I just caught an interesting discussion on Gamasutra (and Gamespot) about online games and the future of games themselves.

"The entire video game industry's history thus far has been an aberration," Koster told the audience. "It has been a mutant monster only made possible by unconnected computers. People always play games together. All of you learned to play games with each other. When you were kids, you played tag, tea parties, cops and robbers, what have you. The single-player game is a strange mutant monster which has only existed for 21 years and is about to go away because it is unnatural and abnormal."

Online distribution of software is awesome and a natural thing. As one of the speakers pointed out, if you could download a program and start using it right now, why would you want to go to a store to purchase a box with a CD in it? I certainly wouldn't.

Valve is doing a very exciting experiment in online distribution with their Steam product and I expect more companies to do it with business software. For games in particular, OD promises to shake up the publishing business model/structure which I think will be a good thing for consumers. Online distribution systems like Steam also provide a much better system for preventing piracy than CD-protection schemes. Yet another benefit is the ability to collect user data on behavior and system specs. Very, very cool.

"Linear entertainment in single-player is to media what masturbation is to sex," Butler said. "It'll always be there, but it is not the real experience."

Be that as it may, Koster suggested that even the games that say "for one player" on their boxes have largely ceased to be solitary experiences.

"The players, once they go connected, they don't go back," Koster explained. "They find it difficult to go back to experiences where they can't share experiences with others. Even any single-player game today is going to have wrapped around it the forums, the cheat sites, and so on endlessly."

Will single-player games really disappear as online multi-player games get better. Are single player games akin to masturbation? While this is an interesting idea (and attention grabber) but I dont think I quite agree.

I love online games and much, much prefer to play other people than the PC. Beating a person is just much more satisfying than beating a computer. But it depends on the game.

Online role playing games like Everquest very much lend themselves to the online format. Indeed they require the online format to create sufficient variety to form a believable community. On the other hand, strategy games, turn-based games, and games that are very complex do not lend themselves to the online format. Having to schedule time with other players can make these games unplayable. One example of this is a game like the Total War series that doesnt even include an online option. Much to my disappointment, the "online play" is only the RTS battles and not the strategic (and much more interesting) aspect of the game.

When I log into Everquest or City of Heroes, I want to see other people there. If i am the only person in a zone, it's depressing and isolating. I very much enjoyed playing Age of Wonders with my friends but we are busy people and it was always hard to find a time we could all play. On the other hand, I much enjoy my time playing Civilization4, alone.

I look forward to advancements in online games but I hope someone continues to develop single-player non-RTS games.