Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Roper Predicts Major PC Shift

Posted by Zonk on from the online-goes-bigtime dept.

Bill Roper, at Game Convention in Leipzig, Germany, stated in his keynote address that PC Gaming is on the verge of a major shift. From the GI.biz article: "I'm going to get on my PC soapbox for a few minutes...PC games are on the verge of a major market shift, as PC developers and publishers start to move from selling CDs of single-player games to retail outlets, to selling online games to those with broadband connections. We're already seeing primitive multi-platform games on the PC... Players want to get online and play."

9 of 44 comments (clear)

  1. Not all of us... by SoCalChris · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Players want to get online and play Not all of us are into multiplayer fps games. When I have time to play, I just want to sit down and play something for a little bit, and I certainly don't want to have to pay a monthly charge to do it.

    1. Re:Not all of us... by damiangerous · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm with you. When I do want to play multiplayer it's with a group of friends I already know, not whoever happens to be on some server at the time. Not to mention now that we're all in our 30's, mostly with the families and responsibilities that go along with it, it would be nearly impossible to get us all together anyway. The pre-planned D&D sessions are tough enough.

      In fact, the only time I really want multiplayer is co-op games I can play with my wife. We certainly don't need a server for that. (Although a better Gamecube selection, and better co-op modes in general would help a lot)

    2. Re:Not all of us... by Negatyfus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nonsense. There are things you can do in a single-player game that are impossible in multi-player games. There are more genres than first-person shooters, RPG's, real-time strategy games and MMO's. After a while in a massively online game, I start to miss deep story-driven single-player games. Playing a game used to be like being deeply immersed in a book for me, not just beating an opponent.

      And, believe it or not, some people actually don't like playing against human opponents.

  2. Ah, nope by TheSkepticalOptimist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Online games are fun, certainly a round of Unreal Tourny or Everquest gets the juices flowing, but a good well written, single player adventure never goes out of style.

    I think the biggest problem is that AI is still woefully underwelming for most single player adventure/action games. While games like HL2 offer amazing AI and the enemies are definetly more difficult to pin down, nothing compares to having to fight against online opponents.

    When it comes to online RPG's, the problem is that they take too long to build up decent experience, way too much trash talking, and when excitement does happen, you get squeezed out of the battle. They purposely make sure that MMORPG's take long to play so you continue to pay the subscription fees. MMORPG's are based on making the most money for whatever company is offering the product, not necessarily about making the best game possible.

    While there certainly is more room in the market for connected and online games, I think the shift has happend and is definetly not as earth shattering as is implied. There isn't really anything to hype about online multiplayer games, they are hear already well established.

    --
    I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
  3. Uh huh by Azarael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Typical, WE know what the consumer whats so that is what we are going to give you (by ramming it down your throat if necessary).

  4. Duh by Bastian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He's predicting something that's pretty much already happened. Nobody gives a damn about an FPS that isn't multiplayer anymore, to the point where, for most new major FPS, the single-player is an afterthought. The RPG world has turned into the MMORPG world.

    What's he trying to say, that the logical next step on this is games that are distributed exclusively through online channels? I'm sure that's going to happen sometime in the future, but still, saying, "Steam was a good idea, I think more people are going to be doing that in the future," in a roudnabout way hardly seems like much of a prediction.

  5. I would have to disagree by modi123 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I would have to disagree. I give a large damn about FPS that are NOT multiplayer. Things like 'No One Lives Forever's are shining examples of great game play. Additionally 'Return to Castle Wolfenstein', 'Doom3', Deus Ex', 'Thief' (all of them), 'Aliens vs. Predator's and so on all have one amazing quality that multiplayer games don't - a story. Games are more than just gib/frag/0wnZ fests that attempt to cram as much realistic blood and polygons as possible on the screen. Games are a way to interact with a story, a world, and a plot in a manner that the developers are trying to get across. Case in point 'American McGee's Alice' was a scintillating game, where the story was supported by the graphics and sound. I am constantly angered by games that ignore the story of any sorts. I am all for player interaction, but tell me the wheres/whys/whos. To make a comparison - how fun would WoW be if there was nothing but PVP battles? "Man - it's like all about wasting those nasty orks/alliance people. Yea, I don't care for much background, but just enough to make me 0WNZ them!:

    I see multiplayer FPS moving towards a soulless future full of maps, rocket launchers, and vehicles. We have all seen what happens to media sources that loose the ability to tell a story - 800 reality show variants and a crappy movies on the big screen.

    If any game developers are out there reading this, don't chose the wrong path. Give your games life - write the stories and tell them with the game. *cough* if you need help drop me a line...

  6. Online my butt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Players want to get online and play - not with all of those children and TK-ing a-holes out there. I for one find single-player games much immersive - like sitting by the fire, reading a good book. Multiplayer is like watching a crappy TV sitcom with a bunch of frathouse drunks in a dorm room.

    Fsck multiplayer.

    Go ahead, mod me down for not conforming.

  7. It's about distribution, not just genre by Kelson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think people are missing the point that this isn't just about deathmatches and Everquest. He's talking about a shift in distribution much like digital music. Today all the top titles are things you buy in a store. You get a box, a CD or DVD-ROM, a reference card and maybe a manual. But as more and more people have broadband, the need for that physical medium decreases.

    The shareware market has had online distribution for years, of course, largely because the barriers to entry are lower, but also because smaller games are easier to download. Something that's starting to hit a lot now is the online applet/flash game with a downloadable (pay) equivalent, a la PopCap. I know this example's a bit old, but Bejeweled was quite popular before they put it in a box.

    Back to multiplayer games, if they require a connection to play anyway, there are really only two reasons to sell the base game on CD. The first is size: If it takes 12 hours to download the client, people would rather drive down to Best Buy, plunk down the cash, and be back home in 30 minutes. The second is visibility: You expect to find games at GameStop. Both reasons are becoming less important, though. If your connection is fast enough, there's nothing to discourage you from downloading a 500MB installer. And as you get used to finding games online, you're as likely to look there as you are to look at the local mall.