Why is multiplayer still being forced?

[charge52]

...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

Er... Vault, were you drunk when you typed that post? Cause it's kinda, how do I say this, odd, yeah odd, that's a good word.

Hell, I don't even know if I figured out what you said and I have to read drunk messages quite often!

OT:
Because people like multiplayer, companies want sales because sales=profit, so they add multiplayer hoping to increase sales.

 

[Panorama]

Isn't it because video games industry likes to be about 5 years behind there customers, so that they can give the said customers something to complain about.

no?

 

[Fappy]

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

And so on.

Haza, your sarcasm is cray-cray! Everyone knows that you'd have to put actual effort into the story and characters in order to make a worthwhile single player game! Ain't nobody got time for that.

 

[hazabaza1]

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

And so on.

Haza, your sarcasm is cray-cray! Everyone knows that you'd have to put actual effort into the story and characters in order to make a worthwhile single player game! Ain't nobody got time for that.

Boy, don't you make me go on another google image box art searching spree.

I warn you, I'll do it.

 

[bug_of_war]

its somthing that you can;t really measure....and granted alot of games like Assasins creed or Mass Effect 3 don't seem to suffer because of it

but part of it is also general perception..I get the impression that theres this Idea that a game cannot stand up on single player alone...no matter how good the single player is or how tacked on the multipalyer "its there because it needs to be" is a poisonous Idea, is there any reason Tomb Raider needed multiplayer? or Dead Space co-op?

again not every game needs it..and its absence essentially says "this is what you are paying for"

also my main problem is "multiplayer creep" as peopel have said there are reasons for devs to shoe horn in online/multiplayer....you might get games like borderlands 1 that is pretty weak on its own, or a game that "can" be played alone but is utterly shite if you do (like playing co-op stuck with retarded AI bots)

That's fair enough, I get your point, but just because it DOESN'T need multiplayer doesn't mean that it's bad that it is added. I felt the MP and co-op in Dead Space 2 and 3 was alright, but that's just me. I see why some devs add multiplayer just because it's there and I personally don't mind that their reason is simply to increase sales. The way I see it they're just trying to get an extra buck, and I'm okay with them adding a tacked on MP because I know that if it's bad it will not last long and their servers will be cut.

 

[bug_of_war]

At times it is shoe-horned in to games taking away from the budget that could have been used for making the game itself better but often I guess that somewhere someone has calculated the potential loss of making multiplayer against how many extra copies it will sell and I expect they make a profit. Triple A games aren't necessarily about holding true to an artistic vision but more often about how many games can you sell, so it could be said a game just has to be adequate enough to draw enough people in rather than be niche.

There are however some games with bad story modes but good multiplayer so I guess most discerning gamers know which aspect the games they buy will lean toward. Of course well implemented multiplayer is preferred but for the most part it still seems optional, it's that bit you do after you've completed story mode if you want.

See this is my problem with most of the gaming community right now, they can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that big tripple A game devs aren't making a game for the niche. The niche market is mainly supplied to by indie developers or Valve because they can afford to only have 1000 people play their game. I also keep hearing about games single player lacking polish so that the multiplayer could be added, yet nobody has posted an example of such a thing occuring. Tripple A games can still hold their artistic vision, it can be argued that Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect have held true to their artistic vision, so I really don't see why MP is so bad.

 

[bug_of_war]

Well if all games had multiplayer like Assassin's Creed or Mass Effect 3 then most people would'nt have a problem. But the thing is that some multiplayer modes are added in because it's expected and therefore don't have as much effort put into them as the single player game,I actually think all games who have a multiplayer model should be fun enough to keep people coming back for more instead of an afterthought that slowly dies off as people get bored and move on to something else.

I still don't see the problem. If it's tacked on, but you buy the game mainly for single player then how is it bad? If it's tacked on and you pay for both, at least you still have single player, and if you're only buying a game for MP then maybe make sure that you know what you're paying for.

Some games were made for single player and have a tacked on MP, others were made for MP and have a tacked on single player. For example, Borderlands 1 and Team Fortress 2 are both multiplayer focused games, and while Borderlands is basically the same game in single player mode, a majority of the missions require more than 1 player to really be fair/fun. TF2's single player is so poorly tacked on that you almost literally can't die. You don't see people comlaining about their single player though do you, in fact it's generally considered that if the game was made specificly for MP that the single player can be excused. So I ask why can we excuse a shitty single player experience for a good multiplayer but not the other way around.

 

[Darmy647]

The same opinion ive had on this has stayed with me for years now. Look at killzone 3. Look at how you can buy the game or just the multiplayer. See the options? See the fact you have a choice to just relish in multiplayer or try the multiplayer you love? See how amazing this is? How incredibly amazing the fact one have a choice is? Now if every game does this, id have faith in humanity.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

It's simple:

Because competitive multiplayer evokes competitiveness in players,and that competitiveness that makes players want to be better than others,make it easier for the publisher to push on DLCs.
A single person might work just a day and make an aesthetic dlc like a wearable hat,and then they will charge this DLC for 1$. In multiplayer,many players will by the hat to make them look nicer than other players. But such a DLC would be irrelevant in single player. Multiplayer opens a market for publishers to make more money out of each game sold,by taking advantage of people's will to look cooler and better than other players on multiplayer environments.
A single player DLC should at least feature 3 hours of gameplay. That means that the developers would have to work on making new levels,perhaps new enemies and guns,and also perhaps a new costume.
But if the game has multiplayer,the publisher can release the maps alone as a DLC,the guns alone as a "gun pack",and the costume alone too,and thus make up 3x times more money.

The thing they don't get is that there are many people buying some games just for the single player,and that gradually as more focus is turned on the multiplayer,the single player's quality will be declining,and eventually the games will start to make less sales overall,which in turn will impact also the sales of DLCs.

These kind of publishers (like EA) are thinking more of a quick buck than a stable future,and mark my words that this will hurt them sooner or later.

 

[bug_of_war]

I really don't know the answer to that, like I said before I think multiplayer should want you coming back for more and some games do that extremely well.I actually like it when games have some sort of multiplayer that keeps me entertained enough to keep playing, sadly not all games are like that.Besides I view multiplayer as a huge bonus if done right that you're practically buying two games for the price of one and usually when I buy games with a new multiplayer component I always keep a open mind and try it out to see if I like it.

And that's a fair enough reason to be dissapointed in a bad MP, but I don't see how it is a good enough reason to just abolish the idea for MP in certain games. I personally don't play MP because I have to run a long ass cable to my router and pay 80 dollars for a year of Xbox live, but when I do (on Steam) I generally find myself enjoying even the most basic of MP. I just think it's better to allow there to be crap than limit a game to ONLY single player or ONLY multiplayer.

 

[Olas]

Multiplayer takes a lot less work for way more hours of gameplay. Make a map (or in some cases reuse one), set the spawn points, presto.

And then you can tack on DLC and crap.

Personally I'd prefer a game to be either a good single player experience or a good multiplayer one, I hate how they always try to cram both into one game.

 

[bug_of_war]

I actually agree most developers should take that chance and make games that can satisfy both those who want great single player games and those who want a enjoyable multiplayer mode to play with their friends or to have fun.I'm of the opinion that games should'nt be limited to just one group of people unless the developers who made games like those only want it to appeal to them.Gaming should evolve not stagnate just because some people don't like change and whine about every little thing instead of the big issues.

Gaming should evolve, which is why I find it funny why people talk about how bad not having backwards compatability is bad, but that's a whole different topic. I just don't find myself really all that bothered by bad single player/multiplayer, if it's bad I tend to just finish it and then trade the game in. I don't get all hippy hoppy angry about it, I just forget about the bad games and move on to what interests me next. So the way I go about, I just tend to look for what I find appealing and go from there. I know it's not everyones way of gaming, but it's just my thoughts...

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Because apparently publishers are either the stupidest people alive or the resources that can be used to create a bare minimum generic multiplayer experience actually do make money. Not that I can see how you determine what people bought the game for.

 

[Roxor]

I think one of the best examples of multiplayer in a primarily single-player game would be Duke Nukem 3D. The maps are primarily designed for single-player, but include extra features which are only enabled in multiplayer games, providing extra weapons, bypasses for one-way single-player phenomena, or shortcuts around the map. If you never use the multiplayer, you'll never see them unless you play around with the level editor and aside from a lone multiplayer-only map, there's basically nothing to miss if you don't use it.

 

[Jingle Fett]

At times it is shoe-horned in to games taking away from the budget that could have been used for making the game itself better but often I guess that somewhere someone has calculated the potential loss of making multiplayer against how many extra copies it will sell and I expect they make a profit. Triple A games aren't necessarily about holding true to an artistic vision but more often about how many games can you sell, so it could be said a game just has to be adequate enough to draw enough people in rather than be niche.

There are however some games with bad story modes but good multiplayer so I guess most discerning gamers know which aspect the games they buy will lean toward. Of course well implemented multiplayer is preferred but for the most part it still seems optional, it's that bit you do after you've completed story mode if you want.

See this is my problem with most of the gaming community right now, they can't seem to wrap their head around the fact that big tripple A game devs aren't making a game for the niche. The niche market is mainly supplied to by indie developers or Valve because they can afford to only have 1000 people play their game. I also keep hearing about games single player lacking polish so that the multiplayer could be added, yet nobody has posted an example of such a thing occuring. Tripple A games can still hold their artistic vision, it can be argued that Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect have held true to their artistic vision, so I really don't see why MP is so bad.

The developer of Spec Ops: The Line said the multiplayer in his game was a cancerous growth that was shoehorned in by the publisher to increase sales. The multiplayer was developed by a less talented developer and in order to keep the game consistent, the single player developers had to adapt certain game mechanics from the single player game to fit the multiplayer mode, to its detriment. So yes, adding multiplayer just for the sake of it can in fact negatively affect the game as a whole. Given that 2k is also the publisher of Bioshock, it wouldn't surprise me at all if this was exactly what happened in Bioshock 2.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/119332-Spec-Ops-Multiplayer-Is-a-Cancerous-Growth

Secondly, just because you're making a triple A game doesn't mean you aren't or can't make a game for a niche. Dead Space is generally agreed to have been at its best when it catered to its niche the most (the first game), whereas DS3 has been pretty poorly received (and has had poorer sales than the previous two). Furthermore, even if you're making a triple A game that is not catering to a niche, that still doesn't mean that multiplayer HAS to be included. Plenty of non-niche AAA games have been single player only and still sold really well (ex: Half-Life, Skyrim, Bioshock 1, Knights of the Old Republic 1, Zelda, Mario, Metroid, etc).

I'm not saying that multiplayer is bad, don't get me wrong I enjoy good multiplayer in games. But multiplayer usually is bad when it's included just to fill in a checkbox.

 

[bug_of_war]

I'm the same if I play a bad game I just shrug and play one that's good, I don't get mad about something unless I was tricked into buying a bad game when everything I read told me it was great then I start to get miffed.I wish people would complain about the important things like intrusive DRM instead of whining about a character's look or a game feature being changed.If that happened then the game industry would improve instead of becoming corporate where people are fired for the tiniest mistake.

Yeah, fortunately for me I don't play games on PC very often so DRM isn't an issue for me. I'm not aware of a corporation firing people over a small mistake though so I can't mention anything on that aspect, but I can say that half of the things wrong with gaming right now is the consumers mind set. Too often I see people claiming they own the rights to how a story should have ended (I had this 2 week long argument with a person on this very sote about Mass Effect 3 where he claimed that we as the players have more of a right to determine which way the story should end than the writers at Bioware) or that they're boycotting a company because of one or two games. I'm not saying ALL the faults are our fault, I mean online passes and with holding content from used games is annoying as it effects more than just those buying the used copy (I bought Arkham City and ended up having to go out and buy a 30m cable so I could play the ENTIRE game).