• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

Single-Player Games Lose to PVP in Younger Audiences Despite Recent Hits

phanbuey said:
If you don't want to play them with other players then don't -- that's the beauty of a co-op game mode: You don't have to use it, and it doesnt take anything away from the single player mode. Remnant II - play solo or with friends, doesnt matter. Far Cry 5 same thing...

Space Marine is a perfect example - it is the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...
Let's shake hands on that. :)

As a personal note, I don't mind extra missions in co-op, but having more people "add to" (more like take away from) the story experience is like having your neighbours play every side character in a movie. Cringe.
 
AusWolf said:
As a personal note, I don't mind extra missions in co-op, but having more people "add to" (more like take away from) the story experience is like having your neighbours play every side character in a movie. Cringe.
Click to expand...

When has that ever happened to you in a co-op game?
 
I mean, using BG3 as an example again - you lose out on a lot of the story and interactions of the story characters by not having them in your party. Playing with 4 humans co-op turns it into Lethal Company DnD version. Fun, funny, but not immersive.

Those who play for immersion find it cringe. Those who play it as a social activity find it great.

Different strokes for different folks. I would say, though, not every game needs that. Sim games (excluding driving sims), for example, generally don't. What PvP or co-op would add to CMS21 or power wash simulator would be difficult to understand. I get the MP mods for Beam.NG or American Truck Simulator, but I doubt the popularity of the MP mods for Rimworld or CK2, and city builders I cannot imagine have multiplayer in any meaningful fashion.
 
Count von Schwalbe said:
I mean, using BG3 as an example again - you lose out on a lot of the story and interactions of the story characters by not having them in your party. Playing with 4 humans co-op turns it into Lethal Company DnD version. Fun, funny, but not immersive.

Those who play for immersion find it cringe. Those who play it as a social activity find it great.
Click to expand...
Another good example!

Count von Schwalbe said:
Different strokes for different folks.
Click to expand...
Exactly! Some things are important to some people and some things are important to others.
 
Right but u actually don’t lose anything if you choose not to do coop in those games. There are no games that FORCE that. They're 100% immersive or social, your choice - my point is all games should have that choice.

Coop games with no friends = single player games. A coop game can be a single player game with no issue or compromise. A game that’s only single player can only ever be that.

Hence they’re “the best of both worlds”. They cater to both single player immersion and the social aspect - sometimes you can play through a single player game for the immersion, then replay it with friends for the social -- the flexibility is what makes them superior to pure single player only.

For the developers that means substantially more sales and more concurrent players overall vs JUST single player.
 
Last edited:
lexluthermiester said:
Sure there are. Plenty of them.
Click to expand...
You mean like 'it takes two' - exclusive coop is a niche that comprises something like 0.005% of games if that, not 'plenty'. None of the games mentioned here do that. I'm not event talking about those, we're talking about single player games that have a coop mode. None of them force coop/or limit the single player experience into something less.
 
phanbuey said:
You mean like 'it takes two' - exclusive coop is a niche that comprises something like 0.005% of games if that, not 'plenty'. None of the games mentioned here do that. I'm not event talking about those, we're talking about single player games that have a coop mode. None of them force coop/or limit the single player experience into something less.
Click to expand...
Listen, I'm not debating the merits of this subject endlessly. If you like Co-op games, buy them and play them with your friends. Those who like SP games will buy them and have their own fun. Everyone is happy.
 
Last edited:
phanbuey said:
When has that ever happened to you in a co-op game?
Click to expand...
When has what happened to me?

What I mean is, playing with other people adds to the social value, but takes away from the immersion value of a game. Every. Single. Time. If you're a social player, do PvP or PvE all day long and you'll be happy. But if you want immersion into the story, playing alone is the way to go. You can't focus on the story when there's 2-3 other players next to you with vastly different attitudes towards the game or gaming in general. For example, when one of your teammates shows up in all-modded gear and goes everywhere by jumping, you just can't take the game seriously anymore (this actually has happened to me).

phanbuey said:
Right but u actually don’t lose anything if you choose not to do coop in those games. There are no games that FORCE that. They're 100% immersive or social, your choice - my point is all games should have that choice.

Coop games with no friends = single player games. A coop game can be a single player game with no issue or compromise. A game that’s only single player can only ever be that.

Hence they’re “the best of both worlds”. They cater to both single player immersion and the social aspect - sometimes you can play through a single player game for the immersion, then replay it with friends for the social -- the flexibility is what makes them superior to pure single player only.

For the developers that means substantially more sales and more concurrent players overall vs JUST single player.
Click to expand...
If a game lets you choose, that's cool. But it should always be a choice.
 
AusWolf said:
If a game lets you choose, that's cool. But it should always be a choice.
Click to expand...
Right, this was my indended point -- adding a co-op choice to immersive SP games is a really good way to boost their popularity and more competitive with PVP:
VGI_Rise_of_the_Co-Op_Games.pdf (vginsights.com)

^some interesting data.

If you add this mode to immersive, single player titles, even when not fully implemented, it massively improves popularity, while also preserving a single player experience.

1728217138226.png


lexluthermiester said:
Listen, I'm not debating the merits of this subject endlessly. If you like Co-op games, buy them and play them with your friends. Those who like SP games will buy them and have their own fun. Everyone is happy.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the point of this statement. You're in a thread titled "Single-Player Games Lose to PVP in Younger Audiences Despite Recent Hits" responding to on-topic comments. If you don't want to debate it then don't debate it?

​

 
Last edited:
Count von Schwalbe said:
I mean, using BG3 as an example again - you lose out on a lot of the story and interactions of the story characters by not having them in your party. Playing with 4 humans co-op turns it into Lethal Company DnD version. Fun, funny, but not immersive.

Those who play for immersion find it cringe. Those who play it as a social activity find it great.

Different strokes for different folks. I would say, though, not every game needs that. Sim games (excluding driving sims), for example, generally don't. What PvP or co-op would add to CMS21 or power wash simulator would be difficult to understand. I get the MP mods for Beam.NG or American Truck Simulator, but I doubt the popularity of the MP mods for Rimworld or CK2, and city builders I cannot imagine have multiplayer in any meaningful fashion.
Click to expand...
I think thats the perfect example and nail on the head; BG3, but also earlier Divinity titles from Larian have an excellent co op but even they cant prevent you to lose a lot of narrative with charactar/world building because people play 'protagonists' now, and the party members are a vehicle the games use to flesh out the story.

AusWolf said:
Popularity has nothing to do with how I like playing my games. I know that a lot of people take gaming as a social experience, but I don't.
Click to expand...
In a strange way though, popularity of a game you also like will increase the likelihood of it being improved and expanded on further... I think its a positive that studios explore this space to find ways to marry the different desires.
 
Vayra86 said:
I think thats the perfect example and nail on the head; BG3, but also earlier Divinity titles from Larian have an excellent co op but even they cant prevent you to lose a lot of narrative with charactar/world building because people play 'protagonists' now, and the party members are a vehicle the games use to flesh out the story.


In a strange way though, popularity of a game you also like will increase the likelihood of it being improved and expanded on further... I think its a positive that studios explore this space to find ways to marry the different desires.
Click to expand...
Those are excellent points. And as long as the addition of those features do not take away from the experience, sure why not. The point @AusWolf and myself were trying to make is that many titles have included co-op modes at the expense of SP elements and we would prefer that dynamic not happen.

If nothing gets lost in the translation, ok, bring on the co-op. But if the SP side of things has to suffer or be diminished, no thank you. Leave it out and preserve the SP aspect feature set.
 
Last edited:
sepheronx said:
Hmm, this article overall says gamers prefer single player than multi-player

www.thegamer.com

Most Gamers Prefer Single Player Games, According To Study

Despite some publishers turning away from single-player games, a study shows that gamers actually prefer them.
www.thegamer.com www.thegamer.com
Click to expand...
Yeah but the comments under that article place it in the right perspective, these percentages aren't weighted proper. Its on the axis of preference per age group only, but the amount of players in each age group is left out.
 
Onasi said:
Is this a surprise? To anyone? Match-based PVP games, be they MOBAs, FPSs, BRs or anything else have been the dominant force in gaming in terms of player retention and its obvious to anyone with a brain why - they are often cheap or free, they have essentially endless potential for play-time because the content is other players and they simply have longevity as a main game for many. Single-player games often see a single playthrough by most people and, hell, seeing the completion achievements percentage for longer games, like big RPGs, you’ll notice that most people don’t really finish those.
It’s not good or bad, it’s just the reality of more players (that some derisively call “casuals”) being brought into the hobby over the years and they often have limited time to play and want action/fun NOW and PVP games are often good at that. Not everyone is a grognard willing to put 150+ hours into, say, a BG3. Oh, they might still play it, mess around in co-op even, but most won’t ever leave Act I. While they still come back for more to their MP grind or sweat-fest of choice. They are fast food of gaming, essentially.
Click to expand...
"Is this a surprise? To anyone?" Haha, couldn't have said it any better. Must have been a slow day on the tech news front.
Also, pretty much agree with the rest of your analysis. In fact, it seems so obvious it shouldn't really need to be stated for anyone paying any attention at all.
And that's coming from a grognard--actually a 73 yr old boomer who's been gaming since the mid-80s, lol--who puts hundreds of hours into BG3, solo ER, et al.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top