- Feb 7, 2011
- 7,931
- 2,295
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Lufia Erim said:Now after all the kneejerk reactions. You guys need to realise something. What happens if this game sells just as well as or better than previous entries?
Hell they won't even need to sell as well as previous games, because ( depending on the sales/profit) of the money they'll have saved from removing singleplayer.
Think about that. Other publishers/ Devs may just think " Fuck it" why make a singleplayer game when multiplayer is where the money is?I hate to tell you this but we've long since reached that point. Games like the Division, Sea of Thieves, Fortnight, PUBG, Destiny, Overwatch are all pretty much Multiplayer centered or multiplayer only.Lufia Erim said:Now after all the kneejerk reactions. You guys need to realise something. What happens if this game sells just as well as or better than previous entries?
Hell they won't even need to sell as well as previous games, because ( depending on the sales/profit) of the money they'll have saved from removing singleplayer.
Think about that. Other publishers/ Devs may just think " Fuck it" why make a singleplayer game when multiplayer is where the money is?
This is the Perfect way to test this! Take a franchise that had both singleplayer and multiplayer, Remove one component ( in this case singleplayer) and compare the sales/profit made between the two!
This could set a very dangerous precedent!
But of course, why have actual discussion when " HURR DURR COD SUXOR" is way more popular.
And yet, Single player games still exist and some damn good ones come out each year. I'm not worried. As long as people want single player games, they will be made.
Dalisclock said:You missed my point. I mean actively, taking out singleplayer, from an established franchise that had both.Lufia Erim said:Now after all the kneejerk reactions. You guys need to realise something. What happens if this game sells just as well as or better than previous entries?
Hell they won't even need to sell as well as previous games, because ( depending on the sales/profit) of the money they'll have saved from removing singleplayer.
Think about that. Other publishers/ Devs may just think " Fuck it" why make a singleplayer game when multiplayer is where the money is?I hate to tell you this but we've long since reached that point. Games like the Division, Sea of Thieves, Fortnight, PUBG, Destiny, Overwatch are all pretty much Multiplayer centered or multiplayer only.Lufia Erim said:Now after all the kneejerk reactions. You guys need to realise something. What happens if this game sells just as well as or better than previous entries?
Hell they won't even need to sell as well as previous games, because ( depending on the sales/profit) of the money they'll have saved from removing singleplayer.
Think about that. Other publishers/ Devs may just think " Fuck it" why make a singleplayer game when multiplayer is where the money is?
This is the Perfect way to test this! Take a franchise that had both singleplayer and multiplayer, Remove one component ( in this case singleplayer) and compare the sales/profit made between the two!
This could set a very dangerous precedent!
But of course, why have actual discussion when " HURR DURR COD SUXOR" is way more popular.
And yet, Single player games still exist and some damn good ones come out each year. I'm not worried. As long as people want single player games, they will be made.
Singleplayer gsmes always existed. Multiplayer only games always existed. Then the industry tacked on Multiplayer to existing singleplayer games. Now they are removing the singleplayer. If this move is More beneficial, then single player will die.
People weren't worried about microtransactions when Horse armor became a thing. Look where we are at now. We need to be Proactive rather than reactive.
As For "As long as people want single player games, they will be made."
i don't believe this is true. As far as current trends go, people don't want singleplayer games. Wait let me rephrase that. Not as many people want singleplayer games as those who want multiplayer games.
Singleplayer games also cost more to make than Multiplayer games. So we have a situation where, Singleplayer games not only cost more but sell less than multiplayer games. What incentive does anyone have to make a singleplayer game?
People will still want to tell stories and people will always want to be part of stories. That concept will only die when humanity dies.Lufia Erim said:You missed my point. I mean actively, taking out singleplayer, from an established franchise that had both.
Singleplayer gsmes always existed. Multiplayer only games always existed. Then the industry tacked on Multiplayer to existing singleplayer games. Now they are removing the singleplayer. If this move is More beneficial, then single player will die.
People weren't worried about microtransactions when Horse armor became a thing. Look where we are at now. We need to be Proactive rather than reactive.
As For "As long as people want single player games, they will be made."
i don't believe this is true. As far as current trends go, people don't want singleplayer games. Wait let me rephrase that. Not as many people want singleplayer games as those who want multiplayer games.
Singleplayer games also cost more to make than Multiplayer games. So we have a situation where, Singleplayer games not only cost more but sell less than multiplayer games. What incentive does anyone have to make a singleplayer game?
Simple. People still want single-player games and people still want to make them. It's as simple as that. Not every developer subscribes to the "We must make all the money" philosophy of companies like EA. They make the kind of games they want to see made, not the ones that will make a million billion dollars.Lufia Erim said:Singleplayer games also cost more to make than Multiplayer games. So we have a situation where, Singleplayer games not only cost more but sell less than multiplayer games. What incentive does anyone have to make a singleplayer game?
Thing is though, Siege and Overwatch are based around a single core product that's added to over time. CoD has an annual release cycle. So, say CoD became multiplayer only, but still had the annual release cycles. Say if Black Ops 4 is multiplayer only, then Black Ops 5 is released three years later is also multiplayer only. So, how does that work? And on another note, where's the "call of duty" in participating in a last man standing scenario?Laggyteabag said:Frankly, im amazed that they didn't ditch the campaign sooner, given the success of multiplayer only games like Rainbow Six Siege and Overwatch, and the general luke-warm reception to the series' recent story outings.
I'm sorry, I was under the impression we were talking about Single Player games in general, not just FPSs. If we're only talking about FPS, I'll concede that CoD has been the only series to consistently have a decent SP campaign(though the last couple years haven't been particularly good).MC1980 said:Only CoD is making CoD quality campaigns. If CoD stops making them, nobody will pick up the slack. Battlefield got praised for their atrociously designed SP in BF1, and they'll double down on that. That's runner up. Nobody comes close after that. That's it, an entire style is just gone. Nobody picks up the slack for that. No other AAA in the running.Dalisclock said:Simple. People still want single-player games and people still want to make them. It's as simple as that. Not every developer subscribes to the "We must make all the money" philosophy of companies like EA. They make the kind of games they want to see made, not the ones that will make a million billion dollars.
Some people actually do it for the art, not pure profit. And again, I point out the fact that despite Mutiplayer games making tons of money, there are still lauded and profitable single player games coming out every year. Some years are leaner then others but there's still good stuff to find. Sometimes you just have to look a little further out and try something new.
Indies are even worse for this, creating a complex campaign is like garlic for vampires there. 70% of new FPS have the revolutionary idea of being MP only. I guess they were ahead of the curve.
But I thought you were a frog... 0_0captainsavvy said:I too am one of those unicorns
Yeah, I know exactly how you feel. Then again, the last game in the series I actually thought was good was Advanced Warfare(me and like 3 other people). I really wanted to like Infinite warfare but the fact Jon Snow(Sorry, can't remember his in-game name) was a shitty, forgettable villain and the "Heros" were madly clutching the idiot ball the entire time made it really hard to care. Talking about Sacrifice works a lot better when it isn't your rampant incompetence that is causing said sacrifices.captainsavvy said:I too am one of those unicorns that only played CoD for the single player campaigns.
All this has done has make it incredibly easy for me to decide whether or not to buy BLOPS4, and save myself a chunk of money that I can spend on another game.