiences are getting significantly shorter and weaker. Now we are going to have average experience with annoying shit heads running around while trying to enjoy the immersion.

Multiplayer is the social part of gaming because you interact with other players, Single Player isnt. Why must we have two? It just doesnt make any sense to me.

Also, Facebook intergration? Im sorry, piss off. Only about 4 of my Facebook friends are PC Gamers, only 3 know about Steam, only 2 use Steam. None of my other friends care about my gaming escapades (I have Facebook linked to PSN so when I get Trophys it posts it on my wall.) I dont care about their stupid parties and holidays. Why force it?

 

[Xanthious]

But these "features" can be actually very useful. I don't use Facebook much, but I do have some old high school and college friends on it. I linked my RealID to my Facebook page on a whim when it was added to StarCraft 2 - and found out that a bunch of my old buddies who I hadn't spoken to in years played SC2. Now we play team games together, and it's helped us reconnect.

That's an unambiguous plus. There IS good in these "Features," and refusing them entirely in the name of a slippery slope is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree, that's pretty damn handy. However, it's not so awesome for people that buy SC2 for the single player campaign. Those people still have to go through the headache of making a Battle.net account. Blizzard, while not forcing you to use Bnet, is pretty hamfisted about making sure you just get a barebones gaming experience if you don't.

I keep seeing more and more what used to be standard features of on most games being held hostage behind some gaming company's social network. Once upon a time you'd get X feature just for buying the game. Now, you still get X feature for fee but you just need to sign up and create an account. It doesn't seem horrible on the surface but it's not a far leap from that to something where you are required to join to even play the game or even worse something like what you see going on with Ubisoft and the always on DRM.

The bottom line is people should be able to buy the game and get a full single player experience without feeling forced to join some publishers social network or installing unnecessary software. No matter how you look at it we are moving further and further from that and that is a bad thing.

 

[TheRealCJ]

God no. I can't think of anything worse!

I play single player games because I HAVE no connected friends. I only have about 2 irl friends on Steam. The rest are either console players or aren't gamers.

Hell, I haven't even played the Portal 2 co-op yet, because my choices are that limited.

Dont get me wrong, I like multiplayer, but a multiplayer game where I can just dive right in and play, with having to "know somebody".

Wanna do Co-op with me?

Oh monkey! You've made me the happiest boy in the world!

 

[Nurb]

Gabe wheezes out bullshist about social gaming being most important, how all gamers have facebook and that everyone is connected, favoring multiplayer over single-player between bites of lard battered fried cheese

TRANSLATION: SOCIAL GAMING = DLC = MOAR MONEE

 

[Arcticflame]

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

And the technology was in the engine before prey. Assuming you even think development is enough to warrant creation, which in this case is seriously off the mark.

Not to mention that the style of how portals were used were radically different.

It's just so wrong to compare prey and portal, even aspects of them.

 

[Plurralbles]

"Every gamer has facebook account"

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

I agree. It's also something wrong with the entire world.

Really? Really? Your 12 year old customers have facebooks? That's STUPID.

Really? You're going to try to continue the monopoly on social media the facebook giant is starting- is starting- to enjoy?

Use the damn steam network, valve! All yoru customers already have it by definition!

 

[Harlief]

It'd be kind of cool if they brought back Shepherd as a playable character, and Barney too. Hell, a co-op campaign might shed some light on the origins of the characters considering that Barney talks.

 

[Alar]

I still think it's bullshit that they claimed the Defense of the Ancients name. 1.) The game that the map was originally played in wasn't even THEIR GAME, and 2.) The people who originally made the game have their own damn company now.

Seriously, Valve. That was pretty much a dick move... and I actually LIKE several of their games.

"Every gamer has facebook account"

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

I agree. It's also something wrong with the entire world.

Really? Really? Your 12 year old customers have facebooks? That's STUPID.

Really? You're going to try to continue the monopoly on social media the facebook giant is starting- is starting- to enjoy?

Use the damn steam network, valve! All yoru customers already have it by definition!

And yes, this. We have Steam, Valve. Let us use that! Unless you're afraid to put in the effort required to take its social aspect to the next level. If so, I call bullshit yet again.

Wooo DotA 2! About time they release this game.

They already did. It's called League of Legends, made by the ACTUAL MAKERS OF DOTA.

 

[mjc0961]

Well this is fun: http://www.gamefaqs.com/poll/index.html?poll=4332

And again, I just want to point out that I don't care how much "single player plus" a company does as long as it's optional.

 

[Bags159]

I still think it's bullshit that they claimed the Defense of the Ancients name. 1.) The game that the map was originally played in wasn't even THEIR GAME, and 2.) The people who originally made the game have their own damn company now.

Seriously, Valve. That was pretty much a dick move... and I actually LIKE several of their games.

Eul works at S2 Games? If he doesn't then your statement is wrong as he is the original creator of DoTA.

So, pretty much what we saw with StarCraft 2? A more thoroughly integrated Steam?

I'm actually fine with this. And for all the whining about OH NOES FACEBOOK, speaking of StarCraft 2, it actually worked great in that game as an optional feature to find real-life friends playing the game. It should never be mandatory, but what's wrong with giving players options?

If it's anything like SC2 this is quite true. I honestly forgot they added the optional FB integration because it's so subtle.

FAO: People claiming "not everyone has a FaceBook - I certainly don't" -- sure, you might not. But I don't know anyone personally who does not have a FaceBook account. I think it's safe to say that the majority of people do.