Not if gaming move more and more toward streaming, subscription based, pay per play, or F2P'ish model,etc... for those kind of models to work you need games that peoples play for a long period, a single player games that you finish in 5-15 hours and then have no real incentive to keep playing is not really interesting financially.

To be fair to the guy he's just saying that gamers like to communicate with other gamers - either in a game or outside a game (like on a forum). In other words: Gamers like to talk to other gamers - I see notthing wrong with that.

Jonas Antonssons brain is a gimmick

silly me - I have always thought it was the other way around.

So basically what he's saying is that single player games have to be well designed and appealing, while multiplayer games can be boring and poorly designed as long as you have fun through interacting with others? Big news, and great advertising for his multiplayer games. :D

As a side note, this quote alone shows that he is very focussed on specific genres in his thinking. Point and click adventures for examples don't even fit into his equation, maybe they're not games at all.

Someone has played too much Spy vs. Spy.

I vaguely remember a game developer (that people had actually heard about) say something similar a decade ago. It was BS then and it's BS now.

The limiting factor in this is time. In the end, I spend more money on several 5€ SP games I can play in the same time as F2P titles. And SP games can have the same DLCs package in dimension than F2P titles. Also, F2P needs constant support and care. With SP games, apart from new hardware, there is no more need for balancing, etc. The game is done.

Even with F2P titles at one point the "shelf life" is reached and people move on. And then there is nothing more you can draw from the game. The game is dead.

Now look at GOG. The whole site is running on games that are pretty much over in terms of shelf life. Yet, new gamers come here and rediscover a lot of gaming history.

This trend will only keep up, as the gaps are much less noticeble.

Compare '88, '94 and '98. Huge gaps in quality and interface.

But then compare '06 to '12. Not really that different. Therefore those games are still viable investments. Also, running a game from the XP era (nearly ten years ago) Is much less of a hassle than running a DOS game in XP.

That's... That's a contradiction. A good game is a game designed the way it should work. Otherwise it would either be a good (something else) or a bad game.

Dude, logic

This is a rage thread!

But... But...

Fuck that guy. If I wanted to be social, I'd go play soccer, or tennis, or The Game of Life, or something.

No buts!

No go back to your house and grab a torch. There is some lynching to be done!

Is that a new euphemism for fucking?:)