Ben-DutkaWhile I maintain that certain video games will never need multiplayer, it seems like most developers are treating the option as…well, not an option.
There are rumors that God of War III will feature multiplayer. Now, my first question was- How ?! But after convincing myself that Sony Santa Monica would be able to deliver an interesting multiplayer experience, the next question arose and it's much more important- Why ?
Maybe it has to do with sales. Maybe it's the fact that the biggest title in the world – Call of Duty – is only #1 because of multiplayer. Or maybe it's because the competition – EA's Battlefield series – also relies heavily on the multiplayer "option," as many shooters tend to do. If that's the case, maybe this is only a genre thing; it's why God of War would never actually need multiplayer. But would it sell better?
And another question- are Xbox 360 owners more into multiplayer gaming than PS3 owners, as one platform's exclusives (with the exception of Alan Wake ) definitely seem to push more in the multiplatform direction? Think about it: Heavy Rain , God of War III , inFamous and inFamous 2 , and even the Uncharted franchise is all about the single-player campaign. Naughty Dog can crow about the multiplayer all they want; we know the truth of the matter. Most gamers will be focused on the solo adventure.
Above all else, the question remains- "If a product doesn't contain a multiplayer feature, does that hurt its sales potential?" Obviously, there are always other determining factors (including whether or not the multiplayer is any good ), but eventually, we may be hard-pressed to find a great game that remains great entirely on the strength of its single-player effort.
Titles like God of War and Infamous do not need it and I fear if the teams focused on it, that would divert time, attention and resources away from where it's most needed and important. The campaign. In this age of multiplayer I rarely find myself playing games online unless it's a few rounds of Killzone 3 or Uncharted 2. Seriously, I'm playing God of War Origin's right now and I am having more fun with this collection than I have had all year with multiplayer games.
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/27/2011 9:43:19 PM
Hear, hear, Jawknee! I'm not a big multiplayer gamer myself. I do enjoy playing Uncharted 2 online, but it is not the main reason why I bought Uncharted 2. I always look forward to a great single player campaign, like most of the games I grew up playing.
Indeed. MP seems best for shooters and maybe games built around a coop element but for stuff like God of War and Infamous…just..no….haha
i would love to see and infamous multiplayer co-op game tho
@Jawknee
Nice, I couldn't have said it better. I agree with you 100%!! 🙂
Last edited by CrusaderForever on 9/28/2011 10:58:46 AM
I'm not really sure. The two biggest games are Call Of Duty and Grand Theft Auto. I think if your a new up and coming IP then yes you do to have ridiculous sales. Franchises that have been established for a long time like GTA I don't think need it to achieve giant sales.
Given that fewer and fewer blockbuster titles are single player only, and the rising prevalence of multiplayer-oriented games, I'm afraid that's the route the industry is taking. Can't say I'm happy about it, but there it is.
At this rate handhelds will be our only salvation.
I hate this multiplayer industry, its relly hard to find a good single player campaign this days
Multiplayer is good for games that are made for such more. Games like shooters and RPGs in the same vein as White Knight Chronicles and Demon's Souls are just a few examples.
But I really think it shouldn't be shoehorned into a game just so it would sell. It pains me to see fantastic single player games struggle in sales just because they do not have a multiplayer component.
No but most rely on MP to generate sales instead of offering a complete package in terms of quality. I'd like to think hours I've invested in SP games like SOTC, Uncharted, and the Final Fantasy series have been far more rewarding to me not just as a gamer but as a person than some mindless shooter full of meh MP.
Having said that I can't wait for BF3!!!! 😉
Boy I wish I could afford a new gaming rig. So far the PS3 beta is pretty blagh.
no good jawknee?
Jawk just throw $600 towards Newegg and be done with it. They have gaming rigs on there already assembled for people with not enough time to put their own computer together. You can get a PC on there that's comparable to a 2k computer from Dell.
Yea I will eventually. I had to by a new guitar head that cost me $1300. Maybe sometime next year I'll be able to come up with some extra cash.
Sorry World, didn't see your question.
It's okay but it's not the mind-blowing experience EA is hyping it up to be. Not on the PS3 at least. The graphics look only slightly better than BFBC2 and the game play seems to be the same with the exception of being able to go prone now. I wanted to get it but I think I'll wait until I can afford a PC rig. There is a lot of screen tearing too.
Last edited by Jawknee on 9/27/2011 10:57:45 PM
@Jawknee
Is it better than call of duty???
Yes. 🙂
@Jawknee
How are the perks/upgrades? Have you tried the planes yet?
I haven't able to invest that amount of time into it yet. I'm mean the game is good and I can see the potential for a whole lot of fun but something about it is just blagh. Maybe I just expected the graphics to be a whole lot better than they are.
@Jawk
It's a beta, not a demo. I know the game is pretty close to release, but one of my biggest peeves is when people judge a game based on a beta. Beta's are for testing, demos are for judging.
Seriously, who bought MGS4 or even 3 for that matter to play online?
I actually like MGO though I have to agree, that is not why I bought it.
To get a sense of how bad this is I'll just give you all a reminder, you get a trophy in Modern Warfare 3 for this: "Start the campaign on any difficulty."
I'm glad there are games that are really good at this for the fans of it but must it really be forced onto every other game that doesn't need it? How about some creativity that creates replayability in the SP instead? The best kinds of online are the subtle ones like Demon's Souls and Catherine.
Screw the fans and screw the games. I think they're pathetic examples of gaming and the "fans" that not only keep these series going but make them top sellers should have their hands chopped off.
wow
Cool, easy trophy 😛
I wouldn't have a problem with online…if the typical you find out there wasn't some slimeball looking for an audience. I'd rather play online with those so-called phony game "journalists" than some 13 year-old boy hopped up on Mountain Dew.
Yeah, I'm generalizing.
Grand Theft Auto sold well because of the single player story mode. No one bought the game considers multiplayers. GTAIV online gameplay just seem absolutely clumsy.
I mean if a game can provided up to 50 hours of gameplay without boring the gamer. It doesn't need multiplayers at all.
Skryim. Hundreds of hours in there and no multiplayer to be found.
gta IV sold well because of its name …that was the worst gta to date
I just buy GTA IV for the game reviews, actually it was so boring and repetitive
I don't know how required it is to do actual multi-player, but I do know that a AAA game without it will receive extremely poor reviews that will ultimately hurt sales.
I haven't seen one game with a low review score due to not having multiplayer…lol when did this start lmaooo
Go to IGN and see how low they scored the Splinter Cell Trilogy. And yes, they did say the lack of multiplayer is "fatal". I'm sure there are lots of other games that got low review scores because of lack of multiplayer.
The problem isn't whether or not a multiplayer is needed, it's if it's implemented properly and has tons of support.
Good examples: Uncharted 2 has a good multiplayer mode, and ND is still supporting it to this day with hotkey fixes, xp weekends, etc. I still play it (excited for the third game).
But perhaps the best example of adding a multiplayer to a game that didn't need one is AC Brotherhood. Not only was it one of the freshest online games in years, it also managed to tell a story (an epic win in my book). And with the additions made in Revelations, I would expect Ubisoft to have another hit, online or off. And what's even more amazing is how much they manage to innovate and expand within a year of development from title to title, unlike other popular franchises. I guess it basically depends on the resources available to developers.
And this article seems to focus more on competitive multiplayer; however, I would like to see more co-op modes in certain games. I mean, who wouldn't want a co-op mode in infamous 2, where you and a friend run around as conduits?
Bottom line, a game's sales shouldn't be determined on what modes of play it has, rather by the quality of the game. There are exceptions, of course, but the reason amazing single player games like Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls sell well is the amount of MEANINGFUL content these respective games have. Also, no one tells you how you want to play a game; whether alone or with friends and strangers, it's nice to know that games can give us these choices.
I think Ben is just saying, and I never tire of hearing SOMEone say it, is that a game will suffer simply by not having multiplayer an option regardless of how well it is implemented. People may look at the case and go "No multiplayer? Why buy it?" because that is the gaming landscape at this time.
Titles don't necessarily need multiplayer, but they will largely benefit from it in sales numbers: This has lately been indicated by the fps craze. There are a lot of great games that exclude multiplayer,such as infamous, but their corresponding sales values aren't the highest.
Hey I still enjoy single player for all of my games, I would play single player before hopping on multiplayer.
Most gamers tend to play FPS and role-playing games as their main choice of multiplayer games.
I do play a lot of FPS's but rarely hit the multiplayer option
Thats y i love the coop adventure mode in Uncharted 3 Multiplayer.
Yes some games need multiplayer. When i bought Uncharted 1 and i beat it i said to myself "man this game would kick some serious ass if it had multiplayer" i was also playing gears of war 1 at the time online (which i thought was weak) but could'nt stop thinking about the thought of Uncharted having online with its cover and platforming. Now ND realise Uncharted missing link and gave Uncharted 2 online look how it was critically acclaimed. Had lots to do with online (replay value) which is what helps sell games and avoid trade ins.. If uncharted 2 and 3 had no multiplayer regardless of the quality unfortunately it would not have big sales.
with the new generation of gamers…. yes it will. the youth that interact with games didint grow up when a game was essentially about a virtual world a artist or deveolper created to share with us & enjoy the concept.
today for the youth & olders folks that are adapting or following gaming its about multiplayer with credibility & top ranking stats that show for them to brag. they under the belief that mulutiplayer is primarily & the campaign is the luxury.
i wont say campaigns will fade away but in due time or probably is now… multiplayer will be the prime reason folks choose a game.
excuse the spelling i hope it doesnt stir yall away from the point.
Good point on newer gamers looking at games differently in terms of the SP/MP experience.
Yeah its sad that people really only buy games for the mp. Why spend $60 on a game that you will beat and then never play it again? I love playing Infamous 1 and 2 over and over again. I mean right before Infamous 2 came out I had to replay Infamous again. I'm doing the same with Uncharted and Batman. MP is cool to play with friends or what not, but I love picking up a game that I haven't played it in awhile. I know I have friends that only play mp games, sports games or rpg's. They feel they want more out of a game and want high replay value. God of War does not need mp neither does Uncharted.
I think no game shud need MP online except for FPS, COD is just killing our SP experience
What the RTS, Sports, MMO, and TPS genres? I play SCII with friends multiple times a week, the RTS genre would die without multiplayer.
Yeah, I think there's definitely a place for multiplayer. It's an important feature to be available to gamers.
Just not every game should have it, and if it's a SP game that is amazing, it shouldn't be hurt because there is no multiplayer.
Multiplayer isn't bad… sometimes it's exceptionally good! But a necessity for all games? That isn't really fair, I don't think.
It's not a requirement but it contributes to the sales due to peer pressure. When your game has coop for instance, chances are good that some guy who want the game convince a buddy to get it too, to play coop. That happens all the time amongst my friends. There are quite a few games I *only* got cause of my friends.
Another factor is that it doesn't really matter *when* single player games are bought. It's only going to be me playing anyways, noone is waiting for me to get it too. The game is the same and the hardware is the same so the experience will be identical if a wait a month or two. Ergo: Price drop. Games are way too expensive today, that's why those insane price drops can take place.
Lastly, I've noticed several mediocre games gets a lot better played in coop. It simply raises the level of fun tremendously. So from that perspective one could say it's needed to give a bad game a better reputation!
Last edited by Beamboom on 9/28/2011 7:34:07 AM