Game options for single player

[Stachel]

yeah we do.

Yeah but (like me) you're probably an old casual gamer. Respectfully I don't think we are the demographic profile that Frontier will be trying to coax in to buying 1m+ copies of ED. The few thousand middle aged people with deep pockets who backed the kickstarter, mostly out of teary eyed nostaliga, aren't the ones who will make the game a financial success for FDEV.

Also respectfully, within aforementioned group of ageing nerds, the single player brigade are less than 10% according to the polls on these here forums. Now these may not be representative of the greater 40k folks who pledged, but I think its fair enough to say the demand for single player-only content is considerably lower than the point of justifiable development.

EDIT: I should also say that the linked article is quite revealing about the still strong demand for single player games. Its just that in terms of cost and time they require a much larger financial investment (and risk) than multiplayer games.

If an Elder Scrolls game takes 3-5 years and 40m+ up front, sells well, but then peters out within 18 months or so even with content updates then its arguably not as good an investment as a multiplayer game that can continue to be expanded incrementally for years and still provide new sales revenue the entire time. TES games are probably not a good example as they always sell very well and make huge returns. A better example is probably The Witcher series which sold 6m combined sales over 4 years. WOW at its peak acquired something like 10m subscribers and was posting profits in the billions for years. Even CCP's Eve Online which never has more than 60k people online at once and is very much a niche game has over 500, 000 subscribers. They probably clear something in the region of 3m a month. Eve has been live for ten years and has been chaotically developed and poorly managed. They're still pooping cash though.

For a small company like ED with limited resources operting in one of the most expensive countries on the planet, with a skillbase that is still very much in the expand and consolidate phase, it makes sense to build a hybridized game that will appeal to both markets but which will have an element of replayability, persistence and 'emergence' that keeps people interested and forking out longer term. I think the meta data concept (using the cloud) and P2P instanced multiplayer is a solid approach and will reap healthy long term revenue if managed carefully. Although I think financially the future of gaming is not alone in your bedroom. Its viable but its nowhere near optimal if you're in business to make money. Fully expect FDEV to focus heavily on multiplayer going forward.

Now none of the above has any real bearing on what you enjoy and what you want to play granted. I'm just trying to look at it from a business perspective as that's what determines what we eventually get to play.

 

[Styggron]

Yeah but (like me) you're probably an old casual gamer. Respectfully I don't think we are the demographic profile that Frontier will be trying to coax in to buying 1m+ copies of ED. The few thousand middle aged people with deep pockets who backed the kickstarter, mostly out of teary eyed nostaliga, aren't the ones who will make the game a financial success for FDEV.

Also respectfully, within aforementioned group of ageing nerds, the single player brigade are less than 10% according to the polls on these here forums. Now these may not be representative of the greater 40k folks who pledged, but I think its fair enough to say the demand for single player-only content is considerably lower than the point of justifiable development.

EDIT: I should also say that the linked article is quite revealing about the still strong demand for single player games. Its just that in terms of cost and time they require a much larger financial investment (and risk) than multiplayer games.

If an Elder Scrolls game takes 3-5 years and 40m+ up front, sells well, but then peters out within 18 months or so even with content updates then its arguably not as good an investment as a multiplayer game that can continue to be expanded incrementally for years and still provide new sales revenue the entire time. TES games are probably not a good example as they always sell very well and make huge returns. A better example is probably The Witcher series which sold 6m combined sales over 4 years. WOW at its peak acquired something like 10m subscribers and was posting profits in the billions for years. Even CCP's Eve Online which never has more than 60k people online at once and is very much a niche game has over 500, 000 subscribers. They probably clear something in the region of 3m a month. Eve has been live for ten years and has been chaotically developed and poorly managed. They're still pooping cash though.

For a small company like ED with limited resources operting in one of the most expensive countries on the planet, with a skillbase that is still very much in the expand and consolidate phase, it makes sense to build a hybridized game that will appeal to both markets but which will have an element of replayability, persistence and 'emergence' that keeps people interested and forking out longer term. I think the meta data concept (using the cloud) and P2P instanced multiplayer is a solid approach and will reap healthy long term revenue if managed carefully. Although I think financially the future of gaming is not alone in your bedroom. Its viable but its nowhere near optimal if you're in business to make money. Fully expect FDEV to focus heavily on multiplayer going forward.

Now none of the above has any real bearing on what you enjoy and what you want to play granted. I'm just trying to look at it from a business perspective as that's what determines what we eventually get to play.

I wouldn't say I'm a casual gamer I play heaps, just nothing online. :smilie: I do take your points though.

 

[Stachel]

I wouldn't say I'm a casual gamer I play heaps, just nothing online. :smilie:

Ok substitute casual for 'old'. Hehe. I have zero interest in the statistical idolatry of grind MMOs - never played WOW. Never will. Love Fallout and to some degree TES games; although as the quality of those declines, so has my interest. I also found myself becoming more and more impatient with slow burners and less inclined to spend more and more time stockpiling resources.

Delayed onset fun just isn't my thing anymore. I stopped buying Football Manager years ago after it became more and more time consuming. I guess I'm half in and half out of both camps. Dumbing down has played a huge part in my declining appetite for single player games. But likewise so has the vast success and subsequent proliferation of games which are, at their core, nothing more than mindless repetitive action.

Looking forward to the mixed approach in ED.

 

[humbleton]

Games are more fun if you can play with other people.
If a game has a single player element and a co-op multiplayer element that's the same as single player (e.g. borderlands, saints row etc..) then myself and most of the other gamers I know prefer to play co-op rather than singleplayer. It's just more fun IMO.

You hit the nail on the head. And this is how I plan to play Elite with my little brother and my two other PC gaming mates. And actually you are spot on with the other co-op games we played: I've played Borderlands 2 about 200 hours with my brother. I can remember the utter disappointment of GTA V when they said it was three characters but you couldn't do the stories co-op with them - what a missed opportunity.

"Real men hunt in packs" - McLusky

 

[Jezzah]

this game is ideal for MP by its very nature and like another post said FD probably aren't targeting the middle aged teary eyed gamers for their year on year profit margin

Normally when I see some SP game has a MP attached I don't bother with it for example Batman games or some such. Those are strictly SP affairs for me.

I'm really looking forward to what FD will bring to the game in terms of MP.

 

[Barns]

You hit the nail on the head. And this is how I plan to play Elite with my little brother and my two other PC gaming mates. And actually you are spot on with the other co-op games we played: I've played Borderlands 2 about 200 hours with my brother. I can remember the utter disappointment of GTA V when they said it was three characters but you couldn't do the stories co-op with them - what a missed opportunity.

"Real men hunt in packs" - McLusky

That's fair enough and I do have fond memories of co-op play in many games, however "real life" conspires for many of us at a certain age such that the opportunities to arrange regular play sessions at fixed times in order to co-op / guild play / whatever are very limited. I know I'll be lucky to get a few hours a week at very random times for random durations, at short notice generally.

So, whilst I hope the MP side is great for everyone else, I really hope the solo / single player aspect is fully fleshed out also and that there aren't big chunks of content missing or unobtainable if you're restricted to soloing by the realities of life. By content I mean missions, "gear" (ships, equipment), reputation, and basically everything that passes for "progression" in ED. I'm aware I'll likely "progress" more slowly but that's fine, I'll be playing less so that's only reasonable. I just don't want a repeat of e.g. WoW or any number of other MMOs where everything end-game revolves around group play if you want the "best" stuff and to see the most interesting content.

TLDR; MP yes great for those who can, but please make it possible for me to solo my way to a blinged up Anaconda with the best SuperLazors without missing out on any fun content

 

[humbleton]

That's fair enough and I do have fond memories of co-op play in many games, however "real life" conspires for many of us at a certain age such that the opportunities to arrange regular play sessions at fixed times in order to co-op / guild play / whatever are very limited.

I'm 40 and my brother is 35. So I don't think the age thing holds water. Some people find time to go to the football every other week, some find time to play squash, go the the gym, to the pub, etc. I guess that's the way I look at it with me and my brother. Also it's our hang-out, catch-up, in-joke-have-a-laugh time together. He's one of my really good friends in life.

 

[noodle]

I'd say they're more prevalent because that's what people want to play rather than devs being lazy.

I don't think that's true. Companies will make financial decisions. It's cheaper developing for MP, so that's what they do. People buy the product that's available. That doesn't mean that people don't want SP games.

Games are more fun if you can play with other people.

No. Games are a different type of fun if you can play them with other people. I've had tremendous fun playing MMORPGs, but that doesn't mean that I'd want other people running around inside Skyrim when I play it. Two different experiences, two different types of fun. I enjoyed MP, I still enjoy and want SP.

 

[Barns]

I'm 40 and my brother is 35. So I don't think the age thing holds water. Some people find time to go to the football every other week, some find time to play squash, go the the gym, to the pub, etc. I guess that's the way I look at it with me and my brother. Also it's our hang-out, catch-up, in-joke-have-a-laugh time together. He's one of my really good friends in life.

And I'm very happy for you I did however say "many of us", not all. If you've got young kids and a partner and all the stuff that goes along with that then it's often (note not always) the case that things like playing games or basically any form of socialising outside your immediate family get slotted into any random spare timeslots that come along. I guess it's a matter of priorities and how busy the rest of your life is.

I'm 40, too. I have two young boys (4 and 1) and am happily married. Life is just manic juggling all the day-to-day stuff plus spending a bit of fun time with the kids and wife. I'm a stay-at-home dad so do all the "house and kids" stuff and evenings are time to get stuff done that's impossible with a 1 year old gnawing my ankles, and to spend with my lady. Sure I could say "sorry dear / kids, I'm off to play games this evening, see you tomorrow" and leave her to do everything but that's not how I choose to prioritise things. For me in particular once you throw in hospital visits and general under-the-weather-ness from the big C I'm defeating, I don't have much time left in a day! Other couples vary.

 

[Barns]

No. Games are a different type of fun if you can play them with other people. I've had tremendous fun playing MMORPGs, but that doesn't mean that I'd want other people running around inside Skyrim when I play it. Two different experiences, two different types of fun. I enjoyed MP, I still enjoy and want SP.

Absolutely. Sometimes I want the random adrenalin thrill of never knowing what a multiplayer situation can throw at me. Other times, I want to settle into a comfortable session with a rough plan of how to achieve whatever goal I have in mind, and know that it's only the game that will be in my way and I won't be irritated by some nose-dropping of an oik out to ruin everyone's day in some manner.

 

[noodle]

I'm 40 and my brother is 35. So I don't think the age thing holds water. Some people find time to go to the football every other week, some find time to play squash, go the the gym, to the pub, etc. I guess that's the way I look at it with me and my brother. Also it's our hang-out, catch-up, in-joke-have-a-laugh time together. He's one of my really good friends in life.

Many of us have interests other than gaming, and want to be able to dip in and out of games in small doses when convenient. I'm not criticising your choice of playing style, but there are many different people out there with many different lifestyles and priorities. While some of us may not have the time or the preference for arranging co-op sessions, that doesn't mean that we don't want to play games

Aside from anything else, I do plenty of stuff that involves other people, so gaming is nice for some "me" time when I don't have to think about or interact with anyone else.

 

[Poacher886]

And I'm very happy for you I did however say "many of us", not all. If you've got young kids and a partner and all the stuff that goes along with that then it's often (note not always) the case that things like playing games or basically any form of socialising outside your immediate family get slotted into any random spare timeslots that come along. I guess it's a matter of priorities and how busy the rest of your life is.

I'm 40, too. I have two young boys (4 and 1) and am happily married. Life is just manic juggling all the day-to-day stuff plus spending a bit of fun time with the kids and wife. I'm a stay-at-home dad so do all the "house and kids" stuff and evenings are time to get stuff done that's impossible with a 1 year old gnawing my ankles, and to spend with my lady. Sure I could say "sorry dear / kids, I'm off to play games this evening, see you tomorrow" and leave her to do everything but that's not how I choose to prioritise things. For me in particular once you throw in hospital visits and general under-the-weather-ness from the big C I'm defeating, I don't have much time left in a day! Other couples vary.

I think the big time killer here is kids. Im 41 have a long term partner who is more than happy to amuse herself in front of the TV most nights with me on the PC and not bothering her, we dont have kids, and while i do have other outdoor interests in the mountains where i live, they are weather permitting, mostly summer based and cant be done on an evening or even a weekend really.
The result is, i have unlimited time in all evenings and all weekend if i choose to play on the PC, and typically do as i replace the TV with the PC. She's happy cause were not arguing over what to watch, im happy because i get my 'me' time...everyone's happy.
However if you have kids to deal with and amuse, then of course your time is limited somewhat.

 

[noodle]

I think the big time killer here is kids. Im 41 have a long term partner who is more than happy to amuse herself in front of the TV most nights with me on the PC and not bothering her, we dont have kids, and while i do have other outdoor interests in the mountains where i live, they are weather permitting, mostly summer based and cant be done on an evening or even a weekend really.
The result is, i have unlimited time in all evenings and all weekend if i choose to play on the PC, and typically do as i replace the TV with the PC. She's happy cause were not arguing over what to watch, im happy because i get my 'me' time...everyone's happy.
However if you have kids to deal with and amuse, then of course your time is limited somewhat.

Priorities as well though. I don't have kids, but I like spending time with my partner in the evenings. I also have a variety of other hobbies and interests that are jostling for attention alongside gaming.

 

[Doctor_Demento]

Then you have people like me. And over the last 5 years I've run into a lot of people like me. OK track this. I'm disabled and 60. I have a oxygen hose up my nose 24/7 and heart meds, etc. I live in a tiny one room apt and a huge chunk of my space is taken up with my computer system. I have a killer gaming system. It is what I spend most of my day, everyday doing. I was surprised when I first started looking at how many people are disabled and play games a lot. There are a LOT. My son is 28 so he pretty much has his life. I do have 2 grand kids I go see about once a month. It is just so hard to leave the house. I am exhausted when I get home and just fall back into my recliner for the next few hours. I can't even play. Yeah so many factors fall into how much you get to play, partners, single, kids, lifestyle and personal preferences.

Personally I will be playing ED a pretty substantial amount. More than most I'd say, especially long term. I enjoy the options I have in the game and will take advantage of them. I look forward to playing. I have standard Beta access and I assure you I WILL be there, grin.

 

[-o-]

So, whilst I hope the MP side is great for everyone else, I really hope the solo / single player aspect is fully fleshed out also and that there aren't big chunks of content missing or unobtainable if you're restricted to soloing by the realities of life.

TLDR; MP yes great for those who can, but please make it possible for me to solo my way to a blinged up Anaconda with the best SuperLazors without missing out on any fun content

I share the same hopes that the same content and reps should be attainable by solo or co-op'd players. I am just concerned that in practice, this may not happen.

As a simple example, you get a mission which requires you to take out six enemies in formation. You just cannot complete the mission in solo but in co-op, its completed. Due to the mission difficulty, the lead in this enemy formation drops a juicy reward like an upgrade to a weapon.

So you are left with the co-op'd player having an advantage. The solo player may eventually complete this mission, but by then the co-op player will be completing other more difficult missions as well which that solo player cannot do. The co-op player will always have an advantage.

All this is fine so far as that solo player can eventually get all content, but I think once the 'end game' is reached there will be content that solo player can never get because he can no longer advance, equipment or skillwise, to complete difficult end game missions and get their rewards. That co-op player however will be able to do these end game difficult missions.

Hopefully at this point FD would have a system in place where the solo player can get the same end game rewards in another manner - one that took more time, or by using seperate solo missions with reduced difficulties.