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?
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?