Is Multiplayer Killing Itself From Overuse?

[wonkify]

When so many games feel they must offer a multiplayer component, doesn't it result in watering the MMO pool down? Doesn't it insure most games will only have a few months at the most of people using multiplayer because another title is shortly released, also with multiplayer?

How many people are still playing the Aliens Vs. Predator multiplayer these days? Or Bioshock 2? Or so many other really good titles? Is it really worth the effort to have yet another version of Capture the Flag or King of the Hill? I just don't see anyone wondering about this and would really like to hear what my gamer friends who also play many of these games think about this.

Thanks.

 

[Julianking93]

I understand your point and perhaps it is accurate but my own personal opinion leads me to believe that people won't tire of "T bagging" as many people they can on any game as long as the servers stay up.

 

[theComposer]

Multiplayer is much more pervasive these days, yes, but I'm not sure it's killing itself. Some games have very polished experiences that put them miles above the rest. Then others, like Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood and Portal 2, look to introduce new ideas into the multiplayer arena.

 

[Worgen]

I wouldnt mind playing more bioshock 2 multi but since it uses games for windows live its laggy as hell and pretty hard to find a game so I dont bother

 

[Dana22]

How many people are still playing 10yo Counter Strike ? Tens of thousands.

 

[theSovietConnection]

The thing is the initial sale. How many people bought those games for the multiplayer, even if they didn't play it very long?

 

[gummydrop]

There will always be 1 or 2 shining star games that everyone flocks to. A lot of times multiplayer is just an extra feature tacked on, people will still go back to COD or Halo or what have you because other games online just isn't as good.

 

[Bon_Clay]

What I'm getting pissed about is the type of multiplayer focus they have. One of my most favourite console game features has been co-op multiplayer on the same TV. What about us poor chums who have real friends instead of online friends. Online multiplayer is a great option to have too, but most seem to be really half assing the offline aspect recently.

 

[kouriichi]

Multiplayer covers to wide an area to truly kill itself. You have the hardcore, softcore, co-op, and friend based multiplayers, and thats all without including!

Multiplayer will never die, because no matter how deep in theyer cave a troll lives, humans are lonely creatures who need interaction with others on a daily basis.

Plus t-bagging someone after and jawesome frag never gets old!

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

It's an interesting problem.

On the one hand, successful "multiplayer focused" games like Halo and MW2 make an absolute killing. It seems perfectly logical that developers would attempt to mimic those successes with similarly focused products.

Thing is: multiplayer games have "legs". They aren't consumed at the same rate as single-player games; you don't "finish" Halo/MW2 so much as you grow tired of it. That might take months, during which period you're not exactly chomping at the bit to buy more $60 games.

Yes, MW2 kills it for Activision on the front-end, but doesn't the popularity of CoD multiplayer actually suppress the sales of other Activision games? How many hugely successful multiplayer games can the multiplayer community simultaneously support? At what point does focusing on multiplayer turn into something of a lost cause?

Say what you want about those single-player "dinosaurs", but people FINISH them. Then they buy another one. That's another $60 in some dev/publisher pocket. A multiplayer game doesn't engender the same sort of product movement.

 

[Mikeyfell]

I don't think that's the problem.
games with multyplayer have almost nothing else. Halo 3, Call of Duty, Bioshock 2, Gears of War. and MoH, have stupid short shrift single player campaigns. I played Bioshock 1 for 16 hours and I only got half way through, I finished Bioshock 2 in 10. MW2 only took me 6 hours, and I died about a million times. if If I put my mind to it I could beat MW2 in 3 hours. Halo 3 is hardly an 8 hour game.
crap like that isn't worth $60
being called a fag online isn't worth that much to me
and calling someone a fag online shouldn't be worth that much to anyone
I don't know why these games sell.

 

[Marmooset]

It's true - I've grown tired of thrashing folks online.

Anyone know of a nice single player forum?

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I have the same problem with the "popular games" since yesterday i tried playing some regional online multiplayer of TF War for Cybertron and found that its gone from 6000 players online to a measly 1000 and thats if i'm on at the right time of day and even their escalation mode is a joke because i'm always put with one guy and we end up at wave 10 without 2 other players even joining and thats with the regional and worldwide search.

I just feel really pissed at the fact i did play MW2 and Halo 3 and some multi on Reach and feel that because of their title status they are instantly popular and thus steal the light from almost every recent game within the past few months, making the past few months games unplayable online.

And when i tried to play some decent Red Dead online that was also a joke along with trying some Resi 5, and i take a look to see what my friends are doing on their 360 and i see a whole list of HALO FRIGGIN REACH!. Yes iv'e played Halo games before and got sick of the plot and t bagging a long time ago and the same has to go for MW2 but bioshock 2 multi on the other hand was quite good even if it was laggy.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

This seems to be more of a problem for the console community than the PC community. I've been playing PC games online since 2002 or so, and if there's anything I've learned in that time, it's that almost any game will have some kind of following, a group of diehards that stick with it not for months, but for years -- or even decades. Some games, like Quake III, Counterstrike, and TF2, have more people over that time period, but almost any game will have someone sticking around.

I don't play console games online, so I'm mostly going off of second and third hand sources here, but it seems like console games don't get that kind of dedication. Once the next big thing comes out, you see the majority of players jumping ship. My guess as to why this happens is the lack of a sense of community, due to the lack of dedicated servers, but who knows why, really? Point being, most games having multiplayer, or even being multiplayer focused, doesn't have to be a bad thing for the industry as a whole -- it's been the standard for PC games for close to 15 years now, and almost every game on the platform has found some kind of niche. For some reason, console games have shorter legs than PC games, and while it would be interesting and beneficial for the industry to find out why, it doesn't mean that widespread multiplayer is necessarily bad in and of itself.

 

[weezer0w0]

DLC for MW2 is $15 a pop, and that's including 2 maps that were gutted from MW1. Activision is doing just fine. Everybody knows that any single player only title is going to drop 50% of its price tag in a year or less. Multiplayer dominant games retain their value MUCH longer than single player games.. this is no mystery just look at any retailer.

The issue that the OP brought up, however, is valid imo. The communities for each game are spread so thin because every game has a multiplayer component. Problem is the multiplayer for those games usually doesn't amount to much considering they're tacked on, laggy, and just another carbon copy of every game already out there. People stop playing those games and are forced to consume new multiplayer games either because they dislike the game itself or because the community is so small that its impossible to get a good game going regardless of whether the game itself is good or not.

The games that are worth playing have much stronger communities-- with the exception of MW2, which is a multiplayer community solely based on the success of Activision's marketing department.

As far as why players choose multi? Cause its no fun outsmarting AI.. but good multiplayer games have communities that collectively adapt new strategies keeping the game you love fresh, new, & exhilarating for much longer than most single player games can offer.

 

[Hazzaslagga]

I did use to like the avp game but the reason i stopped is mainly because of the bloody ridiculous LAG! seriously this game has more lag than any other multiplayer game i've ever played on xbox live. but then again multiplayer can just be played from time to time or in conjunction with your friends which is fun.

 

[StBishop]

DLC for MW2 is $15 a pop, and that's including 2 maps that were gutted from MW1. Activision is doing just fine. Everybody knows that any single player only title is going to drop 50% of its price tag in a year or less. Multiplayer dominant games retain their value MUCH longer than single player games.. this is no mystery just look at any retailer.

The issue that the OP brought up, however, is valid imo. The communities for each game are spread so thin because every game has a multiplayer component. Problem is the multiplayer for those games usually doesn't amount to much considering they're tacked on, laggy, and just another carbon copy of every game already out there. People stop playing those games and are forced to consume new multiplayer games either because they dislike the game itself or because the community is so small that its impossible to get a good game going regardless of whether the game itself is good or not.

The games that are worth playing have much stronger communities-- with the exception of MW2, which is a multiplayer community solely based on the success of Activision's marketing department.

As far as why players choose multi? Cause its no fun outsmarting AI.. but good multiplayer games have communities that collectively adapt new strategies keeping the game you love fresh, new, & exhilarating for much longer than most single player games can offer.

Nice first post, Welcome to The Circus of Value Escapist.

OT: I haven't noticed this on console as I don't really use my consoles for online play, I just feel more at home playing online with a mouse & keyboard.
That being said, I do know what you mean. There's too many games trying to get in on that multiplayer action and not enough of them are doing it really well, it's the same as all of the attempted WoW-killers who just can't seem to keep the fans for long enough to build a community.

I assume that this would also apply to the various other multiplayer games that either use stupid 3rd party programs or are on console.

I also miss local co-op. I prefer to play with people I know, I never really got into multiplayer Vs against randoms. It just doesn't seem like a worthy win, I always just feel like I've beaten someone who's never played before or is drunk or high or something. Where as when I'm versing my friends it seems alot more like my skill that made me win.

I don't really think that multiplayer is killing it's self, just making it a more competetive industry. You need to make quite good multiplayer these days to keep your audience happy. and most games don't deliver that anymore, they just tack it on for kicks and to make the publishers/investors happy.

 

[Vrach]

It's an interesting problem.

On the one hand, successful "multiplayer focused" games like Halo and MW2 make an absolute killing. It seems perfectly logical that developers would attempt to mimic those successes with similarly focused products.

Thing is: multiplayer games have "legs". They aren't consumed at the same rate as single-player games; you don't "finish" Halo/MW2 so much as you grow tired of it. That might take months, during which period you're not exactly chomping at the bit to buy more $60 games.

Yes, MW2 kills it for Activision on the front-end, but doesn't the popularity of CoD multiplayer actually suppress the sales of other Activision games? How many hugely successful multiplayer games can the multiplayer community simultaneously support? At what point does focusing on multiplayer turn into something of a lost cause?

Say what you want about those single-player "dinosaurs", but people FINISH them. Then they buy another one. That's another $60 in some dev/publisher pocket. A multiplayer game doesn't engender the same sort of product movement.

I love the fact I read your post in Farnsworth's voice

OT: I don't think it's an issue. While devs will attach a multiplayer component to most games (although Bioshock Infinite may change that and people start following suit), few-none of them are actually good. Most games are either meant for single or multiplayer, simple as that (few do pull both off and it's looking like MMOs are going to go down that route a bit by the look of upcoming titles).

I really don't think anyone says no to a good single player game just because they're playing a multiplayer one, barring some MMOs (and even there most real gamers still keep playing single player games), but the ones that can keep a real gamer going without single player games usually do the monthly subscription thing, so cost-effective wise, it's all good.

A multiplayer game doesn't cost more than a single player one, so you're not thinking "should I get a multiplayer game or save my money for a few games down the line". I know a lot of people playing all sorts of multiplayers, WoW, MW2, BC2 etc. and they still have more than enough time to play a single player game on the side.

A multiplayer game is more like "a bit every now and then" or something to tide you over while single player releases hit. I mean look at the current state of gaming. Personally, I have literally nothing to play right now, WoW is dry and I've played through every single player game that I found even remotely interesting and backtracked to play some I missed or passed up. Gaming wise, I'm twiddling my thumbs looking at multiplayers to give me something to fuck around with until the single player games hit.

There's room in the world for both. If anything, we need more multiplayers or rather, more different ones. I for one am really excited hearing a Battlefield 3 is planned as it was my favourite multiplayer FPS for it's large maps, vehicles and versatility (Bad Company 2 is interesting, but not quite the same concept).

The recent reintroduction of co-op into gaming is fantastic news as well. Console users had it a bit better, but PC gaming was really dry for co-ops for a long time, I'm always looking around for something to play just with 1-few mates (I prefer co-op to PvP, there's a lot more of a team feeling to it for me). MW2 multiplayer might get a lot of flak from some but I think most if not all can agree it's co-op is undeniably kickass. L4D is also ridiculously popular and I'm putting my bets at a long starvation for a great co-op game.

I think I also have a perfect analogy for the matter. Single players are movies. Multiplayers are shows/series. You can watch 20 episodes in a single season of a show/series, but you're only watching one movie. That doesn't at all cheapen movies, they're unique experiences we all love and are usually extra excited for (when they're good). But we watch the shows and series between the movies to keep ourselves entertained. It doesn't mean shows/series are somehow less valuable either, we have fantastic pieces of entertainment there too.

So yeah, all in all, I don't think it's killing itself nor is it a matter of overuse, just a matter of expansion. Single player ruled for a long time, this is just the field getting evened.