Hey, I missed this news back when it was... well, new. But a recent
(as in, back in November) survey says "Most Players Around The World
Prefer Single-Player Games".*
Well, that's how it's being interpreted. A global survey of over
30,000 games resulted in a definite preference towards single-player
games. That ranges from 65% of gamers in the US, 58% in the UK, and
down to 47% in China. There's also a noticeable difference in the
responses given by Old Farts and Young Know-Nothings. The latter have
a slight preference towards multiplayer (49% prefer single-player in
the 16-24 range, 56% in the 25-34 age range. The befuddled 55+ gamers
preferred single player by 64%). Gender didn't seem to play much of a difference, though.
Personally, I think there's more nuance, though. I don't think it'd be
right to say that the majority of the aged only want to play
single-player, and that the kiddies only want to virtually shoot their
friends in the back. I'd argue that both want multiplayer games. But
neither group wants /only/ multiplayer.
They're tired of the endless trend of live-service games and yearn for
some proper single-player narrative. "Fortnite" and "Roblox" and "Call
of Duty" and "PUBG" and all the rest are fine... but there's only so
many hours in the day we can play. Kids have a bit more time, so they
can waste more of it on multiplayer; adults have less. But either way,
the race to try and monopolize gamers' time with all these
live-service titles and want some more variety. Something short(ish)
and sweet that you can play between longer bouts of "Minecraft" or
whatever.
But, of course, this isn't what the publishers want. Live Service
games are lucrative. More importantly, they are significantly cheaper
in the long run. Single-player games have a start and -more
importantly- an end. That means eventually gamers will finish one game
and want to move onto the next. Which means publishers who focus on single-player need to keep making new games... which is expensive,
extremely risky, and unlikely to grab as large a market share. Better
to put all your eggs into one basket and keep milking it for years
[Wait, milking eggs? I think I'm mixing metaphors]
But because of this, I don't think this news will change a damn thing.
The advantages of live-service are just too big, and -- at least as
far as the big AAA publishers see it-- they have too large a monopoly
on gaming for it to matter. What, are you going to NOT play "Call of
Duty" and instead play "STALKER"? And the sad fact is, they're largely
right in this assumption. Sure, some occasional single-player game
will flare up to a brief success... but the live-service games pump
out so much more money it doesn't really matter. A developer might
make a brief mark on the industry with a popular single-player
experience, but odds are high that their next game won't reach the
same mark, and in five years, they'll probably be selling out to EA or Activision in an attempt to stay afloat. Meanwhile, "Fortnite" keeps
chugging along.
Because its not really what people want anymore that matters. It's
what's being sold.
----
* Article? Article!
https://kotaku.com/new-survey-most-players-around-world-prefer-singleplayer-games-solo-2000644895
--- PyGate Linux v1.5.6
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)