The CEO of Crytek sat down for an interview with IGN where he discussed The Many Faces of Free to Play
In the interview, Yerli expressed his feelings toward "disconnected single player game experiences":
"I think the notion of a single-player experience has to go away, However, I'm not saying that there will be no single-player experiences ... it could be it's called Connected Single-Player or Online Single-Player instead.
"Online and social can reignite single-player in a new type of context and provide benefits that will make you want to be a part of a connected story-mode rather than a disconnected story-mode. Sure, if the technology forces you to play a traditional single-player game online, that doesn't make sense but if it's offering actual benefits to be online then you want to be part of it.
Jim Sterling wrote a comment on the statement Cevat Yerli (Head of Crytek) made in an interview with IGN
While I wholeheartedly agree with Jim's viewpoints on this subject, I thought that I would share a few thoughts that I have when it comes to the statements made by Cevat Yerli
I'm predominantly a single player gamer, And I have several reasons for that is that:
I enjoy games like I enjoy books or movies, I let myself get immersed in the experience. For me, roaming the fields of Hyrule in Ocarina of time for the XXth time gives me the same feeling as reading Lord of the Rings for the XXth time
If I'm constantly reminded that I'm not alone in the experience, I don't get that same feeling of immersion.
Just imagine if George RR Martin would have written into every other page of his books something that would completely take you out of the experience. I wouldn't personally have gotten past the prologue of Game of Thrones if that was the case
Another reason is that as a person, I'm just not that big a fan of multiplayer games, I've made peace with the fact that there are people who are better than me at playing certain video games and I really don't have anything to prove in that arena
Now I'm not here to tear on gamers that predominately plays multiplayer games, There's a reason the Call Of Duty series has such a strong following and it's not thanks to the single player elements.
And Cevat expressly say that he doesn't want single player experiences to go away, he just wants to add more online and social elements to, in his words: "Reignite single-player"
That is where me and Cevat strongly disagree, because I really don't think that single player experiences needs this re ignition that Mr. Yerli is proposing. Online and Social elements are not at all what I personally want out of a game.
Sure I'd like to see what my friends are playing, and later talk to them about our experiences with the games we've played. But when I'm playing, I want it to be about me and the game, not about leaderboards, not about asking my facebook friends for help, and not about microtransactions.
In May 2012 Diablo 3 came out, And while being a single player experience to many (myself included) Blizzard had implemented features into that game that required the gamer to be "Always Online", and as I remember that didn't end especially well
I believe that if the developers continue to reinvent themselves and their respective genres (like Crytek once did with Crysis), single player experiences will continue to be relevant and we can shake of this notion that we need to merge them with multiplayer
To round out this blogpost, I'd like to make a suggestion to Mr. Yerli:
If you want to create multiplayer experiences with social elements, Go ahead and do that, But don't say that single player experiences have to die for you to make that happen.
Don't make a half assed prediction about where you think single player experiences needs to go to remain relevant when in reality single player experiences has never been more relevant than they are today.
And last but not least: Listen to your consumers, create games and content that they want to see instead of telling them how they are going to be playing your games in the future.