Why are Publishers Misleading Us With “Single Player” Modes?

OnlySP: There seems to be some strange goings on these days with the marketing campaigns of either primarily co-op or multiplayer games. As a matter of fact, some of the PR firms sound downright defensive when it comes to games being labeled multi-player only and insist there’s at least some single player content. While I’ve long argued that that multi-player-centric games aren’t worth full price, it seems the rest of the gaming community is just starting to agree, or at least are getting more vocal about it. The two most recent games that fall into this category are EA’s Star Wars: Battlefront, and Ubisoft’s Rainbow Six: Siege.

[-Foxtrot]

More money

Take Destiny for example, the amount of times I heard before it came out something like (paraphrasing here) "Get sucked into the epic, Sci-Fi story which Single player gamers can enjoy" or "This a game where single players can be sucked into the games epic story".

In the end the game is terrible as a single player game and boring. You need to play with people, that is if you don't get bored with grinding.

Fact is developers try and trick an audience which isn't the focus of their new game because to them it's like "Well we may aswell try to lure them in, the more we can sucker into buying the game, the more money we'll get".

It's why I can't stand MMO's or multiplayer/co-op focused new IPs where developers try to spew out that the game is for everyone when it obviously isn't.

[BlackPanther]

I think because many gamers claim they won't buy the games without a Single Player experience. I think the devs should just not tack on single player and if they want to make a multiplayer only game they should do so.

Every game doesn't need to have single player just like every game doesn't need multiplayer. But it's tough for devs because they need to try to entice as many people or they're out of a job.

The solution should be to just make the game they want, make it to the best of your ability, and the results should follow. No more tacked game modes. Easier said then done of course.

[jb227]

I agree that devs should make the game they want...I think it's the publishers that push them to mislead sp gamers by making half measured attempts just so they can claim it can be played solo. Kinda getting tired of all of the misleading advertisements in gaming, it's getting out of hand...pretty bad when EA is a good example...at least they never claimed that Battlefront had anything to offer so gamers besides bot modes. If devs are just being pushed by publishers to get a bullet point on a box, it would be nice if they could just be allowed to focus on what they can achieve w/o splitting their focus into realms they have no intention on realizing.

[rainslacker]

It's not that they claim they won't, it's that they often don't. People also claim they won't buy games without a MP mode, yet still SP games sell well. There are more SP gamers out there than MP gamers. The belief that MP has somehow taken over the market, and that the majority of players seek that included or exclusively is overblown by the media, and the publishers themselves because they can capitalize on the MP content more than the SP content.

Most varieties have a place in the market. SP only, MP only, SP w/ a MP campaign, MP focused with a SP campaign, some sort of hybrid, etc.

Developers should make the game they want, can't argue that. However, money has to be made, and if more money can be made off making a game that appeals to more people, then why not go after more markets. In the long run, it only helps strengthen an IP if more people play it.

I prefer not to see tacked on modes, but rather the ones where both modes are focused on equally, and are of equal quality...say UC2/3 and TLOU for example. I'm sure there are more, but those are the only one's I'm aware of, since I don't follow MP that much.

[ManAnimalX]

disagree with the "Or their out of a job" part, no that's not true, the Publisher just wont get as much $$ from the game..

[Brohan]

I totally agree with this when it comes to lack of campaign for instence Titanfall was awesome at first but with a lack of campaign that seems to be mostly audio it doesn't give it enough life and I lost interest into the game. Same with destiny and the others that have came out recently I've avoided cause of that.

[s45gr32]

Is not the lack of single player campaign that got you bored per se. It's the lack of content in mp only games. An only mp game can exist without a single player campaign if it has these essential features:

Mod Support (it can be done on consoles insert Fallout 4/Unreal Tournament 3)

Map Editor regardless if is 4 maps or 10 maps.

Lan Support (it can be done on consoles
was a major feature for Xbox Original)

Offline multiplayer with bots or the forgotten split screen.

Full developed in depth online game modes not just your typical online game modes:

Deathmatch
Team Deathmatch
👑 of the hill
Last Man Standing
Co-Op

or half-ass,underdeveloped game modes.

Without these features the online only game is dead in the water.

Second, what I mean by a fully developed online game mode. Is having say space battles on a space game that allowed the gamer to play stealthily, aggressive, or chill. Have gamers be weapon dealers or pilots or space miners/smugglers. Another online game mode for this space game would be space races with actual gambling where gamers can bet either their entire spaceship or parts of their spaceship; better yet, their logol/online clan, earn prizes/coal if the gamer loses. Complete with track editor, spaceship customization, clan system, etc. Then include the 5 typical online game modes.

That's an example of a worthy online only game. Right now online only games have the same business model as free to play. What I mean by that is a barebones game then sell tons and tons and tons of DLC/microtransanctions to beef up the game while the gamer spends and spends and spends 💰 till no end in sight.

[Ruggadagod]

I will always prefer single player over multiplayer. It's just what I usually go for when I pick up a new game. I won't buy a game if it doesn't have a strong single player mode not just something tacked on unless it's an online focused game that I've really wanted to play.

Some people say single player is dying. I say to them that they are a fool. Millions around the world enjoy single player games. From the NES era until now. Lots of amazing single player experiences each generation. Just finished Bioshock infinite. Simply a great SP shooter too.

Single player games take more passion and effort to get right. Many publishers/devs use online gaming as a crutch for a weak single player mode. It doesn't work on me as I prefer single player besides a few exceptions.

[Tankbusta40]

Super Nintendo and Genesis games did not cost 60 dollars why do people irresponsibly write this? Video games went to 59.99 when Xbox 360 and ps3 released

[spicelicka]

I feel like devs are just finding it easier to get away with it simple as that. Excluding an actual sizable campaign is a HUGE savings on costs. Saving that cost and charging a full $60 is a win-win situation.

And while there's nothing wrong with multiplayer-only games (they've been around for a long time), this new model with very little content and DLC exploitation is something I've only seen this gen. I really hope it doesn't persist.

[rainslacker]

I'd agree on costs, but maybe the publishers shouldn't be going and hiring big hollywood names to inflate the costs of those SP campaigns to begin with....particularly for games which are MP centric anyways.

The amount of money wasted on SP campaigns for some high profile MP games is ridiculous considering that they could make an actual good campaign by focusing on what's important, instead of what's marketable to people who don't care enough to look otherwise.

[sullynathan]

because you online people like pestering them about including a single player game even though the devs don't want to which leads to a half-baked crap single player.

[rainslacker]

You know us SP people would like to play some of these games as well. Maybe we want them to make them, so we can support them, and maybe we'd like them to make good campaigns so we'd want to actually play them.

There are more SP players out there than MP players, and I hate to bring this up, but MP players were pestering SP games to get a MP portion as well...which many SP players were annoyed with, because it was often lackluster, and took focus away from the SP...supposedly.

What I'd prefer is there be an equal focus on both should a dev/pub decide to release such a game. Maybe have separate teams, each which is good at their respective portion of the game.

[sullynathan]

you see the game and you see what type of game it is and yet you want the developer to change that for you, do you see how asinine that is?

Please don't make such outlandish claims as "There are more SP players than MP players".

SP games got multiplayer portions because Multiplayer is very big and popular and a lot of people play it.

A developer should not be wasting their money on a large portion of a game that they know very few will play.

[rainslacker]

Is asking the dev for something that you want asinine?

Is adding a SP campaign to a MP game changing the MP game?

Who exactly is telling them to change their game in the portion they want to make? Seems people are asking more to include something they want to play, because they don't want the other portion, or don't find the other portion to be enough.

SP is still bigger than MP. A publisher and dev have to decide if they want to capitalize on that portion of the market or do one or the other.

If they feel people won't play it, then yes, they shouldn't waste money on it. But if they can return that money by including a campaign, then obviously the numbers aren't very few, because a SP campaign, or a MP campaign for that matter, are not cheap.

I'm not implying that a dev/pub shouldn't do what they want to do when creating their game, just that it doesn't hurt to explore other potential fan bases.

I would love to play Destiny. I really enjoyed Halo, and would love to get into that world that Bungie created. However, I dislike MP games of that nature. So why not include something for those that like different things? I don't play the MP portion of Halo because it doesn't interest me...but does that mean Halo shouldn't include the MP campaign? Should they not include the SP campaign because apparently there aren't enough SP people to support it? Halo has a rather expensive SP campaign after all.

[sullynathan]

@rainslacker Yes it is. Have you not heard how much more multiplayer games cost than single player? Have you not seen the statistics of how little the percentage of people who actually beat or continuously play single players is? Even large single player franchises like mass effect have a less than 40% of the players beating the game, this is a minority. Even Fallout 4 and Witcher 32 that released that year, will both have the majority not beating both games and also not playing them as much as they did a Destiny, COD, GTA Online or Titanfall.

Why would you think, Destiny or say Titanfall would need such a mode then if the same small return would happen?

Have you also noticed how well multiplayer games and multiplayer focused games have been selling over the years? Now you see why developers are going less and less for adding a useless single player mode.

You would love to play Destiny, you say? Then you play it in its current form and not some crap that you would like it to be.

[sullynathan]

*how much more single player games cost

*Witcher 3

[Austin48]

So close to just giving up on games in general too many half made games and it looks like single player is gonna disappear I'm done.

[Omeganex9999]

I disagree with the article. Games got more expensive, but they are more popular as well. It has become the norm to sell more than a million copies, it definitely wasn't the case 20 years ago. Gamers grew up and can afford more games, we are the same people that used to play with the SNES! But I was 10, I could barely afford 2 or 3 games a year, whereas now I can afford many more. Raising the price of games to 100$ would make it impossible for many people (especially younger gamers) to buy many games a year, how would this affect the industry?

At the same time we have the equivalent of many Super Nintendo games for cheap, we call them indie, they usually cost from 5 to 20$ and it looks like that part of the industry is pretty healthy as well.

About the single player, well, you don't hear Naughty dog or Santa Monica complaining because Uncharted and God of War cost too much too make and don't offer any return, do you? Gamers want quality games, multiplayer is easier and cheaper to make but it's not what everyone wants, even though big companies like Ubisoft and Electronic Arts are trying to make it look like it is the only component that matters.

[s45gr32]

I wholeheartedly agree with the indie scene. Mainstream gaming well it jumped the shark. Mainstream game developers are corporate chronies that only care about profits. Indie game developers are artists that care about moving the industry forward, challenging the status quo, etc. Letting their talent/work to produce money. Now, yes games are expensive; however, gamers no longer buy a game call it a day. We live in an era that the gamer hypes/markets the game via youtube, twitch tv, skype, crowfunding business models. Thoroughly test the game via public/private betas or crowdfunding business models. The gamer informs the game developer (indie/mainstream) of all the game launch technical/gameplay or visual fidelity issues. Gamers do game reviews via youtube/steam and via blog sites/forums. Gamers defend corporations..... All of that for freeeeeeeeeeeeeeee; yet, gamers must deal with microtransanctions/DLC on $60.00 plus tax (no tax for PC ) mainstream games (regardless of platform). That is bullshit, we the gamers have save game developers hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

My point is that is time for a competitive videogame market both retail/digital for mainstream gaming.

[zerocarnage]

Just goin on to say I never felt mislead by rainbow six siege, I knew from the very start it was not going to be single player, in fact you could tell that it was strictly multiplayer in the alpha and beta a lot of us played. Ubisoft also put it out there they were not going the route of adding a single play mode..

[s45gr32]

Angela Bassett was supposed to lead her voice and likeness for Rainbow Six Siege single player campaign. Which it never came to fruition

[MasterD919]

Single-player games account for a larger budget than only-multiplayer games...I think it's all a numbers game to these companies. That's why it's so surprising these days when you hear a game say that it has no multiplayer.

The issue I have with multiplayer-only games is that you're basically renting the game until they shut off the servers. Logistically, it doesn't make sense to invest in them either, but a hell of a lot of people keep buying the DLC packs and they pump out more of them. GTA V would be the only exception but it's a behemoth of a game.

[s45gr32]

The author is a tool/idiot. Only in the U.S. the games for consoles cost $60.00 plus tax; however, Japan/Australia gamers pay $80-100 U.S. dollars for console games and guess what; it does not include microtransanctions, dlc, pay to play online. Sadly enough Japanese/Australian gamers must pay $20-30 more for xbox live/ps plus for less content. Microtransanctions, DLC exist for gamers allow it to exist due to their loyalism to corporations/favorite franchises. What the market needs is competition among retailers by selling games at different prices. Why nobody mentions the ps one/ps 2 era prices oh that's right. The prices for consoles were cheaper then..
..

[brokenbracket]

I personally won't buy a game that doesn't have some type of story to it. I have a hard time staying invested in a game with no story. The only game I've ever been able to get hooked to without a story is Destiny, and even that came with a half decent story behind it. It was really horrible, but I managed to enjoy the game regardless. But games like CoD or Battlefield that have 6hr campaigns then nothing but MP, I can't do those. Or like Titan Fall. I don't have an Xbox One, so that one wasn't even an option for me.

I skipped Rainbow Six Siege and Star Wars Battlefront for this reason. But at the same time, I didn't feel misled at any point in time. I did enough research on them to know they weren't the type of games for me. I keep telling people tho, TWITCH, use it man, it's a great tool to have. Being able to see the games in action before you buy them has saved me a ton of money.