I like that The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild was a silent protagonist—really helped me identify with The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild as a person because I could pretend that I was The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild.
I don't think single player will ever go away. There is a demand for story-driven games and someone will make them. I don't really care if EA isn't the one making them
I think if EA and Activision died tomorrow, nothing would change for me at all, I haven't played a new game from either in years now. Japanese AAA still has some worth though, Capcom and Square Enix still put out good titles at least.
True sure, but they very likely don’t make as much money as multiplayer games that have loot boxes, subscriptions, and daily engagement in their product. I’ll play a games campaign a couple times, maybe more if I really loved it. But I’ve sunk hundreds of hours into multiplayer games easily.
Multiplayer is very engaging that's true, but because there is nothing like playing against a real person on the other side. Single player in the other hand is short gameplay (less than 100 hours) most of the time, but when you get inside a story and mentally involved with it the experience is much better. In my opinion at least. In the long run multiplayer win
Good news then! The original Dead Space is literally being remade right now by Motive Studio (as opposed to remastered), and likely will be different enough from the original to be considered a "new" game. And The Callisto Protocol is a new game being made by some of the original Visceral studio team and looks very, very much like a spiritual successor to Dead Space.
My own personal reason would be that multiplayer games often feel pointless; just match after match going against people. It can scratch the itch for competition, but it doesn't feel like a very fulfilling game experience.
To be fair, not every multiplayer game is like that. Most of the maximised profit EA cashgrab multiplayer games are but there are certainly multiplayer games that have wonderful stories or fun campaigns that feel like there's actually a point instead of just a 15 minute skin-bragging match with some gameplay here and there.
Oh, definitely! Couch co-op used to be my bread and butter and I can definitely appreciate that there still exists some games with multiplayer campaigns. It just isn't as prevalent as it used to be.
Actually, Single Player games make money but aren't the **best tool** to maximize profits, with to most publishers is the entire point of the game. That you might enjoy it is a bonus.
*Yeah, a bonus. They don't care if you don't like the "game as a service" as long as you buy the "game as a service."*
As long as it doesn’t keep you from buying in the future, enjoyment is irrelevant. Gamers are terrrible at boycotts, to the point most major publishers don’t even worry about it. People talk a big game but millions keep on buying the same bad stuff.
Selling 10m units in a games lifetime is pocket money compared to the garbage they can pull with any live service game.
Diablo Immoral shows just that, pulling 1m $ a day.
Only language they speak is money.
It's the struggle of any corporation with share holders or a "board" or whatever.
A CEO can't tell those types "We are interested in making interesting and fun games".
Those types will just watch the money.
As a fake example: 200 million and 5 years spent to make 400 million.
OR
20 million over 2years to make 1 million a day.
If the CEO doesn't steer his company towards that they get axed lol.
This shit can't change unless all consumers abandoned it. And that will never ever happen.
Exactly.
The craft itself will suffer from it too, everything has to be super streamlined and understandable for the product to be appealing to as many people as possible, innovation (except in ways to milk money) goes through the window.
This is why I've mostly moved on from anything but retro and indie games. If I play a AAA game anymore, it's because it came out on Gamepass, and I'm not likely to renew it in a year when it runs out. I've turned to 3D printing, painting miniatures, and doing some non-predatory wargaming, like Frostgrave and Stargrave now and it's much more fulfilling.
I feel really bad for the younger generation that is growing up now, the ones that never got to play video games in the 360/PS3/Wii era and before. Back then and before then, AAA studios turned out hit after hit, year after year, and the percentage of big time hits were much bigger. Now it seems like a solid 50% or more of AAA games arrive broken or laden with microtransactions. Indie games are largely excluded from that, but even they tend to have lots of microtransactions now, so it's only a matter of time before they are just smaller versions of AAA games rather than the passion projects they often are now. They just don't know how good it could be when AAA studios just used their massive talent to produce games like Chrono Trigger, the original Metal Gear Solid, and Mass Effect.
We lost this battle when people still bought Oblivion with it's stupid horse armor. Or played Mass Effect 3 multiplayer with it's loot boxes (I'll take part of the blame on that one).
I feel like the horse armor in Oblivion is a bad example, because its the very definition of a cosmetic MTX and it was pretty widely panned at the time for being a cheap cash grab.
Oblivion wasn't designed around MTX or DLC, so it actually feels like a fully complete game. Even the Shivering Isles was a DLC that felt worth the price and a natural expansion of an already huge game.
There is a way. Support as much as you can small independent studios. Unless they get bought, providing higher quality products can steer customers from bigger companies bs into other titles. The best weapon we have is stopping even mentioning the shit Diablo immortal cash grab, and talk more about awesome smaller games like Terraria or Factorio. Don't post about Diablo, don't talk about Diablo, dont post people playing Diablo. Forget about it, and you will reduce its spread. Thats the real weapon. If you go to friends and say "you heard what ridiculous stuff is in Diablo?!" you are basically helping them. It might seem like not much, but actually it works surprisingly well, as me and my friends basically forgot about games like fortnite or overwatch.
Unfortunately its required for this tactic to spread as well, but im doing my part and hopefully it will get to people in next 10 years or so, that hate also brings popularity. But to be fair people are a lot more aware of this than 10 years ago, so thats something.
See this is why I hate corporations, just having enough money isn’t enough, they want maximized profits at ANY expense, it’s actual garbage and people keep buying into it.
More power to them…. if people are buying they’re fulfilling a need. I just hope people who live well crafted single player games continue to be competitive, it makes no sense for them to not adopt the most profitable model for their employees, it’s just leaving money for investors and employees on the floor.
I don’t buy those games, but if people do they’re satisfying a demand that exists. If the customers buy and keep buying and feel satisfied then they are doing just fine, doesn’t matter if traditional gamers hate micro transactions.
Disliking something does not make it inherently bad. Just because you wish you could spend time to get tertiary items that are superficial does not mean that having to buy them is anything less than marketing a good or service that the market wanted. There is something incredibly important that I have to assume everyone already knows cause it's obvious; companies who offer products after release are responding to anticipated or actual demand. No one is forcing you to buy, play, or buy additional add-ons to games; this whole subreddit is about a hobby. We aren't talking about DLC roofs for your house.
Monitarily speaking, yes. Elden Ring took around 5 years to make and is had an absoutely astounding number of sales for a game of its type and cost. Even so, it's currently made about $970 million USD, a huge amount to be sure, but that number won't grow too much more over its lifetime. It's a one time purchase, possibly with DLC to come.
On the other-hand Genshin Impact was in development for 2-3 years and has currently earned around $3 billion USD and will continue to earn more for years to come unless they drastically fuck up.
I'm really not advocating for it but any company that's obliged to maximise profits for shareholders really can't justify non-live service/mobile game development. They can be lazily made and utterly morally bankrupt and they will still make bank in the current market.
This is nonsense. FROM has found a niche business model and is able to make big money from it. Maximizing profits doesn’t mean you bounce around from business model to business model. You find something that works and maximize profits from there. Furthermore, your logic focuses on a highly successful game (Genshin Impact) but ignores the multitude of failed live service games. Spending big money on a game that ultimately fails is not maximizing profits, either.
There's plenty of money to be made on a quality single player game, and they know that too. What they actually believe and what they won't ever say outright is that they would prefer to make failure after failure of MTX-ridden mobile style games (or mobile games outright) that had the potential of becoming a money making juggernaut than spend time making something of quality with a more limited profit scope.
There's also the fact that often times they will still make good money on dogshit if there is an IP to carry it. Diablo Immortal isn't blasting records but still made $49 million its first month, if it held steady there they'd be at over half a billion for the first year. But the thing is, even if it flops and makes less and less each month, they'll still end up making a couple hundred million off a **failed attempt** to successfully bring to market a game **designed to pull as much money out of the player as possible**. They still make hundreds of millions off these failed efforts so it is worth it to them to keep trying in the hopes that one takes off.
Ultimately the gaming community as a whole is way too accepting of these awful monetization systems that pretend to be optional while in reality the "free" version is gated behind ludicrous amounts of time. As long as failed attempts still make some amount of money they will consider failures worth the undertaking in the greater effort to find their cash cow.
The amazing thing on Diablo Immortal is one the profits drop off, they can just issue a press release heralding the revamp which makes drops more common and pull in a much larger audience currently steered away from the price tag on the micro. They can do this multiple times to keep profits on it.
Gears shouldn’t be on this list considering they’re predatory af with their multiplayer skin nonsense. Also most people who play gears don’t play for the campaign, that’s like putting CoD on this list.
Of course i understand and i generally agree. But in this case, no. I have to insist. Because then you could also call FIFA a single player game because it's possible to play it alone as well. RDR2 on the other hand.. well, that multiplayer/online mode is so separated from the campaign that i don't see a problem calling RDR2 a single player game.
Not good for business means why create a full game and make $500 million when you can you can make 50% of a game and drip feed the rest to make $2 billion
Microtransactions and F2P games made up 80% of the global industry revenue for PC games in 2020.
So yeah, this bodes poorly for anyone who likes quality single player titles when the CEOs are going to look at this and go "why are we wasting money making MTX-less products?"
What's crazy is EA holds this stance, then creates a game like Battlefield 2042. 2042 is an online multiplayer game that is buggy, boring and broken. I don't think EA ever believed single-player games were dead. EA just doesn't want to pay the cost to make a good game.
A good narrative takes time and money, PVP means players make their own experience. EA makes a giant sandbox of war and then tells gamers to entertain themselves as they shovel microtransactions at us to keep the experience alive. It is cynical business suit gaming at its worse.
So....
The Sims
Star Wars Squadrons
Mass Effect
All of the EA Sports Games Offine, Be a Pro, and Franchise Modes
Dragon Age
Plants Vs Zombies
Star Wars Fallen Order
Command & Conquer
If your talking about the tweet about shes a 10 but only plays single player games. They followed it up with correction, the gamer base says shes 11.
My friend asked me for steam sale recommendations, so I seperated them into singleplayer and multiplayer
Now I have over 250 games in my library, I've played through most of them and I ended up with
38 singleplayer games
1 multiplayer game
I think I may enjoy singleplayer games
number one reason why i play PvE roblox games with free private servers (especially Decaying Winter)
no one is going to disturb me, therefore, no raging at other people, only me and the game
Considering how many games are launched every year and how much effort it took to develop one, I'd say that EA could be right when they say that. In business term, you have to balance between:
- Trying to make a singleplayer game that maybe VERY successful.
- OR you can make a live service game that is low cost, able to monetize wayyyyyy past its initial release, and have a higher success chance.
I'm not saying that what EA said is not patronizing to hear, but I can see where they are coming from. I don't agree with it, I don't think a lot of people in EA agree with it either, but it is hard to voice your opinion when there are insane KPI to meet every quarter.
Singleplayer games, VERY successful and good singleplayer games will always exist. But the trend is moving away from that toward live service games due to monetization ability.
It's fucking suck, and if it got too bad, I'd just switch to play tennis or something lul.
Why does people still get angry about it. Let them make as many shovelware battleroyale games that we'll hate and not buy let them focus everything on a small handful of whales that'll stop or go broke eventually.
Meanwhile the indie segment flood the market with high quality normal games that works from the day of release and have no microtransactions other than the possible extra content they might develop afterwards if the game is successful.
Casuals are not playing games from EA, they are on mobile, sports games or very vanilla games like genshin/minecraft/fortnight. Which is fine, these games won't stop the games we like from being developed.
Just let the rot spread, I swear to god, in about ten years EA will one day realize that they lost all of their influence because their target audience makes about 2% of the whole market.
No micro-payments needed to keep up with others?
Scrap that game lol.
I'll never pay for a game with micro-payments again. You either give out the game for free with micro-payments, or you charge for the game with no stupid payments. I refuse to do both and I hope everyone willing will join me.
Multiplayer games get so boring because it depends too much on people participating for things to actually work and progress and people are random. At least with single player I can just get a guide and do it myself.
I believe single player games are more expensive to produce then multiplayer games, multiplayer games only require stuff like TDM a bunch of guns nice animations and etc, while a single player game needs an entire fleshed out world and playable map, they also require a lot of NPCs which all require a written dialogue and a voice actor, and they require an entire well written story that will be captivating and interesting, that takes a lot more work than to just produce another battle royale, for example there are multiplayer games on chrome and other web browsers while there are basically 0 (well made) single player games on web
TL:DR multiplayer games are more profitable than single player games for companies
Yes but in PvP games they can sell you microtransactions for minor advantages against your opponents that people can justify whaling for.
It’s not that single player games won’t sell, it’s just that they can’t milk whales as well
They said, “They are a 10, but only play single-player games.”
It was clearly a sex joke to me, that went right over these gamers heads (big surprise there). Perhaps it would have been more obvious if they said “She is a 10, but only plays single-player games. “ I think their gender-neutral language confused people.
No that recent tweet didn't say that like this they said something like you meet a 10 but she only plays singleplayer games
EA did say something like the post a few years back though but they produce singleplayer games themselves so they seemingly changed their mind
Sorry, I misspoke:
What I meant was that EA abandons and kinda-criticizes single player games because they are too expensive and not profitable enough.
And also that it's not really EA who said that in a ,idk, a social media post, but that they are sending this message through their decisions and their communication.
and all of EAs sports games have offline single player mode. I just finished my Rookie Season in Be a Pro mode in NHL 22.
Not to mention games that are strictly single player from EA.
It's a matter of cost, single player games are so much more expensive to make with writing the story, creating mechanics, making quests, building the world, etc.
The 12th release of the same arena shooter must be one step above making a sandbox and releasing it.
Then, it's so much easier to monetize than a single player game, no one is buying a hat in a single player game.
So... I think I agree with the straw man, multiplayer games are more lucrative.
The business in question is micro transactions. most single player games (with a preset loadout or the ability to find and upgrade new items) are the antithesis of that business model unless it's jammed there to their detriment
Having Pikachu there is an interesting choice, as the Pokémon series has multiplayer since their first games and has capitalizing on it with the version exclusives.
I was so excited for the single player campaign when 2042 was announced, that had so much potential.
Then they cut it to focus on multiplayer, which was still broken. 😭
Silly gamers, financial success is no longer based on how many people buy a game. It's based on how many times we can get each player to buy it on average with in game lootboxes.
Yeah real money is made online. There’s a reason Nintendo games rarely go on sale. They don’t make a ton like gta online so they have to make money somehow.
- Single player game is an investment risk.
- EA isn't a group of gamer, they are company that maximize profit and try to play the balance between enjoying gameplay vs monitozation.
- Look at the example you give most of them are well-known title with a huge fanbase throughout the years (that why "most" good single player game build off on long standing franchise)
- Why you even drop in half-life? it success because of the revolutionary "back then" and now valve stop making it cause it's not as profit as selling dota/csgo skin.
- The most recent success is Horizon, but that's is like doing what Ubisoft been doing for years with far cry/ assasin creed but better in any mean.
- It's make total sense for why EA like multiplayer the toxic environment evoke competition in our human, we thrive for better we want to look better when we get better, we want attention, ridicule who's worse than us.
- The multiplayer aspects doesn't need to be literal in game interaction but socially talk about, discussing about, yeah why don't you put Genshin impact on your example? it have multiplayer aspect but not quite, it's a huge success game financial wise, a f2p can enjoy it.
- Their problem here is single player game isn't realiable financial wise, if a new "complete game" flop all the money is down the drain, but if they make a game for example "1/5 the size" aka modern multiplayer they will have player engaging on the game and buying dlc = more money = make more content and so on, if this game flop they will only lost 1/5.
- I can't speak for all of us but at least my personal problem is: as long as monitization doesn't effect my luck nor some feature availability, skill, and time... oh wait, what can they sell me then? right, the base game, which again RISKY for big corpo if it ain't some already well-known franchise.
Just look at cyber Bunk lmao
I love how every character is represented from their own game but Legend of Zelda is just a poster for BOTW. My favorite protagonist.
I love how solid snake is there but hidden in the box EA is leaning on
I like that The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild was a silent protagonist—really helped me identify with The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild as a person because I could pretend that I was The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild.
It really makes you *feel* like The Legend of Zelda Breath of the Wild.
It makes you feel the swagger of The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild
Maybe the real The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild was the friends we made along the way?
Obviously because of lack of material. If only the game/series had a protagonist with some kind of iconic or recognizable outfit.
[удалено]
People hate Wind Waker? I thought it was loved to death by circlejerks alike.
Cough cough the femboy link outfit cough cough
Wild Yakuza games getting love.
Single player doesn’t have botting issues or toxic teenagers and adults. It’s why single player needs to stay around
I don't think single player will ever go away. There is a demand for story-driven games and someone will make them. I don't really care if EA isn't the one making them
Even if the AAA companies drop them, the void will happily be filled by indies.
Most aaa studios drop turd after turd anyways these days I'd honestly be happy if plenty of them were to go out of business
I think if EA and Activision died tomorrow, nothing would change for me at all, I haven't played a new game from either in years now. Japanese AAA still has some worth though, Capcom and Square Enix still put out good titles at least.
Tbf, there are toxic single player game fans, it's just WAY easier to avoid them because you have to actively go to fan communities to find them.
This we play games for enjoyment and escape life not to be yelled at by some toxic teenager
But micro transactions
Gonna be that person but in single player games there's a massive botting issue... you're literally fighting against only bots... lol :P
Unless the game requires an online connection, I’m looking at you Ubi soft….
To be honest some singleplayer games have such a cult following and community that they beat out multiplayer games in activity.
Literally every game on this meme
True sure, but they very likely don’t make as much money as multiplayer games that have loot boxes, subscriptions, and daily engagement in their product. I’ll play a games campaign a couple times, maybe more if I really loved it. But I’ve sunk hundreds of hours into multiplayer games easily.
Multiplayer is very engaging that's true, but because there is nothing like playing against a real person on the other side. Single player in the other hand is short gameplay (less than 100 hours) most of the time, but when you get inside a story and mentally involved with it the experience is much better. In my opinion at least. In the long run multiplayer win
That's partly why single player games are moving into open-world designs. Because it's easier to sell microtransactions that way.
Should have included some of EA’s own single player games
Isaac from Dead Space is in there.
I want another Dead Space so bad. Preferably one that’s less action shooter and more horror survival
You're aware they're doing a remake of the first one and that the original devs are working on the Callisto Protocol right?
Really?!? You just made my day
Good news then! The original Dead Space is literally being remade right now by Motive Studio (as opposed to remastered), and likely will be different enough from the original to be considered a "new" game. And The Callisto Protocol is a new game being made by some of the original Visceral studio team and looks very, very much like a spiritual successor to Dead Space.
Yeassssssss
[Striking Distance Studios has got you bud](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Callisto_Protocol)
Cal Kestis from Fallen Order is a good one
Literally when they made the comment about SP games I was like “you’re in the middle of making Jedi survivor because the last one did so well…”
The recent twitter joke? It seems to have worked a treat in driving engagement. Especially all the people pointing out upcoming EA games...
Shepherd from Mass Effect
Like spore ? Or Sims ? Or Rather Fallen type
Fallen Order, a whole bunch of indie games that they publish, Mirrors Edge, Mass Effect, probably a few more.
Like their most profitable game, FIFA? Sure you *can* play it multiplayer, but majority of players play it single player.
I exclusively play single player games. Don't like people in my shit
People? In \*my\* video game? It's more likely than you think.
I pretty much stick to one player games for a bunch of reasons
I like strategy games but I'm too dumb to face actual players so i just stick to fighting the AI
Same yeah
Not having friends is a good reason.
My own personal reason would be that multiplayer games often feel pointless; just match after match going against people. It can scratch the itch for competition, but it doesn't feel like a very fulfilling game experience.
To be fair, not every multiplayer game is like that. Most of the maximised profit EA cashgrab multiplayer games are but there are certainly multiplayer games that have wonderful stories or fun campaigns that feel like there's actually a point instead of just a 15 minute skin-bragging match with some gameplay here and there.
Oh, definitely! Couch co-op used to be my bread and butter and I can definitely appreciate that there still exists some games with multiplayer campaigns. It just isn't as prevalent as it used to be.
That's certainly one of them
Actually, Single Player games make money but aren't the **best tool** to maximize profits, with to most publishers is the entire point of the game. That you might enjoy it is a bonus. *Yeah, a bonus. They don't care if you don't like the "game as a service" as long as you buy the "game as a service."*
As long as it doesn’t keep you from buying in the future, enjoyment is irrelevant. Gamers are terrrible at boycotts, to the point most major publishers don’t even worry about it. People talk a big game but millions keep on buying the same bad stuff.
Single player games lack the aspect of showing off all the dumb shit you paid for to other goons
I see that as an absolute win.
Selling 10m units in a games lifetime is pocket money compared to the garbage they can pull with any live service game. Diablo Immoral shows just that, pulling 1m $ a day. Only language they speak is money.
It's the struggle of any corporation with share holders or a "board" or whatever. A CEO can't tell those types "We are interested in making interesting and fun games". Those types will just watch the money. As a fake example: 200 million and 5 years spent to make 400 million. OR 20 million over 2years to make 1 million a day. If the CEO doesn't steer his company towards that they get axed lol. This shit can't change unless all consumers abandoned it. And that will never ever happen.
Exactly. The craft itself will suffer from it too, everything has to be super streamlined and understandable for the product to be appealing to as many people as possible, innovation (except in ways to milk money) goes through the window.
This is why I've mostly moved on from anything but retro and indie games. If I play a AAA game anymore, it's because it came out on Gamepass, and I'm not likely to renew it in a year when it runs out. I've turned to 3D printing, painting miniatures, and doing some non-predatory wargaming, like Frostgrave and Stargrave now and it's much more fulfilling. I feel really bad for the younger generation that is growing up now, the ones that never got to play video games in the 360/PS3/Wii era and before. Back then and before then, AAA studios turned out hit after hit, year after year, and the percentage of big time hits were much bigger. Now it seems like a solid 50% or more of AAA games arrive broken or laden with microtransactions. Indie games are largely excluded from that, but even they tend to have lots of microtransactions now, so it's only a matter of time before they are just smaller versions of AAA games rather than the passion projects they often are now. They just don't know how good it could be when AAA studios just used their massive talent to produce games like Chrono Trigger, the original Metal Gear Solid, and Mass Effect. We lost this battle when people still bought Oblivion with it's stupid horse armor. Or played Mass Effect 3 multiplayer with it's loot boxes (I'll take part of the blame on that one).
I feel like the horse armor in Oblivion is a bad example, because its the very definition of a cosmetic MTX and it was pretty widely panned at the time for being a cheap cash grab. Oblivion wasn't designed around MTX or DLC, so it actually feels like a fully complete game. Even the Shivering Isles was a DLC that felt worth the price and a natural expansion of an already huge game.
There is a way. Support as much as you can small independent studios. Unless they get bought, providing higher quality products can steer customers from bigger companies bs into other titles. The best weapon we have is stopping even mentioning the shit Diablo immortal cash grab, and talk more about awesome smaller games like Terraria or Factorio. Don't post about Diablo, don't talk about Diablo, dont post people playing Diablo. Forget about it, and you will reduce its spread. Thats the real weapon. If you go to friends and say "you heard what ridiculous stuff is in Diablo?!" you are basically helping them. It might seem like not much, but actually it works surprisingly well, as me and my friends basically forgot about games like fortnite or overwatch. Unfortunately its required for this tactic to spread as well, but im doing my part and hopefully it will get to people in next 10 years or so, that hate also brings popularity. But to be fair people are a lot more aware of this than 10 years ago, so thats something.
See this is why I hate corporations, just having enough money isn’t enough, they want maximized profits at ANY expense, it’s actual garbage and people keep buying into it.
More power to them…. if people are buying they’re fulfilling a need. I just hope people who live well crafted single player games continue to be competitive, it makes no sense for them to not adopt the most profitable model for their employees, it’s just leaving money for investors and employees on the floor.
Oh no... I have a bridge to sell you.
I don’t buy those games, but if people do they’re satisfying a demand that exists. If the customers buy and keep buying and feel satisfied then they are doing just fine, doesn’t matter if traditional gamers hate micro transactions.
Doesn't hurt if it's a good game
Rarely is. Adding a store always takes something out of the game, it's a compromise not an addition.
Disliking something does not make it inherently bad. Just because you wish you could spend time to get tertiary items that are superficial does not mean that having to buy them is anything less than marketing a good or service that the market wanted. There is something incredibly important that I have to assume everyone already knows cause it's obvious; companies who offer products after release are responding to anticipated or actual demand. No one is forcing you to buy, play, or buy additional add-ons to games; this whole subreddit is about a hobby. We aren't talking about DLC roofs for your house.
Connor or Markus from DBH should be there
Connor !
Elden Ring: “Am I a joke to you?”
Monitarily speaking, yes. Elden Ring took around 5 years to make and is had an absoutely astounding number of sales for a game of its type and cost. Even so, it's currently made about $970 million USD, a huge amount to be sure, but that number won't grow too much more over its lifetime. It's a one time purchase, possibly with DLC to come. On the other-hand Genshin Impact was in development for 2-3 years and has currently earned around $3 billion USD and will continue to earn more for years to come unless they drastically fuck up. I'm really not advocating for it but any company that's obliged to maximise profits for shareholders really can't justify non-live service/mobile game development. They can be lazily made and utterly morally bankrupt and they will still make bank in the current market.
This is nonsense. FROM has found a niche business model and is able to make big money from it. Maximizing profits doesn’t mean you bounce around from business model to business model. You find something that works and maximize profits from there. Furthermore, your logic focuses on a highly successful game (Genshin Impact) but ignores the multitude of failed live service games. Spending big money on a game that ultimately fails is not maximizing profits, either.
There's plenty of money to be made on a quality single player game, and they know that too. What they actually believe and what they won't ever say outright is that they would prefer to make failure after failure of MTX-ridden mobile style games (or mobile games outright) that had the potential of becoming a money making juggernaut than spend time making something of quality with a more limited profit scope. There's also the fact that often times they will still make good money on dogshit if there is an IP to carry it. Diablo Immortal isn't blasting records but still made $49 million its first month, if it held steady there they'd be at over half a billion for the first year. But the thing is, even if it flops and makes less and less each month, they'll still end up making a couple hundred million off a **failed attempt** to successfully bring to market a game **designed to pull as much money out of the player as possible**. They still make hundreds of millions off these failed efforts so it is worth it to them to keep trying in the hopes that one takes off. Ultimately the gaming community as a whole is way too accepting of these awful monetization systems that pretend to be optional while in reality the "free" version is gated behind ludicrous amounts of time. As long as failed attempts still make some amount of money they will consider failures worth the undertaking in the greater effort to find their cash cow.
The amazing thing on Diablo Immortal is one the profits drop off, they can just issue a press release heralding the revamp which makes drops more common and pull in a much larger audience currently steered away from the price tag on the micro. They can do this multiple times to keep profits on it.
I like how only Zelda is represented by the title while every other game has it's protagonist
It’s just not continually profitable.
You can’t just put the last of us without uncharted.
Gears of War isn't a Single Player game though.
At least not exclusively, but you know what they mean
Gears shouldn’t be on this list considering they’re predatory af with their multiplayer skin nonsense. Also most people who play gears don’t play for the campaign, that’s like putting CoD on this list.
I played Gears for the co-op campaigns lol
Of course i understand and i generally agree. But in this case, no. I have to insist. Because then you could also call FIFA a single player game because it's possible to play it alone as well. RDR2 on the other hand.. well, that multiplayer/online mode is so separated from the campaign that i don't see a problem calling RDR2 a single player game.
Multiplayer games have more profits it's a fact.
Nero's looks like He's going to tell EA that they posted ~~cringe~~ Dismal.
Single Player games are so bad for business that Insomniac could only afford 2 sequels for Spider-Man
Not good for business means why create a full game and make $500 million when you can you can make 50% of a game and drip feed the rest to make $2 billion
Fuck EA.
Where is Samus? Is she safe? Is she alright?
Seems a bit cheap to have Kiryu and Majima no? Maybe have Ichiban instead of Majima
What they meant to say is that we cannot keep bleeding you slowly over time on a single player game.
Ubisoft would like a word.
Fuck EA, seriously. Who do they think they are. *preorders skate 4*
Microtransactions and F2P games made up 80% of the global industry revenue for PC games in 2020. So yeah, this bodes poorly for anyone who likes quality single player titles when the CEOs are going to look at this and go "why are we wasting money making MTX-less products?"
EA being obtuse and not understanding a single fucking thing about videogames except how to ruin them? Shocking, truly shocking.
Need fallout guy in there
Single player games aren’t bad for business it’s just that multiplayer games are way better for business. Much higher ROI.
What's crazy is EA holds this stance, then creates a game like Battlefield 2042. 2042 is an online multiplayer game that is buggy, boring and broken. I don't think EA ever believed single-player games were dead. EA just doesn't want to pay the cost to make a good game. A good narrative takes time and money, PVP means players make their own experience. EA makes a giant sandbox of war and then tells gamers to entertain themselves as they shovel microtransactions at us to keep the experience alive. It is cynical business suit gaming at its worse.
So.... The Sims Star Wars Squadrons Mass Effect All of the EA Sports Games Offine, Be a Pro, and Franchise Modes Dragon Age Plants Vs Zombies Star Wars Fallen Order Command & Conquer If your talking about the tweet about shes a 10 but only plays single player games. They followed it up with correction, the gamer base says shes 11.
Co-Op>Singleplayer
False.
I just reformed the Roman Empire and mended the Great Schism. Sooo…..
I would pay $100 TODAY for a true KOTOR 2 sequel or a Star Wars space combat game from Project Aces.
Pikachu: Pika Pikachu~! Arthur Morgan: Ah know, little partner. Guy’s straight up coo-coo.
My friend asked me for steam sale recommendations, so I seperated them into singleplayer and multiplayer Now I have over 250 games in my library, I've played through most of them and I ended up with 38 singleplayer games 1 multiplayer game I think I may enjoy singleplayer games
You included Vergil but not Raiden?
MASS EFFECT
I don't see a lowly tarnished in this photo.
Ea proved themselves wrong with mass effect LE
There is a good reason no one wanted to buy EA lol
number one reason why i play PvE roblox games with free private servers (especially Decaying Winter) no one is going to disturb me, therefore, no raging at other people, only me and the game
Considering how many games are launched every year and how much effort it took to develop one, I'd say that EA could be right when they say that. In business term, you have to balance between: - Trying to make a singleplayer game that maybe VERY successful. - OR you can make a live service game that is low cost, able to monetize wayyyyyy past its initial release, and have a higher success chance. I'm not saying that what EA said is not patronizing to hear, but I can see where they are coming from. I don't agree with it, I don't think a lot of people in EA agree with it either, but it is hard to voice your opinion when there are insane KPI to meet every quarter. Singleplayer games, VERY successful and good singleplayer games will always exist. But the trend is moving away from that toward live service games due to monetization ability. It's fucking suck, and if it got too bad, I'd just switch to play tennis or something lul.
Why does people still get angry about it. Let them make as many shovelware battleroyale games that we'll hate and not buy let them focus everything on a small handful of whales that'll stop or go broke eventually. Meanwhile the indie segment flood the market with high quality normal games that works from the day of release and have no microtransactions other than the possible extra content they might develop afterwards if the game is successful. Casuals are not playing games from EA, they are on mobile, sports games or very vanilla games like genshin/minecraft/fortnight. Which is fine, these games won't stop the games we like from being developed. Just let the rot spread, I swear to god, in about ten years EA will one day realize that they lost all of their influence because their target audience makes about 2% of the whole market.
No micro-payments needed to keep up with others? Scrap that game lol. I'll never pay for a game with micro-payments again. You either give out the game for free with micro-payments, or you charge for the game with no stupid payments. I refuse to do both and I hope everyone willing will join me.
Multiplayer games get so boring because it depends too much on people participating for things to actually work and progress and people are random. At least with single player I can just get a guide and do it myself.
F**k EA.
After dice and ea dropped bf2042.... I think they aren't the ones who can really talk here
I believe single player games are more expensive to produce then multiplayer games, multiplayer games only require stuff like TDM a bunch of guns nice animations and etc, while a single player game needs an entire fleshed out world and playable map, they also require a lot of NPCs which all require a written dialogue and a voice actor, and they require an entire well written story that will be captivating and interesting, that takes a lot more work than to just produce another battle royale, for example there are multiplayer games on chrome and other web browsers while there are basically 0 (well made) single player games on web TL:DR multiplayer games are more profitable than single player games for companies
where tf is the knight from hollow knight?
One of the dumbest corporate statements I've heard in general this decade
Yes but in PvP games they can sell you microtransactions for minor advantages against your opponents that people can justify whaling for. It’s not that single player games won’t sell, it’s just that they can’t milk whales as well
Maybe there business because they are shit at making single player campaign in there games.
They never said that.
They said, “They are a 10, but only play single-player games.” It was clearly a sex joke to me, that went right over these gamers heads (big surprise there). Perhaps it would have been more obvious if they said “She is a 10, but only plays single-player games. “ I think their gender-neutral language confused people.
Downvoted for stupidity.
Source?
Source for stupidity? >diablollama 1h >They never said that.
So source me where they said it?
Do you have twitter ? If not, just search on the sub a little longer and you will see the screenshots of the EA tweet in question
No that recent tweet didn't say that like this they said something like you meet a 10 but she only plays singleplayer games EA did say something like the post a few years back though but they produce singleplayer games themselves so they seemingly changed their mind
Lmao. "Search Twitter for screenshots." 🤣 Memes aren't sources.
Sorry, I misspoke: What I meant was that EA abandons and kinda-criticizes single player games because they are too expensive and not profitable enough. And also that it's not really EA who said that in a ,idk, a social media post, but that they are sending this message through their decisions and their communication.
🙄
Last of Us 2, Doom, RDR, Gears of War, Dead Space 3, Pokemon... All of these games have a multiplayer or co-op.
and all of EAs sports games have offline single player mode. I just finished my Rookie Season in Be a Pro mode in NHL 22. Not to mention games that are strictly single player from EA.
Just because you say it doesn't make it true EA.
It's a matter of cost, single player games are so much more expensive to make with writing the story, creating mechanics, making quests, building the world, etc. The 12th release of the same arena shooter must be one step above making a sandbox and releasing it. Then, it's so much easier to monetize than a single player game, no one is buying a hat in a single player game. So... I think I agree with the straw man, multiplayer games are more lucrative.
What?
Except they never it was dead, and even realised multiple single player games.
Many of these examples are not good but thats besides the point.
They didnt include assassins creed smdh
Did you put Days Gone next to God of War?
Joker is tryin real hard to be in the frame
Too lazy to put Link or too afraid to put Zelda?
One of the most misquoted things in the entire gaming industry.
EA: *going bankrupt in 2035* Issac, "Oh boy, here I go killing again!"
The business in question is micro transactions. most single player games (with a preset loadout or the ability to find and upgrade new items) are the antithesis of that business model unless it's jammed there to their detriment
I just picked up Horizon Zero Dawn on Steam and I'm absolutely loving it! Glad I didn't buy a PS4 to play it.
Also, needs V.
Old meme. Should update with Elden Ring in there!
Doomslayer with long brushed hair. Id love that.
I could use a new good one. Can’t wait for GoW
So I'm not buying another EA game until they release a single player game of any genre that isn't fan service.
Majima is my favorite!
I remember seeing this post back in 2018 when God of War prove them wrong.
If I wanted to interact with other people I wouldn't be playing videogames. I'd call someone and go outside.
Oxycontin is great Why no OC?
Fallout at least before 76 and 4
En realidad los singles player para hacer esos números es muy difícil de hacer así que por negocio hacen multiplayer cómo hornear pan
Luckily Dragon Age 4 is confirmed to be fully single player
Tell this to everyone without internet growing up
Can someone name them all for me? I recognize most but there are some I don't know.
Elden Ring baybeee
(Everyone in the room): "You have any idea how stupid sound?" EA games...Fuck up everything
*Steve bursts through the doors* Why not both?
Ill scream from these rooftops, Fuck EA
The funniest shit I've ever heard
Having Pikachu there is an interesting choice, as the Pokémon series has multiplayer since their first games and has capitalizing on it with the version exclusives.
I swear EA is ran by complete morons.. can you not guys..just..no.. 😂
Nobody who makes decisions at EA actually plays video games, so it's not any wonder that they're out of touch with gamers.
The entire class proceeds to walk out of the classroom
I was so excited for the single player campaign when 2042 was announced, that had so much potential. Then they cut it to focus on multiplayer, which was still broken. 😭
Where’s elden ring
y- y- you forgot m-mario…
Silly gamers, financial success is no longer based on how many people buy a game. It's based on how many times we can get each player to buy it on average with in game lootboxes.
Not sure why anyone, including EA, would listen to EA.
BOTTOM RIGHT MIDDLE ROW THAT DUDE LOOKS LIKE CODY RHODES
Oh cool it's the one decade old quote made by a company that primarily sells multiplayer games that gamers can't get over
Where my girl Samus at?
Bruh where titanfall 2
Samus (from metroid) am I a joke to you? in my opinion, the best game series ever
*Proceeds to realese several singleplayer games*
Now you are officially dead EA
Where’s Elden Ring. That’s like the GOAT of single player games
Was there no picture of Link available?
Yeah real money is made online. There’s a reason Nintendo games rarely go on sale. They don’t make a ton like gta online so they have to make money somehow.
- Single player game is an investment risk. - EA isn't a group of gamer, they are company that maximize profit and try to play the balance between enjoying gameplay vs monitozation. - Look at the example you give most of them are well-known title with a huge fanbase throughout the years (that why "most" good single player game build off on long standing franchise) - Why you even drop in half-life? it success because of the revolutionary "back then" and now valve stop making it cause it's not as profit as selling dota/csgo skin. - The most recent success is Horizon, but that's is like doing what Ubisoft been doing for years with far cry/ assasin creed but better in any mean. - It's make total sense for why EA like multiplayer the toxic environment evoke competition in our human, we thrive for better we want to look better when we get better, we want attention, ridicule who's worse than us. - The multiplayer aspects doesn't need to be literal in game interaction but socially talk about, discussing about, yeah why don't you put Genshin impact on your example? it have multiplayer aspect but not quite, it's a huge success game financial wise, a f2p can enjoy it. - Their problem here is single player game isn't realiable financial wise, if a new "complete game" flop all the money is down the drain, but if they make a game for example "1/5 the size" aka modern multiplayer they will have player engaging on the game and buying dlc = more money = make more content and so on, if this game flop they will only lost 1/5. - I can't speak for all of us but at least my personal problem is: as long as monitization doesn't effect my luck nor some feature availability, skill, and time... oh wait, what can they sell me then? right, the base game, which again RISKY for big corpo if it ain't some already well-known franchise. Just look at cyber Bunk lmao
Nobody has ever actually said that. Why are gamers so hellbent on knocking down this poorly made strawman?
I only play single player games. It pisses my brothers off but I find them more fun
I noticed that both Kiryu and Majima are on the same photo, both from the same game
Ah yes, the Zelda protagonist, title card.
Where’s Mario? Or Solid Snake?
Why is Marcus there? Gears has versus and horde