Harrison elaborates on the future of single-player games

by Scott Jon Siegel { May 28th 2008 at 4:00AM }

Infogrames president Phil Harrison made some eyebrow-raising comments last week, claiming that following Alone in the Dark, his company would move away from "huge-budget, single-player games." Speaking to videogaming247, Harrison went into more detail on what he described as not just a shift in direction for Infogrames, but for the entire industry as well.

While suggesting once again that Infogrames will be moving away from single-player console titles, Harrison elaborates that those games will still have a place in the market, but will have to begin integrating connectivity and non-linearity to survive. We'll have to see if there's any truth in these sooth-saying words.

Tags: alone-in-the-dark, atari, infogrames, phil-harrison

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Luis B. @ May 28th 2008 4:14AM

He soulda made a shift to stop using crummy theme songs for the company.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjxXYE-UvRM

BIGGEN (LIVE-PSN: BIGGEN1103) @ May 28th 2008 5:54AM

i don't know, i can kinda see it. imagine how popular gta would be if you could toggle between mmo and single player. doing missions alone or jumping right in to a world where other people (players) can effect the outcome of the missions by helping you, turning on you, etc. that sounds MUCH better to me.

Rico @ May 28th 2008 6:18AM

I thought the new GTA would be multiplayer, but guess what? Rockstar didn't craft a gigantic world and story just so some anonymous tards could jump into your game and ruin it.

ScottyGEE @ May 28th 2008 6:26AM

And that's why I think there'll still be single platyer games.

I love single player games a lot. But I think the reason there'd still be single player only games; with no real online functionality in them is due to developers wanting to create an experience and not have it ruined by some punk kids.

syrik zero @ May 28th 2008 10:04AM

Remember Bioshock? That game was awesome!

svenhoek @ May 30th 2008 10:55AM

Bioshock was amazing. But all this talk about Rapture being such a great city, and to me it felt linear, and overwhelmingly underdeveloped. Sorry but this is next-gen, dont give me countless blocked off hallways and let me look at this huge city through every window, and then confine me such a small game environment. Give Rapture to the guys that made Liberty City and then lets see what they can do with it.

Ive probably been spoiled by WoW and Oblivion though, so my point is moot.

Chase @ May 28th 2008 6:31AM

The idea of "moving away from high-budget, single-player games" makes about as much sense as the song "Sussudio." Non-linearity does not sound cheap. What does he recommend, an extension in the age of 'non-linear' minigame games? No thanks.

Kspraydad @ May 28th 2008 6:44AM

I love single player games with a good story....MP, meh.

Haggard @ May 28th 2008 7:19AM

I think non-linear games which do allow you to have a good story can exist - as if you feel like you're creating your own, but it's still predicted and written by the developers. Far Cry 2 looks to be doing this.

However, the upper limit of what games CAN do is increasing all the time - but sometimes you don't want complexity.. CoD4 was a good game; it was just balls out action without having to think about too much. I think games like that will always have a place in the market.

chez @ May 28th 2008 8:41AM

Yea... at the supermarket. Next to other quick fix entertainment needs like Steven Segal films and fruit.

Ranus Studios @ May 28th 2008 6:52AM

I generally don't play multiplayer, especially if it's online. I'm not normally quite so judgemental, but this man continues to impress me with how misguided he can be.

Phylicus @ May 28th 2008 7:39AM

Until we can multiply by eating late or getting wet, single-player games will always be popular and in demand.

Half of the time, I play games just to get the hell away from other people. (I annoy easily.)

Purple Haze @ May 28th 2008 7:57AM

He's about right. Obviously there's Portal and Bioshock, the two games I saw get the most praise last year, but when you look at what games have been the most successful it's Grand Theft Auto 4, Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3. All of those games have very rich single player campaigns, but also have the connectivity that he's talking about.

Carl Abrams @ May 28th 2008 8:02AM

Scott cherry picked the article. The full comment, "I think the single-player, disconnected console game is probably in its dotage. Now, that doesn’t mean that those games aren’t relevant going forwards, but they will be enhanced by community features being embedded in them, or downloadable content becoming an inherent part of the experience, or some kind of user-generated content will be part of the experience....A relatively linear single-player game without online connectivity is going to be a challenge to green-light going forward."

Reading the whole thing, in context, merely makes it sound like Phil has converted to Xbox Live now that he's changed from Sony. Downloadable content and a sandbox type feature - sounds much more reasonable to me. I'm one of those people that, due to my age more so than anything else, doesn't LIKE playing against a bunch of other people online. I like games that I can change the content in, mess around with, and in general have fun with by myself. (I'm not anti-social, I just prefer playing against other people in real world environment - casino, backyard, or kitchen table).

chez @ May 28th 2008 8:39AM

That's okay Phil, I'm going to keep playing big single player games. So yea TF2 and Mario Kart Wii are probably my most played games ever and they just happen to be online. But I wouldn't trade any of that for the fun of Galaxy, the story of FFVII or OoT, the cheese and chedder chives of Doritos.

dave smith @ May 28th 2008 9:08AM

Maybe I'm showing my age here, but one of the big reasons I have loved video games for the past 25+ years is that they are NOT a group activity. Sure, I've got an XBL membership and so on, but there is no substitute for the exstacy of losing myself into a virtual world that is devoid of other humans. COD, all the online shooters, RPG's and so on are awesome, but don't hold a candle to the experience I get going into a game alone.

samfish @ May 28th 2008 9:09AM

Boy, I sure hope he's wrong. I only really enjoy multiplayer games usually when it's with friends who are actually there with you. Otherwise, I greatly prefer my single-player experiences to multiplayer.
...doubly so considering how many jack offs there are online.

If they ever tried to shoehorn multiplayer into my Mario's, Zelda's, Okami's, etc, I'd be mighty sad.

gamerprophet @ May 28th 2008 9:19AM

Don't anyone forget Infogames is struggling these days and so remarks like this prove why.

Dirty @ May 28th 2008 9:42AM

I would be more into multi-player if wasnt for 14 year old boys with horrible screechy voices. That and they are usualy better than me.

Games need stories, I wasnt a fan of shadowrun and other similar multiplayer only offerings. My favorite games of all time had the best stories, ie KOTOR.

ill trooper @ May 28th 2008 9:45AM

Is this some elaborate way to pillow us for how in-game XMB isn't happening until 2009? Man, I'm pissed!

t_m @ May 28th 2008 10:07AM

In some ways I agree. But personally I've always been much more of a single player game person.

I like sandbox games, I like a few MP games, I love some games that are just pick-up-and-play or party (like mariokart, warioware, etc..)... but 90% of the games I play are still singleplayer, story driven games... and its often the story that keeps me going.

I DO find most SP games to be too long to easily fit into my life these days, so I love the idea of episodic gaming, portal-sized games, the AitD episodes format and lots of the fun indie-games on Live.

But MP games are only really beneficial to the publishers in subscription form, and I don't want to dedicate enough of my life to any single game to make a subscription worthwhile.

farfisa @ May 28th 2008 10:12AM

Thanks for finally calling him "President" instead of that irritatingly long and French title you've been using.

googoogachoo @ May 28th 2008 10:32AM

there's nothing wrong with playing a game like GTA or Forza yourself, I've put over 100 hours in each of their single player campaigns. I doubt that will ever truely go away. However they should now come with solid multiplayer modes as well as community features. There's always dedicated communities for games. Forza has a nice website with an active forum, and Halo 3 has a superb stat tracking/comparing website. Even Gallop Racer has a fansite community. The companies are now just looking for ways to encourage this, and benefit from it on their side.

It's one of the things Live can accomodate right now, since everyone has a standard tag which game data can be pulled off of or even easily compared between gamers. I just don't even see the PS3's Home getting close to Live in this.

JJ @ May 28th 2008 12:13PM

I dont think it'd be that hard to do on either system with an online component goo.

I mean if its running through a server, its almost elementary for a company to be able to track statistics. Live and PSN almost dont have to do anything.

But as with GTA4, i think it'd be neat to have a stat tracking service kind of thing for a majority of games

ThornedVenom (Harley Quinn Defense Force) @ May 29th 2008 1:06AM

I guess I'm the only one in this thread who really likes online multiplayer.

John @ May 30th 2008 4:00AM

Keep in mind, this is phil harrison, he made PS3 and Home so successful during his tenure, so he knows what he's talking about.

Tyler Jones @ May 30th 2008 4:12AM

Single player will always have its place. Some games are just better alone, imho, like Ninja Gaiden, The Elder Scrolls series, the KotoR series, etc. Usually when im playing games with someone I feel rushed a bit, like I have to go do something before the other person gets bored. But its nice spending all that time messing with inventory and puzzles in various rpg/action games.