177
It genuinely upsets me that Valve spent their time and resources on another Dota variation
(lemmy.dbzer0.com)
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2024
177 points (79.0% liked)
Games
32365 readers
1346 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
we're getting old dude
the kids who are the age we were in the half life glory days--they don't want single player. they want league of apex legends fortnitewatchstrike
single player games won't go away completely, but they're definitely taking a backseat to whatever the rage is with the kids. currently mobas. just google "most played video games" if you're not depressed enough already
"Single player games have taken a backseat". Okay. We're just going to state that as a truth? And also just stating kids as being the main video games audience still?
I mean if single player games have taken such a backseat, why are big companies pouring so much money into games such as Horizon, Dragon Age, Assassin's Creed, Anno or Dark Souls? Why are indie games, thousands and tens of thousands of them, so overwhelmingly single player? Why is Zelda still not a MOBA? Just does not really hold water as an argument IMO. If anything it seems the opposite is happening and after the height of MOBAs in ˜2015, the market is slowly creeping back.
That’s true but it’s not because people aren’t playing single player games. The reason single player games are less profitable is because the non-subscription, non-microtransaction single player market is extremely saturated with indie games. That makes it very hard to sell AAA single player games. The standards are extremely high and the opportunities for extra monetization are not there.
I have been a single player gamer for most of my life, yet I haven’t bought a AAA single player game in decades. I have more indie single player games to play than I know what to do with, and frankly they appeal to me more than AAA titles. Expensive graphics and voice acting don’t have much draw for me these days. I am much more interested in roguelikes and retro games now. I think there are thousands of others like me out there, among all those who don’t go in for multiplayer games and haven’t purchased a console.
Both of your points are only partially correct.
Wrong, they just take less effort and have a more constant revenue stream.
Potential for profit means nothing, when so many attempts at milkable forever games end up like Suicide Squad or Concord.
Also you can come into them half baked and pull the plug if the game doesn't sell (because it's half baked) like they're doing with SS and they did with the Avengers game.
They don't, you can't spend money you don't have, whales are working adults.
Kids spend money for less. Better ROI, not higher payoff.
You make the 18302nd skin and troves of kids will badger their parents for fortnite bucks so they can buy it but not everyone will. The upside is that making a skin costs you single digits percent points of the profits, so even if one or two are a dud, you're fine, the good ones will make up for it.
It's a business model you can throw money at once the game's got an audience base, which is very attractive to companies, because it's uncomplicated and reliable.
There's plenty of room to monetize single player games when it's add-in content to games that you continually replay as opposed to add-on content for something that's story driven. More systemic games like Civilization, roguelikes, simulators, etc.
When your game isn't live service multiplayer, your incentives change to putting out more sequels rather than iterating on the same game. So your revenue per game goes down, but there's no reason it can't necessarily be as lucrative overall.
It's not confusion. Your perspective is survivorship bias. For every Rocket League, there are 10 Concords. That's why the entire industry is imploding right now. Everyone thinks their game will be Fortnite, but only so many games can be Fortnite, and a lot of that even comes down to luck, so you've got games like Avengers and Suicide Squad losing hundreds of millions of dollars each instead of making games for half or a quarter of their budgets that would have recouped their costs and then some.
Well then I guess your recommendation would be to keep trying to be Rocket League, even though statistically you're going to leave a crater in the ground formed by hundreds of millions of dollars and the better part of a decade of work? Keep in mind there are single player games that make more money than Rocket League too, if we're going to cherry pick.
Given the unfathomable number of layoffs we've seen the past two years, I think that's a difficult argument to make.
Single player games are less and less profitable these days. What the original commenter could have said is, these days, there isn’t much money to be made telling a story when fortnight makes so much money by doing nothing but cosmetics.
It's not a question of demand, it's a question of profit. Multiplayer games stand to make a lot more money than singleplayer. Nobody will spend real world dollars on cosmetic items in a singleplayer game.
Skyrim has no multiplayer component, but plenty of people have paid cash money for cosmetic items.
Not even close to the same scale as what Valve and Blizzard get people to pay for skins and hats
And it’s gonna continue until regulations recognize how these games are psychologically terrible for kids and have gambling mechanics.
profit is a function of demand