Single Player Games Aren't Really Dying

Its not because gamers don't want single player games. MMO's suck. Its just a bunch of cheaters and annoying tweens and micro transactions. Corporate game companies would like single player games to die because it would require an internet connection and other drm to play online games.

Single player is not dying.it's AAA company's trying to murder them.

Shhhhhhhh...don't tell EA, its secret to everybody. ?

Single player games will always be the biggest part of video games industry, problem is that big greedy companys always want easy money with less cost which dosn't bring good single player games, which lead to sales failures.

Single player games are not dying, what has change is the amount of profit and revenue that the big publishers are looking for. AAA focus single player experiences are smaller every year, because earnings are not as much if they make a multiplayer experience where the masses gather to play a single game. So this is what the big companies are looking at, there is a lot more money on the multiplayer game in the long run where the experience can involve over the years without having to make a new game from scratch.

One major thing I hate about multiplayer is that many games have an expiration date on them. Once the servers go down, you might as well throw the disc out (If it was a multiplayer only game). The other problem is that it gives publisher more control on how often you need to buy the same game (Really, how much different is a sports game from last year to this year?) You have no choice if the publisher decides to only keep the server running for a year and a half.

I know many people hate peer-to-peer servers, but a least they allow multiplayer games from many years ago to continue to work today.

EA is dying.

Anybody who takes EA’s word is a fool. This is the same company that also said consoles were dying, and also tried to implement always-online with MS.

They say stuff to try to push their shady agenda and hope people believe them.

“The audience for those big story-driven games... I won’t say it isn’t as large, but they’re not as consistent,” says Spencer. “You’ll have things like Zelda or Horizon Zero Dawn that’ll come out, and they’ll do really well, but they don’t have the same impact that they used to have, because the big service-based games are capturing such a large amount of the audience. Sony’s first-party studios do a lot of these games, and they’re good at them, but outside of that, it’s difficult – they’re become more rare; it’s a difficult business decision for those teams, you’re fighting into more headwind.” - Phil Spencer

Like I've said before. Single player games aren't dying, only the franchises owned by EA!

Single games not going anywhere rockstar games do both because makeing a lot money but if only online game with no updates or much to do they not selling as much.

Single player games aren't going anywhere. EA Games, on the otherhand, will go out of business if they don't pull a 180. They lost $3 Billion in stock and managed to piss off Disney, LOL!

Personally, I'm done with multiplayer for awhile. Between the companies' greed and just all of the crap people do online, it ruins the experience. I'm sticking to single player.

I am a single player gamer that is my passion, sometimes I mess around in multiplayer but not too much, I never buy multiplayer only games because I consider them to be a waste of money because I get bored of them very easily.

I agree mainly because multiplayer games require much more balance which typically results in a more generic progression and feel than what you can have in a single player game where such balances don't exist. Developers thus have much more creativity when designing single player games because there are far less limitations. This is why the greatest single player games tend to be far more immersive and have cleaner executions of story telling than the multiplayer variety of the same genre, and there will always be a market for that.

It's like if I buy six $10, reasonably good single player games spaced out roughly two months apart over the course of a year, and then that "gotta have it" blockbuster $60 game comes out for the holidays... oops. I can't afford that game.

Or I buy a dozen or so grand strategy games from different developers but then Paradox releases a giant war chest of Europa Universalis totalling hundreds of dollars. Oops. Money not spent on you. The total amount of income lost might be the same, but how that money was spent is completely different.

Single player games will never go out of style, period. There may come a time where it's not financially feasible to drop half a billion dollars into a single-player experience, but those people shouldn't be making single player games in the first place anyway. What the big publishers want is to make continuous revenue beyond the $60 entry fee because the number of people buying their focus-tested paint-by-numbers shit wouldn't be enough to sustain them if they were to not wedge microtransactions and DLC into their games.

There are two issues with this conundrum they've created. Number 1, if you can't budget properly... that's your fault. Needing a game to sell 4 million copies just to make money on it is fucking stupid unless you're Rockstar Games releasing a Grand Theft Auto game. Number 2, of course less people are buying your shit and you're not making enough money, because your shit and shit like it are taking more money from people per product. Consequently people buy less games because that's all they can afford, so this practice of multiplayer microtransactions, lootboxes in single-player games and a cavalcade of DLC not to mention Collector's Editions or Digital Deluxe Editions is actually sapping money out of the market and is costing other companies sales. To a single business, who cares if we're costing a customer money and that means they can't buy a game from our competitor... right? Well that works the other way around too genius. The money they would've had to buy your drivel has gone to DLC or microtransactions for your competitor's game. Your sales numbers are worse because people can't afford it, and some people simply refuse to buy your games because of your business practices so you all end up losing in this arms race of stupidity that calls for people to spend hundreds on a single game.

The opening paragraph echoes a comment I made the other day about the stage of single player games. All this talk about the death of single player games and yet 2017 was one of the best years ever for SP games. There might be more of a focus on multiplayer games, as well as online content and features but it's hyperbolic to say single player games are dying when the quality of single player games may have never been better.

This is just another false narrative being thrown around by the big publishers. "Oh no! It's takes way too much time and money to make a AAA single-player game! We must do something to ensure we can make back our investment!" *Cue micro-transactions and lootboxes...*

Just like the other false narrative that "Piracy is killing the gaming industry!" was used to justify heavy-handed DRMs; this one is being used to justify their garbage micro-transactions, randomized lootboxes, and the concept of 'game as a service'; which nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to turn all their games into little more than platforms for DLCs and micro-transactions. Maximizing profits in its most perfect form...

Single player games can't die.

Adults just don't have time to play for long and especially uninterrupted amounts of time.

I mean I sit down to play and I have to pause it to make dinner, then go back to play and need to pause it for this and then for that. Multiplayer games require you to be available to keep your focus only on the game and it's just really hard to have a solid block of time where you won't have anything else that requires your attention.

Teenagers can just sit at their desk with a stack of ramen noodles and monster energy drinks and they're set for 2 days of non-stop gaming.

And to be good at the game you need to spend hours upon hours practicing, or you just die all the time. So how do you know which game is worth putting the effort into? A game can seem good at first but when you get used to the mechanics it's just shallow and you want to move on to something else.

At least in single player games there's a story to draw you in, and you know from the genre if it's something you like.

With a MP shooter you just can't know what to expect 10-20-50 hours down the line. Might be a totally wasted 50 hours.

Ya I know they’re not dying. It’s just something the media says to rattle everyone’s cage once in awhile.