Gearbox Boss Says Multiplayer Is Not Always the Answer

Logan Westbrook

Transform, Roll Out, Etc
Feb 21, 2008
17,672
0
0
Gearbox Boss Says Multiplayer Is Not Always the Answer

Games should be true to their concept, says the Gearbox head, and not worry too much about feature lists.

Gearbox's Randy Pitchford thinks that developers and publishers should think twice before adding multiplayer modes to games in an effort to get more people to buy them. He thinks that all too often, publishers tried to replicate the success of games like Call of Duty by shoving death matches and co-op modes in where they didn't belong.

Pitchford thought that trying to tick boxes on a features list made it all but impossible to make good decisions for a game. He said that publishers noticed that the most successful games tended to offer something for everyone, and so tried to replicate that. The problem with that approach, he said, was that not every concept allowed for every feature. "You have people that want co-op and competitive, and players who want to immerse themselves in deep fiction. But the concept has to speak to that automatically; it can't be forced. That's the problem."

He cited the Dead Space series as an example, which he felt had a upper sales ceiling of around 4-5 million units. In an effort to raise that ceiling, he said, a multiplayer mode had been added to Dead Space 2, despite the game not being very well suited for it. He could understand why the decisions were made - not to mention who made them - but said that they weren't the right way to go. "[T]he publisher is thinking, 'When I put my money in ... I want the high number to be as high as possible,'" Pitchford said. "He's a money guy, he has no creative investment. He's putting money on the table and wants a return. For him, the worst-case scenario is that he just gets it back."

He said that the best thing to do with a series like Dead Space - or indeed, other franchises that didn't really lend themselves to being the next Call of Duty - was to acknowledge that the ceiling was there, and then try and get as close to it as possible by focusing on the game's core concept.

It's hard to see too many people disagreeing with Pitchford. Not every game needs multiplayer modes, but unfortunately, the tricky part is getting publishers to realize this. Exceptions do exist of course - Rocksteady recently announced [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/107741-The-Rumors-of-Batman-Arkham-Citys-Multiplayer-Are-Greatly-Exaggerated] that it wasn't going to include any multiplayer modes in Batman: Arkham City because it would detract from the single player game - but the trend seems very much to be heading in that direction, whether it works or not.

Source: Edge [http://www.next-gen.biz/news/pitchford-bemoans-multiplayer-obsession]




Permalink
 

Art Axiv

Cultural Code-Switcher
Dec 25, 2008
662
0
0
A-MEN. I fully and completely agree with the gentlemen from Gearbox and the commentary from Logan.
 

Squilookle

New member
Nov 6, 2008
3,584
0
0
Someone buy him a beer. Couldn't agree more.

I'd say you're far more likely to raise your returns ceiling by locking down what you have and polishing it into the best experience it can be than slapping on a new feature to attract a larger audience. In my experience the best advertising is word of mouth AFTER a release, because it isn't fooled by shiny graphics or feature lists.

And if you MUST have multiplayer, recognise that if it's reliant on people only for enjoyment, it will die fast as everyone moves on to other games/better games.

In short: INCLUDE MULTIPLAYER BOTS!
 

Sonicron

Do the buttwalk!
Mar 11, 2009
5,133
0
0
Thank you, Captain Obvious.

Oh well, at least a developer gets it and is outspoken about it. +1 Respect, Mr Pitchford.
 

octafish

New member
Apr 23, 2010
5,137
0
0
I'd just like to point out that Battlefield 3 the first "real" Battlefield game in many a moon is introducing a single player campaign. DICE say it is a way for newbs to learn the weapons, and vehicles before they enter the multi-player. You know what could achieve that? Bots. I'd much prefer to buy multi-player games or single-player games not a compromised hybrid.

Ninja-ed on the bots. I think bots are only really possible with the processor power available to PCs, but that shouldn't be a reason that games like Battlefield 3 shouldn't have them, or why there shouldn't be larger maps for 64 players.
 

Neverhoodian

New member
Apr 2, 2008
3,832
0
0
Good, another voice of reason in the current culture's teabag-obsessed-Russian-roulette-monkey-house multiplayer fixation.

Multiplayer games can be terrific experiences (particularly with at least halfway courteous players), but not every game needs one. I've seen plenty of games that would probably have been better off if they had spent just a little more time and effort polishing the single player instead of tacking on a multiplayer mode.
 

InitHello

New member
May 4, 2010
14
0
0
It's about time someone in the industry realized this. I've seen too many games that would be brilliant SP-only titles ruined because the developers neglected the storyline and visual design to hammer multiplayer support in there.
 

RuralGamer

New member
Jan 1, 2011
953
0
0
Nice to see that some people out there in the gaming industry are against the 'multiplayerisation' of every game conceivable; can you imagine Mass Effect 2 or Fallout New Vegas having multiplayer; they'd be nightmarish because the systems were never conceived with MP in mind and over time, the multiplayer element would become the focus at the expense of the SP. Call of Duty, I feel is a sad example of this; the first few games, in my view, were very much story-orientated, with decent, but not great MP. Call of Duty 4 had brilliant story and a good multiplayer. Treyarch tried to copy it with a WW2 twist, which was ok, but not great. Since then though, I've been unimpressed with the campaigns of MW2 and BlOps because they're so scripted and more about the spectacle than the substance. That's what I feel anyway. Also, they're too short/ the feel to short. I don't understand why a lot MP-focused games even bother having a story mode, I mean look at Battlefield 2; not a whiff of SP, because that would have been unnecessary; part of me at times feels that games should just be one or the other.
 

anthony87

New member
Aug 13, 2009
3,727
0
0
.......I liked the Dead Space 2 multiplayer :/

Except for when a team mate decided to slice me in half with a line gun. Still looked cool though.
 

Aurgelmir

WAAAAGH!
Nov 11, 2009
1,566
0
0
That said I have played some Multiplayer Games that I had never thought would work out, but which I enjoyed quite a lot.

Uncharted 2s Multi-player for instance. And Metal Gear Online was also quite fun. Sadly neither of these games kept me entertained for long. This is mainly because I am not a big fan of Multi player Shooters... or competitive multi-player in general... SC2 is a huge exception for me it seems.
 

josemlopes

New member
Jun 9, 2008
3,950
0
0
Multiplayer isnt a bad thing but some games just arent made for them and publishers must learn to see wich games can have multiplayer and wich games cant.
 

The Wykydtron

"Emotions are very important!"
Sep 23, 2010
5,458
0
0
Dead Space 2's MP was just one big clusterfuck... So clusterfucky in fact it made me wonder if they designed it that way...

Oh and Mr Pitchford... I salute you!


 

Adzma

New member
Sep 20, 2009
1,287
0
0
Nice to hear a sane Designer for once. My respect for Pitchford keeps going higher and higher.

This is exactly why publishers are going to cause the second crash in video games. Maybe not Indie and casual games, but if AAA hardcore titles continue along this course it's a question of when, not if.
 

Digikid

New member
Dec 29, 2007
1,030
0
0
SOrry but most of YOU guys and Randy is dead WRONG. The addition of multiplayer is an excellent choice regardless of the game.

What they NEED to do is bring back split screen playing instead of this "you wanna play against someone they will have to pay for a copy as well and have high speed net to do it" crap.
 

SemiHumanTarget

New member
Apr 4, 2011
124
0
0
i absolutely agree with Pitchford, but at the same time, I feel he may be guilty of a little hypocrisy. Gearbox's approach to Duke Nukem seems to be to out-Duke the original Duke, presumably to boost sales. In the original Duke 3D, yeah you could tip strippers and Duke had a couple of one-liners, but in the new iteration it seems like all that lechery and chauvinism is a required mechanic in the game. Based on trailers, it seems they're practically forcing you to, at best, passively sit through these sequences, and, at worst, physically participate (ie, the "capture the babe" mode). This is nothing like what the original Duke 3D was like and it's disappointing that Gearbox seems to be putting controversy first and gameplay second.