Most gamers prefer single-player games

Almost all multi-player gaming is competitive and involves dealing with occasional (or frequent, depending on the game) jerks. If I want stress and occasional jerks, I can just do things in the real world. Single-player gaming is more comfy.

Maybe I'm just old and washed but it seems like kids these days take multiplayer games way more seriously. Instead of hopping on and playing a few games after school/work people act more like they are trying to make the college sports team. The amount of time and effort required to hold you own has gone up dramatically.

I think a lot of players are also tired of games that are only fun with in-app purchases. I avoid any game now that has in-app purchases because it might be a great game where you can buy fancy hats but why would I waste any time trying to find that rare gem amidst all the pay-2-win sewage out there.

I used to like multi-player shooters, when I was young and had infinite time to devote to "git gud." I also played games for the challenge back then. Now that I'm old, I don't have infinite time to upskill, and I mostly play games to relax and unwind after work. I specifically don't want a challenge. Unfortunately, every multi-player first person shooter seems to be geared towards (and infested with) sweaty professional gamers who do nothing but practice, and of course they wipe the floor with me.

Game companies try to solve this with so-called "skill based matchmaking[1]" which purports to match you with other players of similar skill, but I've never seen it actually work. Every game is full of sweats who somehow have cracked SBMM so that they get into games with less-skilled players like me and punch way below their weight.

I wish games would just go back to letting the user choose their own difficulty level. Sad that that's kind of gone out of fashion.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skill-based_matchmaking

Since this became a big topic here about gaming which is rare, I'll plug side project of mine.

I publish a weekly gaming newsletter called The Gaming Pub (https://www.thegamingpub.com/) similar to the Hacker Newsletter. I curated an assortment of links with the most important news and other topics from the gaming world (I'll include this link in tomorrow's issue).

If you are interested and don't have the time to catch up with a bunch of gaming-related content (news, reviews, articles, etc) take a look at my newsletter, it might be something that is a good fit for you.

https://www.thegamingpub.com/

Thanks!

Something else I haven't seen mentioned in the comments yet is the rapid pace of AAA title acquisitions by players. I never played as many games as my "gamer" friends, but over the last several years the pace that people pick up and put down games is staggering. Most of my friends will have acquired, played and stopped playing 4-6 games in the time it takes me to get to the oldest one in the current cycle (at which point there are no friends left who are willing to play with.)

I want to start, pause and stop my game at any point and this isn't compatible with a real-time multiplayer game.

My feeling is that there are basically three reasons for the focus on multiplayer:

* cheap out on development: essentially just have a few low detail maps that people play constantly

* people want to look “unique” so you can charge them for near-zero-cost assets

* people don’t complain when you say “must have an internet connection”

All of which are garbage reasons to me and just mean fewer good games, and less reason to buy them (I’m uninterested in buying a game if it is just going to stop working in a year because they’re no longer selling it).

If I want to be subject to swearing and shitty behavior is just become a high school teacher.

I'm probably in the minority, as I've gotten older, I no longer enjoy single player games. I'd say most gamers have gotten pretty pissed off that we're paying for AAA titles and then still being bombarded on a game-by-game basis for battle passes (basically add-on subscriptions).

Multiplayer games are fun with people you already know. (In person LAN party optional but recommended.)

Though so are plenty of single player games.

"Hitting a few singles and doubles beats trying to hit a home run and striking out."

As game developers and publishers have consolidated into mega corps this line just isn't true anymore. You need a billion dollar game to move the corporate needle these days. It's a very similar dynamic to what has happened in Hollywood. All the mid-budget projects are being squeezed out and you either go very low budget/indie or you go huge budget and swing for the fences. There is no career reward in the current corporate marketplace for modest wins.

Does what the article is arguing make any sense? AAA studios cancelled some live service games and that means fewer single player games made.

But it doesn't follow that the live service aspect is what killed the games. Games are cancelled all the time.

And then saying there's an industry trend but what's brought up is how those games were cancelled, not brought down by the user sentiment of live services.

And their data point is a 53% preference? It just seems poorly argued to me.

I've spent a lot of time lately playing a game called Ravenfield. It has replaced CS2 as my main game. The graphics are bad, it's purely single player, the AI is not great, but it allows for large scale battles with none of the pain of playing against other people. Mods are free and there are tons, with new ones created weekly. No need to pay for upgrades or game packs or seasons or crates.

We prefer same/shared screen co-op (Diablo 3 and 4, A Way Out, etc.), and story campaign PvE co-op (e.g. Wildlands, BG3).

Shared screen co-op is annoyingly difficult to find since "couch co-op" doesn't differentiate split screen versus shared screen and we strongly dislike split screen.

Story co-op is increasingly difficult to find. When you do find them, they tend to be less campaign or story and more "repeated encounter" scenarios (e.g., Insurgent). There is nothing like the strategically deliberate plan and work together pace of Wildlands since Wildlands.

Worse, recent co-op campaign games tend to be add-on modes to PvP, meaning you have to contend with ridiculous "balance" boosts and nerfs so nothing works like it should if it was a single player game. PvE should not be "balanced" this way.

Single player games are always how they were, you are running local software after all. If anything they get better with time with bug fixes and community mod ecosystems that continue to improve and overhaul the experience.

Multiplayer games are of course not strictly local software, but their experience extends beyond software itself into forming an abstract community of people. You might come on to a multiplayer game and enjoy it for a time, but its in its nature that this community will shift. The casuals move on to newer titles that have all the other casuals on it now. The greybeards left playing halo 3 today are total sweats now who stomp you every time you have a happy memory of getting a killstreak 15 years ago and foolishly open master chief collection.

As a lifelong and avid gamer, multiplayer games - in my experience, at least - typically trend toward highly toxic, abusive, sometimes degenerate behavior. Communities in which this does not happen seem to be quite rare (I can't recall one offhand). Trolling is rampant, cheating/exploitation is normal, and elitism is pervasive. It really takes the fun out of games.

These days, I generally avoid games that are multiplayer-only, and for games with multiplayer elements, I try to avoid those and focus on single-player elements instead.

It could be selection bias based on my gaming preferences, of course, but based on feedback I've heard from others who play games that I do not, it seems to be largely the same everywhere multiplayer is involved.

I really enjoyed PvP and PvE shooters with my friend group in secondary school (that's 11 to 18 or so), but I don't get the same feeling with people I don't know. I do some occasionally with other friends but it's just not the same as it was then.

My taste in games has changed too as I've gotten older - I find myself mostly playing a mix of older games, story rich RPGs and indie titles - eg things like Tyranny, Baldur's Gate 3, Disco Elysium, OpenTTD, Rimworld, Slay the Spire... twitchy FPS games just don't do it for me any more.

So this article's main findings (the splits by age) definitely fits with me - I'm out of the <25 age group and have been for a while ;)

Can an apparent preference for Online PvP amongst 16-19 age cohort be explained by a lack of disposable income? Online PvP games are often free (with different monetization schemes), so that removes one large barrier to entry?

Many reasons for this:

Online gaming used to be about having fun. And while those communities definitely still exist, the landscape is dominated by "competitive" gaming that brings out the worst in people.

The relentless pushing of "battle passes," in-gaming loot crate gambling, and in-game upgrades using real-life money from game publishers.

There's also the whole "you can't pause real life" thing. Much easier to play online when you're young and don't have real responsibilities - but that's not a luxury most adults have.

When I got Batman Arkham Asylum it had Games for Windows Live required. I didn't want an account online or "live" scoreboard, at the time you could choose local only as an option.

Imagine my surpise when GfWL lost all my save games halfway through. Why? Who knows. Maybe an GfWL update? Maybe a game update? I severely reduced my gaming after that and have been adamant for true standalone games only (thank you GOG games).

Note: I do not mind multiplayer online games. I have been known to play DDO (Dungeons & Dragons Online) off and on.

The problem with most perpetual multiplayer games is that they are potentially limitless time sinks. They are often inherently addictive with no natural end or resolution to them. Of course there are single player games that do this too, so it's not the only differentiator.

In contrast, single player campaigns (or co-op campaigns for that matter) are often story driven. They have a beginning and an end. They offer catharsis. If it's good, you may play through it again, but it will end eventually.

I think the push for multiplayer games made me quit gaming about 10-15 years ago. It was only in the last couple years that the new Zelda games got me back into it, which are single player.

I will sometimes play multiplayer games with my nephews, but would always prefer to play by myself. If I'm playing a game I want it to be fun and not stressful. When everything is a competition, it's stressful. There's not letting up, no lazy laps... you have to try to win.

They often want me to play Minecraft with them. I "forget" to bring my laptop a lot. When I played Minecraft in the past it was always on peaceful and I'd just build stuff. It was a giant sandbox of digital legos for me, or I'd try and make weird stuff with redstone. They have all these monsters turned on, want to go into these boss battles, and they never give me any weapons (and disable my ability to get my own) so I just die over and over again trying to run from things with no defenses. It's awful. Half the time I just stop playing and stare the the screen, like wtf do you want me to do here...

I'm sure the industry hates the idea that most people prefer single players games, because then they can't justify their online services, so they are incentivized to push multiplayer games and make people think that's what they like.

I don’t game at all these days. I think the last games I played were Overwatch and LoL around 2018.

Speaking as my 2018 self, I grew quickly bored of single player games and felt most were not worth the money. Pay $60 and maybe get a week or two’s worth of entertainment. I was never into replaying static content or grinding for meaningless badges or trophies.

Meanwhile multiplayer games have significantly more dynamic playtime for the money.

I can’t speak for the state of gaming in 2024 though.

Online games are like DRM. You need third party servers and internet connection to run it. You can lose your profile if provider/developer choose it. You are forced to accept every updates.

Chances, that you'll deal with problems and unwilling changes are higher than just start an offline single-player game.

That's why I buy games exclusively on gog.com.

I'm an early-internet player, but I used to really enjoy games like KingsOfChaos, Outwar, Neopets and Runescape (OG version, or 2007 reboot).

It sounds weird, and not what most people would consider as "gaming" but all of those were a mix of solo & coop since they had a social aspect but totally playable alone (well, KingsOfChaos would be kind of silly to play alone).

It seems like only the OG runescape still has some sort of following, the other ones died out (there was a different one with space ships and planets and power levels, but I forget the name - same principle as Outwar and KingsOfChaos).

There was also a Russian one based on the Dozory universe (Night Watch) by Sergey Lukianenko (one of my favorite authors), but that mostly turned into a cash grab which is a bummer because it's one of the coolest game concepts out there - it has been my dream that someone actually makes that game.

My gaming time is split between online PVP fighting games (Street Fighter 6, Guilty Gear Strive) and single-player games (Elden Ring, Yakuza). If I had to pick one, I'd go with single player.

The online experience is great compared to even a few years ago (when it wasn't acceptable), but not perfect in terms of loading times and lag.

Small squad coop is a pretty excellent option. Helldivers 2 was super popular for a good reason; all the upsides of hanging out with a couple others folks and having a ridiculous time, facing absurd monsters. Warhammer Vermintide & Darktide lack the open level design but have similar upsides.

I do think multiplayer is super hard to make broadly rewarding. High skill players quickly come to dominate, often in brutal ways. I enjoyed some Star Wars: Battlefront 2 but man, a couple players who knows what they are doing rack up kills quick to earn a hero character respawn, & can often just own the heck out of most players quite well. Figuring out how you can drop good experiences for medium & low skill players is super hard.

My brain has a switch. I either want to try-hard or I want to relax. Try hard mode means I'm playing competitive multiplayer (cs2 is my current poison). Relax mode means I'm playing something single-player and easy. Unfortunately, this makes it so I pretty much can't play dark souls, souls-likes, or any other single player games that advertise as "hard". When I'm in relax mode, I have zero desire to run my head against a wall over and over just to continue a story or world exploration. I wish more games had a mode like "Another Crab's Treasure" where you can simply press a button to kill the boss (there's an option to "give Kril a gun" in the settings).

Maybe because I'm old (and have a job and a family), but I don't like online games because of availability issues.

If I'm playing online, I prefer to play with my friends (not strangers). Arranging time so everyone is available is very difficult.

I do miss LAN parties.

Please just give me back my OG mass effect, og warcraft, StarCraft, monkey islands, kings quests that I can play on my own and has a good story. I don't want of the crappy mmo nonsense. One can dream!

I wonder to what degree the business and bureaucratic dynamics of big-budget failed live-service games are similar to big-budget Hollywood flops. The people working on it day to day know that it's crap and will not succeed, but someone in the background[0] keeps pushing the project forward anyway.

What's the disconnect? If dozens or hundreds of people intimately familiar with the project say it's no good, why don't you listen to them?

[0] in my mind's eye, mustachioed, smoking a cigar, and fanning himself with hundred-dollar bills

I'm actually considering going back to world of warcraft because some of the new features allow you to experience the previously multiplayer required portions on your own.

Most of my gaming now is honestly FreeCell on my phone, but if we want to talk about what "gamers" would consider games, the only time I really enjoy multiplayer is if I'm playing with actual friends.

I never really had much enjoyment with playing with strangers on the internet. Most of them are much better at these games than I am, and it's just way too stressful. I also have some hesitation trash-talking total strangers, but I'm perfectly fine doing that with close friends.

I played MP when I was younger (even MMOs, played WoW in the first year), but nowadays, it’s all single player. Stellaris, Civ V, and the two Owlcat Pathfinder Games (Wrath of the Righteous, which I was playing when I saw the link, and Kingmaker) are my main games where I have over 1k hours each, but I also play many other single player games. I don’t like always having to push myself to the max, or interacting with random internet people when I want to enjoy myself.

Multi player co op or single player in that order… there is no 3

An obvious explanation for why publishers overwhelming focus on multiplayer titles despite consumer demand is that multiplayer games are much harder to pirate

It's a lot harder to make a single player game have depth and complexity than it is for a multi player game, since you don't have human opponents.

I just really miss split screen.

While I don't doubt that this is true, it also seems like the very biggest games at a given time tend to be multi-player. DOTA, Fortnite, WoW were all so genre-definingly huge that there are lists of copycats a mile long. Maybe the only comparable single-player-only game I can think of, in the last 20 or so years at least, is Dead Souls / Dark Souls.

This sums it up for me.

"I Don't Want To Be A Product Of My Environment. I Want My Environment To Be A Product Of Me."

Frank Costello - The Departed.

I dont often have time for multiplayer games.. they require time at the same time as others, they are also not the sort of thing you can pause while you go stir dinner or take the bins out or whatever is actually more important.

I love playing multi-player games when there is a well built economy. Frankly, that economy doesn't even need to be built into the game. I've played multi-player games where the marketplace was outside the game (but still all done with in-game items).

What I hate about multi-player is when you have to play the game with others to be successful (exceptions made for those very few big bosses). I'm mostly a MMORPG player. I don't want to be in a clan or guild. I don't want to find other people to play with. I just want to log on whenever I want and play for as long or as little as I want. But, I want to be able to buy stuff in an economy.

IMHO because of toxic online interactions and a lack of couch co-op titles.

The competitive shooters have been destroyed by cheaters. In the long term, and even the short term, cheats beat anticheat. That's why co-ops like Helldivers 2 are popular now.

Most gamers are casual and are over the age of 20 and can’t dedicate hours of their lives to maintaining a decent standard in online play

Funny, because 70-80% of my friends prefer multiplayer, because you just can spend time together, talking and playing.

multi-player is more competitive. single-player is more about the story & mechanics. they are complimentary and distinct genres of games.

I'm in my 40s and don't put in the effort to be competitive in multiplayer games. I have great admiration for the developers and the players who participate.

And almost all single-player games have a loud and obnoxious crowd demanding multi-player.

No, we prefer single-player games that also have couch-coop but couch-coop games died.

Indeed, at max I would go for a split screen in some games, but that is about it.

I have a crippling addiction to competitive FPS games unfortunately.

I find turn based board games on BGA to be the best compromise.

Hey, if I wanted to socialize I'd go outside, am I right?!

Interestingly they don't mention singleplayer online games which are my favorites. MTG, Hearthstone, Street Fighter, Tekken etc

I mean yeah, when you make multiplayer too clean it becomes less fun.