Poll: Are Single Players now in the minority?

[rob_simple]

I know a lot of people are getting excited about the WiiU, but I must say when I first saw the demos at various conventions and the way that the big controller was used to alter the experience of other players I thought it was the most retarded thing I'd ever seen.

My first thought was, 'well that's great, conceptually, but most people don't have three friends at their disposal to come round whenever they want to play their new console.' Since then, I've been reading a lot about the console, mainly on Penny Arcade, and their extremely positive experiences with the WiiU is actually made it clear to me that the reason I think it's stupid is because it's not meant for people like me.

I never play online, and I'm the only one of my friends who plays video games so almost all of my video game experiences from the Mega Drive up until today have been solitary ones, and before now I always thought that single players were the most important aspect when designing a console but maybe that's not the case anymore? I was super pissed when Resident Evil five had forced co-op because I literally had no one to play it with and I know that the AI is useless; same goes for Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One

TL;DRSo, what do you say, Escapists: Are people who want to play games on their own now the weird ones, or is it a bit silly designing several aspects of your new console that can only be utilised when you can get a friend round to play with you? (I'm aware that the WiiU tablet thing has other functions outside of multiplayer)

Edit: Okay, I don't understand how my poll was confusing some people so I'll try and word it differently so your brains don't hurt.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

Pretty much all of the statistics on the matter show that if a game has any sort of single player element whatsoever, a vast majority of players will only ever play that. Even in games that are supposedly "all about the multiplayer", like Call of Duty or Diablo III, most players are spending most of their time in single player.

Now, there is a big misconception, even among publishers that should know better, that a game will only sell if it has multiplayer. This is because of the big success of things like World of Warcraft or Call of Duty, which are games that people apparently only play for multiplayer (although like I said, most people only play Call of Duty single player, and I'm willing to bet a vast majority of WoW players only do solo content). Thus, you have companies like EA or Take-Two trying to push multiplayer as hard as possible, even though it's not why most people play games.

That said, enough people do play multiplayer that it's not stupid to design features of a system around it. But if you don't utilize them at all, you are not part of an obscure minority that publishers shouldn't care about.

 

[TrevHead]

I think how many ppl play their games has vastly changed, other gamers I know IRL view SP outside racers or other replayable arcade games as something to plow through as fast as possible in easy mode, which they either swap, sell on or play the MP content.

Ie consume quickly then move on.

 

[rob_simple]

Pretty much all of the statistics on the matter show that if a game has any sort of single player element whatsoever, a vast majority of players will only ever play that. Even in games that are supposedly "all about the multiplayer", like Call of Duty or Diablo III, most players are spending most of their time in single player.

Now, there is a big misconception, even among publishers that should know better, that a game will only sell if it has multiplayer. This is because of the big success of things like World of Warcraft or Call of Duty, which are games that people apparently only play for multiplayer (although like I said, most people only play Call of Duty single player, and I'm willing to bet a vast majority of WoW players only do solo content). Thus, you have companies like EA or Take-Two trying to push multiplayer as hard as possible, even though it's not why most people play games.

That said, enough people do play multiplayer that it's not stupid to design features of a system around it. But if you don't utilize them at all, you are not part of an obscure minority that publishers shouldn't care about.

I agree, but about the statistics regarding people playing single player, I wasn't implying that it doesn't exist anymore or that people don't play it, but that there has been a shift in the majority of games --especially FPS's-- where, if a game has multiplayer features, then a lot more work will go into them, with the single player feeling tacked on and ancillary; like it's just there to appease people like me. For example, I only play CoD's campaign, and I do enjoy it, but it's short as hell compared to how long campaign modes used to be.

 

[ohnoitsabear]

I agree, but about the statistics regarding people playing single player, I wasn't implying that it doesn't exist anymore or that people don't play it, but that there has been a shift in the majority of games --especially FPS's-- where, if a game has multiplayer features, then a lot more work will go into them, with the single player feeling tacked on and ancillary; like it's just there to appease people like me. For example, I only play CoD's campaign, and I do enjoy it, but it's short as hell compared to how long campaign modes used to be.

I won't argue with you on that. I do think, though, that this isn't the result of publishers thinking multiplayer is more important, but that people generally only regularly play one multiplayer game at a time, and it takes a lot to win them over. And once a publisher does win them over, they now have the ability to milk the shit out of them with overpriced map packs, further increasing the motivation to get people playing multiplayer This, combined with the fact that people that only play single player are still shelling out sixty bucks for games with four hour campaigns, means that publishers are a lot more willing to invest in multiplayer over single player.

If you want to see change in this, I'm afraid that the only thing to do is to only buy games with good, meaty, single player campaigns that are well worth the price. They do exist, it's just a matter of finding them.

 

[rob_simple]

I won't argue with you on that. I do think, though, that this isn't the result of publishers thinking multiplayer is more important, but that people generally only regularly play one multiplayer game at a time, and it takes a lot to win them over. And once a publisher does win them over, they now have the ability to milk the shit out of them with overpriced map packs, further increasing the motivation to get people playing multiplayer This, combined with the fact that people that only play single player are still shelling out sixty bucks for games with four hour campaigns, means that publishers are a lot more willing to invest in multiplayer over single player.

If you want to see change in this, I'm afraid that the only thing to do is to only buy games with good, meaty, single player campaigns that are well worth the price. They do exist, it's just a matter of finding them.

Yeah, that sounds about right, to me. I'm finding the most enjoyment in PSN games, recently; the majority of them seem to still focus on single player. For the time being, anyway.

 

[aba1]

Honestly having local multiplayer is a huge selling point for me on games. I don't play online but I don't really have time to play games when I am not hanging out with friends anymore either so I find myself with less and less games to play with each passing yeas as local becomes less and less of a thing. So far this year the only game I am excited for is really borderlands 2 n that is because I can play with my gf

 

[rob_simple]

Honestly having local multiplayer is a huge selling point for me on games. I don't play online but I don't really have time to play games when I am not hanging out with friends anymore either so I find myself with less and less games to play with each passing yeas as local becomes less and less of a thing. So far this year the only game I am excited for is really borderlands 2 n that is because I can play with my gf

Yeah, totally. It's absolutely insane to me that if my one friend that does play video games comes to visit there's hardly any 2-player games we can play unless he brings his own PS3, TV and copy of the game.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

At the moment yes there is a emphasis on pushing multiplayer. But I feel that publishers will realise eventually that not all games released can have run away successful multiplayer experiences like COD/WOW/LOL and a balance will be met, because well keeping servers running for multiplayer when no one is playing is expensive.

Besides games like Arkham City, Skyrim and Deus Ex: Human Revolution all sold well so I imagine quality games for those who enjoy single player aren't going anywhere any time soon.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

It's 50/50 in my eyes. There are still plenty of single player games out there and most of the multiplayer games flop badly anyway. There is no reason why they can't do both...CoD has acceptable single player games and good multiplayer...there is no reason to trade one for the other. The developers are trying to make more money by alienating a large chunk of the playerbase...nah, that won't last long.

It's like a metal band that sells it soul for a few more dollars and loses all it's original fans that made it famous *points the finger at Machine Head* When it all fails they go back to what made them good and everyone is happy again *imperium*

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Despite the fact that most people only play single player, most developers focus so much on multiplayer like they had their brains removed. It's ridiculous. No one in their right mind is going to pass on a good game because it doesn't have multiplayer. That's insane.

 

[MetalMagpie]

No one in their right mind is going to pass on a good game because it doesn't have multiplayer. That's insane.

Tell that to the people commenting on Greenlight. "This needs multiplayer" is the most common request after "better graphics"!

 

[Artemis923]

I'm all for both, but not to the point where one is a detriment to the other.

 

[Overusedname]

Despite the fact that most people only play single player, most developers focus so much on multiplayer like they had their brains removed. It's ridiculous. No one in their right mind is going to pass on a good game because it doesn't have multiplayer. That's insane.

^This.

Look at how well nintendo's single player games sell. Mario Galaxy, both Wii Zeldas and Metroid prime 3 corruption all sold millions and millions with no multiplayer. Look at the original Bioshock and Portal. Colossal success, and very few players seemed to touch Bioshock 2's multiplayer. I don't get the logic of giving things like Dead Space multiplayer when there's no economic nor creative benefit from it. Often developers will say they didn't want to incorporate multiplayer, as it's often a huge waste of time, money and man-power. But preasure from the business end tell them that by virtue of CoD, Battlefield, New Super Mario Wii and Wii party games selling well, everything needs multiplayer. Blech. 'Follow the leader' indeed.

 

[ElPatron]

Poll isn't right.

Thread title mentions players, poll mentions developers. Many developers probably accept the "fact" that they must release multiplayers and therefore can't give the priority SP deserves. But I don't think solo players are the minority.

 

[Kyber]

all i have to say is WHERE ARE MY LOCAL HACK & SLASH MP GAMES LIKE CHAMPIONS OF NORRATH? Man i loved playing that with my brother, now there are like no Hack & Slash local Multiplayer games like there was on PS2.

 

[RN7]

Games that are straight up single-player, like Dishonored and Skyrim are becoming more of a rarity. Games that have single-player and multiplayer options are becoming more common, so as to appeal to both markets. This seems like a decent option in my opinion, because some weird people actually have those odd things called friends that they want to play with, while others could give many a fuck less about interacting, and much less playing, with other human beings.

 

[mental_looney]

Single player is what most people play it just seems like the focus is on multi as some developers/publishers think its a ways to extend the life of their game and get more money. It's hard to judge overall as there are still single player focused games and main single player games with a bit of multiplayer but the focus is still the single player.

 

[Twilight_guy]

No, probably not. Of course I'm not going to say that they can't design their console with aspects you can only use under certain circumstances. If I don't use the online part of my console I don't complain because they included it, if I only have one friend, I don't complain because my console has 4 controller plugs. They're adding features that you may or may not use. Complaining because you can't use them is kind of petty.

I'd like to see some sort of study on single player verse multiplayer playtime and a more detailed analysis of how many single-player, semi-single player, and multiplayer games there are, but until then I think everyone is talking out their ass when it comes to which one is more important or better.