Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Gogogic CEO Says Single-Player is a "Gimmick"


The CEO of social gaming company Gogogic says that games are naturally meant to be played with others.

Reykjavik-based Gogogic specializes in casual and social gaming, so it does have a certain bias about how people play games, but even so these comments by CEO Jonan Antonsson are a little extreme. In a recent interview, he effectively dismissed single-player gaming, saying that while there's a "strong audience for hard and unrelenting games" like Demon's Souls, games are meant first and foremost to be played with others.

"The single player mechanic is a gimmick - games are meant to be played with others and it doesn't matter if it's in-person or online," Antonsson said. "The first games were designed as multiplayer experiences, but when computer and console games became a thing there was a need to construct an antagonist and/or a protagonist for commercial purposes. You couldn't depend on people coming together to have a synchronous experience over a game. That would have simply stifled sales. And since there was no reasonable way to connect people in other ways - the arcade was the only serious attempt - it became an industry need to project the game as the other player."

"Playing a game is a multiplayer activity and can easily be seen as such when you watch young toddlers play by themselves," he added. "They invent someone to play with, someone that they talk to and interact with."

I can see where he's coming from - historically, especially as children, people have played with others - but videogames have changed the definition of "play." You don't read multiplayer books, after all, and listening to music or watching television isn't an inherently social activity either. Antonsson hedged his bet somewhat by stating that even something as simple as a high score list is enough to make a game social and "transform it to an asynchronous multiplayer experience," but he then went on to restate his belief that single-player experiences are becoming largely irrelevant to anyone outside a very niche audience.

"Now we can connect people in and around a game through real time PvP and PvE mechanics and the need for pure single player games had gone down. We have multiple plots and stories and build the meta-experience for the entire audience. The premise for making games has changed - reverted back to building multiplayer experiences that are true to the game form," he said. "This doesn't mean that we have run out of room when it comes to great single-player titles or games that make you sweat and curse every couple of minutes. It means that those titles have to be very appealing and cater well to the hardcore audience."

Source: the list daily

[b][a href='/news/view/120358-Gogogic-CEO-Says-Single-Player-is-a-Gimmick' target='_self']Permalink[/b]

I am sorry but I really can't take this seriously. I play Singleplayer all the time and never once thought "Man... This is so retarded. Why did the Developers make this shitty single player campaign?"

If I am thinking anything remotely close to that I am thinking Why did they make this shitty game at all?

How can it be a gimmick if that's how computer games actually began?

Yeah okay. Have fun convincing Bethesda that single player is a gimmick and nothing more.

Seriously though, guy's an idiot. I have single and multiplayer games. I play them for their respective purposes. Not all of them are meant to be played multiplayer. End of.

everything i could say you already stated in the article. i can see where he's coming from, but video games are an entertainment medium. the game part comes from their interactivity, but trying to limit them to MP experiences is just plain ignorant. as you said, you can read books by yourself, and listen to music and watch tv by yourself too. video games are like having all these things at the same time. they're a higher concentration of entertainment, with the added bonuses that being interactive gives them. MP is fine, but you simply can't try to alienate people who want to enjoy this by themselves either. that's just, bad business.


"Social gaming"


Excuse me whilst I laugh my balls off at this delusional idiot.

Gogo-who-the-hell? Never ever heard of them before, although that's not so strange when their apparent focus is Facebook and iOS (not mobile gaming in general, just iOS). He's just making himself sound like another case of a self-labelled know-it-all over-analysing something he's never ever involved in, which makes his opinion really hard to take seriously.

This man definitely knows what he's talking about! Proof: My brothers girlfriend has never been a gamer before and has now sunk well over 400 hours into Skyrim. Yup! Single player is for the hardcore, sir!

People like to game with their friends, like the olden days where we had to invest in several controllers and an adapter just so 2 to 4 of your friends could play.

Heck i loved to play online with friends when all we had to do was drop an ip address thru a chat client or email and all meet up.

Playing random faceless strangers online is nowhere near the same thing, and the way the vast majority behave online, where there are generally no consequences for behaving badly.

Perfect recruit for EA.

Single player gives you a consistant and immersive experince that has no risk of being ruined by other people. Calling it a gimmick just sounds ignorant


First of all: Skyrim; your argument, Antonsson, is incorrect according to FACTS.

And MMO's are definitely the best investment, as a business decision, yes?

He seems to be unable to think of a game as anything other than a contest. Videogames go way beyond simple contests.

The only multiplayer game I've played in months was Mass Effect 3's multiplayer (speaking of gimmicks), and I only did that to get my galactic readiness level up for the single player.

CEO of hitherto unknown company spews some bullshit to make the product of his company sound like the only thing anyone should ever buy. In my honest opinion, ramblings such as this aren't really newsworthy, because it is such obvious delusional tripe by someone trying to desperately rationalize the point and purpose of his company's (and, sometimes, by extension, his own) existence. We usually hear this sort of thing from clueless executives of struggling companies.

This is blatantly a statement made to get headlines. In fact, didn't someone already make more or less this exact statement a couple of years ago?

I tend to prefer multiplayer games. Longtime favorites of mine include Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Left 4 Dead 2, Draw Something... But don't tell me that Portal was gimmicky because it was single player. No, it was gimmicky because it had a portal gun (proving that gimmicks aren't inherently bad, as well).

P.S. Thanks

Welp, he's delusional. Or just plain stupid, hard to tell sometimes.

Better go off and tell the folks at Bethesda and BioWare[1] that their games are only gimmicky fads.

[1] Yes, I'm aware ME3 has multiplayer, but hush you.

Everyone, join me in saying this: "Who?"

While I acknowledge his general argument, you could strain pasta with his conclusion.

I could probably just say "Skyrim" and the "your argument is invalid" memes would start flying.

More to the point, if single-player is or has become a niche market, then explain why AAA titles that push multiplayer are down in sales, why the social gaming market is imploding, and why the independent market (populated with a vast majority with single-player games) is booming

Much as I would normally enjoy making a thoughtful and carefully considered rebuttal, my gut feeling is that the appropriate and deserved reaction to Mr. Antonsson's comment would be as follows:

*bitchslap* "WRONG!"

You know how some people love to tell you that an opinion can't be wrong, or worse, that all opinions are equally valid?

See above.


P.S. mr Antonsson, go fuck yourself, you are an idiot and have no idea what you are talking about.

"The single player mechanic is a gimmick - games are meant to be played with others and it doesn't matter if it's in-person or online,"

Yarhar, erher, yarhum.
*sharpens pitchfork*

"Playing a game is a multiplayer activity and can easily be seen as such when you watch young toddlers play by themselves. They invent someone to play with, someone that they talk to and interact with."

*lights torch*

He then went on to restate his belief that single-player experiences are becoming largely irrelevant to anyone outside a very niche audience.

Haha, wow, how tall did you say this guy was again?
*raises gallow framing*

He does have a point, solitaire games are gimmicky. But when friends or opponents are available to play games, we don't need no stinking computer or software anyway. But I guess that message would put him out of a job.

I think what he meant to say was that games are meant to be played with others and made of wood, or at the very least cardboard.

What's that noise? Oh dear it sound like Yahtzee sharpening his knives. Best watch out buddy!

does this guy need to re-learn, or just learn what sociological, and psychological constructs with respect to the human condition.

Humans by nature are adversarial creatures, and in so saying thrive emotionally on the realization of being better then another at something, and in many regards there is a high majority of people who only care about such in small context (immediate friends/family), and then there is a smaller group who has actually grown beyond such aspirations, and doesn't care if they are better then another, but only that they are better then who they were before beginning the experience (these are the people who have no inclination for leaderboards, or multiplayer whatsoever). though there is a somewhat good amount of people who adopt this adversarial nature to such a degree that they don't care about a situation unless they have the chance to prove that they are better then another, but first many of them realize that they must learn what such skills are needed so that they can be better then another.

this coincides with the fact that yes many games are/were created to be single player because they intend to tell a story (however mediocre it may be) many "casual" games have no intention of telling a story. Some do, and I applaud them for it, but the majority it is just tacked on. the concept of game goes hand, and hand with having an opponent, but it has never been proposed that the opponent had to be a person just that it had to be an opponent. the entire context of game theory only ever proposes opponent, and never says that it must be human. how bout this I have a game that is single player, and has no want or need for a multilayer aspect, and gives full realization of accomplishment upon completion. A PUZZLE, a fucking cardboard puzzle. it's a game, shows self improvement, and has an opponent yourself.

EDIT: now if you'll excuse me I have to go and calm down with a nice game of Solitaire.

Reads post. Chuckles*

Now if only I could replace 'Reapers' and the following sentance with 'Single player'. I was reminded of this video so damn fast...



OT: And who's this? I've never even heard of his company before now, let alone him, they've not even got a frikkin Wikipedia page! Get back to Facebook with your crummy soulless shovelware you hack.

Going through this in my head I can't think of anything that can be classed as playing by yourself that didn't start off as a social activity. Pong is a digital representation of Tennis which is a two to four player activity.

So I can totally see where he's coming from, but single player is not a gimmick, it's a legitimate way of gaming.

I still don't understand why he would start saying this stuff though, because it's only going to piss people off.

Dear god, I think I would break every bone in my foot before I grew tired of kicking this guy in the nuts.

How long does a feature need to be around before it's no longer considered a "gimmick"? Twenty minutes, or twenty years?

In the words of Lucille Bluth; "Let's make sure we never give him any real power."

Wanted to spew my own venom at this guy's illiterate statements but I guess I'm too late. All relevant crap has been said.

Thank you fellow Escapist readers.

Welp, he's delusional. Or just plain stupid, hard to tell sometimes.

Better go off and tell the folks at Bethesda and BioWare[1] that their games are only gimmicky fads.

*cough* TOR *cough* Dragon Age Facebook game *cough* Mass Effect social games integration for war readiness *cough* Elder Scrolls Online *cough*

[1] Yes, I'm aware ME3 has multiplayer, but hush you.

It's almost as if he only makes social games and therefor has every motivation to egregiously lie to people about the nature of interactive media.

Yeah gaming with friends is great.

So is reading a great book, or like, playing a great single player campaign. Discuss it with your friends later.

You have attempted to veil your self-promotion as a tactful argument and failed miserably.


*pst* his annotation

Aside from the obvious "who?", there's a degree of bias considering he's a social game developer.

Books are such a gimmick. The first stories were told in groups, but back when books were invented it was impossible to create a book that could tell its story to a group. Now that we have books on tape, written books will be irrelevant for anyone outside a very niche audience.

Every time I take a nap, Every. Damn. Time.
Maybe he's a Mormon and doesn't aprove of people playing with themselves.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here