Research Finds Fewer Console Games Are Including Multiplayer

[Mortuorum]

So... fewer games with unnecessary tacked-on multiplayer? Actually allowing developers to work on the game instead of diverting resources to multiplayer modes that make no sense? Must be the Apocalypse!

Nonono, the doomsday clock hasn't struck midnight just yet. Instead of focusing on multiplayer, publishers are jumping on the Season Pass trolley. So the new strategy is to put a game out ASAP and slowly leak out pieces of the game which should've been included in the initial purchase at the game's launch.

Season pass isn't the problem as much as day-one DLC. Again, it's easy to beat on Mass Effect 3; making the From Ashes content an add-on instead of including it in the core game was a naked cash grab of the worst sort. The Javik and Liara plot content you can only get with the DLC is so interwoven into the main game (and subsequent DLC, like Citadel) that you're literally missing a huge chunk of the game without it.

Borderlands 2 is the poster child for Season Pass. While the first two pieces of DLC were solid and made it look like buying the season pass might have been a good idea, the Sir Hammerlock DLC was very poorly constructed. My guess is that by 2014 the season pass concept will have died on the vine, at least in its current form. The quality of DLC is so haphazard that giving gamers the opportunity to pay a large chunk of cash now for the promise of DLC that may or may not be worth it when (and if) its released will not be a big money-maker for publishers. Even if I'm wrong, it will not make a lot of money for them from me.

 

[circularlogic88]

So... fewer games with unnecessary tacked-on multiplayer? Actually allowing developers to work on the game instead of diverting resources to multiplayer modes that make no sense? Must be the Apocalypse!

Nonono, the doomsday clock hasn't struck midnight just yet. Instead of focusing on multiplayer, publishers are jumping on the Season Pass trolley. So the new strategy is to put a game out ASAP and slowly leak out pieces of the game which should've been included in the initial purchase at the game's launch.

Season pass isn't the problem as much as day-one DLC. Again, it's easy to beat on Mass Effect 3; making the From Ashes content an add-on instead of including it in the core game was a naked cash grab of the worst sort. The Javik and Liara plot content you can only get with the DLC is so interwoven into the main game (and subsequent DLC, like Citadel) that you're literally missing a huge chunk of the game without it.

Borderlands 2 is the poster child for Season Pass. While the first two pieces of DLC were solid and made it look like buying the season pass might have been a good idea, the Sir Hammerlock DLC was very poorly constructed. My guess is that by 2014 the season pass concept will have died on the vine, at least in its current form. The quality of DLC is so haphazard that giving gamers the opportunity to pay a large chunk of cash now for the promise of DLC that may or may not be worth it when (and if) its released will not be a big money-maker for publishers. Even if I'm wrong, it will not make a lot of money for them from me.

I agree with you for the most part. I don't begrudge Gearbox or Call of Duty BlOps2 with their DLC... for the most part anyways. The first Borderlands had 4 big, really great DLC blocks and it just made sense to make a season pass to help the fans out with a little upfront discount of 10~15$ in the long instead of paying $15 per expansion. CoDBlOps2 also made sense as the multiplayer maps do get released fairly regularly as well.

My problem comes from DLC like The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct for 1) having the gall to come up with a season pass with an untested, unproven form of gameplay with the franchise and 2) being an obvious cash grab at the success of the AMC TV show and the TellTales game. How do you make a zombie survival game boring and tedious? Survial Instinct.

I'm not sure if publishers are going to stop the season pass trend any time soon. When you think about it, all the publisher has to do is tell the developer to focus solely on the bare minimum story and gameplay to get it booted out the door and that anything else they want to have put in the game can be added/expanded upon after launch in DLC. Its pretty much nickel and diming us over the course of the year for the full content of the game that should've been present at launch. And then... Game of the Year Edition for the original $60 price tag. lolz ur stooopid fur buying ar dlc XDDD

 

[MPerce]

Logic? In the videogame industry???

It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!!!

 

[MetalMonkey74]

SSX NEEDS LOCAL MULTIPLAYER!!! (sorry for shouting, i just feel very strongly about that particular reboot)

It doesnt take researchers to realise local multiplayer has been seriously lacking in modern games. I personally think that if consoles want to survive the next generation, they need to bring it back!

 

[BoogieManFL]

I like having the option to do both. Good single player experiences are always nice to have - but it's also great fun to play with a close buddy. Not enough good cooperative games out there. The only notable one in my mind for the last SEVERAL years was Splinter Cell Conviction. And the coop ending for that? Wow.. Voice chat had never gone so silent during a mission..

 

[Big_Boss_Mantis]

"A game that gives you a great experience is what you want; if the great experience involves multiplayer, fantastic. If it doesn't - well, that can be fantastic as well."

Capitain Obvious to the rescue of the video games industry!

What took you so long?

 

[thiosk]

This is great, because call of duty can continue upsidegrading their multiplayer experience and everyone else can focus in either on making a multiplay competitor, or on the single player mode alone.

Cheers

 

[Proverbial Jon]

I could have sworn that the exact opposite was true, that multiplayer was being tacked onto pretty much every game this generation. I was honestly sure the plague that is multiplayer was only spreading further... it would seem that I should bow to the superiority of market research instead!

 

[bigman88]

SSX NEEDS LOCAL MULTIPLAYER!!! (sorry for shouting, i just feel very strongly about that particular reboot)

It doesnt take researchers to realise local multiplayer has been seriously lacking in modern games. I personally think that if consoles want to survive the next generation, they need to bring it back!

I HATED the ssx reboot, and hated it even more for the fact that it didn't have any splitscreen. Still cant get that bullsh* excuse out of my ear "oh, oh, the visuals won't be able to sustain itself on the consoles with splitscreen mode, too much processing", GTFOOH...

Big problem iwith the lack of splitscreen current consoles is people are quite alright with thier being no splitscreen, people want there games no matter what greedy moves company's pull nowadays, and the continuing trend shows it.

Next gen (zzzz..)will do fine with a minimum of splitscreen support for games; this generations seems to be doing pretty fine without it.

 

[flarty]

Really?

*Looks at God Of War: Ascension, Tomb Raider, Uncharted 3, Halo 4, Gears Judgement*

I'm struggling to think of a retail console game that doesn't have multiplayer. DmC, but that's about it. I'd love to know how they got their findings.

Forgot Metal Gear Revengeance and Bioshock Infinite

Theres more but cant think for now

Deus EX, Dishonoured, Metro 2033, infamous 1&2?

upcoming? as far as im aware the last of us and sleeping dogs dont have multiplayer

Sleeping Dogs didn't - and what do you mean by upcoming for it? It's been out since last year. Unless you accidentally got it confused with Watch Dogs. Not sure if Last of Us is going to have it or not though.

erm yes i meant watch dogs =/ dammit

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

You know what kind of world I'd like to live in? The kind where single player games don't have a forced multiplayer component and where multiplayer games don't have a forced single player component. For example Battlefield and Call of Duty don't need single player. No one buys those games for their 4 hour long scripted single player. On the other side, Mass Effect and Dead Space don't need multiplayer.

 

[The]

A far cry from bheing upset with the trend I am pleased by it!

Heh. A FAR CRY! Get it? Cause... FC3 had... multiplayer component... *joke dies*

 

[grigjd3]

Really?

*Looks at God Of War: Ascension, Tomb Raider, Uncharted 3, Halo 4, Gears Judgement*

I'm struggling to think of a retail console game that doesn't have multiplayer. DmC, but that's about it. I'd love to know how they got their findings.

Forgot Metal Gear Revengeance and Bioshock Infinite

Theres more but cant think for now

Deus EX, Dishonoured, Metro 2033, infamous 1&2?

upcoming? as far as im aware the last of us and sleeping dogs dont have multiplayer

Skyrim (late in 2011),Darksiders 2, The Witcher 2 (is this out yet on a console?), Kingdoms of Amalur. I believe those are all single player only. Anyhow, of course Halo and Gears is multiplayer. There isn't a reason to play those games without multiplayer. I'd agree, though, that shoving MP into Tomb Raider and Uncharted 3 is a complete waste.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The implications of that list are more intriguing than its explicit conclusions.

This does not necessarily mean single player games sell better, or are largely more popular.
(it could be true, but this trend does not prove it)
It is entirely possible for the number of players (either by gross or proportion) playing multiplayer to increase annually despite the proportion of games offering multiplayer decreasing annually.

Call of Duty 4.x maxes sales every single year, and by far, most of its popularity can be attributed to online multiplayer.
(indicated by sales of map packs and online usage)
It could suggest an avoidance trend of other companies. They can't compete with online megagames since the appeal of those follows Network Good logic (bigger population = bigger appeal).

READ: This is all conjecture, and just an example of the sort of thoughts this provokes.

 

[oldtaku]

consumers aren't too worried about it.

More like f@#4ing ecstatic about it.

 

[dmase]

It's funny the past 2 years there have been a lot of reviewers and people complaining about how all the videogames seemed to have multiplayer when in reality there where less games with multiplayer being made.

 

[Glaice]

It's either because companies are either 1) Adding a tacked on, cheap and worthless multiplayer or 2) not adding multiplayer at all.

 

[Strazdas]

its not that less games have multiplayer, its that there are way more indie titles with no multiplayer that lower the multiplayer percentage.

Personally i dont care about online multiplayer. if i want to play online i play a MMO, all else i want to play singleplayer only and dont evne touch that multiplayer button most of the time.
Now the Hotseat/splitsceeen mode is going extinct and im ready to kill for that. i used to play with friends in hotseat Heroes and civilization all the time. most games even civ 5 dont support that anymore even SC2 dont have lan now.

 

[Signa]

The chart just shows percentages for the market per year that has multiplayer or no mulitplayer. If you're counting all the upstart indie games that are single player only, then yes, a higher number of games are now supporting single player.

In the AAA industry? Nope. It's just as bad as always.