Why is the Western AAA game industry stagnating?

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I’m pretty sure some of you have seen this tweet

This got me thinking about how much it feels like the AAA Western game industry seems to be somewhat lagging behind. I wanted to do this thought experiment to figure out why?

Before we start, keep in mind that when I say this I don’t mean that all Western AAA Games are bad right now. Last year we had Half-Life: Alyx and Sony Western division of games has been continuously knocking it out of the park with games like Spiderman or Ghost of Tsushima and also this year's recently released Doom Eternal. But besides those games, I can't think of any other AAA Western Games that weren't at the least controversial last year and so far this year. Also, this analysis does not include smaller Developed games or AAA Japanese games which I honestly think are killing it right now compared to the Western AAA industry

I’ve compiled a few reasons I think we got to this state.

1. Micro-transactions(but not in the way you think): I’m not here to discuss the morality of the practice but it has undoubtedly made gaming companies lazier. Before then they could only make money from selling the game and maybe some DLC campaign But now they can leech off profits of one successful game for years, Grand theft auto 5 is probably one of the worst examples of this in the gaming industry. It has been eight years since then and we have not even got a hint of the new Grand theft auto game. You may point out that the Japanese industry also has a problem with micro-transactions, well Micro-transactions in AAA Japan games have mostly been DLC campaigns, and 25 selectable costumes to give to your character as of late. Some of the most egregious stuff has mostly stayed in mobile spinoffs games that are hardly imported to the West and have stayed out of the AAA industry there. This leads on to my second point

1. Relies too much on multiplayer: This is a point that connects heavily to the first one. The AAA industry in the West has relied massively on multiplayer games which are incredibly safe to invest in if you know it’s a hit. Why waste time thinking of an original idea or a sequel if you can just make a map pack or some skins for an already successful game. Valve is one of the studios that was hit hardest with this, they have a safety net with their store and their loot crate that you need to buy money to open. They don't need to worry about developing a new game. Half-Life: Alyx shows that there is still a spark but time will tell if it will last. AAA Japanese companies have not relied as much upon multiplayer with once again mobile games taking that niche and as such are forced to not be as complacent on one game

1. Death of the single-player game: Big AAA companies have cared much less about single-player games, Only the Western division of Sony and Bethesda seems to primarily focus on single-player AAA gaming experiences right now, multiplayer is the primary concern of most other AAA developers in the West now and this has alienated many gamers who are not as interested in multiplayer or can only play so many multiplayer games.

1. Development costs are just too high: The reason why a lot of Western developers have fallen into the last three points I mentioned is simply game development is becoming more costly and micro-transaction multiplayer games are a much safer bet to recoup your costs.

TLDR: Western AAA gaming has become stagnant because of its overreliance on Multiplayer Micro-transaction games caused by increased costs of gaming with Western developers wanting to play it more save with easy money.

So do you guys think I have a point or am I dumb

 

[Satinavian]

What is "Western" and what is "AAA" ?

I don't do multiplayer but is still remember a couple of huge successes from the last years that seam to fit. Total War Warhammer (I+II) for example. There are also enough developers and publishers quite active in single player games and i don't think Paradox has ever been as big and successfull as it is now (also EU4 is one of the best games ever). CDPR failed with Cyberpunk but not because of multiplayer or microtransation or development cost.

Developers and publishers come and go. Just because yesteryears champions can't repeat their success does not mean the industry is going down.

 

[BrawlMan]

1. You are correct. But once again, most these companies ain't hurting for cash, they're just greedy and lazy. They don't want to even do the bare minimum as much anymore.
2. This has been a problem since 7th generation. Where everyone was trying to ape Call Of Duty Or Gears Of War. It only got worse from there...
3. When every douchebag AAA and their parrot fan bases were claiming single players are dead. Which is BS, they just don't make all the money in the world.
4. Both yes and no. Games are cheaper to make in most circumstances, but it's a case of them making excuses and always overpricing on crap. Most of these $60 games are shell prices they relying on all the DLC or multiple "upgrade/deluxe/suck our genitals" editions. Now, a lot of companies are going to start charging $70 for new games as the new standards. They do it because they can. Not because they're more expensive.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

What is "Western" and what is "AAA" ?

I don't do multiplayer but is still remember a couple of huge successes from the last years that seam to fit. Total War Warhammer (I+II) for example. There are also enough developers and publishers quite active in single player games and i don't think Paradox has ever been as big and successfull as it is now (also EU4 is one of the best games ever). CDPR failed with Cyberpunk but not because of multiplayer or microtransation or development cost.

Developers and publishers come and go. Just because yesteryears champions can't repeat their success does not mean the industry is going down.

I see Paradox as a AA studio, they don't make big-budget games on the scale of Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty so I don't count them in this analysis. Don't know much about Total War: Warhammer so I don't know if it's a AAA game or not.

Independent and AA developers have certainly been going strong I'm just exclusively talking about the blockbuster games.

1. You are correct. But once again, most these companies ain't hurting for cash, they're just greedy and lazy. They don't want to even do the bare minimum as much anymore.
2. This has been a problem since 7th generation. Where everyone was trying to ape Call Of Duty Or Gears Of War. It only got worse from there...
3. When every douchebag AAA and their parrot fan bases were claiming single players are dead. Which is blue they just don't make all the money in the world.
4. Both yes and no. Games are cheaper to make in most circumstances, but it's a case of them making excuses and always overpricing on crap. Most of these $60 games are shell prices they relying on all the DLC or multiple "upgrade/deluxe/suck our genitals" editions. Now, always companies are going to start charging $70 for new games as the new standards. They do it because they can. Not because they're more expensive.

I'm not justifying their actions I'm just stating why they are at this point they are now, they are being lazier but also safer for companies so they tend to go in that direction.

 

[BrawlMan]

I'm not justifying their actions I'm just stating why they are at this point they are now, they are being lazier but also safer for companies so they tend to go in that direction.

I know you are not, this is just me pointing out the problems with most western AAA developers.

 

[Satinavian]

Meh, as someone very lukewarm on shooters and basically doing no multiplayer (and never having owned a console), i really don't see any recent shift to microtransactions.

As for multiplayer itself and the often reported death of the sigle player experience, the very same people did say that nonsense already 15 years ago, when WoW started to get big. Didn't happen then, doesn't happen now.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

1. You are correct. But once again, most these companies ain't hurting for cash, they're just greedy and lazy. They don't want to even do the bare minimum as much anymore.

I feel like this also misses the actual problem too. I think the issue is that to make a lot of these games like Cyberpunk the way they envision DOES in fact require a gigantic budget. The issue is that I think that kind of game isn't needed and is counterproductive. Western devs in the AAA scene seem to have gotten stuck on the idea that everything needs to be solved with brute force and horsepower.

It's like... In Mario Galaxy there's a fuzzy spider enemy that I thought looked really cool with how it's hair physics moved but then many years later I learned from Boundary Break that it's actually a bunch of flat textures layered in such a way as to make it look like really good hair physics. Big western companies have become much more unwilling to resort to those kind of methods that require ingenuity.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I see it as more a case of the industry as a whole (including indie developers to a certain extent) as resting on their laurels. The AAA market is, and will continue to be to the foreseeable future, saturated with derivative guff with literally zero innovation purely because publishers want safe profits. A new idea is a risk... and a potentially very expensive one at that. Investors can't have that ruining their day (whether it actually does or not, they don't want to worry about it at all), when developers have all the tools and assets at their disposal to make something serviceable to turn a quick buck on release day. As many have opined, it's an industry that exists to make investors/directors money first with entertaining the masses as a goal coming in a very distant second.

I see Paradox as a AA studio, they don't make big-budget games on the scale of Assassin's Creed or Call of Duty so I don't count them in this analysis. Don't know much about Total War: Warhammer so I don't know if it's a AAA game or not.

Creative Assembly, the developers for the Total War franchise, are much the same as the division of Paradox that deals with the 4X/grand strategy games. I'd peg them as an AA company as well owing to their niche market appeal (TBS/RTS hybrid games) that are exclusive to PC. You could almost even call Alien: Isolation a high budget indie game as a result.

 

[BrawlMan]

for multiplayer itself and the often reported death of the sigle player experience, the very same people did say that nonsense already 15 years ago, when WoW started to get big. Didn't happen then, doesn't happen now.

That's a problem with a lot of these big shots, they're overly defensive fan base is, and parrot media outlets. They're just greedy people who feel that single player or non-competitive multiplayer games are dead, because they don't make them all the money in the entire universe. You won't believe how many times game journalist love saying how brawlers were dead and not coming back. Or they do not deserve to be played anymore. Or how they can only survive if they're a Devil May Cry or God of War clone. A load of her bullshit. There was always a market for it, most publishers and developers are lazy to put in the effort for it, or felt it wasn't worth the money because of shallow reasons.


Xbox live arcade, psn, Wiiware and eshop, and steam pretty much picked up the slack. Slowly, more old school brawlers came out. So eventually, the genre entered a new golden age starting around 2016.

 

[Chimpzy]

My hot take.

It's because the primary purpose and priority of basically all major AAA publishers is not making games. It's creating value. Not for the consumer. For the shareholder.

So anything that might represent a risk to shareholders receiving their dividends is reduced as much as possible (if not excised entirely), while ensuring those dividends are a large as possible, by the MBAs brought in to run these companies after the original founders left in frustration. Even tho those MBAs knew nothing of game development and still don't, but they do know how to please shareholders. Meanwhile, production costs balloon with the need for bigger teams and new expensive technology, because they keep hyping the consumer up for bigger and shinier games, so those consumer start demanding bigger and shinier games, creating this vicious hype cycle of bigger and shinier since apparently no one has figured out how to market games with anything other than bigger and shinier.

So, bigger and shinier is expensive. Expensive is risky. Creative is also risky. Can't have both expensive and creative. That's two risk factors. Too hard a sell to the MBAs and their shareholder customers. Solution if you're a studio looking to get a new game greenlit? Use what already worked. Not creative, but you know, gotta put food on the table. Bigger and shinier then. It's expensive, but at least MBAs and shareholders understand expensive i.e. bigger and shinier. With a little luck you can sneak in a little creativity here and there. Unless of course, you maybe also present them with that alternative means of making extra money off your game you learned about when you or your own MBAs did that seminar on monetization.

Which is of course why all the AAA bullshit like microtransactions and lootboxes and whatnot came into being. They've put a lot of effort into convincing us those are acceptable. Successfully, I might add. Who else remembers how a lot of people were miffed Bethesda had the gall to ask money for a cosmetic for Oblivion? I do. But I'm a dinosaur. There's already a whole new generation for whom bullshit is the norm. And it'll get worse. Remember when EA's John Riccitiello considered charging for bullets? I do, and I assure you he wasn't joking. He absolutely would have. It would've just been to much too soon. But will that always be the case?

Also, I wouldn't really hold up Eastern AAA as meaningfully different from the West in terms of innovation. It's not like they're breaking a whole lot of new ground either. Not that I mean to say they never try anything new, but the vast majority of their output is iterations on franchises from the PS2 era or older, often with gameplay that is still largely the same. They're just bigger and shinier. Like, the biggest innovation in say, Resident Evil, was cribbing gameplay from a Western indie game from almost decade earlier. But, Demon's Souls! Yeah, also already 10+ years old. They are overall perhaps a little less prone to AAA bullshit. Then again, there is gacha, the most heinous of mtx lootbox gambling preying on fomo bullshit. Looking forward to when that starts becoming common in AAA.

All in all, I'd say the AAA industry, Western or Eastern, has little to no incentive to innovate. Or rather, it does, but in better monetization.

Which is very much not the same as better games.

 

[wings012]

On point 4, costs have increased. As a 3D artist myself, assets now are far harder to make than they were 10 years ago. They are simply more complex and take more time. Yes there's been software improvements that do make certain tasks easier, but none the less. A lot more work went into the 3D assets of Halo 3 as opposed to Halo 1. That is more time and effort, and thus money. Meanwhile game prices more or less remain the same, and there's more inflation. I don't agree with how corporate game development has gotten, but all this one sided hating on the devs is a bit much.

There can be ways to cheaply make games by buying premade assets, but there goes your quality. And those can only fill in the gaps for really generic common stuff, you're not going to be able to build something with a lot of bespoke designs with generics. Studios with the tech can cut down on manually creating assets with photogrammetry and stuff, but work and tech is still required. Overall eh, as far as 3D assets are concerned - they cost more man hours to make and thus more money.

On the topic of Bethesda, I think that tweet is a bit eh. It'd be a point to raise if all they are doing is Elder Scrolls - but they've clearly picked up other projects along the way. They've got Fallout, and now they got Starfield. While I'm not sure Bethesda Game Studios itself has particularly grown significantly enough to run parallel development on their flagship titles. So no shit it's taking a long time to get the next Elder Scrolls out. We've also gone to the point where everything has to be voiced, whereas back in the days of Morrowind - you could just go eh fuckit and players were happy to read blocks of text.

Anyway I don't think Western AAA development in particular is stagnating - it all is. What big breakthroughs have Eastern companies even gone through as of late?

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Also, I wouldn't really hold up Eastern AAA as meaningfully different from the West in terms of innovation. It's not like they're breaking a whole lot of new ground either. Not that I mean to say they never try anything new, but the vast majority of their output is iterations on franchises from the PS2 era or older, often with gameplay that is still largely the same. They're just bigger and shinier. Like, the biggest innovation in say, Resident Evil, was cribbing gameplay from a Western indie game from almost decade earlier. But, Demon's Souls! Yeah, also already 10+ years old. They are overall perhaps a little less prone to AAA bullshit. Then again, there is gacha, the most heinous of mtx lootbox gambling preying on fomo bullshit. Looking forward to when that starts becoming common in AAA.

I disagree with you a little bit on that. Japanese games were actually in a rut for a while with them trying to reclaim the Western market from the new Western developers by copy them and also playing it extremely safe but that backfired and for a while, Japanese games were not doing so hot. Recently I would say companies like Capcom, Nintendo, and Square Enix have started revitalizing themself in addition RPG are becoming increasingly popular here and have gotten much critical acclaim. I feel like they are recently doing well now is because how badly they been doing for a while, unlike Western AAA developers they didn't have a sick cash cow they could milk, it was sink or swim and they chose to swim. As for the Gacha game thing, I think it's not as easy to put that system in a AAA Japanese game because they don't rely on multiplayer as much but I'm with you how scared I am the Japanese developers start putting that system into their games.

It's like... In Mario Galaxy there's a fuzzy spider enemy that I thought looked really cool with how it's hair physics moved but then many years later I learned from Boundary Break that it's actually a bunch of flat textures layered in such a way as to make it look like really good hair physics. Big western companies have become much more unwilling to resort to those kind of methods that require ingenuity.

I always love hearing about stuff like that game development. That's a really good point that the industry has a habit of just throwing money at development instead of doing a cheaper option.

On point 4, costs have increased. As a 3D artist myself, assets now are far harder to make than they were 10 years ago. They are simply more complex and take more time. Yes there's been software improvements that do make certain tasks easier, but none the less. A lot more work went into the 3D assets of Halo 3 as opposed to Halo 1. That is more time and effort, and thus money. Meanwhile game prices more or less remain the same, and there's more inflation. I don't agree with how corporate game development has gotten, but all this one sided hating on the devs is a bit much.

There can be ways to cheaply make games by buying premade assets, but there goes your quality. And those can only fill in the gaps for really generic common stuff, you're not going to be able to build something with a lot of bespoke designs with generics. Studios with the tech can cut down on manually creating assets with photogrammetry and stuff, but work and tech is still required. Overall eh, as far as 3D assets are concerned - they cost more man hours to make and thus more money.

I do feel like the push for graphics has hurt the industry, I feel like getting company should slow down on this aspect because at this point it just inflates cost

 

[BrawlMan]

Big western companies have become much more unwilling to resort to those kind of methods that require ingenuity.

Yep.

​

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I disagree with you a little bit on that. Japanese games were actually in a rut for a while with them trying to reclaim the Western market from the new Western developers by copy them and also playing it extremely safe but that backfired and for a while, Japanese games were not doing so hot. Recently I would say companies like Capcom, Nintendo, and Square Enix have started revitalizing themself in addition RPG are becoming increasingly popular here and have gotten much critical acclaim. I feel like they are recently doing well now is because how badly they been doing for a while, unlike Western AAA developers they didn't have a sick cash cow they could milk, it was sink or swim and they chose to swim. As for the Gacha game thing, I think it's not as easy to put that system in a AAA Japanese game because they don't rely on multiplayer as much but I'm with you how scared I am the Japanese developers start putting that system into their games.



I always love hearing about stuff like that game development. That's a really good point that the industry has a habit of just throwing money at development instead of doing a cheaper option.



I do feel like the push for graphics has hurt the industry, I feel like getting company should slow down on this aspect because at this point it just inflates cost

You can see the effect I'm talking about at 9:08.

Anyway I don't think Western AAA development in particular is stagnating - it all is. What big breakthroughs have Eastern companies even gone through as of late?

This is my feeling too. It's not that there's some fundamental difference in goals between east and west but I do think the west has more money involved in its AAA games that make them get like this.

 

[CriticalGaming]

All in all, I'd say the AAA industry, Western or Eastern, has little to no incentive to innovate. Or rather, it does, but in better monetization.

I don't know if I can agree with this.

While Western Publishers are certainly mostly a waste of time. As Activision and EA are both only willing to pump out the same shit year after year like Cod, and Sports games.

There are still exceptions coming from the Japanese side of things. The Japanese companies (outside of Nintendo) are constantly trying new things. Even Final Fantasy games are basically completely new games every single time because they can't stick to a gameplay system they like.

Studios run by Sony are also very good and consistantly at least trying new things. God of War 4 was a rather large departure from previous GoW games. Horizon Zero Dawn was quite a different game for Guriella Games compared to their previous Killzone titles.

FromSoftware has even moved out of the Souls-likes with Sekiro.

The point I'm trying to make is that there are plenty of AAA-innovations being made all over the place. People just ignore it, or dismiss it if it's a change or innovation they didn't like.

 

[wings012]

I disagree with you a little bit on that. Japanese games were actually in a rut for a while with them trying to reclaim the Western market from the new Western developers by copy them and also playing it extremely safe but that backfired and for a while, Japanese games were not doing so hot. Recently I would say companies like Capcom, Nintendo, and Square Enix have started revitalizing themself in addition RPG are becoming increasingly popular here and have gotten much critical acclaim. I feel like they are recently doing well now is because how badly they been doing for a while, unlike Western AAA developers they didn't have a sick cash cow they could milk, it was sink or swim and they chose to swim. As for the Gacha game thing, I think it's not as easy to put that system in a AAA Japanese game because they don't rely on multiplayer as much but I'm with you how scared I am the Japanese developers start putting that system into their games.

I always love hearing about stuff like that game development. That's a really good point that the industry has a habit of just throwing money at development instead of doing a cheaper option.

I do feel like the push for graphics has hurt the industry, I feel like getting company should slow down on this aspect because at this point it just inflates cost

I don't really share the same opinion on Japanese games. They were on the forefront of the lootbox/gacha if anything - just on the mobile side of things. It may not be their AAA games, but they are no less guilty. Square Enix has their fingers in a fair few mobile titles. Nintendo has too. Sony as well through Aniplex. Their companies are no less guilty of shitty corporate money-grubbiness and pleasing the shareholder-ness.

Companies like Bandai Namco are also no stranger to nickel and diming their customers through dodgy DLC practices. Take a good look at good 'ol Koei Tecmo. What good as Square Enix done as of late anyway? They've been expanding westward, buying up studios and all we have to show for it is the abortion that is the Avengers videogame. They haven't managed to make Final Fantasy stick very well and now we're finally getting that remake of 7. Anyway, hardly a bunch of saints over there. I'm not saying they don't innovate, but they are totally guilty of the same rubbish that Western devs get up to.

Honestly with Apex Legends gaining a lot of steam in Japan and e-sports being more of a thing over there - I predict their big devs will want to try to get a piece of that pie. I wouldn't be surprised if Square, Capcom, Sega or whoever tries to shove out a multiplayer shooter, with hero based elements or battle royale elements or something in the next few years.

Anyway I don't think gamers will be willing to turn back the clock and accept shittier graphics. While individuals might disagree with me, but there will be a shitshow if the next Call of Duty had the graphics of CoD4. But of course cutting edge graphics are not needed for success, one just needs to look at Minecraft, Fortnite, Overwatch and Valorant which bank more on an attractive stylized look rather than raw graphical fidelity.

I think that spider hair thing is a bit of cherry picking and straw manning. There's all sorts of weird hacks that go on behind the scenes, and a lot of the time it doesn't represent the development of the game as a whole. It might have just been the artist assigned the task had to come up with something with limited specs. And then it kinda happened.

Anyway we might hate on yearly games all we want, but fact remains that a market does exist. Even if that market is largely not a more dedicated 'gamer' type. I got friends happy to just buy a console just to play football games and yearly shooters and not much else.

 

[Thaluikhain]

One hears similar complaints about the film industry, that people are adverse to taking risks and prefer to stick to tried and true, adaption or sequel or prequel or reboot or remake or rip off an existing IP.

But, well, the industry is an industry. Can we blame a money making endeavour for endeavouring primarily to make money? I get the frustration with modern rubbish or whatever, but the option of not buying it works for me. Lots of old games around. Sure, they aren't cutting edge, but only in the way that a movie that doesn't have the latest 3D CGI splurting out at you isn;t cutting edge.

 

[CriticalGaming]

1. Micro-transactions(but not in the way you think): I’m not here to discuss the morality of the practice but it has undoubtedly made gaming companies lazier. Before then they could only make money from selling the game and maybe some DLC campaign But now they can leech off profits of one successful game for years, Grand theft auto 5 is probably one of the worst examples of this in the gaming industry. It has been eight years since then and we have not even got a hint of the new Grand theft auto game. You may point out that the Japanese industry also has a problem with micro-transactions, well Micro-transactions in AAA Japan games have mostly been DLC campaigns, and 25 selectable costumes to give to your character as of late. Some of the most egregious stuff has mostly stayed in mobile spinoffs games that are hardly imported to the West and have stayed out of the AAA industry there. This leads on to my second point
2. Relies too much on multiplayer: This is a point that connects heavily to the first one. The AAA industry in the West has relied massively on multiplayer games which are incredibly safe to invest in if you know it’s a hit. Why waste time thinking of an original idea or a sequel if you can just make a map pack or some skins for an already successful game. Valve is one of the studios that was hit hardest with this, they have a safety net with their store and their loot crate that you need to buy money to open. They don't need to worry about developing a new game. Half-Life: Alyx shows that there is still a spark but time will tell if it will last. AAA Japanese companies have not relied as much upon multiplayer with once again mobile games taking that niche and as such are forced to not be as complacent on one game
3. Death of the single-player game: Big AAA companies have cared much less about single-player games, Only the Western division of Sony and Bethesda seems to primarily focus on single-player AAA gaming experiences right now, multiplayer is the primary concern of most other AAA developers in the West now and this has alienated many gamers who are not as interested in multiplayer or can only play so many multiplayer games.
4. Development costs are just too high: The reason why a lot of Western developers have fallen into the last three points I mentioned is simply game development is becoming more costly and micro-transaction multiplayer games are a much safer bet to recoup your costs.

1. Micro-transactions suck. I agree, but there are plenty of AAA-games coming out all the time that don't use them. They tend to be more common in Activision, EA, and 2K games specifically. And there has been enough push back to that recently that even EA is pulling back on them. Jedi Fallen Order for example. I don't really think that MT's are having that much of an effect on the creativity of the AAA-space as a whole though.

2. Most AAA-games aren't even bothering with multiplayer much that i can tell. Outside of franchise titles like CoD, what major AAA releases have had a big reliance on MP? FromSoftware games don't. Insomniac games don't. Sony studio games don't. Where is this MP focus you claim?

3. Again what are you talking about here? The single player game has never died, despite what that stupid CEO said back in the day. AAA-companies are mostly pumping out single player experiences. Final Fantasy, God of War, Horizon, Rachet and Clank, Returnal, Demon's Souls, Jedi Fallen Order, Mario games, Pokemon, Zelda.....on and on. What single player death are you talking about here? Mutliplayer is the focus on a handful of established franchises and nothing more.

4. What evidence do you have for this? They wouldn't make big budget games if they were too expensive to make. And since these large games continue to come out every year, there is no evidence to this. It's just CEO speak for trying to justify price increases and nothing more. If games were too expensive to make, they would either stop making them, or reduce the budget on a given title to make sure they made money on development. End of story.

 

[09philj]

The indie space has encroached on what used to be big publisher's B projects a lot. Affordable workstation PCs, off-the-shelf game engines like Unity and Unreal, crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter, and easily accessible storefronts like Steam make it much easier to get the equipment, capital, and distribution needed to create and sell more niche projects without the support, and therefore interference, of a big publisher.

 

[BrawlMan]

Again what are you talking about here? The single player game has never died, despite what that stupid CEO said back in the day. AAA-companies are mostly pumping out single player experiences. Final Fantasy, God of War, Horizon, Rachet and Clank, Returnal, Demon's Souls, Jedi Fallen Order, Mario games, Pokemon, Zelda.....on and on. What single player death are you talking about here? Mutliplayer is the focus on a handful of established franchises and nothing more

He wasn't saying single player games are dead, he was just talking about the bull crap lie big AAA CEO publishers were feeding everyone. Remember back in the early to mid 2010s, for nearly Western publisher or developer was saying single player is dead? Shoot, I remember back in this early 2010s where every publisher was saying how survival horror was dead, despite the fact that the Indie scene had plenty of great horror games. The only reason they were "dead", was because they didn't want to make them anymore. Or, cuz they didn't make all the money in the world and need to sell over 500 million to meet highly impossible expectations