Is multiplayer the new DRM?

[Vault101]

so Its become pretty clear to me that there is a trend of more or less recent times to put multiplayer into games that would have otherwise not needed it....

I say trend because by the time they anounced it for God of War...well come on..god of war (not to mention Deadspace 2, Mass effect 3, arguably Assasins creed and max payne 3? If I'm hearing correctly?)

now regardless of weather or not those multiplayers were actually anygood [small/](I did put in some considerable time playing ME3 multiplayer)[/small] is beside the point, I doubt they are really there because people seriously wanedt that kind of thing in those particular games...

..no, it seems that putting in multiplayer is the new way of fighting the industrys new bogeyman...[b/]used games[/b]

because without that then people don;t gain anything buy buying a new copy..or lose anything for buying used

(do you think mabye if we remind them that the PC has no used games market they'll stop treating it like an inconvinience?...no..probably not)

you know..online passes are becoming more and more common, now granted there have been other stuff...like extra content and pre-order bonuses..kind of like that thing with RAGE in sealing off a part of the single player...

but back to the point...do you think this is harmful to single player? do you think they are going to come up with more and more ways to make buying used less and less apealing? mabye the question is kind of redundant..since there are rumours of now next (somwhat soon) generation doing away with used games altogether

eather way I suspect more DRM for consoles

 

[Terminate421]

I'm not following the discussion value other than DRM is used to get people an incentive to buy games new.

Its just the industry trying to fight something that it has difficulty doing so.

 

[Terminate421]

not just a new form of DRM but if EA's model is anything to go by when they switch off the multiplayer servers in 12-18 months its to encourage you to buy the latest version

Don't forget that those games were not popular at all, so despite the passes and DRM and shit, even breaking their promise, I failed to see the point of keeping those games' servers up if it cost them money.

Othewise at this point, Dead Space 2 goes out the window (And I KNOW people still play that.

 

[Antari]

Adding multiplayer to most games these days is a doddle, since they've been using the exact same networking setup in most games for well over 10 years. Its like taking the wheel in its most basic form, throwing a new coat of paint on it, and claiming they've reinvented it. I don't see it as trying to combat anything but production costs.

Specifically the point of Multiplayer isn't really being used to accomplish anything beyond having another option available over its competition. Weather that option is of any use to anyone isn't even being considered. Its just another draw for the customer as they see it. But yes it does hurt single player. As much as they try to make sure it doesn't impact single player, focus to even the smallest degree on multiplayer will restrict the game severely in what it can and can't do. Because the first rule of multiplayer is restriction of abilities to reduce netcode congestion. The less variables the better. Using an already existing engine with netcode for a multiplayer game reduces production costs and time. Even though computing power and average internet speeds have increased over the years, multiplayer games are STILL running 8/16/32 player sets. For no reason other than to save money and time. In some cases its even taken a few steps back with 4 player multiplayer.

As for the Used games market, they have plenty of other ways to cause havoc for people and businesses there. They have tried it both ways, heavy handed administration or crazy over engineered software. Both ended up costing them money. We can expect far more invasive and creative means from them in the future. Think USB key generators. And yes you have to pay for it.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Actually, there is some good reasoning to that argument.
Multiplayer is designed to hold the player's attention long after they completed the Single Player component of the same game.

Players who are attached to their game are far less likely to sell it back immediately.
As a bonus, they also become more exposed to DLC offerings and such, and so the incentive to milk them is much higher. Win-win for the publisher.

(This is also why so many shooters are now looking around for some excuse to jam exp and the resultant grind into their multiplayer. It's an easy way to artificially multiply the time which a player MUST spend to experience everything the game has to offer.

There's a reason why Bobby Kotick wanted to charge Subscription fees for CoD4.x. It's because he knows he can get away with it, and he's seen quite directly how sister-monolith-franchise WoW STILL effectively prints money even after 8 years.)

 

[Vern5]

Multiplayer is definitely the most effective form of DRM. It can be circumvented with some creative cracking but, most times, it stands as a creative pretext for ensuring that every player register their product online.

Think of it like this: If a producer puts DRM on a game, you feel like you're being shafted. If a producer puts multiplayer into a game, you feel like you're getting more bang for your buck. Essentially, both DRM and multiplayer serve the same function. Scary, isn't it?

 

[Bad Jim]

While there is a DRM angle, I think the real reason is simply that reviewers and many gamers will complain if it isn't there. You can try to argue that they're wrong, but why bother when you can implement it at a reasonable cost and take their money?

As much as they try to make sure it doesn't impact single player, focus to even the smallest degree on multiplayer will restrict the game severely in what it can and can't do. Because the first rule of multiplayer is restriction of abilities to reduce netcode congestion. The less variables the better. Using an already existing engine with netcode for a multiplayer game reduces production costs and time. Even though computing power and average internet speeds have increased over the years, multiplayer games are STILL running 8/16/32 player sets. For no reason other than to save money and time. In some cases its even taken a few steps back with 4 player multiplayer.

For most multiplayer modes there are no advantages and several disadvantages. More players require more space, which means less maps can be made on any given budget. You can easily communicate with everyone in a 4 player game but in a 64 player game it will either be impossible or some very annoying will be using it. Trolls are inevitable in huge games but not necessarily present in small games. When the game is no longer particularly popular, it will be easier to fill a small game than a large one. Co-op will generally mean going through the single player campaign, and there are only so many buddies you can bring along before it gets ridiculous.

Increasing the player count in line with technical capacity is a silly thing to demand. If you make a 2D game these days, you can have millions of sprites on screen, but that doesn't mean you should feel compelled to do it.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

While there is a DRM angle, I think the real reason is simply that reviewers and many gamers will complain if it isn't there. You can try to argue that they're wrong, but why bother when you can implement it at a reasonable cost and take their money?

As much as they try to make sure it doesn't impact single player, focus to even the smallest degree on multiplayer will restrict the game severely in what it can and can't do. Because the first rule of multiplayer is restriction of abilities to reduce netcode congestion. The less variables the better. Using an already existing engine with netcode for a multiplayer game reduces production costs and time. Even though computing power and average internet speeds have increased over the years, multiplayer games are STILL running 8/16/32 player sets. For no reason other than to save money and time. In some cases its even taken a few steps back with 4 player multiplayer.

For most multiplayer modes there are no advantages and several disadvantages. More players require more space, which means less maps can be made on any given budget. You can easily communicate with everyone in a 4 player game but in a 64 player game it will either be impossible or some very annoying will be using it. Trolls are inevitable in huge games but not necessarily present in small games. When the game is no longer particularly popular, it will be easier to fill a small game than a large one. Co-op will generally mean going through the single player campaign, and there are only so many buddies you can bring along before it gets ridiculous.

Increasing the player count in line with technical capacity is a silly thing to demand. If you make a 2D game these days, you can have millions of sprites on screen, but that doesn't mean you should feel compelled to do it.

That reminds me; the Serious Sam games have 16 player co-op. I've never tried it but it sounds, as you put it, ridiculous.

And I agree with the rest; while I'd love to play a game with conquest mode and 128 players[footnote]in fact, there's some modded Battlefield 1942 servers that do it by allowing both 64 bots and 64 players at a time, and it's awesome but not as awesome as 128 human players would be[/footnote], most game types just aren't suited to games that big. Heck, most games aren't well suited to anything over 32 players, let alone 64+. 32 player TF2 servers come to mind; they're a lot less strategic and a lot more spammy than the ones with smaller player counts.

 

[Worgen]

It depends how its done, multi is tacked on to extend the life of the game but in some cases, its used as an excuse for annoying drm, blizzard does this allot, ubisoft does it also, although not so much multi as using social aspects as an excuse for drm. When multi bleeds into single player then its usually being used as an excuse for consumer unfriendly drm.

 

[Hazy992]

I think that's absolutely true for some games. I mean come on, God of War Ascension? It's blindingly obvious they just tacked on a multiplayer mode so they could include an Online Pass.

 

[Scow2]

I love multiplayer games. You can't play a single-player game with friends. However, I do hate the lack of single-console multiplayer. Whatever happened to that?

 

[Yopaz]

You know I hav never really though of that before, but it really does make sense.

In order to get into the multiplayer servers you have to pay for the game. You have to buy the game new. You have to have an internet connection on for the duration of your game time. Sounds like both a way to counter used sales and DRM in the same package.

Multiplayer is the last ditch effort of "We don't want to bother crafting an entire single player campaign, so lets throw in some crappy multiplayer so the consumers can feel like they're getting their money's worth"

Not always. In Battlefield and Call of Duty the single player campaign is randomly thrown in in order make their customers feel like they get their money's worth.

 

[Yopaz]

I love multiplayer games. You can't play a single-player game with friends. However, I do hate the lack of single-console multiplayer. Whatever happened to that?

Single console multiplayer seems to be something only kept alive in fighting games and Nintendo games. Now I have to agree that single console DRM is totally awesome. I want to play games with my friends in one room on the same screen and not some random guy online. Super Smash Bros, Mario Kart, Tales of Vesperia, Halo 3, Snoopy Flying Ace, Soul Calibur. I've had so much fun with those games. Why can't publishers understand how much it matters to us to be able to play offline multiplayer on one console? You sir are a wise man and I support your dream that one day we will see a new reign of single console multiplayer games.

 

[Yopaz]

snip

Closing your eyes and yell "LOCAL MP IS ONLY ON WII AND IN FIGHTERS" doesn't make it true.

http://www.xboxmp.com/Catalog.aspx?hs=1&s=MetaCriticScore

I was generalizing, you might have seen that when I made my list of games that had single console multiplayer I mentioned Halo 3, Tales of Vesperia, Snoopy Flying Ace. Those are games for Xbox. I ws saying that local multiplayer lives on in fighting games and in Nintendo games, not that they were exclusive for those. When I say they live on in those I say that you hardly find games that have multiplayer that aren't local multiplayer games.

For the love of god! Take the time to understand my post before you tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Vault101]

Actually, there is some good reasoning to that argument.
Multiplayer is designed to hold the player's attention long after they completed the Single Player component of the same game.

Players who are attached to their game are far less likely to sell it back immediately.
As a bonus, they also become more exposed to DLC offerings and such, and so the incentive to milk them is much higher. Win-win for the publisher.

.)

Im kind of torn on that one

on one hand I didnt spend some time in ME3 multiplayer because by then I really liked the game play

buuuut on the other that alone is not what I love about the series, when I played multi I didn;t feel like I was playing mass effect , I was just playing the same few maps over and over again

hnece why Ive ditched multi in favor of another replay

 

[Woodsey]

If you're writing an OP, write properly.

Anyway, I'd rather they try and bargain-off some shitty, half-arsed multiplayer modes than lumber us with obstructive DRM. But online passes are created to fight used games, DRM to fight piracy.

I guess they serve similar purposes (in the publisher's mind, at least), but they're not synonymous.

 

[Kyr Knightbane]

I suppose it might be. However i think that most people enjoy social aspects of gaming enough to not let it bother them. I'm in the 'Not Worried' Category as I play on PC mostly. Not stating that PC is better, or blah blah blah, I'm stating personal taste. I also have a Vita and a PS2 and other consoles. With the induction of Multiplayer in a lot of upcoming games, it is good to speculate whether or not it is becoming the new DRM. I was excited about Diablo 3 because it was supposed to be bigger or as big as Diablo 2. Sweet, i said to myself, now i can host LAN parties again and we can quest through the whole game...what? Always ONLINE? Must have Internet? Real Money auction house? Whats next, micro transactions? I'm getting off topic, i apologize. I do fore-see many publishers and developers shoe-horning multiplayer into new games as a form of DRM. Will it work? Who knows. Is it a bad idea? For some games, YES. Others? *Shrug*

 

[userwhoquitthesite]

I'm rapidly approaching the point where I am just willing to write off the entire fucking industry and be forced to find something entirely different to do with my spare time.

The large companies are selling us overpriced, shiny, fractions of pieces of shit, and charge us more for the whole steaming heap.
The small companies are selling us moronic, tiny toys to finance real projects, realizing it's easier to charge idiots more money to win better at their toy (poor syntax is intentional) than try to make a decent game and so not trying.
The large majority of actually good games out there are either years old, sequels/updates of old games, or both.
The mass market sees nothing wrong with any of this and is too happy to shell out 20 bucks for more god damned virtual smurfberries for their ninja to slice in half.

Spoiler: spoiler'd for content

 

[Vault101]

If you're writing an OP, write properly.

.

Compared to my usual Quality I think this one came out rather well.