Infogrames: Offline Single-Player Games Not Viable

Notice he doesn't mention platform?

These executives really only see dollar signs, not gamers.

Content-fueled titles are great for 12 year old kids. I'm a gamer.

I bought the game, that other shit should be free!

Phil Harrison apparently doesn't like games.

Basically this douche bag is going to make certain parts of every game cost more fucking money to finish the game! Yep, ol' Phil "microtransaction" Harrison, is going to add DLC to every game his company makes.

You guys need to RTFA.

"Now, that doesn't mean that those games aren't relevant going forwards, but they will be enhanced by community features being embedded in them, or downloadable content becoming an inherent part of the experience, or some kind of user-generated content will be part of the experience."

Did everyone just misunderstand that part? He's not talking about eliminating single player games in favor of MMOs or online-only games. He's talking about ensuring that even single player games have some type of online COMPONENT. Oblivion has an online component, it's called DLC. So does Mass Effect. Both of those are entirely single player. Ensuring that future single player games have at least some sort of online functionality -- whether that means DLC or leaderboards or something -- is not a bad thing.

Now of course if developers start making vital game elements into DLC instead of including them with the original game we've obviously got a problem, but that's not what anyone is talking about here, and as long as these online ideas are implemented reasonably we'll all benefit.

Yes, because there is no way a game like Bioshock, Portal, COD4, or Half-Life 2 could ever make money.

Here's the problem with their logic: The fact that people are not buying your shitty games is quality issue, not a platform viability issue.

PC Gamers don't by the shovelware that is foisted on the console market. On average, we're older and enjoy more in-depth games. Not that we're opposed to the occasional mindless game, it's just that we tend to continue to play the same game over and over, especially if they have free online game play.

Alone in the Dark bombed did it?

Yes because Stalker and Crysis failed miserably. I can't wait for Fallout to fail too.

Few people seem to understand this article. They're not talking about no longer making single player games. They're taking about forcing single player games to be connected to the internet to run and they think that one of the ways to do this without simply calling it "piracy protection" is to add certain online features to single player games.

I understand the statement and it makes sense through a business model. Also take in consideration the success of Wow other MMO’s piracy and you can see the where the thought comes form.

But to say that there will be no more single player games is mental for me personally. If all games are multi player and are MMO ish I will stop gaming all together (never thought I would say that) I personal do not prefer online games and will take a single player game or a co op game hands down.

Sometimes I wonder if MMO’s and Xbox Live mentality (Its good to play with each other) etc will be the death of video games for me down the road and paint a picture of bound service charges.
Its good to play together MMO’s etc are fun sometimes but if this is the future and my only choice I choose the “Red Pill”

What is Shacker views which would you choose:

[Red Pill] = Single player games and multiplayer games

[Blue Pill] = Only Multiplayer tightly socially bound gaming

From a business perspective, perhaps having a single-player ONLY game green-lit MIGHT be problematic (though i fail to see how), but that's why most games come out with both SP & MP components.

Personally, i hate MP (the only games I ever played online were Quake 3 and UT and that was a while ago and for a very shot time).

I love high-budgeted SP games (MGS 4, Assassins Creed, Uncharted, etc etc ad infinitum), so if all companies would decide to pursue an online-only model or use it as an excuse to compromise the SP component of a game which has both, I'd simply sell my X360 & PS3.

Sorry Sony, sorry Microsoft, I didn't buy your consoles to play online.

Hey, Atari... If you want some fucking social networking excrement, why don't you stay on Facebook or whatever.

We cant spend 15$/month at every game we want to play, THATS not a viable model.

Atari should just stop making games.

In other news: Randomhouse declares novels to be obsolete.

this would be exactly why i find myself buying fewer and fewer games every year, and why i havent bothered to buy any of the current-gen consoles... evidently, the style of play i enjoy is "in its dotage"...

Funny, the bulk of my most anticipated titles are single-player for the most part. Future Mass Effect games, Dragon Age, FFXIII, FFvsXIII, Fallout 3, MGS4, Spore, and so on.

no no no Atari, SHITTY offline single-player games are not viable.

I would disagree that this is a viable option for all games...but if one studio would decide to focus soley on multiplayer games then I would say its a good idea. I lot of innovation can come out of focusing on one thing rather then trying a variety of genres.

I don't usually get involved in these threads, but Phil is flat out wrong. If what he says were true, than PC games like Galactic Civilizations II should be huge failures, not the huge successes that they are.

What is true is that the old business model which most publishers adhere to is failing. Any company that maintains the status quo is not going to be successful anymore. However, newer publishers who have learned to adapt to today's market will reap the rewards.

Welcome console world to '94 PC modding communities.

if you read between the lines, what they're really saying is that its easier to make/sell a shitty multiplayer game than put for the effort into a quality singleplayer game.

with multiplayer games, they don't have to put forth the effort into a quality story and/or fleshing anything out, since it'll be up to the players to fill in the blanks, between the 1 minute long frag sessions, for those that can think enough to do so at least.

with a singleplayer story they have to actually think/present something other than eye candy.

personally i don't waste time with multiplayer games once i finish the singleplayer story. if i want multiplayer i'll fire up an mmorpg.

i guess i'm 'old school'.

You know... I've been kind of thinking to myself that the next Xbox will be basically a system with a HDD (and no physical media drive)... but I still have this problem with believing that game companies will expect people to download 10+ GB of game data over a broadband connection. But Phil's comments here kind of made me think about something else. What if the next gen of systems were to play games which still ship on physical media.. but the disks are basically like 'starter kits' with a bunch of content (textures, models, images, videos, sounds etc). So the disk has a bunch of raw material on it (which would be the bulk of the initial huge download) and that will be enough to get you started on the first 10 hours or so of the game. The disk would basically be a first 'episode' and sold for a reduced price... then the rest of the chapters would either be downloaded after that or even streamed in chunks as you play? If the OS was designed well... the system could be always on and be caching the next chapter all the time or something. If the future episodes use a lot fo the textures etc already on the disk, the future content could be a bit smaller (mostly code with some new textures and models etc).

I don't know... just a thought. I just find it hard to believe that the infrastructure exists in the US (and in some places in Europe and Asia) for gamers to download blu-ray sized games anytime in the next ten years. I think there will need to be some kind of intermediate step because triple-a titles are not getting any smaller.

This is ridiculous. I think the reason that Atari / Infogrammes efforts have failed in the single player genre is because they've left a trail of half-assed games. There are plenty of successful single player games out there and there will continue to be good single player games.

Correction:

Infograms: Our Shitty Overproduced Boring Rehashed Single Player Games Are Not Viable

lol, this is just so they can justify and market their new online games.

Some devs. are just stubborn and stupid. You can make a single player game not feel linear...like, oh I don't know, GTA IV?

How about just focusing on quality, rather than a particular genre. Is that really a hard concept to grasp ?

Seems like a reasonable statement.