Should Multiplayer be just DLC only?

[Altercator]

Should Multiplayer be just DLC only? In theory, this may allow developers to focus on creating a decent, if not the best, single-player game experience. If there's some good feedback from players, devs can then used the assets from their game to build & upload the MP only DLC.

In what ways this idea go right wrong?

 

[Daft Time]

I think you're underestimating the amount of development required to produce even a passable multi-player component in a game. It's not really something you can just shoe horn in later; it requires extensive periods of testing, balancing and the creation of new content. The infrastructure for networking has to be developed, and many players wont or can't download additional content that larger. If you're going to add multi-player to a game, you can't just turn it into DLC after release.

 

[Zhukov]

Except plenty of people buy games primarily for the multiplayer.

I could just as readily suggest that single player campaigns be relegated to DLC.

I don't know why a bunch of people around here have this weird grudge against multiplayer games. Some game are built around multiplayer with a brief campaign and there's nothing wrong with that. If that's not your thing, then fine, go buy a single player game. There's tons to choose from.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

There are examples of both good multiplayer and singleplayer DLCs. So, we should care about them being good, not exclusive.

 

[Maximum Bert]

I dont think many would buy a Fighting game if it was single player only with multiplayer as DLC no matter how good that single player was.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Imagine CoD without multiplayer- I'm pretty sure Activision would make about 500% extra profits from the sales of it as a DLC.

 

[Legion]

I'd prefer a split model. You can buy single player alone for about 2/3 of the price, or the multiplayer alone for about 2/3 of the price, or the "complete edition" for the current full price.

It's not a perfect model, and wouldnt work for all types of games, but it's the kind of direction I wouldn't mind seeing it go in.

I don't know why a bunch of people around here have this weird grudge against multiplayer games. Some game are built around multiplayer with a brief campaign and there's nothing wrong with that. If that's not your thing, then fine, go buy a single player game. There's tons to choose from.

For the same reason there is a disproportionate amont of hate for JRPG's and brown and grey shooters; and the words "generic" and "mediocre" are both misused and overused.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Should Multiplayer be just DLC only? In theory, this may allow developers to focus on creating a decent, if not the best, single-player game experience. If there's some good feedback from players, devs can then used the assets from their game to build & upload the MP only DLC.

In what ways this idea go right wrong?

Some games are built with multiplayer as the main focus. So no, I don't think it's a good idea.

Call of Duty sells based on it's multiplayer. Main series Battlefield games shouldn't even have a campaign, it's a multiplayer game, always has been, and apparently, that's for good reason. BF3's campaign is absolutely shite.

It could work for some games, but as a whole, I don't think it's a great idea. Also, there will be massive community backlash if anyone dares to try and charge for the game, then the multiplayer as well.

 

[Madman123456]

Ah, that would be wonderful. DLC would be truly optional then; i can not shake the feeling that Developers leave stuff out or don't implement it because they may always sell DLC with that. Ever wondered where Bethesda left the Vampires known from the Predecessor to Skyrim, Oblivion? DLC, that's where.
Saints Row the third is rather annoying in that Respect.

Would be nice to get the Feeling that Development wouldn't be slashed into "what we put into the Game" and the "DLC-pile" for later. "Ah, almost forgot about this and that cool feature. Oh well, would be a big hassle to put it in now, let's put it in the DLC Pile!".

Now if it where practical to put multiplayer into DLC and we get one DLC for each game with only the Multiplayer mode i...
still wouldn't buy any DLC.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Yes, wouldn't that just be dandy. Nevermind that plenty of games focus on multiplayer, or that the file size would be massive, or that devs may not want to use the same assets and instead create a different experience, or that it may be more efficient money and time-wise to develop it alongside.

 

[AD-Stu]

I'm not someone who really likes multiplayer... and I don't see this working. Horses for courses and all - multiplayer is central to some games and unimportant to others. If the Spec Ops: The Line multiplayer was DLC (even free DLC), for example, then I wouldn't have bothered installing it. But there are plenty of other examples where the multiplayer really is an important enough component that making it DLC would inconvenience the majority of the audience and including it on-disc does no harm to the single player fans.

More to the point though, even if all multiplayer was turned into DLC, I still don't think it'd do anything to change the quality of single player campaigns. The developers still have to put in the hours to make it work, and a big chunk of those hours are still going to be pre-release.

 

[Elijin]

It does embody the mindset of the single player only mindset. I mean after all, only their individual fun is important right? Who cares whether other people are having fun.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

I'd really like it if they had split single player and multiplayer. I pretty much only play single player, and I know there are people who play only multiplayer. Splitting them and having cheaper prices for the individual pieces would be awesome, and then we may stop getting half-assed single players and tacked-on multiplayers.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I would certainly prefer it if it was. I hate having multiplayer shoved down my throat.

 

[DoPo]

Except plenty of people buy games primarily for the multiplayer.

I could just as readily suggest that single player campaigns be relegated to DLC.

I don't know why a bunch of people around here have this weird grudge against multiplayer games. Some game are built around multiplayer with a brief campaign and there's nothing wrong with that. If that's not your thing, then fine, go buy a single player game. There's tons to choose from.

I totally agree with you on all points - it's fine to get a game for the multiplayer alone. Heck, some of my favourite games is Quake 2 and 3, I wouldn't really play them alone (OK, once or twice a year I do a 100 frag limit q3dm17 against full roster of bots in Q3 but that's it).

Indeed, single player could be relegated to extra content on many occasions - Quake 3's SP is just a bot match. Same with Unreal Tournament. For those we can just have them as official mods or something. But those aren't really good or...I dunno, "single player" - you could do the same in multi with no other human players. A better example might be a strategy game - say, in Heroes, you can do quite complicated custom maps with story and everything. If you make a pack of these and also some progress retention between them (import heroes/arefacts or whatever), there you go, you've got yourself a DLC single player.

And multiplayer games aren't bad, not really. Some do have a shoehorned pathetic campaign or something but...so what? I like single player games, in fact, I mainly play those. A new multi player focused game comes out and...what exactly? I'm not forced to play it or anything. Nobody is going to beat me over the head with my keyboard until I purchase "Murder Kill Kill 13 Year Olds Online #17" and launch that campaign mode until I finish it crying. It's just another game in the sea of many out there. It's asinine and arbitrary to be against "multiplayer games" - I could just as easily apply the same logic to racing games or something. Yeah, they have a shit story, but I am not going to play them anyway, so whatever.

 

[MammothBlade]

Should Multiplayer be just DLC only? In theory, this may allow developers to focus on creating a decent, if not the best, single-player game experience. If there's some good feedback from players, devs can then used the assets from their game to build & upload the MP only DLC.

In what ways this idea go right wrong?

How about no? There are people with other tastes than yours, and like it or not, a lot of people buy games only for multiplayer. Selling it as DLC would just put off a lot of people.

 

[Mikeyfell]

No.......
Multyplayer should be in multyplayer games...

I know it sounds absolutely crazy.

But games like Call of Duty, and Halo, and Left 4 Dead and Borderlands and Journey should continue to do their multyplayer thing while single player games should stay single player.

Dead Space doesn't need co op
Batman doesn't need co op
Spec Ops doesn't need death match
Tomb raider doesn't need death match
Mass Effect doesn't need hoard mode
and nothing needs social media integration

If you're going to make a multyplayer game GO FOR IT!
If you're going to make a single player game JUST FUCKING GO FOR IT!

There doesn't have to be any middle ground bullshit

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Yeah, but then they'd sell me half a game for 60 bucks.

I'd be perfectly willing to have that system if games were made cheaper because of it. It might also discourage companies from adding multiplayer versions in games that just flat out don't need it, I'm looking at games like Spec Ops The Line.

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

Yeah, let's make some players pay more for their preferred form of gaming so my preferred form gets more attention. That's totally not the attitude of a douche.

 

[Kroxile]

Personally, I'm more sick of all DLC being multiplayer than trying to make all multiplayer DLC.

Bioshock 2, Resident Evil 6, and Uncharted all come to mind.

Especially Resident Evil 6.. I mean, wtf Capcom? The game itself is already setup in such a way that practically begs for new campaigns as DLC and yet you go and release crap for a minigame within the game? And RE:Revelations is looking to have the same thing happen to it.