Ben-DutkaYes, I'm well aware that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 sold around 6 million copies in the month and a half after its release, but my question involves the psychology of online multiplayer fans.
You may not have noticed, but many who play MMORPGs like World of Warcraft simply don't play anything else. I really don't even consider them to be gamers, as they play one type of game for years on end. Now, I'm starting to see the same behavior from the rabid Modern Warfare fans: there are many who have played the original Modern Warfare online right up until the time the sequel released, and you can bet they'll repeat that procedure again. I'm not saying these online experiences are inherently addictive, but I am saying they seem to drain a lot of time from people and many have admitted to missing out on top-notch titles because they're stuck playing one particular title online. So in other words, of those 6 million who bought MW2, how many of them will buy Heavy Rain in February? I know they're two entirely different games but what about those who currently plan to buy Quantic Dream's ambitious project, then get hooked on MW2 and simply pass everything up, from Heavy Rain through even God of War III and Final Fantasy XIII in March?
These days, it seems as if the battle lines are being drawn: war is being waged between those who almost exclusively play online multiplayer and those who almost exclusively play single-player campaigns. I have noticed that those who get stuck on multiplayer have a lot of time on their hands, and they absolutely don't play as many games as the hardcore gamers who want to keep up with the industry. Missing out on the likes of Uncharted 2: Among Thieves , Assassin's Creed II , Batman: Arkham Asylum , inFamous and the amazing 2010 lineup due to constant online action seems downright reprehensible to me. Bear in mind I have nothing against the multiplayer boom, per se, but I wish some Western developers took the route the Japanese have taken with their big franchises: they gave us MGS4 to satisfy those who appreciate a wonderful story and an absorbing independent experience, but they also satisfied the other crowd with MGO. They give us FFXIII in March (it has no online multiplayer), which will soon be followed by FFXIV, which is only online.
In the future, I really want to see everyone do this. Multiplayer is big enough so entire games can be created with that object in mind; developers that attempt to produce both in the same package usually don't fully succeed in both respects. I think we all know the single-player campaign in MW2 isn't anything special while at the same time, despite the solidity and quality of the Uncharted 2 online experience, there's very little chance that anyone buys that game for multiplayer Deathmatch. So why bother? You could even make the strictly multiplayer games cheaper by making those entirely downloadable in the future (we're going in that direction, anyway). The bottom line is that many who play a lot online really don't care about any single-player experience, and the vice versa can be said about those who couldn't possibly care less about the multiplayer. And with the "time-sucking" aspect of these multiplayer games, and so many millions jumping in, how can sales of games like Heavy Rain not suffer?
Just a thought.
@MaximusArcher
With one question you destroyed all respect I would have given you.
"How many same novels do you read back to back, come on stop being pedantic. "
As for burying my head in the sand on MP games, I'll thank you not to make snap judgments about my gaming habits or what games I play/don't play or have played/not played. I stand by my comments both with regard to multi-player games and with regard to the re-reading of novels being analogous to replaying of games with an engrossing single player story/campaign.
As for trite, both of your comments meet that criteria in abundance. In what way are multi-player games propelling the industry forwards? In terms of unit sales of a single game? They sure as hell aren't propelling it in terms of game quality, artistry, story or character.
There are millions of gamers suckling daily at the teat of MW2 and many of them will continue to do so for the next 6 months, just to get their next fix of kill/death ratio. Doing that instead of finding new experiences and games to find pleasure in. If you can't see how that is damaging to the gaming industry rather than leading it, then I think you are being deliberately blind or simply deluded.
Respect on a board – meh.
Now that's an urban myth.
Whatever you say you're only trying to justify it to yourself, mp is here, and it's here to stay. It's every bit as valid as sp.
Just because you don't get any enjoyment out of it, and feel the need to put down those who do, is a bit short-sighted, lacking respect and naive to the industry.
Last edited by MaximusArcher on 1/5/2010 2:29:15 AM
Respect on a comments forum? Why not. But you have to earn it. Just like any field of human endeavor, communities form around common interests. I'm certain you'll disregard the point, but respect for fellow humans, even on an Internet comment forum is still a worthy thing. In all the years I have been online, I have found that respect is something that is regularly dismissed by those who do not have it.
Next time, bring some argument to the discussion.
I gain plenty of enjoyment from multi-player games. However, I can also see how the over emphasis on multi-player components in otherwise single player games can be detrimental. Noting that problem is not putting down anyone. Being short sighted or naive might be applicable if I were ignoring the issue. If single player games were somehow encroaching on multi-player games to their detriment I would be just as quick to note that effect.
However, at this point the only effect I can see a lengthy single player campaign having on a traditionally multi-player title is beneficial. A lengthy single player campaign helps establish the environment, the game universe and backstory in the mind of the player who then goes on to play the multi-player aspect. In my opinion, the richer game universe/back story and characterization will enhance the player's enjoyment of the multi-player aspects rather than damaging it.
The reverse situation where the inclusion of multi-player content decreases the emphasis on story, character or setting in a traditionally single player title is sadly decreasing the enjoyment of that single player aspect of the game. That is damaging both to the gamer who wants to play the single player game as well as to the industry.
Over emphasizing multi-player elements to the detriment of single player elements in games does, in my opinion, damage the game, the player and the industry by decreasing the depth of the experience.
It's like the current infatuation that TV has with 'reality TV' where the public is the star. It's cheaper to make, easier to make and requires far less effort since there is little to no writing, the 'real' people involved are making it up as they go along. As long as the show has a good template, you can populate it with real people season after season and get different, compelling TV year after year.
Compared to the difficulty and cost writing good fictional TV drama or comedy, reality TV is a no brainer. It's also repetitive crap that get's old, but it's popular. Oh yes, masses of people watch it, so therefore it's good for the industry, right? Except of course that all the writers, actors and everyone else associated with more traditional TV drama and comedy are hurt by the redirection of resources to reality TV.
What I see happening now is that the traditional TV drama and comedy shows are trying to compete with the reality TV by becoming ever more sensational, and parodying reality, outdoing the reality TV, and yet imitating it. I for one do not see this as beneficial to the quality or artistry of TV drama or comedy. Long term I don't think it helps the industry develop or improve, and I believe that it hurts the viewer by continually dropping the standards in favor of sensationalism.
I see multi-player games in a similar light to Reality TV because they depend on the gamers themselves to make their own story.
Last edited by TheHighlander on 1/5/2010 10:12:12 AM
Don’t forget, respect is a two way thing.
Â
Good to hear you like mp games.
Â
Let’s go with two classic examples, MW and UC2? How are the mp aspects of these games detrimental to the sp?
Â
MW is effectively a good mp, with a tacked on sp.
UC2 is effectively a good sp with a tacked on mp.
Â
Let’s ask the makers of warhawk or mag their views on having to expend time/money/people on creating a sp just to add a little “backstoryâ€.
Â
As for damaging players by emphasizing mp, I laughed at this comment.
Â
Btw, in my book, mp is nothing like reality tv, because I don’t watch reality tv, but hey, whatever floats your boat.
Maximus: Would you like to know how many novels I read back to back? The string has been going for about six years.
Not the same one tho. ;0)
I can't see the Dead Space SP being sacrificed for the MP, lets hope not anyway.
I can on a DVD
i'll say this, in the run up 2 mw2, a lot of people said, i'm buying it for the online. so here's my question, why the hell did they increase the price by £5 ($10?) just coz it was gonna get so many sales. get rid of the stupid story mode, keep specops and online and make it cheaper.
The price war that occurred when this was released meant that all major retailers in England were selling it at £25.
Lets not forget that the majority of people out there are not hardcore gamers – there are a tone of people with limited timeframes to sit down and enjoy games – maybe an hour or two every so often or less – maybe they go weeks without touching and then pick it back up when they have time – online multiplayer is a perfect solution for these people – less than 1 minute and you are in playing without having to invest in a storyline, etc. I can really understand the value of both single player and online multi-player and they both definitely have there place. Implementing thru different games is probably the perfect solution although that may not fit into the marketing strategy for games companies.
EB
Online gaming is definitely not only for the casual gamers – I'd rather say the opposite. There are few games one sink more hours into than online games, being it the multiplayer deathmatch varations or the *real* timesinks: The massive multiplayer online rpgs. Other than that I agree that both offline and online games have their place.
As for Ben's question, "is the multiplayer boom hurting game sales" I believe the direct answer to that is "yes, definately", however not enough for one to kill the other: There is room for both.
I think that yes it is hurting the sales of SP only games. Look at Resistance: Fall Of Man. It hadhas a solid multiplayer, & the SP was rather lacking. But it has sold more copies than Uncharted, albeit Resitance: Fall Of Man being released where less PS3's where available. Sure it's been out longer, but compare the first year sales of the two.
I remember when I started playing the first starting playing Halo. It was on the Xbox, and I could hook it up to my computer to play online. I thought it was the best thing ever. Me and a buddy of mine would play all the time. So I played through Halo 2 multiplayer for a while and, well, it just wasn't as fun as it had been.
Now and then I will go online for a while, but since I don't play it all the time I get my ass beat, which makes me want to play even less.
"since I don't play it all the time I get my ass beat" – exactly, and that is why online gaming is not as much for the casual gamer as it is for those who play that particular game a lot.
Sorry, been having too much fun killing zombies on Dr. Ned's island!
U guys sound old and afraid of change. For me at least, the fun in games like MW2 is in the constant leveling and rewards. While the game play is repetitive, the goal is to increase my skill, which allows for greater rewards and bragging rights. Eventually, after the "double points weekends" and new map packs have stopped or slowed, I move on to other games. I think it a boon to gamers to be able to spend $60 and get 3-4 months of great gamong out of it. To me, that's real value. I'll save the single player campaign only games for when they hit the bargain bin because new or not, I will get the same great experience that the person who paid top dollar for it the day it came out.
Last edited by OptimusPryme on 1/6/2010 11:23:39 AM
3-4 months of play is not worth 60 dollars to me. I want games that I can go back to years from now and still have fun playing, not loathing that their is no one else that wants to play with me.
Last edited by Dfreek31 on 1/7/2010 12:11:32 PM
Good article Ben. I do think that the current trend to make everything multiplayer does hurt sales, which can hurt future game designs.
I was saddened when I heard BioShock 2 would have multiplayer in it. To me, the game is the story of a single entity tackling the horrors of Rapture. All of sudden there are more and the horror effect of the game is lessened. It diminishes the story. I've not played the multiplayer part of UC2. While I've heard it's not too bad, was it really necessary other than a way to try to get it into the hands of those players who play mostly multiplayer games?
A good example is the Halo series (yeah, boo! hiss! MS sucks and all that). The original Halo had a pretty engaging and long single-player mode for an FPS. I liked the story and thought how it was unfolded during the game was cool. In fact, it was the story the game was telling that prompted me to get Halos 2-3. What's sad though is that with each new Halo game, the single-player story was shorter than the previous one. ODST's story campaign clocks in around 5-6 hours. Granted, ODST's firefight multiplayer is different than the usual PvP style found in the other games but it's still the same result- more work done for the multiplayer part means less work done for the singe player part. This trend seems to be happening for a good number of games nowadays.
think about this look at online multiplayer games of old lets take a game that was ok like MotorStorm:Pacific Rift. I bet you a 5 dollar bill that you will not find more the 20 people playing the online multiplayer. that goes the same with all games of that have online multiplayer so if the game is great and mostly online multiplayer what replay value does it have 10 years from now. but if we look at the likes of early systems that relied on people being in the same room playing together they have great replay value.
don't get me wrong I like multiplayer and I like the idea of being able to play people miles away from you. But, I love playing with someone in the room with me.
Sad to say im not really a fan of the online games cuz game makers soley concentrate on MMO and forget about the single player gameplay all together..and whats funny is we get charged full price for a short single game play..and mmo…but after months after the initial hype dies down the mmo become boring..cuz not that many people are on anymore.where they could have put some more effort into the single player game to make the replay value a hell of a lot better..
guilty as charged LOL x)
Is multiplayer really hurting sales?
Gaming is, currently, the best selling media type.
Taking everthing back to grass roots, how can a media type that rises to the top actually be being hurt by a particular gametype.
The argument just doesnt stand up to scrutiny.
What's more relevant is the generational shift. Older gamers, who make up a fair portion of the community tend to hanker back to a more substantial sp effort, and lack the desire to playin in the cauldron of the mp environment (Hope you understand what I mean by this comment). But the younger generation, seem to be a lot more focused on mp.