I honestly don’t see how single player “content” could be of any help. Sure, situational training like Strive and a few other games have (UNI I think had it?) would be nice to have, but I think the main obstacle for a lot of players is the (gameplay) interaction with another real person. I can’t say how other genres fix this (or if they even do), but my guess is that the mechanics themselves are less restrictive and a bit more forgiving.
Also, personally, I prefer buying characters for relatively cheap rather than having the usual f2p predatory crap. They should obviously be free for training tho.
The article acknowledges the fact that the most fondly remembered singleplayer modes are the ones with unique twists… then proceeds to write off everyone asking to see more of that.
Singleplayer can never be a substitute for a human opponent. CPUs are just never going to play the way humans do, and they’re never going to adequately prepare you for them.
But that’s precisely why people loved the modes that didn’t try to take it seriously and instead offered something unusual and different. Lean into things singleplayer can do well, instead of trying to chase after things it can’t.
Games that are intended to be long-term projects with big updates and expansions over time have to monetize those expansions somehow. Character DLC still feels like the most equitable way to do it, I’d rather periodically toss a few bucks at actual content than be milked for empty calorie gacha, battle passes, FOMO rotating shops, or whatever else actual live service games are doing these days to try and exploit whales.
I mean… I’m not saying it’s good, but considering most games wouldn’t get free characters as updates (I think only MBTL did it, and it’s probably because most of the free characters are from Fate), I think it’s better to be able to optionally buy a set of characters if you want to play them, instead of having to buy a whole new version of the game to continue playing.
This is a woefully bad take. The best fighting games got to where they are after a lot of iteration and refinement. The final version of Skullgirls is my favorite game of all time, but 1.0 was straight up broken.
Do you know how many Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat games we had in the 90s?
Before the current era of endless updates, games had to be ready to go when they shipped. If it was broken, they’d delay and fix the worst issues. Early iterations of a series tended to be a little more feature-light than later iterations, but that’s how you ended up with multiple installments per decade.
Compare this with the modern model where it’s half expected that games will be broken on release and it’s all but unheard of to get a sequel within a few years.
Having lived in both environments, the old system had way better results. Without it we wouldn’t have some of the well developed genres we do today.
Imagine if instead of making piles of DLC and remasters Bethesda had just started working on Elder Scrolls VI right after Skyrim. We’d probably be on like VIII by now. Instead they went from horse armor to rereleasing everything they’ve ever made, with a shitty MMO in between.
I honestly don’t see how single player “content” could be of any help. Sure, situational training like Strive and a few other games have (UNI I think had it?) would be nice to have, but I think the main obstacle for a lot of players is the (gameplay) interaction with another real person. I can’t say how other genres fix this (or if they even do), but my guess is that the mechanics themselves are less restrictive and a bit more forgiving.
Also, personally, I prefer buying characters for relatively cheap rather than having the usual f2p predatory crap. They should obviously be free for training tho.
The article acknowledges the fact that the most fondly remembered singleplayer modes are the ones with unique twists… then proceeds to write off everyone asking to see more of that.
Singleplayer can never be a substitute for a human opponent. CPUs are just never going to play the way humans do, and they’re never going to adequately prepare you for them.
But that’s precisely why people loved the modes that didn’t try to take it seriously and instead offered something unusual and different. Lean into things singleplayer can do well, instead of trying to chase after things it can’t.
The idea of buying characters is itself wild. Games as a service has really screwed up player expectations.
Games that are intended to be long-term projects with big updates and expansions over time have to monetize those expansions somehow. Character DLC still feels like the most equitable way to do it, I’d rather periodically toss a few bucks at actual content than be milked for empty calorie gacha, battle passes, FOMO rotating shops, or whatever else actual live service games are doing these days to try and exploit whales.
I dont know, we have more MK games in the last 6-7 than the previous and they all had dlc. Best MK had great konquest and no dlc.
I mean… I’m not saying it’s good, but considering most games wouldn’t get free characters as updates (I think only MBTL did it, and it’s probably because most of the free characters are from Fate), I think it’s better to be able to optionally buy a set of characters if you want to play them, instead of having to buy a whole new version of the game to continue playing.
Updates suck. Gaming was better when they didn’t exist.
This is a woefully bad take. The best fighting games got to where they are after a lot of iteration and refinement. The final version of Skullgirls is my favorite game of all time, but 1.0 was straight up broken.
Do you know how many Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat games we had in the 90s?
Before the current era of endless updates, games had to be ready to go when they shipped. If it was broken, they’d delay and fix the worst issues. Early iterations of a series tended to be a little more feature-light than later iterations, but that’s how you ended up with multiple installments per decade.
Compare this with the modern model where it’s half expected that games will be broken on release and it’s all but unheard of to get a sequel within a few years.
Having lived in both environments, the old system had way better results. Without it we wouldn’t have some of the well developed genres we do today.
Imagine if instead of making piles of DLC and remasters Bethesda had just started working on Elder Scrolls VI right after Skyrim. We’d probably be on like VIII by now. Instead they went from horse armor to rereleasing everything they’ve ever made, with a shitty MMO in between.