Third-party publishers are bullish: service games are the future. All of the big games makers are at it: Activision's got Destiny, Call of Duty, and – via its subsidiary Blizzard – Overwatch; EA's got FIFA Ultimate Team among others; Ubisoft's been kept busy with The Division, The Crew, Rainbow Six: Siege, and countless others. As opposed to the old days, where games were almost considered disposable, now companies want to keep you playing the same title for longer. Frequent updates help to maintain engagement, while microtransactions and DLC packs fund the elongated development cycles.
But there's one major publisher that's bucking the trend: Sony. Don't get us wrong, it has its fair share of service-based games: the upcoming Gran Turismo Sport seems tailor-made around the burgeoning business model, and the multiplayer portion of Uncharted 4: A Thief's End employs a similar tactic. But beyond one-and-done experiments like Drawn to Death, the platform holder appears to be zagging while the rest of the industry zigs. So why is it doing things so differently from the competition if service-based games are seemingly the future?
Well, look at some of its upcoming games: God of War, The Last of Us: Part II, Spider-Man, Detroit: Become Human, and Days Gone. They are – to the best of our knowledge right now – traditional single player campaigns. And they stick out like a sore thumb in an industry dominated by constantly connected, online-only, multiplayer-heavy, service-driven blockbusters, don't they? Who else is making games like these? Bethesda, maybe? CD Projekt RED every five years? There aren't many publishers betting big on single player anymore.
But that's exactly why the strategy works: Sony is leveraging the strengths of its Worldwide Studios to fill a portion of the PlayStation 4's portfolio that is underserved right now. Service games like Destiny, Overwatch, and The Division are juggernauts – it's hard to steal players away. And they all just so happen to be games that can already be played on the PS4, so why go up against them? By creating something like Horizon: Zero Dawn or The Last Guardian or any number of other first-party games, the Japanese giant is adding something different to its library.
And that, at the end of the day, is the purpose of first-party: to plug the gaps that third-parties leave behind. Whether it'd be more financially rewarding for Sony to chase the games as service dream is a question we can't answer, and it's clearly embracing the model where it makes sense. But as players, we can only appreciate the assortment of experiences that the platform holder's unique approach enables – after all, variety is very much the spice of life.
Do you think that Sony's approach to first-party makes sense in an industry dominated by service-based games? Would it be financially better off following in the footsteps of its third-party publisher peers? Do you prefer one-and-done single player experiences to persistent online games? Stay connected in the comments section below.
Comments 64
Article is on point.
Single player games will always have a place - just look at how well some of them sell despite the constant push for online connectivity in games over the last decade or so. Like the article says, Sony is really good at plugging the gaps - that's why the PS4 has such a strong library across the board.
Since I really only play single player story driven games, Splatoon being the lone exception, it works for me.
Best example to me of this right now - Zelda BotW which has a $19.99 expansion pass which will get you "hard mode" this summer and a story DLC this holiday (not to mention the $15 amiibo locked exclusive items) vs Horizon ZD which is currently a "complete" game with no extras I'm aware of. A Nintendo single player game going that extra $ route while a similar Sony game doesn't highlights things pretty clearly. I do fully expect more money to spent on HZD at some point in the future but it's been a month, I'm impressed.
Meanwhile $60 FFXV continues on ad infinitum.
That's why I like playstation, it's the best console for single player story driven games.
If anything, Single Player games are getting their second wind. We have more and more franchises which focused on multiplayer getting single player content. Battlefront, Titanfall and maybe even Destiny to name a few. Heck, Resident Evil seems to be forfeiting its horrible co-op practices too.
As a single-player gamer myself, I think we're on the rise.
@Sensechat Obviously not too busy otherwise you wouldn't have provided us with this valuable and insightful anecdote.
I think Horizon: Zero Dawn is the model for what I would like to see going forward: an ambitious, very polished single-player game that is complete upon release, requiring very little in the way of patches and nothing in terms of DLC.
Moreover, Sony has done an amazing job cultivating a diverse library with games that appeal to every type of gamer. PS4 will never be my favorite hardware, but I can't deny that it has something for everyone and killer games in almost every imaginable genre.
Now if they will hop on the couch co-op need and plug some experiences like The Last of Us and HOrizon into a co-op kind of game then that would be AWESOME! Even couch competitive story driven campaigns. I'd love to see something like that.
@MadAussieBloke exactly, in the future while we can still play Uncharted 4 or God of War there is no guarantee that Overwatch or game like it will even be playable
heck you can't even guarantee that games like that will be playable in 2018 let alone 10 or 20 years down the line (overwatch probably will to be fair but i think you get my point)
it's also why i think Nintendo will still be around for years to come because that single player home market seems to be where they target the most
That is why i own a PS4 and im more into the Japanese games.
Single player games for the bloody win.
The thing I don't like about online only games aside from a lack of single player is that a ways down the road the player body will dry up, and servers will get taken down. So how can those games ever be considered classics if they become essentially dead after a while? Well to remedy that, studios shove out more and more online only games for the players to devour until they've consumed those and then move onto the next ones. To me these games seem a lot more disposable than single player games.
To be honest, I'm not crazy about how games are emphasizing the social aspect more and the actual experience less. Thank goodness for companies like Sony and Nintendo who still put out great single player games. Can't wait for The Last of Us Part II.
Single player focused games continue to have a market and I am glad that Sony, Bethesda and many Japanese publishers have not stopped making them. I would probably stop gaming if everything was like the Division or Destiny. It's not that I dislike multiplayer - back in the day I loved Halo 3, Gears 2 and Left 4 Dead - but it would be pretty boring if everything was the same. Variety is the spice of life, innit?
Ubisoft's (to single out a company) current model simply shows a lack of creativity in game design and a desire to make as much money as possible. When a game is primarily designed around "being a service" and ways to incorporate microtransactions, and always-online, something's amiss. There's nothing wrong with making money, but this is a creative industry.
The day gaming goes online only will be the day I stop playing! Story driven single player experiences are all I enjoy player
Problem for me is my personality doesn't gel with "service games".
Once I've completed a game I struggle to go back to it. Even the Bloodborne DLC I've bought and not got round to going back and I love that game.
Not sure why this is but I think as there's so many amazing games I can't keep up and my backlog continues to grow, I'd rather experience something new rather than go back to a tacked-on extra, even if it is a great game. Also I can't be arsed re-learning and remembering the story, controls etc...
I know the industry is different now and I have to accept it, but I'd rather have 100% of the content when it's ready, otherwise I'll just play through the 80% near launch and call it a day...
no the game industry is not dominated by online multiplayer games.really.that's false.they have more single player games than multiplayer games.and that's a great thing
single player games is the best.online multiplayer sucks
@Boxmonkey Same here.
The issue is money and getting guaranteed revenue beyond launch. I can understand it but console gaming would shrink to nothing if that was all there is because the MP, always online world is not very accessible to new players and can, in some games, give negative experiences.
I think it is entirely right for Sony to plug gaps in the market and support risks that third party publisher aren't willing to take. To me it has become Sony's winning strategy - as long as the games are good, people will buy into Playstation for the single player games and MP fans will still buy into it for the third party content. As single player campaigns shrink to being mere afterthoughts, I will be looking for new experiences to whoever can provide them.
give me a great storytelling single player games over multiplayer games.online multiplayer games are horrible.I been playing video games since the 1980s.if all the games are multiplayer games only.I will stop playing video games.but it's not going to happen.because single player games are the best.and single player games aren't going anywhere
@Dodoo Yeah, games are very disposable for me. I know that sounds negative, but I enjoy playing a game, having my fill, and then moving on to something else.
I appreciate I'm in a privileged position having access to virtually every game I want, but still... Even if I didn't do this job, I think I'd still take the same approach.
@Boxmonkey yup I been saying the same thing for years.online only multiplayer games.I will stop playing video games.single player games are the best
@Ralizah ps4 is the best.please stop drinking
Sony is the only major publisher to focus on single player content in addition to their multiplayer offerings?
No. No they arent. What you mean to say is they are the only ones who wont extend a game with later content free or otherwise, to a genre that doesnt befit it such as a shooter, because they make their money back immediately due to having 60 million people to tell what to buy.
Their best decision was letting SOE break off and do their own thing. They avoided getting caught up in the "generic serviceable zombie battle royale" genre. Yes, it brings in money, but ultimately leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth once they realize the games never get finished....
This is why I have a Playstation, the day these service games fully take over is the day I stop gaming. I don't mind the odd one now and then and I have dipped in and out of Destiny for a few years but by and large I much prefer to have new experiences. I even struggle to come back for dlc with Witcher 3 being one of the bigger casualties, so as long as there are new single player story games I'll be a very happy gamer
I think it's good! Sony give out great single player games, that I like to have my fill off and move on and then the service games like For Honor, GTA, Fifa, Battlefield etc I can keep coming back to. Would have an Xbox by now if they didn't have all the BS at the start and Sony's exclusives... I've got to say though I don't normally pay full price for the single player games as I can wait and Still have the same or better experience.
If it wasn't for companies like Sony, square, level 5 and atlus I would no longer be gaming I fear. I don't mind dipping my toes online but I'm not competitive enough to be among the elite and I am bored of all the hate. Single player is where is at and as many have said, these games will continue to be playable in thirty years time, long after the servers for online games have been switched off.
This is the exact reason I stick with Sony, and god I hope they never change. I get into arguments with fellow gamers constantly about The Division/Destiny and how can they stay entertained when most of the content added are just more of the same . Dont get me wrong I played both but when they ran there course with me i was more than happy to move on. To many good games these days to get stuck like that.
Please watch the language -Tasuki-
What i believe :
Video game is kind of art , you can see draw,movie,story,music and cinematic thing's on it
So , what things we could call video games?! The things has story, game play, music and...
But! A game like destiny or fifa , are they really video games?! Om my look they are nothing! What makes you do something repetitious is not VIDEO GAME!
I wan't you remember old days: we played a game like silent hil! Okami! MGS! All of this games had somethings
Some things that made us to think , and what make you thinking this way(using draw,music and ...) is ART! And that's what orginal video game meaning
Games like destiny or blah blah blah are just empty
They don't mean any thing at all
They don't teach you any thing, i call this games 'FAKE VIDEO GAME'
The DEV who create this games just want our money and nothing else
Multiplayer on games is Ok provided that DEV make a good story mood for it too
@wiiware exactly. I love that Sony wants to be different. I only like a few MP games such as battlefront, Titan fall2 and they are multi plats. I love single player games since I don't have to deal with the jack asses in online games. Battlefront is cool since you can enjoy playing online without talking to anyone and people still play as a cohesive unit. I use to like to talk online with games like Socom but people are far to toxic and white Boys feel it's ok to drop the N bomb whether black dudes do it doesn't give them permission to do it. It's s black thing ( which I am black) but I don't condon saying the word in front of white people but jokingly I do it occasionally among my people. I agree that I shouldn't use it at all but it's my prerogative and not other cultures.
Single player games with great stories resonate with me far longer than those no brain using online shooter fest. I like single player with a MP mode a well or just only single player.
Phil spencer is lame with his excuse that just cause business is big with MP (service based)only games are the only games that should be made. Phil Spencer is really saying that Microsoft is just too lazy or not good enough to make a good single player driven game. Sony is the best cause they provide variety in their library where Microsoft is only looking for the easy way out. We need to remember all of these service based games are multi plat games. This is the reason I never liked xboxsince their first party exclusive games aren't good imo. I don't care for gears of war or halo.
@pbernoos
Yeah!!!!! I am not knocking MP only games but I would stop playing games if overwatch games were the norm. I like single player because it address relationships, history and sensitive subjects that need to be discussed. Most hatred exist from ignorance.
Sony makes the best games from their studios. Games don't have to be 100 hours in order to be considered substantial content.
@CB7Tuner91 I love Star Wars atmosphere from the movies so Battlefront resonated with me from 10 yrs ago and 2015. Battlefront was the only MP game I played over 200 hours. But i much more prefer single player games since I like thought provoking stories. Battlefront is a anomaly for me. Division was a trash story and a bullet sponge shooter. I hated the beta after I gave it well over 10 hours per closed and open beta. I like destiny demo that lasted almost 10-20 hours. But i had no interest to buy the game.
I get why MP only games are popular but they do not drive me to love video games. Single player games must remain viable and gamers need to support them. Like you guys said, publishers can turn off servers in a heartbeat but they can't with single player games.
@rjejr I can't imagine Horizon DLC though. Maybe more side quests? But eh.. It would be more of the same, so I rather not see that. I don't want the game to become stale. Unless they suddenly pull Witcher 3 level side quests out of the hat, I hope they're working on a sequel instead.
@mookysam yeah and dummies keep supporting Ubisoft at a large clip. I like few of their games like valiant heart and Raymond legends. But I try not to support Ubisoft all that much.
@Octane But DLC can be anything, no? Lara Croft outfit, horse armor, quill w/ unlimited arrows, filters so you can play the game in b&w or cell shaded. I haven't played the game yet, but we've had DLC for about what, 10 years now, surely they could have thought of something if Nintendo managed to find a way to add a $19.99 expansion pass to Zelda, a 100 hour game.
I'm glad they didn't, I'm not arguing they should, just that I'm glad they haven't yet. And I'm still surprised at Zelda, game was 2 years late (originally due out in 2015, released in 2017), yet they need another 6 months to add in a hard mode.
I expect to see more zagging from Sony at E3.
Because no one has mentioned it yet:
Look at the two highest rated, new games of 2017
Zelda BOTW and Persona 5: single player
Then look at all the very good rated January and beyond games we have mentioned so many times:
Hatsune Miku Future Tone
Gravity Rush 2
Resident Evil 7
Yakuza 0
Nioh
Nier Automata
Horizon Zero Dawn
All of those are single player. And with the sole exception of Horizon, all of those are Japanese. Thankfully Sony mixes the best of both worlds and that is what makes them such a varied platform.
Western third parties tell us those service games are the future because they are their current bet, so of course they sing their praises.
@rjejr Yep, don't get me started on the Zelda DLC. But apparently most people are suddenly fine with paying extra for a hard mode. Or a cave of trials, something that was previously included in the base game too.
Anyway, back on topic. I agree that they could probably shoe-horn some DLC into the game, but having finished the game, I can't see what they could do to make it worthwhile. The game itself is complete as it is, so unless they do something completely unexpected, I'm absolutely fine if they leave it like this and just start working on a sequel. There's a lot more potential in a sequel than DLC in my opinion.
@Octane "There's a lot more potential in a sequel than DLC in my opinion."
At the rate I'm going I'll need the sequel announcement to kick me in the butt to play it. Had it on my Gamefly list but they sent me inFamous 2nd Son, sent that back got Yooka-Laylee mailed out today. My son and I were going to pick it up when it hit $30 on sale this summer, but w/ no DLC I figure they have less reason to lower the price. And he's still playing Zelda on Wii U and wants to finish that first, can't blame him. I'm holding out until it's done this holiday, just in case. FFXV is annoying me w/ every update and patch.
I agree with Sony's move here. I think the move toward games as a service is stupid, worthless for the industry as a long term art form, and neglectful of what in fact makes gaming great.
It's just plain smart business management in my eyes.
Great article @get2sammyb
The big problem with games service hybrids is the time they steal from you. You can't have anymore than three or four on the go at any one time else you won't keep up with opposing players. Sony have the business strategy spot on. Great read for a bank holiday.
@rjejr It's definitely worth playing, so make sure you don't forget about it
@Dodoo I too bought the Bloodborne DLC and haven't really played it. For me DLC almost always has a feeling of being tacked on. If it was critical for the game or story, it would have been there from the beginning, and if the game is broken without it, I probably didn't buy the game because it wasn't polished enough at launch. Sometimes I go back and buy those games, sometimes I don't. There are just too many good games taking up my limited gaming time for me to bother overmuch with experiences I find hollow, and that pretty much also explains why I don't play service based games.
@get2sammyb Spot on article. I feel the same way about single player games, but it's not that the games are disposable to me, it's that my time isn't. I could spend a hundred hours playing something like Overwatch, OR I could play Horizon, Persona, and Zelda. Quite frankly, I'd rather experience three amazing games than spend too much time on any one. This is also why I almost never care about 100% completion or trophies.
It's probably a calm before the storm. This year has been great so far for gaming, and I believe that Sony and Nintendo are going to bring even more to the table.
From reading you're peoples comments i see one after another saying they prefer single player games and for phil spencer to say SP games really have no impact as they once did, he should come read you're people's comments showing most people do prefer story driven single player games, you people's comments are proving this. where will MP games be down the line? most of those MP games will seast to exist but more will come it has been like that for many year is will still be like that many years. halo 1 as a example how many people still paly that online? 0 that is how many i hope you people understand my point SP games are more playable than MP games has been that way still will be that way for many years to come Thank you sony!
I prefer it. Sure service games give you more hours initially, but in the long run they'll be obsolete. When buying a single player game, I'm comfortable knowing I'll be able to enjoy it forever.
@BLP_Software I think you missed the point of the article a bit. I didn't say Sony were the only publisher making single player games, and said as much in the article.
@themcnoisy Yeah that's the thing. You can go in search of the service dream, but realistically, it's really, really difficult to pull people away from the established brands.
One add-on to the article, I think if Sony ever does want to make a service type game not called Gran Turismo, there's huge potential in the SOCOM series.
Is that something you'd like to see? A constantly evolving SOCOM game?
I'm surprised they haven't given it a go already to be honest.
Single player games are the best!!
Only MP I enjoyed was Diablo 3 and GTA online. But with both I get bored after a certain amount of time and I want something new to play.
With single player games I easily waste 100s of hours doing random stuff while also hunting trophies. But when the plat pops I like to move on to something different.
I avoid shooters cuz I'm truly horrible at it. Sports games was fun when I was younger.
So I mainly play action or rpg games, which are mostly offline.
Yeah, the day that single player games cease to exist I most likely quit gaming.
I mostly play single player games, usually RPG's, platformers, puzzle games. That being said Overwatch is the best game I have played in years. Tried the beta and am still playing it non stop. Bought it for PS4 and PC. I dont think it should be put in the same category as all these other "Service games". Blizzard more then any other company knows how to make there online games last. Maybe not on console, but the PC version will be around for a long time.
@Dodoo @get2sammyb I'm the sameas well. I miss the days where when you bought a game you got the full game.
I waited very patiently for dark souls 2:sotfs so I would have the complete package. I bought dark souls 3 when it came out and still have barely touched the ringed city. And I Love those games.
Give me a good story and I can overlook almost everything else. I want games I can share with my kids in 10 years. Not a disk thats no better than a coaster.
@pbernoos for some reason your post brought back good memories of me and my buddy struggling (and scared s##tless) playing through silent hill and resident evil. Those experiences will stay with me forever. Such a good story and atmosphere (shh acting). I played COD modern warfare 2 and MOHAA for years and besides some map layouts I dont remember a thing. (except the vapours lol)
I remember the day I stopped playing COD I thought to myself. "Now that Im done what did I get from the multiplayer experience"... I remember answering "wasted time" and that was the last time I played an online game almost exclusively. I still play rocket league and now disc jam every few days but I am more into SP experiences.
That's one of the problems with the industry today. Whenever a new trend emerges the big publishers jump on it and all of a sudden everything needs to be just that.
It's no surprise that EA, Activision and Ubisoft are the ones that are mentioned here as they are the ones who tend to take the least risk and produce games mostly in a "by the numbers" philosophy. Which is great for squeezing every last dime out of an overdone genre, but in the end just gets repetitive and stale.
Sure, it'll attract a core number of consumers as always because that's what it's been focus tested to do. But it's no wonder that more and more people are starting to look for something different and want to get off the hamster wheel.
So the publishers and developers who create games that stand on their own, do something different and buck the trend will always find a place into my collection.
Single player games will do well as long us as 'the gamer' keeps buying them! So let's keep enjoying and playing SP games! I picked up SW battlefront on sale then thought... can I really be bothered grinding for days to get myself to lvl 5? Nah... went and enjoyed The Order instead!!
The best way I have seen multi-player rolled into a single player game is the Dark Souls series. You can play the whole game w/o any multi-player or you can summon someone's help when you want. Yes there is the downfall of someone invading your game, but that happens more often than not when you have someone else with you to deal with them. You can also co-op with a friend through a password. All around a great way to be able to choose how you want to play.
Single player is the best for most games I believe
I've always approached DLC with an open mind. Sometimes we're clearly getting ripped off and the content is stuff that should have been in the game. Other times, it's clearly new content and it's worth every single penny. In fact, DLC isn't always at a cost to the consumer. The last two Monster Hunter titles on the 3DS offered free content every single month at no cost.
@rjejr I'm in the minority here, but Horizon - whilst a polished to near blindingly sparkly - didn't really grab me. I played for a few days and it was ok, but safe. Didn't really hook me as it seems to have most others.
Zelda has been the same. Great first few hours play, then no real desire to keep going.
Maybe I should see a doctor!
It's fortunate that we have Sony WWS pumping out story driven games... Keep zagging on Sony!
@Ewflex I completely agree. I literally little to never support these Mp only games. I know this is really wrong but i kinda get alittle bit of pleasure when a company launches a Mp only game and it just fails completely i.e. Battleborn. I don't want anyone to lose there job, but internally I'm hoping the developer learned there lesson in the end.
@stevejcrow it's ok if you dot like Horizon. It's a great game but still could've better. I am not sure why you didn't like It but The story is engaging and the combat gets better and better. So give it some more time. A lot of people says it's starts slowly but to me I like that. I like aloy as a child and see how she became a outcast and how she handled it.
@CB7Tuner91 I hate games that is always online connectivity. If your servers aren't good or they just went down temporarily for whatever reason then you can't play the game.
I liked nba2k series but stop buying them. They had sucky servers and if the servers were having tech difficulties then I couldn't even play offline since the franchise mode is connected to the online servers.
@Ewflex I think it's probably my fault for playing first few hours, getting a feel for game and then restarting. Hate the feeling that I've done things in the wrong way or order, which makes open world titles an absolute nightmare!
Think it's why I've grown to enjoy souls type games. I can restart ad infinitum and don't get too bored playing the first few hours over because as I improve it takes less time to progress.
I definitely agree with what you say in this article. Furthermore, Sony's emphasis on high quality single player campaign games is why they are my console of choice.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...