Single-Player Games Are Not Dead But The Economics Are "Complicated," Xbox Boss Says

Maybe I am being too cynical but all I get from this is single player games need more micro transaction to even out the cost.

maybe dont shoehorn rpg systems, multiplayer experiences, 40 hours of sidequest filler, 3 book tie ins, and cross promotional cars, that'll keep the budget down

Anyone who says single player games are dead are idiots fishing for a reaction. To name the single player games i have played this year alone: Horizon Zero Dawn, Breath of the Wild, Persona 5, Yakuza 0, Nier Automata, Uncharted: Lost Legacy, Hellblade, Prey and so on. Plus there's many more that we already know about, hell Friday is the release date for Assassins Creed Origins, Super Mario Odyssey and Wolfenstein 2.

He's probably right to say the economics are complicated, but that's been the case for many, many years and is not anything new quite frankly. I honestly take the idea of single player gaming dieing as seriously as i took the idea that console gaming was on it's deathbed.

It's quite frankly annoying that this discussion came up again purely because EA shut down Visceral, when has EA been the bastion of single player gaming? outside of Mass Effect they are shooter and sports company exclusively.

We need those AA single player games from the PS2 era back, something in the vain of Battle Chasers: Nightwar (but with less grinding :lol: )

This is kinda weird. I've been very quickly growing out of online FPS. Favorite game this gen is Divinity and Horizon

By Xpike Go To Postmaybe dont shoehorn rpg systems, multiplayer experiences, 40 hours of sidequest filler, 3 book tie ins, and cross promotional cars, that'll keep the budget down

Unfortunately, then most people (both reviewers and consumers) will just complain that it is "low on content" and "shouldn't be full price". I really fear that there is no proper solution here.

But what about the order 1886? Lol

By Rmagnus Go To PostMaybe I am being too cynical but all I get from this is single player games need more micro transaction to even out the cost.

We’ve seen some of those this year, it’s probably just the start.

I don't care about the economics. Charge $90 for the game like back in the snes days then. It's not the consumers fault that a game sells millions and is deemed a failure due to cost.

Ruining $60 games with mobile pay to win garbage to make more money will only turn me off every time.

By Daeda Go To PostUnfortunately, then most people (both reviewers and consumers) will just complain that it is "low on content" and "shouldn't be full price". I really fear that there is no proper solution here.

This is a problem, when Ratchet and Clank was released for £30 there was a lot of concerns it wasn't a "full game". It's going to take a lot from both sides to embrace less than £40/60$ price point. I feel like a lot of these problems are solved with more games embracing that like Hellblade did, i mean look at games like Prey it went on half price sale within like a month.

By Mole Go To PostAnyone who says single player games are dead are idiots fishing for a reaction. To name the single player games i have played this year alone: Horizon Zero Dawn, Breath of the Wild, Persona 5, Yakuza 0, Nier Automata, Uncharted: Lost Legacy, Hellblade, Prey and so on. Plus there's many more that we already know about, hell Friday is the release date for Assassins Creed Origins, Super Mario Odyssey and Wolfenstein 2.

To be fair, most of those aren’t AAA games which I think that’s what the concerns are about, I don’t see Bethesda making more single player AAA games after all the flops (except elder scrolls and fallout of course), Assassin’s creed have microtransactions despite being a single player game and we saw the same thing with shadow of war, maybe more developers will put microtransactions in their single player games to justify their existence? Who knows.

The future for AAA single player games doesn’t seem good anyways, platform holders will probably still make these games (except Microsoft) but I don’t really see any other company doing the same outside of the guaranteed money making titles.

Single Player Games are most definitely not dead. But yeah this statement comes off as “we need more micro transactions or other revenue streams built in”.

I have faith though that smaller developers and/or the bigger more established devs will continue to shy away from those just because they can’t necessarily risk the backlash.

I'll call bullshit on him.

I don't think SP is dead, I just think AAA devs don't think the ROI on them is worth it anymore compared to GaaS.

Yeah I read this and all I see is "lootboxes in SP".

By Grimsat Go To PostTo be fair, most of those aren’t AAA games which I think that’s what the concerns are about, I don’t see Bethesda making more single player AAA games after all the flops (except elder scrolls and fallout of course), Assassin’s creed have microtransactions despite being a single player game and we saw the same thing with shadow of war, maybe more developers will put microtransactions in their single player games to justify their existence? Who knows.

The future for AAA single player games doesn’t seem good anyways, platform holders will probably still make these games (except Microsoft) but I don’t really see any other company doing the same outside of the guaranteed money making titles.

Depends what your and everyone elses definition of AAA is tbh, if the argument is that companies like EA and Ubisoft won't be making them then i agree but they haven't been much for years anyway. I still see loads of games which i consider AAA being released and i'm not particularly concerned they are dieing out.

I don’t think they’re saying the economics of single player games are difficult in a vacuum; it’s the opportunity cost of not making a service oriented multiplayer game that makes development and green light decisions more difficult.

In general, it won’t be shocking to see more games end up having service oriented content and/or larger multiplayer experiences. But that won’t kill off the SP genre.

By Mole Go To PostDepends what your and everyone elses definition of AAA is tbh, if the argument is that companies like EA and Ubisoft won't be making them then i agree but they haven't been much for years anyway. I still see loads of games which i consider AAA being released and i'm not particularly concerned they are dieing out.

The term just refers to games with big budgets, most Japanese games are not considered AAA, it’s not just about those two, I don’t see any company that isn’t deeply invested in a console make a pure AAA single player game, it’s a huge risk that can lead to closure of their studios.

By Grimsat Go To PostThe term just refers to games with big budgets, most Japanese games are not considered AAA, it’s not just about those two, I don’t see any company that isn’t deeply invested in a console make a pure AAA single player game, it’s a huge risk that can lead to closure of their studios.

If that's the case maybe Western devs should try and see what Japanese devs are doing because they seem to make more quality games overall. Compare Zelda to generic open world #484 and it's night and day

I think Sony has done a good job of leveraging their library of well-received single player games to propel their hardware successes. Maybe singleplayer games don't generate as much value out of the gate but I think long-term, a large SP library lets consumers know that a platform will be well supported.

By Grimsat Go To PostThe term just refers to games with big budgets, most Japanese games are not considered AAA, it’s not just about those two, I don’t see any company that isn’t deeply invested in a console make a pure AAA single player game, it’s a huge risk that can lead to closure of their studios.

I suppose when you think about it that limits to 3rd party studios who are not signing exclusivity deals with Microsoft or Sony, which i would agree is a very small group but i would argue has been the case since the end of the PS2 era. So again i'm not particularly seeing a new development which warrants this subject being brought up again since EA shutting down Visceral.

I think we would all love to see "AA" days come back but i don't particularly feel we are heading into a era where singleplayer games growth is being stunted anymore than it has other the last 10-12 years.

By PeskyToaster Go To PostI think Sony has done a good job of leveraging their library of well-received single player games to propel their hardware successes. Maybe singleplayer games don't generate as much value out of the gate but I think long-term, a large SP library lets consumers know that a platform will be well supported.

Sony has the benefit of not relying solely on the profits of their games to succeed, though. The value of a game like The Last Guardian is fundamentally different to Sony than it would be to a third party like Activision.

EA/Ubi/etc are much more reliant upon the actual revenue of each game, which is already reflected in their product offerings and the methodologies they employ to generate revenue post launch.

By Xpike Go To PostIf that's the case maybe Western devs should try and see what Japanese devs are doing because they seem to make more quality games overall. Compare Zelda to generic open world #484 and it's night and day

Zelda is an AAA game, they needed 2 million copies to break even if i’m not wrong which is not really small, Nintendo also has a console to sell so they can take these risks.

Yeah Nintendo doesn't apply here, neither does Sony as both need these games to sell their consoles. It meets their bottom line and thank god it does lol.

Then reduce the ridiculous scopes and budgets of some of these "blockbuster AAA" games.

There's room for more focused titles, but they see the dollar signs. So the main reason they keep stuffing multiplayer modes in is to make microtransactions more acceptable in the hopes of generating revenue indefinitely.

By BladeoftheImmortal Go To PostI'll call bullshit on him.

Loftis is a woman..

No but I totally get the argument, and it makes sense from a business standpoint. Not only is the budget going to be much bigger, but the potential revenue also risks being much smaller, and if the game doesn't do well, it doesn't have microstransactions to even it out either, which is a very risky business desicion and does in most cases not end well. And there are a lot of story based games outside of the triple a industry that is much cheaper to make, and don't involve the same risks. I adored Ori, but I especially loved Firewatch for it's sory content, which are just 2 games out of many that prove that they are still viable.

I think the problem is if microtransactions and lootboxes etc really affects games negatively, both in reception and revenue, than you could make a case for not having them. But I don't know how much of a negative impact they have on games, and whether or not the microtransactions aren't able to offset that anyway.

By Mole Go To PostI suppose when you think about it that limits to 3rd party studios who are not signing exclusivity deals with Microsoft or Sony, which i would agree is a very small group but i would argue has been the case since the end of the PS2 era. So again i'm not particularly seeing a new development which warrants this subject being brought up again since EA shutting down Visceral.

I think we would all love to see "AA" days come back but i don't particularly feel we are heading into a era where singleplayer games growth is being stunted anymore than it has other the last 10-12 years.

I can’t really comment about the ps2 era as I was too young to think about these thing, but I will say I haven’t played any multiplayer games on ps2, you also have to admit multiplayer games weren’t as big as they are now, you also have to take into account the increase in budget due to the demand of better graphics, longer games, etc so an AAA game at that time is in no way comparable to the AAA of now.

There will always be AA single players and indies, no one is really saying those are dead.

It's fun

By Jeronimo Go To PostThen reduce the ridiculous scopes and budgets of some of these "blockbuster AAA" games.

There's room for more focused titles, but they see the dollar signs. So the main reason they keep stuffing multiplayer modes in is to make microtransactions more acceptable in the hopes of generating revenue indefinitely.

It's hilarious because MS's next exclusive release is a small scale 3D platformer.

Oh no doubt multiplayer is much bigger than it's even been, no doubt about that. I also agree with the point about bigger budgets including increased development times etc etc, which is why this generation was quite slow to get going although i have greatly enjoyed the last 2-3 years personally.

But i do feel like i'm playing single player games as much as i always have, i don't take a look at what's happening and get concerned about the future of single player or anything like that. Whether that is AAA or not i'm not really sure.

By Silky Go To PostIt's fun

It's hilarious because MS's next exclusive release is a small scale 3D platformer.

I meant the industry in general, talking heads have recently been coming out with these kinds of statements in various interviews. Microsoft game releases are the least likely for me to follow or know about though.

By Mole Go To PostBut i do feel like i'm playing single player games as much as i always have, i don't take a look at what's happening and get concerned about the future of single player or anything like that. Whether that is AAA or not i'm not really sure.

Well, that just means that you’re avoiding all the multiplayer games :P

By Splatt Go To PostWe need those AA single player games from the PS2 era back, something in the vain of Battle Chasers: Nightwar (but with less grinding :lol: )

Hopefully, we get more releases like Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice from indie developers.

By SchuckyDucky Go To PostHopefully, we get more releases like Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice from indie developers.

Er... I wouldn't call them indie developers. It's something I noted since late PS3 or early PS4 era. B tier games are drying up. B tier in terms of budget, now they want max profit from the game hence loot boxes and all that crap. Jim sterling just released a fantastic video about it go check it out.

By Grimsat Go To PostWell, that just means that you’re avoiding all the multiplayer games :P

Believe me i'm not lol, i'm just really fussy with them. Only one i consistently played in last two years was Overwatch although i'm getting Battlefront 2.

im all for gaas and multiplayer only games
sp games are awful value for the money

By Lambda Go To Postim all for gaas and multiplayer only games
sp games are awful value for the money

I prefer to actually have an option tbh

By Jeronimo Go To PostThen reduce the ridiculous scopes and budgets of some of these "blockbuster AAA" games.

There's room for more focused titles, but they see the dollar signs. So the main reason they keep stuffing multiplayer modes in is to make microtransactions more acceptable in the hopes of generating revenue indefinitely.

Microsoft is still putting out smaller, single player games. It's just that in general their first party output has slowed as they shrank the number of development houses that they own.

Because they've closed so many studios, they tend to bankroll third parties making games they publish (Halo Wars 2 was made by Creative Assembly; Age of Empires 4 is being made by Relic) or are timed exclusives that wouldn't exist otherwise (Dead Rising 4). The games they do make in-house are largely ones that they can monetize through microtransactions. For instance, Halo 5 req packs apparently do phenomenally for them, so obviously they're going to implement the same thing (probably worse and more obtrusive) for Halo 6. Will Halo card packs and Xbox Game Pass actually go into funding other games, though? I don't know.

By Lambda Go To Postim all for gaas and multiplayer only games
sp games are awful value for the money

By Grimsat Go To Post

Haha, why not both?

She definitely has a point but I guess my question is how is Bethesda doing it? Or are they not really making it work?

They have had many SP only games recently which have seemed to under perform (Prey, Dishonored 2, Evil Within 2? Not sure on that one yet). But some big successes in Fallout 4, Doom, Wolfenstein (not sure if the first one was a huge success or not).

I think the issue is if you are not finding ways for your fans that are whales to spend money on your game you are leaving money on the table. Right or wrong that is just the way this industry is right now.

"Complicated" to me = "Our profit margin is much lower because we can't continue to monetize the user base after the inital purchase".

What she is really saying is they want super mega profit and micro transactions are the easy way. If Microsoft won't make them, there is others but can't say I'm not disappointed they won't attempt something like Horizon Zero Dawn now. It just makes Xbox so much less appealing.

I think there is still room in the industry for well made, fairly linear, 20-30 hour single player adventure games. There are examples of these out there but one major issue that developers/publishers basically only profit off of these games once at the initial point of purchase. Multiplayer incentivizes all kinds of continued monetization that is less appealing in a single player game.

By Rmagnus Go To PostEr… I wouldn't call them indie developers. It's something I noted since late PS3 or early PS4 era. B tier games are drying up. B tier in terms of budget, now they want max profit from the game hence loot boxes and all that crap. Jim sterling just released a fantastic video about it go check it out.

Ninja Theory is definitely an independent developer. I feel that projects like Hellblade are the future for the AA Tier games we used to get in the PS2 era. Third party publishers just don't seem motivated to invest in games that don't bring in extra money after launch anymore. With tools like UE4, it is going to become easier for independent developers to make these kind of games that feel technically impressive, while keeping costs down. Jim did a video about this game and what it's success could mean for games like it.

Games need to stop sitting in development hell for 4-5 years

By Splatt Go To PostWe need those AA single player games from the PS2 era back, something in the vain of Battle Chasers: Nightwar (but with less grinding :lol: )

THQ Nordic, Deep Silver, Focus interatcive are the publishers you need to follow.

All of the AA games are coming from them. The Technomancer. ELEX. Battle Chasers. Vampyr. The Surge. Styx. Hand of Fate 2.

There isn't a shortage of AA games. They just NEVER sell on console. PC is where these kind of titles thrive.

I said it in the Waypoint thread about Manveer Heir, but the issue comes down to publishes not being satisfied with profit anymore. They want all of the profit. Tens of millions of dollars aren't enough when microtransactions, loot boxes, GAAS, and other potentially predatory practices can give you hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in profit. This narrative that you have to go big or go home was made up by the very same corporations that claim is why single player story focused games are on their way out.

Games like Hellblade or even Crash Bandicoot (two "budget" priced games at $30 and $40) show that it's still possible for bigger publishers to lower their aim and released smaller games that can still do well.

By Slayven Go To PostGames need to stop sitting in development hell for 4-5 years

That has to be the killer for Microsoft right now and likely why she is saying this. They have just made some bad business decisions that have taken too long on studios/games where they realized they would never get their money back.

By KodaRuss Go To PostThat has to be the killer for Microsoft right now and likely why she is saying this. They have just made some bad business decisions that have taken too long on studios/games where they realized they would never get their money back.

isnt this because microsoft shoehorns multiplayer into every game because they think single player doesnt sell
look at Scalebound and that Phantom Dust reboot

Remember when JRPGs and horror games were dead? Yeah... just make good single player games and watch them do well.

By MonadL Go To PostI don't think SP is dead, I just think AAA devs don't think the ROI on them is worth it anymore compared to GaaS.

Of course, they also believe every GaaS venture they put out will become the next Destiny or Overwatch... and not the next Battleborn or LawBreakers.