multiplayer gaming Archives

Opinion: Should Online-Only Games Have A Full, Standard Retail Price?

Mois-s-Ram-rez August 3, 2017 PS4 2 Comments

In an age where cellphones rule, where Wi-Fi connections are aplenty, and connectivity galore, it is not uncommon to see a slew of games that require an online connection to be able to play.

Now, this type of requirement is evidently essential for multiplayer action, since to be able to communicate with someone, you actually need an online connection. But what happens if you just want to play solo and don’t have the “need” for the web?

There are more than a handful of games that require an online connection even if you don’t want partake any kind of social or multiplayer activity. The Crew is an example of this, as it requires a consistent online connection; then again, Ubisoft marketed this game as somewhat “social”. And I know for a fact that this game had a standard 60$ price tag when it came out, at least in my nearest retailer. On the other hand, we have Rainbow Six Siege, where you can technically play offline, but with severely limited options (and I mean severely). But just as with The Crew, it really was intended to be a multiplayer oriented game, so you know what you were getting into.

That being said, do you think these games, that either require an online connection, or that have every limited options (Destiny, Ghost Recon: Wildlands, etc.) without one, should be sold at the standard retail price?

Personally, I think that even though you know what you are buying, there should be some kind of consideration. We’ve all been there: your internet is cut off, you reach the monthly cap, the optical fiber cable was stolen, and many more scenarios. The Friday the 13th Game, for example, has a much lower price tag, as do games like Rocket League and Dead by Daylight.

So what do you think? Do these games warrant a full price?

Related Game(s): Multiplayer games

Sony “Happy To Have The Conversation” About Cross-Platform Play

Ben-Dutka March 15, 2016 PS4 36 Comments

It was pretty big news: PSN and Xbox Live users playing together .

Of course, even though Microsoft extended the invitation, Sony needed to respond (and don't forget that developers will have to opt to back this new cross-platform feature).

Well, Sony has offered an encouraging albeit vague statement; as GameSpot reports , the company obviously isn't dismissing the idea out of hand but also isn't ready to make any commitments just yet. Sony also reminds us that PlayStation has offered cross-platform play with PC for years, dating all the way back to Final Fantasy XI on the PS2. The statement reads simple:

“ We would be happy to have the conversation with any publishers or developers who are interested in cross platform play. "

If it ever happens, it means the deal would end over 10 years of complete separation between PlayStation and Xbox players, which would definitely change the face of the industry. The question is how often developers would take advantage of the option, and how difficult it might be to implement. Then there's the other question: Do PlayStation fans even want to play with Xboxers? 😉

EA’s Moore: We’ll Never Ship An Offline Video Game Again

Ben-Dutka August 26, 2013 Archive 29 Comments

A game that doesn't include an online offering of some sort? Who ever heard of such a thing?

The world's biggest video game publishers know just how important multiplayer is these days, and Electronic Arts COO Peter Moore has made that plain as day. In speaking to Engadget during last week's Gamescom event, Moore said his company will not ship a game that is only offline. Times have changed and that's that.

"We're seeing more and more of the online experience being part-and-parcel of every game. We don't ship a game at EA that is offline…just doesn't happen."

He added that free-to-play options are headed to every major EA franchise in the future, and that has proven to be a very popular business model. As for the focus on online components, Moore said gamers today want to be connected for a number of reasons, including checking on the scores and accomplishments of their friends. That's in addition to playing cooperatively or competitively online, of course.

There was something relaxing about not being connected, but maybe that's just me. I'm old, after all.

Will Multiplayer Interest You More In The Upcoming Generation?

Ben-Dutka June 30, 2013 PS4 34 Comments

It can be argued that many of the best games made today don't rely upon multiplayer.

Many, like Dishonored , Heavy Rain , The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Bioshock Infinite , don't even have a multiplayer component, while others (the Uncharted and Assassin's Creed games, for instance) aren't considered great for their multiplayer.

And yet, multiplayer has become a gigantic part of this industry. Many are sold on the idea of playing with others; there's a reason the biggest name in gaming today is a franchise that relies almost exclusively on the lure of multiplayer. But even if you're not into Call of Duty , do you see yourself becoming increasingly more active in multiplayer entertainment? When the next generation rolls around, will you be playing online more than ever before? Or will you stay locked in the past, like me, craving those single-player adventures from an escapist point of view? To me, this will also be a solo activity.

There's almost no doubt that multiplayer will only get bigger in the years to come. However, I love the fact that many anticipated new titles (such as Thief ) won't have any multiplayer offering at all. I used to worry that the multiplayer explosion would gimp the campaigns in most games, but I haven't really seen that. Provided the single-player greatness continues, I'm good. What about you?

EA: All Our Games Must Include Online And Digital Services

Ben-Dutka September 5, 2012 Archive 29 Comments

We've known for a while that multiplayer gaming is huge. Some fans of single-player entertainment worry that multiplayer will eventually, inevitably dominate.

Well, there's a lot of money to be made with such widespread appeal, and most of the major publishers realize they can't even release a single title without multiplayer possibilities.

Take Electronic Arts, for example. In a new promotional pamphlet that discusses the future of cloud gaming, EA Labels president Frank Gibeau made it plain:

"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365."

Of course, we can't forget that EA publishes a ton of games, including RPGs where the single-player experience takes center-stage (BioWare's products lead the pack). That being said, it's clear what Gibeau is saying: His company simply won't produce a game that doesn't have some semblance of multiplayer attached to it, and that's that. It's amazing how quickly things can change in this industry, isn't it? Rewind just five or six years to the start of this generation, and such a philosophy wasn't so widespread. Rewind ten years and it makes zero sense.

Yes, the dinosaurs (that's me!) have difficulty keeping up.

Will Anyone Say It? Online Gaming Is Obviously Addictive

Ben-Dutka August 8, 2012 Archive 42 Comments

We need to stop dancing around this. Seriously.

In the news recently was the story of an Ohio teen who had to be hospitalized after collapsing "multiple times" during a four-day Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 marathon. Dehydration was apparently the surface culprit, but the clear underlying culprit seems clear: Addiction.

It's a nasty word and one I hate to use in association with video games, because ever since the 80s, we gamers had to suffer the constant ignorant accusations from clueless parents and members of the mainstream. The #1 most annoying belief was that video games were essentially crack and anyone who played them was instantly addicted. Having a psychology degree and knowing a little something about the term, I know "addiction" is a very strong and serious word and it almost never applies to someone who likes to play video games.

But there is a caveat. Whenever I get on my soapbox and try to explain to the out-of-touch majority that gaming is really no different than movies or any other form of entertainment, and is no more addictive than those other mediums, I have to step back and make an admission. And it's this- Online multiplayer gaming has proven to be very addictive. The only true forms of addiction I've ever heard of have involved games with names like Everquest and in general, I am firmly convinced that MMOs are far more addictive than any other type of video game.

And now Call of Duty is the most popular name in the industry today and literally millions of hours are lost to it worldwide. Of course, 99.9% of those hours (if not more) focus on the online multiplayer portion. I have never seen regular ol' casual or single-player-oriented gamers lose a fraction as much time to those who focus on MMOs or online multiplayer in general. I mean, it's not even close. If you ever find an actual case of video game addiction, I will bet every penny I own that the source of the addiction will involve multiplayer in some capacity.

You may start seeing this evidence in future studies as well. The most hardcore gamers out there won't be found collapsed somewhere because they just kept playing Final Fantasy VII over and over. Perhaps it's just as simple as that: Online multiplayer never ends. And because it never ends, people don't stop. Could it really be that simple? Perhaps it is. But I do know this- If you find someone who loves to play games, and they basically only do single-player, the chances of that person being truly addicted to the hobby are slim to none. If, on the other hand, that person spends all his time playing online, regardless of the game… Sadly, I'd say the chances have risen steeply.

That kid's mother took away his Xbox 360, by the way. She didn't need to do that. Just kill the Internet connection and I guarantee that'll cure him.