He threw down a current year argument. Not sure how you counter that kind of mic drop.
I guess it’s also important to remember a lot of designers have no control over the marketing (or sometimes even the additional development) of their games once they’ve sold them over.
I’m not bothered about solo modes and I get angry at crap two player modes in 3+ player games. I’d rather the game was the best game it can be and be honest about player count.
Oh, Among the Stars – I ignored it for several years because my first experience was the rubbish 2-player mode that’s much less fun than the 3- or 4-player proper game.
I can see why solo modes are popular, particularly with the pandemic. I generally don’t solo games, but I’m lucky that my wife is my main gaming partner. I have found solo modes of multiplayer games to be fun in and of themselves, but also as a good way of learning a game. I can certainly appreciate why it’s important to some people for games to have a solo mode.
Solo game designs seem to be amazing right now and there is a huge amount of variety. However, even as a game buyer I’m never going to buy a solo only game. Again I’m lucky and am also very happy to play online (and have people to play with) in real time or async.
Clearly the position that all games should be soloable is a bit daft but I can see why a lot of people would desire it. I bet games that are 1-4 or 1-5 are going to sell better than 2-4. There seemed to be a fad a couple of years ago that all games could be competitive, co-op or semi co-op but as far as I can see that’s reduced so perhaps this desire for solo modes will as well.
There is a big role within the industry (The David Tzurci role currently) for someone who can produce good solo experiences to multiplayer games.
The 1 Player Guild on BGG had become the biggest guild there (overtaking The Dice Tower) before the pandemic. (And all the members of it I’ve met are Good Things.) Clearly solo is big. I flirt on the edge of it: I prefer to play in a group, but my wife isn’t interested in games, and I play solo occasionally.
I think there’s justifiable ill-feeling when a publisher says “this is a 2-5 player game” when for no extra effort they could say “or you can multi-hand it for solo”. (Ideally making that explicit.) But I’m just as happy with some fan-written solo modes as with one that comes in the box.
As a committed soloist I have no issue with two handing (See Frosthaven) although all my favourite games for solos have solo modes.
See Leaving Earth and Pandemic fall of Rome as examples.
How about a game that insists it’s 4 player and is really only enjoyed by solo-players? (Tapestry comes to mind).
A solo mode needs to give me a good puzzle to tackle. Calico does that, Sprawlopolis does that and so does Sagani. Nusfjord does it in its own special way–and as a solo it is really quick–since the variety comes from market setup it doesn’t quite become an optimization puzzle or rather no more than a multiplayer game I assume (I’ve never played it except as a solo).
Demanding that all games have a solo-mode is… way off the mark. There are so many solo modes out there in multiplayer games that we can have a discussion about different styles of solo modes 
Not every style of game is suited to solo-ing and despite the much lamented “multiplayer solitaire” genre, many games need the special sauce of interactivity to make them work.
I agree with the sentiment that more honesty about what player counts work would be best. I use the BGG community estimates a lot for that.
Also: crappy 2 player modes are just as bad as crappy solo modes. But nobody wants to sell a game that’s exclusively good at 5 players.
Unexpectedly good solo modes, I’ve enjoyed and that may not be all that well-known:
My main requirement for solo-ing is: minimize the additional rules I have to internalize and the solo-only rules exceptions and if it is an automa make it EASY and easily READABLE. (Shouting in the direction of a certain D. Turczi especially regarding Imperium: Classics/Legends, great solo mode incredibly hard to grok–maybe it’s just me… who knows.)
Looks like our groupe has played Pandemic wrongly
Or I’m mis-remembering. Well, I am slightly.
“Players may openly discuss strategies during the game, but like the real world, the players do not immediately know everything that the other players do. To simulate this, if you are playing the Normal or Heroic Games, players may not show the contents of their hands to their fellow players during the game. Players may however, freely tell each other what cards they have. The Introductory Game has no such restriction and players may decide to play their hands openly.”
I’ve always found the “you can say whatever you want but you can’t show them” bit of Pandemic obnoxious.
I’m an adult; I have to remember so many important things (like not drinking before noon? That rule was clearly made by someone who doesn’t have children), don’t make me try to memorize the contents of each of my friends’ hands.
I’m pretty ruthless about house-ruling that kind of crap immediately. If you don’t have a seriously warranted mechanical reason to introduce a memory element into the game, it’s gotta go.
I think the intention is to prevent one person mathsing the whole game out.
Yeah, but quarterbacks are going to quarterback; keeping cards hidden is just going to get them demanding to hear everyone’s cards again every 3 minutes.
But I do believe that was the intent
Flash Point has no such concealment element; my response to the person who tells other people what to do is “please don’t do that”.