Until recently, it was leaked that Visceral Games was working on a new installment for Star Wars before it was canceled and Electronic Arts decided to close the studio. Subsequent reports noted that EA had simply stopped believing in single player games and preferred to bet on online interactions.
It would take a couple of years for Respawn Entertainment’s Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order to arrive and demonstrate with its more than 8 million copies sold that games without online components were alive and that there is no need to make each saga a game online. +
The principles of EA
Since then, every successful offline game represented a revenge against the AAA who preferred the online component. It was a topic that was heard insistently “Let EA take note”, it was read on networks and forums. Now in 2021 it is taken for granted that the so-called single-player campaign game has returned from the ashes, but is it really so?
There is certainly growing expectation for games like The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild 2, Metroid Prime 4, God of War Ragnarok, Horizon Forbidden West, Fable or Perfect Dark. These are the big AAA of Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft, which we hope will be the console sellers of the generation and none would have an online component except surprise.
But the truth is that these will not be exactly the best sellers. Activision, Ubisoft, Epic Games, Tencent or Electronic Arts are not about sharing sales numbers, but they are financial reports and these speak for themselves. FIFA, Call of Duty, Fortnite or Rainbow Six Siege, League of Legends and the like are still the titles that generate the most money in the West and what they have in common is the online component.
The importance of online for everyone
The money generated by games of this nature is so relevant to the companies behind them that they even go against the desire of fans to add components online. In fact, the vast majority of games did not have online components in their early days, but they were added over time, it was the natural advance.
Now it is not only natural but necessary to be able to recover investments, you just have to see the unnecessary Marvel’s Avengers online. However, that Marvel hero license should not have come cheap and online is the fastest way to recoup the investment, only that on that occasion the plans went wrong.
The online of that game ended up being a series of prefabricated elements that did not fit with the characters or the gameplay. So it is not as simple as offering an online cooperative to convince the players, you have to offer experiences with friends (or rivals) that are not forgettable.
The trend marks that the current public wants to be able to play with friends at a distance, a trend that increased in a pandemic. So we are talking about the fact that online gameplay is practically the most necessary aspect for many that many games succeed today.
Remember that all these games are left with a 30% commission in the Nintendo, Microsoft, Steam and Sony stores for being sold on their platforms. And yet they are the leaders in being the games in which the players spend the most, they have enough to generate and pay the owners of consoles. Money moves the world and well-made online games are the fuel.
Relegated to second place
So beyond those slogans against EA who canceled the Visceral game, the truth is that they are right. Games without an online component seem very important, and they are for a certain audience, but this is now the minority. These games have become the complement to the rest of the industry, they adjust to the mood of the moment but really the hours go by is in the Call of Duty lobby. At least when we talk about the average.
The only thing that has not led all the games in the world to have something online is the budget (both developers and players) and traditionality. The latter is clear in sagas like Zelda or God of War that were only successful in their deliveries without online (Zelda has never had one).
Only decidedly indie games settle for the local cooperative and competitive and that’s because they fear there aren’t enough players to put the effort into developing online features. So we really don’t have any more online games because of this and because of the same players who have rejected these features so closely related to EA, Activision, Ubisoft and other hated and loved companies.
Beyond multiplayer
Right in the middle of this discussion, Stadia arrived, the fact that its online component was even more present, generated rejection among players. But why, despite the commercial importance and prevalence of online modes, do gamers hate online games? the truth is that there really is no automatic contempt for online titles, but rather for what usually characterizes them.
Little history, lots of skins, micropayments, loot boxes. It’s ironic but what generates the most rejection is also what generates the most money. So it’s clear that the community has mixed feelings towards these online features, they keep you in touch with friends, but they also “screw” games with micropayments. So it is logical to have mixed feelings.
However, beyond Stadia, you have to take into account the number of games that use data in the cloud to run better. Death Stranding, Call of Duty: Warzone or Microsoft Flight Simulator are good examples, especially the latter that requires a minimum speed of 30 Mbps to run the game well.
So online gambling is important right now to connect, to generate money, and to extend the life of games. But in the near future it will even be to be able to play, because, like it or not, and even if it hurts a large sector with poor quality internet, the future is in the cloud.
Table of Contents