r/gaming • u/CiabattaKatsuie Console • Oct 01 '24

The games industry is undergoing a 'generational change,' says Epic CEO Tim Sweeney: 'A lot of games are released with high budgets, and they're not selling'

https://www.pcgamer.com/gaming-industry/the-games-industry-is-undergoing-a-generational-change-says-epic-ceo-tim-sweeney-a-lot-of-games-are-released-with-high-budgets-and-theyre-not-selling/

Tim Sweeney apparently thinks big budget games fail because... They aren't social enough? I personally feel that this is BS, but what do you guys think? Is there a trend to support his comments?

26.1k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

5.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

2.2k

u/domiran Oct 01 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

There are plenty of single player games that sell extremely well that aren't social at all, though?

Complain all you want about Valve. As long as they stay a private company, I'm happy with them effectively holding the reigns of PC gaming.

122

u/TheUrPigeon Oct 02 '24

BG3 being the most recent--and arguably most fervent--argument against this "games have to be social" thing. Just make a good game.

40

u/panthereal Oct 02 '24

BG3 has co-op, multiplayer, and now a public modding service. They had streaming plugins on release that allowed chatters to pick the choices for a streamer. It's an extremely social game.

15

u/No-Variety-7803 Oct 02 '24

I can play it alone and won't miss any of the content. That's all I want, none of that "to fully experience the game, you have to play it with somebody else".

1

u/FewAdvertising9647 Oct 02 '24

the funny part of BG3 is that it has the opposite problem(without modding), you miss content if you have a party of 4 (as some companion quest lines require said companion in your party and you can't add them unless someone leaves)

13

u/TheUrPigeon Oct 02 '24

Well, it has 1-4 player co-op, saying it has multiplayer might imply something beyond the co-op campaign. I don't see how the modding service contradicts what I said at all--there doesn't have to be any social component to modding. Twitch integration is there, sure. BG3 is a 1-4 player co-op RPG. Saying it is "extremely social" is pretty disingenuous.

2

u/obp5599 Oct 02 '24

Its social. You are taking social to mean “online onlu competitive shooter” for some reason. BG3 is very social

1

u/TheUrPigeon Oct 02 '24

No, you've wholecloth fabricated that for yourself. I am simply not and have not mistaken "social game" for "online competitive shooter," how ridiculous.

3

u/panthereal Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

There's an extreme level of built in social access. More than most games include. Any game can be played in a non-social way if you want to but that doesn't prevent it from being an experience which encourages socializing between players.

The modding service is a social media website for mods and guides. Sure, you can ignore those parts, but that is the whole service.

And I consider a co-op game like BG3 far more social than any multiplayer game where people are just there but you rarely have to interact with them. You couldn't even leave a co-op campaign on release, you had to play with the person you started with to continue it at all. That's far more social than a game where you log in and spend 5 seconds auto-matchmaking with someone you've never once met and complete the game without needing to say anything at all knowing you'll never see those people again.

12

u/darkslide3000 Oct 02 '24

How many people actually play it in co-op, though? I'd gather that's a tiny minority.

Of course it has modding and streaming support, any good game these days does, but that doesn't make the game itself "social".

8

u/siamkor Oct 02 '24 edited Oct 02 '24

I tried it twice already with two separate friends.

It has the same challenges of DND sessions: the scheduling.

Both playthroughs died before reaching 10h.

2

u/Langeball Oct 02 '24

The pacing is so much better in multiplayer. Not to mention the funny moments that come from it. I couldn't and haven't managed to go back to singleplayer.

2

u/siamkor Oct 02 '24

Yeah, I don't think I'll try it again. Playing beats not playing. 😅

1

u/WazuufTheKrusher Oct 02 '24

To be fair the co op is pretty dogshit unless you install a mod that allows you to take your companions with you and actually progress their stories and gain their approval. You lose out on a large chunk of content by playing co op vanilla.

11

u/MrStealYoBeef Oct 02 '24

BG3 kinda is a social game though. How many people bought and played it solely with friends?

28

u/tsukubasteve27 Oct 02 '24

I watched a dozen different streamers do part of act 1 co-op and then give up because it's impossible to co-ordinate for a 100 hour playthrough.

7

u/ilayas Oct 02 '24

They really did capture the authentic DnD experience with that.

4

u/Silent-Locksmith4703 Oct 02 '24

I dont recommend it for your first play through, but I've done coop (with just 2 people) 3 times now, it's pretty fun.

12

u/Getherer Oct 02 '24

Who cares? Bg3 provides a very compelling story and gameplay that can primarily be enjoyed playing alone?

-5

u/MrStealYoBeef Oct 02 '24

Because it's a social game still. It has clear social elements. It's not solely a single player game, it incorporated multiplayer elements into the design, a non-insubstantial amount of effort went into making the game function as a multiplayer game and that was a selling point for a notable amount of people.

8

u/Getherer Oct 02 '24

Yes but its irrelevant to the point people are making, that single player games that are quality aint dead and bg3 is a very high quality single player game, despite also having online modes/features which just makes it even more attractive as a polished high quality product/game as opposed to hundreds of cancerfest greedy shit and buggy cashgrabs that are very prominent nowadays

1

u/MrStealYoBeef Oct 02 '24

The quote that is being "disproven" is out of context though. The quote is that solely single player experiences were on their way out, and a greater focus would be put on social aspects. That's what happened here, is it not? It's not solely a single player focused title, and it's very possible that a notable amount of success from the game can be attributed to the social aspects of the game. There are people who got the game because they could play it with their friends.

How much can their success be attributed to the social aspects of the game? We will never know. But the reality is that it didn't disprove anything that guy said, no matter how much people want to believe it does. BG3 did in fact go that route as predicted. BG3 is a social game.

2

u/Noise93 Oct 02 '24

I hate that some of these people think that co-op doesn't count into this "social" statement. I would buy more games if they simply put co-op in just for fun and not because it is mandatory to the gameplay. Halo CE made no sense with 2 master chiefs running around story wise, but seriously… who cares if this makes any sense? Let me play games with my friends man.

2

u/timmystwin PC Oct 02 '24

But it doesn't have to be social. It just has that as an added benefit.