Bill Roper Predicts Major PC Shift

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."

Comments

Not all of us...

[SoCalChris]

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.

Re:Not all of us...

[damiangerous]

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)

Re:Not all of us...

[Negatyfus]

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.

Ah, nope

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

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.

Re:Ah, nope

[kannibal_klown]

It depends on the game and the AI, as well as the people.

Personally, I hate playing online. You have team-killers and the like, but then you have the whole "quality" thing.

For example: I'd rather play Star Craft in skirmish mode against the AI than risk getting Zerg-rushed against some pre-teen jerk. Or better yet, joining a 2 vs 2 game, and have your teammate immediately log so it becomes a 2 vs 1 game.

Complain about the AI as much as you want, but I'll take mediocre AI over stupid people any day.

Re:Ah, nope

[badasscat]

Complain about the AI as much as you want, but I'll take mediocre AI over stupid people any day.

Hell, I'll take mediocre AI over *smart* people too!

I have played RTS games online I believe twice. The last time was Rise of Nations, which was a brutal experience. There I was, working at what I thought was a pretty fast pace, only to get bum-rushed and knocked out of submission by an opponent who was a full two ages ahead of me already within seven minutes of starting the game. He knocked me out before I could even manage a defense.

Now, this may be "challenging", but I wouldn't call it "fun". In fact, from what I know of it, making AI "challenging" is no problem whatsoever - it's making it a good match to the skills that most average people have that's the issue. I would rather play a well-tuned AI than an expertly-honed real person who knows a game's weaknesses inside and out (which seems to be most of what you run into online) any day of the week. I'm not into games to develop and perfect my mad skillz; I'm into games to have fun.

If I can play against friends, then the experience is better, and in fact I used to play UT, Quake 3 and even Serious Sam against some of my co-workers after hours and I enjoyed it. I didn't even suck so bad compared to some of them.

But against random people, forget it. I'd rather not bother. And the problem is everybody has such different tastes that it's often tough to find friends who like the same games as I do - nobody I know likes RTS games, for example, or flight sims.

I think it probably is possible to design a game such that it's fun for everybody, whether you're a n00b, an experienced but relaxed player, a cheap bum-rusher or just a cheater. BF1942 came pretty close to this ideal, because there were just so many different ways to play - different objectives, different "jobs", etc. If you wanted to, you could just hang out inside a bomber and strafe the players below. You could run around on the ground on your own, you could sit and snipe (a perfectly valid activity given the setting), you could get together with others and plan a real attack, you could be a driver, you could be a fighter pilot. And the game world was large enough that if you really sucked, nobody would even really notice anyway.

But online games like that are rare. Most online games are just not very much fun if you ask me, because most random people are either jerks or they've just learned how to exploit a game's inherent flaws (and every game is flawed in some ways). They play cheap and dirty, which is fine if they want to play that way (it's not their fault a game has flaws to be exploited), but it sure doesn't make me want to play them.

Uh huh

[Azarael]

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).

Duh

[Bastian]

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.

I would have to disagree

[modi123]

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...

Re:Right back atcha.

[Bastian]

I think you misread me. I'm not saying that online games with no story are better. I'm saying they're what seems to be making money right now, and they seem to be the direction in which the industry has been headed for quite a while.

Personally, online gaming isn't for me, either. I think that adventure games are where it's at, hands down. But the genre still died, because the industry moved on.

Similarly, I don't think 3D makes a magically great game. Really, I like sprites - they have style. But 2D games are all but long gone, because 3D is what someone has decided is cool.

It's about distribution, not just genre

[Kelson]

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.

I want to play, not organize play-time

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahmen Brother, ...
I just want to play a game at a reasonable (non-twitch) pace, whenever I want.
If my wife calls me for dinner or the kids, I want to pause the game. Not lose because I just abandon my character/team.

Unfortunatly, the game market is catering to their most vocal buyers (multiplayer) and those with the most time and cash (teen & college).

I have plenty of cash. (That happens when you get older.) What I don't have is plenty of free time. And my friends don't have free time either. If we want to get together it is on the weekends (usually withthe wife & kids). Maybe 5 minutes of IM at night.
None of use have the desire to arrange a 3-4 hour play session across multiple time zones. If I want to play a game I want to play it NOW, and stop NOW. Not at some pre-arranged social time. I also don't have time to deal with mad l00t 3lit3 13 year olds talking trash in some pick-up game.

People like me are being ignored by the market.

It is to be expected. The movie industry stopped caring about anyone over 19 and any weekend after the opening weekend a long time ago. That is just what the game industry is doing now.

My reaction? You know I never finished Planescape: Torment. Maybe I should do that now. Instead of playing Dungeon Siege 2 (which has gone all Diablo on me. Yeah being in that beta cooled my desire for the game.).

Umm, nope. I'm tired of that MYTH

[Moraelin]

"He's predicting something that's pretty much already happened."

False. It's something that keeps getting predicted, but never actually happened. It's been almost a decade of hearing that bullshit about how MMOs and online play are the wave of the future, but in practice it never happened.

"The RPG world has turned into the MMORPG world."

False. Single-player console MMORPGs routinely outsell any MMO, WOW included.

The MMO market is now at 10 million users world-wide. There still are more people playing on the GameCube alone, which never had _any_ kind of internet connection, than that.

Now also add PS2s, GameBoys, PSPs and everything else that _is_ a gaming platform and used offline. Simply put, the number of people playing SP games on those simply _dwarfs_ the MMO and online FPS markets combined.

So nope, sorry to burst your bubble, the vast majority of gaming still happens off-line.

Yes, l33t CS clansmen and the like are an awfully loud (and sometimes obnoxious) minority, and like to pretend that the whole world revolves around them. But the keyword is: minority. Just because someone makes an awful lot of noise, doesn't make them the majority or anything.

So basically just because _you_ don't give a damn about SP games any more, please don't pretend that the rest of the world does the same. The numbers still are on the SP side.

False

[Moraelin]

Again, just because that's what _you_ like, doesn't mean that's what everyone else plays. At the moment _far_ more people play SP games than all online games combined.

There's a lot more to gaming than fps, rts and mmo, you know. And not everyone plays for a challenge. In fact, your average "casual gamer" just wants to have a relaxing evening, not compete head on with immature 12 year olds and be told that he's "owned" or whatever. And they're an increasingly large part of the market.

Some of us, for example, play for a good (semi)interactive story, which is something that MMOs and online fps/rts are _awful_ at. I won't even try to be diplomatic about it: they do a piss-poor job of telling any kind of story to start with, and adding other players in the mix only makes it worse. It's hard to actually suspend disbelief in a medieval story, when people around you talk about the Spice Girls or whatever other stuff.

The thing about internet play being the future, and SP going the way of the dodo, is being waved around for about a decade now, and still shows no sign of becoming more than wishful thinking.

Which it is. It's the publishers wishing everyone started paying $15 a month, instead of just a one-time $30. (That is, if they don't wait and get it from the bargain bin for $10.) The whole talk isn't because everyone wants to play a MMO, but because publishers want you to pay for a MMO.

When EQ hit 400,000 subscribers paying a total of $4,000,000 a month, everyone started wanting that kind of a money printing license too. It's not that it ever was more than a _minority_ of gamers, it's that it's a very profitable minority. They keep giving you money every month.

MMOs vs the regular game market, is like owning a goose that lays golden eggs vs having 100 regular geese. With the latter you still sell more eggs (game copies), with the former you have higher profits. So everyone and their grandma wants to get a slice of that market. That's all.