# How do you feel about people wanting Online Multiplayer in every game?



## thinkingaboutlife (Jun 27, 2013)

Some games don't need online multiplayer and when the developers put online in a game people feel like it is tacked on and not done well. But when it doesn't have it people complain that it doesn't have online. Like people are complaining super mario 3d world doesn't have online and only local multiplayer. Do you want most games to have online multiplayer and are you a big online gaming person?


And how do you feel about online multiplayer being a big thing now?

Do you guys feel like the developers focus less time on the single player if they work on the online?


----------



## Patchouli (Jun 27, 2013)

> Online Multiplayer





> every game



No            .


----------



## Karyu Endan (Jun 27, 2013)

thinkingaboutlife said:


> Do you guys feel like the developers focus less time on the single player if they work on the online?



Yes. Fighting games are especially bad with this, at least from my experiences. 

It's not just a feeling either; in some cases this is a proven fact. CC2 had to tone down the ultimates and remove wall fighting from the _Ultimate Nina Storm_ series between 1 and 2 to make the game work online. And then between _2_ and _Generations_ the story mode was given the axe to make way for big gameplay changes to better fit the competitive (read: online) experience.

Then we get some very suspicious vibes leaning towards this from Namco with the _Soul_ series at the very least (not sure about _Tekken_ since I've never bothered to play it bar one time at an arcade), with _Soulcalibur 4_ marking a significant loss in single-player content compared to _3_ and to a lesser extent _2_, along with it being the first game in the series to feature online. This trend is even worse in _5_, where only one quarter of the intended story mode ended up in the final cut of the game, characters don't have individual endings in arcade mode, and there is no "play till you lose" survival mode that's been present for every game in the series until this installment... and almost half the achievements are ones that can only be done online. There's nothing concrete, but it seems like online versus was a big priority, to the detriment of single-player content.

Sometimes it gets to the point I wish fighting games dropped online altogether, in favor of more and better single-player content. But I know that's never going to happen. 

At least there's _Injustice: Gods Among Us_ to satiate my hunger for single-player content in fighting games.


----------



## Rios (Jun 27, 2013)

I hate teamwork, so as long as I am able to solo the asses of the opposition, I am ok with online multiplayer.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 27, 2013)

The problem is that it's increasingly difficult to justify a 60-70$ price tag for games that last maybe 4-8 hours and aren't outstandingly great. So they pretend to have longevity through slapped on multiplayer (which is mostly dead after the first few months unless it's a big title), which people somehow got used to.

And let's be honest, even average games get a chance at being fun through co-op play (which is basically half of Nintendo's catalogue), so if they already have the engine and levels and assets, slapping on multiplayer for increased sales and replayability (less trade-ins) is both in the interest of the average consumer and the publishers.

It's not a trend that will go away anytime soon.


----------



## Canute87 (Jun 27, 2013)

As stupid as it is  being for every game i can understand the approach at least.  Many developers don't have the talent to create a game that we can play over and over again.

Giving a game multi-player helps add to the re-play factor that most games lack.


----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 27, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> No            .


^                                        .


----------



## Gnome (Jun 27, 2013)

I don't think these people exist. It's just focus groups that don't truly understand shit, and they're skewing perceptions and believe every game needs to be Call of Duty.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 27, 2013)

It's idiotic.  Anybody who thinks online of any kind belongs in every game needs to quit gaming.


----------



## thinkingaboutlife (Jun 27, 2013)

Zaru said:


> Th*e problem is that it's increasingly difficult to justify a 60-70$ price tag for games that last maybe 4-8 hours and aren't outstandingly great.* So they pretend to have longevity through slapped on multiplayer (which is mostly dead after the first few months unless it's a big title), which people somehow got used to.
> 
> And let's be honest, even average games get a chance at being fun through co-op play (which is basically half of Nintendo's catalogue), so if they already have the engine and levels and assets, slapping on multiplayer for increased sales and replayability (less trade-ins) is both in the interest of the average consumer and the publishers.
> 
> It's not a trend that will go away anytime soon.



How about they make games longer with more content then?


----------



## Canute87 (Jun 28, 2013)

thinkingaboutlife said:


> How about they make games longer with more content then?



they generally work off a budget.


----------



## Platinum (Jun 28, 2013)

Developers add multiplayer for a lot of the reasons mentioned above, but I think one of the biggest reasons is to try and keep used copies of the game off the shelves for an extra week or two. If people hold onto the game longer, the logic holds, that means the developers will lose less to used.

I have no idea if the research bears this out, but that's what i've heard from websites and developer interviews here and there.


----------



## Eisenheim (Jun 28, 2013)

Honestly, I do not think every game should have it. Some games work best without it, and if even they have online multiplayer, it felt rushed.


----------



## thinkingaboutlife (Jun 28, 2013)

Canute87 said:


> they generally work off a budget.



So multiplayer is a cheap way to cut cost of making quality content rich games?


----------



## Overwatch (Jun 28, 2013)

I consider it to be one of the industry's cardinal sins. It's a completely contrived and cynical attempt at appealing to a wider audience and infusing longevity, ironically reducing the game's quality in the long run. It's what over-relying on focus groups gets you.

Meanwhile, you have games like Skyrim and Arkham City selling like hot cakes because they offer enough content to keep you glued to your chair for days.

Adding competitive multiplayer is justified when the game is centered around it (CoD, Battlefield, etc.).

EDIT:

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irZ-159xsZY[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXlcaV5FOmw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Nep Nep (Jun 30, 2013)

Canute87 said:


> As stupid as it is  being for every game i can understand the approach at least.  Many developers don't have the talent to create a game that we can play over and over again.
> 
> Giving a game multi-player helps add to the re-play factor that most games lack.



The best way to add longevity is to allow players to create mods.


----------



## Naruto (Jun 30, 2013)

There are so many games in this day and age, and so many of them either focus on multiplayer or have multiplayer as an option, that the online gaming community is divided like it's never been before.

When I was in highschool, Quake 3 and Unreal had hundreds of servers up and running, filled with people. Now every game's online community dies out within months at best. And sometimes the multiplayer is even good.



Kyokkai said:


> The best way to add longevity is to allow players to create mods.



I agree but unfortunately creating the framework to allow modding strikes me as being harder to pull off than just tacking a deathmatch onto pretty much any game.


----------



## Jena (Jun 30, 2013)

Overwatch said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irZ-159xsZY[/YOUTUBE]
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXlcaV5FOmw[/YOUTUBE]



I love Jimquisition. 


I generally don't play multiplayer to begin with, so I guess I'm kind of biased here. But, yes, I think it's annoying that a game that really doesn't need multiplayer is given it anyway just to draw in a crowd. I don't have a problem with them adding multiplayer to games in theory, but in practice it tends to impact the single-player aspect of the game. I don't want an inferior game because of a need to have a multiplayer mode that I'll likely never use.

I especially hate it when the multiplayer stuff is just lazily made as well.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> The problem is that it's increasingly difficult to justify a 60-70$ price tag for games that last maybe 4-8 hours and aren't outstandingly great. So they pretend to have longevity through slapped on multiplayer (which is mostly dead after the first few months unless it's a big title), which people somehow got used to.
> 
> And let's be honest, even average games get a chance at being fun through co-op play (which is basically half of Nintendo's catalogue), so if they already have the engine and levels and assets, slapping on multiplayer for increased sales and replayability (less trade-ins) is both in the interest of the average consumer and the publishers.
> 
> It's not a trend that will go away anytime soon.





Canute87 said:


> As stupid as it is  being for every game i can understand the approach at least.  Many developers don't have the talent to create a game that we can play over and over again.
> 
> Giving a game multi-player helps add to the re-play factor that most games lack.



Are you guys seriously giving a pass to lazy ass devs deving lazy ass games? I am in no way busting on online gaming per say, but single player games don't need those modes. They just don't. Focus on single player and produce the best possible game you can, end of story.


----------



## WhiteWolf (Jun 30, 2013)

They should go multiplayer in real life by stuffing a other person dick up their arse.


----------



## Zaru (Jun 30, 2013)

thinkingaboutlife said:


> How about they make games longer with more content then?


Reusing the 3d engine and media assets that were developed for the singleplayer for the multiplayer is massively cheaper than increasing the length of a game with high quality singleplayer content. Those things are worlds apart in cost. 
Sometimes the story wouldn't even allow a longer singleplayer to begin with, unless you add in forced grind and collectibles for "replayability", which appeals to 100% completion fanatics but those are a small minority of paying customers and in many games it would fit just as badly or worse than the multiplayer does.



Khris said:


> Are you guys seriously giving a pass to lazy ass devs deving lazy ass games? I am in no way busting on online gaming per say, but single player games don't need those modes. They just don't. Focus on single player and produce the best possible game you can, end of story.


I explained why it's done so often and why it's not going away anytime soon, not that I like it. I hardly play multiplayer myself and buy my games years later so I wouldn't benefit from its inclusion 95% of the time.


----------



## Charlotte D. Kurisu (Jun 30, 2013)

Zaru said:


> I explained why it's done so often and why it's not going away anytime soon, not that I like it. I hardly play multiplayer myself and buy my games years later so I wouldn't benefit from its inclusion 95% of the time.



Oh sorry I misinterpreted you. 

I just hate the fact that instead of coming up with ways to increase replay-value or just simply make a solid game(that people will be happy playing over and over again), devs slap "TEEEM DEFMACCH" on pretty much everything.


----------



## Pilaf (Jun 30, 2013)

thinkingaboutlife said:


> Some games don't need online multiplayer and when the developers put online in a game people feel like it is tacked on and not done well. But when it doesn't have it people complain that it doesn't have online. Like people are complaining super mario 3d world doesn't have online and only local multiplayer. Do you want most games to have online multiplayer and are you a big online gaming person?
> 
> 
> And how do you feel about online multiplayer being a big thing now?
> ...



They are the cancer that is killing the gaming community.


----------



## BlueDemon (Jun 30, 2013)

I'm not one for Multiplayer (although I do enjoy playing ME3 MP now and then - btw, are the players still active?), but at least on the Bioware forums people DON'T want the games to have MP. In ME3's case, they did a pretty good job (IMO), but with DA3, people are already going nuts.


----------



## Deathbringerpt (Jun 30, 2013)

Sometimes it's a good asset, adds replayability and it makes sense, other times it's just there. Other times the multiplayer's awesome and it dies within months because fuck if I know. What pisses me off sometimes is when developers claim to skip multiplayer to focus solely on the campaign and then the campaign itself is small as fuck with plenty of repeated content.

I'm looking at you, Vanquish.


----------



## bigduo209 (Jun 30, 2013)

Deathbringerpt said:


> Sometimes it's a good asset, adds replayability and it makes sense, other times it's just there. Other times the multiplayer's awesome and it dies within months because fuck if I know. What pisses me off sometimes is when developers claim to skip multiplayer to focus solely on the campaign and then the campaign itself is small as fuck with plenty of repeated content.
> 
> I'm looking at you, Vanquish.



I'd rather see more developers take the 'Arkham Asylum' or 'Ratchet and Clank' route for replayability. Taking the set-piece driven route for single-player like 'Call of Duty' or 'Uncharted 2' isn't necessary to make a compelling game.

Not every game needs to be an open world game to add replay value either, but having levels fairly open to player improvisation would do wonders at the least. Multiple pathways, new tools/items to open up new secret areas, and new things to discover beyond one playthrough. If developers are scared customers will trade it in, communicate early in the game that there is more to discover even after playing through just once.

Online multiplayer being mandatory in every game is an empty excuse. It's a reason to turn the game into a service and implement planned obsolescence into a game when it no longer serves the publisher's/developer's interest.


----------

