Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

Two new multiplayer hits just popped up on the charts recently (Lethal Company + The Finals), and I noticed neither of them have a # attached to their names. This is common for multiplayer games, but it's near impossible for single player games to succeed to the same degree without being part of a huge IP.

Why has the market separated in this manner? I feel like it wasn't like this back in the 90s and early 00s. What changed?

Any theories?

 

[Crayon]

A) In single player games, the characters, setting, etc are pretty important. So the IP is valuable. Valuable, but not needed to succeed or there would be no new ip's.

B) Those mp games happen to be successful but for each success there were 99 more shits thrown at the wall. That's a stupid way to risk one of those valuable ip's.

 

[Robb]

Isn’t it because they’re just continuous? There’s no story mode etc. to build a sequel off on. With multiplayer GAAS you just ad small amounts of content over time to that same foundation.

I feel like there are still plenty of singleplayer games that don’t have numbers attached to them. Especially the big long going series that, similarly, aren’t direct continuations - such as Zelda or Mario.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Probably because MP focused gamers dont care about story or lore. They just want good gameplay mechanics where the biggest is issues are tight controls, good maps, a healthy online user base and playing with friends on the same team. A lot of MP gamers probably dont even play the SP campaign (the last SP COD I played was Black Ops 1), where many MP games dont even have one to begin with even if a gamer wanted to play it.

Brand new SP IPs IMO and tastes are riskier to spend time and dime because it's unproven. That can be said for new MP games too. But at least for MP, I can play against others and with friends. So even if the game is frustrating, you can pop in and out playing for 30 minutes at a time and chill with friends cheering and being pissed together playing different modes. SP games too require someone to sit there and commit to playing to get into it. I dont see how it can be fun playing a SP narrative for half an hour at a time if anyone is time crunched. But with MP, I can get in 3 COD matches in the same time.

SP games make no difference if you play now or wait for the bargain bin a year from now for $19.99. MP gaming you're kind of itched to get in with everyone else or you'll be the noob.

 

[Anime-Vix]

To add to the topic, gaming has gotten a lot more social since the 90s and 00s. Gamers would rather play with friends. You have to remember that there are kids growing up who are only playing F2P games for the most part. When their birthday or Christmas rolls around, they are asking their parents for a gift card instead of a single player game outside of the usual COD and NBA2k. F2P games have really hurt the single player market. The younger gen would rather buy a game from a well established IP, than risk their money on something new.

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

I dunno. From my experience there is a point in multilayers games when you ask yourself (Why am i wasting so much time doing the same thing over and over and over again?)

Single-player games by nature are designed (in theory) to offer a finite experience with a satisfying ending.

 

[Husky]

Speaking of which, I'm already exhausted by all the upcoming superhero games

 

[Guilty_AI]

Eh, i've seen plenty of successful new IPs in the single player world.

And in Baldurs Gate 3 case, its likely Larians fanbase they built with their Divinity OS series made much more of an impact in the game's success than the BG IP.

 

[Alexios]

Lethal Company is hardly the first indie runaway hit to come out of Steam, plenty of single player games in the past did great. The Finals is free, it's too early to call it when it could have a "servers are shutting down" thing within a year like hundreds of others. Did you start gaming yesterday or what?

 

[Arsic]

Two new multiplayer hits just popped up on the charts recently (Lethal Company + The Finals), and I noticed neither of them have a # attached to their names. This is common for multiplayer games, but it's near impossible for single player games to succeed to the same degree without being part of a huge IP.

Why has the market separated in this manner? I feel like it wasn't like this back in the 90s and early 00s. What changed?

Any theories?

If we are talking strictly AAA single player games it’s because most are plagued with so many isuses that players are hesitant to give a fuck.

Example : Forspoken. The more we saw in trailers and then the demo we realized all the issues this game had going for it.

Example 2: Callisto Protocol. Gets hyped to the moon. First AAAA game. Comes out and is significantly worse than the leads previous works like Dead Space.

To be fair several new IPs launched this year and were hits . Lies of P, Hi Fi Rush, etc. Once you have a success though you milk it for what it’s worth. See Resident Evil for example.

This isn’t even exclusive to games because the same happens with movies. TV shows too. How many walking dead spin offs are they up to now ? 4?

 

[Northeastmonk]

A coworker of mine likes to play MP a lot with friends. He mentioned Lethal Company to me today. I had no idea it existed.

When I unwind or when I play I want to play something that takes me on a grand adventure. I don’t want to sit there waiting for a friend to do something fun.

I get why people these days love interaction. I ask if people played single player game X, Y, or Z and it’s always a no. Outside 1 or 2 big AAA SP games, it’s usually a no.

I’m not really impressed by multiplayer. It’s fun to say fight a boss together or play death match, but what really stands out? I play CoD every year and there’s years I skip multiplayer. I just don’t feel like it. Sometimes it’s all too familiar. My guess is, with most people, they’re either over exposed to certain things and A. don’t care B. Keep playing or C. They haven’t had their fill yet. I get why SP games are also becoming the same/similar concept. I’d just rather play SP games, so a lot the MP stuff flies over my head. Gaming isn’t what it use to be. I think the vibe gaming gives off is one that can be easily overlooked or something you can easily pass on because you’ve already had that golden era type of experience. That’s my two cents.

I saw markpiler or whoever that is playing Lethal Company. Kids eat up all the goofy songs and remarks. No wonder everyone is on these games. It’s almost like these influencers make certain things socially acceptable in a way. I’m not their audience, so I’m not buying or playing all these MP games. Same with Fortnite and Apex. Yet millions and millions of people love those games. I got sick of LoL back in 2012 and it won an award at the VGA’s.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Lethal Company is hardly the first indie runaway hit to come out of Steam, plenty of single player games in the past did great. The Finals is free, it's too early to call it when it could have a "servers are shutting down" thing within a year like hundreds of others. Did you start gaming yesterday or what?

I think you're misrepresenting my point.

If you look at the the most popular single player games today, it's almost all sequels or big, well established IP.

If you look at the most populous multiplayer games today, it's almost all original IP.

I'm trying to understand the different mindset among gamers, so I come to NeoGAF in search for answers.

 

[Danjin44]

Because most SP games have continuous story with lore and characters people want to go back to.

 

[March Climber]

I think you're misrepresenting my point.

If you look at the the most popular single player games today, it's almost all sequels or big, well established IP.

If you look at the most populous multiplayer games today, it's almost all original IP.

I'm trying to understand the different mindset among gamers, so I come to NeoGAF in search for answers.

This difference might correlate with the price of entry for each.

Why has the market separated in this manner? I feel like it wasn't like this back in the 90s and early 00s. What changed?

50-70 dollars for a multiplayer-only title this decade would usually be a death sentence. Only a few companies can successfully get away with it, including a few MMOs. Otherwise, there are more multiplayer games that cost nothing to play than there are single player games that cost nothing to play.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

This difference might correlate with the price of entry for each.

50-70 dollars for a multiplayer-only title this decade would usually be a death sentence. Only a few companies can successfully get away with it, including a few MMOs. Otherwise, there are more multiplayer games that cost nothing to play than there are single player games that cost nothing to play.

That doesn't really answer the question though. I'm talking about IP, not price of entry.

 

[March Climber]

That doesn't really answer the question though. I'm talking about IP, not price of entry.

To give an example as to why I feel price is more relevant than you think: Your OP.

I can go to Playstation, or Xbox store, right now, click on 'download' and play the game. I don't know what 'The Finals' means. The title literally sounds like a basketball game. I know nothing about the lore of the game. Hell, I don't even know if there is even a story attached to it. However, what I do know is that I can play it witin hours of me typing this and it costs me nothing to do so. In that case, I'm more open to trying that new IP because the barrier to entry is nonexistent. On average, in modern times multiplayer games have released free with MTX.

Baldur's Gate, while it happens to be currently on sale, would normally cost me from 50-70 dollars depending on where and when I buy it. There's the first barrier. That's an investment of money. For quite a few people, that's taking a chance. The chance-taking becomes even larger when it's a new IP, and even larger than that when it's from a studio that isn't well known. So most people will usually wait for word of mouth or good reviews before investing their money into it, among the many other reasons as to why they might wait or skip it. Also, this isn't even taking into account if the game is unfinished or broken on release.

tl;dr the barriers of entry for new, modern single player games keep stacking while there is no barrier at all for new MP games.

 

[Aces High]

A) In single player games, the characters, setting, etc are pretty important. So the IP is valuable. Valuable, but not needed to succeed or there would be no new ip's.

B) Those mp games happen to be successful but for each success there were 99 more shits thrown at the wall. That's a stupid way to risk one of those valuable ip's.

People keep parotting B) as if it was some universal truth, but I have yet to see numbers that prove this assumption.

I've seen way too many underperforming singleplayer games to buy into this. Just look at Alan Wake 2.

@OP: There's plenty of multiplayer games that care about IP a lot. Mario Kart, CoD, even EA managed do strengthen their soccer IP by kicking FIFA out of the mix. One of thr main reasons why World of Warcraft is one of the most popular online games is the IP. People love Warcraft.

 

[Crayon]

People keep parotting B) as if it was some universal truth, but I have yet to see numbers that prove this assumption.

I've seen way too many underperforming singleplayer games to buy into this. Just look at Alan Wake 2.

@OP: There's plenty of multiplayer games that care about IP a lot. Mario Kart, CoD, even EA managed do strengthen their soccer IP by kicking FIFA out of the mix. One of thr main reasons why World of Warcraft is one of the most popular online games is the IP. People love Warcraft.

Those uses of big IP for multiplayer you listed were established before the modern age. Currently, making a gaas is like playing a claw machine. If you want to stick an established IP on a multiplayer game, it surely is going to help, but it could easily still crash and burn.

Like does a horizon MMO sound like a surefire hit? Nobody knows, but there is a decent chance that it fails and tarnishes the brand a bit.

 

[Mister Wolf]

Because story is more important in single player games. People want stories told in the universes they are already familiar with and enjoy. The Forgotten Realms where Baldurs Gate 3 takes place has decades of established lore to work with.

 

[Aces High]

Those uses of big IP for multiplayer you listed were established before the modern age. Currently, making a gaas is like playing a claw machine. If you want to stick an established IP on a multiplayer game, it surely is going to help, but it could easily still crash and burn.

Like does a horizon MMO sound like a surefire hit? Nobody knows, but there is a decent chance that it fails and tarnishes the brand a bit.

The difference between a succesful singleplayer game and a succesful multiplayer game is that the SP game requires good marketing to make people buy whereas the MP game actually has to be a good game so people keep playing after purchase.

So, no, Horizon MMO will not be succesful because the Horizon games have nothing to offer beyond graphics.

 

[Ozzie666]

I still miss the cast of Persona 4. Good writing, good characters and emotional attachments are important. You spend 30-100 hours with these fictional chatacters, instead of single 5 minute rounds of killing.
Sometimes you spend 3 games with the same characters like in Mass Effect.

 

[Laptop1991]

Multiplayer games are about just that, playing against other players, they don't get as immersed in the setting, ambiance or story as much as single player gamer's, even the characters aren't as important, i mean go back to Half Life 1 and Gordon Freeman became famous, well Counter Strike was a mod from Half Life that became a game and all that matters is the MP game play, nothing else.

 

[Crayon]

The difference between a succesful singleplayer game and a succesful multiplayer game is that the SP game requires good marketing to make people buy whereas the MP game actually has to be a good game so people keep playing after purchase.

So, no, Horizon MMO will not be succesful because the Horizon games have nothing to offer beyond graphics.

Whoa that's nuts if I'm reading you right. Lemme check again

the SP game requires good marketing to make people buy whereas the MP game actually has to be a good game

Okay you didn't say an sp game only needs marketing, but it half implied by saying it doesn't necessarily need to be a good game.

FF7R, god of war, last two Zelda's... Clarify please. Do you mean these games are just incidentally good to play or are you saying they aren't good at all?

 

[Aces High]

Whoa that's nuts if I'm reading you right. Lemme check again



Okay you didn't say an sp game only needs marketing, but it half implied by saying it doesn't necessarily need to be a good game.

FF7R, god of war, last two Zelda's... Clarify please. Do you mean these games are just incidentally good to play or are you saying they aren't good at all?

Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo should offer full refunds just like Valve.

Will be pretty easy to see how much of SP sales is due to marketing and how much due to quality.

Also, I'm absolutely sick of people speaking of some video games as If they were untouchable. "It's a Zelda. It's a once in a decade masterpiece because of the name alone". Yeah, that's what marketing does to you.

 

[Crayon]

Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo should offer full refunds just like Valve.

Will be pretty easy to see how much of SP sales is due to marketing and how much due to quality.

Also, I'm absolutely sick of people speaking of some video games as If they were untouchable. "It's a Zelda. It's a once in a decade masterpiece because of the name alone". Yeah, that's what marketing does to you.

Just look at the steam numbers then. Most of the sp games are on there. What do be we see pretty easy?

 

[Codes 208]

Multiplayer games are often just self-inserts that allow you senselessly beat each other up. Outside of named pedigrees like halo, cod, overwatch, bf, gears, killzone, it really doesnt make much of a difference what you play outside of your preference for gameplay

Single player games are different because they tell stories and a game with a boring character is less appealing than a game with a deep story and likeable characters

 

[Kumomeme]

single player game tend to put more care about characters and the world so player end up more invested.

while multiplayer put less attention to that especially due to nature of the game. so most of player end up doesnt care. all their care is to play with other players more than with some fictional character in game. storyline in multiplayer games also tend to be short and treat as a secondry objective.

 

[Lord Malachite]

Single player games franchises are frequently steeped in ongoing lore and character development. It's like following a major book or film franchise. Each new release is like a new episode, filling things in. While gameplay is important to a single player game's success, a mediocre single player game can still often succeed if it's part of a strong IP with a good ongoing story that lures people in.

Conversely, multiplayer games are often unfocused on story. They're about having fun. There's no character development beyond grinding out levels to gain more skills, weapons, cosmetics, loadouts, etc. The gameplay is all. A mediocre multiplayer game typically won't last very long because there are so many alternatives out there offering very similar experiences. Whereas the story and characters and worlds in single player games are investments on the parts of the player. The new game comes out in a series, and there is much more of an "obligation" to buy said game and play through its story.

Some franchises straddle the line by having a good single player and multiplayer component, but this is often more the exception than the rule.

In short, no one is emotionally invested in mutiplayer live service looter shooter number 916. It will sink or swim based on its gameplay, value, player engagement, and reliability (as in, you can find matches and the servers aren't shit). People are far more invested in the next chapter of a continuing story.

 

[cash_longfellow]

To add to the topic, gaming has gotten a lot more social since the 90s and 00s. Gamers would rather play with friends. You have to remember that there are kids growing up who are only playing F2P games for the most part. When their birthday or Christmas rolls around, they are asking their parents for a gift card instead of a single player game outside of the usual COD and NBA2k. F2P games have really hurt the single player market. The younger gen would rather buy a game from a well established IP, than risk their money on something new.

Correction - Some “gamers would rather play with friends.”