Are game developers neglecting single player for multiplayer?

[mrhappyface]

Since the launch of the new console generation, there has been an explosion in the number of games with multiplayer components added going as far to release games that are only multiplayer i.e. Warhawk and SOCOM: Confrontaion. But nowadays, many game developers give the single player campaigns so little replay value and so easily obtained trophies or acheivments, the only choice beyond moving to a new game is to play multiplayer. Games with actually enjoyable campaigns such as Half Life 2 and BioShock or becoming rare. It all seems like a cheap hook to play multiplayer so that more people would buy the game but that's just what i think. What do you people think?

 

[DracoSuave]

Well, multiplayer is a lot less work for a lot more replay value...

 

[irishdelinquent]

Yes they do, which is why I tend to stick to Nintendo. They add multiplayer to their games in one of two ways; by creating some of the most fun local multiplayer experiences of all time, or making online multiplayer so needlessly difficult that it's like pulling teeth.

 

[Dark Knifer]

yeah, I was thinking that single player has been a more minor part, most recent examples would be halo 3 odst and mw2. Sandbox games seem to be better at doing both single and multiplayer.

 

[Evil Tim]

The problem seems to be one of budget; the balance patches and bug fixes that are a necessary part of keeping an online game fun for non-cheaters have to be earmarked from the game's budget ahead of time, as does keeping the whole back end [rankings etc] up and running on company-owned servers. That means there's naturally less budget for developing a singleplayer campaign, and it suffers by comparison.

I don't really like the current trend for all games having some kind of competitive online element; in shooters it means the weapons tend to be samey so there's no complaints about everyone using the overpowered superweapons. But I guess the trouble is the suits like to hear it at pitch meetings.

 

[twistedshadows]

That seems to be true of some developers/games, but I genearally wouldn't be interested in the games that happens to in the first place.

Edit:

It's not that they're neglecting it, it's just that some developers have a different audience.

I think that might have been what I was trying to imply.

 

[Loves2spooge]

Indeed they do. Certain ones anyway (Infinity Ward and Bungie being two main perpetrators).

I don't agree with this approach but it's obvious why they do it; it's profiteering, if the campaign mode isn't too long, people turn to multiplayer, and whilst it shares that gameplay experience it can wear thin too, so what do developers do? MAP PACKS! Pack after pack after pack, costing about £7 a time. That's where the golden goose lies, they're cheap to make, and distribution costs's a fraction of what the original game cost to distribute.

*sigh*, I remember a time when multiplayer maps simply came free when you got the new patch for your game, but these days publishers would rather you keep your eyes on the game whilst they sift through your pockets.

 

[Evil Tim]

*sigh*, I remember a time when multiplayer maps simply came free when you got the new patch for your game, but these days publishers would rather you keep your eyes on the game whilst they sift through your pockets.

I remember the time before that where you had to buy a whole add-on just to get them, though, so it's hardly a "good old days" thing.

 

[Woodsey]

For some perhaps, I can't understand why Bioshock 2 is getting multiplayer. Games like CoD need it (nowadays at least) though, as a lot of my friends who have it (I be the only PC player in the group, and am slightly more knowledgeable of Activision and IW's dirty deeds) don't even bother with singleplayer. Nor do a lot of the people who say they've gotten bored after a couple of missions because they couldn't wait for multiplayer.

Crysis has a rubbish multiplayer but the singleplayer will give you a nerd-on from all the huge scale fights.

For now at least, I think multiplayer is still seen as the add-on so for now it'll remain the one with the least effort in. Exceptions being CoD, Halo and a couple of others.

 

[Kermi]

That new FPS without the dedicated whatever is supposed to have like a 5 hour campaign.

Fuck that bullshit.
Fuck that bullshit so hard.

Dragon Age, on the other hand, is supposed to take something like 80 hours to play through, plus replay value.
'Course, it's got no multiplayer (not that that matters.)

I guess the answer is: Yes, some of them do, which is why I ignore their games.

Except, that 5 hours campaign is so fucking epic.

Hardcore ninja'd. MSW2 is one of the best single player campaigns I have played, ever.
I used to defend the shit out of Halo, with MW2 I won't even bother. Anyone calling the single player lacking is wrong.

 

[BlueMage]

Generally, yes. Fallout 3, Oblivion and Bioshock are recent examples of where this has not been the case.

 

[Comma-Kazie]

Yes, I think it's becoming more and more the norm that developers sacrifice the single-player campaign for multiplayer content--Modern Warfare 2 is a prime example. Activision could have done so much more with the campaign than what they produced.

 

[Spitfire175]

That new FPS without the dedicated whatever is supposed to have like a 5 hour campaign.

Fuck that bullshit.
Fuck that bullshit so hard.

Dragon Age, on the other hand, is supposed to take something like 80 hours to play through, plus replay value.
'Course, it's got no multiplayer (not that that matters.)

I guess the answer is: Yes, some of them do, which is why I ignore their games.

Except, that 5 hours campaign is so fucking epic.

If you're 5. It was a bit like a hollywood action movie without the talking bits. -No subsance, no message, just boomboom. The thing is, every gamer is slightly a 5-year-old inside.

It's obvious multiplayer gets more attention, it has a bigger herd of gamersheep demanding more. It all depends on wether the developers want to sleep on a pile of money or make a game with something in it.

 

[veloper]

It makes sense, even if it isn't what I always want from my games.