PCG article links and discussions for February 2024

Page 4 - Love gaming? Join the PC Gamer community to share that passion with gamers all around the world!
Some companies may wish single player would die, as then they could make all games live service, and maybe save time in others by not making a single player mode. Whether that be a campaign only for single player, or let people play games offline.

The better games have both, to varying degrees. Some are dumb and make you play single player online... um... why you need to control? If its single player, what does it matter if the player cheats? for example. Oh nvm,. its for the dumb cash shop... can't let people escape with their wallets.

Single player has big advantages over MP. You can leave game on pause for hours and not need to explain to anyone why you weren't answering them... or why you didn't log on that day.

Some online games can become jobs. Have to be online to do X because you there every other time. I stopped playing wow when I was going to spend two weeks of my holidays leveling up a skill, and I just thought... I could do something more interesting in that time... and never really looked back.

Multi player Solitaire sounds like a contradiction and yet it exists...
multi player yo yo don't exist... at least some single player activities are spared.

It also depends on personality, not everyone wants to be around people all the time.
 
Last edited:
Games can have both quite easily, maybe its just low hanging fruit making co-op only games because theyre probably easier to make fun, as well as the biggest money makers over time being live service games that sell cosmetics and whatever.

As long as there are people who like to make game first rather than product first there'll be single player games. Big budget ones might become rarer as time goes on, hard to say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr
I don't see multi player elder scrolls any time soon (but I could be wrong) so some games like that, and maybe The Witcher, where you play a specific role, are harder to make multi player just to keep world realistic... it would be odd seeing a world full of pale white guys with white hair that all look identical. Am I in Sweden?

But then GTA5 supposedly has you play one role... as did Fallout 4. So its possible. Difference is they are mostly 1st person games. AFAIK you can't play in 3rd person in GTA5. Both of the games are self insert games.

I think difference is if its a story driven game or not. How much of game relies on you being invested in the character. How much dialogue is there?

Maybe Microsoft will make Bethesda turn EOS into a MMO so people can play together. At least in those games you can make your appearance. So its half way there... amazed they never thought of it... They have Failboat 76 after all. ...
Nvm, I forgot.


Microsoft now own the company who had the 1st ever DLC (Bethesda) and the company who charges you more for one horse in a game than the actual game costs itself (Blizzard)
 
I don't see multi player elder scrolls any time soon

I don't think we'll see a new single player Elder Scrolls any time soon either. The most optimistic estimate I've seen is for 2026, but I've also seen estimates for 2030.

AFAIK you can't play in 3rd person in GTA5.

I'm pretty sure third person is the default and a first person camera wasn't even part of the game when it launched.

I think difference is if its a story driven game or not. How much of game relies on you being invested in the character. How much dialogue is there?

I think a single-player narrative driven game is comparable to a good book or movie, so I expect there will always be some room for them.
 
Big budget ones might become rarer as time goes on

Medium-term, depends almost solely on demand.

low hanging fruit making co-op only games because theyre probably easier to make

I've read that co-op and multi are much easier to make, mainly because dev doesn't have to spend major resources on balancing and difficulty leveling.

demographics of people who buy single player games though, both indies and big budget ones

I doubt you'll find that breakdown, but for what it's worth:



Just speculating that multi players are also more likely to be active on SocMed, so it's going to seem on the surface that the 'whole gaming world' is talking mostly about multi games. So expect the death of SP games to continue to be reported as often as death of PC gaming was reported during the last couple of decades.
 
Thats a really interesting article, thanks. Seems that younger gen are playing console a lot at least.

I'm not active on social media, I was really wondering with people getting into FTP games like Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite very young would that push them towards that model rather than one and done single player. Guess we'll see eventually.
 

No Man's Sky is one of the rare few games I can see myself sinking hundreds of hours into, but I've never had a chance to try it out. It's the main reason I've considered signing up for the trial period of Game Pass, but so far I've managed to resist the temptation, because I don't really have the time or the money to invest in it.

The temptation is much stronger now that it's completely free though, so if I do happen to have time available this weekend I'll probably try it out. If I end up liking it I suppose I'll have a good gift idea for my birthday.
 

Zloth

Community Contributor
I've read that co-op and multi are much easier to make, mainly because dev doesn't have to spend major resources on balancing and difficulty leveling.
Why wouldn't they need to do those things for a co-op game? They also have to deal with all that communication between the two players.

I'm not active on social media, I was really wondering with people getting into FTP games like Roblox, Minecraft and Fortnite very young would that push them towards that model rather than one and done single player. Guess we'll see eventually.
What about the early Doom games? I think I FTP'ed those to my PC. Or did I use Z-Modem? ;)
 
Why wouldn't they need to do those things for a co-op game? They also have to deal with all that communication between the two players.
I know you weren't asking me, but I originally said that Co/op games are easier to make fun. Reasoning being that if youre playing a game with friends then its usually fun to spend time with people you like regardless of the quality of the thing you are doing together. As the market gets more crowded thats probably less true to be fair.
What about the early Doom games? I think I FTP'ed those to my PC. Or did I use Z-Modem? ;)
I was a bit later than Shareware although it was kind of still around when I got my first Windows 95 PC. It still had a 3.5" floppy drive but it also had a 4x CD ROM. Funny to think that system requirements used to include a fast enough CD drive.

I read Masters of Doom though and it was really interesting to hear about those early days when they were kicking out games every couple of months for subscription services on a schedule, and Commander Keen being Mario PC originally.
 

Alan Wake 2 was released in October 2023 to worldwide critical acclaim, earning a Metacritic score of 89 at launch. Today, Remedy Entertainment Plc (“Remedy”) announces that Alan Wake 2 has sold 1 million units by the end of December 2023, and 1.3 million units as of the beginning of February 2024. Alan Wake 2 is Remedy’s fastest selling game so far.


By comparison, Alan Wake 2 sold over 50% more copies and over three times more digital copies in its first two months than Control did in its first four months. Since its release in 2019, Control has sold over 4 million units, generating net revenue (shareable revenue between Remedy and a publishing partner, excluding taxes and platform fees) of approximately EUR 100 million. A great game can generate excellent long tail sales, and we expect this to be the case with Alan Wake 2 as well.

This includes console sales as well, probably would have been more if the game wasnt published by Epic and exclusive there on PC. Happy to see theyre making money with a weirdo game, more than Control even.
 

Zloth

Community Contributor
But all joking aside, i wish more devs would speak on this issue, even if its as gut wrenching as what the embracer comments were.
I wish more shareholders would take an interest in how the company will be doing a year from now. Many want to see profit every single quarter. I believe that's been a big factor in why companies want you paying fees over time rather than one price up front.

I wonder... is it possible for a company to sell shares that make it impossible to sell the share again for, say, five years after buying it?
 
Skull & Bones was released because Ubisoft had a contract with the Singapore Govt to make a new Franchise based out of their Singapore HQ and got paid money to make it... They may not have wanted to make it but had no choice. So they pushed out a game that would be at home on a mobile phone. And sold it in the press as being amazing...
I wonder who that message was for, Singapore Govt? Sounds like it to me. Look, we did what we said we would...
I hope the amount they made on the contract, is worth the loss in releasing it. Given game took 10 years to come out, that was probably spent years ago.

 
Last edited:
see profit every single quarter. I believe that's been a big factor in why companies want you paying fees over time rather than one price up front

Probably not, more likely to be a more predictable revenue stream. Execs rightly hate revenue levels which bounce around the place, makes financial planning a nightmare. Same reason for magazine and newspaper subs back in the day.

Ubisoft had a contract with the Singapore Govt

I assume you mean the standard type of contract companies make with countries and states when they select the winner in the enticement contest for where to locate a new facility. Typically includes timed milestones like financial investment, labor hiring targets, local supplier usage, product or service production levels, maybe tech transfer, and on and on.

Or was it something different, which would make it worthy of note?

Btw it looks like other studios also worked on the product, Wiki says "Additional work by Ubisoft Belgrade, Ubisoft Berlin, Ubisoft Chengdu, Ubisoft Kyiv, Ubisoft Montreal, Ubisoft Mumbai, Ubisoft Paris, Ubisoft Philippines, Ubisoft Pune, and Ubisoft Shanghai".

I tried to do a quick research on this, but all roads seem to lead back to this Kotaku article. Are there any credible sources?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zloth
A Game - Budget: 0 to 100k
AA Game - Budget: 100k to 10 million
AAA Game - Budget: 10 million to 199 million
AAAA Game - Budget: 200 million to ????

Pretty sure I never seen anything advertised as AA so they jumped to the AAA right away at some stage?

I know that we now realize AAA doesn't mean anything other than budget and what they can afford to put into it, but there are stacks of people out there who still think it means they are a specific quality level... and tbh, if you spend 200 million on a product it better be worth buying at the end, and not worse than the game they inspired by.


Wonder how much Star Citizen has cost so far, how many A's does it get?
How much has WOW cost over the years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr
How much has WOW cost over the years?

I haven't seen Blizzard reveal numbers, but most estimates put it around $5m/month—if that's been steady for the 20 years, that would be $1.2Bn in total. But that's loose, I imagine costs have fluctuated over time.

AAA Game - Budget: 10 million to 199 million

Priciest AAAs I know of are Genshin and Star Citizen, both around $700m total costs to launch—or not, in SC's case. There are plenty more over your $200m.

we now realize AAA doesn't mean anything other than budget

Who's this "we", Paleface?

AAA means lots of things, of which budget is one. But even small dev teams have budgets if they're beyond hobbyists—so having a budget is useless for differentiating dev levels..
 
I haven't seen Blizzard reveal numbers, but most estimates put it around $5m/month—if that's been steady for the 20 years, that would be $1.2Bn in total. But that's loose, I imagine costs have fluctuated over time.
is that how much it costs to run game or how much they make per month?


AAA may mean a lot of things but its a mark of quality is my main point I guess. It just seems to get undue attention... who cares how much game costs, is it any good?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pifanjr
is that how much it costs to run game or how much they make per month?

Cost. I was answering this:

How much has WOW cost over the years?

They make a lot more, best estimates I've seen are 5-10 times cost—phenomenal performance to keep that going for 20 years.

its a mark of quality is my main point I guess

Game dev is probably at a point of transition, where the complexity of modern game possibilities has outstripped humans' ability to write comprehensive test programs, but AI is not yet ready to take over the job. So we're going to have to suffer the interim pain, so that future generations can have flawless universe-spanning Point & Clicks!

Awesome, no?
 

Zloth

Community Contributor
From Phil Iwaniuk's article in the Tech Report section of the print magazine:
All of which is to say, PC graphics don't seem to getting observably much better. Cyberpunk 2077 released four calendar years ago. If a new game released tomorrow with the exact same visual fidelity, we'd be proclaiming its beauty. That tells us something about the pace things are moving along at.
That one hit me. It's a little sneaky because Cyberpunk came out in December of 2020 so it's closer to three years, but that's still crazy to me. Only a few games can really match what Cyberpunk's graphics did over three years ago?? Improvements in sound stopped long ago, CPUs hit a wall, too. Now even graphics are coasting toward a stop.
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts