Why is multiplayer still being forced?

[bug_of_war]

thats the thing....its easyer to have a short single player and tack on a multiplayer than it is to add more tot he single player

Well as far as I'm aware there are really very few games that are like that. I also doubt that a company puts it's faith entirely in multiplayer, especially when the only succesful MPs seem to be COD and TF2. I still don't see how multiplayer is the devil, I have never heard of a games single player being cut back for multiplayer and as far as I'm aware most of the community seems to enjoy the games as is.

 

[Rattja]

Anyone remember Black and White 2?
They did not put multiplayer in that one, and people was upset as the first one had it.

I don't know, just think it's kinda funny.

 

[Vault101]

Well as far as I'm aware there are really very few games that are like that. I also doubt that a company puts it's faith entirely in multiplayer, especially when the only succesful MPs seem to be COD and TF2. I still don't see how multiplayer is the devil, I have never heard of a games single player being cut back for multiplayer and as far as I'm aware most of the community seems to enjoy the games as is.

its somthing that you can;t really measure....and granted alot of games like Assasins creed or Mass Effect 3 don't seem to suffer because of it

but part of it is also general perception..I get the impression that theres this Idea that a game cannot stand up on single player alone...no matter how good the single player is or how tacked on the multipalyer "its there because it needs to be" is a poisonous Idea, is there any reason Tomb Raider needed multiplayer? or Dead Space co-op?

again not every game needs it..and its absence essentially says "this is what you are paying for"

also my main problem is "multiplayer creep" as peopel have said there are reasons for devs to shoe horn in online/multiplayer....you might get games like borderlands 1 that is pretty weak on its own, or a game that "can" be played alone but is utterly shite if you do (like playing co-op stuck with retarded AI bots)

 

[theSteamSupported]

I think it's because EA/Activision wants to show the anti-gaming crowd, that gaming sure as hell is a social experience. As everyone knows, only introvert freaks without any friends plays single-player mode. Also, everyone who masturbates are pathetic people with no hopes in succeeding in life.

 

[lostlevel]

thats the thing....its easyer to have a short single player and tack on a multiplayer than it is to add more tot he single player

Well as far as I'm aware there are really very few games that are like that. I also doubt that a company puts it's faith entirely in multiplayer, especially when the only succesful MPs seem to be COD and TF2. I still don't see how multiplayer is the devil, I have never heard of a games single player being cut back for multiplayer and as far as I'm aware most of the community seems to enjoy the games as is.

At times it is shoe-horned in to games taking away from the budget that could have been used for making the game itself better but often I guess that somewhere someone has calculated the potential loss of making multiplayer against how many extra copies it will sell and I expect they make a profit. Triple A games aren't necessarily about holding true to an artistic vision but more often about how many games can you sell, so it could be said a game just has to be adequate enough to draw enough people in rather than be niche.

There are however some games with bad story modes but good multiplayer so I guess most discerning gamers know which aspect the games they buy will lean toward. Of course well implemented multiplayer is preferred but for the most part it still seems optional, it's that bit you do after you've completed story mode if you want.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

A phrase you'll hear a lot in modern game development is "make sure they keep the disc in the tray". That way the consumer won't immediately trade it in to gamestop, and they'll be an available customer for the DLC, map packs, microtransactions, and avatar shirts. That's also why this "level-up/prestige" multiplayer system has become so popular, as there's a meta-game to grind for outside of playing the same matches over and over again. For some speculation, I have a feeling that publishers see multiplayer as forward thinking. The consoles have broadband internet, so not using it for the game is probably seen as being archaic, like using a PS2 graphics engine would be. Everyone's facing books and twattering everywhere so you gotta keep up with the times and appear to be forward thinking. Of course there's the online pass/DRM business that others have mentioned.

For an example of multiplayer fucking up the single player experience, Spec Ops: The Line. The multiplayer was made by a different studio against Yager's wishes, and the mechanics of the single player gameplay had to be butchered in order to better gel with a multiplayer experience that was designed by a less talented developer. According to Yager, the campaign was originally meant to control and feel better than the end product did, but I have not seen this "pre-butchered" gameplay.

Regarding Tomb Raider, its multiplayer was done by the Deus Ex: Human Revolution guys. That gives me a strong feeling that it's anything but "tacked-on/unnecessary", but I haven't played it yet.

 

[Shrack]

Som companies certainly are trying to force multipalyer into everything (Hi there Crytech!) and K2 even shoved MP into Bioshock 2 for soem reason. They tried to make a decent MP but it ended up stinking badly. With some games MP works, other games MP is the worst idea in the world. Fortunatly Bioshock Infinte will not have it. So there is still hope for the SP experience.

 

[Hiroshi Mishima]

As someone who has absofuckinglutely no interest in multiplayer of any kind, this is why I'm happy to see used games die, because publishers might stop pressuring their devs to include a tacked on multiplayer mode at the expense of the single player just a little bit.

And as soon as used game sales die, people like me and I'm willing to suspect a good 30% (or likely higher) of the gaming populace will be forced to stop buying games, or at least limited to maybe 2 a year. Why? Because without Used Games, we aren't buying games at all.

There is no way in hell I'm paying $60 for a single player game that only ends up being 10 hours long. There's no justification besides "but the game took millions to make!" which really is too expensive. The games sure don't show any improvement despite it all.


Anyways, as someone who can't stand multiplayer, I'm really sick of seeing it shoehorned into a lot of games. No, I don't give a fuck if people have been "clamouring" for it, because in the end it's only going to hurt US who don't want it. Portal 2 had forced multiplayer to see the epilogue, for instance - and I hear they wanna do more of that shit. Remember Metroid Prime 2 multiplayer? Yeah, neither does anyone else. Hunters was a complete joke and the singleplayer campaign featured nothing but the same 2 bosses 4 times each for most of the game. Oh, and don't forget about Dead Space 3's little "what, you're not playing with someone? No area for you!" schtick.

Really, it just screws things up for those of us who play games for single player. And like it or not, there's a LOT of us, and we're pretty damn vocal, too. You think single player games don't sell to well? Tell that to fucking Mass Effect, the original Bioshock, LA Noire, Skyrim, and many other games.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Because they want to transition to writing no AI at all?

Captcha: Of course

See? Even the captcha agrees.

 

[TheLycanKing144]

It's not being forced, it's an option. You don't have to play it if you don't want to, I have not gotten to the multiplayer portion of the game yet, I have heard from some people that it's nothing special, I have also heard from some other people that it's pretty fun. I will judge for myself when I get around to playing the multiplayer.

I do agree that a lot of multiplayer components feel "tacked on", like they're just there for the sake of having multiplayer, but remember what I said above. It's an option, if you don't like it then don't play it, no one is forcing you to do so.

 

[aguspal]

Then you weren't paying attention, because LOADS of people were asking for multiplayer in Mass Effect, although in the form of a quasi MMO, and not the horde mode we got.

mass effect and MMO in the same sentence?
[img/]http://media.tumblr.com/50681a805561cd8fd0e0391a9de24467/tumblr_inline_mi2as0f3ua1qz4rgp.gif[/img]

That image...


It has always confused me.


....

Oh yeah, multiplayer is force because COD has it blahblabhba,blahblbah,bla.

 

[charge52]

...because a lot of people ASK/BEG for multiplayer. The companies are only responding to that.

Really? never saw annoying begging god multiplayer In the new tomb raided or mass effect, no one complained dishonoured or druz ex didn't have multiplayer

Er... Vault, were you drunk when you typed that post? Cause it's kinda, how do I say this, odd, yeah odd, that's a good word.

Hell, I don't even know if I figured out what you said and I have to read drunk messages quite often!

OT:
Because people like multiplayer, companies want sales because sales=profit, so they add multiplayer hoping to increase sales.

 

[Panorama]

Isn't it because video games industry likes to be about 5 years behind there customers, so that they can give the said customers something to complain about.

no?

 

[Fappy]

Spoiler: Because Singleplayer games just plain old don't sell.

And so on.

Haza, your sarcasm is cray-cray! Everyone knows that you'd have to put actual effort into the story and characters in order to make a worthwhile single player game! Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[hazabaza1]

Spoiler: Because Singleplayer games just plain old don't sell.

And so on.

Haza, your sarcasm is cray-cray! Everyone knows that you'd have to put actual effort into the story and characters in order to make a worthwhile single player game! Ain't nobody got time for that.

Boy, don't you make me go on another google image box art searching spree.

I warn you, I'll do it.

 

[bug_of_war]

its somthing that you can;t really measure....and granted alot of games like Assasins creed or Mass Effect 3 don't seem to suffer because of it

but part of it is also general perception..I get the impression that theres this Idea that a game cannot stand up on single player alone...no matter how good the single player is or how tacked on the multipalyer "its there because it needs to be" is a poisonous Idea, is there any reason Tomb Raider needed multiplayer? or Dead Space co-op?

again not every game needs it..and its absence essentially says "this is what you are paying for"

also my main problem is "multiplayer creep" as peopel have said there are reasons for devs to shoe horn in online/multiplayer....you might get games like borderlands 1 that is pretty weak on its own, or a game that "can" be played alone but is utterly shite if you do (like playing co-op stuck with retarded AI bots)

That's fair enough, I get your point, but just because it DOESN'T need multiplayer doesn't mean that it's bad that it is added. I felt the MP and co-op in Dead Space 2 and 3 was alright, but that's just me. I see why some devs add multiplayer just because it's there and I personally don't mind that their reason is simply to increase sales. The way I see it they're just trying to get an extra buck, and I'm okay with them adding a tacked on MP because I know that if it's bad it will not last long and their servers will be cut.

 

[bug_of_war]

At times it is shoe-horned in to games taking away from the budget that could have been used for making the game itself better but often I guess that somewhere someone has calculated the potential loss of making multiplayer against how many extra copies it will sell and I expect they make a profit. Triple A games aren't necessarily about holding true to an artistic vision but more often about how many games can you sell, so it could be said a game just has to be adequate enough to draw enough people in rather than be niche.

There are however some games with bad story modes but good multiplayer so I guess most discerning gamers know which aspect the games they buy will lean toward. Of course well implemented multiplayer is preferred but for the most part it still seems optional, it's that bit you do after you've completed story mode if you want.

See this is my problem with most of the gaming community right now, they can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that big tripple A game devs aren't making a game for the niche. The niche market is mainly supplied to by indie developers or Valve because they can afford to only have 1000 people play their game. I also keep hearing about games single player lacking polish so that the multiplayer could be added, yet nobody has posted an example of such a thing occuring. Tripple A games can still hold their artistic vision, it can be argued that Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect have held true to their artistic vision, so I really don't see why MP is so bad.

 

[bug_of_war]

Well if all games had multiplayer like Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect 3 then most people would'nt have a problem. But the thing is that some multiplayer modes are added in because it's expected and therefore don't have as much effort put into them as the single player game,I actually think all games who have a multiplayer model should be fun enough to keep people coming back for more instead of an afterthought that slowly dies off as people get bored and move on to something else.

I still don't see the problem. If it's tacked on, but you buy the game mainly for single player then how is it bad? If it's tacked on and you pay for both, at least you still have single player, and if you're only buying a game for MP then maybe make sure that you know what you're paying for.

Some games were made for single player and have a tacked on MP, others were made for MP and have a tacked on single player. For example, Borderlands 1 and Team Fortress 2 are both multiplayer focused games, and while Borderlands is basically the same game in single player mode, a majority of the missions require more than 1 player to really be fair/fun. TF2's single player is so poorly tacked on that you almost literally can't die. You don't see people comlaining about their single player though do you, in fact it's generally considered that if the game was made specificly for MP that the single player can be excused. So I ask why can we excuse a shitty single player experience for a good multiplayer but not the other way around.

 

[Darmy647]

The same opinion ive had on this has stayed with me for years now. Look at killzone 3. Look at how you can buy the game or just the multiplayer. See the options? See the fact you have a choice to just relish in multiplayer or try the multiplayer you love? See how amazing this is? How incredibly amazing the fact one have a choice is? Now if every game does this, id have faith in humanity.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

It's simple:

Because competitive multiplayer evokes competitiveness in players,and that competitiveness that makes players want to be better than others,make it easier for the publisher to push on DLCs.
A single person might work just a day and make an aesthetic dlc like a wearable hat,and then they will charge this DLC for 1$. In multiplayer,many players will by the hat to make them look nicer than other players. But such a DLC would be irrelevant in single player. Multiplayer opens a market for publishers to make more money out of each game sold,by taking advantage of people's will to look cooler and better than other players on multiplayer environments.
A single player DLC should at least feature 3 hours of gameplay. That means that the developers would have to work on making new levels,perhaps new enemies and guns,and also perhaps a new costume.
But if the game has multiplayer,the publisher can release the maps alone as a DLC,the guns alone as a "gun pack",and the costume alone too,and thus make up 3x times more money.

The thing they don't get is that there are many people buying some games just for the single player,and that gradually as more focus is turned on the multiplayer,the single player's quality will be declining,and eventually the games will start to make less sales overall,which in turn will impact also the sales of DLCs.

These kind of publishers (like EA) are thinking more of a quick buck than a stable future,and mark my words that this will hurt them sooner or later.