David-D--NelsonThis whole “multiplayer for everyone” thing might be phasing out.
It's no secret that the popularity multiplayer has experienced in the PS3 and 360 generation led a lot of franchises, old and new, to integrate the feature. In some circles, including our own community, that caused some controversy. The theory of course was that focus on the multiplayer feature was a use of resources that didn't go into a quality single player experience.
I think there's some truth to that since many franchises that hadn't used the feature before saw a drop in their scores among critics while the original gameplay focus seemed to change to better accommodate competitive gaming. God of War: Ascension comes to mind. You may disagree, but in any case I think I see some preliminary signs that we could be in for a change in the new generation.
Right in our own backyard we've got two big titles that aren't even willing to pay lip service to the idea of multiplayer: inFamous: Second Son and The Order: 1886 . On the other side of the fence Microsoft has funded Respawn's Titanfall , which is exclusively multiplayer. The game integrates single player elements into its multiplayer core, which sounds an awful lot like the upcoming Destiny from Bungie. You may also recall that Bungie wasn't exactly keen on labeling Destiny as an MMO. So it probably isn't accurate to just say that MMOs are becoming more popular and that's all there is to it.
At the end of this month the Thief reboot will land without competitive multiplayer as another game where the refrain from the developers was that they want to put their all into what they do best. Some lucky folks are already in the beta for The Elder Scrolls Online , which they refuse to tell me about due to those darn NDAs , but that is beside point. 🙂 Instead of adding multiplayer to the next iteration Bethesda knew it would be more lucrative to make separate games. They probably also knew that integrating multiplayer into the experience that we are used to could be a bridge too far.
Some games may never separate. For instance I don't see any reason to pull the multiplayer out of Uncharted, you might have trouble selling an MP-only Uncharted. And even though most fans of Call of Duty are only playing for the multiplayer, one of the big selling points for that game is the full package of a single player game, a co-op game, a challenge game, and an online game all in one. I could see them going the Titanfall route and integrating the SP and MP some day but I doubt it will happen any time soon since the formula for now is still winning.
So do you think that's evidence enough to hope for a future separation of these two modes of play or is it just a timeout from the multiplayer in everything trend? Furthermore, do you prefer to get it all in one package for $60 or do you prefer they separate out into more distinctly focused games?
Considering I never have nor never will use multiplayer, I would prefer a complete separation (like Titanfall). That way my single player games can receive all the development attention they deserve (Second Son). YMMV
Last edited by Norrin Radd on 2/15/2014 10:18:20 PM
Fully agree with this!
I'm glad that sony brings exclusive's without the mp,i hope they keep on doing it
Bethesda brings some of the best games[together with Naughty dog] good from Bethesda that WHEN they do mp that they do it separately!
For me mp can disappear for good[to bad it will not happen]
Last edited by slow and smart on 2/16/2014 8:04:01 AM
I don't think there's a "timeout" from mp. More than 50% (roughly) of the games that released just on the PS4 have mp. I think it's more coincidence that some upcoming games don't have it. I suspect there will never be a separation in games that provide both sp and mp experiences currently.
I prefer there to be a all in one for $60. Which is weird because I have no problem paying $60 for sp only games. I'm struggling to convince myself to get The Elder Scrolls however I think it's mainly because of the $15 monthly fee. My fear is that mp only games will all go to the trend of free to play or pay and play for a fee.
I'd love to see the amount of people that play MP games across all the major platforms. I find myself mainly using my PC to MP while my console is my SP haven. It has been pretty cool playing FFXIV on my PC with PS3 players. I think we need to see more cross platform MP gaming.
Yep I agree. I think it would be healthier for the industry.
This.
At least non-competitive multiplayer games should be cross platform.
This!
"I think we need to see more cross platform MP gaming."
I'd like to see SP & MP separated, as I almost always only play SP but I still wind up subsidizing all the MP'ers game-play.
I'd like to see it become all things to all players pricewise, $30 for SP'ers campaign, $30 for MP'ers online portion, and $60 for the full combined SP & MP game.
*********************************
BTW, PSN is having a Valentines weekend flash sale right now which ends tomorrow at midnight.
There's no new games, Kane & Lynch 1 ($3.99) & K&L2 ($4.99)for example, but I was able to pick up "House of the dead:Overkill Directors Cut" for only $4.99
I'm someone who greatly enjoys Co-op gameplay.
But I think its great when a developer says "no" to any kind of online thing. It normally leads to DLC and lots of patches.
As of right now, I'd say probably the first of a new or ressurected ip won't have MP but most likely a sequel will.
I noticed Dead Space nixed the competetive multiplayer from part 2 and just went to co-op in part 3. That kind of move tells me there's some sense in the industry now.
i only wish more games would have a separation of both modes.
one thing im REALLY starting to LOATHE is the sudden obsession of trying to turn the story campaign into the multiplayer match, ie NFS rivals, titanfall, destiny, ect.
the campaign is what it is because of the strong story, the strong sense of progression, the sense of freedom, and the experience with the AI.
MP completely destroys that!
i wish they would be seperated from a price perspective too, i mean its just stupid that i have to pay the same price as someone else who uses twice as much as i do.
since when does hiring a car for 2 days cost less than hiring it for 1?
im only using half the package, so why am i being charged the same amount as people who are using twice as much as i am?
hows that fair?
yeah i wud like to say that i like my single player games its one of my excapes from stress of life and something i enjoy doing but i do like to have some co-op play senarios in the appropriate games and there definately needs to be a distinction between games that cud have or need MP or some sort of co-op mode and those hat don't
happy gaming =)
I'd like to think that we'll see more single player only games in the future, but it's probably just a coincidence that a few of those games happen to be coming out around the same time.
I really have no idea why Bethesda decided to do that MMO thing. Skyrim sold 20 million copies…what more do they want?
a monthly subscription game
Personally, I would like developers to make campaign co-op an option in more games. I could care less if there is competitive multiplayer. And I am referring to online co-op. Couch-co-op is nice but impractical for those of us that have limited gaming time.
Would Sony and MS ever agree to have multiplayer between the PS4 and the XBoxOne? I wonder what are the implications? Talk about console wars.
Hehe yeah imagine those COD and BF battles… 😀
on Elder scrolls online all im going to say its Sub + micro transactions meaning even if you pay the subscription you still don't have access to everything
NDA or not i personally don't support this way of milking people in MMOS
as for multi player it really depends on the game
Oh no 🙁