Harrison elaborates on the future of single-player games
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.
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.




















(Page 1) Reader Comments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjxXYE-UvRM
Reply
Reply
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.
Ive probably been spoiled by WoW and Oblivion though, so my point is moot.
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Half of the time, I play games just to get the hell away from other people. (I annoy easily.)
Reply
Reply
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).
Reply
Reply
Reply
...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.
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
Reply
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.
Reply
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
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply