I've asked this question on c/gaming, but I'd love to see what KotakuinAction2's members think of this topic:
In an age where every game genre from shooters, strategy, fighting, and racing games are seeing a decreased emphasis on single-player content and in some cases, obstructing the single-player experience through mechanics like forced Internet connections to save progress, I want to ask this community:
Do you think the increased push behind esports and dedication of more resources to it has ruined gaming?
I've noticed that developers have been increasingly neglecting the offline experience and sometimes making some features exclusive to the online modes.
Take how Rockstar stopped adding content to the single-player mode of GTA V, Blizzard and Respawn omitted single-player modes from extremely popular games like Overwatch and Apex Legends, and how racing games like GT7 and the upcoming Forza 2023 are forcing everyone to play online to "prevent cheating", even those that would never touch multiplayer.
Do you think that this has done more damage to gaming in the long run? Do you see things ever trending back toward a more balanced approach where both single player and multiplayer gamers are equally accommodated?
How do you think developers can know that they're alienating a big part of their player base by focusing so extensively if that's how you feel?
Would love to see your thoughts on this topic.
Yeah, I agree that it's a problem for some games, but I think there are bigger problems.
The always-online aspect is either tied to microtransactions or used as DRM to prevent piracy. I don't think it has anything to do with e-sports, as many of the games that require an internet connection are not even focused on competition.
I think the main reason they prioritize multiplayer is that people are more likely to spend money on useless junk like cosmetics. They tried that shit in singleplayer a few times and I'm sure it doesn't make as much because people don't get to show off their parents' credit cards.
I gave up on playing competitive games. I don't even like PvP unless the game's mechanics make the advantages from cheats like wall hacks and aim bots insignificant. Making them online for this reason is an excuse, since cheaters can cheat anyway.
You also should recognize that the only games that get funded by large publishers are ones that use proven formulas because publishers are so risk-averse. That is why there are so many Call of Duties, FIFAs, and Forzas. Publishers are also the reason entire game modes, maps, and assets are ripped from the game and placed in microtransaction stores and day-one paid DLC before release.
Furthermore, the publishers pay developers based on review scores from outlets like IGN and Kotaku, who are not only corrupt and unethical, but also radical leftist ideologues and cultists. In effect, they are ensuring the developers include overt wokeness in their games. They also have to make the games easy, since the journalists really do suck at playing games. That's why every hidden path has a yellow strip of paint along the edge, every enemy is visible through walls, and every quest has a marker showing you exactly where to go.
But would-be pirates almost always find a way to crack the DRM.
Even Ubisoft admitted that nothing they do will ever stop piracy. https://www.gamespot.com/articles/ubisoft-drm-can-t-stop-piracy/1100-6420602/
So why do developers keep adding it? All it does is complicate the experience for honest players.
Doesn't DRM implementation just take resources away from other critical areas of the game?
The old thought process was if a game's sales could be saved in something like the first week or month it was worth it. Don't they usually just buy DRM spyware like Denuvo anyway? At least a lot do. So I say just drop it all a few months in and put the game up DRM free. Some do, there's a handful of things I've bought on Gog that they wait some time after the Steam release.