A new survey has found that over half of gamers prefer to play single-player titles.

According to Midia Research, this game mode is most popular across all platforms – particularly on mobile, with 58% of respondents saying they preferred single-player games.

The data from the survey was collected from Midia Research’s Q1 2024 and Q1 2023 consumer surveys across the US, UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, Poland, Turkey, and South Africa.

Research found that older gamers were more drawn to single-player titles, with 74% of gamers aged over 55 choosing to play games solo.

  • JackGreenEarth@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I like casual games, I don’t like the competitiveness or stress of some games, I only really play Minecraft multiplayer, and would play SDV MP too if I had someone to play with, but otherwise singleplayer is more relaxed.

  • qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Honestly I love multiplayer gamers because I like meeting people. There’s plenty of wholesome lobby games and some more intense games both have their benefits. Most people hate intense lobbies because of people who can’t handle the heat and freak out, but it’s really fun holding the team together or seeing someone do that. Both types of games and lobbies are fun to me. I get why people only want single player games though

  • brap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    1 day ago

    Well that graph sums my situation up. Got old, had a kid, don’t have the time nor inclination to get all sweaty playing against those half my age.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 day ago

      That’s basically what happened to me. I still love pvp games, I just don’t have the time. It’s much more conducive to my lifestyle to play a game I can just pause at any moment and switch to something I need to do.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    1 day ago

    “Prefer”… when you’re young, you’ve got time to burn online without distractions.

    Then you get married, have kids, work a demanding job, and you don’t get time for uninterrupted online play.

    Eventually, correspondence chess is the only gaming you have time for! /s

  • Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 day ago

    For me single player is number one followed by low pressure multiplayer with friends. Can be co op or PvP but the main thing is casual and low stress. Already have enough of that in my real life.

  • Cory@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 hours ago

    I prefer single player over live service. I don’t mind the occasional multiplayer game, but prefer single player story based games.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 hours ago

    That may well be true, but a single player game can only take your money once.

    A multiplayer game will take it over and over again. They’re all just chasing that Fortnite high, aiming to be that game all the sweaty streamers play and their viewers pump money into.

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    Understandable if you grew up playing CoD/Halo, or even follow scrubquotes on twitter.

    • brsrklf@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      I mean, there were lots of multiplayer games when I grew up, before CoD or Halo, but still.

      Doesn’t change that I dislike most of these.

  • Evotech@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 hours ago

    Particularity on mobile…

    I mean I get that mobile gamers dont wanna play multiplayer. But is this representative outside of mobile too?

  • GingaNinga@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I prefer RPG, interesting narratives and “experiences”. I also used to be really into multiplayer games like halo 3, MW2, battlefield 4/bad company2 and even rainbow 6 siege. Whats turned me off of all that is aggressive monetization and super competitive sweat fests. It feels like all the fun/soul in those “good oll’ days” games just isn’t there anymore. Peak fun for me was maxed out halo 3 custom games and they just don’t make them like that anymore.

    • brygphilomena@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 day ago

      I can’t stand the competitiveness now. Like, I know I suck and I’ll never be good because quick reactions aren’t my jam.

      I still want to play every now and then, but since I play infrequently I really need something with a very simple mechanic. 30 characters to pick from is overwhelming and I can’t learn how to level up and pick a character build during the 10 minute matches and I’m not going to study builds before I play games casually. And I feel bad when I’m trying to learn and I sink the team. Like who wants to be the one that causes a dozen other people to not have fun or get frustrated. Give me counterstrike. You get good guys or bad guys. Then a handful of guns in very specific categories.

      I really like RPGs where I can take my time and learn the game. Where mechanics arent too crazy and where there is only one currency in the game.

      I feel like it’s become too complicated to pick up some games now.

      You’ve got normal gold, then some weird premium gold that you get at a much slower rate. And somehow a third currency that you can only buy.

      There are hundreds of build paths, and somehow within the first 5 levels before you even know the game or whats good you have to make a decision and lock yourself out of half of them.

      Each character has a gimmicky different way to level up or learn moves.

      Then there are mini games, where you have to collect things or others where you now need to level up in a whole different way. And then lock out entire portions of the main game unless you spend a dozen hours playing a mini game that really isn’t that fun.

      But I digress, I really like single player that at this point are pretty easy to get into and start having fun or experience the story right away.

    • Frozengyro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think people like a variety of games too. I mostly play solo, and enjoy that, but also have a ton of fun playing with friends and family at times too.

      • taladar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        A lot of those multiplayer games aren’t really designed for people who like variety though if you have to compete with people who have played nothing but that game for 1000 hours a year for the last 7 years.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    I recommend taking a look at the full original article, the summary linked here may be a bit misleading. https://www.midiaresearch.com/blog/most-gamers-prefer-single-player-games

    This breakdown chart, in particular is very interesting. https://www.midiaresearch.com/storage/uploads/paragraphs/dbdbaba91de72cd615d8be1a0119cfca

    Turns out that yes, slightly more than 50% of the people they surveyed prefer solo, but that’s distorted by older people going HARD towards that option. Every segment below 45 years old skews slightly towards multiplayer, although the split between what type of multiplayer is pretty even.

    Gotta say, I HATE that PvP is the preference across all age groups among multiplayer fans. Outside of asynchronous competition, leaderboards and fighting games I profoundly dislike realtime PvP.

    • Dr. Bob@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      The Kingdom of Loathing guys (Jick and Mr Skullhead) had a development approach to keep their game system balanced. They felt that players had different primary motivations/enjoyment in the game and they wanted to make sure there was something for everyone. They divided players into four groups: Hearts, Clubs, Spades, and Diamonds.

      Hearts enjoyed the social aspects of the game and would use the chat system and clans extensively.

      Clubs were the PvP crowd and weren’t happy unless there were meaningful opportunities to battle other players.

      Spades are explorers and look to every nook and cranny of the environment, and are interested in underlying game mechanics (this is me).

      Diamonds are collectors and completists. They will scour environments to ensure they got everything and do all the sides because they want all the stuff.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeeeah, the motivations stuff for game design is very popular right now with devs big and small. It kinda rubs me the wrong way, although it’s hard to articulate exactly why.

        I think it sits at an intersection of still wanting to look at players as behavioral data, but at the same time being sorta generic and too broad to inform much of anything specific. Still, that’s not to say you can’t do good work using it.

        • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The reason why it might be fucked up is that while the KoL guys might design such a system to create game design that is fulfilling to all these groups, the MBA in charge of the development of an AAA game is going to be “how do we best monetize all these motivations”, as in “how do we exploit all these disparate personalities to make this game as fucked up addictive as possible for everyone”.

          • MudMan@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            There are remarkably few MBAs acting as creative directors, but it’s true that the place where the motivations framework thing is most popular is triple A games as a service stuff. Honestly, it’s mostly used as a way for creatives just doing game designery things to explain how the game designery things align with the marketingy things and the businessy things. That’s part of why I don’t love it, it doesn’t really do much, it’s mostly a translation layer.

    • SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      I feel like the reason people like pvp is because, well, humans are like the most advanced AI opponents and teammates you can have in a game. Most games struggle creating fun, realistic, and challenging AI opponents because it’s generally really difficult to do so.

      • MudMan@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Is that good, though? I don’t want realistic and challenging AI opponents, at least not most of the time. It works for a 1v1 fighting game, but you don’t want every enemy in Diablo being a smart, human-like entity capable of min/maxing their build and acting with real self preservation. You want them to act as a pincushion so you can test if your build is doing good damage and to watch them pop like so much bubble wrap.

        So yeah, for 1v1 fighting games I want a human, but that’s not an intrinsically better solution than a “dumb” AI. It’s the opposite of that in most games, I’d say.