Recommended Posts

Rob Pardo, executive vice president of game design and lead designer on World of Warcraft believe that single player gaming is dying gradually as it is becoming harder to sustain as a business model.

"I don't see there being a great business model for it these days. It's really sad; there are just a lot of elements out there that conspire to make those games difficult to make now," he explained. "Between pirating or the ability for people to rent games, it's hard for publishers to pour millions and millions of dollars into a game and not necessarily see the return they need to make those budgets realistic."

It is no secret that publishers are increasingly pushing developers into tacking in multiplayer modes to games that are traditionally single player only. But does that mean that multiplayer will take over entirely? Then what about blockbuster single player titles such as Skyrim?

Source

Full Interview Source

I strongly disagree with this, and considering where this news is coming from, it isn't a surprise. I think it is due more to the fact, that people are kind of getting tired of paying $60+ on video games, and being burned by an overhyped bad game in the long run. Some people don't have the money, I guess, and are very weary of spending their hard earned money on a potentially bad, or underwhelming game. I am not condoning pirating, but, I can see why people might do it.

I almost exclusively only purchase games that I can find a deal on nowadays, and my console is sitting and collecting dust because you simply cannot find those deals as often for them, as you can with PC games. I cannot justify spending $60 on some games that are only worth $30 to me, which in turn makes my Xbox useless. Example, I just bought FIFA 13 and NBA 2K13 for $30, and $26 dollars, for PC. instead of $60 for the console, where you cannot find those deals. Torchlight II was a great buy at $20, and I pre-ordered Worms Revolution for $15. Counter-Strike:GO for $15. I mean, I have no problem impulse buying games, at these prices, cause I feel these are fair prices. I still don't think I can justify the $60 I spent on Borderlands 2. The only game that I can justify at $60 was Guild Wars 2, because I got around 120 hours out of it, and I still go back and play it every now and again, and that is because it is a giant MMO with no subscription.

A game does not need multi-player to survive. It just needs sustenance. Though, as said, this is coming from the company that now refuses to release a game that doesn't have an offline mode, so I am talking it with a grain of salt.

I don't tink money factors in. Not in that way, it's more about perception and the spoiled youth of today who are used to getting everything they want and to always be entertained and not entertain themselves.

Go back to the NES and SNES era. And income was a lot lower than today, and games cost a lot more, both in pure dollars, but add in inflation(though I already covered that with lower income) and they where really expensive. And only the most dedicated could afford as much as one game a month. Today, kids get one a week and that is not enough because they consume them right away and lose interest for something new.

So money is a bad excuse, after all back then you had to rely on the box and reputation to guess if it was a good game. At best you could read someone else's review in an expensive gaming magazine.

But no,I don't think single player is dying, there are many like me who still prefer single player.

  • Like 2

I disagree with him completely, myself and lots of people I know prefer single player games to multiplayer, Fallout, Oblivion, Halo campaign, Gears campaign, BioShock, etc.

These are all games I paid full price for, and stand out as some of the best games this generation, how many MMOs can you say that about?

Now I have Halo 4/BioShock on pre-order, granted the pre-orders are $20 off, but I probably would have paid full price anyway

One of the problems is the amount of games coming out at $50-$60 in short timeframes, people that have the money to pay for these all, don't

have the time to play them, and people who have the time, don't have the money.

I really want Borderlands 2 and Guild Wars 2, but I simply don't have the time and already have a large backlog of games I haven't played.

While I can still get in early on this thread, relevant link:

http://www.gamesindu...gends-rob-pardo

The WHOLE interview. Because context matters, and sources that take only a fraction of a person's opinion for the sake of a headline should not be shaping your opinions.

This was important to me, since it's clear gamers are some of the brashest punks ever to self-righteously proclaim opinions, and it was clear this thread is at risk of rapidly devolving into angry Pardo-hating sludge. His words might still be stupid, but for Christ's sake, read all of them before coming to the conclusion.

Single most holy-crap important detail from the original interview: the question that was actually asked... "Do you think that the big-budget single-player game is an endangered species at this point?"

BIG BUDGET, guys. So whoever wrote this as "single-player gaming is dead" is a no-good troll.

I've very unbaised when it comes to any company..... and I think people are jumping the gun on the developer.... I just think gamers expect more these days... rightfully so, with more advanced engine tech, better internet connections, cheaper dev tools, easier to use modellers, etc.... that there is no excuse for crappy games that do not get continually supported and improved upon by the developers... Single player gaming as in once they make the game it's done.... no DLC, no mods, no community, nothing... those are done....

"I don't see there being a great business model for it these days. It's really sad; there are just a lot of elements out there that conspire to make those games difficult to make now," he explained. "Between pirating or the ability for people to rent games, it's hard for publishers to pour millions and millions of dollars into a game and not necessarily see the return they need to make those budgets realistic."

Right now games like farmville bring in more income than singleplayer games, so studios that can afford to make AAA games 100% online will do it. Indie games for a long time will still be singleplayer, just because singleplayer games are cheap(er) to make, and maintain.

So after 20+ years devs are going to now start crying about game rentals too?

Making games is a business, studios will try and squeeze as much out of a product as much as possible. The sad reality is most AAA games are going to be online only in one form or another, and as server and bandwidth costs decrease we will see this more and more.

Eventually you won't even run a game locally on your computer, you will just connect to the cloud and play WoW in a browser. GameStop and GameFly are going to become obsolete within in the next 10 - 15 years.

Single player gaming as in once they make the game it's done.... no DLC, no mods, no community, nothing... those are done....

Modding is something more game developers need to embrace more. Trust me I can understand wanting to protect your investment, and your ability to create DLC's, expansion packs, whatever but the fact is customs can turn out quicker content and lots more of it. Sadly with the industry moving to online DRM I don't how much longer modding will still be around, but I can tell you its not the developers who don't want their stuff modded, its the publishers and upper end management in most cases.

Number crunches don't understand modding for the most part, and how a lot of the industry growth is because of modding.

While I can still get in early on this thread, relevant link:

http://www.gamesindu...gends-rob-pardo

The WHOLE interview. Because context matters, and sources that take only a fraction of a person's opinion for the sake of a headline should not be shaping your opinions.

This was important to me, since it's clear gamers are some of the brashest punks ever to self-righteously proclaim opinions, and it was clear this thread is at risk of rapidly devolving into angry Pardo-hating sludge. His words might still be stupid, but for Christ's sake, read all of them before coming to the conclusion.

Sorry, but my source, as you can see, didn't have the full interview. Just what I came across browsing the web. =/

Sorry, but my source, as you can see, didn't have the full interview. Just what I came across browsing the web. =/

I'm not dumping it all on you, but I get worked up whenever I see people quoted horrendously out of context. I get worked up because other people are getting worked up and letting their emotions take over based on these misrepresentations (just read all the immediately angry responses to your post as if this Quote Fail was gospel). I'm hating on the site you linked to most of all, because that site clearly has an agenda. The original interview is lengthy and very thoughtful, and ALL of that was completely lost for the sake of letting a bunch of angry gamers post opinions that are now ultimately a waste of everyone's time.

Well the reason I was speaking, in terms of money, was that the reason multi-player games tend to last longer, is because of the replay value. Single player games don't generally have that value, but to me don't need it if the game is good enough. Take Assassin's Creed for example. It is one of the very, very few games I don't mind spending a $60 price tag on, because of how it draws me in and the story, gameplay, writing, all of it, are amazing. There aren't many single player games, that can stand on their own, and not have replay value (to some), and still succeed greatly. Everyone has a different opinion, though. But these games seem so few and far between, that I will buy a predominant single-player game, and it will go unfinished because it was a lackluster product. So many of these are being churned out, that companies do seem to force them to develop a multi-player along with it as a fail-safe or something to keep the longevity going, which can take away from the single-player.

I don't think I am making any sense right now, I took some NyQuil and am tired. My thoughts aren't conveying well.

I'm not dumping it all on you, but I get worked up whenever I see people quoted horrendously out of context. I get worked up because other people are getting worked up and letting their emotions take over based on these misrepresentations (just read all the immediately angry responses to your post as if this Quote Fail was gospel). I'm hating on the site you linked to most of all, because that site clearly has an agenda. The original interview is lengthy and very thoughtful, and ALL of that was completely lost for the sake of letting a bunch of angry gamers post opinions that are now ultimately a waste of everyone's time.

I will put your source in the OP then.

what i worry about is the new SimCity... if that game won't allow modding the series, is again, d.e.a.d. SimCity allready tried to return with Societies, and it flopped worse then Vista....

now they try to bring it back again once more and they need to go mod or go home.... sites like simtropolis are gonna tear SC2013 up if it won't have modding and that genre of game has very vocal, very demanding, but very passionate fans.... we are very dissapointed in the sim genre scene like how some people are dissapointed in the EDM scene or those in the hip-hop scene... we are often the ones that have got left behind while the FPS scene is the most catered too... the shock jocks that only have twitch and not finesse and patience... those numbers are increasing while the sim crowd is getting dumbed down in favor of facebook crap while us intelligent sim gamer crowd gets neglected and bored and we wear out simcity 4 or 2K....

angst... angst.... angst.... this is the lament of an old school hardcore gamer.... becoming less and less of one due to the lack of quality these days.... minecraft kinda fills it so far as creativity for me, however there's the emotional void....

skyrim and minecraft are the last two games I've gotten anything out of.... 2 games in 2 years.... pathetic.... back in the day I would find 5 or 6 at least...

oh well... more space on my HDD for cat videos!!!!

  • Like 2

Well the reason I was speaking, in terms of money, was that the reason multi-player games tend to last longer, is because of the replay value. Single player games don't generally have that value, but to me don't need it if the game is good enough. Take Assassin's Creed for example. It is one of the very, very few games I don't mind spending a $60 price tag on, because of how it draws me in and the story, gameplay, writing, all of it, are amazing. There aren't many single player games, that can stand on their own, and not have replay value (to some), and still succeed greatly. Everyone has a different opinion, though. But these games seem so few and far between, that I will buy a predominant single-player game, and it will go unfinished because it was a lackluster product. So many of these are being churned out, that companies do seem to force them to develop a multi-player along with it as a fail-safe or something to keep the longevity going, which can take away from the single-player.

I don't think I am making any sense right now, I took some NyQuil and am tired. My thoughts aren't conveying well.

I will put your source in the OP then.

I get it, and I'm a big fan of single-player gaming. But signs have not been good for big budget games for a while now.

Everyone remembers when Enix absorbed Square. It was in no small part a business move: these companies were both heavily in the single-player gaming business, and Square especially was making very expensive games. They were hemorrhaging money, and whenever you see "yet another port" hit an appstore or handheld and feel like these companies are wasting time, that's why. These remakes and ports are quick, cheap ways to get some income.

Major multi-platform single-player games cost tens of millions of dollars to produce over years of development and it takes months to get a return--if the game is successful enough. Every new game comes inherently with risk as a result.

There are, of course, indy games, and single-player does well there, but they're low budget games with very few success stories compared to the number of games that exist. The indy market is home to very passionate players, but also to the sort of subhuman trash that would say an Android game isn't worth 99 cents just because it crashes on their hacked CM10 alpha setup.

  • Like 2

So many of these are being churned out, that companies do seem to force them to develop a multi-player along with it as a fail-safe or something to keep the longevity going, which can take away from the single-player

It all comes down to money, I agree a lot of people have ideas on what kind of a game to make, the problem is everyone has ideas and most ideas are just crap or rehashes of old stuff. Multiplayer in a game that doesn't focus on multiplayer they usually wait till the very end just before the product ships to half ass something, usually at the request of the publisher. Publishers usually have game studios by the balls, at times you guys blame the wrong people, blame the publisher. Either way this isn't a excuse to pirate a game : ).

what i worry about is the new SimCity... if that game won't allow modding the series, is again, d.e.a.d. SimCity allready tried to return with Societies, and it flopped worse then Vista....

now they try to bring it back again once more and they need to go mod or go home.... sites like simtropolis are gonna tear SC2013 up if it won't have modding and that genre of game has very vocal, very demanding, but very passionate fans.... we are very dissapointed in the sim genre scene like how some people are dissapointed in the EDM scene or those in the hip-hop scene... we are often the ones that have got left behind while the FPS scene is the most catered too... the shock jocks that only have twitch and not finesse and patience... those numbers are increasing while the sim crowd is getting dumbed down in favor of facebook crap while us intelligent sim gamer crowd gets neglected and bored and we wear out simcity 4 or 2K....

angst... angst.... angst.... this is the lament of an old school hardcore gamer.... becoming less and less of one due to the lack of quality these days.... minecraft kinda fills it so far as creativity for me, however there's the emotional void....

skyrim and minecraft are the last two games I've gotten anything out of.... 2 games in 2 years.... pathetic.... back in the day I would find 5 or 6 at least...

oh well... more space on my HDD for cat videos!!!!

FWIW, Societies didn't flop because of a lack of modding, and modding isn't nearly as core to the SC franchise as the 'feel' of the game to its nostalgic fan base.

Just look at the insanely successful Kairosoft games on mobile devices. These games have no modding community at all, but offer something very Maxis-esque when you dive in and play Mega Mall Story or Venture Towns. If the new SimCity captures even half of that 'something', it'll be worth picking up.

FWIW, Societies didn't flop because of a lack of modding, and modding isn't nearly as core to the SC franchise as the 'feel' of the game to its nostalgic fan base.

Just look at the insanely successful Kairosoft games on mobile devices. These games have no modding community at all, but offer something very Maxis-esque when you dive in and play Mega Mall Story or Venture Towns. If the new SimCity captures even half of that 'something', it'll be worth picking up.

It flopped because the dev really didn't listen to the fans and make the game too dumbed down to appeal to the mainstream....

Single-player gaming isn't dead. If that were true, then games like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings wouldn't have been successful. And those are just two out of many successful single-player games. Also, nothing in gaming is truly dead unless no one plays it anymore. If anything is dying right now, it's subscripion-based MMO games.

Single-player gaming isn't dead. If that were true, then games like The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings wouldn't have been successful. And those are just two out of many successful single-player games. Also, nothing in gaming is truly dead unless no one plays it anymore. If anything is dying right now, it's subscripion-based MMO games.

MMOs are a great example becuase it's a commitment.... you have to get all you can eat for 15/mo.... you have to try to make it as worth it as possible.... pigging out like a fat kid at golden corral.... and it leads to destruction.... because you can only take so much before you throw up....

while a game like skyrim or assassin's creed is a delicious entree from your fav restaruant... you savor at your own pace and not try to rush eat... and get really engrossed in it... and it's often very high quality... rather then cheap crappy buffet food.

  • Like 2

There were quite a few good sp games lately...mostly dragon age, mass effect, assassins creed and few more. So even with these few examples its not even close to being dead.

If only devs wont cheap out on good story, presentation and narrative it wont be dead for a long time. Shooting/hacking etc. things online is fun but you still get bored and need arrise for something more "meaty"...like a game with a good story.

  • Like 4

Look how much money has been thrown into failed or low playerbase MMOs.

Which could've gone into decent single player games.

And is also probably the very reason we have so many indie devs now, the big names are just drying up or dying out.

I don't think single player gaming is dead at all, I think it's just being drained of resources by the idiots trying to develop The Next WoW.

Skyrim

Batman: Arkham City

Deus Ex: Human Revolution

Max Payne 3

Civilization V

The Witcher 2

X-COM: Enemy Unknown

Metro: Last Light

Dishonored

Watchdogs

GTA V

Assassin's Creed 3

Dead Space 3

Crysis 3

Bioshock: Infinite

Aliens: Colonial Marines

Mass Effect 3

Portal 2

Total War: Shogun 2

Hitman: Absolution

Far Cry 3

SimCity

Tomb Raider

Dragon Age III

I don't need to say anything more.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • All these CEOs got the biggest boners thinking about firing employees for AI. Turned out it was just a wet dream.
    • And the fact that the majority of people from Poland are white European Christians while the people you are complaining about in post after post are not is just a coincidence... Every sentence in your post I am replying to is racist nonsense. None of it is actually based on any facts whatsoever. All immigrants are seeking a better life too. It's literally the only reason they would risk everything and leave their homes, families, and homeland. They are working and contributing to the economy too, as you even admit. They get the same benefits your partner did AND that YOU are eligible for as well. That is one of the key things of the EU and a mark of a civilization. That is the definition of a society where everyone is given a chance, treated equally and fairly, and is judged by the content of their character, not their different skin color or which version of ignorant superstitious nonsense their parents lied about as children. Racists around the world said the same things about the Irish and Jews and Poles (like your partner) and...every other immigrant movement over the centuries. What's your family's heritage, by the way? Were your ancestors lied about with racist fearmongering crapola by self-entitled locals the same way as you are now? If someone like that said the same things about all people from Poland, like your partner, would they be right? Or would you want them to judge your partner based on who they actually were, not where they just happened to come from?
    • Again, this is an irrelevant attempt to attack the messenger. The truth does not require any justification.
    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      506
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      196
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      72
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      65
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!