Games

32372 readers

1721 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:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

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

[email protected]

177

It genuinely upsets me that Valve spent their time and resources on another Dota variation (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

112 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Like for many other people, Valve single player experiences were one of my favorite of all time growing up. I considered both Half-Life and Portal to be masterpieces. It's true they've always been distracted with multiplayer games as well, things like Counter-Strike or Team Fortress and I did play them for sure, because I was a kid and I had all the time in the world.

These days I'm not a kid anymore and so when I game I tend to look more for memorable experiences instead of mindless grinding. Obviously I remember Valve as the experts in creating memorable experiences and I would like them to keep fully exploring those talents. They don't have that many employees, but they do have all the money in the world, no external pressure, no publisher to shit on them, it's just their developers and artists and a vision. But then they use all that and create this. An Overwatch looking moba shooter, really? I'm sure people will like and play it, but is this the results of the vision and ambition of a company like Valve?

It doesn't have to be Half-Life. I remember them saying that they dont want to do another one in the series because they are looking to innovate and make something truly original. My body is ready, give me anything. I can't imagine a moba shooter really fits with this description. I'm wondering how such a low hanging concept even becomes a real product at a company as ambitious as Valve.

I hear people are having fun with the new game and I'm happy for them. I am no longer the target audience and I wish them good luck with it. In the mean time let me hear your thoughts on it. Would you like to see another single player experience from Valve?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

[deleted]

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I think we can state as a truth that they have less potential profit.

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago

Both of your points are only partially correct.

I think we can state as a truth that they have less potential profit.

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 spend more money.

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.