Research report: oldies play single-player, younger multi-player

[JarlFrank]

Multiplayer games require time commitment, people with families have other commitments. It's just a lot more relaxing to fire up a game of your choice and enjoy it at your own pace, on your own time.

I'm single and work as a freelancer so I don't really have any commitments, but yeah. Single player games I can launch whenever I want and play as long as I want. I can quit after half an hour or binge for six hours.

For multiplayer you have to arrange yourself with other people. That's the problem with any activity that isn't solitary.
Generally I prefer solitary activities over group activities because I can choose the time completely on my own, without having to coordinate with other people.

 

[HoboForEternity]

Can see the correlation because MP games are fun with your real life friends. Used to play countless hours of cs 1.6 with the bros. You get older number of friends who play games diminish and MP games are shitty with strangers so now i almost exclusively play SP games and all these years the only exception is monster hunter

 

[rumSaint]

Multiplayer is now a total cancer. Back in my days people were playing lan parties and you knew everyone in the room. I tell you! Then multiplayer moved to as interwebz and changed into a community (mostly servers), where you could chat with various people, teenagers, dads etc. It was more of a social activity as you would bond over failures or epic moments with other people on the server. There would be players feared through whole server as they were such pros and that was the golden time.

Then companies decided it would be better to keep people in their own bubbles and everything is now company side managed. Servers, communities. You join game, some randos join, you get called a faggot or you learn some rando from other side of the continent happens to know your mother and you disconnect. Everythnig nowadays is designed to hook players into perpetual state of playing one game. Battle passes, dailies, ranking systems etc. It's dystopian as fuck, as people grow attached to this shit. Not to mention other players could be just bots and are treated as such, it's dehumanizing.

I still play some multiplayer but it's mostly coop, or something like Valheim with my friends.

Singleplayer is way better as you don't have to encounter retards and zoomers. There is you and the world/story and for escapism it's the best.

I wonder if the gaming industry will return to community servers (probably not as there is no money in it for them), one can only dream.

 

[Stavrophore]

I enjoyed playing some multiplayer shooters long time ago like BF3 and BF4, but generally speaking, the younger the people, the less oriented they are about teamwork, so the games get progressively worse, BF3 had better teamplay than BF4, BF1, BF5 and so on. I've stayed playing these games because of custom servers and community around them. Anything with too much of competitive/esports/guilds/clans/p2w/monetization/seal clubbing/prolific amount of esp hacks/lack of live admin overseer i try to avoid because there's too many tryhards, cheaters and generally too much tension and thats not what i seek in games. There's already too much selfishness and rat race in real life.

 

[Morgoth]

Singleplayer: Remakes
Multiplayer: Fortnite and WoW

So much diversity!

 

[0sacred]

I identify as a 55 year old

 

[Gandalf]

Single player, no online connection required is my way to go.

I've played some multiplayer in the past. It was fun, but it feels saner to just go solo.

 

[udm]

Multiplayer was cool a decade or more ago. Games had dedicated servers. You chose which server to hop onto, and usually you'd meet the same people there, make friends, learn their playstyles, become rivals, etc. Communities formed on these servers.

Now everything is automatic matchmaking and you get randos every time.

This, plus back then you had servers with custom mods, maps, and other weird shit.

Case #1: Neverwinter Nights was a trove of a hundred different experiences. You want a dungeon crawler with some buddies? Here's Infinite Dungeon. Want to get autistic and play pretend? Join World of Greyhawk or some other PW and LARP to your heart's content.

Case #2: Jedi Knight had thousands of mods, skins, and maps, hosted on Massassi Temple. Whatever you felt like playing with the JK engine, you were likely to find it. Hydroball was the shit.

Case #3: Quake 3 and all the games that use its engine have made downloading mods and maps a cinch. So many wonderful memories were from playing random add-ons and mods in Jedi Outcast and Enemy Territory.

Don't forget that many of these mods/addons/modules had their own dedicated fanbase and forums.
You don't see many newer MP games operate like that nowadays.

 

[Inec0rn]

Yep no MP games at all anymore.

- People don't do teamwork, if they do they take it all too seriously and it's annoying.
- Hearing people on microphones kills all immersion and atmosphere in game.
- Modern MP follows pokie machine game design, grind etc. most the games are just flat unenjoyable.
- Aimbots and wallhacks are trivial to google and download even for the dumbest of assholes, or you could code your own pretty easily. Anti-cheat systems (even the kernel level garbage) are so easily bypassed you pretty much cannot play a legit MP/FPS game, its legitimately impossible to ever stop or curb Aimb/Walls being easily accessibly with 2-5 mins of google.
- ARPG team mates are extremely slow, you spend hours waiting in town it's so boring I'd often play the game twice in two windows - much much prefer solo.

Another problem with modern gaming is the ease of access to information, 9/10 players google "MoSt Op BuIlD", "FaStEst LevEL/GolDD", "BeST PoSSiBle WeapOn". It ruins all enjoyment if you like to use your own brain to actually play it. So yes SP games only please (pretty much no more AAA) but sure it was incredible back in the day with dedicated servers better administration, more private communities, less commercial level cheat dev's etc.

 

[Karwelas]

Multiplayer still has its strong points - there are many strong and smaller communities who play around with different games, many servers are their own communities. There still are CS 1.6/Source servers which have their own buddies circles and yet welcome people into their games.

Neverwinter Nights servers are still going quite strong (sometimes they are quite bad experiences, but if server has 50-100 players in DAMNED TWENTY YEARS OLD GAME nobody will tell me that the game is dead. Just this year we had a premiere of a server which had full 80 players slots 24/7 for more than two weeks straight), I heard that BF2 is still active, even in mod servers department. Arma 3 has entire regiments like guilds, playing operations together next to public servers. LOTRO has pretty tight server communities. There are numerous niches all over the internet - mine is mostly Space Station 13.

Just because things aren't mainstream doesn't mean they are dead. The new blood comes and goes, but the more I read Dex the more I think some people believed some sort of propaganda - their own or otherwise.

 

[Stavrophore]

Many online MMORPG/RPG suffer from balance issues because of farmers - people who either play 24/7 to get real money from ingame items, or those that use hacks/bots to farm. It unfortunately affects all game genres. Path of Exile for example is balanced around farmers, some grind is to promote p2w, but then you also have balancing around farmers. Or create pain the ass of legit players, like in tarkov where trading between friends or players can't be done without risking ban because of farmers.

 

[Mark Richard]

Did my online time in the mid 2000s during the MMO craze with World of Warcraft, Guild Wars, and City of Heroes. Plenty of memories to cherish, but the genre is past its prime and doesn't hold the same allure any more.

Despite these trends, it's worth mentioning that the official headline for the report is "Most gamers prefer single-player games." That's because single-player continues to reign supreme for most respondents overall at 53%. The research notes that despite hits like Fortnite, League of Legends, and Roblox, the PvP market is becoming over-saturated, leaving more breathing room for single-player experiences.

Most gamers have chosen their online space and won't budge. The publisher's dream of having one big Fortnite game that keeps an audience of millions on the hook for years is unrealistic, as only a privileged few can possibly achieve that goal before it becomes physically impossible for demand to meet the supply. If the entire consumer base were without family or job, they still wouldn't be able to juggle six online games along with their ten subscription-based streaming services. Heck, even sequels to online games can end up competing against their own predecessors because the playerbase refuses to move on to the next product. Single-player experiences don't have that problem. Most finish the game then move on, and if it was good, they'll purchase the next one.

 

[Zlaja]

Now let us see those numbers without, excuse me for uttering these words, SOUTH KOREA being included.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Old people don't play multiplayer because obviously they don't want to interact with current gen people.

 

[RolePlayer]

Multiplayer games now are antisocial. Everyone else might as well be bots. There's no fun in playing these repetitive ass games if there's no one to talk to. Gen z doesn't mind because they all have social anxiety.

They dont mind because they never got the experience of playing games online without being censored, and with access to a full suite of chat/community features.

The reason these features don't exist anymore is because game companies want you playing games when you are on their servers in order to increase microtransaction revenue, and also to filter/censor speech so that the game is more family friendly to increase userbase.

 

[RolePlayer]

Old people don't play multiplayer because obviously they don't want to interact with current gen people.

There's a reason why all of the top talent in online competitive gaming/pro gaming are 17-27 year olds.

When you get older you get slower/crappier at games and nobody is going to spend thousands of hours trying to master some pvp online game if no matter what you hit a skill cap that is below the majority of online players due to your age.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Single player: Video games
Multiplayer: Sex

 

[ghardy]

There are simply more logistics involved in multi-player gaming.

FWIW, even in single-player, I don't like games which mandate checkpoints and disallow any-time saving.

 

[NecroLord]

Massive generational gap: Gen Z flocks to multiplayer, while 55+ sticks to single-player

[Emphasis added]

Editor's take: Publishers and developers will need to keep a close eye on these generational preferences. The younger set is gravitating toward live-service PVP games, but today's overall gaming landscape still leaves ample breathing room for richly crafted single-player adventures to resonate. This window could start closing, though, if upcoming generations continue embracing multiplayer experiences en masse.
74% of gamers say they prefer playing single-player games without any online components
New research shows a massive generational divide in game genre preferences. A study by MIDiA Research surveyed 9,000 gamers across several countries including the US, UK, Germany, and South Korea. It found that online player-vs-player games are more popular than single-player ones among audiences aged 16-24. Only 30% of this bracket wants to play alone, while a whopping 68% of them would rather play online or couch co-op.

However, for the oldest age group (over the age of 55), a whopping 74% of gamers say they prefer playing single-player games without any online components. If you look at the graph below, you'll notice a gradual but stark trend as you move from the youngest to the oldest audience.

The researchers suggest a few factors behind the popularity of PvP among the younger crowd. Younger players may be drawn to the social engagement and competitive thrills of PVP games they can experience with friends. Convincing this bunch to ditch their online hangouts for a new single-player adventure is an uphill battle. Older gamers, meanwhile, seem to prefer the solitary focus and narrative storytelling of solo experiences.

Interestingly, the data also shows couch co-op waning with the 35+ crowd – the very players who likely grew up with iconic split-screen multiplayer games. Perhaps online play has supplanted the need to crowd around the TV these days.

Despite these trends, it's worth mentioning that the official headline for the report is "Most gamers prefer single-player games." That's because single-player continues to reign supreme for most respondents overall at 53%. The research notes that despite hits like Fortnite, League of Legends, and Roblox, the PvP market is becoming over-saturated, leaving more breathing room for single-player experiences.

To keep this popularity up, the analysts advise smarter single-player release windows. For instance, launching these games during quieter periods in the online title release calendar could allow them to shine when players are looking for a change of pace.

Literally braindead consumers playing all the AAA slop.

 

[gooseman]

I play both, and I love both. If you actually believe multiplayer is bad, maybe look up games other than fortnite.

Old people don't play multiplayer

Do they not let you play checkers and chess at your retirement homes?

Multiplayer is good. Playing games with friends is fun. Modern multiplayer games are bad, because most modern games are bad. Publishers want them to be always online with central servers and matchmaking, skinnerboxes with battlepasses and microkikeactions and overbearing chatfilters. PvP shooters aren't the only type of multiplayer. A lot of multiplayer games are session based. If waiting an average of 40 minutes for the round to end to take a bathroom break is too long, you have some kind of disability. This also completely ignores turn based games. PBEM games, like dominions, let players set arbitrarily long turn times, from minutes to weeks. A bunch of RTS and grand strategy games let you pause. Multiplayer can also massively extend lifespan of a game. It's the main reason people still play classics like Worms Armageddon and Warcraft 3, UT and Quake.

I have less time to play games now, I'd rather play a few rounds of L4D2 or some other coop shooter, than go back to an 800 hour long singleplayer game like BG3 or whatever slog people play through these days, and try to remember what I was doing last time.

Kids play fortnite and mobas because they are being marketed to them and those are the biggest games around, so they get the most word of mouth and they are often f2p, as opposed to $60 singleplayer games. Being a consumer generation raised by whatever they saw on their crackhead parent's ipads, they aren't tech savvy either and won't pirate good video games.

 

[rumSaint]

I play both, and I love both. If you actually believe multiplayer is bad, maybe look up games other than fortnite.

Old people don't play multiplayer

Do they not let you play checkers and chess at your retirement homes?

Multiplayer is good. Playing games with friends is fun. Modern multiplayer games are bad, because most modern games are bad. Publishers want them to be always online with central servers and matchmaking, skinnerboxes with battlepasses and microkikeactions and overbearing chatfilters. PvP shooters aren't the only type of multiplayer. A lot of multiplayer games are session based. If waiting an average of 40 minutes for the round to end to take a bathroom break is too long, you have some kind of disability. This also completely ignores turn based games. PBEM games, like dominions, let players set arbitrarily long turn times, from minutes to weeks. A bunch of RTS and grand strategy games let you pause. Multiplayer can also massively extend lifespan of a game. It's the main reason people still play classics like Worms Armageddon and Warcraft 3, UT and Quake.

I have less time to play games now, I'd rather play a few rounds of L4D2 or some other coop shooter, than go back to an 800 hour long singleplayer game like BG3 or whatever slog people play through these days, and try to remember what I was doing last time.

Kids play fortnite and mobas because they are being marketed to them and those are the biggest games around, so they get the most word of mouth and they are often f2p, as opposed to $60 singleplayer games. Being a consumer generation raised by whatever they saw on their crackhead parent's ipads, they aren't tech savvy either and won't pirate good video games.

Modern multiplayer is bad because it puts you into a competitive environment and players often get tilted which causes toxicity etc. I have been playing some pvp with my friends like MTG and playing in such environment was fun, playing quake matches on servers or UT 2004 as well. When I tried to play MTG Arena and played online every day it became frustrating as fuck. Same goes with modern multiplayer which cut out any sense of community, no servers etc, you are being thrown into bunch of randos and go and play. It is being replaced with MMR and Battle Passes to catch people into perpetual state of gaming.

 

[jaekl]

Modern multiplayer is bad because they don't allow you to get "tilted and toxic". You get banned now for doing anything at all that would make someone think that you're not a pussy.

 

[deuxhero]

The survey hides its methodology unless you pay for the full thing (never a good sign), but one thing that stands out to me is that they did the survey against many very different countries, don't say how they weighted them (!) or filter by country. Most likely: South Korea is wildly out of sync with the other markets and given overly high weight compared to percent of paying gamer population.