Poll: Are Single Players now in the minority?

[sextus the crazy]

If you take into account all videogames (including flash games on sites like newgrounds and kongregate and such), there are more videogames with singleplayer only than multiplay by a large margin. Still, we all know this is a response to EA's statement. I don't mind having multiplayer, but from what EA's statement said, they seem to want to put in every game, whether or not it needs it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

Have you got a source for those statistics? Because while the responses for this thread would make it look like single players are the majority, this is pretty much the only gaming site on the internet that will give you those results. The Escapist is the odd one out in regards to how many of its users prefer single player to multiplayer. I'm not saying that necessarily applies to the game buying public as a whole, which is why I'd like to see these statistics, but it does apply to the segment of gamers who are entrenched in the community enough to post on forums.

OT: I love multiplayer. While I like the idea of an "epic" single player experience, the reality of the situation is that I don't have time to finish games that take much more than six hours to get through the campaign, with ten hours being the longest I regularly spend on a single player experience. Meanwhile, I've spent weeks of my life on TF2 alone. The reason? Near infinite replayability in a bite sized package. A complete experience that takes ten minutes to an hour just fits into my life better than one that takes 40-60 hours.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

They should be more single focused, but they aren't.

They got it in their heads that if they have multi, then people will tend to buy it new and keep it so they can not get left behind or whatever bs people believe. This means that they typically have a EULA where you give company X all your rights and your soul, and then they can turn around and pump out more and more extra map DLCs that apparently make enough money to offset having to host those severs for several years.

And the end result is what? A tacked on single player campaign that is completely lacking in every way, and a multiplayer experience that IS NO DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER ONE EVER!

If you have played any game online, you've played every game online. Its the barest framework of an actual idea that the developer could get away with, relying solely on US interacting with each other (something most of the people at the tops of the leaderboards would never do in RL) to provide not just the metagame but the ENTIRE game. These companies spend millions and years of their lives just to pump out another venue for griefer, cheaters, trolls, and I supposed the rest would be noobs, to feel vaguely powerful because they got a headshot.

I say headshot because 99% of multi player games are the same game. "Shoot them in the head" but with about as much differences per IP as one pinball game differs from the next.

Put all the fancy trappings on it you want, paint it with your cast of characters, whatever. In the end its still you flipping 2 sets of flippers on a ball. Add more flippers, add more balls, its the same game.

Even in games like Dark Souls where the single player game is the focus, and they actually created with Demon's Souls as the prototype a kind of shared multi system, its still populated with asshats that get off on griefing others and will only fight using glitches and exploits that break the rules. Its a mixed bag. One hand you get the bloodstains and messages and can co-op (which I don't do) but on the other you are actively griefed by 90% of the playerbase and so are forced to stay hollow and realize that in the 3 seconds between restoration and kindling a bonfire you will be invaded 90% of the time and killed instantly with a backstab you had no way of defending against because on your screen they weren't even in arrow range yet. Or you can do what I do and disable your connection and get to enjoy the game you purchased and not watch someone else's epeen give itself another reach around.

I do however like playing with friends in games like Borderlands or Mariokart. Also fighting games like Smash Brothers where there is no ONE THING that can be exploited to give someone a total advantage i.e. unlike Dark Souls you don't typically run into people that hacked themselves invulnerable and have infinite black firebombs spewing from their heads. Its a fair fight, you win or lose based on your skill vs. theirs.

Perhaps the best multi games are ones like Tetris, where everyone has EXACTLY the same moves and pieces and the playing field is completely level. Well in vanilla Tetris anyways. I'm sure that there are all kinds of variations that involve powerups making your opponents pieces invisible or making their lines clear yours etc. if not I just gave you all a free idea.

With EA's ludicrous boasting that they refuse to allow single player titles to get developed under their comically large umbrella of ill gotten studios, its not a stretch to assume that their might be other publishers that like to feel as omnipotent and actively stifle creativity in such a way.

All you are saying when you demand multi only games it that you no longer want writing, plot, characterization, innovation, or anything resembling effort to be wasted at all as long as you are footing the bill. You just want decent net code and the barest, ideally pseudo original, context as to why you want the players to shoot each other in the head.

Meanwhile everyone else that doesn't treat games as the latest thing I can pwn noobs at, and completely disposable, will just stay with their older games that EA has turned their back on.

Believe it or not their used to be genres other than shooter, MMO, and RTS. Not for long if this poll is any indication.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Eh, I prefer the middle ground called "Optional LAN".
But since "LAN" is a dirty word to the publishers, it's basically a dead concept outside of some indie titles.

 

[Vault101]

I hope not

the reasoning is pretty clear MONEY

....F2P and all that are apealing for because they are less suspeptible to piracy and its easy money, this may also be part of want to shoe-horn some online aspect in every bloody game

to think that Muiltilayer is better than single or that they are somhow interchangeable (as the publisher-tards would have you belive) uuggghhh NO...just no

and thats part of my point..there will always be a market for that kind of thing..some people don't want to deal with greifers and just want to experience a story

 

[StriderShinryu]

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.

Have you got a source for those statistics? Because while the responses for this thread would make it look like single players are the majority, this is pretty much the only gaming site on the internet that will give you those results. The Escapist is the odd one out in regards to how many of its users prefer single player to multiplayer. I'm not saying that necessarily applies to the game buying public as a whole, which is why I'd like to see these statistics, but it does apply to the segment of gamers who are entrenched in the community enough to post on forums.

OT: I love multiplayer. While I like the idea of an "epic" single player experience, the reality of the situation is that I don't have time to finish games that take much more than six hours to get through the campaign, with ten hours being the longest I regularly spend on a single player experience. Meanwhile, I've spent weeks of my life on TF2 alone. The reason? Near infinite replayability in a bite sized package. A complete experience that takes ten minutes to an hour just fits into my life better than one that takes 40-60 hours.

Heh We aren't always of the same mind on things, but I'm in total agreement here. Where are these statistics that say "most" players only play or really only want single player experiences?

Even if we're only talking money and not what appeals to "real gamers" the fact is there must be some reason why multiplayer is so prominent these days. As much hate as companies like EA, ActiBlizz, Ubisoft, etc. get, they aren't generally stupid when it comes to money and if there wasn't money to be made in a push towards multiplayer (or at least connected) content, they wouldn't be doing it. Just because many vocal members here on The Escapist don't like nasty icky multplayer/online in their godly epic single player experiences, I'd say it's pretty likely that the majority of the game buying public at large sees multiplayer/connected experiences to be the preferred.

 

[ChildishLegacy]

Heh We aren't always of the same mind on things, but I'm in total agreement here. Where are these statistics that say "most" players only play or really only want single player experiences?

Even if we're only talking money and not what appeals to "real gamers" the fact is there must be some reason why multiplayer is so prominent these days. As much hate as companies like EA, ActiBlizz, Ubisoft, etc. get, they aren't generally stupid when it comes to money and if there wasn't money to be made in a push towards multiplayer (or at least connected) content, they wouldn't be doing it. Just because many vocal members here on The Escapist don't like nasty icky multplayer/online in their godly epic single player experiences, I'd say it's pretty likely that the majority of the game buying public at large sees multiplayer/connected experiences to be the preferred.

Oooh, reason in a thread like this? It feels like Christmas. Seriously thank you, both of you, I had a right frown on my face reading through this 1 sided circle jerk of a thread, nice to see some people realizing there are in fact other people that play video games outside of a small gaming site.

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 really REALLY doubt that most people are playing games like WoW, CoD and Halo for the single player. Maybe some people buy it for the single player, but there's a reason that CoD and Halo are constantly at the top of 'whats being played' for xbox live, and it's not because of the single player. People don't keep playing CoD and Halo every day to keep replaying a short single player campaign, you would have to be VERY naive to think this.

Also, people playing WoW just for the solo content. WhuuuaaaAAAH?
The 'solo content' of WoW is literally killing mob after mob and picking up quest item after quest item until you hit level 85. The majority people that have a consistent subscription (see, I can pull statistics out my arse too) to that game are people that are there to play a game with a group of their friends, do raids (the end game 10/25 man content) or do organized PvP (2v2, 3v3, 5v5, 10v10, 15vs15... blah blah blah). I really don't know why you'd bring an MMO into a conversation about good single player being replaced by multiplayer. THE GAME IS THERE FOR MULTIPLAYER, what does this have to do with single player games having tacked on multiplayer?

 

[aguspal]

I am suprised it is even a question.

OF COURSE today industry is focused more on Multiplayer, you really have to be pretty blind to not see it... Honestly, this is almost a joke thread.

Not that it is a bad thing... theres plenty of Single player too.

 

[Vault101]

Oooh, reason in a thread like this? It feels like Christmas. Seriously thank you, both of you, I had a right frown on my face reading through this 1 sided circle jerk of a thread, nice to see some people realizing there are in fact other people that play video games outside of a small gaming site.

well it is a pretty scary throught..that the single player games we love will be replaced with F2P and multiplayer...and all that goes with it. I don't think that will happen though, I mean I never said that multiplayer isnt popular or trending, but I still maintain there will always be a niche for single player, I can't see it disapearing

 

[viranimus]

Depends on how you look at it.

If you look at the number of gamers? Absolutely not, Single player is still predominant type of player

If you look at development? If it isnt yet it will be soon enough because devs/publishers think they NEED the sort of control that online connectivity can provide them. They think it is their right to make profit off of nothing. Plus they are greeted with an ill informed consuming populous that has consistently shown itself to be more than willing to bow to anything that hurts them so long as MOAR and NOW!!!!! is sated.

So, its not, but it might as well be for all the destruction and chaos people are allowing to occur.

 

[chadachada123]

They are not at all the minority.

But they are what developers are no longer focusing on as a whole.

Your poll and your thread title don't match, OP, and the answers to each are completely opposed.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

Multiplayer is great, but it's not required for a game to continue to exist. My favorite games out there are single player games.

 

[Vault101]

Dead Space 3?.ewwwww coop and mulitplayer?I don?t even?.
.

actually I Heard they arent having the "tacked on death match"..thank god..just the co-op which is aparently optional

 

[Redd the Sock]

Well as far as Nintendo goes, they've always felt gaming should be a more social experience. so it's no real surprise from them when something is designed around 4 players.

Other companies, well, others have it right: it's about the money. It's Cheaper to put together and easier to sell maps, weapons, and costumes than to single players for a story mode. So it skews the numbers. There might be 5 times as many players wanting to play single player, but the fewer multiplayers spend more on stuff cheaper to make leading to higher profits.

 

[neonsword13-ops]

As much as I hate to admit it, yes, multiplayer is now becoming the unneeded necessity of this industry.

What makes it even worse is that publishers like EA are forcing developers to put half-assed multiplayer components into their games to turn in a quick profit (Best Example: Dead Space 2).

It's sickening to me. All of the resources used to make those half-assed multiplayer modes could be used for things like split-screen campaigns or something of that nature.

 

[rob_simple]

I am suprised it is even a question.

OF COURSE today industry is focused more on Multiplayer, you really have to be pretty blind to not see it... Honestly, this is almost a joke thread.

Not that it is a bad thing... theres plenty of Single player too.

Yeah, not really adding to the discussion there, chief. My point was is this a good thing and does it reflect the desires of the gaming community as a whole or is it due to pressure from publishers who don't understand the industry.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I'd say they are, at least for AAA games. However I am buying less and less AAA titles because they just plain suck.