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

[DarkhoIlow]

Of course it can. You don't need tacked on multiplayer in every game.

RPG's are especially a great genre where it works without having a multiplayer component.

 

[Joccaren]

Skyrim
Bioshock Infinite
Witcher 2
Yes, games can survive quite easily without multiplayer. Its just tacked on to try and appeal to a wider audience, which ends up bringing the whole game down in some cases.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Yes, singleplayer games can survive if they are well-made and/or have good re-playability.

The most interesting discussion we had on this thing was the Titan Fall dev saying that they were removing the singleplayer component of the game because the campaigns were too easy for people to complete.

Now it was great that he didn't want to put singleplayer into his multiplayer game, but people were understandably annoyed when he essentially said that singleplayer people weren't a priority.

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

Also this.

 

[Reaper195]

Skyrim did rather well. As did Bioshock Infinite. And Dishonoured. And Sleeping Dogs. And...some other games I can't think of which don't have multiplayer (Jesus Christ, I never realised how many games I have where there is an unused 'Multiplayer' option in the main menu).

 

[lord.jeff]

Did the multiplayer in Tomb Raider or Mass Effect 3 convince anyone to buy those games? I'm pretty certain the reason people bought those games is that they enjoyed the previous games, this forcing on of multiplayer where it isn't needed seems like it would cost more money in the end with the extra resources wasted to get it in and only attracting a handful of people.

 

[Dirge Eterna]

I believe so. Hell I have played 8 or 9 games this year and I used the multiplayer option exactly once. I just don't care for playing other people, I don't see it as fun or a necessity.

 

[viranimus]

Better question is ... Can a game survive w/ multiplayer?

Consider that most games with this kind of tacked on multiplayer are being pumped out by the big publishers, what actually happens? The game is released, pumped for multiplayer centric dlc till nothing else viable can be wrung out and in about 1-2 years time a new installment of the game is released effectively "killing" any sort of activity that multiplayer would have had. So in an era where the single player is compromised or even omitted in the name of multiplayer seems like multiplayer is also adept at making it harder for other multiplayer games to survive.

Yet another reason to pull the plug.

 

[LadyTiamat]

In fact, some of us play games to get away from that.

This. Games are my vacation from people. The only time I played with other people in multiplayer was RE5 (in co-op though) as the AI for Sheva was soooo broken.

And Dark Souls but that's kinda like role-playing as an NPC in the game.

 

[stroopwafel]

Multiplayer will remain a necessary evil even for games primarily developed for their single-player campaign. I think it will get harder and harder for developers to get publisher approval if they don't include some sort of multiplayer mode. In fact even now single-player games without multiplayer can be counted on like one hand. For publishers it's just an extra sales incentive. The developers don't really care so that's why so much of it is either tacked on or outsourced. It only becomes a problem when multiplayer becomes the focus of the game(like Dead Space 3) or when multiplayer becomes a publisher's doctrine in general, as is apparently the case with EA. Activision and EA are by far the worst offenders of dragging the industry down with their multiplayer garbage.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

Multiplayer features are only necessary because the best selling games are all multiplayer games. Games like Skyrim selling well shows that single player can make lots of money aswell. How many games have flopped from wasting resources on multiplayer that could have been better used to polish single player and make a game that generates sequels? Too many to count

 

[rob_simple]

The problem isn't that all games need multiplayer mode to survive, it's that publishers think all games need multiplayer mode to survive.

I have zero interest in multiplayer aspects, no matter what the game is, but I concede there are times when adding it has been done well (Assassin's Creed looks kind of cool; shame the single player turned to utter dog shite).

Then you have games like Dead Space 3, which people tried to defend as 'not forcing the multiplayer on you' but that doesn't excuse the fact that a huge chunk of the game's campaign is withheld from you unless you're willing to go online and partner up with someone.

If you refuse to do that, as well as losing out on gameplay content, it also completely fucks up the story because the motivations of your little buddy make absolutely no sense when he goes from 'GTFO Isaac' at the beginning of the game to 'BFF Isaac' at the end.

What I'm getting at is that a robust single player can still carry a game --the first two Batmans made that abundantly clear-- but publishers and devs tacking on a consolatory, shallow multiplayer will almost always result in disaster because it alienates the original fans and disappoints newcomers who can get the experience they want, better, elsewhere.

 

[frobalt]

Skyrim did pretty well, didn't it?

The only thing wrong with this post is your use of the word 'did'.

http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ - Skyrim is currently the 5th most active game at the minute on steam, and it will have been out 2 years come November.

 

[DarkRyter]

Investors think so.

They're not the brightest bunch, but engaging virtual experiences don't pay for themselves.

 

[Poetic Nova]

Yes, it is possible, both Metro games did it, Bioshock Infinite did it and prolly alot more.

 

[Boogie Knight]

Not only yes, but hell yes. In fact, I think a lot of games would do better without a tacked on multiplayer. Without expending resources on a crappy feature which adds nothing to the core game experience, it's just a little bit cheaper to make. Lower costs mean it's easier to profit from reasonable sales expectations.

But alas no, because Call of Duty makes all the money in the world and it has multiplayer so everybody has to have multiplayer.

 

[Anthony Corrigan]

wolfenstein the new order's devs don't agree. This will be single player only

 

[I.Muir]

Yes they can and they do.
It's not hard to find examples either.

 

[Nomsheep]

I seriously hope they can, Since I hate local multi-player and that's becoming rarer and rarer, I'd be left with the even worse on-line multi-player.