Support NeoGAF

[Silky]

I've been meaning to ask this for a while, and with the recent Titanfall thread it's been getting me to at least think. Gaming in general is definitely a diverse hobby with plenty of genres that should suit everyone's different tastes. We have something for those who want a solo experience whereas there are others who want to compete or play with others, etc.

I find myself noticing that in most places -- including NeoGAF -- that whenever a title is noted as a 'multiplayer only'-title there seems to be some grief in regards to it. I understand completely that there are people who just prefer playing alone. That's cool. Let's get that out of the spectrum of the discussion.

There are arguments that claim that a multiplayer-only title, at a $60 price point, isn't worth the entry fee because there's this idea that it lacks replayability because it doesn't have a SP component. In this day/age, MP-only titles get constant releases that include fresh content, gametypes, and sometimes even new unlocks within it's first year. It's safe to say that at least even the newest shooter is guaranteed one full year of consistent content pushes. Wheras with Single-Player titles, it's rare to see these SP experiences get pushed out with updates as frequently as it's MP counterparts. Sure there's an expansion campaign here, some sort of survival mode there. But at it's best the replay factor for SP games priced at $60 is lower than multiplayer titles.

There are also arguments that claim multiplayer-only titles perform worse because they don't possess SP campaigns. Again, that isn't true as we all know of the success of titles such as Counter-Strike GO, Insurgency (though budget priced) and to a lesser extent Titanfall. Yes, Titanfall didn't perform as well as EA wished, but it still sold a considerable amount for it's new IP status. I can't think of any other successful MP-only games right now, so feel free to add.

My question to GAF today is: Why does a MP-only title /need/ a single player component? What does a multiplayer-only title lack in comparison to a SP-only title or SP/MP game that makes it so abrasive to most platform owners?

 

[MAtgS]

When it's $60.

 

[Babyshams]

When it's $60.

Thread over

 

[Guevara]

Call me old fashioned, but you should be able to do something with the game when the internet (or more likely) the network goes down. Even just practice against bots.

 

[10k]

When it's $60.

First post of the generation.

Also, I like them because they teach you the fundamentals and gradually increase the difficulty the farther you go, without getting decimated and frustrated online where you have to learn as you go.

Single player is a great teaching mechanism and fun experience that gets you ready for the multiplayer.

 

[Silky]

When it's $60.

And a singleplayer-only game being $60 gets a free pass? Explain to me what makes a SP game get away with being $60 only, but when a MP game does it it's suddenly bad.

a 4-8 hour campaign with nothing else left but a NG+ isn't exactly worth $60 to me.

First post of the generation.

Also, I like them because they teach you the fundamentals and gradually increase the difficulty the farther you go, without getting decimated and frustrated online where you have to learn as you go.

Single player is a great teaching mechanism and fun experience that gets you ready for the multiplayer.

Well that's what bots are for.

Call me old fashioned, but you should be able to do something with the game when the internet (or more likely) the network goes down. Even just practice against bots.

LAN, split-screen, bots would be better substitutes.

 

[Ikuu]

When it's $60.

Nope.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

I think it's a content issue. In all honesty I think people would be happy to see the single player gutted from games like Battlefield because the multiplaye component (ignoring the server issues) has an abundance of content. Games like titanfall may be fun to play, but the multiplayer component is lacking, so people who are content starved are just suggesting modes that give them more value.

 

[Vitet]

And a singleplayer-only game being $60 gets a free pass?

Yes if it has enough content/story.

 

[Jackbooted]

When it's $60.

So you are saying that every single-player game without an MP mode is worth $60?

 

[Randolph Freelander]

There are arguments that claim that a multiplayer-only title, at a $60 price point, isn't worth the entry fee because there's this idea that it lacks replayability because it doesn't have a SP component. In this day/age, MP-only titles get constant releases that include fresh content, gametypes, and sometimes even new unlocks within it's first year. It's safe to say that at least even the newest shooter is guaranteed one full year of consistent content pushes. Wheras with Single-Player titles, it's rare to see these SP experiences get pushed out with updates as frequently as it's MP counterparts. Sure there's an expansion campaign here, some sort of survival mode there. But at it's best the replay factor for SP games priced at $60 is lower than multiplayer titles.

So much of why gaming and I have had a falling out, in one paragraph.

 

[Letterbomb]

I never understood this with fighting games especially. Arcade mode really doesn't offer much content. It just puts multiple multiplayer matches in a series and calls it a day. Like why bother. Just focus on the multiplayer more.

 

[Orayn]

When it's $60.

For some, online MP isn't worth much because there will eventually come a day when servers shut down or it's impossible to find more players. That's fine. It's not a position I agree with, but I understand it to some extent.

Consider that there may be people who feel SP campaigns are worth less than MP because they're "over" after you've played through them. It's no less valid a perspective, really.

Others demand both SP and MP for a game to be worth their money, and that's okay as well.

It's strictly a matter of preference and individual priorities. There is no wrong or right answer to this.

 

[The Albatross]

Because if PSN goes down you can't play the $60 game.

 

[Duxxy3]

When it's $60.

Basically this. I won't pay $60 for a multiplayer only game. Some people will.

 

[BananasWithGuns]

When it's $60.

Doesn't really apply unless you also consider $60 overpriced for a game that only has single player.

 

[Phat Michael]

They need sp components because then I can still play the game when everyone else has stopped playing. At one point I just couldn't get into any game at all so the game was useless. If I could play an SP campaign or with bots then it still might be a viable game.

 

[Silky]

Yes if it has enough content/story.

Most single player games don't have enough content that justifies it's price tag.

They need sp components because then I can still play the game when everyone else has stopped playing. At one point I just couldn't get into any game at all so the game was useless. If I could play an SP campaign or with bots then it still might be a viable game.

Because if PSN goes down you can't play the $60 game.

Then that's what you get for buying a multiplayer-only game that you KNOW will have downtime wether it be maintenance or otherwise. it says so on the box.

People who buy MP games that /require/ online play, only to complain that the game is down and that it's not worth the price just seem kind of whiny. Things break.

 

[jblank83]

In this day/age, MP-only titles get constant releases that include fresh content, gametypes, and sometimes even new unlocks within it's first year.

Usually released with barebones functionality and limited maps, with extra content sold in $25 season passes.

Most single player games don't have enough content that justifies it's price tag.

Neither do most MP games.

 

[TheSpoiler]

So you are saying that every single-player game without an MP mode is worth $60?

There's a difference between a game that's shipped out and unreliant on the trends and interest of others to play, and a game that isn't.

When I put in a game that is single player, I don't have to worry about server population or problems, my internet, etc.

 

[Ikuu]

SP with tacked on MP - Waste of time.
MP with tacked on SP - Worth $60.

 

[Timeaisis]

It doesn't, if it has enough content. I have no problem throwing $60 at a game if I know I'm going to play it a lot.

 

[SerTapTap]

As already evidenced, there's a bias against MP only titles at a full retail price point when they've more often been sort of budget affairs (Warhawk made a big deal about including a bluetooth headset to justify a full $60 and I believe was $40 on PSN to download). I think the root cause is games including multiplayer as a tacked on thing, with very few games (bomberman, sports games) in early gens being primarily multiplayer (and even then almost always having single player).

In addition, singleplayer does add some value even if the MP is the "meat". It gives you something to "practice" on and gives it an aspect that maintains value even after the online is "dead". Though this is at least partially fixed by just giving bots. Hell, I played a ton of Killzone 1 MP just because of bots. Lot of fun to go in with 1 friend on your team and no AIs vs a full team of Easy bots.

On a more superficial point, SP campaigns make for great trailers--CoD uses this to great effect in their marketing, and I think I recall Titanfall devs calling out the difficulty they were having showing the game due to it's multiplayer-only nature.

For the record, I don't think a $60 title is "incomplete" without single player, though I would personally be extremely unlike to purchase such a title. Borderlands and Destiny (oops) are the only titles I've paid day 1 prices for recently with the intent of playing primarily multiplayer, and the fact I can "catch up" in solo or just dick around on my own is part of why I'm more drawn to those titles than Titanfall and such.

 

[Bolts-n-Rays1109]

When it's $60.

So, I guess $60 for a singe player only game is to much? I usually get way more play time out of a MP game than a SP game, so the $60 price seems to be justified, IMO.

 

[nictron]

Call me old fashioned, but you should be able to do something with the game when the internet (or more likely) the network goes down. Even just practice against bots.

I miss bots, even the crappy old bots from UT and Q3.

 

[Silky]

Usually released with barebones functionality and limited maps, with extra content sold in $25 season passes.

Neither do most MP games.

Titanfall is the only multiplayer-only shooter I can think of that shipped with limited content. this year that's sold in season passes. Do you have any other examples?

 

[Nafai1123]

Speaking personally, I find 20 hrs of SP content much more compelling and difficult to achieve than 20 hrs of MP content. Basically, I don't correlate content with hours of playability. Eg. I could play a game like Puzzle Quest for 20 hrs, but I don't think it's worth $60.

 

[Coolade]

And a singleplayer-only game being $60 gets a free pass? Explain to me what makes a SP game get away with being $60 only, but when a MP game does it it's suddenly bad.

I payed $60 for wolfenstein. (which was what? close to 15- 20 hours?) Absolutely loved it, it was worth the money, and one of my best purchases this year.

I payed $60 for Destiny. My god was that not worth it.

Games like COD continue to offer a solid single player, MP, and co op modes for the $60 price point. That's simply where my standard holds. $60 for a multiplayer only title....eh.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

It is just that traditional console gamers are used to SP games. With games that are weirdly famous for the MP, like Goldeneye, when it was just a tiny addition to the game. So I imagine many still see MP as an addition.


Besides, the biggest multiplayer games in the market are free. So all those elements skew the mind of consumers.

 

[MAtgS]

SP with tacked on MP - Waste of time.
MP with tacked on SP - Worth $60.

Nope.

 

[Kai Dracon]

The quality of single player games has in a broad sense gone down the past generation due to the realization that a multiplayer client can be sold for 60 bucks every year. The influx of deathmatch-only players to consoles has helped create a kind of vague floating notion that the only reason to play a game with a first person perspective and a gun on screen is to fight people online in arenas.

With single player campaigns thus devalued most degenerated into a simple six hour tour of a few expensive set pieces which could provide footage for marketing to sell the game as an epic war in commercials.

We may be reaching the terminal state of this situation since more multiplayer focused games are being released with no content and expensive season passes dangled in front of buyers to get the "full game". And even then, sometimes the season passes don't provide that much additional content.

 

[Bolts-n-Rays1109]

Titanfall is the only multiplayer-only shooter I can think of that shipped with limited content. this year that's sold in season passes. Do you have any other examples?

And all of the added in content for Titanfall came in free updates. The season pass was only for more maps.

 

[Easy_D]

I don't understand why EA insists on having a single player campaign in the Battlefield games. I mean the online is the main attraction and they can barely get that right on release. Why not focus on creating a compelling and functional multiplayer experience first and foremost?

 

[Welfare]

When it's $60.

Lol, yeah, no.

Should all single player games be less then, too?

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

When it's $60.

So doesn't this work both ways? Shouldn't most 60$ single player games have multiplayer? I personally didn't throw down 60$ on BioShock infinite and Metal gear rising because i didn't think they were worth it. I won't drop 60 on the order either.

 

[Dragonborn]

Because I personally don't feel an MP only game is worth full price. (again, personally)

 

[Silky]

Like the last big shooter that came out that did the 'limited content, extra content locked behind season passes' was BF4 and despite the shitshow that the game was, it had a pretty decent chunk of content in the MP department.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Honestly, it's almost purely perception. Somehow people think a multiplayer only game lacks content (which it can), but successful multiplayer games offer hundreds of hours of playtime. So in reality, if a multiplayer only game is good enough and has enough content it justifies a full price.

If, however, there isn't enough in the game, people call the game out. TitanFall only had 3 Titans right? How many maps/game modes did it have at launch?

 

[Northeastmonk]

MP was its own immersive experience, yes. To some of us it's not enough. The best way I can explain it is that you had multiplayer as a side option to games, then everything got better and you had matchmaking and party groups. For those who don't sit in lobbies with friends or for those who don't like the public game all the time, then there is a single player game.

I think it's only been a major component to console games since broadband became as big as it is now. The person playing the game doesn't even like the traditional video game experience. They just enjoy the multiplayer. I think it's a whole other mentality. I use to think the world of MMOs until I found out it was not a traditional game. You were simply taking advantage of a world's economy in order to build your character. To me that's not why I like video games. I think it's nice to have something more traditional to go back to, especially at $60.

There seems to be two different types of people anymore. The hardcore multiplayer and the rest. No offence, but the multiplayer crowd feels like it's this "grown up gamer". They want to feel connected or they can't have fun. There isn't a lot of plot in multiplayer nor is there a driven purpose for the person to play. Once you see that wizard with a lvl 80 staff that you don't have then what's the point? He's just going to guide you where to go. To me I'd rather have that single person aspect or something to accomplish without everything digging into the game's mechanics.

 

[Mesoian]

When it's $60.

Boom.

Also, when it's trying to be more interesting than every other shooter on the market.

 

[Glorified G]

Lol, yeah, no.

Should all single player games be less then, too?

No, because they don't rely on a server in order to function.

 

[silvermember]

So, I guess $60 for a singe player only game is to much? I usually get way more play time out of a MP game than a SP game, so the $60 price seems to be justified, IMO.

MP only games are a recent trend versus SP only thing. Most MP games are not worth 60 Dollars while the majority of single players games are worth $60.

Obviously they are exception but as a generally rule most MP only games are not worth 60 dollars. Actually very few if ANY are worth 60 bucks since they rely on servers to function properly, without other players you can't play a MP only game. I love MAG, I want to play MAG, oh wait?

I love TitanFall and I want to play on the PC, oh wait.

 

[Silky]

Boom.

Also, when it's trying to be more interesting than every other shooter on the market.

Explain.

MP only games are a recent trend versus SP only thing. Most MP games are not worth 60 Dollars while the majority of single players games are worth $60.

Obviously they are exception but as a generally rule most MP only games are not worth 60 dollars.

What are you basing "most SP games are worth $60" on?

 

[2+2=5]

Because even those who love MP think that SP is important and in any case there's always at least the need of an offline tutorial or introduction, not everyone is good and people doesn't like to lose all the times before becoming good.
Add that without SP people like me won't even think to buy a game, while with a SP component, even little, i could consider it.

 

[Mesoian]

So doesn't this work both ways? Shouldn't most 60$ single player games have multiplayer? I personally didn't throw down 60$ on BioShock infinite and Metal gear rising because i didn't think they were worth it. I won't drop 60 on the order either.

That was a big question about 2 years ago, with TLOU and Tomb Raider basically having multiplayer modes stapled onto them, even though no one asked for them.

It's a decent question to ask when you're building the game because often times, if you can ditch one and improve the other dramatically, it's worth it.

In Titanfall's case, they didn't really do that and they kept trying to explain away the lack of any sort of narrative content by continually trying to assure us all that the multplayer campaign would be interesting. It was not, and the game was worse for it.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

A multiplayer-only game that isn't an MMO-style game is a pretty damn hard sell to me.

There are so many extremely high quality games on the market that are either free or dirt cheap, that you really need to offer something amazing to stand out at this point.

 

[EGM1966]

It doesn't if handled right (quake 3 and UT99 say) but I'd argue an SP campaign that grounds the Universe for the title is the easier route to go.

Take TitanFall and Destiny (which has s bit more SP) and look at the issue with content repeat and grumbling over weak narrative or setting for the events; people like context unless the game context itself supports the MP concept in the way the Tournament aspect of Unreal Tournament did.

I think people also like idea there's something available offline and on console bots don't seem to work the way they did on PC in terms of filling that desire.

 

[SerTapTap]

Boom.

Also, when it's trying to be more interesting than every other shooter on the market.

How so? Most MP-focused shooters are mocked for their SP campaigns anyway.

 

[Orayn]

No, because they don't rely on a server in order to function.

SP effectively becomes "non-functional" as soon as it's finished for anyone who didn't enjoy the campaign enough to replay it. It's true that there's the possibility of returning to the game some months or years later, but not everyone considers that to be a huge addition to a game's value.

 

[faridmon]

When it's $60.

Nope

You can have a $60 game and pack with it a great deep, well thought out MP component.