Raph’s Website » Single-player Singularity

Single-player Singularity

July 17th, 2007 (Visited 4445 times) Tags:

How times change.

The site was knocked out of commission yesterday by a link from Penny Arcade. In his usual inimitable style, Tycho commented that perhaps I wasn’t crazy when I said that single-playing gaming was doomed.

When I sit down to each night’s electronic feast, the choice to play with people or without people is the first one – and solo experiences rarely claim victory in such assessments. It’s really that elemental. I can collaborate with others (which often increases the power, complexity, and unpredictability of game systems) or I can not. I’ve only played a couple levels into GRAW2 or Rainbow Six: Vegas, but the hours plowed into their multiplayer portions are innumerable. Chromehounds – with its multiplayer focus – yes. Armored Core, no. And I like Armored Core! I want to earn fake money and slam together savage battloids. It’s that doing so means actively denying this other class of experience. Raph Koster seems more and more like a prophet. We should probably get him out of those stocks.

Not that I walk around all day considering myself a prophet, but I have to admit that lately I have felt like most everything I have been jabbering on about for the last two years is coming true all at once. And in this particular case, I am struck by the fact that there’s considerably less vitriol surrounding the single-player discussion than there was the last go-round, which was after all a year-and-a-half ago.

In science fiction and futurism there’s this notion called The Singularity; it refers to a moment when the pace of advancement gets so fast that we lose the ability to predict what is going to happen. The term was invented by Vernor Vinge, who coincidentally is based here in San Diego, and who also coincidentally could be credited with inventing our modern sense of what virtual worlds should look like, with his story “True Names” (conveniently available bundled with with The Lessons of Habitat in True Names: And the Opening of the Cyberspace Frontier).

These days, it often feels like more is shifting than you can pay attention to. At this point, we’re beyond the idea that “big money” might get into virtual worlds from a different angle than the games industry players — instead, we have huge money getting involved, like Richard Branson with the A World of My Own project, planning on simply going to direct digital distribution of games. We have folks like Trion dreaming of essentially making a game machine so virtual that it has no hardware. I just got an anonymous tip that the figures reported for BarbieGirls.com are not only accurate, but that there is internal concern that the servers won’t handle the load once the toy MP3 players with virtual item asset codes hit the stores.

Meanwhile, E3 seems to have been a mess. The whole hardcore games industry is now chasing the non-gamer market, although as the recent Guitar Hero 3 news evidences, they sometimes don’t quite know how.

But surely the sign of the apocalypse is that Tycho is caving.

Psst, Tycho, when you’re in town for Comicon, you can swing by the office and I will show you what we’re making… You can even bring Gabe.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

Planet Noori wrote on May 30th, 2008 at 6:45 am:

For those just joining this particular multiplayer game, you may want to read these older posts of mine: Are Single-Player Games Doomed? Is the shift to online a fad? Have single player games ever existed?Single-player Singularity

Virtual Worlds News: Barbie Girls Unable to Support Growth? wrote on July 17th, 2007 at 3:40 pm:

[...] has been growing at a spectacular rate, outpacing virtual worlds left and right. Raph Koster just posted that the company might not be able to keep up with its consumers: "I just got an anonymous tip [...]

The IP Advantage in Virtual Worlds « Dark London wrote on July 19th, 2007 at 1:36 am:

[...] here, the former claimed to have 3 million sign-ups in its first 60 days of existence and according to Raph Koster this claim is grounded in fact! The latter, according to this rather good piece in the Guardian, has over 4 million users [...]

the Court Jester of Lilliput wrote on July 19th, 2007 at 12:57 pm:

[...] pm – Single-player Singularity http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/RaphsWebsite/~3/134611159/http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/07/17/single-player-singularity/How times [...]

Raph’s Website » AWOMO goes beta wrote on August 16th, 2007 at 9:49 am:

[...] I have mentioned the Branson project A World of My Own before, but now reports are that it is ready for beta. For those that do not recall, this is essentially a digital distribution venture, but one that adds in sort of an achievement/social networking layer on top of it that is centered on a virtual world. So you download games, and get stuff for your avatar, which is your overall identity within the system. [...]

raphkoster_rss: AWOMO goes beta wrote on August 16th, 2007 at 1:01 pm:

[...] I have mentioned the Branson project A World of My Own before, but now reports are that it is ready for beta. [...]

alwaysBETA » Single Player Gaming Prevails wrote on September 8th, 2007 at 1:54 pm:

[...] He said a little on the subject recently: http://www.raphkoster.com/2007/07/17/single-player-singularity/ [...]

Raph's Website » Here we go again: Harrison Says Single-Player Games Are Doomed wrote on May 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm:

[...] Single-player Singularity [...]

chabuhi said on July 17th, 2007 at 10:01 am:

I am the opposite. I tend to not play more than a few levels into the latest MMORPG before becoming completely disenchanted with the overabundance of douchebags who show up at the release of every new MMO and invariably bring down a cloud of unpleasantness for the rest of the players. I have no doubt that these are the exception, and that a great many more people in these games are quite pleasant to deal with. But, those few rotten apples are pretty good at spoiling it for me.

I admit that I have a low tolerance for personality types that seem to like nothing better than to behave in absurd ways in any online community. But, why should any of us have to tolerate it? Just because it’s there?

Anyway – while I almost always like the premise of the latest greatest MMO and look forward to release, it’s the anti-social miscreants who have taken refuge on the ‘net who always drive me away fairly early on.

Talaen said on July 17th, 2007 at 10:11 am:

You might indeed be a prophet. Sort of related, sort of not, here’s a cool article I discovered just now about CyWorld becoming a vehicle for political campaigns.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19795392/site/newsweek/

Deg said on July 17th, 2007 at 10:17 am:

chabuhi, multiplayer gaming doesn’t necessarily have to take the form of MMO. Some of my favorite playing experiences are the co-op gaming in Splinter Cell 3, MarioKart64, and Myst Online: Uru Live.

Half-Life 2: Episode One was one of the first games to have a smart AI partner. Just think if that partner was your real-life best friend and run through the game shouting directions to flank or provide cover and complement on good moves. That is the game I’m waiting for.

Caleb Booker said on July 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am:

1-player versus multi-player often comes down to time for me. Is the family around? Dinner coming up? Appointment soon? Better make it a 1-player that I can ditch without making a dozen other people angry at me.

Fact is, we don’t all have hours of time to reserve just for gaming no matter how much we love it. Busy people who aren’t interested in “casual games” NEED 1-player games.

chabuhi said on July 17th, 2007 at 11:37 am:

Deg, good point taken. I guess I need to face up to the fact that I am probably a bit of a crusty old curmudgeon.

As you mention, with regard to HL2, one of the big appeals to me with Neverwinter Nights was the Minimally Multiplayer function in the game. I do also enjoy those smaller group games, but I’d like to fall in love with the massive communities as well.

I’m willing to admit that the shortcomings are mine when it comes to dealing with the nuisance players in MMO’s, but you’ll just have to take my word that I am not a difficult guy to get along with IRL

Michael said on July 17th, 2007 at 12:33 pm:

Lets not forget you can play usually multi-player games in single-player mode, i.e., you ignore everyone else.

Nick Koranda said on July 17th, 2007 at 2:50 pm:

Hey Raph, speaking of ComicCon and speaking of strange events, a friend of mine is going to Comicon and man, if he isnt your doppleganger, I dont who is. Keep your eye out for him, he may be the true prophet… His name is Ayaz.

Dave Rickey said on July 17th, 2007 at 3:26 pm:

Screw “True Names” (and all the knockoffs thereof). Read “Rainbows End”. The future of “Virtual Reality” is removing the “virtual”.

–Dave

Tess said on July 17th, 2007 at 4:14 pm:

There are certain gameplay experiences that are very hard to share. Civilization IV has a number of win conditions, but there’s really only one way to win it when you play multiplayer. It’s not that the code doesn’t allow other forms of winning. It’s simply that it is almost impossible to have that experience when you are playing against other players. Both co-operative and pvp play tend to be frenetic, furious, and vicious. There isn’t much time to read NPC dialog, experiment with unusual tactics, appreciate a deep, emotional story, explore, test the boundaries of your world, or generally stop and smell the roses.

However, there is no reason for us to eulogize for our single life just yet. Soloing is, after all, a single-player experience, inside a multiplayer game. You have the opportunity to move at your own pace, explore, experiment, learn, and appreciate the things you didn’t have time for when you were rushing through with your friends. If one can find single-player experiences even in the most connected of all games, I think we have no reason to fear for the loss of the single-player experience, in general. There will always be games that scratch that itch, even if they insist on persisting our achievements or otherwise allowing the borders of our little bubbles to overlap, however briefly. Even the most rabid soloer in an MMORPG will tell you that her accomplishments somehow feel more valid, when there’s someone else around.

NegativeZero said on July 17th, 2007 at 9:23 pm:

I’m not sure if I’m behind the times, or if I have some kind of deep psychological issues, or maybe I just don’t get it. I don’t know if I have a personality that’s outside the gamer ‘norm’ or if maybe there are a lot of people like me that are simply not vocal about it. I like single player games, and the idea that they’re on their way out distresses me. Generally speaking, I don’t enjoy games unless I can play them by myself, on my own terms. Apologies in advance for the length and unfocused rant-like nature of this comment, by the way.

I hadn’t noticed this debate when it came up originally – followed the links here this morning via Penny Arcade. I noticed one point in your earlier discussions where you declare that the ‘default’ mode for console gaming is sitting on a couch with other people. Honestly, the last time I was in a situation like that regularly with single-player games was before my Sega Master System II died on me in the very early 90s. It’s true that there have been a few times that someone else has been present in the room while I was playing a single-player game since then, but these are rare experiences. The bulk of my gaming – even console gaming – I do in my room, on my own. Before I had a decent setup for consoles there, it used to certainly be in the living room on the couch. However it was always late at night when I could play alone.

I have never been engaged by a modern MMO. I’ve tried, but something about their gameplay causes a strange disconnect with me. Playing them is like a chore. I notice that a lot of the people who really get into them will talk about PvP play, which I find strangely repellant. That said, I used to regularly play MUDs when I was in my early teens, so perhaps the fact that the gameplay has not really evolved since then has some influence on that.

I own an Xbox 360 and have a current Xbox Live account. In fact, I’ve had Xbox Live since Halo 2’s release. Since purchasing it, I’ve played six to eight hours online. Total. There’s a number of reasons for that. A good part of it is technical. I live in Australia, where ‘broadband’ is a joke – poor speeds, low penetration, high prices and low data allowances. There appear to be very few Australian players using the service on a casual basis, so matchmaking generally results in you getting thrown into matches against people on the other side of the world. Consistent latency doesn’t make for a good experience. However a more important thing to add to that the fact that I find voice chat a daunting and confrontational method of communication.

I don’t find communicating online via text daunting whatsoever. I also don’t find communicating in real life difficult. The armchair psychologist in me theorises that it’s to do with anonymity. Using text online, I’m anonymous. Talking to people in the flesh, I’m not anonymous, but neither are the people I’m conversing with. In the case of voice chat, I don’t feel anonymous, but the other people I’m in the game with are.

I really like the concept of Achievements on the 360, but I completely disagree that they’re a competitive thing. Certainly you could apply them in a competitive context, but I’ve never done so. I like them because they provide me with a sort of meta-goal. They give you a higher-level thing to aim for when you sit down for a play session with a particular game. They also often serve to keep you engaged in something which you normally wouldn’t. I have no interest in getting more gamerpoints so that I can somehow be ‘ahead’ of friends. I don’t even look at the leaderboards. Certainly these things can be used that way by people, but that doesn’t mean that everyone should use them that way.

I do play multiplayer games. I used to meet up with a large bunch of friends every weekend and play Halo and other, similar games. We generally fell out of that due to a combination of Halo 2 disappointing us in terms of multiplayer, and more importantly the bulk of my group of friends becoming WoW addicts. Generally speaking, though, I don’t find these sorts of games engaging unless I can enjoy them in that specific type of environment. And if I’m enjoying them in that environment then I would argue that I’m not actually enjoying playing the game, I’m enjoying socialising using the act of playing the game as a common activity.

As I mentioned earlier, I play games on my own. I don’t think I should have to rely on other players to make my own experience enjoyable. I used to think that I mainly played games for their stories, especially since I really enjoy RPGs, however when I look over the games I’ve spent a lot of time playing I don’t really see any method to them. Defining what exactly it is that engages me about games in general is something I’ve never actually managed to do. I can tell you what engages me about specific games, but there really doesn’t seem to be any real method to it. However if I had to guess, I think that it’s to do with everything coming together to the point that I lose track of the fact that I’m sitting in a chair infront of a screen with a controller in my hands playing a videogame and become completely immersed in the experience. In many ways that’s the exact same reason that I read fiction or watch movies or TV shows. I have never had that sort of experience when playing with other people.

One commenter above mentions achievements made soloing in an MMO feeling more valid, but my personal feeling is the exact opposite – when you’re surrounded by people who have done the same thing, I find it feels completely hollow and unfulfilling. I guess what it comes down to is that I’m naturally a very introverted, unconfrontational person. I love playing games, I don’t love socialising using games. I don’t need other people to validate my achievements in-game. What it boils down to is that different people enjoy different things about games, and enjoy them in different ways. The only thing that would make single player games disappear is if no one wanted them any more.

Ola Fosheim Grøstad said on July 18th, 2007 at 2:36 am:

NegativeZero: when you’re surrounded by people who have done the same thing, I find it feels completely hollow and unfulfilling. I guess what it comes down to is that I’m naturally a very introverted, unconfrontational person. I love playing games, I don’t love socialising using games.

Yeah, I agree. The lack of unique experiences in on-the-rail design is hollow, and more so in a MMO. Hunting in the wild in a dynamic system with other players is different and more rewarding. (Rewarding in the sense that you cheerish those memories.) I agree with your view of MMO questish design, even though I am your opposite: I don’t like playing most games, they are more meaningful as worlds for socializing (this includes table-top).

Dewi Morgan said on July 18th, 2007 at 3:51 am:

It is very clear that single player games will soon die out in favour of the social aspects of MMOGs…

Right. And cinema will wipe out TV.

There are many, many issues that MMOGs need to solve before they become playable, rather than sociable. You need to make plots that last, and scale so that 50,000 people can all be “the most powerful hero in the world”, rather than just the first few to join the game.

The Ultimas and Oblivion would not be the same with a bunch of gits running around ruining it for you. You can’t mod an MMOG in any meaningful way. And so on.

Yes, just like cinemas, MMOGs have their place, and will probably be the thing that a small minority of the industry will make the big bux on. But for the remainder, there will be way, way more programs made for TV (and more games made for Single Player), and though much of this stuff at the cheap end will be dross, some of it will, by the nature of the medium, be way deeper than the scope of even a 6-part movie epic could be.

Having argued that, I have no TV and I do regularly go to the cinema…

robusticus said on July 18th, 2007 at 8:51 am:

Civ 4. Yes, some good AI, there. Wiki says it went to Spore amidst an $~26 million acquisition.

Odd stance for the designer of the UO ecosystem to take, there, Raph. Ditto for your thoughts on OOD.

Raph said on July 18th, 2007 at 10:19 pm:

Not sure which part you are saying is the odd stance, robusticus. And what’s OOD?

Nick said on July 19th, 2007 at 1:56 am:

Raph, I’m very interested in your thoughts on vws like Barbiegirls and Nicktropolis. Do you think their success stems from the fact that they’re both very well known, popular brands aimed at kids, many of whom have never played a vw before – so in a way they’re a captive audience?

Both the vws mentioned above have very simple graphic interfaces, and straightforward ‘play to earn currency to customise avatar’ set-ups – I’m not sure this will appeal to adults, at least not in the west (I know Cyworld is huge in Asia and its vw element is quite similar to this), where ‘cartoony’ graphics tend to be associated with children. I’ve shown WoW graphics to non MMO players at various companies and they’re often shocked to learn that adults play it!

I guess it’s one thing for adults to play ‘casual games’ with simple/cartoony graphics but investing in time and relationships in a virtual world with similar design ethics would be a whole different story I imagine.

David Irelan said on July 19th, 2007 at 3:25 am:

Raph Koster wrote:
…Psst, Tycho, when you’re in town for Comicon, you can swing by the office and I will show you what we’re making… You can even bring Gabe.

Awww… I wanna see, too….

AndyB said on July 19th, 2007 at 7:02 am:

Deq said:

Just think if that partner was your real-life best friend and run through the game shouting directions to flank or provide cover and complement on good moves. That is the game I’m waiting for.

You’re pretty much describing the online co-op play in Gears of War (by far the best aspect of the whole game, for me). Get thee and thine friend a 360. =)

AndyB said on July 19th, 2007 at 7:17 am:

Dewi Morgan said:

I don’t think that’s what either Raph or Tycho are talking about – they’re talking about multiplayer games, not MMOs (or at least not what the term currently refers to).

robusticus said on July 19th, 2007 at 8:18 am:

The part about single player gaming being doomed. Kind of difficult to argue against on a site that allows commentary, eh? I dunno, we grew up with a pocket of coins going to the arcade – alone or with friends, no matter. It is the core audience (or has been), etc. Doomed to become just a feature of a larger system? As online becomes unremarkable, ubiquitous? The reaction is that since single player gaming is dead, forced grouping is the norm, which is way different than alot of people view how gaming should be in general.

OOD = Object Oriented Development. Something that was invented to make building virtual worlds with complex artificial ecosystems easier. Odd Ood Aod. A separate endless thread about religion, similar to penguins versus pirates. But I couldn’t resist the bad pun.

Ola Fosheim Grøstad said on July 19th, 2007 at 10:17 am:

Nah, OOD = Object Oriented Design. It’s the step that comes after OOA = Object Oriented Analysis.

Raph said on July 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am:

So I know all about object-oriented approaches. I don’t understand what I said about OO that was an odd stance. In fact, I don’t recall saying anything at all about OO.

As far as arguing against — argue all you want right here. The reason there’s no comments on that post is because that post is really old, and we close comments after a while to minimize spam.

In any case, I don’t see it as an odd stance at all, nor do I see how specifically it relates to the UO ecosystem…

Jim said on July 19th, 2007 at 11:52 am:

In science fiction and futurism there’s this notion called The Singularity; it refers to a moment when the pace of advancement gets so fast that we lose the ability to predict what is going to happen.

Is it the pace of advancement, or the fact that people only extrapolate using the trends they know and/or care about?

robusticus said on July 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm:

Hmm. I thought you said something about C being your thing but C++ being not. Maybe it was someone else I’m thinking of, but I remember thinking about the ecosystem at the time.

And the ecosystem is a way, like storytelling, to engage a single player. Plus there was that theme about 0 player world simulations.

Oh, no, wasn’t complaining about comments, just remarking that blogging is a multiplayer activity.

Right, before OOP, too, Ola.

Morgan Ramsay said on July 19th, 2007 at 4:59 pm:

Jim wrote:

Read: The Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence | SL4

Jim said on July 19th, 2007 at 6:27 pm:

Morgan wrote:

Interesting stuff, but speaking from the point of view of someone who’s worked both in software test and in complex reality-modelling software, I’m not convinced this stuff is worth more than a hobbyist’s attention.

The problem is that only hindsight is 20/20. If we think our computer program is great predictively, the only way we know that is still to compare it to the past, and keep an eye on it in the future. And trust me, even stuff that does a great job of evaluating the past is useless (worse than useless, if you put too much trust in it) when you run into a new trend (or trends) and higher order effects (or effects). If you say, “yes, but what if it can train itself to evaluate its reaction to new trends or higher order effects?” I’d have to say, “How long do you want it to think about which trends and effects to include?”

As you add more and more trends / variables to the predictive model (to say nothing of judging which trends to include), you can suck up effectively an infinite amount of computing power. As some game designers here can tell you, all the interesting questions are NP-complete. We’ve recently “solved” checkers, but I doubt the Davos crowd cares much.

Mutual funds say “past performance does not guarantee future results”. I guess that’s another way of saying, Singularity occured a long time ago.

Morgan Ramsay said on July 20th, 2007 at 12:47 am:

I wouldn’t know, honestly. I know Eliezer Yudkowsky (SIAI Fellow) and Bruce Klein (SIAI Director and ImmInst Founder) and Michael Anissimov (Lifeboat Fundraising Director) from IRC, chatted with the SL4 folks, and observed the conversations in which transhumanists, singularitarians, and immortalists are involved. For me, participation was futile…

I know there is a great deal of brainpower behind those discussions, and many of those brains are comfortably attached to people who are quite a bit more than mere “hobbyists.” Heck, just look at the people involved with Lifeboat. (Raph’s on the Futurists Advisory Board.)

I don’t think your valuation is fair, but then, I don’t have a dog in this race. I’m just pointing you to places where you could learn more about the Singularity. Whether it’s worth this or that is beyond what I can tell you.