Like for many other people, Valve single player experiences were one of my favorite of all time growing up. I considered both Half-Life and Portal to be masterpieces. It’s true they’ve always been distracted with multiplayer games as well, things like Counter-Strike or Team Fortress and I did play them for sure, because I was a kid and I had all the time in the world.
These days I’m not a kid anymore and so when I game I tend to look more for memorable experiences instead of mindless grinding. Obviously I remember Valve as the experts in creating memorable experiences and I would like them to keep fully exploring those talents. They don’t have that many employees, but they do have all the money in the world, no external pressure, no publisher to shit on them, it’s just their developers and artists and a vision. But then they use all that and create this. An Overwatch looking moba shooter, really? I’m sure people will like and play it, but is this the results of the vision and ambition of a company like Valve?
It doesn’t have to be Half-Life. I remember them saying that they dont want to do another one in the series because they are looking to innovate and make something truly original. My body is ready, give me anything. I can’t imagine a moba shooter really fits with this description. I’m wondering how such a low hanging concept even becomes a real product at a company as ambitious as Valve.
I hear people are having fun with the new game and I’m happy for them. I am no longer the target audience and I wish them good luck with it. In the mean time let me hear your thoughts on it. Would you like to see another single player experience from Valve?
I’d love to get another singleplayer game as well, but I’ve accepted that Valve is just unpredictable. I’m sure they haven’t given up on Singleplayer and we’ll get another singleplayer game… at some point. Their previous game was the fantastic Half-life Alyx after all.
I mean, stuff has leaked about a possible new Half Life game, I guess we’ll see soon™
I wish they’d at least do some fun story driven coop stuff instead of only pvp stuff. But, I miss the single player days.
we’re getting old dude
the kids who are the age we were in the half life glory days–they don’t want single player. they want league of apex legends fortnitewatchstrike
single player games won’t go away completely, but they’re definitely taking a backseat to whatever the rage is with the kids. currently mobas. just google “most played video games” if you’re not depressed enough already
“Single player games have taken a backseat”. Okay. We’re just going to state that as a truth? And also just stating kids as being the main video games audience still?
I mean if single player games have taken such a backseat, why are big companies pouring so much money into games such as Horizon, Dragon Age, Assassin’s Creed, Anno or Dark Souls? Why are indie games, thousands and tens of thousands of them, so overwhelmingly single player? Why is Zelda still not a MOBA? Just does not really hold water as an argument IMO. If anything it seems the opposite is happening and after the height of MOBAs in ˜2015, the market is slowly creeping back.
Both of your points are only partially correct.
I think we can state as a truth that they have less potential profit.
Wrong, they just take less effort and have a more constant revenue stream.
Potential for profit means nothing, when so many attempts at milkable forever games end up like Suicide Squad or Concord.
Also you can come into them half baked and pull the plug if the game doesn’t sell (because it’s half baked) like they’re doing with SS and they did with the Avengers game.
They spend more money.
They don’t, you can’t spend money you don’t have, whales are working adults.
Kids spend money for less. Better ROI, not higher payoff.
You make the 18302nd skin and troves of kids will badger their parents for fortnite bucks so they can buy it but not everyone will. The upside is that making a skin costs you single digits percent points of the profits, so even if one or two are a dud, you’re fine, the good ones will make up for it.
It’s a business model you can throw money at once the game’s got an audience base, which is very attractive to companies, because it’s uncomplicated and reliable.
There’s plenty of room to monetize single player games when it’s add-in content to games that you continually replay as opposed to add-on content for something that’s story driven. More systemic games like Civilization, roguelikes, simulators, etc.
I think we can state as a truth that they have less potential profit.
That’s true but it’s not because people aren’t playing single player games. The reason single player games are less profitable is because the non-subscription, non-microtransaction single player market is extremely saturated with indie games. That makes it very hard to sell AAA single player games. The standards are extremely high and the opportunities for extra monetization are not there.
I have been a single player gamer for most of my life, yet I haven’t bought a AAA single player game in decades. I have more indie single player games to play than I know what to do with, and frankly they appeal to me more than AAA titles. Expensive graphics and voice acting don’t have much draw for me these days. I am much more interested in roguelikes and retro games now. I think there are thousands of others like me out there, among all those who don’t go in for multiplayer games and haven’t purchased a console.
It’s not a question of demand, it’s a question of profit. Multiplayer games stand to make a lot more money than singleplayer. Nobody will spend real world dollars on cosmetic items in a singleplayer game.
Skyrim has no multiplayer component, but plenty of people have paid cash money for cosmetic items.
“An overwatch looking moba shooter”
No, it plays like Battleborn and Monday Night Combat, a third person shooter with moba elements. It’s not overwatch, it’s not Dota.
The point stands that it’s derivative. I’m convinced Valve can do better.
And isn’t everything derivative? What’s the issue with that? If feel like you’re really trying to gather negativity towards this game simply because it doesn’t pander to your tastes
Well, I guess your are right that everything is derivative. I also think some things are more alike than others and also some markets are more saturated than others. When Half-Life came out it was in a saturated market of FPSs but it also revolutionized the market. When Portal came out no one could compare it to anything other that a student project. Half-Life Alyx is still considered the no 1 most polished and complete game in the VR space. We’ll see the impact that Deadlock will have I guess.
Even if it is, it’s a derivation I’ve been sorely missing. Ever since Battleborn got shut down, there’s been a Battleborn shaped hole in my heart. Deadlock fits in that hole really well.
It’s possible that the whole impetus for creating Deadlock came from something like that. Someone at valve, like me, enjoyed the hell out this particular mix of mechanics.
There’s nothing like it. Dota doesn’t do the trick, neither does Overwatch. Of all things, the closest thing might be Titanfall 2’s titan combat.
Did you ever try Paladins? I somehow ended up playing Battleborn when it came out and really liked it, even though it got panned. Always thought Paladins was a close second.
Also calling Overwatch a “MOBA shooter” is like calling Mario Kart a “Rogue like racer” because you start each race fresh with everything reset. It’s just an FPS, nothing MOBA about it.
I personally think MOBA should be used to broadly describe a style of game rather than what’s done while playing it. I know that when Riot coined the term, they were referring to games like DotA, LoL, etc.; to me the whole approach to a match’s flow is echoed similarly enough throughout multiple games, that applying the term MOBA to other games is a logical extension.
To me a game is a MOBA if:
- The way to interact with it is primarily designed around playing with other players online (the M and O of MOBA.)
- The goals of the players are against the goals of other players — ie. it’s competitive rather than cooperative (the B of MOBA.)
- Any player at the beginning of a match has access to all the same options as any other player. This one is a little more vague, but as the A in MOBA stands for arena, I imagine it like a group of gladiators standing before a communal weapon rack that they’ll all pick from; no one has any options that the others don’t have access to.
Following these criteria, something like Overwatch is a MOBA, as is DotA, and ironically LoL isn’t as you have to unlock options meaning you don’t satisfy the arena condition. To differentiate games like DotA, Smite, Awesomenauts, Deadlock, etc., I prefer the term lane-pusher as that’s a lot more specific and understandable.
Does it really matter what it’s called? Not really. I mostly just do it so I can feel superior to Riot for coming up with a vague term that is applied, how I deem, incorrectly, while also excluding their own game from the term that they made to describe it.
I don’t get how everyone keeps comparing it to those games when Smite exists and it’s damn near identical?!
but they do have all the money in the world, no external pressure, no publisher to shit on them, it’s just their developers and artists and a vision.
I think that’s part of the issue. Supposedly they do have multiple games in development and a large percentage of their employees are working on them. But they are content to let the creative and technical processes play out, without announcing too-ambitious release dates which inevitably get pushed back and still have a buggy game released. And sometimes they even cut their losses if a long term project just isn’t working out.
