Can a game "survive" in this market without a multiplayer mode?

[The Knightly Gamer]

Hello everyone,

So Arkham Origins is going to have multiplayer. Cool I guess but I'm not really sold on it. This is another entry in the list of games to get multiplay mode that never really needed/had the right fit for it. You have games like The Last of Us(why no infected mode?) and Tomb Raider get multiplayer mode when I never really heard anyone asking for it?

But this leads to my ideas of why multiplay gets "tacked" on. First to sell map packs and extra gun designs. Make sure to get those extra dollars. Second if you included multiplayer there is a chance not as many people are going to traded it in right away when they are done. Now if that happens there will be less used copies at stores. This can give that extra little increase in sales.

So with that in mind has our current market "forced" games to have multiplayer to "survive"?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

Of course. However in this era of ridiculously stupidly insanely overblown budgets that publishers throw around in order to hope for COD level sales it's become a necessity that publishers themselves created.

 

[McMarbles]

Skyrim did pretty well, didn't it?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Of course a game doesn't need a multiplayer mode to do well.

Bioshock Infinite was a huge hit even though it was a shooter without multiplayer (gasp, unheard of right?).

Then of course there's tons of RPGs that don't get multiplayer modes, and action games like Bayonetta and Metal Gear Rising that don't have or need multiplayer.

And there's obviously the very commercially successful indie games that very rarely have multiplayer, like Bastion, or Limbo, or Binding of Isaac.

So yeah, games can survive without a multiplayer mode, if the story and mechanics are good enough, and if the game feels complete without a multiplayer mode.

 

[deleted139124]

DELETED

 

[Glongpre]

The problem isn't that every game adds multiplayer, it is that every game adds generic multiplayer. The Arkham Origins multiplayer is 3v3v2, which sounds kind of interesting. However, the Tomb Raider multiplayer was generic team deathmatch.

But to your question as others have said, no, games do not require multiplayer to be successful.

 

[w9496]

It can, but it is definitely harder to do these days. Multiplayer is a huge deal to a lot of people, and making a game with nothing for them is seen as a lost sale.

Some games still are able to get by. The Elder Scrolls games come to mind, along with 2/3 of the Mass Effect trilogy.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

It can, but it is definitely harder to do these days. Multiplayer is a huge deal to a lot of people, and making a game with nothing for them is seen as a lost sale.

Some games still are able to get by. The Elder Scrolls games come to mind, along with 2/3 of the Mass Effect trilogy.

Mass Effect 3 had multiplayer. Some what I hear it was actually pretty decent.

 

[w9496]

It can, but it is definitely harder to do these days. Multiplayer is a huge deal to a lot of people, and making a game with nothing for them is seen as a lost sale.

Some games still are able to get by. The Elder Scrolls games come to mind, along with 2/3 of the Mass Effect trilogy.

Mass Effect 3 had multiplayer. Some what I hear it was actually pretty decent.

It was a fantastic multiplayer, but I left it out since it still had a multiplayer. The first 2 games held up on their own(even though ME1 aged like milk) without it. Mass Effect 3 was a strange case of a single player franchise having good multiplayer instead of a tacked on mess.

 

[The_Scrivener]

The gaming industry is convinced it can't. Which is stupid. Because it can. Shoehorning in multiplayer is a plague.

We don't have to be social all the time. In fact, some of us play games to get away from that.

 

[votemarvel]

Mass Effect 3 had multiplayer. Some what I hear it was actually pretty decent.

You want to try going on the xbox.com board for Mass Effect 3.

You call the mode multi-player and there is this one guy who will argue to the death with you that it is fact a "co-op horde mode". He refuses to call it multi-player despite it being called that on the menu screen.

As Horde modes go it is a decent one. It's fun for a while but since they lowered the EMS needed to get all the ending content, there really isn't that much reason to play it.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Mass Effect 3 had multiplayer. Some what I hear it was actually pretty decent.

You want to try going on the xbox.com board for Mass Effect 3.

You call the mode multi-player and there is this one guy who will argue to the death with you that it is fact a "co-op horde mode". He refuses to call it multi-player despite it being called that on the menu screen.

As Horde modes go it is a decent one. It's fun for a while but since they lowered the EMS needed to get all the ending content, there really isn't that much reason to play it.

So coop isn't multiplayer? But there's multiple people playing! Multiplayer doesn't have to be competitive, it just has to involve multiple players. The term coop is just short for "Cooperative Multiplayer", which is used to differentiate it from competitive multiplayer. It's all still multiplayer!

 

[Hawkeye 131]

BioShock: Infinite, Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon and Metro: Last Light are all recently released (in 2013), "AAA" games that are strictly single-player only experiences that are "surviving" quite well. Just this week there were news stories and press releases that BioShock: Infinite sold over 4 million copies, so I think the answer to your question is certainly yes.

Also I wouldn't say the "market" has forced games like The Last of Us, Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3 or Mass Effect 3 to have multi-player functions. In fact I would argue that in the vast majority of cases (Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3 & Mass Effect 3), it's the short-sighted, naive, rampant and ridiculous attitude that publishers maintain and perpetuate where they think that EVERY "AAA" game ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE a multi-player portion to as you put it, in-order to "survive" in this market.

Lastly, I think in reality most big "AAA" publishers like EA, Activision, Ubisoft or 2K are not really concerned with making "great" games but more interested in making the most "profitable" games by ensuring that they have tacked on multi-player, a season pass, pre-order bonuses, micro-transactions, exclusive content, day-1 DLC, exclusive premium complete limited collector's editions, etc...

When it's all said and done at the end of the day like so much in the corporate world it all fundimentally comes down to money. Capitalism 101, maximize profit and minimize costs.

-Hawk

 

[votemarvel]

Mass Effect 3 had multiplayer. Some what I hear it was actually pretty decent.

You want to try going on the xbox.com board for Mass Effect 3.

You call the mode multi-player and there is this one guy who will argue to the death with you that it is fact a "co-op horde mode". He refuses to call it multi-player despite it being called that on the menu screen.

As Horde modes go it is a decent one. It's fun for a while but since they lowered the EMS needed to get all the ending content, there really isn't that much reason to play it.

So coop isn't multiplayer? But there's multiple people playing! Multiplayer doesn't have to be competitive, it just has to involve multiple players. The term coop is just short for "Cooperative Multiplayer", which is used to differentiate it from competitive multiplayer. It's all still multiplayer!

He just steadfastly refuses to believe that Bioware would put multi-player into the game. It's a co-op Horde mode and that is all he will call it.

Then again he also believe that EA gave the multi-player DLC for free out of the goodness of their hearts and not because they were making money from micro-transactions.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Skyrim cash cheque leave it on the desk and get out of my office.

OF COURSE THEY CAN. The only ones saying otherwise are shortsighted publishers and developers who are so obsessed with matching the success of Halo and Call of Duty that they feel the need, nay obligation to add a tacked on multiplayer.

 

[Caiphus]

All things equal, an additional multiplayer mode will probably attract extra sales. How many extra sales is difficult to determine, but probably depends on genre, target audience etc.

But that's all things equal. Not only might the wasting of resources on a multiplayer mode mean that one has to take resources away from the single player mode (thus removing the all things equal qualification), but there's also just the extra cost to take care of even if it didn't. I would imagine a cost-benefit analysis would come up negative for a lot of games thinking of adding a multiplayer.

And the rising popularity of indie games that forego multiplayer such as FTL, Rogue Legacy etc, along with the success of Skyrim, DA:O and Bioshock should demonstrate that it isn't needed.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

No. But it's being use to get extra money. In mass effect 3 they had these packs, where the better the gun the rarer the card, each pack had 5, with one that has 10, MOST guns, and characters were the rare, and ultra rare, and each gun has 10 upgrades. The rare, and ultra needed you to get more expensive packs, so you pay or you play for weeks or months just to get the guns, and characters you needed, be ause if you don't have them, you will end up doing no Dmg on higher difficulties. If mass effect 4 does this, well no more mass effect for me. If anybody played mass effect 3 multplayer you know what I am talking about.

 

[WanderingFool]

Hello everyone,

So Arkham Origins is going to have multiplayer. Cool I guess but I'm not really sold on it. This is another entry in the list of games to get multiplay mode that never really needed/had the right fit for it. You have games like The Last of Us(why no infected mode?) and Tomb Raider get multiplayer mode when I never really heard anyone asking for it?

But this leads to my ideas of why multiplay gets "tacked" on. First to sell map packs and extra gun designs. Make sure to get those extra dollars. Second if you included multiplayer there is a chance not as many people are going to traded it in right away when they are done. Now if that happens there will be less used copies at stores. This can give that extra little increase in sales.

So with that in mind has our current market "forced" games to have multiplayer to "survive"?

If we were to listen to the developers and publishers and such, than no, not including a multiplayer would be suicide. But as we are the consumers of said goods, I would say we have a reasonably good idea of what we want. So the real problem is that either: A) we dont express strongly enough what we want, or B) developers and publishers are trying reach a large enough audience so as to make as much profit as possible, since they spent so much on useless shit to begin with...

Okay, that may be a tad bias, but really, all the money that goes into making some of these duds...

*Edit*

No. But it's being use to get extra money. In mass effect 3 they had these packs, where the better the gun the rarer the card, each pack had 5, with one that has 10, MOST guns, and characters were the rare, and ultra rare, and each gun has 10 upgrades. The rare, and ultra needed you to get more expensive packs, so you pay or you play for weeks or months just to get the guns, and characters you needed, be ause if you don't have them, you will end up doing no Dmg on higher difficulties. If mass effect 4 does this, well no more mass effect for me. If anybody played mass effect 3 multplayer you know what I am talking about.

Fuck ME3 multiplayer. It was pretty good, but the unlocking system killed it for me.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Yeah, Skyrim did pretty good. Why are to asking us? Just look around man, single player games everywhere!

 

[RADIALTHRONE1]

Multiplayer is only needed in a game that isn't solely focused on singleplayer, like CoD. For something like Skyrim, its focus is singleplayer, therefor it doesn't have/need multiplayer.