Another kind of disturbing trend I've noticed over the last several
years. Sometimes the single player mode of games is better than the
half-baked PvP experience, when a game does include both.

A recent example I wrote about here is Ghost Recon Breakpoint. PvP is
okay and certainly not the worst in the world, but overall not as fun
as single player. That would have never been the case with an old
school game in that franchise or even genre, really. It's a sign of
changing times, consolitis, snowflakism and many other factors.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 11:25:23 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

So, there's a recent report that indicates people on Steam play more >noncompetitive games than gamers on consoles.* It's not that PVP is
unpopular on the platform, but PVE is more favored... and that number
is increasing.

I don't follow what goes on in the console game world at all, other
than the passing observation I made in cross play games like COD,
where the number of console players typically dwarfs the PC players by
at least 8 to 1, at least in the matches I join (but then again I
don't know if that's a decision the matchmaking engine makes to try to
balance things out between more fortunate mouse-weilders and lessen
the extent to which we pummel the fuck out of our gamepad-holding
victims).

But because I don't know what goes on in console-land, I don't know
how the percentage of released games there that people actually play
compares to the PvP offerings on Steam, but I will say that there are
very few worthwhile titles being relased on Steam compared to 10, 15
or 20 years ago, so what has happened to folks I know that were
heavily into it is they either spend more time on other hobbies
(that's me) due to lack of games worth playing, or they just spent
more time in single player or co-op (PC Gamer indicated in another
recent article that Newzoo lumps in single player and PvE coop as "non competitive" gaming, so they are one in the same for purpose of this discussion).

Meanwhile I know COD is always huge on consoles no matter what, and
consoles overall have larger numbers because of the low cost of entry.

So those factors probably account for any metrics indicating less PvP
action on PC.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/04/2025 16:25, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

Still, as one of the old farts, it is good to see these figures
(however inaccurate they may be), because the popular view is that
only competitive multiplayer sells. As somebody who's interest in
that particular genre faded back in the days of the first "Unreal
Tournament" game, I'm glad to see some evidence refuting that
assertion. There's a big market for single-player and cooperative multiplayer, even if fans of those genres aren't as vocal about their preferences online as the tweens.

Like you I don't find the results that surprising because, also like
you, I assume there's a lot of old farts who game on the PC with one of
the reasons being it has the type of games they still like to play and
I'd also assume that competitive PvP games aren't that high on the list*.

For the last part, something that does piss me off are those 'real'
gamers who assume that whole industry should revolve around not only
what they want (the irony is they are the same crowd who bang on about
people being self-entitled) but also they represent what everyone else
really wants regardless of the facts contradicting that.

*Something that the devs of World of Tanks have said is that it was a deliberate design choice to make the game appeal to, as they called
them, dads with wallets who just want to jump into a game, pew-pew with
tanks and then watch some TV. It may look like just another online
shooter but it plays quite differently. Fast reflexes and good aiming
just aren't very important, indeed they have a class that you can play one-handed if you like. What actually matters is being able to learn a
few basic tactics and the skill that makes the difference between an
average player and a good one - reading the flow of the battle. So when
to be aggressive, when to hold a defensive position, when to retreat and
when to change position to support you team to try and make sure the
battle doesn't snowball out of control.

It even goes into concepts of 15 vs. 15 a side, no respawns or the
ability to 'head shot' another player. That helps feed into even players
who approach it more casually almost to the point that they don't even
treat it competitively can still enjoy the game and not be cannon fodder
for the good players. That's why you end with up an average player has a
50% win-rate and the top 0.1% only have a 60% win-rate. Even for below
average players every dog has its day.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)