[...] The business side screams “OH GOD NO, we can’t let them walk away from the game! They might stop paying!” The ethical side should be asking “Ok, I want them to like this game and keep playing it, but I also want them to have a rest of their life. Where’s the balance?” Jonathan Blow asked this question eloquently at MIGS 2007. Raph Koster asked it again just last week. [...]

But you’ve shifted the context too. I meant video gaming.

You’re on Raph’s Website. Y’know, the guy who wrote A Theory of Fun, which talks about all games. The context was always “games,” not specifically games played on a video platform. There’s little difference between games played in physical spaces with physical pieces and games played in virtual spaces with virtual pieces.

You said that there were never any singleplayer games.

Right, because I’m talking about design and value, not what players might choose to do with a product. Simply because you can play games alone doesn’t make those games “single-player games.”

It says nothing about gaming though, just about people.

Games are made by who? Ah, yes, people. People create games for people. Games don’t exist in a vacuum.

len wrote:

Now Morgan, don’t go all paranoid on me.

I’m not paranoid. I’m observant. I also have a long memory.

The single player relationship is very important. Not reckoning for that leads to some critical flaws in network analysis.

So Morgan, note your use of language. You said that there were never any singleplayer games.

If something is a certain way for even just one person, you cannot use a universal qualifier like never. A single counter-example makes it at best a particular. This is basic logic. Never is a universal, I can provide even a single counter example (myself), ergo, you are *wrong*. And it’s not that I didn’t socialize, I just didn’t socialize about THAT. I also didn’t spend much time discussing many of the books that I was reading with my friends either, it’s just not something we had in common. We talked about other stuff instead.

Furthermore, you’re moving up from the general case (games in general are social activities) to the specific case (any given game is a social activity) which as also broken. I can agree with the general, but I can’t agree with the specific, because while I do have discussions about some games (and it’s vastly more often now that I’ve got different circles of friends) I don’t about others, as there isn’t always a common interest in those, or they were just too forgettable to bother bringing up. Outliers can be ignored for statistics, but they invalidate universals in logic.

And I really don’t think that gaming is intrinsicly social either. People may be, but gaming isn’t. People form communities over anything and everything: art, writing, music, stamp collecting, doing taxes, brutal violence, compassion, hatred, love. Humans tend towards social behaviors, so it’s not surprising that you’d see gaming tend toward social behaviors too. It says nothing about gaming though, just about people.

Creating experiences in a game intended to be consumed in a non-social single player way, is not dead.

Sure, but like I said, “While the original creators of games might not have intended there to be extrinsic value, the natural design of games, resulting from their socially driven evolution, precludes games from maintaining exclusively single-player systems.” Great, now I’m quoting myself… ;p

My question is – what is gained by doing that? What will be different if people stop using the term ’single player’ to describe some games?

Extrinsic value. At some level, buyer-consumers are currently enticed [to a small degree] by the extrinsic value offered by games—whether that value is derived from the reputation of a developer (e.g., Blizzard) or the helpful, welcoming community that envelops the product. There is more to a game than just the packaging, materials, or software. Assisting consumers with recognizing the extrinsic value of an entertainment product would not only bolster sales but also help consumers make better decisions and thus lead the way to a range of other benefits for all involved.

len wrote:

I get Morgan’s point but he is a relationship marketer and one asks ‘qui bono?’ not meanly but as a matter of fact.

I am not my occupation. I can hold opinions external to my profession. Please stop asserting that every word I use is part of some hidden agenda.

Gene Endrody wrote:

Raph’s point that the single player game are doomed or an anomaly relates to game mechanics – synchronous vs asynchronous.

When Raph explained what he meant by e-mail to me when we were at SOE, I didn’t get the impression that he was talking about mechanics. He was talking about “connected gaming” and I didn’t interpret his use of the terms “single player” and “multiplayer” as part of the standing lingo. I read his explanation as pointing toward value, not benefits, not features, not mechanics, but the value of interpersonal play. I’ll see if Raph will give me permission to post that e-mail to my blog.

JuJutsu wrote:

Now I’m stuck with this mental image of Morgan putting his fingers in his ears and saying la la la …

That was exactly what I was doing. ;p What can I say, it was late.

First of all, before we go into a long, fruitless debate, just know that you will never convince me you’re correct. There are some things that I have an open mind about, but when I’m confident I’m not wrong, you couldn’t force me to say otherwise, even at gun point.

Lol. Now I’m stuck with this mental image of Morgan putting his fingers in his ears and saying la la la la la la la…….