Why is multiplayer still being forced?

[serious biscuit]

With Tomb Raider coming out later this week it got me wonder why is there a multiplayer aspect in what is and has only been renowned for being a deeply engaging single player experience. Here I thought that we were over the need to cram it into games for "addition sales" because CoD has one; when it was proven that it just doesn't work, prime examples being Dead Space 2 and Bioshock 2, both of which have removed the multiplayer aspect in their new iterations. And I don't even want to get into Spec Ops the line...

It does work in some cases like Assassins Creed or Max Payne but that's because they both have interesting and unique mechanics and Creed even works it into the universe which is neat. What I'm saying is why cram in a totally vanilla sometimes awful multiplayer into games that would do fine on their own just because apparently its needed because that's what people look at when they buy games. Wrong! Especially for games like Tomb Raider which are solely marketed on the single player and the only time some people will even see that it has multiplayer is when they look at the back of the box because they were intrigued by the single player already.

Also if the multiplayer offers nothing new or interesting people will just go back to playing the Call of Duties and the Halo's and then you the gaming company have wasted money and time putting something worthless that no ones going to play when you could have made the single player better or even longer.

So why multiplayer, why!!?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well let's run down the benefits list:
- online pass
- excuse for more DRM
- excuse for forced service-shops (Steam, Origin, Uplay)
- excuse for always-online
- a player that keeps grinding the multi will buy all your DLC
- excuse to remove mods or even ban people for them, so they have no other options for content
- and ultimately excuse to govern the games lifespan, a game heavily dependent on servers can be killed with their removal at the opportune moment

Of course none of those are benefits for consumers, but who the hell cares about you...

 

[shrekfan246]

- online pass
- excuse for more DRM
- excuse for forced service-shops (Steam, Origin, Uplay)
- excuse for always-online

Those are all the same thing. And, outside of the first one and occasionally the last one, are not generally tied in to multi-player. I'm not sure if that was your point or not.

OT: Crazy as it is to believe it, some people actually like multi-player. Sure, games that just go for the standard deathmatch/horde/capture the flag/king of the hill modes that have been in there since Halo and earlier might as well not even try because they're never going to actually pull people away from the big titles, but games like Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed or Dead Space have sufficiently unique mechanics that a good multi-player mode could be made in the game.

A game franchise being single-player focused doesn't preclude it from including a multi-player mode. And a multi-player mode being developed doesn't necessarily take away from the quality of the single-player game.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Publishers seem to believe that people actually buy games to be connected with other people and play with other people. There's probably a whole demographic of people that actually prefer multiplayer and make a certain impact on sales. It's publishers and developers trying to spread their nets wide, rather than deep, if y'unnerstand me.

And this isn't a new thing, there are a surprising amount of shoehorned multiplayer modes in the previous generation. Sure it's only more prevalent now because of the advent of online console multiplayer.

A game franchise being single-player focused doesn't preclude it from including a multi-player mode. And a multi-player mode being developed doesn't necessarily take away from the quality of the single-player game.

Although I agree with this.

 

[gamernerdtg2]

Actually the Guardian of Light was a multiplayer experience and it was quite worthy of holding the Tomb Raider name.
While I'm not for "vanilla", I am for multiplayer. I think if there weren't so many FPS shooters out there, you might think differently, and you may have remembered about the Guardian of Light.

Also, the arcades back in the day had multiplayer games, so I think the online multiplayer thing might have taken its cue from that time.

 

[Dead Seerius]

Other than what people have already said - Because 'look this game has *infinite* replayability!' sounds more appealing to publishers than 'you only get story mode'.

Which is ironic considering any game has infinte replayability if the experience is enjoyable, and I'm sure most of us would rather take a great story mode for another spin (especially a new game plus) over an uninspired MP with nearly vacant servers a few months after launch.

 

[SmokieMcChicken]

Simple: Activisions Call of Duty. Everyone wants to match up to its useless profit.

 

[hazabaza1]

Spoiler: Because Singleplayer games just plain old don't sell.

And so on.

 

[serious biscuit]

- online pass
- excuse for more DRM
- excuse for forced service-shops (Steam, Origin, Uplay)
- excuse for always-online

OT: Crazy as it is to believe it, some people actually like multi-player. Sure, games that just go for the standard deathmatch/horde/capture the flag/king of the hill modes that have been in there since Halo and earlier might as well not even try because they're never going to actually pull people away from the big titles, but games like Mass Effect or Assassin's Creed or Dead Space have sufficiently unique mechanics that a good multi-player mode could be made in the game.



A game franchise being single-player focused doesn't preclude it from including a multi-player mode. And a multi-player mode being developed doesn't necessarily take away from the quality of the single-player game.

No no Dead space just made a bad version of L4D's multiplayer.

And being quite and avid "achievement hunter" to a point where I will go out of my way to get them, putting them in multiplayer just downright angers me. Then its basically making me play the multiplayer some of which you have to for quite while, now I've mostly given up on these as it only a few out the usual 50 so it doesn't bother so much, but Tomb Raider has literally half of them are for the multiplayer instead of being more focused on the single player where they could reward you more for exploring and spending time in the beautiful world they built. In all honesty this has actually made me not want to go and purchase the game.

 

[shrekfan246]

a good multi-player mode could be made in the game.

No no Dead space just made a bad version of L4D's multiplayer.

I've left in the relevant bit.

What they did and what they could have done are two completely different things.

Dead Space is a franchise with unique enough shooting and movement mechanics that they could have made a genuinely interesting new multi-player game out of it. The fact that they didn't is irrelevant.

I don't even like multi-player, but I'm not going to begrudge its inclusion in more games, especially when I'm still getting perfectly good single-player experiences out of games that have it included. But then, I've also never understood the "100%"-er, achievement-hunter mentality, or the "it changed, now it sucks" mentality, or the "nobody else can play with my toys!" mentality.

 

[sanquin]

The main reason, imo, is to add more hours to their game. What sounds more appealing to you? "A single player game offering 10 hours of gameplay" or "A single player game with multiplayer options offering 30+ hours of gameplay." Sure they don't tell you that those 20 or more extra hours are from a guess at how long the multiplayer will last. But the marketing sounds a lot more appealing to potential buyers. That, and when a player continues to play multiplayer, it means he's more likely to buy more. Be it the next sequel, a different game from the same company or from a cash shop/micro transactions. Those are the two top reasons I can think of.

 

[Vault101]

The main reason, imo, is to add more hours to their game. What sounds more appealing to you? "A single player game offering 10 hours of gameplay" or "A single player game with multiplayer options offering 30+ hours of gameplay." Sure they don't tell you that those 20 or more extra hours are from a guess at how long the multiplayer will last. But the marketing sounds a lot more appealing to potential buyers. That, and when a player continues to play multiplayer, it means he's more likely to buy more. Be it the next sequel, a different game from the same company or from a cash shop/micro transactions. Those are the two top reasons I can think of.

If that 10 hours is solid then I'd prefer the 10 hours,

if inlay mass effect 3 or dead space 2 multiplayer I don't feel like I'm actually playing those games, I'm playing less interesting version filled with other people, just going through the motions, if anything such games can actually kill replay ability because depending on the games staying power there's only so long that I can get the most out of the game before the servers dry up and everyone's moved onto the next game

 

[Little Gray]

Its simple really. A lot of people really like multiplayer and often times this "forced" multiplayer is often really good.

 

[Vault101]

...because a lot of people ASK/BEG for multiplayer. The companies are only responding to that.

Really? never saw annoying begging god multiplayer In the new tomb raided or mass effect, no one complained dishonoured or druz ex didn't have multiplayer

 

[Easton Dark]

Wanna know what I suspect?

Facebook and online connection is popular now. Ergo, publishers think gamers always want ways to play together and be connected.

 

[JagermanXcell]

Simple, its the easiest way to nickel and dime us, cause we let it happen!

Its also an easy way out. Why make a long single player game that offers amazing variety once in awhile to keep it from being repetitive, when you can make multiplayer, a purely repetitive feature with little to no imagination or effort.

Lets not forget the "Players ALWAYS want to be connected for more SOCIAL fun!" card devs throw out. Thats BS.
I can go play DMC4 for hours discovering new combos ALONE and still have fun.