Maybe with developers but not with users.
-Keith
Indeed.
But the problem is that if (and I think it is) it is less popular over time and developers are less willing to make single-player games, then the users (gamers/consumers) themselves will suffer from that. Will we start to develop our own self-satisfying single-player games if actual real developers have less and less intent to do so? No, we won't, because we're not developers, we merely play what's being developed. A way to put it that I've read recently on another forum which I liked is to say that developers are the "action", and we gamers are the reaction. We have no power on their decisions of whether or not their next games on their list will end up single-player or multi-player. When it comes to determine the target audience the choice is rather simple, go with multi-player to propagate the game to a guaranteed wider one (audience), or stick with single-player and cross your fingers.
Is multi-player synonymous with guaranteed success? No. But multi-player alone is synonymous with wider audience, it
is true. So it becomes a question of
potential and also in a more business-friendly term
risk management. Do you risk going with single-player? Or do you risk making potentially more money even if the game isn't that good but is at least making more money anyway? It's up to you of course... some developers "risk it" and they succeed, both with single-player and multi-player games (The Witcher 2 was a huge risk by going single-player, but they succeeded). But sometimes you fail, and you'll statistically fail more often if you stick with single-player rather than going with multi-player. Would DICE/EA risk making a new Call of Duty game that would end up being completely single-player? I doubt it. It's just that, remember, risk management and a question of money, testing waters alone has a price and developers know that (publishers too of course, and shareholders certainly).
Another "problem" is that developers usually don't follow what some consumers may want or wish. In fact what we gamers want is usually irrelevant, it is what we buy that is considered the stuff we want. So if tons of Call of Duties are being bought then of course developers assume it's what "we want", correct? Well yeah. They (developers) mostly follow the money. A part of us gamers might still like single-player games, yes and surely they do still exist, but regardless of the fact that some of us still like them or not the developers will never blindly stop fishing where the fish bites. If a developer knows there's more money (or even just potentially, it doesn't have to be guaranteed) to be made with a game that is either entirely multi-player or at least that has a good multi-player component, then they'll do that instead of opting for a "pure" single-player game.
We can always think that single-player games can still sell very well, and yes they do. But despite the fact that it still happens (single-player games selling well) some developers out there still apparently "don't get it" and they
still have that (miss)conception that if their single-player game was a critical success then «
Imagine what it could be if it became a MMORPG! Let's do it guys!».
Example? Bethesda and their Elder Scrolls franchise. Before they even announced Skyrim some of us gamers theorized that perhaps The Elder Scrolls V would end up a MMORPG, but lo and behold no! It was still single-player and you bet it sold like hotcakes. Now what, it sold like hotcakes but did Bethesda say "Well then let's keep going with single-player!"? Not exactly, their next Elder Scrolls will be a MMORPG anyway, so was Skyrim a "message" about single-player games still being viable? Well maybe it was to some extent, but was it sufficient? Apparently not. In fact, development on Skyrim started in 2008, and according to the Wikipedia page on Elder Scrolls Online the development on that one (ESO) started five years ago which puts the start of it sometime in 2007 or perhaps 2008 at most if that estimation is not necessarily accurate. That would mean that at the very least Skyrim was not even announced yet that there was development on a MMORPG variant of their Elder Scrolls franchise without even knowing if that one specifically (the MMORPG one) would be good following the almost-guaranteed success (and it was) of Skyrim.
Will Bethesda "stop" making single-player games from now? Well I don't know... maybe? The question is why would they? If they have a MMORPG to tend to for God knows how many years to follow its release then how much time and resources will they also dedicate as well for a "side line" single-player game? And will that game be yet another single-player Elder Scrolls despite already having one that is exclusively on-line? I'm not sure but I wouldn't hold my breath about it. But of course they could... or perhaps it will be a new franchise and will end up single-player for the sake of being single-player to appease a smaller audience that may claim that Bethesda is "leaving them behind" (despite their MMORPG variant being their very first and only multi-player Elder Scrolls to date).
But that's only concerning Bethesda and the Elder Scrolls franchise, obviously it won't affect the entire industry... or I hope not. What I am observing, merely so and nothing else, is that there seems to be a decline in
interests for actual real single-player games development. Now of course Bethesda is just one developer out of many still, but when a developer like Bethesda seemingly leave for a wider audience (leaving single-player to opt for the MMORPG model) then at the very least it sends a message of clear intentions to both the industry in general and certainly the gamers. If what I am believing to be the case is indeed true (which again I will say I believe is indeed true) then whether or not us gamers "like" single-player games is irrelevant, since if developers opt to go multi-player or "exclusively on-line" (such as MMORPGs) then we gamers will be the ones "paying the price" in the end. In other words being "stuck" with a majority of such games, while clinging on a handful or rare and maybe decent-at-best single-player games which usually end up being console ports anyway.