Tim Sweeney: Solution to declining singleplayer game sales is getting it more socially and economically connected to interoperable metaverse ecosystem

archangelmorph said:
Wait...

"Declining Single Player Game Sales..."

Errr...
........
Click to expand...
Haha, these corporately minded fellows see a decline whenever this year is statistically worse than last one, even if it's 0000.1%, and doesn't matter if last year was best ever.
But perhaps they just want to push some surveillance crap into games and whatnot, they're a business men and politicians after all, not artists or visionaries.
 
SHUT UP
fTewrFJ.png
 
My steam library alone is enough to last me until I die.

I'd replay every single player game I have before I would even dream of using his fucking "metaverse".
 
I asked AI to tell me the truth about the so-called "Fortnite Ecosystem". Apparently the future of gaming.

Fortnite's "creator economy" is a grotesque parody of meritocracy—a Skinner box for the terminally online, where Epic dangles the illusion of wealth while systematically exploiting the desperate, the naive, and the talentless.
  1. The Streamer Grift – The biggest "creators" aren't designers; they're algorithm-hacking narcissists who stumbled into viral fame by screaming into a mic while playing the same recycled Box Fight #69420 map. Epic props them up as "success stories" to keep the dream alive, but the reality is that 99% of creators make pennies while the top 1% (who were already famous) vacuum up the real money.
  2. The Engagement Farm – Epic doesn't want good maps; they want addicting ones. The more mindless, dopamine-drip garbage (reskinned zombie survival, low-effort prop hunt clones, etc.), the better. Why? Because engagement metrics don't care about quality—they care about retention. The worse the content, the more kids mindlessly queue into the next match, and the more ad revenue & V-Buck purchases Epic extracts.
  3. The False Promise of "Passive Income" – Epic lures in starry-eyed kids with the lie that "anyone can get rich making maps!" while quietly ensuring that only established influencers and UEFN-savvy sweats can actually compete. The Discover tab is a rigged casino—most maps die in obscurity while Epic's chosen few get algorithmically shoved into millions of faces.
  4. The Exploitation of Free Labor – Why pay professional developers when you can outsource content creation to your own player base?
  5. The Death of Real Creativity – Originality is punished. The system rewards low-effort, trend-chasing slop because that's what the ADHD-riddled Fortnite audience clicks on. Why build something unique when you can just reskin the same tired Red vs. Blue map for the thousandth time and watch the cash roll in?
Conclusion: Fortnite's creator ecosystem is a dystopian content mill disguised as empowerment. It's not about fostering talent—it's about keeping the engagement machine fed with cheap, disposable slop while Epic pockets the real money.
Tim Sweeney's "metaverse" is just a digital sweatshop with a brighter color palette.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
diffusionx said:
Well obviously he is offering that but even then I think the success in Fortnite been very mixed. Does anyone give a shit about that Minecraft, or racing, or music game they built into it? It seems like it has found its success as a shitty RPO virtual world.
Click to expand...
Yea without a doubt, the cross branding does a lot more for Fortnite success than it does for any of the brands participating.
But I guess hope springs eternal.
 
Next he is going to say the Epic games store is #1. I swear these CEOs are just their own brand's fart smellers without any ability to see past the wet shit.

Its like somehow if they message something enough that they firmly believe that everyone will believe it at some point (ignoring politics).

Also- Fromsoft laughs at his comment. Put out good single player games, get money.
 
peish said:
I dont even know what those words mean individually, and you join them together, i get more lost.

I think games should go back to costing $49. The prices now are just too much for impulse buys
Click to expand...
I decided to ask Chatgpt what an interoperable metaverse ecosystem means and this is what it said.

I dont even get all the hate he's getting, cause he's got a valid point.

In the context of video games, an interoperable metaverse ecosystem refers to a connected digital universe where players, assets, and experiences can seamlessly move between different games, platforms, and virtual worlds developed by different companies. Here's a breakdown of what this means:

---
🔁 Interoperability
This is the core idea: different systems, games, and platforms can work together. In gaming terms, it means:

Your avatar, inventory, or achievements can travel across games (e.g., using the same character skin in Fortnite, Minecraft, and a racing game).

Digital items are portable, often through blockchain/NFTs or standardized asset formats.

Game engines and backends are compatible, using shared standards or APIs for physics, rendering, identity, etc.

---
🌐 Metaverse Ecosystem
A metaverse ecosystem is a shared, persistent, immersive virtual environment where players socialize, play, build, and trade. Applied to gaming, this includes:

Social hubs connecting different game worlds (e.g., Roblox, VRChat).

Cross-game economies where currency or items earned in one game can be used in another.

Unified player identity, so your profile, friends, and digital reputation are consistent across worlds.

---
🎮 Example in Games
Imagine a player buys a rare sword in one MMORPG. In an interoperable metaverse ecosystem, they might:

Use that same sword in another RPG built by a different developer.

Sell or trade it in a shared marketplace (e.g., using blockchain).

Bring their avatar and achievements into new games without creating a new account or losing progress.

---
🔧 Technologies Enabling This
Open standards (e.g., OpenXR, glTF)

Blockchain/NFTs for asset ownership

Universal identity systems (like decentralized IDs)

Cloud-based platforms (for cross-device and persistent world hosting)

---
🧠 Why It Matters
Enhances player freedom and creativity

Drives developer collaboration and cross-promotion

Opens new monetization models and digital economies

---
In short, an interoperable metaverse ecosystem in video games envisions a future where virtual experiences are connected, not isolated—giving players more agency and continuity across their digital life.
 
This isn't why I game. I understand that this is more popular with younger generations. That is fine. What isn't fine is saying the solution to single player games is to get it more socially and economically connected. I don't point my nose up in the air at new ideas and give them an honest shot, but I don't want this future. I get making a game is riskier than ever, but I think forcing social gaming into single player experiences will just piss people off. I also say this as someone who is a big believer in Fortnite despite not being into those kinds of games. I can appreciate its strengths. I do think that they are trying to catch lightning in a bottle again and try to pigeonhole every game into that model and I don't think it will be the right solution.
 
diffusionx said:
He's not wrong, but he is ignoring the crucial first step. You need Fortnite. Or GTA Online. Or something like that. Something that is hugely and enormously popular that you can expand on, with the goal of retaining players. You can't just build this from the jump. We've also talked endlessly about how difficult it is to do that.

Like if I was EA I would not make Titanfall 3, I would build a Titanfall 3 game into Apex. But if I don't have Apex, that's not an option.
Click to expand...

You've nailed it! Every company has been trying to get the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, but Epic found it with Fortnite. I can see Epic's point of view; it would be really easy to put everything in that basket since it makes so much money and, since it's entirely online, can be completely controlled.
 
Gojiira said:
The solution is more games like Elden Ring. Solid mechanics, quality music/setting/atmosphere, top tier boss designs, rewarding exploration,huge build variety etc etc. Quality,innovative,thats whats needed for single player games.
Click to expand...
The issue is not everyone agrees on what is quality and innovative. I see some comments saying, make it like Elden Ring, but that isn't my kind of game. What I may prefer as innovative, and quality may bore someone to tears.

Maybe a better way of phrasing it is appealing to niches more and not trying to make a game for everyone. That doesn't mean make every game as inaccessible as possible either or gatekeep. The gaming industry has broadened so much. There are so many types of gamers now. I do think music, atmosphere, boss design, exploration, and build variety are great things to have though. Even some kinds of games I am into looked so derivative from the showcases.
 
So in other words Multiplayer then charge for MTX etc on top, declining SP games are due to constant price rises and the fact they are not worth the said price rises as the games are mid level at best, gamers are not going to buy new expensive games that don't excite them that go on Game pass day 1.
 
Less talking more showing Tim. Develop an insanely deep, dark and mechanical rich crpg in Fortnite with a distinction artstyle and even I will install that cancerous shit.

But no amount of crossovers, concerts or skins will attract me to your shitty platform...and certainly not your offering of basic slop games.

Does the industry at large suffer from some kind of mental barrier that prevents them from being introspective. Because maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, that's where the problem lies.
 
"Solution to declining singleplayer game sales is getting it more socially and economically connected to interoperable metaverse ecosystem"

I'll take Words I Don't Want in the Video Game Industry for $2,000, Alex.
 
If there is anyone who knows something about the metaverse, it is him. Therefore I wouldn't dismiss what he says.
 
The Fortnite fad can't die soon enough. That game is part of the reason why games are in the situation they are these days.
 
Shouldn't this so in-touch with us / reality twat be in court fighting with Apple about who has the shiniest platinum diamond super credit card? Or maybe he needs to listen to Microsoft and Nintendo (others to follow no doubt. Hey 2k) and realise selling a single-player game for $80 is what makes sense, especially 1 were the previous game was pretty average.

It doesn't need to be complicated, make a good game built with passion and quality and it generally sells well. Recent obvious example, Clair Obscure, which also cost less than these AAA games. Stop wasting money and resources on shit like Dragon Age so you can point to it as a failed single-player game to strengthen your argument, but ignore it failed because very little bought it due it being rotten and soulless.

I love on Steam seeing the wee news section at the top saying some small indie game sold 100k or 1m etc because that's how it should be. People can relate to passion, dedication, and effort over greed.
 
It's a tough market out there for SP games when you have to compete with giants like GTAO or Fortnite for the players time. There's more selection available than ever before, but people have a limited time budget, which ultimately matters more to the total market than whether a game is $80 or not. AAA sp games had a lot bigger mindshare before so even middling games could sell, but now who's going to buy that generic focus tested design by committee slop for $80 when they could play an innovative indie game for $10, or just spend all their time in their favorite online forever game? Tim seems to just market Fortnite metaverse as a way to get exposure I guess, but I don't think that's helpful for the overall market.
 
Of course, because people don't spend enough time connected on the internet, right? Be "engaged" and shit.
 
Loxus said:
I decided to ask Chatgpt what an interoperable metaverse ecosystem means and this is what it said.
I dont even get all the hate he's getting, cause he's got a valid point.
Click to expand...
Whitewashing by ChatGPT aside - it boils down to two things:

1) Most people just don't like living in a Dystopian rule all that much - no matter what authoritarians throughout human history claim.
2) Why It Matters - This begins and ends with one primary reason - "Opens new monetization models and digital economies" - No public proponent of Metaverse has 'ever' actually advocated for anything else, whether it's Tim Sweeney, Mark Zuckerberg - or any number of Crypto advocates.

There are also very real negative consequences when tampering with creative mediums and actively gate-keeping tools of the trade. Eg. imagine if someone proposed 'unification' of painting by mandating it can only use one frame shape&size, on one type of paper, with one brand of manfuctured paints&brushes (and yes, only paint allowed - none of the other drawing utensils apply).
Art ultimately thrives on variety particular medium allows - eliminating those variables in service of 'predictable monetization' may be an attractive proposition in pursuit of someone's greater profits, but it's clearly not at the benefit of the medium/art overall.
 
Last edited:
Could be onto something, consider Fortnite is itself a Metaverse and he's probably doing this right now. Slowly start introducing the Fortnite-only kids to other types of games.
 
Last edited:
Fafalada said:
Whitewashing by ChatGPT aside - it boils down to two things:

1) Most people just don't like living in a Dystopian rule all that much - no matter what authoritarians throughout human history claim.
2) Why It Matters - This begins and ends with one primary reason - "Opens new monetization models and digital economies" - No public proponent of Metaverse has 'ever' actually advocated for anything else, whether it's Tim Sweeney, Mark Zuckerberg - or any number of Crypto advocates.

There are also very real negative consequences when tampering with creative mediums and actively gate-keeping tools of the trade. Eg. imagine if someone proposed 'unification' of painting by mandating it can only use one frame shape&size, on one type of paper, with one brand of manfuctured paints&brushes (and yes, only paint allowed - none of the other drawing utensils apply).
Art ultimately thrives on variety particular medium allows - eliminating those variables in service of 'predictable monetization' may be an attractive proposition in pursuit of someone's greater profits, but it's clearly not at the benefit of the medium/art overall.
Click to expand...
Going by what i understand by an interoperable metaverse ecosystem, it can benefit AA games and Indie games which don't always sell 10 million copies.

Not everything has to apply to AAA games.
 
Loxus said:
Going by what i understand by an interoperable metaverse ecosystem, it can benefit AA games and Indie games which don't always sell 10 million copies.

Not everything has to apply to AAA games.
Click to expand...
Where does his point focus on AAA? Surely he's talking in general about art and the artistry of making games being hampered by the lowest common denominator of the gaming metaverse, no?

Sales has no impact on art, so whether AA games do or don't sell 10m copies - or deserve to - is surely irrelevant to us as gamers wanting the greatest variety of artistry in gaming by not condemning ourselves to Sweeney's or roblox's gaming metaverse, no?
 
Punished Miku said:
Could be onto something, consider Fortnite is itself a Metaverse and he's probably doing this right now. Slowly start introducing the Fortnite-only kids to other types of games.
Click to expand...
What gets me about this guy is the best thing for gaming is the super unique and impossible to emulate situation that he is currently working on.

On his opinion itself, sure we could get a pop out of metaverse gaming will eventually peter out just like the MCU has done. It isn't the new way for gaming. It's the next big fad to quicken us once more and it will grow stale just like open world, zombies, ww2 games, vr, and every other fad that gaming has ever adopted(these things are still good, gaming has a way of adopting new techniques that can improve all games, and even bad games can introduce features that raise qol across an entire genre and really "fad" isn't the right word here, how about "novelty." Gaming(the industry) takes things that are new and incorporates them into future games).

Once we get thru the phase 1 games to get us hooked they will inevitably try to socially engineer us again and that will be the end of that.

Who wants to be part of the fortnite metaverse? Seems super lame.
 
Last edited:
KXVXII9X said:
The issue is not everyone agrees on what is quality and innovative. I see some comments saying, make it like Elden Ring, but that isn't my kind of game. What I may prefer as innovative, and quality may bore someone to tears.

Maybe a better way of phrasing it is appealing to niches more and not trying to make a game for everyone. That doesn't mean make every game as inaccessible as possible either or gatekeep. The gaming industry has broadened so much. There are so many types of gamers now. I do think music, atmosphere, boss design, exploration, and build variety are great things to have though. Even some kinds of games I am into looked so derivative from the showcases.
Click to expand...
Thats what I mean, the aspects that make Elden Ring so good are almost common sense. Solid gameplay, good boss design etc etc. The problem with soooo many games atm is I've played them before.
Pragmata looks interesting because it seems to be exploration/puzzle heavy and the combat looks more involved than just aim shoot reload. Time will tell of course.
Death Stranding 2 looks phenomenal, iterating off a already excellent core and addressing prior criticism.
But yeah totally agree that more games should appeal to niche audiences rather than watering down and trying to appeal to everyone, but thats why I think ER is the benchmark this gen for how to do it.
 
PaintTinJr said:
Where does his point focus on AAA? Surely he's talking in general about art and the artistry of making games being hampered by the lowest common denominator of the gaming metaverse, no?

Sales has no impact on art, so whether AA games do or don't sell 10m copies - or deserve to - is surely irrelevant to us as gamers wanting the greatest variety of artistry in gaming by not condemning ourselves to Sweeney's or roblox's gaming metaverse, no?
Click to expand...
I was referring to the person I replied to about AAA games are not the only thing to think about when Tim was talking about single player games are on the decline but Indie and AA games, which could benefit from an interoperable metaverse ecosystem concept.


In simple terms, Tim is suggesting a cross game approach.
 
peish said:
I dont even know what those words mean individually, and you join them together, i get more lost.

I think games should go back to costing $49. The prices now are just too much for impulse buys
Click to expand...
Yes. No one will take the plunge on a game they 'might' be interested in. Maybe try it if it's on GamePass but otherwise the $80 is a big 'no'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tim Sweeney on the future of video games...
22
595
mckmas8808 replied
Big Tim Sweeney teasing big news for EGS today
42
646
DAHGAMING replied
Sakurai: modern game development is too time consuming and unsustainable. AI is the solution.
2 3
112
378
Felessan replied
Tim Sweeney says UE6 previews could be 2-3 years away
2 3
105
1K
SHAKEZ replied
Lies of P is getting difficulty options to make the Soulslike more accessible
2 3 4 5
235
2K
kevboard replied
Top Bottom